sekundosekundo:


My dear stop deceiving yourself, the history of all the apostles of Jesus Christ are there for you to see both their earthly ministry and their death all are recorded in the Bible. Popes don't marry but I believe apostle Peter was a married man.

The bible didnt record everything that the apostles did, their death weren't even recorded, do u see d work of adrew or bathlomew, can u show me frm d bible if paul died? but d early xtians put all dis down in writing. Some catholic priest do get married, unless u are ignorant of it. celibacy is a discipline many pries take on it is not a dogma.

Ubenedictus:
The bible didnt record everything that the apostles did, their death weren't even recorded, do u see d work of adrew or bathlomew, can u show me frm d bible if paul died? but d early xtians put all dis down in writing. Some catholic priest do get married, unless u are ignorant of it. celibacy is a discipline many pries take on it is not a dogma.

The Bible may not record the deaths of the apostles but as Christians we hv details of them. There's no detail of Peter bn a Pope. This is propaganda of Catholics.

sekundosekundo:


The Bible may not record the deaths of the apostles but as Christians we hv details of them. There's no detail of Peter bn a Pope. This is propaganda of Catholics.

the same early xtians also record that peter was tthe first bishop of rome i.e pope. The place from which we get the details of the apostles death also tell us where they work.

only when u are ignorantt will u deny thatt there are historic writings that show peter was the first bishop of rome, it is not propagada it is historic fact

Ubenedictus:
the same early xtians also record that peter was tthe first bishop of rome i.e pope. The place from which we get the details of the apostles death also tell us where they work.

only when u are ignorantt will u deny thatt there are historic writings that show peter was the first bishop of rome, it is not propagada it is historic fact

Peter was not a Pope neither did he worship on a Sunday. It's not possible that Apostle Peter bowed b4 Catholic images. Pls follow Peter from the day of Pentecost to his death you will discover that Catholic wasn't in existence. You can google the first Pope and see things for yourself. There's no history of Peter bn a Pope if you hv show me.

sekundosekundo:


The Bible may not record the deaths of the apostles but as Christians we hv details of them. There's no detail of Peter bn a Pope. This is propaganda of Catholics.

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the
Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is
that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like
that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a
death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist,
both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the
implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must
have been there. It was commonly accepted, from
the very first, that both Peter and Paul were
martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian
persecution in the 60s. In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the
way in which the apostolic churches transmit their
lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which
records that Polycarp was placed there by John;
like the church of the Romans, where Clement was
ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope.
Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few
years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made
reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended
his. In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of
Antioch remarked that he could not command the
Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did,
such a comment making sense only if Peter had
been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in
Rome. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that
Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul
were evangelizing in Rome and laying the
foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he
notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor,
that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then
Clement of Rome. Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third
century. A fragment of his work Sketches is
preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical
History, the first history of the Church. Clement
wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at
Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had
been for a long time his follower and who
remembered his sayings, should write down what
had been proclaimed.” Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the
Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When
Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–
68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the
performance of certain miracles which he worked
by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and
established a firm and steadfast temple to God.” These citations could be multiplied. No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in
Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they
are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony
carries enormous weight.

sekundosekundo:


Peter was not a Pope neither did he worship on a Sunday. It's not possible that Apostle Peter bowed b4 Catholic images. Pls follow Peter from the day of Pentecost to his death you will discover that Catholic wasn't in existence. You can google the first Pope and see things for yourself. There's no history of Peter bn a Pope if you hv show me.

Eusebius of caesaria is the foremost christian historian from that time

Eusebius of Caesaria (A.D. 265-340) tells us in his "Church History" who succeeded him: Ch. 2
"After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle". Ch. 13
"After [Emperor] Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him. In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve
years [Note: it was actually 9 years], delivered his office to Anencletus. But Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian after he had reigned two years and the same number of months." Ch. 15
"In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement
succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve
years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows: 'With Clement and the rest of my fellow- laborers whose names are in the book of life.'" And so forth.
Does your
faith community have a lineage like the one below?

Ubenedictus:
Eusebius of Caesaria (A.D. 265-340) tells us in his "Church History" who succeeded him: Ch. 2
"After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle". Ch. 13
"After [Emperor] Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him. In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve
years [Note: it was actually 9 years], delivered his office to Anencletus. But Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian after he had reigned two years and the same number of months." Ch. 15
"In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement
succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve
years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows: 'With Clement and the rest of my fellow- laborers whose names are in the book of life.'" And so forth (read what that 4th Pope, Clement,
wrote about apostolic succession here). Does your
faith community have a lineage like the one below?

Compiled by Catholic to deceive the gullible. Catholics and Idol worshipers are the same.

sekundosekundo:


Compiled by Catholic to deceive the gullible. Catholics and Idol worshipers are the same.

Lol , is that all you could say? You don't have any sources that says otherwise?

sekundosekundo:


Compiled by Catholic to deceive the gullible. Catholics and Idol worshipers are the same.

eusebius of caesaria is a christian historian any history student will know his works, they were written by him and contain the history of abt 300yrs of christianity. The fact that you think the catholic church wrote the works of eusebius to decieve people show you are ignorant of simple christian history go and educate yourself.

This below was written by by another early xtian.

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul],
having founded and built up the church
[of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the
episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies
3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

sekundosekundo:


Peter was not a Pope neither did he worship on a Sunday. It's not possible that Apostle Peter bowed b4 Catholic images. Pls follow Peter from the day of Pentecost to his death you will discover that Catholic wasn't in existence. You can google the first Pope and see things for yourself. There's no history of Peter bn a Pope if you hv show me.

were all these below also written by the catholic church?

St. Irenaeus "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul],
having founded and built up the church
[of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the
episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies
3:3:3 [A.D. 189]). Tertullian "[T]his is the way in which the apostolic
churches transmit their lists: like the
church of the Smyrneans, which records
that Polycarp was placed there by John,
like the church of the Romans, where
Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]). The Little Labyrinth "Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of
Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth
[A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History
5:28:3).

sekundosekundo:


Compiled by Catholic to deceive the gullible. Catholics and Idol worshipers are the same.

what historic source do u have that state otherwise,

You can read about the works of eusebius below, they werent writting by the catholic church to decieve people

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius

Geist:
Lol , is that all you could say? You don't have any sources that says otherwise?

good point, at least u noticed she isnt refuting anything

sekundosekundo:


Compiled by Catholic to deceive the gullible. Catholics and Idol worshipers are the same.

But you believe the bible books are scripture as compiled by the same Catholic Church?!!!!!

I doubt the OP wanted this thread to become another Catholic Bashing thread!! OP may want to get posters back on track.

btoks:

But you believe the bible books are scripture as compiled by the same Catholic Church?!!!!!

I doubt the OP wanted this thread to become another Catholic Bashing thread!! OP may want to get posters back on track.

They compiled the Bible and they end up worshiping Idol.

sekundosekundo:


They compiled the Bible and they end up worshiping Idol.

And yet you cant refute any of the points that i raised but have no problem with glib comments.

btoks:

But you believe the bible books are scripture as compiled by the same Catholic Church?!!!!!

I doubt the OP wanted this thread to become another Catholic Bashing thread!! OP may want to get posters back on track.

I guess i have some blame in derailing d thread.

Ubenedictus:
And yet you cant refute any of the points that i raised but have no problem with glib comments.

You didn't make any point. Your comments sounds like a combined urine of teenagers.

sekundosekundo:


You didn't make any point. Your comments sounds like a combined urine of teenagers.

Which u couldnt refute, u didnt provide a single historic source or propose an intelligible point. since u have descended to insult that shows u really have no point.