A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[Albion]

Anyone care to explain this?


http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/sect61.htm

Going to the opposite extreme from Kepha's position?

 

[everready]

Going to the opposite extreme from Kepha's position?

I'll answer your question with a question. If you had the slightest feeling that Jesus was having his feelings hurt out of a love for his creation, would you do same?

 

[Albion]

I'll answer your question with a question. If you had the slightest feeling that Jesus was having his feelings hurt out of a love for his creation, would you do same?

I don't see how that answers my question. You asked how one could explain that link you gave us. I replied, in effect, "Wouldn't it be a proposition at the opposite end of the extremes from Kepha's?"

Although I put it to you as a question, it might as well have been a statement. Kepha takes the one extreme, i.e. the Ultramontane position, whereas your link considers everything wrong with it to be pagan or pagan-inspired--the extreme at the opposite end.

I'd say that the reality lies somewhere in between the two.

 

[everready]

I don't see how that answers my question. You asked how one could explain that link you gave us. I replied, in effect, "Wouldn't it be a proposition at the opposite end of the extremes from Kepha's?"

Although I put it to you as a question, it might as well have been a statement. Kepha takes the one extreme, i.e. the Ultramontane position, whereas your link considers everything wrong with it to be pagan or pagan-inspired--the extreme at the opposite end.

I'd say that the reality lies somewhere in between the two.

I was taught to believe what the teacher said that was then, in the world, now my teacher is Jesus Christ. 37 years I Spent in research, all given to you on a silver platter, read what the scriptures say to this. You'll find your answers there.

In Christ,
Lee

Make haste, Jesus is coming soon.

 

[Albion]

Enough. When I answered your question, I wasn't asking for a lecture on a totally different subject.

Finis.

 

[Rick Otto]

kepha31Rome is merely a city in Italy.

First you spin to marginalize...

It so happens that Rome was the capital of the known world at the time.

Then you spin to maximize as if co-incidence, not God, is in control.

That is why God chose to use Rome as the center of authority for the Church on earth.

Men chose Rome. God chose Jerusalem, & to Jerusalem He will return it from Rome.

Jesus died for the whole world. There is a certain symbolism there. If Peter were to establish his 'diocese' in Paris, we would be called Parisian Catholics. If Peter were to establish this same authoritive church in Joppa, we would be called Joppian Catholics.

All of that is human logic serving human ambition, contrary to scripture & God's purpose.

Pope Clement riegned as Pope as is clearly indicated by several writings.

Not a single one of which are in scripture.

The Apostle John was still alive at the time. Why wasn't the Apostle John the Pope? Because he wasn't the bishop of Rome.

No, because he did not posess worldly ambition & did not care for the deeds of the nicolaitanes who wished to marry ecclesiatical & civil authority before the 2nd coming.

Attacking the Primacy of Peter and Apostolic succession demands re-writing historical facts to fit a theology born out of 16th century Nominalism, and severing the connection between the Incarnation and an earthly Church, severing the mystical body comprised of heaven and earth. It is a form of gnosticism.

No, it is merely the effort to reform ancient error by exposing the Babylonian Mystery Religion that seeks to aquire the authority of God for itself, as so clearly evidenced by the use of mystery religion symbols & titles.

 

[Rick Otto]

kepha31;Isa. 22:19 - Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.

This chapter isn't about Rome or the Vatican in any way except by extreme extrapolation, the only method ever used to justify nicolaitane misdeeds.
The New Testament is New becuse it isn't the same as The Old which you seek to illegitimately perpetuate.

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people.

That was Old Testament! Read The New!
Mt 23:9 - Show Context And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Heb 8:4 - Show Context For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Because it took that long to wrest the scriptures out of nicolaitane hands & untwist the truth that had been manipulated, a difficult task that cost the lives of many faithful at the hands of the Vatican's Jesuit agents.

Revelation 3:7 RSV
7: "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The truths of the gospel are the keys to the kingdom.

And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.
This isn't about binding, or loosing men's sins, by censures, or excommunications; only re: doctrines, of free, or prohibited practises; as in the sense (rtwmw rwoa) , "bound and loosed", are used innumerably in the Talmudic writings. Dr. Lightfoot has transcribed more than a few, giving the true sense of these phrases. But Jesus gave a greater power for binding and loosing, used to prohibit the requirement of circumcision, all ceremonies, being abolished by the death of Christ, they declared it to be of no avail, rather manipulative, indebting one to do the whole law. (Galatians 5:1,3,6) (Acts 15:10,19) . They bound, or forbid the observance of days, months, times, and years; the keeping holy days, new moons, and sabbaths, such as the first day of the new year, and of every month, the day of atonement, the feasts of the passover, pentecost, and tabernacles, the jubilee year, the sabbatical year, and seventh day sabbath, (Galatians 4:9,10) (Colossians 2:16,17) . They loosed, or free, both civil and religious conversation between Jews and Gentiles; no man should be called common, or unclean; and that in Christ Jesus, and in his church, there is no distinction of Jew and Gentile, (Acts 10:28) (11:2,3,18) (Galatians 3:28) . They also loosed the eating of any sort of food, what was before counted common and unclean, being persuaded by the Lord Jesus Christ, by the words he said, (Matthew 15:11) . They asserted, that there is nothing unclean of itself; and that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; or that true religion does not lie in the observance of those things; that every creature of God is good, and fit for food, and nothing to be refused, or abstained from, on a religious account, provided it be received with thanksgiving, (Romans 14:14,17) (1 Timothy 4:4) . And these things now being by them bound or loosed, pronounced unlawful or lawful, are confirmed as such by the authority of God, and are so to be considered by us.

Condensed from:John Gill Commentaries

 

[kepha31]

Rome is merely a city in Italy. It so happens that Rome was the capital of the known world at the time. That is why God chose to use Rome as the center of authority for the Church on earth.

If that were so, I am sure there would have been at least a HINT of it in scripture.

There is. It is found in 1 Peter 5:13. Any Jew or serious bible student knows that "Babylon" meant the pagan capital of the Roman empire: ROME. There are also very loud "hints" of this city in Revelation 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. And this argument is irrelevant to the fact that Jesus instituted the Papacy.

Pope Clement riegned as Pope as is clearly indicated by several writings.

Not a one of them identifies him as anything more than the bishop of Rome.

Because the bishop of Rome is a bishop of that area, the same as any other bishop. The difference is that at the same time, there is universal jurisdiction for the whole church for whoever holds that one particular office. This is very confusing for Protestants when it doesn't need to be.


"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).
"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out." Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

Because the idea of a Pope was unknown at that time. It only developed centuries later.

The TERM Pope developed, the reality of Peter's Primacy and for his successors is a fact, verified in scripture and in history, which you are obligated to re-write. You forget the Church was in hiding for 300 years, and terms such as "Primacy" and "Universal Jurisdiction" was absent from their language, but the reality was not.

 

[kepha31]

No, because he did not posess worldly ambition & did not care for the deeds of the nicolaitanes who wished to marry ecclesiatical & civil authority before the 2nd coming.

This is bible twisting and paranoid fundamentalist hate speech, and not worth responding to.

No, it is merely the effort to reform ancient error by exposing the Babylonian Mystery Religion that seeks to aquire the authority of God for itself, as so clearly evidenced by the use of mystery religion symbols & titles.

You have read this book, Babylonian Mystery Religion, written by Alexander Hyslop, the laughing stock of real Protestant historians, who have refuted his lies.

Where is that ignore button?

 

[Albion]

There is. It is found in 1 Peter 5:13. Any Jew or serious bible student knows that "Babylon" meant the pagan capital of the Roman empire: ROME. There are also very loud "hints" of this city in Revelation 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome.

Yes, Rome as Babylon, not as God's center of his church.

Unless you are prepared to argue that the Church is referred to as that which made all the nations drink the wine of her adulteries, you have no argument.

Pope Clement riegned as Pope as is clearly indicated by several writings.

There are none such.

Because the bishop of Rome is a bishop of that area, the same as any other bishop. The difference is that at the same time, there is universal jurisdiction for the whole church for whoever holds that one particular office. This is very confusing for Protestants when it doesn't need to be.

You have only an allegation there, nothing that in fact makes the bishop of Rome the head of the Universal Church.

The TERM Pope developed, the reality of Peter's Primacy and for his successors is a fact, verified in scripture and in history, which you are obligated to re-write.

No, there is no reference to the word OR to the office. I am sure you knew what I was referring to even if you won't admit it.

 

[kepha31]

Hislop's 'Babylonian Mystery Religion' Teaching Exposed and Overturned
(an evangelical web site)
http://www.ukapologetics.net/1hislopbaby.html

Some skeptics claim that Christians copied their belief in Jesus' atoning death and resurrection from pagan mythology. They call various "dying gods", such as Balder and Osirus, "pagan christs" and allege that they are proof of Christian plagiarism. Did Jesus' early followers really try to "beef up" the image of their executed Master by creating a "Christos mythos" (Christ myth) derived from pagan mythology? Let's examine this theory.

Nineteenth-century atheists loved the notion of "pagan christs", since it seemed to refute Christianity's claim of divine origin and superiority over paganism. Ironically, however, one of the theory's most influential proponents at the time was a Christian: the Reverend Alexander Hislop. He was pastor of the East Free Church in Arbroath, Scotland, and the author of The Two Babylons: The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and his Wife, a deeply-flawed book which, unfortunately, remains in print today. http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/pagan4.html

 

[kepha31]

The historical evidence for corruption leading to apostasy from the paranoid fundamentalist view is as lacking as the archaelogical evidence that an apostasty ever happened. There are secular historians who wrote about events as they occurred in their time frames. The sack of the Temple in Jerusalem is described; so is the ministry and death of Christ; the Apostles are mentioned. Though persecutions and smaller-scale apostasies are mentioned, there is no evidence that a nearly complete apostasy happened.
As for the claims that this emperor or that pope imposed his own views on a pure Christianity, that claim has been used by every group that aligned itself against the Church since it was established. Such claims are countered when one considers:

• Christ said that those who hear His Church hear Him, and those who hear Him hear the One Who sent Him.(Divine establishment and authority)
• Christ gave Peter the keys that were to remain in his office. (Authority of Peter's office over the others, especially to bind and loose in matters of sin.
• Despite efforts to claim to the contrary, Peter's see was in Rome and he was martyred there. He may have been in Antioch for a time but his primary duty was to the Christians in Rome, who were under very active persecution from both the Roman and Jewish authorities.)

Christ promised that his Church would never fall or disappear from the earth. He said the gates of hell would never prevail against it and likened it to a city on a hill, meaning it was to be visible. At first persecuted, the Church changed from an underground movement to a more visible one. Since it was God's Will that His Church be visible and man's will was thwarting that Divine desire via the Romans, it isn't a stretch to conclude Constantine, imperfect as he was, came to power and legalized Christianity to fulfill God's Will. This brought the Church to the visibility that Christ had promised. And the fact that despite active persecutions, heresies, schisms and efforts to stamp it out, Christianity thrived and even flourished. The more it's attacked, the stronger Catholicism gets. Just ask the Irish about the penal days.

Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to protect the Church's teaching. To recognize the Church He established, look for the things described in the Bible and the Early Christian Fathers.

These sources describe

• faith in Christ,
• adherence to the Gospel,
• a structured church with deacons, priests, and bishops,
• emphasis on offering worship and sacrifice(not of animals, but of bread and wine for consecration), the Eucharist. The Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
• The Holy Spirit will stay and live with her and protect her teachings.

For even a teaching apostasy to have occurred, the Holy Spirit would have had to stop protecting the Church to the point where such an apostasy could occur. His protection, however, must be constant because Christ promised the Spirit's protection would always be with His Church. Always means constantly, as in, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

An important point in closing is to consider God's relationship with man as a series of covenants. Here's a little list:

• First Covenant made with Adam and Eve(married couple)
• Second Covenant made with Noah and sons(family unit)
• Third Covenant made with Abraham and his group(tribe)
• Fourth Covenant made with Moses and the Jews(nation)
• Fifth Covenant made with David(kingdom)
• Sixth Covenant made with Jews and Gentiles(all humanity)

Now, the sixth covenant was established in the Person of Christ Himself, Who is the fulfillment of the promise in the Garden and the prophecies through the ages. There will be no other that will bring people to God. Jesus Christ is the only way, truth and life. No one comes to the Father except through Him.

Why, after going to all that trouble to establish a covenant with the entire human race, would God allow His Church to fall away and not re-emerge until the 1600's or so? You thought it was a wonderful part of God's plan. But anyone else outside of paranoid fundamentalism (i.e. Chick, Botner, Hunt, Pickering, Hislop, White, Webster and a legion of others) would see it as gross ineptitude on God's part, an utter impossibility, to set up the Church to bring all humanity to the Father and let it teach falsehoods.

I'm sorry, but accepting the hate cultist idea that God did such a thing, even if it's supposed to be for a good reason, makes God out to be the worst type of deadbeat dad imaginable.

 

[everready]

God has all of the answers to lifes every day tasks.
This is but one, from I Timothy...



1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not, a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

 

[Rick Otto]

kepha31Hislop's 'Babylonian Mystery Religion' Teaching Exposed and Overturned
(an evangelical web site)

He's not here & no one has referenced his work.http://www.ukapologetics.net/1hislopbaby.html

Some skeptics claim that Christians copied their belief in Jesus' atoning death and resurrection from pagan mythology.

Not THIS skeptic and none of the others on this thread that I know of.

Let's examine this theory.

Why? Because it's easier to refute something no-one here is espousing?

Nineteenth-century atheists loved the notion of "pagan christs", since it seemed to refute Christianity's claim of divine origin and superiority over paganism.

If you care to check, you might notice no one here is claiming that.

The historical evidence for corruption leading to apostasy from the paranoid fundamentalist view is as lacking as the archaelogical evidence that an apostasty ever happened.

You keep refuting or denying evidence not being presented.
No one has sited "archeological" evidence to expose the grandiose delusions of the Roman establishment.

 

[everready]

WWJD makes you wonder sometimes, has anyone considered what he thinks


Chapter 2



1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

In Christ,
Lee

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think this thread is falling apart into something not related to the OP.

 

[everready]

I think this thread is falling apart into something not related to the OP.

I'll say, I'm folding, this guy here says it all. A new thread perhaps, Lord knows and I'm glad he does

In Christ,
Lee

 

[Rick Otto]

Some people on these forums have questioned that there is no evidence of an "unbroken succession" from St. Peter until now. I would like to clarify that up with this:
St. Peter 67
St. Linus 67-76
St. Anacletus 76-88
St. Clement I, 88-97
St. Evaristus 97-105
St. Alexander I, 105-115
St. Sixtus I, 115-125
St. Telesphorus 125-36
St. Hyginus 136-40
St. Pius I, 140-55
St. Anicetus 155-66
St. Soter 166-75
St. Eleuterius 175-89
St. Victor I, 189-99
St. Zephyrinus 199-217
St. Callistus I, 217-22
St. Urban I, 222-30

And the list goes on in unbroken succession. All the way, 265 Popes later to Pope Benedict himself.

THAT constitutes "evidence"? ROFL!
I have a list of names of Santa's reindeer. Does it prove they exist?

 

[everready]

THAT constitutes "evidence"? ROFL!
I have a list of names of Santa's reindeer. Does it prove they exist?

Well said

 

[kepha31]

Otto, ignoring the facts of history, which you must do, is not a refutation, it's stupidity. So far, you haven't got any proof to support your inventions, so you have to dismiss the evidence.

Unbroken lineage of the Chair of Peter has been established, and no one has brought forth any argument to oppose it, none with any intellectual rigor or even reliable documentation. Someone has presented the opinions of a few so called Protestant scholars whose diatribe is laced with polemics, and short on facts, as anyone can see.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm