Paul and Peter

[Catholic Christian]

How about some dates on when your referrences were written? Oh, and who wrote them?

What? Did you see the wealth of information he gave you?

Eusebius, Chronicon, 74

St. Irenaeus, Book III, chapter 3.

Dorotheus, In Synopsis.

St. Augustine, Epistola 53 and Contra Epistolam Fundamenti, ch. 4, title 8; in
chapter 5 he writes: "I am kept in the church by the succession of Bishops from St.
Peter, to whom the Lord committed the care of His sheep down to the present Bishop."

St. Augustine, de Consense Evangelistarum, Book 1.

Eusebius, Chronicon 71, a Christo nato.

Paul Orosius, History, Book VIII.

St. Maximus, Sermon v on the Birthday of the Apostles.

Origen, Book III on Genesis, as stated by eusebius, HIstory, Book III, ch. 2.

St. Jerome, Book of Illustrious Men.

And now you want dates? And if he gives you the dates, will you then accept these, or will you continue to turn a blind eye to the authentic development of Christianity?

 

[Ormly]

What? Did you see the wealth of information he gave you?

Eusebius, Chronicon, 74

St. Irenaeus, Book III, chapter 3.

Dorotheus, In Synopsis.

St. Augustine, Epistola 53 and Contra Epistolam Fundamenti, ch. 4, title 8; in
chapter 5 he writes: "I am kept in the church by the succession of Bishops from St.
Peter, to whom the Lord committed the care of His sheep down to the present Bishop."

St. Augustine, de Consense Evangelistarum, Book 1.

Eusebius, Chronicon 71, a Christo nato.

Paul Orosius, History, Book VIII.

St. Maximus, Sermon v on the Birthday of the Apostles.

Origen, Book III on Genesis, as stated by eusebius, HIstory, Book III, ch. 2.

St. Jerome, Book of Illustrious Men.

And now you want dates? And if he gives you the dates, will you then accept these, or will you continue to turn a blind eye to the authentic development of Christianity?

Depends on the dates.. Oh, FWIW, Jesus Christ is Christianity. I am not interested in anyone's development of it except as it contradicts Him. Then I want to know who they are so I can warn others.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Calvin: "I cannot withstand the consent of those writers who prove that Peter died at Rome." Institutes, Book IV.

Whether the "peter" died at Rome or not, that was pretty gutsy of Luther LOL.

What did Luther think about the Orthodox church since he mentions the "Greeks" and not the Romans.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/1_update.html

"If I were younger I would want to learn this language [i.e. Hebrew], for without it one can never properly understand the Holy Scripture…. For that reason they have said correctly: 'The Jews drink out of the original spring, The Greeks drink out of the stream flowing out of the stream, The Latins, however, out of the puddle.'"
--Martin Luther (1483-1546)

 

[Catholic Christian]

Depends on the dates.. Oh, FWIW, Jesus Christ is Christianity. I am not interested in anyone's development of it except as it contradicts Him. Then I want to know who they are so I can warn others.

Really. Do you realize that, for you, it "develops" every time you study?

You accept the Trinity (I assume) yet the word Trinity is not in the Bible. So, you accept the "development" of this doctrine.

This is what I mean. As time goes by, we know more about what God has revealed. That is what I mean by "development".

You know, we would save ourselves a lot of arguing (and typing) if you didn't have such knee-jerk reactions to everything I say.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Whether the "peter" died at Rome or not, that was pretty gutsy of Luther LOL.

It would be gutsy to wrestle with a polar bear too, but it would still be stupid.

 

[Ormly]

Really. Do you realize that, for you, it "develops" every time you study?

Depends on what one studies, doncha think?
For instance if I study my Bible for understanding Christ, it should lead me to Him. Studying the RCC, using its material, will only teach me what it wants me to know about Christ and more importantly, in its mind, teach me it ways apart from Christ.

You accept the Trinity (I assume) yet the word Trinity is not in the Bible. So, you accept the "development" of this doctrine.

Sure. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one". 1 John 5:7 (KJV)

I see little need for develpoment here. You will read, however, John doesn't use the word "son". Noting the time he wrote this, and to whom, the Son was, in actuality, the Word. Does that make John to be in error? No. He knows that his writings will not cause confusion, thus the need to explain himself to his disciples is unnecessary.

This is what I mean. As time goes by, we know more about what God has revealed. That is what I mean by "development".

Indeed, and I have no difficulty with that. However, the scriptures are divinely discerned and that by the Holy Spirit revealing them to the heart of 'journey driven' born again Christians who have set their sights on Christ with singleness of eye. No other individual or organization should expect to receive anything.

You know, we would save ourselves a lot of arguing (and typing) if you didn't have such knee-jerk reactions to everything I say.

I agree. However, you could prevent that from me if you didn't try to persuade me [or others] to accept the unacceptable. . . and doing so in such an 'outlandish' way that compels a nee jerk.

Scripture says this about itself: It is not for anyone's private interpretation. That is meant to imply groups of people as well who set up their own religion based upon a few facts of truth but to the exclusion of all other 'antagonistic' scriptural truth. The councils can fall into that catagory from which much anger towards disenting points of view arose due largely in part to biased thinking and self -promotional conceits amongst them that won the day. The creeds were an effort to stamp heresies but in their effort left us with and incomplete; compromised gospel, namely the exclusion of the gospel of the kingdom Jesus preached, for reasons that are now obvious, i.e., they set themselves up as the kingdom.

 

[Ormly]

Awhile back my posts having to with Peter not being the first of rome were deleted because I did state the author. I couldn't because they were writings of old documents in my possession handed down to me. However, I have found a website that is almost verbatum of what I posted:


Early History of the Bishops of Rome and the RCC

The Church was founded, not as an institution of Authority to Force the Name and Teaching of Christ upon the world, but only as a Witness-Bearing institution to Christ, to hold him before the people. Christ Himself, not the Church, is the Transforming Power in Human Life. The RCC gradually developed a form of Government like the Political World in which it existed, becoming a vast Autocratic organization, ruled from the top down.
At the end of the Apostolic age Churches were independent one of another, each being shepherded by a board of pastors. The main leader came to be called Bishop. Gradually, the jurisdiction of Bishop came to include neighboring towns.​

The word "Pope" means papa or father. At first it was applied to all Western Bishops. About 500 A.D. it began to be restricted to the Bishop of Rome, and soon in common use, came to mean Universal Bishop. The RCC list of Popes includes the Bishops of Rome from the 1st Century onward. But for 500 years Bishops of Rome were NOT Popes. The idea that the Bishop of Rome should have authority over the Whole Church was a slow growth, bitterly contested at every step, and never has, at any time, been universally recognized.​

The RCC tradition that Peter was the first Pope is fiction pure and simple. There is no New Testament hint, and no historical evidence whatever, that Peter was at any time Bishop of Rome. Nor did he ever claim for himself such authority as the Popes have claimed for themselves. It seems that Peter had a divine foreboding that his "successors" would be mainly concerned with "Lording it over God's flock, rather than showing themselves examples of the flock" (1Pet 5:3).​

Early Roman Bishops (67-154 A.D.)​

Linus (67-79 A.D.) Cletus (79-91 A.D.) Clement (91-100 A.D.)Wrote a letter to the Corinthian Church, in the name of the RCC, not in his own name, with no hint of Papal Authority such as Popes later assumed. Evaristus (100-109 A.D.) Alexander I (109-119 A.D.) Sixtus I (119-128 A.D.) Telesphorus (128-130 A.D.) Hyginus (139-142 A.D.) Pius I (142-154 A.D.)​

Begin Rome's Domineering Policy (154-202 A.D.)​

Anicetus (154-168 A.D.)​

Soter (168-176 A.D.)​

Eleutherus (177-190 A.D.)

Victor I (190-202 A.D.)​

Threatened to excommunicate the Eastern Churches for celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan. Iranaeus of Lyons rebuked Victor for trying to dictate to Eastern Churches. ​

Growing Influence of Rome (202-314 A.D.)​

Zephyrinus (202-218 A.D.)
First Pope to base his claim on Mat 16:18 (Peter as 1st Pope). Tertullian, of Carthage, called him a Usurper in speaking as if he was Bishop of Bishops.
Callistus (217-222) ​

Urban I (223-230 A.D.)​

Pontianus (230-235 A.D.)​

Anterus (235-236 A.D.)​

Fabian (236-250 A.D.) ​

Cornelius (251-252 A.D.)​

Lucius I (252-253 A.D.) ​

Stephen I (253-257 A.D.)​

Sixtus II (257-258 A.D.)​

Dionysius (259-269 A.D.)​

Felix I (269-274 A.D.) ​

Eutychianus (275-283 A.D.)​

Caius (283-296 A.D.)​

Marcellinus (296-304 A.D.)​

Marcellus (308-309 A.D.)​

Eusebius (309-310 A.D.)​

Militiades (311-314 A.D.) ​

http://whereistruth.com/JA_Hist_2nd_3rd_Century.htm


​

 

[winsome]

Question: Why did Jesus bypass the twelve and apprehend Paul to preach the gospel and establish churches throughout the known world in the Mediterranean? Were there unresolved weaknesses in the twelve? We know there were friends of the Apostles who no doubt spoke of Christ that a certain propagation took place of the word, however, there is no mention of churches being established by them. Paul who wasn't part of the twelve did the greatest works we read of.

Lets be clear about this: The Jerusalem church notwithstanding, that Peter was in charge of, Paul did the presenting of the foundation of Jesus Christ to the world in and around the Mediterranean and that he built no church upon any other foundation in those areas previously laid down by someone else, which, based upon the scriptures were slim and none.
Next to Jesus, Paul exhibited the life of Jesus' earthly life more perhaps than any other man, including Peter who had a problem with being weak from tiime to time that Paul had to deal with.

Did I overlook anything? I have my own ideas and will offer them as such.

Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees, a student of the great Gamaleil an expert on Jewish Law. He had impeccable credentials. He was a Roman citizen and probably spoke perfect Greek as well as Hebrew.

Remember Paul always went first to the synagogue where because of his credentials he would be well received. And because of his knowledge he could present the case for Jesus being the Christ.

Peter was a Galilean with a Galilean accent. He would have probably found it harder to get a hearing in the synagogues, and his Greek may not have been so good when speaking to Gentiles (or to the Jews in the diaspora).

It was nothing to do with seniority, but appropriate gifts.

But I don't suppose anyone is interested in the OP by this stage.

 

[Ormly]

Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees, a student of the great Gamaleil an expert on Jewish Law. He had impeccable credentials. He was a Roman citizen and probably spoke perfect Greek as well as Hebrew.

Remember Paul always went first to the synagogue where because of his credentials he would be well received. And because of his knowledge he could present the case for Jesus being the Christ.

Peter was a Galilean with a Galilean accent. He would have probably found it harder to get a hearing in the synagogues, and his Greek may not have been so good when speaking to Gentiles (or to the Jews in the diaspora).

It was nothing to do with seniority, but appropriate gifts.

But I don't suppose anyone is interested in the OP by this stage.

Speaking of Paul: ". . . the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake." Acts 9:15-16 (KJV)

"And when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be upon your own heads! I am clean. From now on I shall go to the Gentiles." Acts 18:6 (NASB77)

"and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised." Galatians 2:9 (NASB77)