Peter Is Not The Rock!

[archierieus]

From Dave.

Time, times and half a time = 1,260 prophetic days/years. As for the Waldenses, they came along a bit later. They liked the Bible, and the Church had banned the Bible, so they, too, had to flee. 538 was the year in which the Roman Church's hold on power was consolidated. Those who would not acknowledge papal supremacy were hunted down, forced to swallow the pill and submit to the Roman pontiff, on pain of banishment or death. Thus, the faithful went into hiding. Scripture mentions a place of safety in the wilderness.

Dave

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Sorry but virgin Mary is conjecture that didn't even start until 900 AD.

900 AD? Let me show you some things from earlier than 900 AD.

How about 120 AD?

The Protoevangelium of James


"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).

"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).

"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).

And Origen in 248 AD comments on this writing from 120 AD as follows:

Origen


"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

In 360 AD we see further writing that supports Mary as ever virgin.

Athanasius


"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You do realise that the Paul was a persecuter.. and not everyone is willing to forgive and forget..

Yeah, Paul was about as popular to the "circumcision" as Jesus was........

John 7:1 And was walking, the Jesus, after these in the Galilee for not He willed in the Judea to be walking, that the Judeans sought Him to kill. [Isaiah 9:1/Matt 4:14]

Acts 23:14 Who-any toward coming to the Chief-priests and to the Elders say "to-anathema we anathematize ourselves of no yet nothing to taste till of which we may be killing the Paul."

 

[visionary]

900 AD? Let me show you some things from earlier than 900 AD.

How about 120 AD?



And Origen in 248 AD comments on this writing from 120 AD as follows:

Origen was also an astute critic of the pagan philosophy of his era, yet he also learned much from it, and adapted its most useful and edifying teachings to a grand elucidation of the Christian faith. And that is most likely where he got the idea of deifying Mary.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The Palestinian historian Hegesippus (ca 90-180 CE) is quoted by the fourth century Church Father Eusebius as describing James the Just this way:

"But James, the brother of the Lord, who, as there were many of his name, was surnamed the Just by all, from the days of our Lord until now, received the government of the assembly with the emissaries. This emissary was holy from his mother's womb; he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat meat; nor razor touched his head, nor did he anoint himself with oil, and never used a bath [i.e., he did not go to the public warm baths, since we know from other sources that he bathed daily in cold water]. He alone was allowed to enter into the Place of Holiness [the Holy of Holies of the Temple], for he did not wear wool, but linen [the clothing of a High Priest], and he used to enter the Temple alone, and was often found upon his bended knees, interceding for the forgiveness of the people, so that his knees became as callused as a camel's, because of the constant importuning he did and kneeling before God and asking forgiveness for the people. . . . And indeed, on account of his exceeding great piety, he was called the Just [Hebrew tzadik, Righteous One], and Oblias [i.e., "The Wall", meaning "steadfast or just] or Ozleam [i.e., "Protector"] which signifies justice and protection of the people; as the prophets declare concerning him" (Hegesippus in the fifth book of his lost commentaries, quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 2:23; 5:6).

Interesting... I would like to see this quote in full.

But for now let me add something else Eusebius wrote:

Eusebius of Caesarea


"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).

Interesting that the Church established by Peter and Paul seems to have the auhtority to excommunicate those from other churches wouldn't you say?

Not sure your quote above is being read in context.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In 360 AD we see further writing that supports Mary as ever virgin.

Come on Moderator.....you know there is a board for that

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=726
Mariology & Hagiography

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Origen was also an astute critic of the pagan philosophy of his era, yet he also learned much from it, and adapted its most useful and edifying teachings to a grand elucidation of the Christian faith. And that is most likely where he got the idea of deifying Mary.

My point was not to prove ever virgin since the beginning, that would take too long. But to show that you made a false claim.

Sorry but virgin Mary is conjecture that didn't even start until 900 AD.

Obviously Mary being ever virgin was not something that originated from the 10th century as conjecture or otherwise.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Come on Moderator.....you know there is a board for that

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=726
Mariology & Hagiography

Trouble.

I am not a moderator of Theology, that would be Visionary.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Trouble.

I am not a moderator of Theology, that would be Visionary.

They all "look alike to me"

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yeah, Paul was about as popular to the "circumcision" as Jesus was........

Now now... I am sure Jesus was circumcised and so was Paul. No problem in being circumcised it was not required any longer (is all).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

They all "look alike to me"

Hey! I resemble that remark! LOL

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Now now... I am sure Jesus was circumcised and so was Paul. No problem in being circumcised it was not required any longer (is all).

Matt 23:34 "Because of this behold! I am Commissioning toward ye Prophets and Wise-men and Scribes, out of them ye shall be killing and ye shall be Crucifying and out of them ye shall be scourging in the synagogues of ye, and ye shall be persecuting/persuing/diwxete <1377> (5692) from City into City"

Reve 12:13 And when saw the Dragon that it was cast into the land, it chases/pursues/ediwxen <1377> (5656) the woman who-any brought forth the male.

 

[visionary]

Interesting... I would like to see this quote in full.

But for now let me add something else Eusebius wrote:



Interesting that the Church established by Peter and Paul seems to have the authority to excommunicate those from other churches wouldn't you say?

Not sure your quote above is being read in context.

Doesn't make it right.

"Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox"

as one of the many leaders of their churches.. this one was given brotherly council not to behave so unchristian...

"And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . "

It was Victor that was pulling away from the roots...
"Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1&#8211;24:11). ..

and look at the results... a separate faith known as catholic.

 

[Anglian]

Good to see this one open again.

Was St. Peter the rock? That's what Christ called Him. Case closed.

Whether that means what the Catholic Church claims it means is something on which we have had a long, interesting, and inconclusive discussion. Catholics have good grounds for claiming it does, the Orthodox and others have good grounds for believing it does not.

To my mind one of the most instructive aspects of this discussion is the position of the Syrian Orthodox Church. Tradition holds that St. Peter was first bishop of Antioch, and yet Antioch has never made the claim that, being built on that 'Rock', gives it any universal jurisdiction. Had the early Church accepted that an office had been created and could be passed on by St. Peter, one might have expected Antioch to have had a thing or two to say.

Of course, that's not conclusive, as one might argue that since Rome was the capital of the empire, it was natural that its bishop should inherit any Petrine claims. But even here there is an ambiguity. Irenaeus never has St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome, that was Linus. He has St. Peter and St. Paul as the founders of that Church. That, of course, gave Rome tremendous prestige, no other Church could claim two Apostles. On can see how Rome came to read the Petrine verses in the way it did, and if one holds that our understanding of the meaning of Scripture can develop, then Rome's claim becomes strong - for those who accept it.

I doubt this is an issue that can be resolved either way - in so far as it relates to Rome. But in so far as it relates to Christ calling Peter 'Rock', the case is open and shut, surely?

peace,

Anglian

 

[JacktheCatholic]

and look at the results... a separate faith known as catholic.

Interesting view on this you have.

But it is not the only view, you do know that.

Since I am pretty familiar with the Catholic view and have found it has proven all it's claims, I wonder if your view of this is so well worked?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Was St. Peter the rock? That's what Christ called Him. Case closed.

LOL

Anglian you are a master with words and very knowledgable and wise. But this is what I call "keeping it simple". Very funny to me.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Interesting view on this you have.

But it is not the only view, you do know that.

Since I am pretty familiar with the Catholic view and have found it has proven all it's claims, I wonder if your view of this is so well worked?

Greetings. I think the majority of those on GT are familiar with the RC view

1 John 2:18 Little-children, last hour it-is, and according-as ye hear, that the anti-christ is coming/ercetai <2064> (5736). And now anti-christs, many, have become whence we are knowing that last hour it-is. [ercetai <2064> (5736) Reve 1:7, 9:12, 11:14].

Reve 17:10 And kings, seven are. The five fall, the one is, the other not as yet came. And whenever he may be coming/elqh <2064> (5632), few him it is binding to remain.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Greetings. I think the majority of those on GT are familiar with the RC view

1 John 2:18 Little-children, last hour it-is, and according-as ye hear, that the anti-christ is coming/ercetai <2064> (5736). And now anti-christs, many, have become whence we are knowing that last hour it-is. [ercetai <2064> (5736) Reve 1:7, 9:12, 11:14].

Reve 17:10 And kings, seven are. The five fall, the one is, the other not as yet came. And whenever he may be coming/elqh <2064> (5632), few him it is binding to remain.

Have you ever noticed how most every thread steers to Catholicism?

I did a thread on Sola Scriptura asking for only SS posts. Do you knwo that by the 2nd page it was on the RCC. I wonder why?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Have you ever noticed how most every thread steers to Catholicism?

I did a thread on Sola Scriptura asking for only SS posts. Do you knwo that by the 2nd page it was on the RCC. I wonder why?

Don't really know why. I am a heretical "Solo Scripturist" myself