GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: Peter the Rock  (Read 98758 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • Legendary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #810 on: January 10, 2012, 04:31:16 PM »
elvisman,

ALL reputable historians know that those bishops lists were fabricated and that Peter was never a bishop of Rome.

You are in denial and it just goes to show the typical Catholic attitude to defend anything if their church teaches it.

It also makes protestants think you dont know anything. Peace, JohnR

There you go again making ignorant comments like "All reputable Historians know . . ."  That is a complete and total fabrication - but why should you stop now?  Most of your posts contain one lie or another.

As I have stated before - I can give you a laundry list of theologians and historians who disagree with your false charge that "ALL reputable historians" know that Irenaeus' list is fraudulent. 
Face it pal - you've been exposed yet again . . .

Could you on me that list? I'm always on the look out for good reads.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #810 on: January 10, 2012, 04:31:16 PM »

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #811 on: January 10, 2012, 04:49:58 PM »
elvisman,

ALL reputable historians know that those bishops lists were fabricated and that Peter was never a bishop of Rome.

You are in denial and it just goes to show the typical Catholic attitude to defend anything if their church teaches it.

It also makes protestants think you dont know anything. Peace, JohnR


There you go again making ignorant comments like "All reputable Historians know . . ."  That is a complete and total fabrication - but why should you stop now?  Most of your posts contain one lie or another.

As I have stated before - I can give you a laundry list of theologians and historians who disagree with your false charge that "ALL reputable historians" know that Irenaeus' list is fraudulent. 
Face it pal - you've been exposed yet again . . .


Could you on me that list? I'm always on the look out for good reads.


Here you go, my brotha.
It's from Irenaeus's "Against Heresies" from the 2nd Century.  You can find it on a LOT of books and sites, but here it is from newadvent.org:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Interesting how the validity of this list is so vehemently challenged - seeing as how the FULL document is called "Against Heresies" . . .

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #811 on: January 10, 2012, 04:49:58 PM »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • Legendary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #812 on: January 10, 2012, 04:57:43 PM »
elvisman,

ALL reputable historians know that those bishops lists were fabricated and that Peter was never a bishop of Rome.

You are in denial and it just goes to show the typical Catholic attitude to defend anything if their church teaches it.

It also makes protestants think you dont know anything. Peace, JohnR


There you go again making ignorant comments like "All reputable Historians know . . ."  That is a complete and total fabrication - but why should you stop now?  Most of your posts contain one lie or another.

As I have stated before - I can give you a laundry list of theologians and historians who disagree with your false charge that "ALL reputable historians" know that Irenaeus' list is fraudulent. 
Face it pal - you've been exposed yet again . . .


Could you on me that list? I'm always on the look out for good reads.


Here you go, my brotha.
It's from Irenaeus's "Against Heresies" from the 2nd Century.  You can find it on a LOT of books and sites, but here it is from newadvent.org:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Interesting how the validity of this list is so vehemently challenged - seeing as how the FULL document is called "Against Heresies" . . .



Oh no I've read Irenaeus' Against the Heresies a little bit already. I was talking about the list of historians who have commentaries on the list. Didn't you say you had a list of names? I would love to check em out.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4641
  • Manna: 157
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #813 on: January 10, 2012, 05:34:16 PM »
It is worth noting that Irenaeus is a doctor of the Catholic Church, as well, and known as the "Father of dogmatic theology".

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #813 on: January 10, 2012, 05:34:16 PM »

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #814 on: January 10, 2012, 07:57:02 PM »
Oh no I've read Irenaeus' Against the Heresies a little bit already. I was talking about the list of historians who have commentaries on the list. Didn't you say you had a list of names? I would love to check em out.

Here is a list of some "reputable historians" that completely disagree with Highriggers charge against Irenaeus's list of Popes up to the end of the 2nd Cenury:

“The Papacy

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #814 on: January 10, 2012, 07:57:02 PM »



Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #815 on: January 10, 2012, 08:32:32 PM »
Quote
Here is a list of some "reputable historians" that completely disagree with Highriggers charge against Irenaeus's list of Popes up to the end of the 2nd Cenury:

“The Papacy

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #816 on: January 10, 2012, 08:54:44 PM »
Quote
Here is a list of some "reputable historians" that completely disagree with Highriggers charge against Irenaeus's list of Popes up to the end of the 2nd Cenury:

“The Papacy

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #817 on: January 11, 2012, 10:33:32 AM »
Quote
EXCUSE me?  You judge the validity of a historian's claims by the rave reviews printed on their books??

elvisman,

He died in 1923? Sounds old timey to me. Cant you find a modern historian with a reputation? I guess not.

But to your point, of course I consider strongly if the historian is respected by his peers. I like to follow the mainstream of history from the mainstream of historians. When they do not support one of their number I question his suitabilty, particularly when he is out of line with most of the others.

Besides you never told us what this guy said. Hard to analyze when you hide what he said. We only have your word that he supports you. Not very convincing since time after time I have caught you adding words to documents to suit your own views.
Peace, JohnR

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #818 on: January 11, 2012, 12:44:07 PM »
elvisman,

He died in 1923? Sounds old timey to me. Cant you find a modern historian with a reputation? I guess not.

But to your point, of course I consider strongly if the historian is respected by his peers. I like to follow the mainstream of history from the mainstream of historians. When they do not support one of their number I question his suitabilty, particularly when he is out of line with most of the others.

Besides you never told us what this guy said. Hard to analyze when you hide what he said. We only have your word that he supports you. Not very convincing since time after time I have caught you adding words to documents to suit your own views.
Peace, JohnR

"OLDTIMEY"??
You diregard a respected historian because he lived 80 years ago?  That is the most IGNORANT approach of history I have ever heard.  I tell you, Highrigger - you expose your own personal ignorance with every post.

What about Dr. Hahn?
Partick Madrid?
Steve Ray?


You stated that ALL reputable scholars disagree with Irenaeus' 2nd century list of Popes - and I have PROVEN you wrong . . . again.

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #819 on: January 12, 2012, 10:01:49 AM »
Quote
You stated that ALL reputable scholars disagree with Irenaeus' 2nd century list of Popes - and I have PROVEN you wrong . . . again.

elvisman,

1. You have not provided his quote. Dont you think that is important?

2. You have not provided any support that he is a reputable and respected historian. Thats important too.

3. In 1923 Catholic historians were generally afraid of going against the teachings of the Catholic church. History divergance was frowned upon and could result in excommunication. They had to be very careful. Not so today. Today Catholic historians can speak the historical truth without fear. Why dont you find a top modern historian to support you? Peace, JohnR

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #820 on: January 12, 2012, 10:11:31 AM »
Quote
You stated that ALL reputable scholars disagree with Irenaeus' 2nd century list of Popes - and I have PROVEN you wrong . . . again.

elvisman,

1. You have not provided his quote. Dont you think that is important?

2. You have not provided any support that he is a reputable and respected historian. Thats important too.

3. In 1923 Catholic historians were generally afraid of going against the teachings of the Catholic church. History divergance was frowned upon and could result in excommunication. They had to be very careful. Not so today. Today Catholic historians can speak the historical truth without fear. Why dont you find a top modern historian to support you? Peace, JohnR

What are you talking about?
In post #808, you claimed:
"ALL reputable historians know that those bishops lists were fabricated and that Peter was never a bishop of Rome."

I proved you wrong by listing at least FOUR reputable and respected historians who claim the exact OPPOSITE.

As for the respect Adrian Fortescue had among the people of his time, here is an excerpt from his biography:
"Between 1899 and 1905 he passed doctoral examinations in Moral Theology, Dogma, Ecclesiastical History, Canon Law, Arabic, and Biblical Sciencepassing the examination in Semitic languages with great distinction, a rare achievement. On 10 June 1905 he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Divinity, making him the very rare recipient of a triple doctorate. The level of his scholarship was so exceptional that he was awarded a prize presented to him personally by the Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria."

Your pathetic attempt to discredit him is simply that - pathetic.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #821 on: January 12, 2012, 10:47:52 AM »
Quote
You stated that ALL reputable scholars disagree with Irenaeus' 2nd century list of Popes - and I have PROVEN you wrong . . . again.

elvisman,

1. You have not provided his quote. Dont you think that is important?

2. You have not provided any support that he is a reputable and respected historian. Thats important too.

3. In 1923 Catholic historians were generally afraid of going against the teachings of the Catholic church. History divergance was frowned upon and could result in excommunication. They had to be very careful. Not so today. Today Catholic historians can speak the historical truth without fear. Why dont you find a top modern historian to support you? Peace, JohnR

I'll let PROTESTANT historian Kenneth Samples explain.  Samples wrote the following for the Christian Reasearch Journal, the flagship publication of "Bible Answerman" Hank Hannegraff's Christian Research Institute:

"Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two-thousand-year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."
What Think Ye of Rome? (Part 2)
An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #822 on: January 12, 2012, 01:57:23 PM »
Quote
"Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two-thousand-year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."
What Think Ye of Rome? (Part 2)
An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism

elvisman,

Your quote never says Peter was a bishop of Rome and of course we all have continuity with first Century christianity, in fact Jesus himself. Does not seem like much to me. And it is from 1923. You are having to go far back to find a quite that does not add much.
Yes of course the protestants splintered from the RCC. What is new about this? Peace, JohnR

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #823 on: January 12, 2012, 02:18:29 PM »
elvisman,

Your quote never says Peter was a bishop of Rome and of course we all have continuity with first Century christianity, in fact Jesus himself. Does not seem like much to me. And it is from 1923. You are having to go far back to find a quite that does not add much.
Yes of course the protestants splintered from the RCC. What is new about this? Peace, JohnR

WHAT??
What Think Ye of Rome? by Kenneth Samples was written in the 1990's - NOT 1923.

You claim that you have continuity with First Century Christianity?  Aren't you a Methodist?
Methodism was started by John Wesley in 1738.
HARDLY an unbroken Apostolic line . . .

When you can trace an unbroken line back to the Apostles, then we'll talk.

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #824 on: January 13, 2012, 05:40:20 PM »
Quote
When you can trace an unbroken line back to the Apostles, then we'll talk.

elvisman,

Your quotes do not support your assertions. Regarding a line back to the apostles. We have it as much as your church.

Here is the new real definition of apostolic successsion by Raymond Brown.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over the pastoral
tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops were chosen or appointed.
We know little about that, not even being certain that there was a formal action designating
them....That does not mean of course that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church
were appointed by apostles, but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred....
Eventually, of course, the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and
ordination of bishops, and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120. Approved for publication
with the Imprimatur.
 
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.

The bishops of my church fit this just fine. We needed a new definition because the old one (the one you assert) has been debunked by the historians. It is false. Live with it. Peace, JohnR