Christian Forums

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 07:40:15

There is no salvation out side the church seems right and one could say that to some degree. The trick here is who is the church. You say the church is the institution of papal Rome but they are an exalted clergy that has set them selves apart and above the laity. They are now looked to as representing and being the church but from the beginning the apostle represented the authority but they were not the church as any whole nor were the exalted above the believers  From the beginning the church consisted of all who believed that Jesus was Lord. They became the adopted sons of God by there confession of faith in Christ. No membership just salvation freely given by grace.   The apostle were not exalted but common amongst the body. they were respected as  the apostles but they did not represent any organized church system that required membership like some club to secure salvation. What abomination!!   

What is more correct and not misleading is " there is no salvation out side of faith in Christ". No disrespect of leadership or recognizing  authority. They are just of the body of Christ like all believers.

God bless

The Catholic Church is not just the clergy, but both clergy and laity. But the clergy have a special role given them by God. They have not set themselves above the laity but have been put in authority by God.

The Church is both the mystical body of Christ and a visible institution. It is the city set on a hilltop that cannot be hidden (Mt 5:14)

Quote from: winsome on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 10:05:30

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 07:40:15
No ! Salvation is not contingent upon  any membership period. You cannot just simply join any organized church catholic or protestant and be saved. This idea is an abomination and insult to Christ who gave himself freely to suffer for our sins and raise from the dead to secure salvation for all that believe that he is the Christ the Son of the living God.

To answer this properly we need to understand salvation. Salvation is not some one off event. I do not believe in OSAS. Salvation is a journey. It had a start and it has an end.

We can say
I have been saved
I am being saved
I hope to be saved.

That journey starts with Baptism when  we were made children of God, when we came into the New Covenant, when we were transferred from the power of darkness to the kingdom of Christ (Col 1:13 & Acts 26:18).  It also makes us members of the body of Christ – the Church.

But that is only our first step. We need to continue on that journey and not fall by the wayside and turn back to darkness.
Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you. (1Cor 15:1-2)

As I keep saying it is primarily though the sacraments that Christ gives us the strength for the journey. It is with his Body and Blood that he feeds us in the Eucharist. It is in Reconciliation that he picks us up and reconciles us.

Grace is freely given, but not forced on us. See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God (Heb 12:15). We have to ask for it in humility.

You believe you gain salvation through your own efforts, without the Church, without Christ's grace from the sacraments.

I am saved by grace through faith, and  of no effort of my own. I have said many times that " it is not he outward things we do but the inward person we are. or you can the person i am becoming that the lord sees. I am not outside the church. I have not denied Christ my Lord. I am just not of the RCC. But this is the whole issue here isn't it ?

God bless

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 14:01:18

I am saved by grace through faith, and  of no effort of my own. I have said many times that " it is not he outward things we do but the inward person we are. or you can the person i am becoming that the lord sees.

The couch potato Christian. "I have nothing to do but lie here and Christ will do it all.

Quote from: winsome on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 14:39:31

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 14:01:18

I am saved by grace through faith, and  of no effort of my own. I have said many times that " it is not he outward things we do but the inward person we are. or you can the person i am becoming that the lord sees.

The couch potato Christian. "I have nothing to do but lie here and Christ will do it all.

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else. 

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else.  

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."?  

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else.  

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."?  

Please it is not about where it is. Its about keeping the true message of Christ,s gospel. Im going to copy paste Selenes statement to me about the purpose of the church until Jesus returns. At least i know one catholic here is still focused.

You say that the Catholic Church will not bring peace and safety that the world wants?  My brother, it was never the duty of the church to bring world peace and safety in the first place.   That was never our mission.  God sent His Church to spread the Good News - that Christ loved the world so much that He gave His life to bring redemption and forgiveness of sins to mankind.

God bless,
Selene

Thank you selene

Quote from: mclees8 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 07:16:43

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else.  

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."?  

Please it is not about where it is. Its about keeping the true message of Christ,s gospel. Im going to copy paste Selenes statement to me about the purpose of the church until Jesus returns. At least i know one catholic here is still focused.

Mike, what are you talking about?    I know that where it is is not what it is about, hence why we call ourselves, "Universal", i.e., Catholic.  It is Tantor who is making some un-biblical case that because the Church is head-quartered in Vatican City and not Jerusalem, that it somehow makes it illegitimate.  Read through our posts again.  

You may paste Selene's posts any time you want, I find I am in complete agreement with them!!!  

Quote from: desertknight on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 07:27:54

Quote from: mclees8 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 07:16:43

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else.  

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."?  

Please it is not about where it is. Its about keeping the true message of Christ,s gospel. Im going to copy paste Selenes statement to me about the purpose of the church until Jesus returns. At least i know one catholic here is still focused.

Mike, what are you talking about?    I know that where it is is not what it is about, hence why we call ourselves, "Universal", i.e., Catholic.  It is Tantor who is making some un-biblical case that because the Church is head-quartered in Vatican City and not Jerusalem, that it somehow makes it illegitimate.  Read through our posts again.  

You may paste Selene's posts any time you want, I find I am in complete agreement with them!!!  

Please it is not about where it is. Its about keeping the true message of Christ,s gospel. Im going to copy paste Selenes statement to me about the purpose of the church until Jesus returns. At least i know one catholic here is still focused.
[/quote]

Mike, what are you talking about?     I know that where it is is not what it is about, hence why we call ourselves, "Universal", i.e., Catholic.  It is Tantor who is making some un-biblical case that because the Church is head-quartered in Vatican City and not Jerusalem, that it somehow makes it illegitimate.  Read through our posts again. 

You may paste Selene's post any time you want, I find I am in complete agreement with them!!!   
[/quote]

So you say you agree with Selene about her last statement that I pasted. we were discussing the true role and thrust of The church which has nothing to with the affairs of this world. It has everyhting to with being saved from. Just like jesus prayed for the disciples. Is that the message the pope gives to the leaders of the world when he visits the UN? He counsels them not on salvation but the moral political position. This is about peace and unity in the world.

This is not about the gospel that Jesus commanded his church to bring. That message is lost in all the churches intanglements of  world affairs. The world is of the spirit of antichrist. It is the antichrist who will be the worlds hope for peace and safety in the world. We are waiting for Christs second coming  Which is the great hope of the church that keeps its focus.  Not on the politics of the world or that the church and the UN can bring a New world order of peace and safety and economic stability and all that is Babylon. Babylon will be destroyed and the antichrist will set out to destroy the very church that helped him get his seat.

God bless

The true gospel message was lost the first day the papacy was formed. And even though they will say that is their purpose  what is the UN connection.

a correction

So you say you agree with Selene about her last statement that I pasted. we were discussing the true role and thrust of The church which has nothing to with the affairs of this world. It has everyhting to with being saved from the world Just like jesus prayed for the disciples. Is that the message the pope gives to the leaders of the world when he visits the UN? He counsels them not on salvation but the moral political position. This is about peace and unity in the world.

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else.  

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."?  

Show me in scripture where it says that Jesus wanted his church in Rome?  I find it funny that Peter of all persons, would desire Jesus church to be founded in the capitol of the arch enemy of his own people (the Jews)... Historically, it seems more likely that Rome was covetous of the new Christian religion and just co-opted it from the Apostles when enough time had elapsed and they had the might of the Roman Empire behind them.

Rome is illegitimate.. always was and always will be... unless you can provide any scrap of writing from any of the original apostles to the contrary.

And then you have to deal with all the striking similarities to the Pagan tradition of Rome that has been adopted very deviously by the RCC in order to appease people.

Quote from: Tantor on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:00:00

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else.  

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."?  

Show me in scripture where it says that Jesus wanted his church in Rome?  I find it funny that Peter of all persons, would desire Jesus church to be founded in the capitol of the arch enemy of his own people (the Jews)... Historically, it seems more likely that Rome was covetous of the new Christian religion and just co-opted it from the Apostles when enough time had elapsed and they had the might of the Roman Empire behind them.

Rome is illegitimate.. always was and always will be... unless you can provide any scrap of writing from any of the original apostles to the contrary.

And then you have to deal with all the striking similarities to the Pagan tradition of Rome that has been adopted very deviously by the RCC in order to appease people.

As dk said That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity. Personally I'd go for stupidity. You just like to throw out stupid theories with no basis for them just to try and provoke arguments. But they have no merit whatsoever.

Quote from: winsome on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:22:10

Quote from: Tantor on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:00:00

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else. 

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."? 

Show me in scripture where it says that Jesus wanted his church in Rome?  I find it funny that Peter of all persons, would desire Jesus church to be founded in the capitol of the arch enemy of his own people (the Jews)... Historically, it seems more likely that Rome was covetous of the new Christian religion and just co-opted it from the Apostles when enough time had elapsed and they had the might of the Roman Empire behind them.

Rome is illegitimate.. always was and always will be... unless you can provide any scrap of writing from any of the original apostles to the contrary.

And then you have to deal with all the striking similarities to the Pagan tradition of Rome that has been adopted very deviously by the RCC in order to appease people.

As dk said That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity. Personally I'd go for stupidity. You just like to throw out stupid theories with no basis for them just to try and provoke arguments. But they have no merit whatsoever.

Umm... no.. its based on what we know the original apostles wrote and the political climate of the times... it's not said out of hatred or stupidity.

We have no evidence whatsoever that any apostle desired the church to be moved to and/or started in Rome... considering that Rome was slaughtering Christians left and right under different Caesars.

So to say it is stupid is also being dishonest with the facts... because there are none.

Quote from: Tantor on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:32:27

Quote from: winsome on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:22:10

Quote from: Tantor on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:00:00

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else. 

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."? 

Show me in scripture where it says that Jesus wanted his church in Rome?  I find it funny that Peter of all persons, would desire Jesus church to be founded in the capitol of the arch enemy of his own people (the Jews)... Historically, it seems more likely that Rome was covetous of the new Christian religion and just co-opted it from the Apostles when enough time had elapsed and they had the might of the Roman Empire behind them.

Rome is illegitimate.. always was and always will be... unless you can provide any scrap of writing from any of the original apostles to the contrary.

And then you have to deal with all the striking similarities to the Pagan tradition of Rome that has been adopted very deviously by the RCC in order to appease people.

As dk said That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity. Personally I'd go for stupidity. You just like to throw out stupid theories with no basis for them just to try and provoke arguments. But they have no merit whatsoever.

Umm... no.. its based on what we know the original apostles wrote and the political climate of the times... it's not said out of hatred or stupidity.

We have no evidence whatsoever that any apostle desired the church to be moved to and/or started in Rome... considering that Rome was slaughtering Christians left and right under different Caesars.

So to say it is stupid is also being dishonest with the facts... because there are none.

A question like this is stupid - Show me in scripture where it says that Jesus wanted his church in Rome?

A statement like this is stupid - Rome is illegitimate.. always was and always will be... unless you can provide any scrap of writing from any of the original apostles to the contrary.

And this is stupid too - And then you have to deal with all the striking similarities to the Pagan tradition of Rome that has been adopted very deviously by the RCC in order to appease people.

Don't expect me to waste any more time with your nonesense. You clearly don't want a sensible discussion.

I want a discussion based on facts... can you provide any?... from a reputable source of the 1st century?  Because without testimony from Peter himself or his peers anything you would pose as fact is nothing more than hearsay.. and I think its a little incredulous to base ones faith in a church totally on hearsay alone.

Do you have any eye witness testimony to bring to this discussion.. or not?

Quote from: winsome on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 13:19:19

Quote from: Tantor on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:32:27

Quote from: winsome on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:22:10

Quote from: Tantor on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:00:00

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else. 

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."? 

Show me in scripture where it says that Jesus wanted his church in Rome?  I find it funny that Peter of all persons, would desire Jesus church to be founded in the capitol of the arch enemy of his own people (the Jews)... Historically, it seems more likely that Rome was covetous of the new Christian religion and just co-opted it from the Apostles when enough time had elapsed and they had the might of the Roman Empire behind them.

Rome is illegitimate.. always was and always will be... unless you can provide any scrap of writing from any of the original apostles to the contrary.

And then you have to deal with all the striking similarities to the Pagan tradition of Rome that has been adopted very deviously by the RCC in order to appease people.

As dk said That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity. Personally I'd go for stupidity. You just like to throw out stupid theories with no basis for them just to try and provoke arguments. But they have no merit whatsoever.

Umm... no.. its based on what we know the original apostles wrote and the political climate of the times... it's not said out of hatred or stupidity.

We have no evidence whatsoever that any apostle desired the church to be moved to and/or started in Rome... considering that Rome was slaughtering Christians left and right under different Caesars.

So to say it is stupid is also being dishonest with the facts... because there are none.

A question like this is stupid - Show me in scripture where it says that Jesus wanted his church in Rome?

A statement like this is stupid - Rome is illegitimate.. always was and always will be... unless you can provide any scrap of writing from any of the original apostles to the contrary.

And this is stupid too - And then you have to deal with all the striking similarities to the Pagan tradition of Rome that has been adopted very deviously by the RCC in order to appease people.

Don't expect me to waste any more time with your nonesense. You clearly don't want a sensible discussion.

I don't think it stupid. He is  desperately trying to help you see something that you refuse to see. What is it you are defending but the power, authority and position of Papal Rome.  I here you say you have no evidence or facts all the time.  But if it is asked of you and you can't answer, then you flip it off as stupid nonsense. Why is that? truly what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Truly there is nothing in scripture that supports the position of papal Rome. Rome was fancied by some bishops because Peter an Paul established churches there. But that did not make it the established capital of Christianity. But the papacy wants you to think so. Is it not about its claimed authority. This is the constant drumbeat of all that you defend here.  Now you say it is my hangup And Tantor is stupid. Why is that ?

mclees,

Suggesting that the Church could only be centred in Rome if scripture explicity said it could be is a dead brain argument.

If the US president (or Congress) decided to move the seat of govenment from Washington to say, Delware, would it be opposed because it doesn't say in the constitution that the founding fathers wanted it moved to Deleware?

When Alaska was bought and added to the Union was it opposed because the constition didn't say it could be bought?

Was buying Alaska illegitimate because the constitution didn't say it could be?

Quote from: winsome on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 15:03:23
mclees,

Suggesting that the Church could only be centred in Rome if scripture explicity said it could be is a dead brain argument.

If the US president (or Congress) decided to move the seat of govenment from Washington to say, Delware, would it be opposed because it doesn't say in the constitution that the founding fathers wanted it moved to Deleware?

When Alaska was bought and added to the Union was it opposed because the constition didn't say it could be bought?

Was buying Alaska illegitimate because the constitution didn't say it could be?

But there would be a paper trail of the discussion.. the congressional record that would detail the discussion and then the vote on the moving of the capitol.

So your comparison to the US Constitution falls flat.

Where is the letter from Peter stating the church should be moved to Rome?... where is the letter from Peter or witnesses to the ordination of Peter's successor?

Such a simple question should have a simple answer.. shouldn't it?  Especially if you claim your church is built on the rock of Peter...?  Wheres the proof?

Quote from: mclees8 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 14:30:04
Truly there is nothing in scripture that supports the position of papal Rome. Rome was fancied by some bishops because Peter an Paul established churches there. But that did not make it the established capital of Christianity. But the papacy wants you to think so. Is it not about its claimed authority. This is the constant drumbeat of all that you defend here.  Now you say it is my hangup And Tantor is stupid. Why is that ?

Christ's church was not based on a place.  It was based on the Apostle Peter.  That is why Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, which means "rock."  Because the Apostle Peter was the Bishop of Rome, Christ's church was in Rome.   

Matthew 16:17-18 Blessed are you , Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in Heaven.  And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shallnot prevail against it.

Quote from: Tantor on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 15:21:04

Quote from: winsome on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 15:03:23
mclees,

Suggesting that the Church could only be centred in Rome if scripture explicity said it could be is a dead brain argument.

If the US president (or Congress) decided to move the seat of govenment from Washington to say, Delware, would it be opposed because it doesn't say in the constitution that the founding fathers wanted it moved to Deleware?

When Alaska was bought and added to the Union was it opposed because the constition didn't say it could be bought?

Was buying Alaska illegitimate because the constitution didn't say it could be?

But there would be a paper trail of the discussion.. the congressional record that would detail the discussion and then the vote on the moving of the capitol.

So your comparison to the US Constitution falls flat.

Where is the letter from Peter stating the church should be moved to Rome?... where is the letter from Peter or witnesses to the ordination of Peter's successor?

Such a simple question should have a simple answer.. shouldn't it?  Especially if you claim your church is built on the rock of Peter...?  Wheres the proof?

My comparison does not fall flat because now you are introducing additional and irrelevant criteria. As I said this is a dead brain argument and I'm sorry for you that you wish to pursue this sort of trivial level of discussion.

In my opinion it is tragic that we cannot have an adult level of discussion between Catholic and Protestants on issues but that some of you just want to play games of trivial pursuits.

grow up.

Quote from: winsome on Wed Dec 02, 2009 - 06:48:10

Quote from: Tantor on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 15:21:04

Quote from: winsome on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 15:03:23
mclees,

Suggesting that the Church could only be centred in Rome if scripture explicity said it could be is a dead brain argument.

If the US president (or Congress) decided to move the seat of govenment from Washington to say, Delware, would it be opposed because it doesn't say in the constitution that the founding fathers wanted it moved to Deleware?

When Alaska was bought and added to the Union was it opposed because the constition didn't say it could be bought?

Was buying Alaska illegitimate because the constitution didn't say it could be?

But there would be a paper trail of the discussion.. the congressional record that would detail the discussion and then the vote on the moving of the capitol.

So your comparison to the US Constitution falls flat.

Where is the letter from Peter stating the church should be moved to Rome?... where is the letter from Peter or witnesses to the ordination of Peter's successor?

Such a simple question should have a simple answer.. shouldn't it?  Especially if you claim your church is built on the rock of Peter...?  Wheres the proof?

My comparison does not fall flat because now you are introducing additional and irrelevant criteria. As I said this is a dead brain argument and I'm sorry for you that you wish to pursue this sort of trivial level of discussion.

In my opinion it is tragic that we cannot have an adult level of discussion between Catholic and Protestants on issues but that some of you just want to play games of trivial pursuits.

grow up.

Brain dead?... I think it's the other way around.  and your comparison does fall flat because you are comparing apples to oranges.

You have absolutely no supporting evidence to back up any of your churches claims to authenticity other then hearsay from decades after the event... which is the adult way to approach it.   If you make a claim, be ready to back it up.. as I have with all my assertions and you have just casually dismissed them as stupid and juvenile.

Please support your claims..

Quote from: Tantor on Wed Dec 02, 2009 - 08:55:07

Quote from: winsome on Wed Dec 02, 2009 - 06:48:10

Quote from: Tantor on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 15:21:04

Quote from: winsome on Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 15:03:23
mclees,

Suggesting that the Church could only be centred in Rome if scripture explicity said it could be is a dead brain argument.

If the US president (or Congress) decided to move the seat of govenment from Washington to say, Delware, would it be opposed because it doesn't say in the constitution that the founding fathers wanted it moved to Deleware?

When Alaska was bought and added to the Union was it opposed because the constition didn't say it could be bought?

Was buying Alaska illegitimate because the constitution didn't say it could be?

But there would be a paper trail of the discussion.. the congressional record that would detail the discussion and then the vote on the moving of the capitol.

So your comparison to the US Constitution falls flat.

Where is the letter from Peter stating the church should be moved to Rome?... where is the letter from Peter or witnesses to the ordination of Peter's successor?

Such a simple question should have a simple answer.. shouldn't it?  Especially if you claim your church is built on the rock of Peter...?  Wheres the proof?

My comparison does not fall flat because now you are introducing additional and irrelevant criteria. As I said this is a dead brain argument and I'm sorry for you that you wish to pursue this sort of trivial level of discussion.

In my opinion it is tragic that we cannot have an adult level of discussion between Catholic and Protestants on issues but that some of you just want to play games of trivial pursuits.

grow up.

Brain dead?... I think it's the other way around.  and your comparison does fall flat because you are comparing apples to oranges.

You have absolutely no supporting evidence to back up any of your churches claims to authenticity other then hearsay from decades after the event... which is the adult way to approach it.   If you make a claim, be ready to back it up.. as I have with all my assertions and you have just casually dismissed them as stupid and juvenile.

Please support your claims..

Shifting your argument to a different topic. You are like a jack-in-a-box

I have not shifted anything.... nothing at all.

Will you at least attempt to answer my questions.. instead of resorting to juvenile name calling?

How do you conclusively know that Peter started the RCC except by hearsay?

Peter did not "start" the Catholic church...our Lord, Jesus Christ did.  It was founded with Peter as it's earthly head and the proof is the inerrant Word of God in Matt. 16:18.  It is unimportant to Catholics whether the Church is head-quartered in Rome or Timbuktu, it has been headquartered in Avignon, France in the past and is not based in Rome now.  The Church is not even based in Italy;  it is based in Vatican State which is a separate country from Italy.  We say "Rome" as a shorthand.  Popes are the chief Bishop of the Church, (the word 'Pope' is just a term of enderment that has become used as one of his titles.), who are elected as the Bishop of Rome as it is the traditional final resting place of both Peter and Paul.  (The "Holy See" refers to both of their martyrdoms there, although they are elected as the successor to Peter.).  It has been attested to throughout the ages.  Pope Clement I of Rome exercised his authority as head of the Church in his epistle to the Corinthians which was included in many canons of the New Testament until the Church, my Church, excluded it in the final canonisation of the NT.  An example of early Christian texts of Peter's primacy and of his subsequent successors...

"Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, "How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].

Quote from: desertknight on Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 00:07:19
Peter did not "start" the Catholic church...our Lord, Jesus Christ did.  It was founded with Peter as it's earthly head and the proof is the inerrant Word of God in Matt. 16:18.  It is unimportant to Catholics whether the Church is head-quartered in Rome or Timbuktu, it has been headquartered in Avignon, France in the past and is not based in Rome now.  The Church is not even based in Italy;  it is based in Vatican State which is a separate country from Italy.  We say "Rome" as a shorthand.  Popes are the chief Bishop of the Church, (the word 'Pope' is just a term of enderment that has become used as one of his titles.), who are elected as the Bishop of Rome as it is the traditional final resting place of both Peter and Paul.  (The "Holy See" refers to both of their martyrdoms there, although they are elected as the successor to Peter.).  It has been attested to throughout the ages.  Pope Clement I of Rome exercised his authority as head of the Church in his epistle to the Corinthians which was included in many canons of the New Testament until the Church, my Church, excluded it in the final canonisation of the NT.  An example of early Christian texts of Peter's primacy and of his subsequent successors...

"Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, "How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 01:46:53I really don't see anything here that shows the church of Rome was the established Capital of the whole christian church. or that it was recognized as such by al the Bishops of the empire  And because there was always bishops in Rome is no evidence that they were all popes ( meaning supreme papa of the whole christian church) They were just the bishops of the churches established at Rome. Just like there were other bishops through out Asia. Corinth, Pergomus, and  Antioc  

But lets say that for the sake of the argument that it was as you want to believe

How is that the Bishops of the west would not endorse the bishops of Rome in their desperate quest to be the supreme pope of the whole christian church through out  the Empire and beyond. This surely was a lofty and fanciful idea. So now they managed to lie their way into power and the west was split  Now if Rome was alway excepted as the capital of the church and all the bishops there formed a linage of popes and all the church recognized that then what was the oposition of the west.

Sounds like some flim flam was going on. Things they have manipulated to justify their ill gotten position in your eyes and the eyes of the people.

Ignatius:, "who is also called Theophorus, to the Church, (in Rome), which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

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 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian :
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the Church would be built' [Matt. 16:18] with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth' [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[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]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Origen :
"if we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Additional sources...

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

The primacy of the Roman See is a well established fact in ecclesiastical history.

Quote from: desertknight on Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 03:07:20

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 01:46:53I really don't see anything here that shows the church of Rome was the established Capital of the whole christian church. or that it was recognized as such by al the Bishops of the empire  And because there was always bishops in Rome is no evidence that they were all popes ( meaning supreme papa of the whole christian church) They were just the bishops of the churches established at Rome. Just like there were other bishops through out Asia. Corinth, Pergomus, and  Antioc  

But lets say that for the sake of the argument that it was as you want to believe

How is that the Bishops of the west would not endorse the bishops of Rome in their desperate quest to be the supreme pope of the whole christian church through out  the Empire and beyond. This surely was a lofty and fanciful idea. So now they managed to lie their way into power and the west was split  Now if Rome was alway excepted as the capital of the church and all the bishops there formed a linage of popes and all the church recognized that then what was the oposition of the west.

Sounds like some flim flam was going on. Things they have manipulated to justify their ill gotten position in your eyes and the eyes of the people.

Ignatius:, "who is also called Theophorus, to the Church, (in Rome), which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

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 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian :
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the Church would be built' [Matt. 16:18] with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth' [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[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]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Origen :
"if we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Additional sources...

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

The primacy of the Roman See is a well established fact in ecclesiastical history.

dear Night I have read your letters closely. You list four men. I will assume they were all bishops. i know Ignatius was of Antioch and the other three I do not know. I'm sure they must be of the early church fathers.

The first one from Ignatius. In the first line i notice (In Rome) was that an ad in. or was that always there?

the Letter from Irenaeus was the only one that really supports your idea but it sounded a lot like he was trying to appeal this idea, and that it was not shared by all the bishops of that time.

thee other two only speak of Peter and the power to bind and loose.

Again I see nothing conclusive that Rome was shared as the capital of all the Christin church.  Do the letters of just a few select bishops have  the unquestioned  support of all the churches and bishops of the empire at that time.

No please re read this question.

But lets say that for the sake of the argument that it was as you want to believe

How is it that the Bishops of the west would not endorse the bishops of Rome in their desperate quest to be the supreme pope of the whole christian church through out  the Empire and beyond. This surely was a lofty and fanciful idea. So now they managed to lie their way into power and the west was split  Now if Rome was alway excepted as the capital of the church and all the bishops there formed a linage of popes and all the church recognized that then what was the oposition of the west. 
God bless

I don't argue for the sake of argument. There is a serious point to all this. Surely the papacy was born of  corrupt ambitious men who not only wanted to be supreme papa of Christianity (pontifex maximus) but wanted to rule religiously and politically the whole Empire and known world. Little wonder that it could amass such great wealth and power. Little wonder that Rev 17 says She is the Great Whore of  Babylon. She was all that Babylon is.

I also asked you  when you said you agreed with Selene about the real purpose of the church Christ founded. What is the UN connection?  What is is real purpose and goal there?
   

Quote from: McLThe first one from Ignatius. In the first line i notice (In Rome) was that an ad in. or was that always there?

Well, yes for clarity, but as that is who he is clearly addressing, it can't be to anyone else, hence the title of the letter, "Epistle to the Romans"  Do you think it is to someone else?  

Quotethe Letter from Irenaeus was the only one that really supports your idea but it sounded a lot like he was trying to appeal this idea, and that it was not shared by all the bishops of that time.

Actually he is appealing to the fight against the various non-Christian heresies prevalent at the time and appealing to the unified authority of the Church.

QuoteAgain I see nothing conclusive that Rome was shared as the capital of all the Christin church.  Do the letters of just a few select bishops have  the unquestioned  support of all the churches and bishops of the empire at that time.

Did you bother to click on the link I provided?  There are more sources there.  Were there other Bishops who did not like such central authority?  I presume so as there are now, but that is not the argument.  

Here is a statement and the problem those who argue the other side have.  1.  These sources are not just "a few Bishops", the sources I listed are regarded as some of the most important Fathers of the Church.    2.  There is certainly a severe lack of any texts and a total lack of any argument of Bishops who disagreed with the idea of Petrine Supremacy.   There is no record of any other model existing before the split in AD 1054.

QuoteHow is it that the Bishops of the west would not endorse the bishops of Rome in their desperate quest to be the supreme pope of the whole christian church through out  the Empire and beyond. This surely was a lofty and fanciful idea. So now they managed to lie their way into power and the west was split  Now if Rome was alway excepted as the capital of the church and all the bishops there formed a linage of popes and all the church recognized that then what was the oposition of the west.
God bless

I honestly have no idea what you are asking here or what your argument is.  The Bishops of the West did endorse the Bishop of Rome as the Pope.  There is no record of anything else.  Am I missing what you are asking?  I'm confused.  What are you referring to when you say, "lie their way into power"  and "the west was split"?  Split when?  Lie when?    What "opposition of the West"  are you talking about?

QuoteI don't argue for the sake of argument. There is a serious point to all this. Surely the papacy was born of  corrupt ambitious men who not only wanted to be supreme papa of Christianity (pontifex maximus) but wanted to rule religiously and politically the whole Empire and known world. Little wonder that it could amass such great wealth and power. Little wonder that Rev 17 says She is the Great wh*re of  Babylon. She was all that Babylon is.

The same tired ole' bigoted garbage.  Won't justify such trash with an answer.  You always know when the person you are arguing with has nothing to say, they just recycle garbage and spew it out without one, single, solitary, shred of proof.  Old hat around here.

QuoteI also asked you  when you said you agreed with Selene about the real purpose of the church Christ founded. What is the UN connection?  What is is real purpose and goal there?

What "UN connection" are you talking about?    The Vatican has an ambassador in the UN, as do we, and virtually every single country on the planet.  And that is evil.....how?

Quote from: desertknight on Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 03:07:20

Quote from: mclees8 on Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 01:46:53I really don't see anything here that shows the church of Rome was the established Capital of the whole christian church. or that it was recognized as such by al the Bishops of the empire  And because there was always bishops in Rome is no evidence that they were all popes ( meaning supreme papa of the whole christian church) They were just the bishops of the churches established at Rome. Just like there were other bishops through out Asia. Corinth, Pergomus, and  Antioc  

But lets say that for the sake of the argument that it was as you want to believe

How is that the Bishops of the west would not endorse the bishops of Rome in their desperate quest to be the supreme pope of the whole christian church through out  the Empire and beyond. This surely was a lofty and fanciful idea. So now they managed to lie their way into power and the west was split  Now if Rome was alway excepted as the capital of the church and all the bishops there formed a linage of popes and all the church recognized that then what was the oposition of the west.

Sounds like some flim flam was going on. Things they have manipulated to justify their ill gotten position in your eyes and the eyes of the people.

Ignatius:, "who is also called Theophorus, to the Church, (in Rome), which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

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 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian :
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the Church would be built' [Matt. 16:18] with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth' [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[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]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Origen :
"if we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Additional sources...

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

The primacy of the Roman See is a well established fact in ecclesiastical history.

These references are what is called hearsay.. and do not constitute admissible evidence in any court of law in the land.

It's equivalent to trying to tell the judge that you heard a friend of a friend of a friend say that so and so did such and such...

I won't accept the RCC unless I see it in Peters own writings.. or in the writings of Paul or any of Jesus' other disciples... without that first hand information, the RCC is nothing but and illegitimate pretender.

We also know those you quoted had a vested interest in maintaining their power by saying those things.  We also know Origin and Tertullian were pretty much heretics if you read all their writings.. even by Roman Catholic standards.  Are you going to believe what a heretic says about the Roman See and reject everything else they say?

Quote from: Tantor on Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 16:31:52
These references are what is called hearsay.. and do not constitute admissible evidence in any court of law in the land.

It's equivalent to trying to tell the judge that you heard a friend of a friend of a friend say that so and so did such and such...

Nonsense.  We are not in a court of law and if you do not accept the Fathers of the Church and their judgement then I assume you will not be a hypocrite and accept much of the Bible.  What did Jesus write?  Are Jesus's words in the NT written by Jesus?  NO!  Gee, and that would be in a court of law....hearsay.  How bout' other books of the NT?  Who wrote second Peter?  I don't know of any scholar who thinks Peter did.  I won't even start with the OT as virtually none of it was even written during the time of the events it describes, let alone by any of the principals of it's stories.  And what would the Bible be called in a "court of law"?  Hearsay.  I await your, "But we non-Catholics know the Bible just fell out of a tree, fully formed" response.   Of course, what should we expect when the canon of the Bible was clearly compiled by the criminals in the dock that you identify...the Church Fathers.  It is they, those exact same people who you will not take the word for, who gave you the canon of the Bible.  Even Protestants acknowledge that.

Quote from: TantorI won't accept the RCC unless I see it in Peters own writings.. or in the writings of Paul or any of Jesus' other disciples... without that first hand information, the RCC is nothing but and illegitimate pretender.

Without first hand information about what?  I wish you guys would at least pose a cogent argument.  I have no idea what you are referring to.  What specifically are you refering to?

Quote from: TantorWe also know those you quoted had a vested interest in maintaining their power by saying those things.  We also know Origin and Tertullian were pretty much heretics if you read all their writings.. even by Roman Catholic standards.  Are you going to believe what a heretic says about the Roman See and reject everything else they say?

Yes, because anyone with any training in history or logic knows that a ad hominem arguments are irrational and fallacious.  It is akin to Hitler saying, "Looks like rain today.", and the respondent saying, "Hitler invaded Poland so obviously he can't be trusted about it looking like rain today".    Uh, no, we look at the conventionally accepted evidence of a subject and then proceed from there.  That evidence is not based on whether the person is a heretic or not.  To me, Calvin was a heretic, but I have read him and enjoyed his thinking in an effort to understand Reformed theology.  If you want to learn and understand something about the history of early Christianity and the Church, then you read the early Fathers of the Church.  

Quote from: desertknight on Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 17:14:11
Nonsense.  We are not in a court of law and if you do not accept the Fathers of the Church and their judgement then I assume you will not be a hypocrite and accept much of the Bible.  What did Jesus write?  Are Jesus's words in the NT written by Jesus?  NO!  Gee, and that would be in a court of law....hearsay.  How bout' other books of the NT?  Who wrote second Peter?  I don't know of any scholar who thinks Peter did.  I won't even start with the OT as virtually none of it was even written during the time of the events it describes, let alone by any of the principals of it's stories.  And what would the Bible be called in a "court of law"?  Hearsay.  I await your, "But we non-Catholics know the Bible just fell out of a tree, fully formed" response.   Of course, what should we expect when the canon of the Bible was clearly compiled by the criminals in the dock that you identify...the Church Fathers.  It is they, those exact same people who you will not take the word for, who gave you the canon of the Bible.  Even Protestants acknowledge that.

1.) I believe that those that said they wrote the books of the New Testament.. or they Holy Spirit was telling a falsehood.  To say that they were not written by those that claimed to have written them is basically throwing the Holy Spirit out the window (which is what the RCC has always done).

Quote from: TantorI won't accept the RCC unless I see it in Peters own writings.. or in the writings of Paul or any of Jesus' other disciples... without that first hand information, the RCC is nothing but and illegitimate pretender.

Someone from Peter stating the intentions for the "Church that was founded on him being the Rock"... It is pretty clear from biblical timing that Peter never could have physically been in Rome no matter what hearsay you might bring to the argument otherwise.  Peter could not be in two places at the same time and Paul not even once mentioned in his extensive writings that Peter was ever in Rome... not even once.

Quote from: TantorWe also know those you quoted had a vested interest in maintaining their power by saying those things.  We also know Origin and Tertullian were pretty much heretics if you read all their writings.. even by Roman Catholic standards.  Are you going to believe what a heretic says about the Roman See and reject everything else they say?

Why is id ad hominem?.. Origen and Tortullian writings reveal their interest in affirming Roman dominance of the Christian world from an orginizational point of view, yet when it comes to all their forays into doctrinal matters, they are pretty much hold stances that are anti-catholic.

As far as the Canon... even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time and God has used evil for good many times throughout history... I only accept the canon based on the standards that the council came up with being very reasonable, logical and sane... it's probabily the only time in history where that has occurred.  But I wouldn't go trumpeting it around to much because others will start delving into the decisions of your church and come out with the same bad taste in their mouth like me.

Catholics worship Baal and Our Lady of Ephesus as far as I am concerned.

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Dec 04, 2009 - 06:26:37
1.) I believe that those that said they wrote the books of the New Testament.. or they Holy Spirit was telling a falsehood.  To say that they were not written by those that claimed to have written them is basically throwing the Holy Spirit out the window (which is what the RCC has always done).

Subterfuge.  Christ never wrote a single word that we know of, and yet all that we believe He said is purely "hearsay", by your own forensic definition...now you side step it.  I don't claim that there are books of the Bible not written by the principles within those books, the Bible itself does in it's own chronicle of events.  Did Noah write the book of Genesis?  That would have been a neat trick as it records events long after Noah's death.  Did David write the Book of Samuel?  Did the Apostle John write the Gospel of John?  Even if you believe that John said what was said in the Gospel of John, by your definition, (not mine), we do not have one single surviving manuscript of John's actual authorship and virtually all serious Biblical scholars, particularly in the case of the OT as well as parts of the NT, view Biblical writing as pseudepigraphical, i.e., "hearsay", by your own definition!  Now you want to try to back-pedal on that.

Quote from: TantorSomeone from Peter stating the intentions for the "Church that was founded on him being the Rock"... It is pretty clear from biblical timing that Peter never could have physically been in Rome no matter what hearsay you might bring to the argument otherwise.  Peter could not be in two places at the same time and Paul not even once mentioned in his extensive writings that Peter was ever in Rome... not even once.

 Please quote the biblical passages where it makes clear that Peter could not have been in Rome.  You just got finished saying that you refuse to believe that 1st Peter was written by any other than Peter and yet he states in it...

"1 Peter 5:13  "The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God's election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark."

Hummmm, now as there isn't a single Biblical scholar that I know of that actually believes Peter was in Mesopotamia, and for good reason..."Babylon" had ceased to exist for over two centuries before Peter was even born, then, pray tell. where was he writing from?  It obviously wasn't Jerusalem because that is where he was writing to!  Now we have literally, dozens of historic accounts of Peter's presence in Rome and his execution, but not one scrap of evidence, not one account, not one scholar of note, claims that he went to a city that was sand and centuries old artifacts in order to write 1st Peter.

Quote from: TantorWhy is id ad hominem?.. Origen and Tortullian writings reveal their interest in affirming Roman dominance of the Christian world from an orginizational point of view, yet when it comes to all their forays into doctrinal matters, they are pretty much hold stances that are anti-catholic.

That is exactly why it is an ad hominem, because you did nothing to refute their historic account of the Church and it's obvious organisation, you just asserted that because both of them became guilty of doctrinal errors in their lives, that, that somehow negates their observations of the structure of the Christian Church.  That is the very definition of an ad hominem argument.

Quote from: TantorAs far as the Canon... even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time and God has used evil for good many times throughout history... I only accept the canon based on the standards that the council came up with being very reasonable, logical and sane... it's probabily the only time in history where that has occurred.  But I wouldn't go trumpeting it around to much because others will start delving into the decisions of your church and come out with the same bad taste in their mouth like me.

Catholics worship Baal and Our Lady of Ephesus as far as I am concerned.

That is because like most separated faithful, your's is a religion of self-centred, "Christianity as I see it" faith.  You accept what you personally "feel" is correct and reject what gives you the "bad jou, jou".  It's a faith of personal observation and interpretation devoid of historic teaching and disinterested Biblical scholarship.  That "bad taste" you are refering to is nothing but bigotry and ignorance.  You are guilty of what the great American southern writer Flannery O'Connor writes of in describing the evangelical Protestantism of her day...

"The (Evangelical) religion of the South is a do-it-yourself religion, something which I as a Catholic find painful and touching and grimly comic. It's full of unconscious pride that lands them in all sorts of ridiculous religious predicaments. They have nothing to correct their practical heresies and so they work them out dramatically."

Peace, brother.

 

We have been through the definition of Babylon many times.  Babylon could not have been Rome.  Peter was a Apostle to the Jew first.. and then the Gentile.  Babylon is where all the Jewish people went when they fled the Roman occupation of Palestine.. and it would make perfect sense for Peter to go there while it would make almost no sense to head to Rome since Paul was already there and Paul was destined to minister to the Gentiles. And like I said, in all the extensive writings of Paul, he never mentioned Peter even once as being in Rome.

Taking travel time into account with Peter's journeys and witness from other books of the bible, it is almost impossible for Peter to have ever been in Rome and it would never have made sense for him to go to Rome in the first place.

I'm of the belief that if you go by history.. Linus (who was killed) was the first Bishop of Rome as appointed by Paul and then Linus was succeeded by Cletus.. and then there was some sort of argument about succession and Cletus gave way to Clement who was appointed by Peter... either way, I think it is obvious that even the early apostles were confused about apostolic succession and it's not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.