• 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.

why was Peter's name changed?

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,180
51
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟106,560.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
The early Christians were all part of one Church.

Which church was it?

Not the one you call the Catholic Church today, that's for sure. The one Church is the church of all believers who follow Christ. It encompasses more than just Catholics.
 
Upvote 0

chestertonrules

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2007
8,747
515
Texas
✟11,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not the one you call the Catholic Church today, that's for sure. The one Church is the church of all believers who follow Christ. It encompasses more than just Catholics.


Catholic doctrine is that all Christians subsist within the Catholic Church, but not all Christians are in full communion with the Church. All other Churches came out of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has not changed, but Christians have travelled many other paths.

The consistent message and apostolic succession present in the Catholic Church are key reasons why I am a proud convert to Catholicism.
 
Upvote 0

mont974x4

The Christian Anarchist
Site Supporter
Aug 1, 2006
17,630
1,304
Montana, USA
Visit site
✟69,115.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Not the one you call the Catholic Church today, that's for sure. The one Church is the church of all believers who follow Christ. It encompasses more than just Catholics.


Amen, it is made up of every believer regardless of denomination. And there is sheep and goats in every pew around the world. The name written on the building means nothing. What matters is whose name is in the book of life.
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,180
51
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟106,560.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Catholic doctrine is that all Christians subsist within the Catholic Church, but not all Christians are in full communion with the Church. All other Churches came out of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has not changed, but Christians have travelled many other paths.

The consistent message and apostolic succession present in the Catholic Church are key reasons why I am a proud convert to Catholicism.

Good for you! :thumbsup:

Many of the Catholic doctrines make me proud to be a lifelong Lutheran.
 
Upvote 0

mont974x4

The Christian Anarchist
Site Supporter
Aug 1, 2006
17,630
1,304
Montana, USA
Visit site
✟69,115.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
OH, and there was many churches then ( the church at Corinth for example) all members of His Church and not under the thumb of any one person on earth. Just as there are many denominations and local churches now.
 
Upvote 0

calluna

Regular Member
Apr 23, 2008
2,237
114
✟25,394.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
calluna,
So when do you think the RCC started?
It's hard to say, because there are almost no usable historical data for assessment of true/false belief after the close of Acts until Wyclif, and even Acts reflects only a part of the whole church. Obviously the intervention of 'the Thirteenth Apostle', Constantine, must be reckoned as the latest date, but the Roman Empire's political techniques were much more subtle than simply going from persecution to sudden 'agreement'. Rome was a police state, a police empire, in fact, and relied on spies, entryists and control via these entryists, just as police today legitimately infiltrate terrorist organisations.

If Ignatius really wrote to what had been original churches in c. 110, then the NT pattern of multiple eldership had been overcome and replaced with monarchical eldership, or 'bishops', under the control of local Roman governors paid to make sure that Christians were not allowed to operate freely, if at all. (They were later controlled by diocesan 'bishops', who did not even live near their congregations.) Christianity was both unpopular with many, and illegal to the empire. So the removal of democracy was no doubt a gradual process, and no doubt many hoped that the new faith would succumb to persecution and die out, and control would not be necessary. But evidently there were enough saints at the grassroots by Constantine's time to convince the man that 'the blood of the martyrs is seed', and he'd better stop sowing it. 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em' was his pragmatic motto.

Impersonating the church worked a lot better than persecuting it, and by the time Theodosius made 'Christianity' the state religion, there were probably very few, if any Christians left in the empire. They no doubt persisted outside the empire, in more easterly parts, as far as India and China, and probably in Germany and other northern parts that Rome did not reach, but Islam and the 'Holy Roman Empire' must have eventually removed most of them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
M

MamaZ

Guest
No where in the earlier church at the time of the Apostles can we see what the CC says to be true today. This Catholic Church now is made up of pagan rituals mixed with some scripture.. Through History we can see the events of what has happened and it does not even take a religious man to understand..We see the ruthlessness of what happened through out History. Some claiming they were doing this horrid act in the Name of Jesus. Not just Catholics but others as well. To get back to the teachings of the Apostles one only need to open up the scriptures and read what they truly taught. For some that did just this they lost thier life for it. The bible was banned. For men were told that they could not understand scripture unless it was read in the tradtion of the church.. Therefore putting tradtions above scripture, therefore putting tradtion of men above what God really teaches through the Scriptures. When men started to read the scriptues and God started to reveal His truth to them through His written oracles is when the church started to put out Athema's to once again control the people under this great bondage..
 
Upvote 0

chestertonrules

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2007
8,747
515
Texas
✟11,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
OH, and there was many churches then ( the church at Corinth for example) all members of His Church and not under the thumb of any one person on earth. Just as there are many denominations and local churches now.


The Church at Corinth was most definitely Catholic, as all Churches were at the time.

Here's Pope Clement writing to the Corinthians to correct an error in their rejection of some bishops in around 90 AD:


CHAPTER 59
59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger

And these instructions were welcomed by the Corinthian Church and his letter was read and honored for centuries. Here is some evidence from a Bishop of Corinth:


Dionysius of Corinth



"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

"Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (ibid., 4:23:11).
 
Upvote 0

chestertonrules

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2007
8,747
515
Texas
✟11,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No where in the earlier church at the time of the Apostles can we see what the CC says to be true today. This Catholic Church now is made up of pagan rituals mixed with some scripture.. Through History we can see the events of what has happened and it does not even take a religious man to understand..We see the ruthlessness of what happened through out History. Some claiming they were doing this horrid act in the Name of Jesus. Not just Catholics but others as well. To get back to the teachings of the Apostles one only need to open up the scriptures and read what they truly taught. For some that did just this they lost thier life for it. The bible was banned. For men were told that they could not understand scripture unless it was read in the tradtion of the church.. Therefore putting tradtions above scripture, therefore putting tradtion of men above what God really teaches through the Scriptures. When men started to read the scriptues and God started to reveal His truth to them through His written oracles is when the church started to put out Athema's to once again control the people under this great bondage..


You post lies. Sorry, I know you don't mean to.

Can you name a pagan ritual practiced by Catholics?

Can you demonstrate that the bible was banned, or just that unauthorized translations were banned? The Catholic Church published the bible in many languages starting about 500 AD.
 
Upvote 0
M

MamaZ

Guest
It was first officially forbidden to the people and placed on the index of Forbidden Books List by the Council of Valencia in 1229 A.D. The Council of Trent (1545-63 A.D.) also prohibited its use and pronounced a curse upon anyone who would dare oppose this decree. Many popes have issued decrees forbidding Bible reading in the common language of the people, condemning Bible societies and banning its possession and translation under penalty of mortal sin and death. The Roman Catholic Church has openly burned Bibles and those who translated it or promoted its study, reading, and use.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,739
1,099
Carmel, IN
✟725,938.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It was first officially forbidden to the people and placed on the index of Forbidden Books List by the Council of Valencia in 1229 A.D.

This is taken straight from Boettner, hardly a reliable history and easily proven wrong. According to Wiki, the first list of forbidden books was published in the Netherlands in 1529. In 1229, Valencia was still under the control of the Moors, so no Council of Valencia in 1229. Why don't we get back to the OP, throwing all the dirty laundry from the last 2000 years onto this thread will not address the question of Peter's name change.
 
Upvote 0

chestertonrules

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2007
8,747
515
Texas
✟11,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The bible was read in Latin. Which is why when the bible started being translated into languages that people could actually understand is when the banning of these translations came about.. Why was that?


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

Reality:

Egyptian, or Coptic, versions

The first Christians of Lower Egypt commonly used Greek, but the natives generally spoke Coptic (see EGYPT, VI, COPTIC LITERATURE), which is now recognized in four dialects, viz.: Bohairic, Sahidic, Akhmimic and Fayûmic (Middle Egyptian). As Christian communities formed and flourished, the Bible was translated into these dialects and it is generally admitted that some versions, if not all, date back to the second century.

Ethiopic and Amharic versions

Early in the fourth century, St. Frumentius preached the Gospel in Abyssinia and there laid the foundation of the Ethiopic Church. Its version of the Scriptures probably dates from the close of the following century. It undoubtedly originated from the Septuagint and Greek manuscripts, but present texts do not certainly represent the original version and may possibly be a later translation from the Arabic or Coptic.

Gothic version

The Goths embraced the faith in the third century but in the fourth they fell into Arianism. Their Bishop Ulfilas (318-388), after devising an alphabet, produced a version of the Scriptures from the Septuagint Old Testament and from the Greek of the New. Extant fragments, the oldest of which are of the fifth and sixth century, bear traces of the Septuagint recension of Lucian and of the Syriac versions of the New Testament.

Armenian version


History In 406 the Armenian alphabet was invented by Mesrob, who five years later completed a translation of the Old and New Testament from the Syriac version into Armenian. This translation was recognized as imperfect, and a few years later Joseph of Baghim and Eznak, disciples of Mesrob, were sent to Edessa to make a new version from the Syriac. When they returned bringing some copies of the Greek version it was seen that their work would be greatly benefited by the use of this "authentic" copy. Consequently some of the translators, including Moses Chorenensis, were sent to study Greek at Alexandria, where the final revision was made, the Old Testament being translated from the Septuagint according to the "Hexapla" of Origen. This version was without delay officially adopted by the authorities in the Armenian Church.

Georgian, or Grusian, versions

Apparently kindred to the Armenian and probably derived from in the sixth century is the Gregorian version, showing the influence of the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. It was revised after the Slav translation by Prince Wakuset (Moscow, 1743), and has appeared later with many changes (e.g., Moscow, 1816; St. Petersburg, 1818).

Syriac versions

In the earliest years of Christianity, a Syriac version of the Old Testament made directly from the Hebrew text was employed in the Syrian Church, but in the seventh century, Paul, Bishop of Tella, gave the Monophysites a translation (617) from the Septuagint. It followed literally Origen's Hexaplar text and was later revised by James of Edessa (died 907). In the sixth century there had appeared a version of the Psalter and New Testament from the Greek at the request of Philoxenus, by whose name it has been known. A century later it appeared at Alexandria in a recension of great critical value.

Slavic version

Saints Cyril and Methodius preached the Gospel to the Slavs in the second half of the ninth century, and St. Cyril, having formed an alphabet, made for them, in Old Ecclesiastical Slavic, or Bulgarian, a translation of the Bible from the Greek. Toward the close of the tenth century this version found its way into Russia with Christianity, and after the twelfth century it underwent many linguistic and textual changes.

The Vulgate

While revising the text of the Old Latin Version, St. Jerome became convinced of the need in the Western Church of a new translation directly from the Hebrew. His Latin scholarship, his acquaintance with Biblical places and customs obtained by residence in Palestine, and his remarkable knowledge of Hebrew and of Jewish exegetical traditions, especially fitted him for a work of this kind. He set himself to the task A.D. 390 and in A.D. 405 completed the protocanonical books of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and the deuterocanonical Books of Tobias and Judith from the Aramaic. To these were added his revision of the Old Latin, or Gallican, Psalter, the New Testament, revised from the Old Latin with the aid of the original Greek, and the remaining deuterocanonical books, and portions of Esther, and Daniel, just as they existed in the Itala.


Spanish versions

Several manuscripts of early Spanish versions, e.g. the Biblia Alfonsina, and some made from the Hebrew, are preserved at the Escurial, Madrid. A later work (sixteenth century) is called the Bible of Quiroga, a convert from Judaism, who rose to be cardinal inquisitor. The first printed Bible (Valencia, 1478), following an Old-Testament version from the French and Latin by Romeu de Sabruguera, O.P., was in the Catalonian dialect and was the work of the General of the Carthusians, Boniface Ferrer (d. 1417), a brother of St. Vincent Ferrer, O.P.

French versions

Versions of the Psalms and the Apocalypse, and a metrical rendering of the Book of Kings, appeared as early as the seventh century. Up to the fourteenth century, many Bible histories were produced. A complete version of the Bible was made in the thirteenth century; the translation of the various parts is of unequal merit. The fourteenth century manuscript Anglo-Norman Bible follows it closely. Independent of either in the manuscript Bible of King John the Good, which though unfinished is described as a "work of science and good taste". Done in the second half of the fourteenth century, it is largely the work of the Dominicans Jean de Sy, Jehan Nicolas, William Vivien, and Jehan de Chambly. Another incomplete version based on the thirteenth-century Bible was the work of Raoul de Presles and is known as the Bible of Charles V. About 1478, appearing at Lyons among the incunabula of France, is a New Testament by Julian Macho and Pierre Farget, and the books of the Old Testament history, published six times.
 
Upvote 0

chestertonrules

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2007
8,747
515
Texas
✟11,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

German versions

The history of Biblical research in Germany shows that of the numerous partial versions in the vernacular some go back to the seventh and eighth centuries. It also establishes the certainty of such versions on a considerable scale in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and points to a complete Bible of the fifteenth in general use before the invention of printing. Of special interest are the five complete folio editions printed before 1477, nine from 1477 to 1522, and four in Low German, all prior to Luther's New Testament in 1522.

Dutch and Flemish versions

The first Bible for Catholics in Holland was printed at Delft in 1475. Among several issued from the press of Jacob van Leisveldt at Antwerp, one (1540) with the text of the Vulgate is called the Biblia Belgica. The first authoritative version for Catholics was translated from Henten's Vulgate by Nicholas van Wingh, Peter de Cort, and Godevaert Stryode, O.P. (Louvain, 1545). After seventeen complete editions it was revised according to the Clementine Vulgate and became the celebrated Bible of Moerentorf or Moretus (1599).

Scandinavian versions

In the fourteenth century, versions of the Sunday Epistles and Gospels were made for popular use in Denmark. Large portions of the Bible, if not an entire version, were published about 1470. The historical books of the Old Testament and the Apocalypse in Swedish are all that are preserved of a complete version made in the fifteenth century and derived from earlier translations in use in the time of St. Bridget (d. 1373).


Hungarian versions

A fourteenth-fifteenth-century manuscript in Vienna gives parts of the Old Testament from the Vulgate by the Friars Minor, Thomas and Valentine. A fifteenth-century manuscript of the whole Bible at Gran, the Codex Jordanszky, is believed to contain at least in part a version that was made by Ladislaus Bathory, Hermit of the Order of St. Paul (d. 1456).


Celtic versions


Irish Ancient Gaelic versions of the Psalms, of a Gospel of St. Matthew, and other sacred writings with glosses and commentaries are found as early as the seventh century, Most of the literature through subsequent centuries abounds in Scriptural quotations. A fourteenth-century manuscript, the "Leabhar Braec" (Speckled Book), published at Dublin (1872-5), contains a history of Israel and a compendious history of the New Testament. It has also the Passion of Jesus Christ, a translation from the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. Another fourteenth-century manuscript, the "Leabhar Buide Lecain", also gives the Passion and a brief Old-Testament history. Some scholars see in these writings indications of an early Gaelic version of the Scriptures previous to the time of St. Jerome. A modern Protestant Gaelic New Testament, begun from the original Greek by John Kearney, 1574, Nicholas Walsh (later Bishop of Ossory), and Nehemias Donellan (later Archbishop of Tuam), and finished by William O'Donnell and Mortogh O'Cionga (King), was printed in 1602.

The English work in Bible study of the following nine centuries will be conveniently divided into three periods comprising three centuries each.
Eighth to tenth century

In the first period extending from the eighth to the tenth century we meet: (1) St. Bede's translation of John, i, 1-vi, 9; (2) interlinear glosses on the Psalms; (3) the Paris Psalter; (4) the so-called Lindisfarne Gospels; (5) the Rushworth version; (6) the West-Saxon Gospels; (7) Ælfric's version of a number of Old-Testament books.


(1) The proof for the existence of St. Bede's work rests on the authority of his pupil Guthberht who wrote about this fact to his fellow-student Cuthwine (see Mayor and Lumby, "Bedæ hist. eccl.", 178).
(2) The "Glossed Psalters" have come down to us in twelve manuscripts, six of which represent the Roman Psalter, and six the Gallican. The oldest and most important of these manuscripts is the so called Vespesian Psalter, written in Mercia in the first half of the ninth century.
(3) The Paris Psalter advances beyond the glosses in as far as it is a real translation of Ps. i, 1-l, 10, ascribed by some scholars to King Alfred (d. 901), though others deny this view. Cf. William of Malmesbury. "Gesta regum Anglorum", II, 123.
(4) The Lindisfarne Gospels, called also the Durham Book, the Book of St. Cuthbert, present the Latin text of the Gospels dating from Redfrith, Bishop of Lindisfarne (698-721), with the so-called Northumbrian Gloss on the Gospels, added about 950 by Aldred. Cf. Dr. Charles O'Conor, "Bibl. stowensis", II (1818-19), 180.
(5) The Rushworth version of the first Gospel, with glosses on the second, third, and fourth Gospels, based on the Lindisfarne glosses. Faerman, a priest of Harewood (Harwood), made the translation of St. Matthew and furnished the glosses on St. Mark, i, 1-ii, 15; St. John, xviii, 1-3; the rest of the work is taken from Owun's glosses.
(6) The West-Saxon Gospels are a rendering of the Gospels originating in the south of England about the year 1000; seven manuscripts of this version have come down to us. Cf. W.W. Skeat, "The Gospels in Anglo-Saxon etc." (Cambridge, 1871-87).
(7) Ælfric himself states in his work "De vetere testamento", written about 1010, that he had translated the Pentateuch, Josue, Judges, Kings, Job, Esther, Judith, and the Books of the Machabees. The translator frequently abridges, slightly in Genesis, more notably in the Book of Judges and the following books; he adopts a metrical form in Judith. Cf. Nieder in "Zeitschrift für historische Theologie" (1855-56). Eleventh to fourteenth century

The second period coincides with the Anglo-Norman time, extending from the tenth to the thirteenth or fourteenth century. During this time, French or the Anglo-Norman dialect reigned supreme among the upper classes, and in academic and official circles, while English was confined to the lower classes and the country-districts. The Bible renderings during the twelfth, thirteenth, and early fourteenth centuries were in French, whether they were made in England or brought over from France. Before the middle of the fourteenth century the entire Old Testament and a great part of the New Testament had been translated into the Anglo-Norman dialect of the period (cf. Berger, "La Bible française au moyen âge", Paris, 1884, 78 sqq.). As to English work, we may note two transcripts of the West-Saxon Gospels during the course of the eleventh century and some copies of the same Gospels into the Kentish dialect made in the twelfth century. The thirteenth century is an absolute blank as far as our knowledge of its English Bible study is concerned. The English which emerged about the middle and during the second half of the fourteenth century was practically a new language, so that both the Old English versions which might have remained, and the French versions hitherto in use, failed to fulfil their purpose.
 
Upvote 0