- Aug 6, 2017
- 5,159
- 1,663
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Only 1/5th of the world's population is Christian at present -- is everyone else automatically right ?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Only 1/5th of the world's population is Christian at present -- is everyone else automatically right ?'Some group' happens to be four out of five patriarchates, Rome being the fifth.
So you admit by this reasoning that your own argument is not logically valid. Plus you switched the goal posts. I was talking about Rome's claims regarding Papal Supremacy, not Rome's primacy.
they say it's impossible for traditions to be wrong. every word the pope say becomes the tradition. they have a trillion+ traditions. reformers made traditions smaller by returning back to the bible.This question is mainly to Catholics but anyone can answer with Scripture.
Do you believe in "papal infallibility"? That is to say, can the Pope ever sin or be in sin? Can he ever be wrong in His official teaching, views, actions, or beliefs? Since you believe Peter was the first Pope of the Church, do you know of a case in Scripture where this earthly leader of the universal church was in the wrong and had to be rebuked/corrected by someone else on earth?
Scriptures to read:
Galatians 2:11-21
Of course in some sense that which is said (By this I take it to mean written down in some way, because unless recorded verbal communications cease to exist the moment they are uttered.) becomes tradition. That is why they are written down, so that they can be preserved and become part of the historical record. However, tradition is a different topic from Holy Tradition, which has as its source the teachings of Christ, his apostles, and the early church fathers. The Bible is part of Holy Tradition, not a separate entity.they say it's impossible for traditions to be wrong. every word the pope say becomes the tradition. they have a trillion+ traditions. reformers made traditions smaller by returning back to the bible.
A more reliable account would be from early church fathers. If they don't mention Peter in those terms then I would say that the notion would be false. It has been discovered that two significant early documents on which the church depended for some of it basic doctrine were actually forgeries. And successive 'tradtion" has comprised "ex cathedra" statements by successive popes, added to Scripture.Peter is remembered as the first Patriarch of Antioch & Rome by all Church Tradition
All I am actually doing is to state what is correct about Peter. Our faith is not in Peter or any other person in any position in the church, whether it be a pope or a big name ministry in a Charismatic or Evangelical setting. Our faith is in Christ and what He did on the cross for us.I really don't know if you're attempting to tear me down or build me up.
In Him
That how I understand it from my reading of church history. He actually shifted the capital from Rome to Constantinople and installed a vice-regent to administer the western empire from Rome. Any standard church history text will tell you that, or looking it up on Wikipedia. Your fingers can do the walking as well as mine,Then you should have no problem stating who it was that Emperor Constantine set up as pope of Rome and citing the relevant documents.
I haven't asked for how YOU understand it, I've asked for what historians who don't have a religious stake in what they write have to say about it.That how I understand it from my reading of church history.
This isn't what you claimed before though, is it. You claimed Constantine selected his choice for the bishop of Rome, nothing about a vice-regent.He actually shifted the capital from Rome to Constantinople and installed a vice-regent to administer the western empire from Rome.
When you settle on a particular claim, I might investigate. Right now you are all over the place.Any standard church history text will tell you that, or looking it up on Wikipedia. Your fingers can do the walking as well as mine,
not all ecf were honestOf course in some sense that which is said (By this I take it to mean written down in some way, because unless recorded verbal communications cease to exist the moment they are uttered.) becomes tradition. That is why they are written down, so that they can be preserved and become part of the historical record. However, tradition is a different topic from Holy Tradition, which has as its source the teachings of Christ, his apostles, and the early church fathers. The Bible is part of Holy Tradition, not a separate entity.
Which ones were dishonest?not all ecf were honest
ECFs like Saints Evodius & Ignatius, who remembered having succeeded Saint Peter as Bishops of Antioch ?A more reliable account would be from early church fathers. If they don't mention Peter in those terms then I would say that the notion would be false. It has been discovered that two significant early documents on which the church depended for some of it basic doctrine were actually forgeries. And successive 'tradtion" has comprised "ex cathedra" statements by successive popes, added to Scripture.
It is true that Peter was at Antioch. It is also true that James was the senior person in the church at Jerusalem rather than Peter, and there is no record that Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome at any stage.ECFs like Saints Evodius & Ignatius, who remembered having succeeded Saint Peter as Bishops of Antioch ?
The Donation of Constantine purported to memorialize the transfer to Sylvester I and his successors of dominion over the entire Western Roman Empire for the consideration of Sylvester I's instruction of Constantine in Christianity, baptism of Constantine, and curing Constantine of leprosy. Constantine allegedly kept for himself only the Eastern Roman Empire. The forgery was probably constructed during the Frankish Papacy, when Pope Stephen II became the first pope to cross the Alps to crown Pepin the Short, who issued the Donation of Pepin (a non-forgery), granting the pope control of the lands of the Lombards, which coalesced into the first fragments of the Papal States.I haven't asked for how YOU understand it, I've asked for what historians who don't have a religious stake in what they write have to say about it.
This isn't what you claimed before though, is it. You claimed Constantine selected his choice for the bishop of Rome, nothing about a vice-regent.
When you settle on a particular claim, I might investigate. Right now you are all over the place.
Peter installed James upon fleeing the city due to persecution (Acts 12)It is true that Peter was at Antioch. It is also true that James was the senior person in the church at Jerusalem rather than Peter, and there is no record that Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome at any stage.
The one that no historian considered genuine?I could have been misled by this fraudulent document
I will have a conference with my theological advisor (in the photo on the left) to see where we go from here.The one that no historian considered genuine?
Say what?!?Peter installed James upon fleeing the city due to persecution (Acts 12)
Funny... all I can get out of him is "meow!"I will have a conference with my theological advisor (in the photo on the left) to see where we go from here.
Acts 12:17Say what?!?
And?Acts 12:17
But motioning to them with his hand to keep silent, he declared to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, “Go, tell these things to James and to the brethren.” And he departed and went to another place.
NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible
12:17... James. This James, Jesus’ half-brother (15:13; 21:18; Gal 1:19), differs from the one executed in v. 2; the name (lit. “Jacob”) was common in Judea and Galilee. Known for his conservative piety, this James would invite less hostile attention from the people Agrippa sought to please (v. 3). Indeed, when a high priest martyred him 15 to 20 years later, those most devout in the law, probably Pharisees, led the outcry against the high priest.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?