btoks: Unfortunately, your history is way off.this is what happens when you practice sola scriptura with no historical context. Please look at the church set up prior to 16th century and you'll find confession to priests. Even the 1st protestants, Lutherans,have a form of confession.
Re. The bible given to us, who gave it to us as the only book to follow and when?pls be sincere. Im sure ure aware that the book of revelations is only one book of the bible and was highly disputed as inspired for a long time.

Early Christianity has been addressed in previous posts but could you tell me where the early Christian church is today as it must exist according to lord Jesus.

This is getting tiring. can you please address my questions as precise as possible without rigmarole?

honeric01:

This is getting tiring. can you please address my questions as precise as possible without rigmarole?

What else would you like me to mention?Please read my response and others and you'll find I've addressed your questions. I know you're not getting what you want but this is because you've got your church's filter on . it'll be great if you could answer my question about the bible posed earlier.

honeric01:

This is getting tiring. can you please address my questions as precise as possible without rigmarole?

in essence. My previous post was to highlight that your interpretation of John 20:21 is novel and is far off historical Christianity. Hope this is clearer

btoks: in essence. My previous post was to highlight that your interpretation of John 20:21 is novel and is far off historical Christianity. Hope this is clearer

How does this answer my questions? how did your post reveal otherwise?

honeric01:

How does this answer my questions? how did your post reveal otherwise?

Please let me know what I haven't addressed and I'll address it.at the same time I'll be glad if you could address the questions I posed on your bible presuppositions.

honeric01:

Did hr actually lay hands on the apostles? if he did, then who laid hands on the fathers, popes e.t.c that the catholics have?

all the priests in the catholic hurch can trace their ordinations back to the apostles.

The scriptures are clear, all who became ministers after the apostles recieved the laying of hands from them or their successors.


That is how power is transmitted.

Ubenedictus: all the priests in the catholic hurch can trace their ordinations back to the apostles.

The scriptures are clear, all who became ministers after the apostles recieved the laying of hands from them or their successors.


That is how power is transmitted.

Lol,. now this is funny! can you just reference what you type?

reference those he laid hands on

how the apostles also transferred the laying of hands to others before their own death

And how it came to the fathers, Bishops and popes

I hope they are in the bible or the bible is incomplete to show is this?

btoks: Please let me know what I haven't addressed and I'll address it.at the same time I'll be glad if you could address the questions I posed on your bible presuppositions.

They are stirring at you. pick them one after the other.

honeric01:

They are stirring at you. pick them one after the other.

This isn't how to dialogue. You could just let me know what I haven't addressed. I see you're still avoiding my question on bible being the only guide and how we got it.

btoks: This isn't how to dialogue. You could just let me know what I haven't addressed. I see you're still avoiding my question on bible being the only guide and how we got it.

You're the one avoiding questions by using questions to answer questions and it's annoying.

kindly pick my questions one after the other from the last 3 comments of mine directed at you.

Ubenedictus:
where are the so called answers?

It appears you dont read before you reply. If you do, you will know how ^^^ is funny.

so the gates of hell prevailed over the church of Christ?

If you dont know how to read or if you read and do not understand, you ask questions. My earlier response doesnt deserve that kind of question. Because that post answered that question very well. So whats your confusion, you read and dont understand?

you never met peter, you didn't live around his timeline so it is silly to claim you know what he did and didn't do.

Neither do you see God, but you know Him thru his word. We allow God's word of truth to tell us what Peter believed, we dont use contradictory versions of so called fathers to know him. Neither will his belief be so funny that he hands over 'headship' to another person, and leaves Christ-appointed apostle. Such a cock and bull story!

Maybe you should ask the so called apostolic father Augustine to interprete Matt 16:18 for you.

sorry the bible never said we should winnow away apostolic traditions, it says we should hold on to it.

But it says you should winnow what is penned in God's word with your contradicotry human traditions? Pharisaic, not so?

None of what apostle Paul said by word contradicted what is written. I know human tradition can make that too hard for you to swallow.

[quote author=honeric01]

Where is it written to go to priest and priest alone to confess our sins?

You’re not asked to go to priests alone for confession. However, this is the normal means of getting certainty of mortal sins being forgiven. According to CC teaching this is a sacrament instituted by Christ. Just like he instituted Baptism. You see, if you’ve got sola scriptura lenses on you won’t see the historical context to the teachings. Remember that the Church existed before the books (NT) of the bible. To clarify, it is Jesus who does the forgiving via the priest.

Gave the Apostles or gave his followers? when you say "Apostle", are you talking about all true believers or some "selected believers"?

Again, historically, this meant that the gift of forgiving/retaining sins was given to the Apostles and those they ordained(Apostolic Succession).

If you are talking about some selected believers, now that these "believers" are dead, why then gave the instruction to anyone else to forgive/retain sins?

This is to do with Apostolic Succession. Jesus chose his disciples, however the church had to carry on in event of their death. You’ll find that others were ordained to carry on the work of these disciples. Also remember what happened in Acts 1 – The apostles found a replacement for Judas’s role (Bishopric).

Were these "traditions" given by God directly through Jesus or some set of people made these "traditions and laws"? Unfortunately not everything is recorded in the bible. The traditions are based on the teaching of the apostles (see. 2 thess 2 15). the Church was given the authority to bind and loose and it teaches us what is to be believed in terms of faith and morals (e.g. what constitutes the bible)

Is the bible not sufficient enough to lead that we need "traditions" outside the bible to run the affairs of the bible?

Nowhere would you find such a teaching. Unfortunately, the practice of Sola Scriptura has led to a plethora of church denominations not in communion, each claiming to teach the truth. In fact, Sola Scriptura was never a Christian teaching until the 16th Century (Martin Luther) and look at what has happened since. The Church existed before the formation of the bible and it was on the Church’s traditions/ liturgy that books of the bible were accepted. The Church (Apostles, then successors) is what was given the authority to teach, baptise, forgive, ordain, bind & Loose. Therefore, authority comes from the Church who validly teach us the correct faith and morals.

And when you say the "early church", are you talking about the same set of people that killed and tortured the early believers or who represent the early church?

You’re playing with words here, the early church/believers remains the early church – they were persecuted and killed but still the Church survived as per Jesus’ promise. Are you saying that the early believers were different from what has been recognised as the early church? I can categorically inform you that there is no prove for that and is a way for protestants to discredit the catholic Church.

Lastly, who are the early church and who persecuted these set of people as recorded in history?

To summarise, the early church existed and were persecuted by the Romans and others– this does not mean that the Roman government became the catholic church. I know there were a number of heretical sects at the time as well and we can discuss these in another thread if you think these were the true believers/ early church!!

Now that I have addressed these specifically, please respond to my question on your bible pressuposition. You mentioned that the bible was the only guide given to us - who gave us this guide and asked us to use it and when?. How are we to trust that it contains the word of God.

honeric01:

You're the one avoiding questions by using questions to answer questions and it's annoying.

kindly pick my questions one after the other from the last 3 comments of mine directed at you.

Along with my previous questions, Kindly let me know what church you belong to so I can understand where your interpretation on Confession comes from as the 1st Protestants( lutherans) have Confession to priests.

JMAN05:

It appears you dont read before you reply. If you do, you will know how ^^^ is funny.

i actually read your funny post and i still can't help laughing

If you dont know how to read or if you read and do not understand, you ask questions. My earlier response doesnt deserve that kind of question. Because that post answered that question very well. So whats your confusion, you read and dont understand?

you response deserves the question, you seem to think that the christian church was corrupted the doctrine after the death of the apostles and christ had already promised that that will never happen, hell will never prevail against the church, every heresy will be condemned, so i ask you,

do u believe the words of Christ?

Neither do you see God, but you know Him thru his word. We allow God's word of truth to tell us what Peter believed, we dont use contradictory versions of so called fathers to know him. Neither will his belief be so funny that he hands over 'headship' to another person, and leaves Christ-appointed apostle. Such a cock and bull story!

that is no cork and bull story, it is not even contradictory, infact, that is a fact known to every christian from 33ad to 1800ad, peter didn't live forever and before his death he appointed linus to the leadership of the church.

The bible doesn't contain every thing... The bible doesnt record the death of peter or the death of paul...the christians who lived at that time did and they all agree in the writtings that peter appointed linus to oversee the church.


It is unfortunate you seem ignorant of christian history.

Maybe you should ask the so called apostolic father Augustine to interprete Matt 16:18 for you.[\quote]

and what will you achieve from it? Do u even accept augustine as a christian?

[quote]But it says you should winnow what is penned in God's word with your contradicotry human traditions? Pharisaic, not so?

i do not have pharasaic traditions, that passage isn't applicable.

None of what apostle Paul said by word contradicted what is written. I know human tradition can make that too hard for you to swallow.

i agree that what is said by word do not contradict what was written.

I'll also say that the "bible" doesn't contain all the sayings of christ and his apostles.

honeric01:

Lol,. now this is funny! can you just reference what you type?

reference those he laid hands on

how the apostles also transferred the laying of hands to others before their own death

And how it came to the fathers, Bishops and popes

I hope they are in the bible or the bible is incomplete to show is this?

the bible records a few laying of hands for the ministry.

I think you can read the laying of hand on st paul in act 13:3

PastorKun: The early christian church also did not preach or collect tithes like some fraudsters do today.

well preach tithes no, but collect-yes. Paul took for some christians while going to jerusalem. Besides there was rarely anything for the ministers to lack that they didnt have to preach tithe giving. Paul kept repeating provisions by christians thruout his epistles. But today..... I cant say if that love still exist

Ubenedictus:
i actually read your funny post and i still can't help laughing

Meaning u didnt even understand it, cos it contains no witty remark.

you response deserves the question, you seem to think that the christian church was corrupted the doctrine after the death of the apostles and christ had already promised that that will never happen, hell will never prevail against the church, every heresy will be condemned, so i ask you,

do u believe the words of Christ?

1. See this guy o, wait! what do you understand by "the gate of hell" will not prevail against it? That no heresy will ever infiltrate?
-- interprete the parable of the wheat and the weed for me.

--- Read Acts 20:29, 30

a. Dont you think that Paul knew very well that heresy will infiltrate the "church"?

b. read Rev 2:14, 15.

^^ after reading, Do you think that Jesus words to Peter indicates that heresy wont infiltrate the "church"?

that is no cork and bull story, it is not even contradictory, infact, that is a fact known to every christian from 33ad to 1800ad, peter didn't live forever and before his death he appointed linus to the leadership of the church.

a. why would Peter appoint Linus when John, an apostle, was alive?

b. If all knew as you claim, why is such important matter not stated in the scriptures?

c. quote all the "Christians" who said Linus was handed over by Peter. Start from the first century to half of second century BCE.

-- I hope Augustine of Hippo is among the "every" you mentioned?

The bible doesn't contain every thing... The bible doesnt record the death of peter or the death of paul...the christians who lived at that time did and they all agree in the writtings that peter appointed linus to oversee the church.

I well know you dont know that the list you guys provided as the list of Popes is funny. Dont worry, as soon as I charge my laptop I will tell you more flaws scholars have pointed out in that list that made me term it cork and bull story.

The bible need not contain everything to be the word of God. The scripture provides things that can make a man of God to be fully competent, completely equipt for every good work. 2Tim 3:16, 17.

The "OT" does not need to tell you when Eve died and at what age before it fulfills that principle at 2tim3:16, 17. Does it?

It is unfortunate you seem ignorant of christian history.

history you say? Let's see a bit of history:

The Cambridge History of Christianity says: “Probably there was no single ‘monarchical’ bishop in Rome before the middle of the second century.” Not to mention Pope.

You ve not said how your Saint Augustine latter interpreted Matt 16:18. is he less-apostolic-father?

Since you seem interested in knowing what augustine said...this is his quote.




"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !'
The successor of Peter was Linus,
and his successors in unbroken
continuity were these: -- Clement,
Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander,
Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus,
Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius,
Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus,
Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus,
Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius,
Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix,
Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus,
Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades,
Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius,
Damasus, and Siricius, whose
successor is the present Bishop
Anastasius. In this order of
succession no Donatist bishop is
found. But, reversing the natural
course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of 'mountain men,' or Cutzupits, by which they were known."
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D.
400), in NPNF1,I:298

i laughed at your post, not because it had wit but because i found it hilarious

JMAN0S:
1. See this guy o, wait! what do you understand by "the gate of hell" will not prevail against it? That no heresy will ever infiltrate?
-- interprete the parable of the wheat and the weed for me.

--- Read Acts 20:29, 30

a. Dont you think that Paul knew very well that heresy will infiltrate the "church"?

b. read Rev 2:14, 15.

^^ after reading, Do you think that Jesus words to Peter indicates that heresy wont infiltrate the "church"?

i believe the phrase is self explanatory, the gate of hell will not prevail against the church. Heresy will not prevail against the church, the heresies will be condemned and expelled, it will not prevail. The church cannot be totally corrupted.

a. why would Peter appoint Linus when John, an apostle, was alive?

because John was in ephesus at the time as bishop.

b. If all knew as you claim, why is such important matter not stated in the scriptures?

because the bible is not a history book, it didn't record everything Jesus did and said, it didn't record everything the apostles did and said, it didn't even record the death of any of the apostles, it didn't record the missionary jorney of thomas, bathlomeu and many others. The bible was never compiled to contain everything.

c. quote all the "Christians" who said Linus was handed over by Peter. Start from the first century to half of second century BCE.

clearly ur sole aim is to waste my time.

-- I hope Augustine of Hippo is among the "every" you mentioned?

i already provided you with a quote from augustine.

I well know you dont know that the list you guys provided as the list of Popes is funny. Dont worry, as soon as I charge my laptop I will tell you more flaws scholars have pointed out in that list that made me term it cork and bull story.

hahahaha, i didn't give you a list of pope, the early christian all recorded it down, go and fight with them.

The bible need not contain everything to be the word of God. The scripture provides things that can make a man of God to be fully competent, completely equipt for every good work. 2Tim 3:16, 17.

that passage says that "scripture is profitable" it doesn't say "sufficient".

The "OT" does not need to tell you when Eve died and at what age before it fulfills that principle at 2tim3:16, 17. Does it?



history you say? Let's see a bit of history:

The Cambridge History of Christianity says: “Probably there was no single ‘monarchical’ bishop in Rome before the middle of the second century.” Not to mention Pope.

your so-called history says "probably", that means it isn't sure... That only underlines its amaturism, those who lived around that time all wrote that rome had one bishop, ur history book certainly wasn't there so it must be lying.

You ve not said how your Saint Augustine latter interpreted Matt 16:18. is he less-apostolic-father?

i just pasted the relevant quote.

Ubenedictus:
Since you seem interested in knowing what augustine said...this is his quote.




"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !'
The successor of Peter was Linus,
and his successors in unbroken
continuity were these: -- Clement,
Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander,
Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus,
Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius,
Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus,
Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus,
Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius,
Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix,
Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus,
Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades,
Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius,
Damasus, and Siricius, whose
successor is the present Bishop
Anastasius. In this order of
succession no Donatist bishop is
found. But, reversing the natural
course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of 'mountain men,' or Cutzupits, by which they were known."
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D.
400), in NPNF1,I:298

He offered a retraction:


“Saint Augustine,” at one time believed that Peter was the rock-mass but later changed his view. Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Mt 16:18, ftn, p. 296) quotes Augustine as saying: “The rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the reason why the Lord says, ‘On this rock I will build my church,’ is that Peter had said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, which thou hast confessed, says he, I will build my church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”—Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976.



[/quote]

Ubenedictus:

i believe the phrase is self explanatory, the gate of hell will not prevail against the church. Heresy will not prevail against the church, the heresies will be condemned and expelled, it will not prevail. The church cannot be totally corrupted.

Gate of hell/hades has nothing to do with heresies. Jesus said he has keys to this Hell. He certainly is not saying he has keys to heresies, rather this signifies death. Jesus died and went to hell, after which he was resurrected, thereby conquering it, having the keys to it. In that anyone trapped by death could be resurrected by him. So the gate of hell or death cannot trap the church. Jesus has the power to resurrect them. He has the keys. Rev. 1:18

2. The bold face in your comment is what I have been saying that my earlier post answered before you stubbornness. I never said that heresy covered all the church. Of course, you know the church is made up of humans, not building or name of established religion. We use the scriptures to winnow this heresies, and know who has the truth. This is the point I ve been establishing here since. Now you are waking up.

Also know that Jesus said that, this people who taught heresies (weed) should continue to live among the true Christians (wheat) until the time of the end. we read:

He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’ They said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ 29 He said, ‘No; that by no chance, while collecting the weeds, YOU uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and in the harvest season I will tell the reapers, First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up, then go to gathering the wheat into my storehouse.

So heresies were there until the separation. And we can know which is heresy or not with the scriptures.

because John was in ephesus at the time as bishop.

a. Who told you he was in ephesus when the supposed rulership was handed to your Linus?

b. Even if he was there, the one who ascended to the throne of Pope according to your tradition is an apostle. Not so? So where he is isn't a good point. After all, Peter was never in Rome. If he has to give his rulership to Linus, he has to go to Rome. The first century Christians never heard the concept of lording it over others. Peter could have given Linus a go-ahead order to appoint elders in Rome, just like Paul gave Timothy and Titus a word to do so. What you people teach about monarchy is never in there mind cos Christ has taught them against that worldly tendencies. we read:

Mark 10:42-44

But Jesus, after calling them to him, said to them: “YOU know that those who appear to be ruling the nations lord it over them and their great ones wield authority over them. 43 This is not the way among YOU; but whoever wants to become great among YOU must be YOUR minister, 44 and whoever wants to be first among YOU must be the slave of all.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE says:
On the other side, it is certain that there is no instance on record of the apostle's having ever claimed or exercised this supposed power; but, on the contrary, he is more than once represented as submitting to an exercise of power upon the part of others, as when, for instance, he went forth as a messenger from the apostles assembled in Jerusalem to the Christians in Samaria (Acts 8:14), and when he received a rebuke from Paul, as already noticed.

During what people will call the first ecumenical meeting, who presided? Peter of James? Do you people see at all?

So the leadership notion or papacy was unknown to Peter.

because the bible is not a history book, it didn't record everything Jesus did and said, it didn't record everything the apostles did and said, it didn't even record the death of any of the apostles, it didn't record the missionary jorney of thomas, bathlomeu and many others. The bible was never compiled to contain everything.

Just like the "OT" didn't record everything, didnt record how Melchezedek was born and died, didn't record everything about Moses, all he did during the 40 years in exile, didnt record all about Abraham, didnt tell us all about Isaiah son of Amoz, all his journeys and all that. the list goes on. But did this make the servants of God back then to rely on what other people say in other to serve God? Did it make them to go beyond what was written because oh, not all was written there?

Remember the rule? Dont go beyond what is written. No one is exempted, not even the apostles.

You know, sometimes I wonder whether Catholics actually believe the bible as they claim.

clearly ur sole aim is to waste my time.

So I should believe by faith that you are correct?

hahahaha, i didn't give you a list of pope, the early christian all recorded it down, go and fight with them.

The apostles never gave any list. In short, by the 2nd century, no one knows anything like Pope in christianity. Your so called apostolic fathers do not all agree on the Popes and the listing.

that passage says that "scripture is profitable" it doesn't say "sufficient".

What was sufficient for a Jew to establish there doctrine using the "OT"? Answer that. muse John 17:17

Does this guy believe in the bible at all?

your so-called history says "probably", that means it isn't sure... That only underlines its amaturism, those who lived around that time all wrote that rome had one bishop, ur history book certainly wasn't there so it must be lying.

1. Probably does not mean that it can never be true. The writers weight of acceptance is more on the fact that nothing like papacy was established at the time.

Of course, how can that be when even the word "Pope" was not known at that time?

You seem to know little about this subject. History and even your encyclopedia agree on this fact:

the early bishops of Rome exercised no such power as that displayed by the apostles, nor did they have the place of primacy among the other “bishops” which was enjoyed at a later date by the popes of Rome. Leo I (440-461) was the first pope in the real sense of the term". Catholic encyclopedia vol. 9, p. 154

[/quote]Ubenedictus:

i believe the phrase is self explanatory, the gate of hell will not prevail against the church. Heresy will not prevail against the church, the heresies will be condemned and expelled, it will not prevail. The church cannot be totally corrupted.

Gate of hell/hades has nothing to do with heresies. Jesus said he has keys to this Hell. He certainly is not saying he has keys to heresies, rather this signifies death. Jesus died and went to hell, after which he was resurrected, thereby conquering it, having the keys to it. In that anyone trapped by death could be resurrected by him. So the gate of hell or death cannot trap the church. Jesus has the power to resurrect them. He has the keys. Rev. 1:18

2. The bold face in your comment is what I have been saying that my earlier post answered before you stubbornness. I never said that heresy covered all the church. Of course, you know the church is made up of humans, not building or name of established religion. We use the scriptures to winnow this heresies, and know who has the truth. This is the point I ve been establishing here since. Now you are waking up.

Also know that Jesus said that, this people who taught heresies (weed) should continue to live among the true Christians (wheat) until the time of the end. we read:

He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’ They said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ 29 He said, ‘No; that by no chance, while collecting the weeds, YOU uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and in the harvest season I will tell the reapers, First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up, then go to gathering the wheat into my storehouse.

So heresies were there until the separation. And we can know which is heresy or not with the scriptures. [quote]

Bros Jesus was talking about heresies like the teachings of yiur JWs!! He did not say they will not exist rather what he said is that they will never prevail against the church.

[/quote]a. Who told you he was in ephesus when the supposed rulership was handed to your Linus?

b. Even if he was there, the one who ascended to the throne of Pope according to your tradition is an apostle. Not so? So where he is isn't a good point. After all, Peter was never in Rome. If he has to give his rulership to Linus, he has to go to Rome. The first century Christians never heard the concept of lording it over others. Peter could have given Linus a go-ahead order to appoint elders in Rome, just like Paul gave Timothy and Titus a word to do so. What you people teach about monarchy is never in there mind cos Christ has taught them against that worldly tendencies. we read [quote]

The same church fathers who told us the identities of the authours of the anonymous gospels told us John was a bishop in ephesus.BTW where did you get the info that Peter was never in Rome?

[/quote]a. Who told you he was in ephesus when the supposed rulership was handed to your Linus?

b. Even if he was there, the one who ascended to the throne of Pope according to your tradition is an apostle. Not so? So where he is isn't a good point. After all, Peter was never in Rome. If he has to give his rulership to Linus, he has to go to Rome. The first century Christians never heard the concept of lording it over others. Peter could have given Linus a go-ahead order to appoint elders in Rome, just like Paul gave Timothy and Titus a word to do so. What you people teach about monarchy is never in there mind cos Christ has taught them against that worldly tendencies. we read [quote]

The same church fathers who told us the identities of the authours of the anonymous gospels told us John was a bishop in ephesus.BTW where did you get the info that Peter was never in Rome?

Secondly all this your quotes from the so-called catholic encyclopedia,I hope you don't mind pasting the link

Bros Jesus was talking about heresies like the teachings of yiur JWs!! He did not say they will not exist rather what he said is that they will never prevail against the church.

hell has no connection with heresy as it is being used in the scriptures. hell has always been associated with death in the scriptures, not heresy. At Rev 1:18, Jesus stated that he has the keys to hell. Since hell is associated with death, Jesus himself having been to hell and conquered by being resurrected, has the key to resurrect the dead. compare Acts 2:31

[quote}The same church fathers who told us the identities of the authours of the anonymous gospels told us John was a bishop in ephesus.BTW where did you :Dget the info that Peter was never in Rome?[/quote]

1. I am not saying that all that they say are wrong. But we need to know that after the death of the apostles, the prophesies at matt 13, 2Thess 2 began having fulfilment.

Apostasy has even began creeping in while the apostles where alive. So, the scriptures must be viewed as the only trusted infallible word of truth. Other sources should be viewed as secondary, though it may be right atimes. But when the two are presented together, and it seems that the "apostolic fathers" are going against what is written, they should be ignored.

The bible didnt live us with the conclusion that Peter was in Rome.

-- My friend, the "fathers" helped in identifying writers of bible books, but there testimony were not all that indicated to us what was inspired or not, but the internal testimony was of greater importance.

Of course, they all did not have one belief as to what was authoritative or not. That shows that there testimony was not enough.



Secondly all this your quotes from the so-called catholic encyclopedia,I hope you don't mind pasting the link[/quote]

^^ the statement is for catholics to confirm, if u are a catholic, go and check whether the encyclopedia convey that sense.

JMAN05:

He offered a retraction:


“Saint Augustine,” at one time believed that Peter was the rock-mass but later changed his view. Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Mt 16:18, ftn, p. 296) quotes Augustine as saying: “The rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the reason why the Lord says, ‘On this rock I will build my church,’ is that Peter had said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, which thou hast confessed, says he, I will build my church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”—Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976.

sorry dear, someone lied to you, augustine didn't retract his views....

You may study this one futher.

Ubenedictus:


sorry dear, someone lied to you, augustine didn't retract his views....

You may study this one futher.

I gave you a commentary on that, and you want me to believe you by faith when I have a prove?

JMAN05:

The apostles never gave any list. In short, by the 2nd century, no one knows anything like Pope in christianity. Your so called apostolic fathers do not all agree on the Popes and the listing.

please can you expantiate on this part. Are their discrepancies in the lists of popes, and is this why you deny the apostolic lineage? Can you provide us with the varying lists? Thank you in advance.

PastorAIO:

please can you expantiate on this part. Are their discrepancies in the lists of popes, and is this why you deny the apostolic lineage? Can you provide us with the varying lists? Thank you in advance.

Compare the Alzog's Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte (9th ed. 1872) with the Gerarchia Cattolica listing. it is glaring that there is a disharmony.

Statements of church writers are entirely irreconcilable, and it is impossible to establish with any degree of certainty the order in which they follow each other, yrs of accession, and even yrs of death.

Note also that what people call Pope today is not what early writers used. It was only in the 4th century that this word emerged as a title for one man.

Early writers used Bishop for ALL elders. all were treated as having equal power. It was gradually that apostasy succeeded in going beyond God's word.

The scripture did not state nor imply any apostolic lineage. It is the result of heresy.