₦airaland Forum

@pilgrim.1

Bros, for those who call themselves "Christians" and want to "agree" that Jesus himself guilty of this direct injusction, it is not my worry. The Lord Himself observes all things and all accusations made against Him. What I do know is that He is my only MASTER (Matthew 23:8 & 10).

One does not have to be Christian to have common sense.

@Olabowale

Just my casual observation, as a layman and a beginning student of religion:

Quote
So, as it is, I started out by pointing that in Matthew 23:9, the Lord taught that we should call no man on earth "father", which is clear in context that such a term is not to be taken as an official title among Christians.

As I read the summation of that verse, Matt 23 Verse, as it is presented above, I will take it that Jesus was the speaker. But his instruction was that "NO MAN," (any male) on earth, should be called "FATHER." If we have to follow it, what was Joseph the Capenter to him? What do we humans, sons and daughters of our mothers call the men who sired us? Are they not our fathers? Are we, all of us, Christians and nonchristians and oh yes, Jesus himself guilty of this direct injusction from the lips of "Master" Jesus? This is an impossible commandment to obey, if you are a daughter or a son of a man still on earth! Fortunately, my father had long passed. May Allah the Almight make him one of the people of Jannah! Amin. So to all the believing males and females (fathers and mothers), who had passed on as Muslims. Amin.

This makes much more sense than what pilgrim.1 is saying.  And I think most people will agree with you here. . . .

Understanding me is easy, if you cared. None of the apostles went about with the title of POPE.

More than that, if you assumed they did, I simply asked how many POPES were in the churches during the apostle Peter's day - you have always ducked that one and never thought it wise to offer an answer.

Next, I tried to help you see that Matthew 23:8-10 reminds us what the Lord said, and that is when you frantically starting running to non-Catholic websites to cut and paste. If I showed you matters from any website at all, you would hola back with your grand excuse that "they are ANTI-Catholic websites"!! You are just such a laugh! Well done this afternoon! Grin

It looks like you are arguing for the sake of arguing.  I never said that the apostles addressed themselves as 'Pope'.  What i said was that most early church bishops were addressed as 'Pope' or 'Popa' or father.  Just as we address our spiritual leaders as 'father' or 'Popa' or 'Pope'.  I showed you from the bible that the apostles (well at least Paul) referred to themselves as spiritual 'fathers'.  They are not addressed as 'Pope' (english for Popa). But they refer to themselves as 'father' (Popa: latin for father).  The term 'pope' is our way of addressing our spiritual leader.  The term pope derives from the latin term 'popa', meaning father. There were no popes during the days of the apostle because the word 'Pope' did not in use at the time. Plainly put, we call the leaders of our church, from the times of the apostles to today as 'fathers'. We call all of the successors of 'Peter' the term Pope. After posting all this greek and such, what is your point?  Can you plainly state what you are getting at?

Please where in any one of those verse is the word POPE?!?

let me post it again:

The Pope (from Latin: [size=15pt]"papa" or "father" from Greek πάπας, pápas, "papa", originally written πάππας, páppas,[/size] as in Odyssey VI.57; Papa in Italian) is the Bishop of Rome, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and head of state of Vatican City. The current (265th) pope is Pope Benedict XVI, who was elected April 19, 2005 in papal conclave.

The office of the pope is called the Papacy; his ecclesiastical jurisdiction is called the "Holy See" (Sancta Sedes in Latin) or "Apostolic See" (the latter on the basis that both St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred at Rome).

In addition to his spiritual role, the pope is Head of State of the independent sovereign state of the Vatican City, a city-state entirely enclaved by the city of Rome.

Please understand - "καθηγητης" is "master" in Greek, not "teacher". There is another Greek word for teacher - διδάσκαλος, and it does not mean that same as "master".

So here: they are not the same and cannot be confused simply because the NIV is confusing them.

            "καθηγητης"       -    Master
            "διδάσκαλος"      -    Teacher.

As far as ecclesiatical authority is concerned, Christ in Matthew 23:8 & 10 said we should not address men as MASTER; but he did not say we should not address men as teacher. The confusion for many is that they are forcing the word teacher into Matthew 23:10 and using that as an excuse to teach that men can therefore be called FATHER! This roundabout excuse is still missing the point - because Christ never said what these men are teaching - and that is why they continue to switch the actual terms and insert "teacher" in Matthew 23:10 where the actual word is MASTER.

Do not confuse "καθηγητης"  for  "διδάσκαλος" - they are not the same!

My friends. . . .for those who are still reading this, go and look up the καθηγητης for yourselves and see who is fooling who.  I never said καθηγητης cannot mean master.  What I am saying is that καθηγητης can also mean teacher. . . .that's why many bibles translates it as such.

I noted that most people mistranslate these words because they ignore the etymology of RABBI. I have said so before. . . I have said so repeatedly. . . I have demonstrated it in 4 clear outlines. I don't see where you took the time to show where they dealt with it and showed you to correct word. You seem to be running away with weak ideas and sweating to force your presumptions into a vacant canvass. I implore you - go back and see what Greek term was used in Matthew 23:10 - and call that "teacher" if it helps your conscience. Afterwards, I'll come back and ask you further questions that will help you see the point.

As long as you know (pilgrim.1) that most people (scholars) do not favor your view point; this is settled.

Excuse me? Who between us used the word "TITLE" at first? You make me laugh! Cheesy

I'm not understanding you. . . .I told you way back when that we (catholics) call our pasters 'father', because they are our spiritual fathers in Christ.  You then brought up the Pope.  I gave you the meaning of the word 'Pope' and why we use the term 'Pope'.  You then came back and said Mathew 23:9 forbids us from calling someone father in an official way.  Ok, where does the bible forbid us from calling our pastors father in an official way.  I then posted scripture for you of Paul calling himself the spiritual father of one of his followers, you then posted:

Please where in any one of those verse is the word POPE?!?

Again, the term 'Pope' means 'father' (see above).

@pilgrim.1

The Pope (from Latin: "papa" or "father" from Greek πάπας, pápas, "papa", originally written πάππας, páppas, as in Odyssey VI.57; Papa in Italian) is the Bishop of Rome, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and head of state of Vatican City. The current (265th) pope is Pope Benedict XVI, who was elected April 19, 2005 in papal conclave.

The office of the pope is called the Papacy; his ecclesiastical jurisdiction is called the "Holy See" (Sancta Sedes in Latin) or "Apostolic See" (the latter on the basis that both [size=14pt]St. Peter and St. Paul[/size] were martyred at Rome).

In addition to his spiritual role, the pope is Head of State of the independent sovereign state of the Vatican City, a city-state entirely enclaved by the city of Rome.

MAGISTER
Noun
1. Master; sir; -- a title of the Middle Ages, given to a person in authority, or to one having a license from a university to teach philosophy and the liberal arts.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Date "MAGISTER" was first used in popular English literature: sometime before 1509. (references)

Etymology: Magister \Ma*gis"ter\, noun. [Latin expression See Master.]. (Websters 1913)

Did you not read the above. . . .So when I address someone as Mr. such and such.  Am I not giving them the title of Master.  The root of the word 'Mister' is derived from the same word as 'Magister'.  Go and look up the etimology of the word mister.  According to pilgrim.1 we have to stop addressing people as mister because we are giving them the title of 'master'.

Here are the verses 8 to 10 in Matthew 23 AGAIN in NIV~~

             ‘[8]"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have
              only one Master and you are all brothers. [9]And do not call
              anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is
              in heaven. [10]Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have
              one Teacher, the Christ.’   ~~ [NIV]

Both ‘master’ and ‘teacher’ are the same Greek word (καθηγητής - kathēgētēs) in those verses; so why the inconsistency of switching between MASTER and TEACHER where the Greek term is the same?!? Meanwhile, there is no such word as "teacher" (διδάσκαλος) in Matthew 23:8-10. Go and do some simple checking and let your heart admit to God's truth.

So, now the cat is out of the bag.  The NIV and most other bibles translates it as the above.  I looked up that greek word also and this is what it means:

καθηγητης  noun - nominative singular masculine
kathegetes  kath-ayg-ay-tace':  a guide, i.e. (figuratively) a teacher -- master.

So, for those who are reading this judge for yourselves who is twisting what.  Most bibles translate that as teacher and the meaning of the word 'Magister' (from the Catholic Douay Rheims and the Latin Vulgate) also can mean teacher or guide.  You seem to only want to use that word in the sense of master.  And this argument of official and unofficial title stuff is you blowing hot air.  I posted what the word Pope means and told you why we call him the Pope.  Where in those passages does it say we can call people father but not officially (i guess this is according to Pope pilgrim.1)?  If I have an adopted son are you telling me that he cannot officially call me father even though I'm not his biological father?  Nonsense. . . .that child would be my son and I his father. . . .officially and unofficially. 

I remember singing this song when I was a child:  'Father Abraham had many sons and many sons had father Abraham.  I am one of them and so are you.  So lets just praise the Lord (well I think thats how it goes).  So according to the all and wise pilgrim.1 this song is wrong, abi?  And look at the passages below.  The below passages from the bible show how we (catholics) view our pastors.

1 Corinthians 4:15

15 for even though you might have ten thousand slaves to look after you in Christ, you still have no more than one father, and[b] it was I who fathered you in Christ Jesus[/b], by the gospel.

Philemon 1:10

10 I am appealing to you for a child of mine, whose father I became [/b]while wearing these chains: I mean Onesimus.

Mathew 3:9

9 and do not presume to tell yourselves, "[b]We have Abraham as our father," because, I tell you, God can raise children for Abraham from these stones.

There were 'teachers' (plural), but that was more a function than an official title among the apostles or early Christians. We find that this function (not official title) was recognized among several leaders (such as Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul (later Paul) in Acts 13:1). Others could mature in their developments to be teachers (Heb. 5:12); and again the term is used in the epistles not as an official title such as the Catholic Church now thinks of it, but rather as a function of the service that various men render in the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:28 and Eph. 4:11-12).

Your hatred for the catholic church is too much. Jesus says not to call one another 'rabbi', 'father', 'teacher'. Look at the way you are trying to twist your way into adding your interpretation into the scriptures.

In humility, it were better to own up to the truth of God's word than push my own agenda. So, as it is, I started out by pointing that in Matthew 23:9, the Lord taught that we should call no man on earth "father", which is clear in context that such a term is not to be taken as an official title among Christians. However, you wanted us to look at all three verses of that chapter - that is, 8, 9, and 10 of Matthew 23. That being so, the words used are precisely as I have demonstrated earlier:

                  8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master (καθηγητής),
                  even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

                  9And call no man your father upon the earth:
                  for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

                  10Neither be ye called masters (καθηγητής):  for one is your Master (καθηγητής), even Christ.

Any you say we catholics are twisting God's word.  So in your bible verse ten above has 'master' and not teacher?  Anyway, thats beside the point.  What I'm trying to get you to look at are Jesus' other commandments and him telling us to not call one another rabbi, father, and teacher.  You say we shouldn't give people the title of father.  Pilgrim.1 you seem like a reasonable person. . . .Are you also saying we shouldn't give people the title of teacher, rabbi or of master. . . .my friend, what does 'Oga' mean.  In Igbo we say 'Nna m ukwu' (boss/master).  You are stretching this too much.  You are puting your own. . . .should I say it. . . .twist to the passage.  Reading stuff into the passage that is not there. You posted verse 9 without posting Jesus' other commandments (in verse 8 and 10) to show something that was not there.  Hoping that nobody would go and read it for themselves. All this stuff are from anti-catholic websites. Shame, shame. . . . Another question, you still did not look at those verses I posted.  We have Paul and Peter (i think) referring to themselves as fathers of many of the early christians.  In those same verses they are calling the followers of christ 'my children'.  What were they doing?

ol. . . .Ok, let me post the full context:

Mathew 23:8-10

'You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers.  9 You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.  10 Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ.

What about these other commandments of Jesus? When you say “call no man father,” they must also argue that we cannot call any man teacher or rabbi, either.

1. Rabbi (master)
2. Father (father)
3. Teacher (teacher)

So, I guess we are not to give people the title of teacher, ee kwa?  Go back and review the passages I posted regarding the apostles referring to themselves as spiritual fathers. . . .and present your take on them.

Please check again. You're wrong.

lol. . . .I just posted the definition of rabbi and you are telling me I'm wrong. So, the word 'rabbi' only means master? Is that what you are telling me. If that's the case. . . .prove it.

Yes, my translation says MASTER and not teacher. The word teacher is not what was meant by the Greek term Rabbi. Can I then take it that your explanation is wrong?

My translation says teacher and not master.  And if you didn't now 'rabbi' means teacher or see below definitions:

Rabbi:

1. the chief religious official of a synagogue, trained usually in a theological seminary and duly ordained, who delivers the sermon at a religious service and performs ritualistic, pastoral, educational, and other functions in and related to his or her capacity as a spiritual leader of Judaism and the Jewish community. Compare cantor (def. 2).
2. a title of respect for a Jewish scholar or teacher.
3. a Jewish scholar qualified to rule on questions of Jewish law.
4. any of the Jewish scholars of the 1st to 6th centuries a.d. who contributed to the writing, editing, or compiling of the Talmud.

shifting the goal posts . . . circular reasoning, round about arguments saying nothing . . . classical hallmark of the confused.
Paul wasnt martyred until AD 67, how then did Peter come from nowhere to take over a church that Paul had set up within 2 years of the writing of Romans? Makes no sense.

That's why Rome is called the city that is 'twice blessed 'by the early christians because Peter and Paul were martyred there in 67 AD.

Perhaps before laying accusations you shld take the time to read like i have done. If i wasnt 100% sure of my claim based on evidence i wouldnt be arguing this issue. Its about time you laid aside church dogma and did some digging yourself. I notice that you don't even look at the bible at all . . . it seems to be a chronic issue with catholics who claim own the bible.

Oh o, so you are 100% sure that Peter was never bishop of Rome. And you come to this conclusion from reading the book of Romans or did the Holy Spirit come down and give you this information? I just showed you a possible chronological sequence of one possibility regarding Peter being the bishop of Rome. And yet you are saying you are 100% sure. Well, we will just have to agree to disagree.

It is generally accepted that Paul wrote his letter to the Romans betwee 54-58 AD. According to Catholic tradition, Peter was Bishop of Rome from 32-67AD. Meaning Paul was writing his letters to a people who had been under Peter's leadership for over 20yrs.

This is not true. . . .Peter was Pope (not bishop of Rome) from the time of the death of Christ (around 32) to his death in 67.  So check this out. . . .

Peter becomes the head of the apostles aka Pope (32  -67 AD) -----> Paul writes the letter to the Romans (54 -58 AD) ----> Peter becomes bishop of Rome (60 - 67 AD)

Is the above not a possibility?

Its true the bible does not explicitly say peter was bishop of Rome but the bible also states (not explicitly) that Peter could never have been bishop of Rome.

Finally, we agree although the 'never' part is not true. You are basing your assumption on the fact that Paul did not greet Peter when he was writing to Romans. The most you can say about that fact is that Peter was not in Rome when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. You can't just categorically say. . . .oh, that's proof that Peter was never bishop of Rome. Davidylan, that is not proof of Peter never being the bishop of Rome. You can't prove something from silence.

However you didnt even quote any scripture to defend your hypothesis.
You deliberately pretend not to grasp the glaring silent witness that the book of Romans is - the fact that Paul greets 27 brethren in the church of Romans while glaringly omitting to acknowledge the work of the alleged founding Bishop is not something you can sweep under the carpet.

Have you ever thought about when the book of Romans was written. Peter may have arrived in Rome after Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. How is that proof?

Neither do i believe you do, see below:

You: Proving something is A, means that you would have to show proof that that something is A, positive evidence.

However, you have claimed that Peter was Bishop of Rome with NO shred of biblical evidence.
You have claimed that the bible is silent on whether Peter was or was not Bishop of Rome with NO evidence.

You: What you just did was post scripture and hypothesize that Peter could not have been in Rome because Paul didn't greet him.

However you didnt even quote any scripture to defend your hypothesis.
You deliberately pretend not to grasp the glaring silent witness that the book of Romans is - the fact that Paul greets 27 brethren in the church of Romans while glaringly omitting to acknowledge the work of the alleged founding Bishop is not something you can sweep under the carpet.

You: As far as his letters, I believe that Peter was writing '1 Peter' in Babylon (aka Rome).

Again . . . another baseless claim that you don't even try to prove (in our case, eyes. . . .lol).

You:My friend, the most you can do is say the bible is silent on the issue of Peter being the Bishop of Rome

Again the bible is a silent witness to a fact that Peter was no Bishop of Rome.

And you ask me if i know the rudiments of debate? don't talk about things you severely lack too, throwing stones from  glass house isnt wise.

Lol. . . .an angry man opens up his mouth and shuts his ears. 

This is what I have been saying.

1.  The bible is silent as to whether Peter was or was not Bishop of Rome (this means that either statement cannot be proven from the bible)
2.  Peter was bishop of Rome because the early church christians attested to it
3.  I believe '1 Peter' was written in Rome because Peter makes reference to Babylon (code name for Rome)

Are there any other questions I did not answer?

Where is your proof that Peter was never bishop of Rome.  I have already acknowledged that the bible does not explicitly say that Peter was Bishop of Rome.  What else do you want from me.

@pilgrim.1

The apostles did not refer to any Christian as Rabbi - the meaning of Rabbi is MASTER -

        'Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them,
        What seek ye?
        They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,)
        where dwellest thou? [John 1:38]

As can be seen in your direct quote of Matthew 23:8, Jesus did not mean for any one of them to refer to the other as Rabbi - (ie., MASTER); and none of the apostles used that term for anyone among themselves.

In my bible John 1:38 says:

Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them, "What are you looking for?"  The said to him, "Rabbi" (which translated means teacher), where are you staying?

Does your translation have master instead of teacher?

Read all through the book of Romans. Its inconcievable that Paul could have preached and greeted every member of the church but the Bishop. Galatians 2 clearly tells us Peter was sent to the circumcised.
Acts has nothing to say about Peter being in Rome but plenty about Peter being in Jerusalem and Paul being in Rome.
Peter wrote 2 books, neither was to his alleged Roman church.

I think we also need to clarify something - when you talk of the "early church" i'm sure its not the church in Acts you mean to say. They had no such testimony as u falsely claim.

Do you know anything about debate.  Proving something is A, means that you would have to show proof that that something is A, positive evidence.  What you just did was post scripture and hypothesize that Peter could not have been in Rome because Paul didn't greet him.  As far as his letters, I believe that Peter was writing '1 Peter' in Babylon (aka Rome).  My friend, the most you can do is say the bible is silent on the issue of Peter being the Bishop of Rome.

On what basis then does the catholic claim of Peter being bishop of Rome stand?
The bible actually disproves the fallacy that Peter was bishop of Rome.

The testimony of the early church (what I posted a while back, what you criticized as biased catholic bishops). Ok, prove from the scriptures that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome. . . .

@Davidylan,

This is the simple question - was Peter BIBLICALLY the Bishop of Rome?

don't expect an answer. I'm out. I'D rather argue with nimshi.

I have answered all of your questions.  What question did I not answer.  Let me state it again. . . .the scriptures do not prove or disprove the fact of Peter being the Bishop of Rome.  What other questions did I not answer. 

. . . .Anyone who wants to perish on the altar of catholic lies is free to do so.

And your father is a lier.

Let me post Mathew 23:8-10 again:

'You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers.  9 You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.  10 Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ.

then you wrote:

The apostles did not refer to any Christian as Rabbi - the meaning of Rabbi is MASTER -

        'Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them,
        What seek ye?
        They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,)
        where dwellest thou? [John 1:38]

As can be seen in your direct quote of Matthew 23:8, Jesus did not mean for any one of them to refer to the other as Rabbi - (ie., MASTER); and none of the apostles used that term for anyone among themselves.

Lol. . . .you are stretching this too much.  So, you mean to tell me that rabbi only means 'master'.  What about in verse 10 where is says "Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teacher.  Please read those verses again with some of the below passages to gain a better understanding of what Mathew 23:9 is saying and why catholics call priest fathers.

Acts 7:1-3

1 The high priest asked, 'Is this true?'  2 He replied, 'My brothers, [b]my fathers, [/b]listen to what I have to say. The God of glory appeared to our ancestor Abraham, while he was in Mesopotamia before settling in Haran, 3 and said to him, "Leave your country, your kindred and your father's house for this country which I shall show you."

1 John 2:12-14

12 I am writing to you, children, because your sins have been forgiven through his name.  13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you have come to know the One who has existed since the beginning. I am writing to you, young people, because you have overcome the Evil One.  14 I have written to you, children, because you have come to know the Father. I have written to you, parents, because you have come to know the One who has existed since the beginning. I have written to you, young people, because you are strong, and God's wo

1 John 2:18

Children, this is the final hour; you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and now many Antichrists have already come; from this we know that it is the final hour.

1 Corinthians 4:14

14 I am writing all this not to make you ashamed but simply to remind you, as my dear children;  15 for even though you might have ten thousand slaves to look after you in Christ, you still have no more than one father, and it was I who fathered you in Christ Jesus, by the gospel.

The one thing I asked, you haven't given me - that's why I asked in another form. If you still cannot give any substance to your claim, no worries. However, that many people make Peter the first Pope of the Catholic Church without foundation from God's Word is the reason why Catholics continue to fail to substantiate these assertions thereto. This is the reason why I was trying to make the question easier for you by asking that you carefully examine what the connection between Bishop and Pope might have been from Scripture. Since you don't have that one as well, no worries.

Your opinion is dully noted. . . .during the selection of the next pope I'll ask them (cardinals) to come to you and get your take on the whole thing.  You who do not study the writings of the early church (who were catholic) and want to come and preach bible to catholics from your shortened protestant version. . . .lol

Again, the bible doesn't say anything about celebrating christmas.  So, you are still celebrating a non-biblical holiday.

I never asked you anything thereto. Please remained focused and let's deal with one issue after another.

Do you celebrate Christmas?  Do you know how it came about?  Do you know what institution established the celebration of christmas (I'll help you: the Papacy).

What are you talking about? Cheesy How did Mary, Elizabet and John the Baptiste know that Peter was the first to prclaim Jesus as Lord?

Lol. . . .what I meant was, Mary et al. knew that Jesus was the Lord before Peter.

Oya, post Mathew 23:9 and lets talk about it.  Since you want to go there.

See am:

         "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. "

lol. . . .Ok, let me post the full context:

Mathew 23:8-10

'You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers.  9 You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.  10 Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ.

What about these other commandments of Jesus? When you say “call no man father,” they must also argue that we cannot call any man teacher or rabbi, either.

Let me post other scripture to put these verses into perspective.  No, better yet, before I do that pilgrim.1 tell me what this passage means to you.  Give me your personal interpretation of the it.

But, like I said before. . . .YES! Peter was bishop of Rome.  Another thing, it be like say you people keep changing topic of this thread.

Okay, you don't have to shout. "Peter was bishop of Rome", I hear. Can I see you establish it in Scripture now?

How many times do I have to say it. . . .the scripture is silent on whether or not Peter was Bishop of Rome.  We have to rely on the testimony of the early christians to prove it or disprove it.  So that means, you will have to find writings from the early church, historians, etc. to disprove (or prove) the fact of Peter being the bishop of Rome.  Its like saying Shaka Zulu wasn't the leader of the Zulus because its nowhere in the bible.  Is your head correct?

When I started it simply, Catholic answers were like words flying all around the place. An example, I don't remember asking to be reminded about December 25 before you spooled off on that one. That is why after my penultimate response to yours, I simply outlined what the real issues were, so that you will not predictably come back with the same complaints.

Again, the bible doesn't say anything about celebrating christmas.  So, you are still celebrating a non-biblical holiday.

Na your mouth I hear am! Grin No be you talk say na Peter first proclaim that Jesus is Lord?

Ok, you are right. . . .Mary knew (since she is the Mother of God), Elizabeth knew, and John the Baptiste knew and maybe others.

Now, please show us where Peter occupied the office of the Papacy in Scripture. Granted: you said the Pope is not in the Bible, no wahala. That one which you have tried to enunciate, can you show me from where it is in the Bible, even though the term is not used there?

Also, since you made the inference that the word Pope is from the latin for 'father', em. . . can you reconcile that with what Jesus said in Matthew 23:9?

Peter is the first among the apostles. . . .The papacy is just a group of people (i believe of mostly bishops) that help the pope in governing the church (spreading the gospel, correcting false doctrines, helping those who are less fortunate, etc.).  The word 'papacy' is nowhere in scripture.  Just like the word 'trinity' or 'easter'.

Hmmm, you scored 2/20. . . which translates to about 10%. You owe me 90%! Grin
Okay, on a serious note, I asked how many bishops there were during the apostles' time; not how many apostles lived through 3 bishops! Kai! You read the question or you just make up your own exam? Kiss

I believe Peter was the first bishop of Rome and during the course of his bishopric (not sure if thats a word) there was no other bishop of Rome.  I hope that answers your question.

Anyway, the question was: "3. Was Peter a "Pope" because of the title "Bishop"?
I didn't ask if Peter was was Bishop because of Rome; so the idea of Alexandria, Corinth or Jerusalem does not arise. All I have seen is an assertion that seriously lacks facts. Any attempt as a second go will be welcome.

The term 'Pope' just means spiritual father.  Peter was given the authority to lead the church by Jesus.  Let me answer plainly, Peter was not "Pope" because of the title "Bishop". 

Now, please show us where Peter occupied the office of the Papacy in Scripture. Granted: you said the Pope is not in the Bible, no wahala. That one which you have tried to enunciate, can you show me from where it is in the Bible, even though the term is not used there?

Also, since you made the inference that the word Pope is from the latin for 'father', em. . . can you reconcile that with what Jesus said in Matthew 23:9?

Madam, more anti-catholic website stuff. . . .I know you have to be smarter than this.  Oya, post Mathew 23:9 and lets talk about it.  Since you want to go there.

(1)     making of graven images of Mary or any of the apostles or saints

   (2)     bowing down to any graven images

   (3)     worshipping any graven images, serpent, cherubim, or man
                                         (whether latria, dulia, or hyperdulia)

   (4)     praying to Mary or any one of the apostles, angels, or saints

   (5)     referring to Mary as THE SAVIOUR of the people of Rome

   (6)     the idea of any bishop or apostle being referred to as POPE

   (7)     the rites of the Rosary

Madam pilgrim.1 we have thoroughly explained to you and Davidylan what we catholics practice and the misconceptions (maybe even lies) you guys are throwing at us.  Posting things from anti-catholic websites and such.  Oh, you think we don't know.  Well sha, nah that be between you and God.  People should read through this thread and view it for themselves who is twisting what.

Glory to Jesus!

How do claims that somebody going to Rome, evangelizing there, and dying there translate into that person becoming a Bishop of Rome? In other words, a "bishop" translates into "Pope"? I'm still amazed at this kind of circular reasoning that is still missing the point. I'm only interested in seeing how the Bible actually indicates that there was any Pope among the early Christians during the time of the apostles. Do you care to simply show us? I often hear Catholics boast that they are the only right interpreters of the Bible they put together. No wahala - all we need is for them to show us the verse referring to Peter as a pope.

Finally, you guys are acknowledging that Peter went to Rome and died in Rome. . . .Your second question, how does this translate into being the bishop of Rome?  Well, did you read the testimony of some of the bishops of the early church about Peter being the bishop of Rome.  Like I said before the bible is silent on whether or not Peter was bishop of Rome.  In other words you (as the case with me) cannot prove from the bible that Peter was not the bishop of Rome.  I acknowledeged that earlier.  But, like I said before. . . .[size=14pt]YES! Peter was bishop of Rome.[/size]  Another thing, it be like say you people keep changing topic of this thread.

Confession good or bad -----> are catholics saint/Mary worshippers ------> Peter did not go to Rome ------> Babylon doesn't mean Rome ------>
Peter was not bishop of Rome -------->  Testimony of early christians are biased catholic talk ------> Peter was not the Pope

Circular arguments again, my dear. Just one thing, first: after the resurrection, it was not Peter who was first to proclaim Jesus as "Lord". Infact, Peter was not the first to find out about the resurrection -

  (a) Mary was the first to speak of Jesus as 'Lord' after the resurrection:
               "Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord,
                and that he had spoken these things unto her" [John 20:18.]

  (b) John was the next to use the term 'Lord' after the resurrection:
                "Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter,
                 It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord,
                 he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast
                 himself into the sea." [John 21:7]

In Acts 2, Peter and the apostles rose to speak to the crowd about the resurrection, and many believed (verses 14, 36, 41).

The above is good. . . .you get no argument from me. . . .Mary was the first christian. . . .lol

I'm only interested in seeing how the Bible actually indicates that there was any Pope among the early Christians during the time of the apostles. Do you care to simply show us?

The word Pope came from the latin word for 'father'.  In the early church to term Pope or Popa was used to refer to ones bishop.  In other words most bishops were referred to as 'pope'.  Over time it became to be solely used in referring to the successors of Peter (although the coptic church. . . .the church of alexandria, still refer to their bishop as Pope).  The word Pope is not in the bible, but all over the New Testament the apostles refer to themselves as spiritual fathers to the early christians.  That's just what the pope is, he is our spiritual father.

1. How many bishops were there during the time of the apostles?
2. Where do we read that Peter was infact a bishop of Rome?
3. Was Peter a "Pope" because of the title "Bishop"?

Answer 1.  Lets see, John was the last apostle to die (i'm not sure when that was), but I believe he lived through the first three bishops of Rome (Peter, Linus, Anecletus).  You will not find this in the bible, you will have to read through church history.

1 St. Peter (32-67)
2 St. Linus (67-76)
3 St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)

Answer 2.  The bible is silent on whether or not Peter was bishop of Rome.  Again, you will have to rely on the testimony of the early church christians.

Answer 3.  I think you are misunderstanding us catholics. . . .Peter could have been bishop of anywhere (Alexandria, Corinth, Jerusalem, etc.).  Where he was bishop doesn't really matter he still would have been the first pope and the head of the apostles.  Not because of his own authority or of him being a bishop.  He is the pope (our spiritual father) because of the authority given to him by Jesus Christ in Mathew 16:18.

So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

Oga sir, you do know that Peter traveled around right? Even to corinth. but we know that there is a letter to the corinthians by paul. does that mean that peter didn't go to corinth. no.

Maybe you have forgotten that the books in the new testament were not the only books written, they wre chosen to be there. Got it.

Tell them o. . . .The amount of early church testimony of Peter going to Rome and dieing there is too much.  All of the apostolic churches claim that Peter went to Rome, evangelized in Rome, eventually became bishop of Rome, and was martyred in Rome.  And you guys (pilgrim.1 and Davidylan) are saying I should prove it.  Go and read their testimonies again and you (Davidylan, pilgrim.1) come back and disprove it.  You claim that they are biased because they were catholic.  Knock knock knock, all of the early christians were catholic (well at least the orthodox ones).  Who would they be biased against?  These same bishops were the bishops the compiled your bible (by the grace of God and the Holy Spirit).  Yet you claim they were biased.  If thats the case, the bible that you are reading is a biased catholic book. 

St. Athanasius in his Festal Letter, § 39, in 367 AD, published a list of books suitable for reading during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a regional canon for the Eastern Church.  Then the Council of Hippo, a regional council for some of the bishops in the Diocese of Africa, in 393 AD reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus. . . .The Council of Carthage in 397 AD also reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus. Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification. Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate.

Ok, my friends (pilgrim.1 and Davidylan) if Peter wasn't the bishop of Rome, who was the bishop of Rome?  Just because Paul did not acknowledge Peter in the book of Romans does not mean Peter never became bishop of Rome.  Just because Paul evangelised in Rome does not mean Peter (leader of the apostles, given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, first to proclaim Jesus is lord, given a name change to Petros (aka Rock)) did not either.  The early christians called Rome the city were both Peter and Paul taught, and yet still call Peter the bishop of Rome.

Dionysius of Corinth

"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:.

What do you mean 'how'? If, I say if, Peter was ever in Rome, would you agree that he contributed in spreading the gospel there?

how does that make him bishop of rome? circular arguments bore me.

Is the above an acknowledgment from you that Peter may have been in Rome and preached the gosple?  Once we establish that there is a possibility of Peter being in Rome then we can move on to whether or not Peter was bishop of Rome.  Another thing, are you totaling dismissing the testimony of the list of early church christians who claim that Peter was bishop of Rome.

how?

What do you mean 'how'? If, I say if, Peter was ever in Rome, would you agree that he contributed in spreading the gospel there?

Ah the usual trump card when catholics get stuck with their "traditions".  Grin
- As a christian, ransomed from the law of sin and death, you are a walking celebration of Christ's birth every second. Dec 25 is for those who wish to kill chickens and make noise.
- The bible doesnt list what books are inspired . . . but that in itself is a very weak argument, the thief on the cross didnt even have the chance to read anything. heck he's in heaven while you and me are here arguing on NL.
- The bible never says to go to church on sundays. it says not to forsake the assembling together of the saints, it doesnt even say assemble in a church. if u choose to assemble in the house of a brother on monday nights (Just like Paul and co sometimes did) it is acceptable of Him.

Omenuko, we've had enough of this pitiful whines about sola scriptura when you guys run into problem. Its either the bible is the sole authority on God or not. which is it or do we go read another bible?

And your explanations of why you celebrate Jesus's birthday during the pagan celebration of the winter solstice is quite pathetic.  Your reasons for calling a set of letters and books the word of God is quite pathetic.  You going to worship on the 'Day of the sun' with no justification is quite pathetic.  But when I show you passage from the bible that implies that Peter was in Rome and show you writings of early christians asserting that Peter was bishop of Rome you say I am wrong and need to agree with you.  Where in the bible does it say the bible is the sole authority on God.  Because in my bible it says:

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - I write this to you in the hope that I may be able to come to you soon; 15 but in case I should be delayed, I want you to know how people ought to behave in God's household -- that is, in the Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth. .

and Mathew 16:18-19

So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

no problem.  Grin Was Peter Bishop of Rome or not? My father isnt campaigning for the post.

How many times do I have to answer you?  [size=16pt]YES![/size]  Peter was bishop of Rome.

Let me ask you a pointed question: how many bishops of Rome or any one place were there during the apostles' day?

Saint Peter and saint Paul both evangelized in Rome.  I agree the bible doesn't explicitly say "Peter was the bishop of Rome".  I'm ok with that because I don't practice 'sola scriptura'.  Does the bible say we should celebrate Jesus birthday on Dec 25., does it list what books are inspired.  Does it say we should go to church on sunday.  Get to your point already.

- It is Paul's testimony not mine. I will believe him over your "early church catholics".
- Nowhere did i insinuate that Peter never went to Rome at any point in his life (another way of muddying the waters).
- You havent a shred of proof that Peter was Bishop of Rome, you can't try to pan off your own claim by asking me to prove it isnt true.
- The driving point is simple - a house built on lies cannot stand.

Your father is a lier. . . .