The RCC born in 313 AD?

[Hentenza]

There was no Babylon in the 60's. It was code for where he really was. Rome.

The city of Babylon was part of the Persian (Parthian) empire until it was destroyed during the Islamic conquests in the 7th century. No, it is not a code for Rome. That is absurd.

ERose is right, there were Christians who migrated from the Holy Land to Rome. The Church established there in 62 or so by Peter and Paul. Remember, Peter was a bishop in Antioch for a while before moving on to Babylon, I mean Rome.

Neither Peter nor Paul established the church in Rome. It was established by the visitors from Rome named in Acts 2. Peter wrote his epistle from Babylon just as he stated and he even mentions who was with him.

 

[Standing Up]

The city of Babylon was part of the Persian (Parthian) empire until it was destroyed during the Islamic conquests in the 7th century. No, it is not a code for Rome. That is absurd.

Neither Peter nor Paul established the church in Rome. It was established by the visitors from Rome named in Acts 2. Peter wrote his epistle from Babylon just as he stated and he even mentions who was with him.

One of those people was Clement of Rome whose letter remains extant. All he says is Peter was martyred in Rome. Nothing about succession from someone who should have known.

On Babylon as code for Rome, some posit it was Alexandria, others suggest it was Jerusalem itself.

 

[Standing Up]

Schaff dates the creation of the Roman Church to 860ad:

"... to illustrate the bearings of this treatise [from Cyprian] upon the history of Christian unity, we need only refer to the manner in which the subject was treated as soon as the papacy was created by Nicholas I. Thus, he astounded the Greeks by his consummate audacity (a.d. 860) in the matter of the disputed succession in Constantinople. “It is our will,” he says, “that Ignatius should appear before our envoys,” etc. He declares it the rule of the Fathers, that, “without the consent of the Roman See and the Roman pontiff, nothing should be decided.” Also, he affirms, “The Creator of all things has established the Princedom of the Divine Power, which He granted to His chosen apostles. He has firmly established it on the firm faith of the Prince of the Apostles,—that is to say, Peter,—to whom he pre-eminently granted the first See,” etc. He was now speaking on the strength of the forged Decretals, to which he appeals, and which he succeeded in making law for the West. He thus created the lasting schism with the Easterns, who had never heard the like before his time.
ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Erose]

Better Greek than Latin

http://www.christianforums.com/t7234016-13/
Jerome and banning Translations





.

At least Latin is a little easier to understand. At least we share the same alphabet.

 

[bbbbbbb]

At least Latin is a little easier to understand. At least we share the same alphabet.

But not the same numbering system.

 

[Erose]

Schaff dates the creation of the Roman Church to 860ad:

"... to illustrate the bearings of this treatise [from Cyprian] upon the history of Christian unity, we need only refer to the manner in which the subject was treated as soon as the papacy was created by Nicholas I. Thus, he astounded the Greeks by his consummate audacity (a.d. 860) in the matter of the disputed succession in Constantinople. “It is our will,” he says, “that Ignatius should appear before our envoys,” etc. He declares it the rule of the Fathers, that, “without the consent of the Roman See and the Roman pontiff, nothing should be decided.” Also, he affirms, “The Creator of all things has established the Princedom of the Divine Power, which He granted to His chosen apostles. He has firmly established it on the firm faith of the Prince of the Apostles,—that is to say, Peter,—to whom he pre-eminently granted the first See,” etc. He was now speaking on the strength of the forged Decretals, to which he appeals, and which he succeeded in making law for the West. He thus created the lasting schism with the Easterns, who had never heard the like before his time.
ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Schaff is nothing more than a propagandist. Seriously how can someone disregard all the evidence before then that the Church of Rome had a special role in Christianity? Even the Easterners don't reject this.

Why do Protestants feel that they have to reinvent history to justify their existence? If what the original protestors did was right and followed the will of God, then you should not fear the truth.

The field of history has become nothing more than a propaganda tool, to the point that all historical books should be viewed with suspicion, and their claims substantiated independently.

 

[Erose]

But not the same numbering system.

Can't win them all. At least their number system is fairly easy to figure out. With Greek, not only do you have to learn what the words mean, you have to first figure out what the alphabet means as well.

 

[Hentenza]

One of those people was Clement of Rome whose letter remains extant.

This point can be disputed since no names are revealed in Acts 2 and extra-biblical sources are spurious at best.

All he says is Peter was martyred in Rome. Nothing about succession from someone who should have known.

Yep.

On Babylon as code for Rome, some posit it was Alexandria, others suggest it was Jerusalem itself.

I am not convinced that a "code" for Rome existed at all.

 

[Erose]

How this refutes the argument is beyond me. Are you claiming that opposing lists exist because people can't remember the last 10 popes or the last 10 pastors?

It refutes it because here your smoke is that there are some lists (primarily from Tertullian) that doesn't jive with the list of popes that the Church gives. Irenaeus and Eusebius (who follows Irenaeus' list) is consistent to the Church record. Tertullian's isn't, and yet that is your smoke.

In modern world today we have as much information that we can ever possibly digest, but if you go on a street corner today and ask 20 people to list lets say the last 10 presidents in order, how many people do you think will be able to without the internet? One, maybe two? And yet because Tertullian 200 years later didn't get his list exactly all of sudden Protestants want to make incredible claims about the papacy.

This is the point I want to make and to point out your argument is illogical and does not take into account the human and historical elements.

The original is extant and easily translatable by any church. Your church translated it as Catholic church (capital c) but there were no capital letters in Greek back so the translation fails. Katolithos merely means universal (not with a capital U, lol).

Easily translatable. If it was, then everybody would be translating their own Bible would they not. I agree that Ignatius was not naming the Church at that point, but either from his epistle (I heard his epistles were very popular in the early Church) or from some other source it didn't take long before the Church was being referred to as the Catholic Church. And this Catholic Church was being held as something different than those groups of heretics also claiming to be Christian during that time. Irenaeus uses the term in his treaty Against Heresies bk 1, ch 10. In the martyrdom of Polycarp the term the holy and catholic church is used. Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria also refer to the Catholic Church, Catholic Teaching, etc. to differentiate the Church from the other groups who referred to themselves as Christians. The term is used to refer to the Church in the very first Ecumenical councils, and by every one of the Nicene Fathers. So whether or not Ignatius named the Church Catholic or catholic in his epistle really doesn't matter. Whether he coined the title or not really doesn't matter. What matters is that the record shows from a very early date that the phrase Catholic Church was used and used frequently, and heretics were not viewed as being part of this Catholic Church.

Amazing how dictionaries and lexicons can help these days. They are available to you also. Look it up.

Amazing. But for someone to think that he can translate Greek or Hebrew, using just dictionaries and lexicons, better than those who actually study and know the Greek and Hebrew, is IMO silly. Its like saying just because I watch football and actually played some football and read a few books on football, that I can be a successful coach in the NFL. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry Hentenza, there are a few people here in these forums who I feel comfortable that they know Greek pretty good, but you are not one of them.

 

[Albion]

Schaff is nothing more than a propagandist. Seriously how can someone disregard all the evidence before then that the Church of Rome had a special role in Christianity? Even the Easterners don't reject this.

Why do Protestants feel that they have to reinvent history to justify their existence? If what the original protestors did was right and followed the will of God, then you should not fear the truth.

Here's your problem--you don't understand that while the bishop of Rome always had a certain prominence THAT DOESN'T MEAN that any construct like the Papacy with worldwide headship over all the other successors of the Apostles was accepted by the church generally.

We know for a fact that it was not.

THAT particular claim was an innovation of a later time, and determining when that time came is the key to answering the question of this thread.

 

[Erose]

The church of Jerusalem was an independently run church just like the others listed in the NT. The church in Rome was also an independently run church. It did not wrangle primacy and become the entity known as the Catholic Church until the 5th century. The church of Jerusalem was not part of the entity known as the Catholic Church.

So Acts chapter 15 is a latter add in, IYO. The Churches were autonomous, never independent from each other. The council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is the good evidence for this. St. Paul's letters are good evidence for this, as well.

There was an independently governed church in Rome prior to Paul arriving there.

Yes St. Peter was there before him.

Historically, it is a stretch to attempt to place Peter in Rome during the 60's. Peter was the apostle to the Jews. After he was incarcerated and escaped he most like went to the place which had the second largest Jewish population which was Babylon.

Since St. Peter was martyred in Rome somewhere between AD 64-67, I would say he was in Rome in the 60's.

There is nothing in Revelation stating such explicitly. One would have to draw out that conclusion. Secondly, Revelation was not written until the 90's not in the 60's.

So what is Babylon in Revelation then? Surely not the actually Babylon as Babylon already fell and Revelations speaks of its upcoming judgement.

Many churches from Apostolic times no longer exist. That area has a tumultuous history including the genocide of Christians by Islamic fighters during the 7th and 8th centuries (and later also). It is not surprising that no extant records exist from those churches.

True, but the Chaldean and Syrian and Assyrian Churches still do in Iraq, and they do know their history as well as anyone.

The Assyrian Church of the East also claims to be founded by St. Thomas, and they also claim that St. Peter did visit them. So it is probable that St. Peter did visit Assyria, as he, along with the other Apostles, covered a lot of territory. You look at the journeys of St. Paul, which we have the most data on, or the journeys of St. Thomas who ended up in India, or St. James who is believed to have brought the gospel to Spain. If I remember correctly the English church claims that St. Peter visited the British Isles at one point in his ministry. So there isn't much that could be out of the question on how far and how quickly they got to locations to preach the Gospel.

So lets say that even if St. Peter did write the epistle in Babylon, that doesn't make it impossible that St. Peter did not go to Rome and preside over a Church there, before and at his death. So really the his epistle doesn't confirm or deny anything on this point.

 

[Standing Up]

It refutes it because here your smoke is that there are some lists (primarily from Tertullian) that doesn't jive with the list of popes that the Church gives. Irenaeus and Eusebius (who follows Irenaeus' list) is consistent to the Church record. Tertullian's isn't, and yet that is your smoke.

In modern world today we have as much information that we can ever possibly digest, but if you go on a street corner today and ask 20 people to list lets say the last 10 presidents in order, how many people do you think will be able to without the internet? One, maybe two? And yet because Tertullian 200 years later didn't get his list exactly all of sudden Protestants want to make incredible claims about the papacy.

This is the point I want to make and to point out your argument is illogical and does not take into account the human and historical elements.



Easily translatable. If it was, then everybody would be translating their own Bible would they not. I agree that Ignatius was not naming the Church at that point, but either from his epistle (I heard his epistles were very popular in the early Church) or from some other source it didn't take long before the Church was being referred to as the Catholic Church. And this Catholic Church was being held as something different than those groups of heretics also claiming to be Christian during that time. Irenaeus uses the term in his treaty Against Heresies bk 1, ch 10. In the martyrdom of Polycarp the term the holy and catholic church is used. Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria also refer to the Catholic Church, Catholic Teaching, etc. to differentiate the Church from the other groups who referred to themselves as Christians. The term is used to refer to the Church in the very first Ecumenical councils, and by every one of the Nicene Fathers. So whether or not Ignatius named the Church Catholic or catholic in his epistle really doesn't matter. Whether he coined the title or not really doesn't matter. What matters is that the record shows from a very early date that the phrase Catholic Church was used and used frequently, and heretics were not viewed as being part of this Catholic Church.


Amazing. But for someone to think that he can translate Greek or Hebrew, using just dictionaries and lexicons, better than those who actually study and know the Greek and Hebrew, is IMO silly. Its like saying just because I watch football and actually played some football and read a few books on football, that I can be a successful coach in the NFL. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry Hentenza, there are a few people here in these forums who I feel comfortable that they know Greek pretty good, but you are not one of them.

Don't forget Cyprian and Firmilian using the word catholic to describe themselves and differentiate them from the group in Rome (Pope Stephen) who determined that Rome's heretical baptism (like Arius', Montanism', demons') was exactly equivalent to Christian baptism.

One could say the Roman Church began c254ad based on this difference between the two.

 

[Standing Up]

So Acts chapter 15 is a latter add in, IYO. The Churches were autonomous, never independent from each other. The council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is the good evidence for this. St. Paul's letters are good evidence for this, as well.



Yes St. Peter was there before him.


Since St. Peter was martyred in Rome somewhere between AD 64-67, I would say he was in Rome in the 60's.



So what is Babylon in Revelation then? Surely not the actually Babylon as Babylon already fell and Revelations speaks of its upcoming judgement.


True, but the Chaldean and Syrian and Assyrian Churches still do in Iraq, and they do know their history as well as anyone.

The Assyrian Church of the East also claims to be founded by St. Thomas, and they also claim that St. Peter did visit them. So it is probable that St. Peter did visit Assyria, as he, along with the other Apostles, covered a lot of territory. You look at the journeys of St. Paul, which we have the most data on, or the journeys of St. Thomas who ended up in India, or St. James who is believed to have brought the gospel to Spain. If I remember correctly the English church claims that St. Peter visited the British Isles at one point in his ministry. So there isn't much that could be out of the question on how far and how quickly they got to locations to preach the Gospel.

So lets say that even if St. Peter did write the epistle in Babylon, that doesn't make it impossible that St. Peter did not go to Rome and preside over a Church there, before and at his death. So really the his epistle doesn't confirm or deny anything on this point.

The problem with anyone basing their group on Peter is we know from Peter himself his lineage. 1 Peter 1:1-2, 5:3 he called the elders (plural) from Asia Minor and instructed them to do exactly as Christ told him; that is, "feed His sheep".

So the issue of Peter appointing anyone in Rome is vacuous.

 

[Erose]

Here's your problem--you don't understand that while the bishop of Rome always had a certain prominence THAT DOESN'T MEAN that any construct like the Papacy with worldwide headship over all the other successors of the Apostles was accepted by the church generally.

We know for a fact that it was not.

THAT particular claim was an innovation of a later time, and determining when that time came is the key to answering the question of this thread.

So here is your problem Albion, if you can't be sure when it occurred then how do you know that it hasn't always been?

Also from your comments, I do think that you don't have a full understanding of the relationship between the see of Rome and the other sees and dioceses/eparchs. Has there been fluctuations during the years concerning authority? Yes, no one disagrees with that point, or they shouldn't. Has at times the papacy overstepped their bounds? Yes that has happened as well, as would be expected when we are discussing human beings. Human beings do it every day do they not? Have you not experienced it even in the work place, where another manager all of a sudden feels he needs to get more involved in another department's operations? Or a manager who wants to micromanage other managers and people below him/her? It happens does it not? And it happens sadly in the hierarchy of the Church.

In the past we have had popes, patriarchs, bishops, abbots, etc who were micromanagers and we have had a times were these men in these positions were too hands off and that created problems as well. There is a balance no doubt that needs to be kept and when that balance shifts one way or the other we have problems.

At this time I think a good balance has been achieved, even though I have heard some Eastern Catholics complain that the pope is too hands off when it comes to their particular churches.

The point is that normally the Pope is not a dictator over the Church, if he ever really has been. It is not like he has every really owned a significant army with which he could unilaterally impose his will upon all the other bishops and patriarchs. That is just not how it works. Have there been popes who wished they could have? Sadly yes. But that just wasn't the case.

 

[Albion]

So here is your problem Albion, if you can't be sure when it occurred then how do you know that it hasn't always been?

Well, we do know that for a fact.

What we are not certain of is which move at a later time constitutes such a break with the rest of the church that it represents a distinct and separate denomination/communion coming into being.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The city of Babylon was part of the Persian (Parthian) empire until it was destroyed during the Islamic conquests in the 7th century. No, it is not a code for Rome. That is absurd.

Neither Peter nor Paul established the church in Rome. It was established by the visitors from Rome named in Acts 2. Peter wrote his epistle from Babylon just as he stated and he even mentions who was with him.

Got any documented proof of Babylon's existence until Islamic conquests?
There was a city called Babylon in Egypt, just north of Cairo, but not in Persia.
Regarding your second part, so what? That they didn't "establish" the Church in Rome? Christ established THE Church, and then it spread pretty widely. How could Peter write from Babylon when it didn't exist at the time, and when he was the bishop of Antioch?

 

[Erose]

The problem with anyone basing their group on Peter is we know from Peter himself his lineage. 1 Peter 1:1-2, 5:3 he called the elders (plural) from Asia Minor and instructed them to do exactly as Christ told him; that is, "feed His sheep".

So the issue of Peter appointing anyone in Rome is vacuous.

Nice word, SU. But truthfully anyone who rejects the authenticity of a historical record using only historical data from a certain timeframe before a historical occurrence happened is what you said? Vacuous.

You cannot get from Scripture whether or not St. Peter established a church and died in Rome or not, because Scripture is silent on these matters. What you are trying to do would be like trying to determine who succeeded St. James the Just as the bishop of Jerusalem. It is not part of the historical record given to us in Scripture.

 

[Erose]

Well, we do know that for a fact.

And where can this fact be found?

What we are not certain of is which move at a later time constitutes such a break with the rest of the church that it represents a distinct and separate denomination/communion coming into being.

Like your church?

 

[Albion]

And where can this fact be found?

Most history books can help you with that. There are some excellent ones dealing with the first century church.

 

[Tzaousios]

Most history books can help you with that. There are some excellent ones dealing with the first century church.

Sorry to interject, but would you recommend any in particular? I know of a few but am interested in what you would turn to most regularly. Thanks!