Gregory greatly increased and consolidated his Roman "Papacy's" kind of mixed religious-civil power and authority during his "reign." However well-intentionedly or however ambitiously-motivated he may have been. And was successful in that regard due to various other political circumstances, such as "barbarian" invasions and Justinian's related decrees and laws from "new Rome" (Constantinople). From this i date the rough emergence of Roman Catholicism, as we know her today. I never stated that there was no one called "popes," or who even called themselves that, before AD 600
240 the historical problem that the Oxford dictionary of Popes gives you.
To contrary: the Oxford Dictionary of Popes gives me no historical problem. It gives me no problem period
You say the Papacy was started in the year 600.
To the contrary: i said the Papacy as we know it today started with Gregory 1 around the year 600
This dictionary proves historically that there were historical Popes before 600 A.D. In fact it shows that the concept of Popes goes back to the first century.
"Popes" means "fathers." The word was used by Christians for various Christian leaders, great and small, centuries before 600. And after 600. It also came to be used for episkopos of churches some considered (or considered themselves) more important: Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and eventually Constantinople. Which thought contradicts the Lord Jesus' Mt 23 teaching and His apostles' pattern and teaching in His Scriptures: the NT. I said that Gregory 1 around 600 began the Papacy as we know it today. Through his successful consolidation and extension of his mixture of civil and religious power thoughout the west. However well-intentioned, or ambitiously-motivated he may have been. And aided by circumstances such as "barbarian" invasions of Italy and Justinian the emperor's recent laws and decrees from "new Rome," Constantinople. This also coincides, prophetically, with the GodMan's message to the church in Thyatira in chapter 2, in the successive messages to the 7 first-century churches in Asia, in John's Apocalypse
these Popes(Which you say did not exist)
To the contrary: i said that the Papacy as we know it today w/ its power-base, part of the great prostitute, Babylon, o' Revelation 17, didn't begin to exist till around AD 600, Gregory 1's reign
responsible for recognizing and Declaring the canon of the new Testament to all Christians via apostolic tradition.
To the contrary, as i mentioned before: Peter was no Pope and he (and others) knew Scripture--Paul's letters--when they saw it, from AD 67 (2 P 3:15-16). I'm glad even if Christians who called themselves, or whom others called "popes" recognized and appreciated what was Scripture and what wasn't. Anytime they did it. But as u seem to point out in your sentence above: the Scripture was apostolically, and traditionally, Scripture long before the men you're writing of even existed
Can you discredit a well known protestant church historian such as Dr Kelly?
I here discredit, and discredited, the statement u attribute 2 him
Do you see what bankrupt system sola-scriptura is?
U mean prima-Scriptura?
In any case: no. I see rather the bankruptcy of both Roman Catholicism, generally; and your arguments in particular.
Thanx
240 the historical problem that the Oxford dictionary of Popes gives you.
To contrary: the Oxford Dictionary of Popes gives me no historical problem. It gives me no problem period
You say the Papacy was started in the year 600.
To the contrary: i said the Papacy as we know it today started with Gregory 1 around the year 600
This dictionary proves historically that there were historical Popes before 600 A.D. In fact it shows that the concept of Popes goes back to the first century.
"Popes" means "fathers." The word was used by Christians for various Christian leaders, great and small, centuries before 600. And after 600. It also came to be used for episkopos of churches some considered (or considered themselves) more important: Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and eventually Constantinople. Which thought contradicts the Lord Jesus' Mt 23 teaching and His apostles' pattern and teaching in His Scriptures: the NT. I said that Gregory 1 around 600 began the Papacy as we know it today. Through his successful consolidation and extension of his mixture of civil and religious power thoughout the west. However well-intentioned, or ambitiously-motivated he may have been. And aided by circumstances such as "barbarian" invasions of Italy and Justinian the emperor's recent laws and decrees from "new Rome," Constantinople. This also coincides, prophetically, with the GodMan's message to the church in Thyatira in chapter 2, in the successive messages to the 7 first-century churches in Asia, in John's Apocalypse
these Popes(Which you say did not exist)
To the contrary: i said that the Papacy as we know it today w/ its power-base, part of the great prostitute, Babylon, o' Revelation 17, didn't begin to exist till around AD 600, Gregory 1's reign
responsible for recognizing and Declaring the canon of the new Testament to all Christians via apostolic tradition.
To the contrary, as i mentioned before: Peter was no Pope and he (and others) knew Scripture--Paul's letters--when they saw it, from AD 67 (2 P 3:15-16). I'm glad even if Christians who called themselves, or whom others called "popes" recognized and appreciated what was Scripture and what wasn't. Anytime they did it. But as u seem to point out in your sentence above: the Scripture was apostolically, and traditionally, Scripture long before the men you're writing of even existed
Can you discredit a well known protestant church historian such as Dr Kelly?
I here discredit, and discredited, the statement u attribute 2 him
Do you see what bankrupt system sola-scriptura is?
U mean prima-Scriptura?
In any case: no. I see rather the bankruptcy of both Roman Catholicism, generally; and your arguments in particular.
Thanx