LordReed:


Any student of world history would be better suited to answer the question. Christians hardly bother with such things.

Not better suited but believe what they're made to.
Just as students of world history would believe Muslims actually brought down the WTC.
However; only those at the top echelon for Christianity are better suited.

aadoiza:

Not better suited but believe what they're made to.
Just as students of world history would believe Muslims actually brought down the WTC.
However; only those at the top echelon of Christianity are better suited.

LoL! Top echelon indeed. And those are found on Nairaland?

OK so who brought down the WTC?

LordReed:


LoL! Top echelon indeed. And those are found on Nairaland?

OK so who brought down the WTC?

You never know; they could be on Nairaland.

What I'm trying to say is that there are almost always official and unofficial stories of every event that happens, and the closer you're to the source the more privy you'd be to the unofficial story. After all, history is never objective.

Ont the WTC, let's leave that to close quarters.

aadoiza:


You never know; they could be on Nairaland.

What I'm trying to say is that there are almost always official and unofficial stories of every event that happens, and the closer you're to the source the more privy you'd be to the official story. After all, history is never objective.

Ont the WTC, let's leave that to close quarters.

LoL you folk always lay claim to some secret knowledge or the other. Bring it to open now and it becomes a problem. Why?

LordReed:


LoL you folk always lay claim to some secret knowledge or the other. Bring it to open now and it becomes a problem. Why?

It wasn't a claim but a reference. And It's no secret knowledge for it's everywhere. You probably just haven't been looking at the right places. Besides, bringing it to the open ain't gonna change nothing unless it's done by the authorities.
I dey go sleep joor.

aadoiza:

It wasn't a claim but a reference. And It's no secret knowledge for it's everywhere. You probably just haven't been looking at the right places. Besides, bringing it to the open ain't gonna change nothing unless it's done by the authorities.
I dey go sleep joor.

LMFAO!

Rome has the (c) and (r) to jesus christ..i.e copy right and trade mark of jesus.

sonmvayina:


There was none... He called the council and also chaired it, it was at that council the jesus was Created and Christianity given birth to by simple majority.. They had 2 options mithrasm or go with Christianity... They voted to go with Christianity.. It was at that council that the Niceam creed was also formulated and endorsed... No jesus or Christianity prior to that time..

it seems you are largely ignorant about this topic, there were Christians in Rome before Constantine was born, people like St clement of Rome, St Justin martyr etc, research on those names, they are historical and are Christians even before Constantine.

Anas09:

That is the point. Politics and Military force weakened Christianity. Christ never raise His Body to have earthly power.

The Catholic Church tried by all means to destroy Christianity, but failed.

What most of you don't know is that, Christianity was formidable and completely in control of it borders before satan crashed in.

Christianity grows when it's most persecuted, it dies when lies at rest.

Rome is not the Capital of Christianity, not even the existing Jerusalem.

1. how did military power weaken the church? Did the church even exercise military power, or are you confusing the state with the church?

2. Another dumb submission, how did the Catholic Church try to end Christianity when for over a milenium the Catholic Church was Christianity?

3. What borders are you talking about? The church has never been at rest it has always been at war with the devil in what ever guise he has appeared through the centuries

bloodofthelamb:


What do you mean by pre-eminent Christian? Do we have such a thing as that?

yes dear, preeminence belongs to he who has primacy, read up Matt 16:16-20 and Isaiah 22:22

Anas09:

Of course, everything that doesn't agree with T.C.H is always upside down. lolzzzzz.

Come out from her: Mother of all harlots.

lol Jack chick fanatics, may God save us from them

sonmvayina:


There was none... He called the council and also chaired it, it was at that council the jesus was Created and Christianity given birth to by simple majority.. They had 2 options mithrasm or go with Christianity... They voted to go with Christianity.. It was at that council that the Niceam creed was also formulated and endorsed... No jesus or Christianity prior to that time..

you need to go back and read up the council of Nicaea, it was a councIL of bishops, if there was no Christianity where did Constantine get the bishops from? Funny enough you said there were two options, how come Christianity was an option when you claim it hadn't been formed, Mithra was never discussed at Nicaea and after the council was open Constantine took a back seat

Ubenedictus:
lol Jack chick fanatics, may God save us from them

Who be Jack Chick?

Ubenedictus:


1. how did military power weaken the church? Did the church even exercise military power, or are you confusing the state with the church?

2. Another dumb submission, how did the Catholic Church try to end Christianity when for over a milenium the Catholic Church was Christianity?

3. What borders are you talking about? The church has never been at rest it has always been at war with the devil in what ever guise he has appeared through the centuries

I will respond to this later.

Ubenedictus:
it seems you are largely ignorant about this topic, there were Christians in Rome before Constantine was born, people like St clement of Rome, St Justin martyr etc, research on those names, they are historical and are Christians even before Constantine.

It was what was written afterwards.. Not prior.. The history was also formulated.. As time went by..
This is what Christians are saying.. Not what really transpired...

LordReed:


Really? Christianity would have been a worse mess of schism than we have today and would never have had the influence it has today. If you separate the Roman Catholic church from all other sects it would fall to being the 2nd largest religion, after Islam, a religion that was also helped by political and military force. My guy it is obvious that neither Christianity nor Islam would have anywhere the influence they have now without the the injection of political and military power.

you could make all the arguments you want about how the church benefited from state support but that has nothing to do with how Rome took it preeminence because Rome already had that preeminence before Christianity had state support

sonmvayina:


It was what was written afterwards.. Not prior.. The history was also formulated.. As time went by..
This is what Christians are saying.. Not what really transpired...

this is a sad conspiracy theory and I am sad any educated person will believe it because it is totally stupid.

Ask an history this your theory doesn't stand to scrutiny

Ubenedictus:
this is a sad conspiracy theory and I am sad any educated person will believe it because it is totally stupid.

Ask an history this your theory doesn't stand to scrutiny

Read church history by Eusebius...

Anas09:

Who be Jack Chick?

d guy wet dey always shout Babylon the great

Anas09:

Who be Jack Chick?

d guy wey dey always shout Babylon the great

sonmvayina:


Read church history by Eusebius...

I already did, he never said Christianity was formed in Nicaea, clearly you didn't read up, eusebius also mentioned many Christians before Constantine.

alBHAGDADI:


The church the taught is different from Roman Catholic Church which is pagan and of Satan.

where did the church he taught go to that the so called pagans now took over?

Ubenedictus:
this is a sad conspiracy theory and I am sad any educated person will believe it because it is totally stupid.

Ask an history this your theory doesn't stand to scrutiny

Eusebius is notoriously the author of a great many falsehoods – but then he does warn us in his infamous history:

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.

Does that look like somebody who wants to write actual stories?

sonmvayina:


Eusebius is notoriously the author of a great many falsehoods – but then he does warn us in his infamous history:

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.

Does that look like somebody who wants to write actual stories?

yes, that is how all history is recorded.


Events useful to the writer and posterity , do you think historians set out to record all things to the minute details whether relevant or irrelevant to them?

Ubenedictus:
you could make all the arguments you want about how the church benefited from state support but that has nothing to do with how Rome took it preeminence because Rome already had that preeminence before Christianity had state support

That is not true. There were many bishops of different cities in Europe and the Middle East in the time before the Nicaean council. Claiming Rome had a preeminence is not supported by any thing I have seen, feel free to produce evidence to the contrary.

Ubenedictus:
d guy wey dey always shout Babylon the great

Hahahahahahahaha. But nah for Bible i see Babylon the Great, I no sabi Jack Chick.

Ubenedictus:


1. how did military power weaken the church? Did the church even exercise military power, or are you confusing the state with the church?

See. Truth is where everything hinges on.
Now do tell, What was Rome about right from the time of Constantine to when the Pontifex Maximus aka Papacy took over full force, to when it ruled the world with an iron fist? The separation of the Church from state began after the Second World War. This was called the Renaissance era. But, before then it was the Mediaeval era and the Papacy was the Government, it was the educational system, it was the legal system, it was the medicine, it was the Engineering, and it was the religion. Everything was the Catholic Church. You break away, you die.

What resulted to the Dark Ages? It was the agitation to break free from the Catholic fist. Have you heard abt Joan De Ach?

Question is, was this why Christ died on the Cross? To give us earthly power and control over others? Why then did He refuse to be crowned King when the Jews wanted to force Kingship on Him? Jesus died to build a spiritual and eternal Kingdom and it's power is deep in Love, not control or force. Anything done outside of Love weakens and dies. And, because the C.H wanted to control people, it neglected the main reason Christ died, it tried to kill the faith, but no one kills the Holy Spirit.

What did He say to Pilate? 'My Kingdom is not of this world...

Ubenedictus:

2. Another dumb submission, how did the Catholic Church try to end Christianity when for over a milenium the Catholic Church was Christianity?

Lolzzzzz@ the Catholic Church was Christianity.
I don't expect you to understand this. But, i'll say it anyways.

The Church is called 'The BODY of Christ' for a reason. Jesus is much a person as you are. The Church is a whole body with Jesus as the Head. In your body, you don't only have a head, you have other organs which functions to keep your body going. And Apst Paul says they all function together as One. But the Catholic sort to remain the head and only part of the Church by squashing other Cells aka denominations. Now, here is what the Bible says.

1 Corinthians 12:12-19,21-28

[b] One Body with Many Parts.
Christ is like a single body, which has many parts; it is still one body, even though it is made up of different parts. In the same way, all of us, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether slaves or free, have been baptized into the one body by the same Spirit, and we have all been given the one Spirit to drink.

For the body itself is not made up of only one part, but of many parts. If the foot were to say, “Because I am not a hand, I don't belong to the body,” that would not keep it from being a part of the body. (Denominations)

And if the ear were to say, “Because I am not an eye, I don't belong to the body,” that would not keep it from being a part of the body.

If the whole body were just an eye, how could it hear? And if it were only an ear, how could it smell? As it is, however, God put every different part in the body just as he wanted it to be. There would not be a body if it were all only one part! So then, the eye cannot say to the hand, “I don't need you!” Nor can the head say to the feet, “Well, I don't need you!”

On the contrary, we cannot do without the parts of the body that seem to be weaker; and those parts that we think aren't worth very much are the ones which we treat with greater care; while the parts of the body which don't look very nice are treated with special modesty, which the more beautiful parts do not need.

God himself has put the body together in such a way as to give greater honor to those parts that need it. And so there is no division in the body, but all its different parts have the same concern for one another. If one part of the body suffers, all the other parts suffer with it; if one part is praised, all the other parts share its happiness. All of you are Christ's body, and each one is a part of it. In the church God has put all in place: [/b]

Catholic Church thought it could take the place of Jesus in the Church, be the head and eliminate other parts.

Every Denomination is a Part in the Body of Christ, cut them off and the head dies. The Catholic Church is not for Christ, it's spiritually dead, a den of thieves.

Ubenedictus:


3. What borders are you talking about? The church has never been at rest it has always been at war with the devil in what ever guise he has appeared through the centuries

Lolzzz. These are deep and Spiritual matters, they are spiritually discerned. They are not for those who take the Scriptures literally.
As long as the Church stays focus in disseminating the Gospel, her Borders which are Spiritual and are guided by Angels are secured. But, wen she lost focus and began to fornicate with Hellenism, her borders became compromised The Master says 'Go into the whole world and preach the gospel'. The Papacy built a Capital in Rome and sat down on the gospel until the revolution by the Reformation brokeout.

Before Emperor Constantine pretended to be a Christian convert, the Church was a wonder to her enemies. The more her enemy came against her, the more she grew formidable, why? because her husband 'Christ', fought for her. Even when she was locked up in Rome, her husband set her free. Papacy tried every thing to keep the Church as One unit, she broke free.

The enemy of the Church is Satan and he is hiding behind the Catholic Church trying to subtly Change the decrees of the Scriptures thereby weaken her from within. But hey! Satan loses. He lost in Eden, at Calvary, he'll yet lose.

LordReed:


That is not true. There were many bishops of different cities in Europe and the Middle East in the time before the Nicaean council. Claiming Rome had a preeminence is not supported by any thing I have seen, feel free to produce evidence to the contrary.

there were many bishops of different cities but Rome had the preeminent place, the early Christians before Nicaea certainly knew who had preeminence.


You can begin with this clement bishop of Rome instructing the church in Corinth on what to do.


Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).


Then this is Ignatius bishop of Antioch talking about the Roman see



Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).


this is iranaeus bishop of Lyon in modern day France talking about who has preeminent in the church. This should put an end to the discussion



Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 189]).



These tell us the basis for preeminence in the church

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Origen

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness (Commentaries on John 5:3 [A.D. 226-232]).



These tell us how the church of Rome exercises it preeminence

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).



Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Anas09:


See. Truth is where everything hinges on.
Now do tell, What was Rome about right from the time of Constantine to when the Pontifex Maximus aka Papacy took over full force, to when it ruled the world with an iron fist? The separation of the Church from state began after the Second World War. This was called the Renaissance era. But, before then it was the Mediaeval era and the Papacy was the Government, it was the educational system, it was the legal system, it was the medicine, it was the Engineering, and it was the religion. Everything was the Catholic Church. You break away, you die.

What resulted to the Dark Ages? It was the agitation to break free from the Catholic fist. Have you heard abt Joan De Ach?

Question is, was this why Christ died on the Cross? To give us earthly power and control over others? Why then did He refuse to be crowned King when the Jews wanted to force Kingship on Him? Jesus died to build a spiritual and eternal Kingdom and it's power is deep in Love, not control or force. Anything done outside of Love weakens and dies. And, because the C.H wanted to control people, it neglected the main reason Christ died, it tried to kill the faith, but no one kills the Holy Spirit.

What did He say to Pilate? 'My Kingdom is not of this world...
.

As usual you have it upside down.


First Constantine gave Christianity freedom of worship. The emperor had the political power, the Pope and bishops had authority in the church. At that time the Pope had no military, he did have the power to preach to the kings.

Later Christianity became the religion of state but even at that the church still didn't have military power that belongs to the emperor.

The capital of the empire was moved by Constantine from Rome to constantinople, military power still belonged to the state not the Pope, even when the popes started to use the title pontiff the military power was still with the state not the Pope.


Now go and read up the fall of Rome, barbarian invaded Rome and brought down the government, they burnt books and whatever inventions they could find that is what is called the DARK AGES, it was not caused by the church instead it was caused by the barbarian invasion of Rome which almost ended Roman literacy. It was the church that was instrumental in redeeming the situation, the monasteries became centers of education, that is how the church came to control both medicine, science, architecture etc because it was the educator of the entire Europe after the barbarian invasions.


Even after this the Pope did not keep political and military power of the world nor did he "rule the word" as you ignorantly claimed. Instead the most influential king in Europe, was given charge over the western empire, it was this emperor that had the political and military power not the Pope. The only temporal power the Pope consistently maintained were the papal states in modern day Italy.


So yes the governing of the society was always done by the state not the Pope, the Pope oversees the church and was instrumental in correcting kings and preventing wars. The idea that the Pope " ruled the world with an iron fist" is a sad myth. The Pope wasn't ruling the world the kings were, the Pope ruled the church and the papal states as an assurance of independence.


It is funny that you are ignorant of this because many of those kings actually attacked and sometimes killed the popes if his teaching disturbed them, some captured and imprisoned the popes and others had standing armies in Italy to intimidate the Pope, does that sound like the Pope ruling the world?


Separation of church and state simply meano states do not have to recognize the church as it used to do and clergy can't lead society apart from that, the state always had military power and the church always had spiritual power and each one defended it's turf from encroachment by the other.

Yes I have read Joan of arc, she was a catholic woman who believed she saw heavenly people and she led wars for her country, the armies she fought against captured her put her before a religious court which condemned her religious experience as heretic and condemned her, they were wrong and the church soon found out what had happened and declared her a saint, she is St Joan of arc.

Lastly even the earth belongs to God, the Lord's is the earth and it's fullness the world and all its people, even the Bible says the meek will inherit the earth, I see no reason why Christians can't rule and I also understand the reason the popes has always allowed states to keep political and military power without interference because we look forward to a heavenly kingdom

Anas09:



Lolzzzzz@ the Catholic Church was Christianity.
I don't expect you to understand this. But, i'll say it anyways.

The Church is called 'The BODY of Christ' for a reason. Jesus is much a person as you are. The Church is a whole body with Jesus as the Head. In your body, you don't only have a head, you have other organs which functions to keep your body going. And Apst Paul says they all function together as One. But the Catholic sort to remain the head and only part of the Church by squashing other Cells aka denominations. Now, here is what the Bible says.

1 Corinthians 12:12-19,21-28

[b] One Body with Many Parts.
Christ is like a single body, which has many parts; it is still one body, even though it is made up of different parts. In the same way, all of us, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether slaves or free, have been baptized into the one body by the same Spirit, and we have all been given the one Spirit to drink.

For the body itself is not made up of only one part, but of many parts. If the foot were to say, “Because I am not a hand, I don't belong to the body,” that would not keep it from being a part of the body. (Denominations)

And if the ear were to say, “Because I am not an eye, I don't belong to the body,” that would not keep it from being a part of the body.

If the whole body were just an eye, how could it hear? And if it were only an ear, how could it smell? As it is, however, God put every different part in the body just as he wanted it to be. There would not be a body if it were all only one part! So then, the eye cannot say to the hand, “I don't need you!” Nor can the head say to the feet, “Well, I don't need you!”

On the contrary, we cannot do without the parts of the body that seem to be weaker; and those parts that we think aren't worth very much are the ones which we treat with greater care; while the parts of the body which don't look very nice are treated with special modesty, which the more beautiful parts do not need.

God himself has put the body together in such a way as to give greater honor to those parts that need it. And so there is no division in the body, but all its different parts have the same concern for one another. If one part of the body suffers, all the other parts suffer with it; if one part is praised, all the other parts share its happiness. All of you are Christ's body, and each one is a part of it. In the church God has put all in place: [/b]

Catholic Church thought it could take the place of Jesus in the Church, be the head and eliminate other parts.

Every Denomination is a Part in the Body of Christ, cut them off and the head dies. The Catholic Church is not for Christ, it's spiritually dead, a den of thieves.

Lol you got me laughing at your silly excuse at exegesis.


first the bible says Jesus Christ is the head of his body the church.

It also says that individual Christian make up parts of his body, IT DID NOT SAY DENOMINATIONS. that seems like your own silly attempt to misinterpret the Bible.

The Bible say each Christian been baptized in the one spirit constitute one body, it doesn't say several contradictory denominations make one body.


In fact the Bible clearly teaches against denominations and clearly condemns the forming of factions and dessension in the church as works at of the flesh.


Gal 5:19-21

Ubenedictus:


As usual you have it upside down.


First Constantine gave Christianity freedom of worship. The emperor had the political power, the Pope and bishops had authority in the church. At that time the Pope had no military, he did have the power to preach to the kings.

Later Christianity became the religion of state but even at that the church still didn't have military power that belongs to the emperor.

The capital of the empire was moved by Constantine from Rome to constantinople, military power still belonged to the state not the Pope, even when the popes started to use the title pontiff the military power was still with the state not the Pope.


Now go and read up the fall of Rome, barbarian invaded Rome and brought down the government, they burnt books and whatever inventions they could find that is what is called the DARK AGES, it was not caused by the church instead it was caused by the barbarian invasion of Rome which almost ended Roman literacy. It was the church that was instrumental in redeeming the situation, the monasteries became centers of education, that is how the church came to control both medicine, science, architecture etc because it was the educator of the entire Europe after the barbarian invasions.


Even after this the Pope did not keep political and military power of the world nor did he "rule the word" as you ignorantly claimed. Instead the most influential king in Europe, was given charge over the western empire, it was this emperor that had the political and military power not the Pope. The only temporal power the Pope consistently maintained were the papal states in modern day Italy.


So yes the governing of the society was always done by the state not the Pope, the Pope oversees the church and was instrumental in correcting kings and preventing wars. The idea that the Pope " ruled the world with an iron fist" is a sad myth. The Pope wasn't ruling the world the kings were, the Pope ruled the church and the papal states as an assurance of independence.


It is funny that you are ignorant of this because many of those kings actually attacked and sometimes killed the popes if his teaching disturbed them, some captured and imprisoned the popes and others had standing armies in Italy to intimidate the Pope, does that sound like the Pope ruling the world?


Separation of church and state simply meano states do not have to recognize the church as it used to do and clergy can't lead society apart from that, the state always had military power and the church always had spiritual power and each one defended it's turf from encroachment by the other.

Yes I have read Joan of arc, she was a catholic woman who believed she saw heavenly people and she led wars for her country, the armies she fought against captured her put her before a religious court which condemned her religious experience as heretic and condemned her, they were wrong and the church soon found out what had happened and declared her a saint, she is St Joan of arc.

Lastly even the earth belongs to God, the Lord's is the earth and it's fullness the world and all its people, even the Bible says the meek will inherit the earth, I see no reason why Christians can't rule and I also understand the reason the popes has always allowed states to keep political and military power without interference because we look forward to a heavenly kingdom

Contra Factum Non Valet Argumentum.

Ubenedictus:
there were many bishops of different cities but Rome had the preeminent place, the early Christians before Nicaea certainly knew who had preeminence.


You can begin with this clement bishop of Rome instructing the church in Corinth on what to do.


Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).


Then this is Ignatius bishop of Antioch talking about the Roman see



Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).


this is iranaeus bishop of Lyon in modern day France talking about who has preeminent in the church. This should put an end to the discussion



Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 189]).



These tell us the basis for preeminence in the church

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Origen

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness (Commentaries on John 5:3 [A.D. 226-232]).



These tell us how the church of Rome exercises it preeminence

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).



Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

This is not the preeminence we are referring to. At that time the Bishop in Rome did not declare a doctrine then everyone followed. There were as many different doctrines as there were bishops. If this was not the case there would have been no need for the councils. Recognition of Apostolic ascendancy was not even a thing until more than a 150 years after the gospels were written.