The RCC born in 313 AD?

[Rev Randy]

Which church is that?


.

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[Hentenza]

So Acts chapter 15 is a latter add in, IYO. The Churches were autonomous, never independent from each other. The council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is the good evidence for this. St. Paul's letters are good evidence for this, as well.

The issues brought up at the council of Jerusalem were resolved by a plurality of elders not by a single person. The agreed upon conclusions were delivered to the congregation by both Peter and James. Then the apostles, elders, and the whole church chose men to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch.

The epistles of Paul are primarily directed to individual congregations not to the church government. None of his epistles are directed to a bishop/overseer. Even the ones to Timothy were written for him, not as a bishop/overseer, but as a disciple in training of Paul.

Neither of these support your case.

Yes St. Peter was there before him.

No, Peter was in Babylon as he clearly states.

Since St. Peter was martyred in Rome somewhere between AD 64-67, I would say he was in Rome in the 60's.

Yet to be proven.

So what is Babylon in Revelation then? Surely not the actually Babylon as Babylon already fell and Revelations speaks of its upcoming judgement.

There are many opinions regarding the identity of Babylon in Revelation but all are simply opinions. I fall in the camp that agrees with the plain reading. Babylon is Babylon not some made up option (Rev. 18 calls it the great city of Babylon not the great city of Rome).

True, but the Chaldean and Syrian and Assyrian Churches still do in Iraq, and they do know their history as well as anyone.

The Assyrian Church of the East also claims to be founded by St. Thomas, and they also claim that St. Peter did visit them. So it is probable that St. Peter did visit Assyria, as he, along with the other Apostles, covered a lot of territory. You look at the journeys of St. Paul, which we have the most data on, or the journeys of St. Thomas who ended up in India, or St. James who is believed to have brought the gospel to Spain. If I remember correctly the English church claims that St. Peter visited the British Isles at one point in his ministry. So there isn't much that could be out of the question on how far and how quickly they got to locations to preach the Gospel.

Much of this is myth since there is no evidence that Peter was in the British Isles or the Tomas was in India or that James ended up in Spain. It has been my experience that societies tend to create myth for credibility purposes and for satisfying a desire for importance.

So lets say that even if St. Peter did write the epistle in Babylon, that doesn't make it impossible that St. Peter did not go to Rome and preside over a Church there, before and at his death. So really the his epistle doesn't confirm or deny anything on this point.

The epistle confirms that Peter was in Babylon when he wrote it. The epistle is dated to the 60's. While I agree with you that Peter could have gone to Rome, other evidence seems to disagree with this view. For example, 2 Timothy is Paul's last epistle in which he names people that were with him and others that were not. Peter is never mentioned. In fact, none of the prison epistle name Peter while they mention many.

 

[Hentenza]

No, it's Scripture combined with Tradition.

Scripture is combined with who's Traditions? There are many Traditions but only one scripture.

 

[Rev Randy]

Scripture is combined with who's Traditions? There are many Traditions but only one scripture.

The Apostles.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Scripture is combined with who's Traditions? There are many Traditions but only one scripture.

The Tradition. There was no "Scripture" before the Tradition. I know you're going to say "What about the Law and the Prophets", but we know that not all Jews adhered to the OT as we know it, some discounting the prophets and Wisdom writings totally.

There was no body of Scripture until Tradition.

 

[Hentenza]

The Apostles.

Unfortunately many Traditions did not originate with the Apostles.

 

[Hentenza]

The Tradition. There was no "Scripture" before the Tradition. I know you're going to say "What about the Law and the Prophets", but we know that not all Jews adhered to the OT as we know it, some discounting the prophets and Wisdom writings totally.

There was no body of Scripture until Tradition.

Sorry but that is not true. It is not a coincidence that the apostles lived until the last book of the NT was written. The OT existed prior to the apostles.

Again, who's Traditions? There are many.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, Peter preached the first sermon to Jews and Gentiles. The door to the kingdom is opened.

When Peter knew his end was near, what did he do? What did he say explicitely? (hint, read 1 Peter 5:1-4)

Yes, he's talking to the officially appointed officials of the Universal Christian Church.

Then, in the next part, he speaks to the general community.

 

[intojoy]

Which church is that?

.

The one described as forbidding to marry and abstaining from meats etc.

 

[Tzaousios]

The one described as forbidding to marry and abstaining from meats etc.

Which one is that?

 

[intojoy]

Grenade out

 

[Rev Randy]

Unfortunately many Traditions did not originate with the Apostles.

You are correct. Altar calls, Baptism as just an outward sign of an inward belief, The Lord's Supper as a symbolic memorial and the list goes on and on.

 

[Rev Randy]

Grenade out

Pull the pin and toss it.

 

[Hentenza]

You are correct. Altar calls, Baptism as just an outward sign of an inward belief, The Lord's Supper as a symbolic memorial and the list goes on and on.

Marian dogmas, hierarchical church government, catechumenism, and the list goes on and on.

 

[Tzaousios]

Pull the pin and toss it.

Perhaps I am wrong, but it appears he means to pull the pin and fall on it if he reveals what it is he really wants to say.

 

[Tzaousios]

Marian dogmas, hierarchical church government, catechumenism, and the list goes on and on.

Each ongoing list according to one's own presuppositions and accompanying prooftext justifications.

 

[Rev Randy]

Marian dogmas, hierarchical church government, catechumenism, and the list goes on and on.

I may agree on certain Marian dogmas but those others are scripture, not just tradition. But the laity is the hierarchy. The Clergy are the servants of the servants of God.

 

[Hentenza]

Each ongoing list according to one's own presuppositions and accompanying prooftext justifications.

I'm basing mine of historical evidence pointing to their genesis. I'm not sure what they are basing theirs on.

 

[Rev Randy]

Perhaps I am wrong, but it appears he means to pull the pin and fall on it if he reveals what it is he really wants to say.

Yes. But I think the pin was really pulled with the earlier statement. I"m wondering how long till a hand gets tired. Falling on it sounds better than sit on it.

 

[Hentenza]

I may agree on certain Marian dogmas but those others are scripture, not just tradition. But the laity is the hierarchy. The Clergy are the servants of the servants of God.

Mmm... I am talking about most Marian doctrines. Secondly, in practice, the laity responds and obey the clergy so they are towards the bottom of the hierarchy while the clergy progressive to toward the top. In scripture, the primitive churches were congregational.