From Where do the RCC and the EOC get the Authority they claim for themselves?

[calluna]

It was St. Peter's arrival at Rome that unified all the Churches at Rome. There were several, under different Presbyters.

Christians had been in Rome since Christ's passion. There were some there, from Rome that witnessed what happened that day.

They was not a "unified" Church in Rome until St. Peter arrived.

The unity between these Churches was loose at best. Take a look at the letters written to the Churches at the beginning of Revelation and we see that God had many things against them. They clearly were not all on the same page.

Forgive me...

Hmmm. Keep practising, son. You're not Bob Hope II yet.

 

[kangkongking]

Isn't it from GOD??

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It was St. Peter's arrival at Rome that unified all the Churches at Rome. There were several, under different Presbyters.

Christians had been in Rome since Christ's passion. There were some there, from Rome that witnessed what happened that day.

They was not a "unified" Church in Rome until St. Peter arrived.

The unity between these Churches was loose at best. Take a look at the letters written to the Churches at the beginning of Revelation and we see that God had many things against them. They clearly were not all on the same page.

Forgive me...

Thanks!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

St. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and head of the first council.

Deal with it.

Forgive me...

At least that is what the historical evidence tells us.

 

[Standing Up]

The mythological references were just his understanding of the truth. The supernatural was more accepted at the time. I don't see it as compromising his Christianity.


I think the early matyrs were primarily at Rome. Stephen was killed in Jerusalem, of course, but that was carried out by the Pharisees.

Rome required citizens to bow to Caesar. Christians wouldn't do it.

How about Clement of Rome, was he martyred?

 

[Standing Up]

It was St. Peter's arrival at Rome that unified all the Churches at Rome. There were several, under different Presbyters.

Christians had been in Rome since Christ's passion. There were some there, from Rome that witnessed what happened that day.

They was not a "unified" Church in Rome until St. Peter arrived.

The unity between these Churches was loose at best. Take a look at the letters written to the Churches at the beginning of Revelation and we see that God had many things against them. They clearly were not all on the same page.

Forgive me...

It's an odd thing. Those letters were written to churches in Asia Minor, presumably the last words of Christ until His return. What of the other churches all over?

 

[Thekla]

St. John was the bishop of the Churches of Asia Minor addressed in Revelation; though the spiritual condition of each is also reflected in the spiritual condition of many Churches, St. John was specifically addressing these Churches under his care as bishop/episkopos.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

St. John was the bishop of the Churches of Asia Minor addressed in Revelation; though the spiritual condition of each is also reflected in the spiritual condition of many Churches, St. John was specifically addressing these Churches under his care as bishop/episkopos.

Art thou positive on that

 

[Thekla]

Art thou positive on that

quite right, wrong term

The Churches in Asia Minor were under his apostolic care; he was not bishop.

 

[Standing Up]

quite right, wrong term

The Churches in Asia Minor were under his apostolic care; he was not bishop.

So, what do you do with 1 Peter 1:1 written to the Asia Minor churches as well? Peter who is presumably apostle in Rome?

Many folk think the 7 letters represent all of Christendom, right?

 

[Standing Up]

The mythological references were just his understanding of the truth. The supernatural was more accepted at the time. I don't see it as compromising his Christianity.

-snip-

This is referring to Clement of Rome's letter in which he associates resurrection with the phoenix (along with other items).
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm chapter 25.


I looked a bit deeper into this. The phoenix flew back to Heliopolis (city of the sun in Egypt). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliopolis_(ancient)

It shows up in scripture in two places by different names.

Jer. 43:13 "He will also shatter the obelisks of Heliopolis, which is in the land of Egypt; and the temples of the gods of Egypt he will burn with fire.'"

Gen. 41:45 Then Pharaoh named Joseph Zaphenath-paneah; and he gave him Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On, as his wife. And Joseph went forth over the land of Egypt.

An obelisk:



Thoughts?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Hmmm. Keep practising, son. You're not Bob Hope II yet.

True- yet here you go marching through with long shoes and red nose.

You dispute without one shred of supporting evidence- and with much condescension, I might add. This is known as 'hubris.'

So- the basis for disputing:
1. Peter was martyred at Rome
2. That James was the first episkopos at Jerualem.

Also:
Your contention that preparing for execution and/or being imprisoned prevents the witing of epistles to the Church.
Then, while pulling that rabbit out of somewhere, explain Paul's "chains" and his imminent departure, having "fought the good fight."

See how many other fallacious aguments can climb out of that car.

 

[calluna]

There are those who contend that Peter was martyred at Rome. There is no evidence for this that comes anywhere near to satisfying the criteria of modern historians, who treat secondary evidence (and nothing better exists for this claim) according to the expected reliability of its authors.The naivete of the past has gone, and the "They would say that" test is now made. For this claim, in every case, the authors are suspect, having obvious vested interests, being often the survivors of persecution. In other words, the evidence in this case is as useful as a WW2 Nazi propaganda broadcast in identifying the close of WW2 action.

If Mt 16:18 was to be used as a basis for placing the church under imperial control (along with every other social entity in the Roman Empire- the church was never going to be an exception, if it survived at all) it was necessary to 'locate' Peter in Rome, where his 'successors' could remain under close control. As Peter's martyrdom was prophesied by Jesus, the logical course was to have his martyrdom chronicled in Rome. Peter was not a Roman citizen, was not apostle to Rome, was kept very busy from Anatolia to Persia, and there was no reason for him to go to Rome. It is unlikely that he ever went there, and if he did, it would never have been as a mere bishop or elder, one of many in that large city, and he could not have been the first bishop there anyway. Had he gone under Roman authority, he would never have been allowed contact with the church, and his existence in Rome would have been of no religious significance. Paul even wrote to apostles in Rome, so bishop Peter would have been under their authority! The Roman account of events and relationships, on all applicable counts, cannot be reconciled with Scripture, and it is no surprise whatever that, early in the Renaissance, independent readers of Scripture rejected it, and had to flee for their lives.

Succession is anyway discounted by Peter, Jude and Paul in their letters, that explicitly warn of false teachers actually inside the church as they wrote. The whole purpose of Christ's coming was to do away with external control as applied to Israel, and even the Israelites had no rulers intended for them, no bishops in the sense that Rome employed them. So it was utterly, deeply and fundamentally inimical to Christianity and Judaism to seek to create a hierarchy and associate it with Christianity. Monarchical bishops were almost certainly devised by Roman emperors to facilitate the erosion of democracy in the church, and control by themselves, which is precisely what any historian would predict would happen, as night follows day. It is quite possible, even probable, that the imperial court had assistance and advice from former Sadducees and Pharisees, who feared Christians as much as corrupt, avaricious Roman patricians did.

Similar considerations regarding church polity apply to the notion that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. This canard ignores the evidence in Acts that shows that the Jerusalem church was as democratic when advising Antioch as when it 'succeeded' Jesus Himself in replacing Judas. It is based on the flimsiest evidence, which fact is itself effectively self-contradictory. That 'evidence' is selective translation of a single word in Acts, which word has been otherwise accounted for here, but that alternative has been totally ignored.

There is no real debate here, only shouting and posturing. Nothing more need be said.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So, what do you do with 1 Peter 1:1 written to the Asia Minor churches as well? Peter who is presumably apostle in Rome?

Many folk think the 7 letters represent all of Christendom, right?

In my current studies of Revelation from a Catholic scholar it says that even though these 7 letters are addressing 7 of the churches it is also a message to all churches as the number 7 (7 letters) being that fo fullness or completion. Since the book of Revelations is one of prophesy it must be seen outside the normal writing to include both literal and symbolic. The book is read both in the present and future prophecies and so making the 7 mean the whole church fits in nicely with such a writing.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

There are those who contend that Peter was martyred at Rome. There is no evidence for this that comes anywhere near to satisfying the criteria of modern historians, who treat secondary evidence (and nothing better exists for this claim) according to the expected reliability of its authors.

Define the "primary source" evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ as taughtby the Christian Church, or corroborating evidence for the existence of these purported Apostles.

The earliest fragments of holy scripture date only to mid second century, and these self-same historians discount the authorship of the apostolic epistles.

The evidence for the apostolicity of the epistles and gospels are all secondary, ie the patristic accounts and historic references of, for example, Eusebius (who purports to have access to primitive documents which no longer exist).

IOW, the entire Christian enterprise rests on secondary sources- yet from what I have witnessed, you would arbitrarily and capriciously discount one secondary source over another. Bad form.

The naivete of the past has gone, and the "They would say that" test is now made. For this claim, in every case, the authors are suspect, having obvious vested interests, being often the survivors of persecution. In other words, the evidence in this case is as useful as a WW2 Nazi propaganda broadcast in identifying the close of WW2 action.

If Mt 16:18 was to be used as a basis for placing the church under imperial control (along with every other social entity in the Roman Empire- the church was never going to be an exception, if it survived at all) it was necessary to 'locate' Peter in Rome, where his 'successors' could remain under close control. As Peter's martyrdom was prophesied by Jesus, the logical course was to have his martyrdom chronicled in Rome. Peter was not a Roman citizen, was not apostle to Rome, was kept very busy from Anatolia to Persia, and there was no reason for him to go to Rome. It is unlikely that he ever went there, and if he did, it would never have been as a mere bishop or elder, one of many in that large city, and he could not have been the first bishop there anyway. Had he gone under Roman authority, he would never have been allowed contact with the church, and his existence in Rome would have been of no religious significance. Paul even wrote to apostles in Rome, so bishop Peter would have been under their authority! The Roman account of events and relationships, on all applicable counts, cannot be reconciled with Scripture, and it is no surprise whatever that, early in the Renaissance, independent readers of Scripture rejected it, and had to flee for their lives.

I don't see you here running for your life, so let's tone down the drama.

Regarding corroboration of Peter being at, martyred at, and being Bishop of Rome, a few sources:

St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107), who referred to the Church at Rome as "the Church of Peter and Paul" (Letter to the Romans)

St. Cyprian (d. 251), who described Rome as 'The place of Peter" (Epistle 520

St. Jerome (d. 420), who called Rome "the See of Peter" (Epistle 15, to Pope Damasus).

Around A.D. 166, Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Pope Soter, "You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome …."(quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:25).

Now these same sources are of the type relied upon for the veracity and apostolicity of the New Testament.

Succession is anyway discounted by Peter, Jude and Paul in their letters, that explicitly warn of false teachers actually inside the church as they wrote.

Their warning about false teachers has absolutely nothing to do with succession, except in your fertile imagination.

The whole purpose of Christ's coming was to do away with external control as applied to Israel, and even the Israelites had no rulers intended for them, no bishops in the sense that Rome employed them. So it was utterly, deeply and fundamentally inimical to Christianity and Judaism to seek to create a hierarchy and associate it with Christianity.

Jesus as a social revolutionary- where have I read that? No interpretive bias on your part there, eh.

If Jesus was so bent on eliminating hierarchy, as you say, one wonders why He chose 12 and 72 and why these self-same went about selecting elders in every city.

Monarchical bishops were almost certainly devised by Roman emperors to facilitate the erosion of democracy in the church, and control by themselves, which is precisely what any historian would predict would happen, as night follows day. It is quite possible, even probable, that the imperial court had assistance and advice from former Sadducees and Pharisees, who feared Christians as much as corrupt, avaricious Roman patricians did.

I note the addition of your moderating term "monarchial." No latent bias evident there, eh.

Similar considerations regarding church polity apply to the notion that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. This canard ignores the evidence in Acts that shows that the Jerusalem church was as democratic when advising Antioch as when it 'succeeded' Jesus Himself in replacing Judas.

You are ignoring the histoical practice of having bishops 'rule' over their own See (region). Therefore, the leadership of the Church, as practiced in the EO, is and was 'democratic (poor word choice- "collegiate" or "consensus" would be better descriptors).

Thus, your evidenciary argument is moot.

It is based on the flimsiest evidence, which fact is itself effectively self-contradictory. That 'evidence' is selective translation of a single word in Acts, which word has been otherwise accounted for here, but that alternative has been totally ignored.

There is no real debate here, only shouting and posturing. Nothing more need be said.

Thus endeth the strawman.
Note that I have not done any more shouting or posturing than you yourself, and much remains to be said, eg. sources for your historical redaction.

 

[chestertonrules]

So, what do you do with 1 Peter 1:1 written to the Asia Minor churches as well? Peter who is presumably apostle in Rome?

Many folk think the 7 letters represent all of Christendom, right?

Peter spent time in Antioch before going to Rome.

 

[chestertonrules]

Define the "primary source" evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ as taughtby the Christian Church, or corroborating evidence for the existence of these purported Apostles.

The earliest fragments of holy scripture date only to mid second century, and these self-same historians discount the authorship of the apostolic epistles.

The evidence for the apostolicity of the epistles and gospels are all secondary, ie the patristic accounts and historic references of, for example, Eusebius (who purports to have access to primitive documents which no longer exist).

IOW, the entire Christian enterprise rests on secondary sources- yet from what I have witnessed, you would arbitrarily and capriciously discount one secondary source over another. Bad form.




I don't see you here running for your life, so let's tone down the drama.

Regarding corroboration of Peter being at, martyred at, and being Bishop of Rome, a few sources:

St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107), who referred to the Church at Rome as "the Church of Peter and Paul" (Letter to the Romans)

St. Cyprian (d. 251), who described Rome as 'The place of Peter" (Epistle 520

St. Jerome (d. 420), who called Rome "the See of Peter" (Epistle 15, to Pope Damasus).

Around A.D. 166, Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Pope Soter, "You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome …."(quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:25).

Now these same sources are of the type relied upon for the veracity and apostolicity of the New Testament.





Their warning about false teachers has absolutely nothing to do with succession, except in your fertile imagination.


Jesus as a social revolutionary- where have I read that? No interpretive bias on your part there, eh.

If Jesus was so bent on eliminating hierarchy, as you say, one wonders why He chose 12 and 72 and why these self-same went about selecting elders in every city.


I note the addition of your moderating term "monarchial." No latent bias evident there, eh.


You are ignoring the histoical practice of having bishops 'rule' over their own See (region). Therefore, the leadership of the Church, as practiced in the EO, is and was 'democratic (poor word choice- "collegiate" or "consensus" would be better descriptors).

Thus, your evidenciary argument is moot.


Thus endeth the strawman.
Note that I have not done any more shouting or posturing than you yourself, and much remains to be said, eg. sources for your historical redaction.

Well done.

 

[calluna]

Peter spent time in Antioch before going to Rome.

Garbage.

 

[Standing Up]

Peter spent time in Antioch before going to Rome.

One person said garbage.

Didn't Peter primarily stay in Jerusalem? The Babylon reference is to that city, no? Still, he may have been martyred in Rome, as were so many others.

 

[chestertonrules]

Garbage.

It is certain that he remained for a time at Antioch; he may even have returned thither several times. The Christian community of Antioch was founded by Christianized Jews who had been driven from Jerusalem by the persecution (Acts 11:19 sqq.). Peter's residence among them is proved by the episode concerning the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law even by Christianized pagans, related by St. Paul (Galatians 2:11-21). The chief Apostles in Jerusalem — the "pillars", Peter, James, and John — had unreservedly approved St. Paul's Apostolate to the Gentiles, while they themselves intended to labour principally among the Jews. While Paul was dwelling in Antioch (the date cannot be accurately determined), St. Peter came thither and mingled freely with the non-Jewish Christians of the community, frequenting their houses and sharing their meals. But when the Christianized Jews arrived in Jerusalem, Peter, fearing lest these rigid observers of the Jewish ceremonial law should be scandalized thereat, and his influence with the Jewish Christians be imperiled, avoided thenceforth eating with the uncircumcised.
His conduct made a great impression on the other Jewish Christians at Antioch, so that even Barnabas, St. Paul's companion, now avoided eating with the Christianized pagans. As this action was entirely opposed to the principles and practice of Paul, and might lead to confusion among the converted pagans, this Apostle addressed a public reproach to St. Peter, because his conduct seemed to indicate a wish to compel the pagan converts to become Jews and accept circumcision and the Jewish law. The whole incident is another proof of the authoritative position of St. Peter in the early Church, since his example and conduct was regarded as decisive. But Paul, who rightly saw the inconsistency in the conduct of Peter and the Jewish Christians, did not hesitate to defend the immunity of converted pagans from the Jewish Law. Concerning Peter's subsequent attitude on this question St. Paul gives us no explicit information. But it is highly probable that Peter ratified the contention of the Apostle of the Gentiles, and thenceforth conducted himself towards the Christianized pagans as at first. As the principal opponents of his views in this connexion, Paul names and combats in all his writings only the extreme Jewish Christians coming "from James" (i.e., from Jerusalem). While the date of this occurrence, whether before or after the Council of the Apostles, cannot be determined, it probably took place after the council (see below). The later tradition, which existed as early as the end of the second century (Origen, "Hom. vi in Lucam"; Eusebius, Church History III.36), that Peter founded the Church of Antioch, indicates the fact that he laboured a long period there, and also perhaps that he dwelt there towards the end of his life and then appointed Evodrius, the first of the line of Antiochian bishops, head of the community. This latter view would best explain the tradition referring the foundation of the Church of Antioch to St. Peter.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm.