Enigma for the umpteenth time I will tell you the authourity of the roman see does not rest on whether it was first establised before Jerusalem or Antioch but rather on the authourity of st peter.Peter died as the bishop of rome thus making the bishop of rome as his successor.That is the power behind the roman see

St ignatius writings was actually one of the early pointers to the primacy of rome.In his letter to the romans he had described the roman church as "the one who takes precedent".I don't really think you are very conversant with his writings

If Peter was Bishop of Antioch, he had successors in Antioch.

If Peter was Bishop of Jerusalem, he had successors in Jerusalem.

That he died in Rome is neither here nor there. And that is assuming even that he was ever 'Bishop of Rome'.

By the way, what about the apostle Paul --- was he ever 'Bishop of Rome' or was he ever bishop in Rome? {EDIT Afterall he is supposed to have been in Rome at about the same time as Peter}

Peter died as the bishop of rome leaving is authourity with the roman see. About paul ,there is no historical record of his ever being a bishop.Even if he or any of the twelve was the headship of the church was vested on peter and not on any other apostle

First about Paul, the point is this: if he was in Rome at the same time as Peter and being an apostle, the expectation would be that he would be one of the "bishops" in the Roman Church. This is in accordance with the understanding of "bishops" in the Bible - a plurality.

Second about Peter's death in Rome, the point is this: if Peter appointed a successor after him as Bishop of Antioch, then he also left his authority there as you are claiming for Rome. Now further on this point is the argument that all the Sees that are Apostolic Sees were equal.

Enigma: And what authority did the apostle Peter himself claim over other apostles or even over other Churches (granted he knew what Jesus Christ said) unlike what his supposed successors i.e. the Roman "popes" claiming primacy were/are doing.

Also if Peter was first of all Bishop of Antioch and/or Bishop of/in Jerusalem, why is it not his supposed successors in either Antioch or Jerusalem that are the "popes" today?

NB this is without even as yet addressing the issue of the primacy of Peter; and again this is even assuming that Peter ever was 'Bishop of Rome'.

O ga o

Ishilove:
O ga o

I'm actually enjoying the discussion. There's some foolishness that I've been hearing that's being addressed in the debate.

Ihedinobi:

I'm actually enjoying the discussion. There's some foolishness that I've been hearing that's being addressed in the debate.

*chuckle*

Enigma: First about Paul, the point is this: if he was in Rome at the same time as Peter and being an apostle, the expectation would be that he would be one of the "bishops" in the Roman Church. This is in accordance with the understanding of "bishops" in the Bible - a plurality.

Second about Peter's death in Rome, the point is this: if Peter appointed a successor after him as Bishop of Antioch, then he also left his authority there as you are claiming for Rome. Now further on this point is the argument that all the Sees that are Apostolic Sees were equal.

There is no history of the plurality of bishops in any church and paul was never bishop of rome. The list of all the bishops of rome has been repeatedly named by ss hegessipus,ireneaus,origen.eusebius ,Augustine,tertullian and several of the church fathers.Paul was never bishop of rome.Peter was succeded by linus in the see of rome.Any other thing is a figment of your imagination.

If you know of any instance of plurality of bishop in the early church kindly state it here including the names of the bishops,year and city involved.please stop making up histories.Give me historical writings by men who actually lived @ that time

All the apostles were given authourity but primacy was vested on st Peter.st cyprian the influential bishop of the eastern see has this to say about peter and the early church.

On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

@chukwudi44,

Perhaps you should save yourself the stress...until Enigma has something new and relevant to say. For now, it seems he has no option than to be beating around the bush by regurgitating irrelevant and already answered questions.

Here on nairaland, that is their way of saying, "I was wrong."

chukwudi44:

There is no history of the plurality of bishops in any church and paul was never bishop of rome. The list of all the bishops of rome has been repeatedly named by ss hegessipus,ireneaus,origen.eusebius ,Augustine,tertullian and several of the church fathers.Paul was never bishop of rome.Peter was succeded by linus in the see of rome.Any other thing is a figment of your imagination.

If you are referring to the post-apostolic age, you could have a point because it does seem that the idea of official title of "bishop" and apparently vested in a single person occurred early after the time of the apostles.

However, as I've told you before the Bible's teaching is of a body of bishops/elders/overseers; this is also corroborated to some extent in The Didache where you will read of the instruction: "appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons . . ." (note plurals)

chukwudi44: If you know of any instance of plurality of bishop in the early church kindly state it here including the names of the bishops,year and city involved.please stop making up histories.Give me historical writings by men who actually lived @ that time

Of course I do - Jerusalem!

This is my point that you have missed. As far as we read from the Bible, the apostles did not have "Bishop of This", "Bishop of That" or "Bishop of The Other". Rather, you had a collective of elders, i.e. a collective of bishops such as James, Peter etc. In fairness, you could say that there were instances where it seems one person appeared to be figure-head perhaps e.g. Timothy but (a) you did not find him referred to as "Bishop of . . ." and (b) what you mostly find in the Bible remains a collective of elders or deacons even in small assemblies.

chukwudi44: All the apostles were given authourity but primacy was vested on st Peter. . . . .

And I have asked you to explain how the apostle Peter himself exercised this supposed "primacy"?

What authority or "primacy" did Peter claim over the other apostles?

What authority or "primacy" did Peter exercise over the other apostles?

What authority did Peter claim over individual Churches?

What authority did Peter exercise over individual Churches?

Did Peter ever claim or exercise authority over the other apostles or over other Churches in the same way that the Roman Catholic "popes" tried to do over other Churches?

Is not the claim of authority by the Roman Catholic "popes" a major cause of schism in the catholic Church?

And was Peter ever a "pope" or did he know of such a thing as a "pope"?


Look, I have deliberately tried to focus on the primacy claimed by Rome and not to dwell on the issue of the "primacy of Peter" because it is not key to the question of whether the catholic Church is a different thing from the Roman Catholic Church.

Even the Roman Catholic popes say at least that the "Church" consists of its two lungs i.e. The Roman Catholic Church and The Eastern Orthodox (the Orthodox Catholic Church).

Is that not a recognition and admission that at least the historic catholic Church did not consist of just the Roman Catholic Church?

The Eastern Orthodox (Orthodox Catholic Church) then even reply to that, saying to claim that the Church consists of its two lungs is to then say that neither of the "lungs" is catholic! In other words, that it would mean neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Catholic Church is catholic.

Is that not then saying that the Roman Catholic understanding/use of the word "catholic" is wrong?

chukwudi44: All the apostles were given authourity but primacy was vested on st Peter.st cyprian the influential bishop of the eastern see has this to say about peter and the early church.

On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

This is the real problem with RC,so if I dont agree with all of Peter's teachings am on the wrong path.I hope you know Peter was not infallible.He made certain mistakes also(Read Galatians2:11.
The fAct remains that each of the earlier apostles had their different callings Galatians2:7.Peter was entrusted with the goospel to the circumcised.

italo: @chukwudi44,

Perhaps you should save yourself the stress...until Enigma has something new and relevant to say. For now, it seems he has no option than to be beating around the bush by regurgitating irrelevant and already answered questions.

Here on nairaland, that is their way of saying, "I was wrong."

In all the recent discussions, I have tried to be polite to individual catholics and very deliberately to maintain a tone of respect for the Roman Catholic Church. Even when chukwudi has thrown some mild personals my way, I have tried to overlook them; even you, specifically, italo have always enjoyed politeness from me in the past. Personally, I would prefer things to remain cordial ---- and mercifully this your post is very very mild so let us keep it cordial.

Gal2:9 made it so clear that there was no primacy on Peter
2peter3:15

^^ That is indeed one of the passages that help us understand the nature of the authority that Jesus gave to Peter and to the apostles collectively.

Also, the apostle Peter would have naturally recalled Jesus scolding them for seeking "primacy", Himself washing their feet, telling them to be like servants, telling them to be like children etc.

Then read the apostle Peter in a letter to a young Christian assembly in 2 Peter 1:1 and see whether that is someone seeking aggrandisement of his office or position.

You guys know that I've been watching from the sidelines. This is because I don't know very well the details of the current discussion. For this reason, I began to reread the history of the catholic church according to Bokenkotter. But without the details even, possessing knowledge of the Principles of Church Life alone, I see no sense in the claim of the Roman Catholic Church upon primacy or even universality.

I have covered about eight chapters of the book I mentioned and can tell that the concept of primacy conferred upon Rome (or anywhere else for that matter) is unBiblical, unreasonable and completely counterproductive to the interests of Christ. I can also tell that whatever whoever said, it is untrue that Jesus Christ conferred primacy upon any member of His apostles. His words about founding the Church upon Rock were not meant for Peter. Peter was never never the Rock that Jesus spoke of. Yes, Jesus instructed Peter to feed His sheep and tend His flock, but was that a special commission given to Peter or was it Jesus restoring a fallen servant of His after said servant denied Him? Said words of Jesus were said to the whole apostles in other forms.

What is more, since it's God's Way to win the one in order to get the many, is it not just that in restoring Peter the loud, brash talker, Jesus restored His whole company of apostles? That makes Peter nothing more than one of the many still.

Also, Enigma is right about the multiple-bishop/overseer/elder argument. The apostle travelled to cities to precipitate those whose hearts were seeking the Lord out of the multitudes to become the Church. Then they appointed the most spiritually mature among them to serve the others. These appointed ones were the bishops or elders. Paul and Barnabas were numbered among those at Antioch, Peter and James numbered among those at Jerusalem, Priscilla and Aquila probably among others presided over the church in their own house. I think it was Gaius or something that the elder to whom John wrote his third letter was called, that was another example.

Primacy, authority over others such that one issues orders and others obey, and one amounts to a mediator between God and the Christian is a position that supplants Christ. Christ gave that position to no man. From the beginning till now, the head of the woman has been the man, the head of the man Christ and the head of Christ God. There is no other arrangement recognized by the Scriptures. That arrangement that became today's church hierarchies is rooted in man's selfishness, not the need for preservation of doctrine as Bokenkotter's history and arguments for hierarchies in the Church submit.

@enigma

Multiple bishop of jerusalem in the apostologic age is another figment of your imagination.I think I have to end this argumemt since it is becaming baseless and ilogical.You just keep making up stories even in the face of incontrovertible.I think you have made up your mind on what you want to believe irrespective of the facts staring at you in the face.

If you think formulating an imaginary dichotomy between the catholic church and the roman catholic church will make you happy, then feel free to indulge your fantasy.

@ihedinobi

If you want to really study the history of the catholic then pick up eusebius's history of the church and study. You can also read it up in wikipedia and read up the writings of the church fathers directly.

Reading up any doctored history will only mean making a fool of yourself

@ Ihedinobi

Thanks for that.

The primacy of Rome issue (using the pretext of the "primacy of Peter" ) is, in my view, a vey sad and unnecessary idea that has fostered (and is still fostering) disunity and of course in part helped the degeneracy that eventually led to the Protestant Reformation.

Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox Church has a rather more conciliatory attitude to the primacy of Peter and its later consequences for the Church ---- but unfortunately it is not acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church.


And thanks also for the specific examples of plurality of eldership/oversight/'bishophood' in the Bible. Those were indeed the things I had in mind. In addition, the idea and practice of the collective 'episkopoi' (which I think is even naturally plural) is both explicit and implicit throughout the Bible. There is the Jerusalem example and the others.

But then let us think of the epistles. in his letter to the Philippians, we read the apostle Paul in these terms: Philippians 1

Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

So in Philippi alone they had bishops and deacons (both plural)!


Again in Acts 20:28 we see Paul having sent for the elders (presbutero) of the Church at Ephesus charge them as follows:

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers*, to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.

*overseers = episkopoi = bishops

Again we see that the Church at Ephesus had a plurality of elders and bishops.

Also if we read the epistles of Paul in the Bible to Churches in Colossae, Galatia, Corinth etc, he does not even address the letters to the bishops let alone to a bishop; rather he addressed the letters either to the 'brethren' or to the Church or 'Churches'

There is one more of these things which I hope to post separately and later ------- and that one concerns the apostle Peter himself.

In 1 Peter 1, we see the apostle Peter writing to encourage Christians in a number of places; these Christians had been converted through the work of some other 'evangelists' and 'missionaries'.

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Then we get to 1 Peter 5 and in the same letter the apostle addresses the "leaders" of these Christian communities.

1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

So what do we have here?

- Peter addresses "elders"!
- Peter calls himself also an "elder" (granted he started in chapter 1 by calling himself an apostle)
- Asks the elders to "feed the flock" ('poimanate/poimnion) taking oversight (episkopountes): meaning in modern lingo = act as pastors in the roles of bishops"!

Also:

- Do we notice that Peter does not address himself as "Bishop of xyz"?
- Do we notice that Peter calls himself a fellow "elder" alongside what we today will probably see as the "far far far more lowly" leaders of some communities far away from the original centre of action in Jerusalem?

Enigma: @ Ihedinobi

Thanks for that.

The primacy of Rome issue (using the pretext of the "primacy of Peter" ) is, in my view, a vey sad and unnecessary idea that has fostered (and is still fostering) disunity and of course in part helped the degeneracy that eventually led to the Protestant Reformation.

Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox Church has a rather more conciliatory attitude to the primacy of Peter and its later consequences for the Church ---- but unfortunately it is not acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church.


And thanks also for the specific examples of plurality of eldership/oversight/'bishophood' in the Bible. Those were indeed the things I had in mind. In addition, the idea and practice of the collective 'episkopoi' (which I think is even naturally plural) is both explicit and implicit throughout the Bible. There is the Jerusalem example and the others.

But then let us think of the epistles. in his letter to the Philippians, we read the apostle Paul in these terms: Philippians 1

So in Philippi alone they had bishops and deacons (both plural)!


Again in Acts 20:28 we see Paul having sent for the elders (presbutero) of the Church at Ephesus charge them as follows:

*overseers = episkopoi = bishops

Again we see that the Church at Ephesus had a plurality of elders and bishops.

Also if we read the epistles of Paul in the Bible to Churches in Colossae, Galatia, Corinth etc, he does not even address the letters to the bishops let alone to a bishop; rather he addressed the letters either to the 'brethren' or to the Church or 'Churches'

There is one more of these things which I hope to post separately and later ------- and that one concerns the apostle Peter himself.

Succinct

chukwudi44: @enigma

Multiple bishop of jerusalem in the apostologic age is another figment of your imagination.I think I have to end this argumemt since it is becaming baseless and ilogical.You just keep making up stories even in the face of incontrovertible.I think you have made up your mind on what you want to believe irrespective of the facts staring at you in the face.

If you think formulating an imaginary dichotomy between the catholic church and the roman catholic church will make you happy, then feel free to indulge your fantasy.

@ihedinobi

If you want to really study the history of the catholic then pick up eusebius's history of the church and study. You can also read it up in wikipedia and read up the writings of the church fathers directly.

Reading up any doctored history will only mean making a fool of yourself

Sir, is there any reason for which I should believe that Bokenkotter's account is doctored?

Also, is it enough to accept a thing because so and so said it if what is said contradicts known Principles?

chukwudi44: @enigma

Multiple bishop of jerusalem in the apostologic age is another figment of your imagination.I think I have to end this argumemt since it is becaming baseless and ilogical.You just keep making up stories even in the face of incontrovertible.I think you have made up your mind on what you want to believe irrespective of the facts staring at you in the face.

If you think formulating an imaginary dichotomy between the catholic church and the roman catholic church will make you happy, then feel free to indulge your fantasy.

@ihedinobi

If you want to really study the history of the catholic then pick up eusebius's history of the church and study. You can also read it up in wikipedia and read up the writings of the church fathers directly.

Reading up any doctored history will only mean making a fool of yourself

Sir, is there any reason for which I should believe that Bokenkotter's account is doctored?

Also, is it enough to accept a thing because so and so said it if what is said contradicts known Principles?

@ Enigma, I'm sorry that I sound rude. It's always very tempting to take things personal when one thinks the other person is not being straight forward in an argument, so I think its usually best to quit to avoid that. Perhaps, I wasn't very prudent in choosing my words, but I hope you see the intention.

Enigma: First about Paul, the point is this: if he was in Rome at the same time as Peter and being an apostle, the expectation would be that he would be one of the "bishops" in the Roman Church. This is in accordance with the understanding of "bishops" in the Bible - a plurality.

Second about Peter's death in Rome, the point is this: if Peter appointed a successor after him as Bishop of Antioch, then he also left his authority there as you are claiming for Rome. Now further on this point is the argument that all the Sees that are Apostolic Sees were equal.

is your church even an apostolic see? Which apostle can you trace your church to? If an orthodox or oriental christian was making this arguemen i would have taken it serious because they have a see. When a protestant is making the arguement, it simply has no meaning.

Enigma: In 1 Peter 1, we see the apostle Peter writing to encourage Christians in a number of places; these Christians had been converted through the work of some other 'evangelists' and 'missionaries'.




Then we get to 1 Peter 5 and in the same letter the apostle addresses the "leaders" of these Christian communities.



So what do we have here?

- Peter addresses "elders"!
- Peter calls himself also an "elder" (granted he started in chapter 1 by calling himself an apostle)
- Asks the elders to "feed the flock" ('poimanate/poimnion) taking oversight (episkopountes): meaning in modern lingo = act as pastors in the roles of bishops"!

Also:

- Do we notice that Peter does not address himself as "Bishop of xyz"?
- Do we notice that Peter calls himself a fellow "elder" alongside what we today will probably see as the "far far far more lowly" leaders of some communities far away from the original centre of action in Jerusalem?

and the bishop of rome also call other bishops brother and a fellow bishop, he is also a fellow presbyterous.

Enigma: @ Ihedinobi

Thanks for that.

The primacy of Rome issue (using the pretext of the "primacy of Peter" ) is, in my view, a vey sad and unnecessary idea that has fostered (and is still fostering) disunity and of course in part helped the degeneracy that eventually led to the Protestant Reformation.

Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox Church has a rather more conciliatory attitude to the primacy of Peter and its later consequences for the Church ---- but unfortunately it is not acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church.


And thanks also for the specific examples of plurality of eldership/oversight/'bishophood' in the Bible. Those were indeed the things I had in mind. In addition, the idea and practice of the collective 'episkopoi' (which I think is even naturally plural) is both explicit and implicit throughout the Bible. There is the Jerusalem example and the others.

But then let us think of the epistles. in his letter to the Philippians, we read the apostle Paul in these terms: Philippians 1

So in Philippi alone they had bishops and deacons (both plural)!


Again in Acts 20:28 we see Paul having sent for the elders (presbutero) of the Church at Ephesus charge them as follows:

*overseers = episkopoi = bishops

Again we see that the Church at Ephesus had a plurality of elders and bishops.

Also if we read the epistles of Paul in the Bible to Churches in Colossae, Galatia, Corinth etc, he does not even address the letters to the bishops let alone to a bishop; rather he addressed the letters either to the 'brethren' or to the Church or 'Churches'

There is one more of these things which I hope to post separately and later ------- and that one concerns the apostle Peter himself.

if an orthodox christian was making this argument i would have been showing him quote from the church fathers, that there was headship among the apostles, i would also be showing him that the church fathers bear witness to the pre eminence of rome because d roman see is on st peter and preached to by paul, i would have been drawing forth church father upon church father and doctor upon doctor. That is because both catholic and orthodox share a common faith and a believe in sacred tradition. It would be useless making that argument to a protestant.

@ihedinobi

I would rather prefer the writings of eusebius and other church fathers who lived and actually witnessed this events or had the privilege of interacting with those who witnessed this events to an account of someone who live more than one thousand years after these events occured.

Ihedinobi: You guys know that I've been watching from the sidelines. This is because I don't know very well the details of the current discussion. For this reason, I began to reread the history of the catholic church according to Bokenkotter. But without the details even, possessing knowledge of the Principles of Church Life alone, I see no sense in the claim of the Roman Catholic Church upon primacy or even universality.

I have covered about eight chapters of the book I mentioned and can tell that the concept of primacy conferred upon Rome (or anywhere else for that matter) is unBiblical, unreasonable and completely counterproductive to the interests of Christ. I can also tell that whatever whoever said, it is untrue that Jesus Christ conferred primacy upon any member of His apostles. His words about founding the Church upon Rock were not meant for Peter. Peter was never never the Rock that Jesus spoke of. Yes, Jesus instructed Peter to feed His sheep and tend His flock, but was that a special commission given to Peter or was it Jesus restoring a fallen servant of His after said servant denied Him? Said words of Jesus were said to the whole apostles in other forms.

What is more, since it's God's Way to win the one in order to get the many, is it not just that in restoring Peter the loud, brash talker, Jesus restored His whole company of apostles? That makes Peter nothing more than one of the many still.

Also, Enigma is right about the multiple-bishop/overseer/elder argument. The apostle travelled to cities to precipitate those whose hearts were seeking the Lord out of the multitudes to become the Church. Then they appointed the most spiritually mature among them to serve the others. These appointed ones were the bishops or elders. Paul and Barnabas were numbered among those at Antioch, Peter and James numbered among those at Jerusalem, Priscilla and Aquila probably among others presided over the church in their own house. I think it was Gaius or something that the elder to whom John wrote his third letter was called, that was another example.

Primacy, authority over others such that one issues orders and others obey, and one amounts to a mediator between God and the Christian is a position that supplants Christ. Christ gave that position to no man. From the beginning till now, the head of the woman has been the man, the head of the man Christ and the head of Christ God. There is no other arrangement recognized by the Scriptures. That arrangement that became today's church hierarchies is rooted in man's selfishness, not the need for preservation of doctrine as Bokenkotter's history and arguments for hierarchies in the Church submit.

you are readin bokenkotter, was he a church father? Did he live even close to the apostolic time? Or was it after the protestant reformation? Go and ask the church fathers what the early christians believed they were the ones who lived then. You are talking about primacy and you are quote bokenkotter. If you want to know about early christians go read it from the early christians themselves. When ever they write on the apostolic sucession they alway point back to the preeminent see i.e the see of rome.

k2039:
This is the real problem with RC,so if I dont agree with all of Peter's teachings am on the wrong path.I hope you know Peter was not infallible.He made certain mistakes also(Read Galatians2:11.
The fAct remains that each of the earlier apostles had their different callings Galatians2:7.Peter was entrusted with the goospel to the circumcised.

hahahaha, who told you that peter wasnt infalliable? Infalliability doesnt mean that the pope cannot make mistakes, it means that when he teaches in his capacity as a universal teacher he cannot teach errors on matters of faith and morals only. And im very happy to tell you the st peter didnt teach errors on matter of faith and moral, you can check 1st and 2nd peter.

@Ubenedictus and Chukwudi

My understanding is that Bokenkotter accessed the writings of said Church Fathers to produce a concise history. Neither of you is doing things the right way. You shouldn't be telling me to go read the Church Fathers. You should be showing me how Bokenkotter is unreliable.

Another thing. You should also note that I'm reading the Bible too. And that I'm using my head as well. You need not think that I'm copypasting Bokenkotter. Those thoughts are mine originally even if they draw upon outside information to assume definite shape.

Finally. How do you guys know that what you read was not doctored?