the church

musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Of the circumstances of the forming of the church at Rome we have no knowledge. That Paul, neither in his epistle to the Romans nor to the Philippians (written from Rome), makes mention of Peter shows that the legend which ascribes its foundation to him is a fiction. This has been admitted even by noted Roman Catholic scholars.
Click to expand...

George P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church, p. 29
 
glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
musterion said:
That Paul, neither in his epistle to the Romans nor to the Philippians (written from Rome) makes mention of Peter, shows that the legend which ascribes its foundation to him is a fiction.
Click to expand...

From http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome

On the other hand, if Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established by Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome. There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yet have its connection to Rome.

...


Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox).

...

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].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”
Click to expand...
 
glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
musterion said:
Since it is the Word of God, do you believe His Word, alone, is sufficient in the life of the believer for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness?
Click to expand...

Yes. Who should do the instructing?

And... Do you believe we should only read the OT, to which that verse is referring?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
glassjester said:
Orthodoxy and authority have been the subjects of this entire discussion.
I have not strayed.

Yes.

Perhaps you will answer the question that I posed to you:

Do you currently believe any false Christian doctrine?
Click to expand...
I believe what the Bible says.

I do not believe all of the perverted doctrines that the RCC teaches.

Paul tells us to study to show ourselves approved unto God. Note that is does NOT say "approved unto the RCC".
2Tim 2:15 (AKJV/PCE)​
(2:15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
​

What is Paul telling us to study? The RCC catechism? No, he is not.

The RCC has no authority, only a falsely claimed one.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
glassjester said:
Yes. Who should do the instructing?

And... Do you believe we should only read the OT, to which that verse is referring?
Click to expand...
2Tim 3:16-17 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:16) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. ​

ALL SCRIPTURE!

Again we see that you do not trust God and HIS WORD.
 
glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
2Tim 3:16-17 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:16) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. ​

ALL SCRIPTURE!
Click to expand...

At that time, the OT was "All Scripture."

If you claim that we should expand this verse to mean writings that came afterward, then we run into a big problem. Who has the authority to determine which writings should be considered Scripture?


I ask again - this question is important and extremely pertinent:
Do you currently believe any false Christian doctrine?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
glassjester said:
At that time, the OT was "All Scripture."
Click to expand...
Not true, but I'm sure that your RCC doctrine has confused you about this too.

Paul epistles were already scripture.

Second Timothy was his LAST letter.

glassjester said:
If you claim that we should expand this verse to mean writings that came afterward, then we run into a big problem. Who has the authority to determine which writings should be considered Scripture?
Click to expand...
God determined what would be scripture and not your RCC.

glassjester said:
I ask again - this question is important and extremely pertinent:
Do you currently believe any false Christian doctrine?
Click to expand...
I will not answer that silly question, but thanks for playing.
 
Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
glassjester said:
Who has the authority to determine which writings should be considered Scripture?
Click to expand...
The only New Testament evidence we have of anybody having that kind of supreme authority is Peter. 2nd Peter 3:15-16 (KJV) Note "the other scriptures" (2Pt3:16KJV), meaning that Peter determined that Paul's epistles were also Scripture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top