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.
Rome is babylon, that it right. Babylon then took over the church in 300AD (in name only), which eventually become known as the roman catholic church.
Rome is babylon, that it right. Babylon then took over the church in 300AD (in name only), which eventually become known as the roman catholic church.
Rome is babylon, that it right. Babylon then took over the church in 300AD (in name only), which eventually become known as the roman catholic church.
You need to go out and buy a good Christian history book. Protestants Philip Schoff or J.D.N. Kelly come to mind since their books can be found in Protestant siminaries.
Which of these is the first to have the same level of accreditation that the present claimant holds?Here is a list of the bishops of Rome for the first four centuries.
Which of these is the first to have the same level of accreditation that the present claimant holds?....
Irellevant. To expect the Church and its various aspects to look like they did in the first century is illogical. The Body of Christ is a living thing, and like all living things it grows and learns and changes appearence.
This person made a specific charge about a specific time frame: 300 AD. So, since he seems to kow this, he should be able to point out who the infiltrator is.
Of course, I know that he can't because the allegation is false
Which of these is the first to have the same level of accreditation that the present claimant holds?
I like that choice of wordsTo me the evidence that the early church considered the bishop of Rome to be the leader of the universal church seems overwhelming. The epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians is just one case in point. Notice this quote from Clement who was apparently the immediate successor of Peter as bishop of Rome:
Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the appellation of "Pope" to any of the cited individuals is inaccurate because the understanding of the papacy had not evolved during their lifetimes to a state where it is now understood and practiced in the Catholic church.
Thank you for a polite, informative and helpful reply.Irellevant. To expect the Church and its various aspects to look like they did in the first century is illogical. The Body of Christ is a living thing, and like all living things it grows and learns and changes appearence.
You've obviously come into the conversation late. I have given examples of how not everything is recorded in the bible. others have also given examples of how everything is not recorded in the bible. The best example was the poster who made the statement that John the Baptist had five heads. You show me where in scripture it says he only had one (or two!) and then we can discuss things. I have also stated lack of evidence does not constitute proof. So the fact that the bible is silent on if Peter was in Rome or not does not proove one way or the other if he was.Can you show me according to scripture where Peter was in Rome?
Well since one claims that Peter was the first pope and in Rome then the scriptures would show us this revelation of truth. But since it does not then it must not be important or God would have revealed this in the scriptures. How many children Adam and Eve had is not important to salvation. What is important are the ones mentioned for Jesus comes from the seed of David.You've obviously come into the conversation late. I have given examples of how not everything is recorded in the bible. others have also given examples of how everything is not recorded in the bible. The best example was the poster who made the statement that John the Baptist had five heads. You show me where in scripture it says he only had one (or two!) and then we can discuss things. I have also stated lack of evidence does not constitute proof. So the fact that the bible is silent on if Peter was in Rome or not does not proove one way or the other if he was.
You are also taking my post out of context. Littlelamb stated that if the bible is silrnt on an issue then they too would be silent. Littlelamb has stated with certainty that Peter was never in Rome. Therefore according to littlelamb the bible must proove Peter was never in Rome. I am simply sking for that evidence.
However if you like please tell me how many children Adam and Eve had at the time the Cain killed Abel. I will then ask further questions according to your answer. This will show without doubt that not everything is mentioned in the bible. Even the bible tells us not everything is mentioned in it! How easy is it then to come to the conclusion that lack of evidence does not constitute proof.
Well since one claims that Peter was the first pope and in Rome then the scriptures would show us this revelation of truth....
George washington has nothing to do with the salvation of man or the body of Christ.George Washington was the first president of the United States. How come thats not in the Bible?
Answer: Not all history is in the Bible. The fact that Peter went to Rome is a matter of history. Just because its not clearly recorded in the Bible is besides the point
Well since one claims that Peter was the first pope and in Rome then the scriptures would show us this revelation of truth. But since it does not then it must not be important or God would have revealed this in the scriptures. How many children Adam and Eve had is not important to salvation. What is important are the ones mentioned for Jesus comes from the seed of David.We see through the scriptures it is Paul in Rome.
George washington has nothing to do with the salvation of man or the body of Christ.
If we are to hold it as truth for the Body of Christ then Yes it will be in the scriptures. IF it is not in the scriptures we can pass it by as hearsay and not factual for a belief.True, but the point still remains: Not every historical event needs to be in the Bible for it to be true.
If we are to hold it as truth for the Body of Christ then Yes it will be in the scriptures. IF it is not in the scriptures we can pass it by as hearsay and not factual for a belief.
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?