Don't be obtuse. Religions and their documents in the historic era are history. Whether or not God ordained anybody is not the friggin' point. It is history if what they said, wrote, and did is documented and can be studied. It matters not if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, only that it was believed and practised. And if such belief is documented then it is history. Obviously.
we both know that, but i think that is beside the point in terms of what these fellers are arguing with each other. supafan the catholic is calling the pope infallible and jsracing isnt buying it. not to me or you, but i got the impression it was a major point for supafan.
The difference is this: Js has maintained there is no historical evidence of the papacy before the 5th century. I am arguing that there are several 2nd, third and fourth century documents that mention the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter, and some explicitly sat the word pope, and I have refrenced a few. JS may not buy my argument that Mt 16 17-19 is Jesus ordaining Peter as Pope, but there is ample historical evidence that early Christians beleived in papal infalibility, and the institution of the Pope, and that Mt 16 19-19 was the basis for their beleif.
[FONT=VERDANA,HELVETICA,ARIAL]1.Mark 7:6-9 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. [/FONT][FONT=VERDANA,HELVETICA,ARIAL]2. Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. [/FONT][FONT=VERDANA,HELVETICA,ARIAL]1. Hebr. 10:10-12 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; [/FONT][FONT=VERDANA,HELVETICA,ARIAL]1John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.[/FONT] [FONT=VERDANA,HELVETICA,ARIAL] [/FONT]
The point here is that the most important part of the apostolic succession -- the part that actually connects to Peter -- is unverifiable. The entire foundation of the apostolic succession is one paragraph written by a Roman Catholic propagandist more than 100 years after the fact.[/QUOTE] Well according to stuff that JS Racing posted, Ireaneus could not have been a Catholic apologist, because there were no Catholics before Leo in the late 5th centry. Of course this claim is bogus. And yes Ireaneus did catalouge the Popes about 100 years after the first succession, but that is not that long. I mean, just by word of mouth I can trace back to who the President was 100 years ago. In fact if every historical record we have was destroyed we could probably get a list of every President. There were more than likely people still alived from Linus's papacy when Ireaneus wrote his apology. Also take the face that non of Ireneus counterparts from Jeruselem, Antioch, and later Constantinople did not reject the idea of the papacy, for almost 1000 years, and noone questioned Apostolc Succession in general for nearly 1500 years.
Maybe, but the lack of historical corroboration is troubling due to the fact that there is corroboration through independent, non-Jewish, non-Christian sources of apostolic events and happenings. The fact that Catholic tradition, dogma, and doctrine is in direct opposition to many portions of Scripture coupled with the lack of independent historical corroboration and mention of popes pre-Clement causes many of us to question the Church and its motives. Politically it would have been suicide to do so. It was not until the Renaissance period of intellectual enlightenment that someone dared question the Church.
You have said more than once in this thread, and others, that Christians of the first and second century wer not Catholic. I argued that they were not called Catholic, but their beliefs were those of the modern day Catholic Church and supported it with quotes from Christian writers of the second and third centuries. You then say there was no Catholic Church then. The point hers is that St. Ireneus wrote Against Heresy in and around 160 A.D. You have repeatedly said that Christians in this time period were not Catholic, but the source you quote calls Ireanus a Roman Catholic Propagandist. So my question is simply this... were there Catholics in the second century? If there were then your arguemnt that Pope Leo was the first Pope is easily bogus, and if there weren't how do you explain away the writings of Ireneus, Polycarp, Justin the Martyr, Clement of Rome, Hippolytus, and other writers of the second and third centuries?
