There are no original documents from that Era other than Roman record. the ancient documents you speak of are from 300 years later and written by Catholic scholars in attempt to show Apostlic succesion. all three were from Advent.com written by clergy yes... I agree. They had no accurate record to go by, they simply recorded what would look best for the church and at the time the Catholic church was struggling to become a dominate power in religion and ploitics. A show of Apostlic succesion would HELP them politically and religously, giving a Bishop of Rome, even more power. Wouldn't be the first time a group of folks wrote things to benifit themselves politically. I think the term is called Propaganda, the Nazis were master of it. We can pull countless documents written by the Nazis that show their version of how the state was run and how it should be. However, most Historians discount this as Propagnada. OK so find them. MOST RESPECTED HISTORIANS say he was in Rome, you make a point that was never in dispute. Had you read what I posted earlier, you would have saw that after the fall of Jerusaluem, Peter went to Rome. No surprise since Paul was there. he could have gone to Corinth but he went to Rome, he was friends with Paul. makes sense. During the Hurricane many people went to stay with relatives and people they knew. So what is your point here? Peter was in Rome so this makes him the Pope? Incredible. Nero was also in Rome so was he Pope too? amazing inference. Also I must tell you that it wasn't until after the 3rd century that Christians stopped being persecuted, so it would have been difficult to have a large organized religion until then. At that time there were MANY bishops or elders. many were martyr'd.....man read something besides your notes on the pew. It's all there..... read a book on Christian persecution. The first POPE was LEO. The first Bishop of Rome was NOT PETER and he certainly wasn't the POPE. there is consensus in numbers. footnotes? Why I don't know plenty that I saw. Are you brave enough to look them up yourself? or are you so closed minded you can't? If you would have you'd have seen the quotes for yourself. The scripture that supposedly hands Peter the keys to the Kingdom is misinterpreted. MAT16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. There were no "keys". Jesus simply foretold that Peter would be the one to give the speech and start the church on the Day of Pentecost. Just like he predicted Peter would deny him three times. Notice in the book of Acts, Peter did stand up and give the first sermon after the accension. Which essentially laucned the Church from the less than 200 members ( biblical ) to several thousand. ( also biblical, same book of Acts ) Acts 2:37-41 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Just read the bible man and quit trying to put a Catholic slant on everything. You make things that are simple, complicated in an effort to prop up a man made political regime that has no real political power anymore, although is respected world wide. 2nd and thrid century references are WHAT I posted READ the post. THAT is still 200 years after the fact. Peter was martyrd during NERO's reign before 100AD....EVEN YOUR Catholic historians did NOT start calling a POPE a POPE for another 200-300 years. The documents you say are original date back to the 3rd century... and the ones YOU reference are ALL CATHOLIC. there is a giant hole in your theory. No one said Peter wasn't in Rome, Most Historians agree with this. Nero's historians kept accurate record of those that were put to death. Roman Historians were good about that. The reason everyone DOUBTS Catholic Historians is that they have NO ROMAN or other HISTORIANS to collaborate their story. THERE are historians that have recorded what WAS found from the era, for instance about ST. Clements.... but it is very vague and history generally can't pinpoint an actual timeline for his Bishop of Rome status. Indeed, history tells us that PAUL was a much more important figure in the early Church than Peter. In fact History tells us that Peter and Paul appointed OTHERS as elders or bishops of the local congregations for they WENT on missionary journeys. It is these local Bishops and elders that eventually got persecuted and made to sacrifice to the Roman Emporer and write many apologies to the Emporer in an attempt to validate Christanity. They were " equals among equals" Bishops or elders as was ordained in the new testament. The POPE as you call him, came about due to political reasons, The bishop of rome was no more of a exalted person than the bishop of Smyrna, as a matter of fact they were persecuted. It wasn't until the emporer CHarlamgne's mother Helena converted to Christainity that the church was able to breath long enough to have a postion of exaltation. There is NO WAY the "bishop of Rome" as the title was in those days right after the Martyr of Peter and Paul, that this guy could have been "vicor of Christ" on earth. EVEN those that claimed to be Bishop were put to death and persecuted, the ROMANS were just to large of a Government for your theory to work. YOU CANT be a pope and lead the Christian world ( which was small but covered a large area in those days, from Jerusaleum to Corinth to Rome ) and be drowned with a ship anchor. I DO AGREE these guys were martyr'd and in that way leaders, but ONE INFALLIBLE leader, no way.. not possible, even the APostles weren't alone in leadership. Lest I remind you at the time you speak of St. CLements, JOHN was still alive and exiled. IF there was a POPE at that time it should have immediately fell to JOHN. Again the term "POPE" was applied years after these guys died, in an attempt to show Apostlic succesion, which would give the POPE some sort of implied authority. This is bunk and isn't biblical. At best the POPE is a pious man, leader of his church and a puppet political figure, in times of old he was a powerful political leader capable of issuing death and decrees that could raise armies. BUT not until a Roman King's Mother converted to Christianity. You have heard of the Christian persecution have you not? This is from my reading of several several Historians. You have one source that says it happened the way you say it did, yet the rest of RESPECTED Historians say it happened another way. I would say your uncle whoever he is, wouldn't be very well respected and collaborated with other Historians. The difference here is that MANY Historians agree documents are accurate back to the 3rd century and even further when refernce to Roman Historians, but in regards to the EARLY Church, all we have is Catholic documents which date back to Leo, and most feel these accounts of Apostlic succesion go agaisnt what KNOWn History indicates....i.e. the persecution of Christians and the title of Bishop being know th exist in many congregations. Letters to the Roman emporers of the time from Bishops were called "apologies". They were "explainations" rather than apolgies per se', an attempt to overcome persecution. the Roman's kept these and today they are VERY vaualbe, if original. Point being is that MANY BISHOPS wrote the Ceasar's and none were POPES. Not once was anything mentioned of a vicor, head Pope or leader. It was not until after the meeting King Charlemagne had at Milan that the Bishop of Rome became to be called POPE. and it was soley for political power. The Papcy is NOT biblical, it originally was a political position in the church meant to protect and solidify the religion. It postion evolved into what it was and what it is. It was never "ordained" by Peter, Christ, or God. I do think it's very nice to have religious leaders, except they tend to abuse power for it is the nature of man to do so. It's not so bad on a much smaller scale, the Pope was way too powerful at times in History. Pride crept in and armies were directed and people were tortured, this is not open for debate, it is well documented.
Actually there are thousands ofr fragments and manuscripts from the second and third century. I was quoting from those directly. I was not quoting some modern day schlors interpretation. You are much to stubbornto take a look at a document that mentions the papacy 200 years before you say it existed its fine by me. They say ignorance is bliss. And as far as you saying that Jesus never gave Peter the keys to the kingom... Mat 16:17-19 17Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah. For flrsh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father in Heaven. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of the neterworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven. What you loose on Earth shall too be loosed in Heaven.
I beleive Christ left us a Church as an institution made up of believers. I do not think one can pick up the Bible and know Jesus, unless they were predisposed to it some how. The New Testament was not written for converts. It was written for those who were already Christian. I disagree, but this one goes down to interpretation. There is no resoloution here. I agree whole-heartedly. The Pope himself is not infallible. What he teaches is. This is a common misconception by many poeple who have never studied papal infaliblity. I agree. But anyone who is saved is still saved because Christ left us the Church.
not literal "keys" ....................neterworld? your using a Catholic bible too. :dis: why not just watch the "matrix" it's about as accurate. The Papcy is NOT biblical, it originally was a political position in the church meant to protect and solidify the religion. It postion evolved into what it was and what it is. It was never "ordained" by Peter, Christ, or God.
Greek lesson. In Koine Greek, the dialect used at the time the new testament was written ,the there is only one word similar to hell. That was Hades. Hades contained two regions the netherworld, what we would understand as hell and Elisium, the ancient Greek's version of heaven. So to translate Hades into either Hell or the Netherworld, given this particular context is suitable.
History lesson The Papcy is NOT biblical, it originally was a political position in the church meant to protect and solidify the religion. It postion evolved into what it was and what it is. It was never "ordained" by Peter, Christ, or God.
which "history" book shows what god has or has not ordained? you are reminding me of myself by arguing when there is no chance of resolution. the difference is i sometimes have evidence. you guys are refusing to accept that there is nothing solid you can reference to prove or disprove your interpretations. if i say the pope is holy, you are not going to prove me wrong. like our amigo red says, it is a matter of faith. like i said many times before, there is no lab with bunsen burners and beakers that you can go to and do experiments to figure out the truth. you guys ever see that wifeswap show with that fat woman who called everyone "darksiders" and went ballistic for jesus? you guys sort of remind me of that woman.
JS is right in that the position of pope is not a biblical matter, but a historic one. The bible doesn't establish the office and God and Christ had nothing to do with it. Peter did, perhaps, in later being recognized as the first pope. According to the Catholic encyclopedia: "The title Pope, once used with far greater latitude, is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth." Peter's church established the office of Pope, not the New Testament. Historic, not biblical.
right, history tells us who is ordained and who isnt. why are you about to quote a religious organization for your history? right. the pope "is the vicar of christ upon earth" thats real historical. they taught us that in high school, it was during the chapter where they listed the vicars of christ and the various pasta-related monsters. it is also a matter of history that charles manson was a messiah, and that david koresh was sent by god to have sex with his pre-teen followers. i understand that the political position of the pope is a matter of fact, but these here fellas are arguing about his authority in terms of religion. something you and i are in no position to argue. these guys are talking about papal infallibility and being ordained. to ordain is to confer some sort of magic on somebody. not a matter of history.
ordained by God, meaning clearly stated in the Bible, Martin, not inferred by misinteretation such as the Pope thing.
