Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They all essentially started at the same time. Rome it's head. Different Apostles set up shop in different locations. Peter was the Church's head. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. I like your story, but it's close but no cigar. I like how it confuses people and still maintains that the Catholics are delusional. You are skilled.
None of what you say can be proven by scripture or by early church history. If it can, then please post your proofs.
Peter was not the church's head.
Peter called himself an elder among other elders. He never one time in all of the New Testament claimed to be head of anything.
"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:" (1 Peter 5:1)
Remember when the apostles asked who of them was greater? This incident happened after Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. If Peter was the supposed head of the apostles, then why didn't Jesus say so? Jesus saw no difference between the twelve apostles.
The first church was in Jerusalem, not Rome. Notice that when the time came to replace Judas, Peter didn't act on his own or as the representative of the other apostles. Peter summoned all of his brothers so that they might together choose a replacement for Judas. Read the quote from Chrysostom.
"Observe how he does everything always upon a mutual decision; nothing as an authority, nothing as a leader." (Joh Chrysostom, On Acts 3:1, Pg. 60:34)
The election of the seven deacons was an act of the entire church, not just Peter. (Acts 6:1-6)
The apostle Peter was NOT endowed with any super-apostolic authority whatsoever. Consider the following:
The apostles sent both Peter and John to Samaria, as their envoys. (Acts 1:8)
The christians who originated from the circumcised CENSURED Peter for having baptized gentiles, and he was then obliged to explain himself to them. (Acts 11:1-8)
The problems that arose from gentiles coming into the church were not resolved by decrees issued by Peter. They were resolved through decisions made when the apostles met, and Peter did NOT preside over the meeting. But James, the Lord's brother, and bishop of Jerusalem did, and notice it is James who has the last say on this matter. A letter is then sent to the gentile christians by the apostles and elders, not by Peter exclusively. (Acts 15:1-29)
The apostle Paul insists that he had received his apostolic rank directly from Christ and not from any man. (Galatians 1:11-12) But if the apostle Peter was Christ's representative on earth, shouldn't Paul have received his status from Peter?
When Paul visited Jerusalem, he mentioned that there were three pillars of the church there, and not just one, not just Peter as the sole pillar. Those three pillars were James the brother of Jesus, Peter, and John. What is noteworthy here is that James is mentioned first, and not Peter. (Galatians 2:10)
In Antioch, Paul publicly reprimanded Peter for his refusal to dine together with gentile christians. He openly characterized his behavior as hypocritical and not in accordance with the truth of the gospel. (Galatians 2:11-14)
In Paul's letter to the Corinthians, he reproaches the christians there for splitting up into groups, Paul's, Peter's and Aplollo's. (1 Cor. 3:1-23) Would Paul have dared to place himself and Apollo in the same position as Peter if Peter were the earthly representative of Christ?
After the persecution by Herod Agrippa, the predominant person in the church was Paul, not Peter. The letters by Paul had been written during this period. Even the last 16 chapters of Acts are almost exclusively dedicated to Paul's activities, whereas they say nothing of Peter. If Peter held primacy over the entire church, this would be inconceivable.
Quote a website as saying one thing, to 'prove your point'.
When it actually does not say that at all.
Just wow.
There is no Roman Catholic Church in the Bible or in the second century.
There is no Greek Orthodox church in the second century either.
There is one true church, and you can read about it in the scriptures or in early church history. It is called the church of God, church of Christ, body of Christ, bride of Christ.
You are both arguing for a church that DID NOT EXIST in the second century.
Blessings,
Katie
Last edited by MissKate12; 02-04-2012 at 09:13 AM..
Can you guys provide hard evidence that the Catholic church was not the first church?
Can you provide hard evidence, not from a catholic website, that the RCC was the first church?
Actually, this thread is not about who the first church was. I'm waiting for hard evidence that there was a Pope or bishop of Rome who had authority over all of christianity in the second century.
Where is the hard evidence for that? And please, don't quote what catholics think and believe. Give me the REAL stuff. There's plenty of websites to pull quotes from.
There is no Roman Catholic Church in the Bible or in the second century.
There is no Greek Orthodox church in the second century either.
There is one true church, and you can read about it in the scriptures or in early church history. It is called the church of God, church of Christ, body of Christ, bride of Christ.
You are both arguing for a church that DID NOT EXIST in the second century.
Blessings,
Katie
You're arguing over semantics. Please read my post. They did exist in the second century, they just didn't have official titles or labels. Those came later as was to distinguish themselves from "heretics" and each other.
Can you provide hard evidence, not from a catholic website, that the RCC was the first church?
Actually, this thread is not about who the first church was. I'm waiting for hard evidence that there was a Pope or bishop of Rome who had authority over all of christianity in the second century.
Where is the hard evidence for that? And please, don't quote what catholics think and believe. Give me the REAL stuff. There's plenty of websites to pull quotes from.
The first in order and the greatest in authority is the episcopos, the bishop.
1 Tim 3:1-2
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach ...
Tit 1:7,9
For a bishop (episcopon) as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.
Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, distinguishes the shepherding role of the episcopos/bishop.
Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (episcopous), in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.
The shepherding role of the apostle Peter as episcopos was related by John.
Jn 21:15-17
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."
GoodToBeHome;22844032]Excerpt from: Bishop of Rome
The first in order and the greatest in authority is the episcopos, the bishop.
Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, distinguishes the shepherding role of the episcopos/bishop.
Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (episcopous), in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.
Hi,
I am not arguing about the role of elders/bishops. I completely agree with you on this point. The scriptures are very clear, and yes, the elders of the local congregation have authority. Their job is to make sure everyone is sticking to what has been taught from the scriptures.
I am saying that there is no one single bishop who has authority over the entire church of God in the second century. There is no scriptural or historical proof of this.
You said,
"The first in order and the greatest in authority is the episcopos, the bishop."
Look again at Acts 20:28 The Holy Spirit has appointed you OVERSEERS. That is plural with an S.
Peter calls himself an elder among elders. He never claims authority over other elders or the other apostles.
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherdsof God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
Also notice that Luke doesn't write about the catholic church, or the Roman Catholic Church. He specifically calls the church CHURCH OF GOD.
You're arguing over semantics. Please read my post. They did exist in the second century, they just didn't have official titles or labels. Those came later as was to distinguish themselves from "heretics" and each other.
There was only ONE CHURCH in the second century. There is both Biblical and historical evidence that the church was called church of God or church of Christ.
The true church cannot be both church of God/church of Christ and Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox too.
How can you deny what is so clearly written in the Bible and by the ECF's?
This is not semantics, my friend. This is both Biblical and ante-nicene history. You cannot deny that, and no RCC history can nullify either.
Katie
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
