The earliest Churches were Christian assembling themselves in the Synogoghs/homes/Temples, as the clear break with Judaism had not yet occurred...
And how can [eter be the first Pope, when he submitted to authority of James and paul?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Roman Soteriology Exposed and Condemned
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
- Status
The earliest Churches were Christian assembling themselves in the Synogoghs/homes/Temples, as the clear break with Judaism had not yet occurred...
And how can [eter be the first Pope, when he submitted to authority of James and paul?
The logic was only to establish Rome as actually legitimate. Your friend has thrown the baby with the bathwater.
In other words, He thinks since the catholic church is wrong, there is no church at all. Rather then just say the catholic church is not THE church period.
You mean 3 to 4 letters to Corinth? You got to read them closely to catch this.
The Pope = Bishop of Rome. Peter is the first Bishop of Rome.
I think they were in Jerusalem which is James' was in charge of. Also Peter gave his Judgment first he just didn't verbally title it. You'll often hear the Bishop of Rome as first among equals.
Also notice here is the first inkling of salvation through Jesus Christ being laid down as solid doctrine. Peter didn't have a copy of Romans and say.....well it says here in the bible we are saved through Jesus Christ. Also Peter is not introducing "new" doctrine. He is clarifying the faith as is.
James ends his judgment following Peter.
Had they followed the law of "Sola Scriptura", Scripture would have demanded the same yoke the Jews were under. And none of what they say would hold weight or matter.
No man is impeccable including James, Peter and Paul. All can make mistakes and be corrected by church laws. Peter has authority but among equals.
Even today. A bishop can't be removed at the snap of a Pope's finger. The bishop is not a like a branch office, he has a almost independant authority. There is church laws in place that can remove bishops they all in a sense agreed to it. They all also agree the authority of the Pope.
Keep in mind Pope is title of honor. Legal-wise he is "merely" the Bishop of Rome.
Now as far as LEADERSHIP, Command and authority of Peter.
For a minute put yourself in Peter's shoes. And JESUS CHRIST is telling you this, who do you think Jesus is making you RESPONSIBLE for?
John 21
15So 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, “Tend My lambs.” 16He said to him again 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, “Shepherd My sheep.” 17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.
As Peter who would you think you are not in charge of if your directed by Christ to SHEPHERD the SHEEP?
Down to be held by responsible BY CHRIST. I guarantee there no authority higher then you because the highest has already made you responsible for all.
I don't care if Peter is the janitor of the apostles. The command of Christ transcends title.
Last edited:
NO historical evidence that peter was first Pope, as in fact, he saw other Apostles such as James/paul/Hohn as his equals in the church for spiritually authority!
Simply who is first Bishop of Rome? We say its Peter who do you say it is?
But the Christian Church evolved through time (from the Apostle Era onward) and there was but one Christian Church with it's Bishops whom all Christians followed, with the head Bishop based in Rome. Sure you might have had a little Christian sect here or there, but the great majority of Christians were members of the One Universal Christian Church. Only the great schism between the East and West in 1054 broke this universal compact into two. Those are the facts.
No, the true historical facts are that Rome was and is not the true Church of Christ, as they real churches were those local assewmblies obeying the words of Jesus and His Apostles!
The true church of Christ was and is not the one of Rome though, so would say never was any papacy from God!
You do yourself a disservice by ignoring the true historical record of Christianity and the Universal Church. Yes there is a Christian Church on this earth that was set up by God and it was given authority to act in His name so all the faithful could be assured of the continuing truth regarding spiritual things. Like it or not, Peter was singled out by Our Lord and the Scriptures tell us this. The Bishop of Rome was always consulted by the various councils and synods that were held in the early days of the evolving Christian Church and his authority was clearly recognized.
Don't know, don't care.
Show me from the Bible that it was Peter. In fact, show me from the Bible that Peter ever went anywhere near Rome. We know Paul was there (and he never mentions Peter being with him). How come Paul wasn't made a Bish?
1 Peter 5
12By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. 13The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. 14Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.
Babylon being ROME or ANTIOCH or CLEVELAND.
Paul was made Bishop by Jesus. If you can wrap your head around bishop = overseer and the bible didn't land from heaven written in English.
EPI = OVER
SKOPOS = SEER
I still use that word like in Spanish.
The bible never mentions Peter ever died. So I suppose he is still alive today right?
John 21
20Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 21Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
John is still alive today for sure right? Jesus said that disciple should not die.
I saw him this morning. Still catholic.
Show me in the Bible where human DNA is talked about and explained. Oh, it isn't there you say, but it is true nonetheless. The Scriptures, while being very important to the Christian, simply does not contain everything about the Christian experience here on earth and as utilyan rightly points it itself says so.
Babylon being Babylon? Still inhabited at the time. All we know is that Peter 'departed and went to another place' (Acts 12:17). That's the last we hear of him in Acts which is a bit surprising with him being the pope and all. We don't know where he went or when and if he came back.
Babylon being Jerusalem? It's called Sodom and Egypt in the NT (Revelation 11:8) so why not Babylon?
Of course if Peter was a Rastafarian he might well have been living in the USA.
Wow! Such knowledge! So perhaps you can show me where Paul ever describes himself or is described as an episkopos? He never is. Funny that; perhaps it's because he never was one. He was an Apostle and regularly describes himself as one of those.
An episkopos was and is someone charged with the oversight of a particular church. Have a look at Acts 20:28 and Philippians 1:1 and you will find that there was a plurality of episkopoi looking after one church. The Romish idea of one episkopos lording it over a plurality of churches is exactly back to front.
Also, if you compare Acts 20:17 with Acts 20:28 you will find that episkopoi are exactly the same as presbuteroi. So Peter (1 Peter 5:1) describes himself as a sumpresbuteros or 'fellow elder' because he shared in the oversight of a church somewhere as well as being an Apostle (1:1). Paul never had oversight of one particular church and therefore never describes himself as either episkopos or presbuteros.
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 12am Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 12am Pacific.
<<...those are the facts>> except that you presume and allege <<the great majority of Christians ... with the head Bishop based in Rome>> is the true Christian Church, while the small minority of <<a little Christian sect here or there>> is not the true Christian Church.
But The Head of the Church Jesus Christ, defined and described and identified the Church as the "True Believers" who do not have their worshipping headquarters "HERE, OR THERE", but "where TWO or THREE are gathered together", to "worship God in SPIRIT and in TRUTH", because, said He, "Jesus Christ given to the Church as Head far above all principality and power", "I SHALL BE IN THEIR MIDST".
This thread is closed.
- Status