This seems bigger...

[utilyan]

"Received" by whom??

What is your complaint about the NKJV, KJV, YLT etc?

Recall that even your own Jerome in his translation of the Vulgate freely admitted that the Apocrypha was not canonical

He said which is absolutely true, that the Apocrypha was not canonical to MODERN JEWS, who recently created their canon decades AFTER the Death of Jesus, and plenty of folks say in RESPONSE to the new growing religion known as Christianity.

Jerome explains himself in his book: Apology Against Rufinus (BOOK II)

The bigger fish Jerome had to fry is all the churches at the time when they read Daniel it was a version that had been translated by a Judiazer heretic Theodotion rather then from the Septuagint(the seventy). There was also 2 other version Aquila and Symmachus.

Jerome tells you, That when he explains that the Jews claims the Apocrypha stuff is not in the hebrew bible, The person who charges that Jerome himself believes the books don't belong in the hebrew bible proves himself to be a FOOL and a SLANDERER.

Because it has nothing to do with what HE THOUGHT but what the Jews during his time commonly say against US. (us = us Christians)



(link below to his book)
CHURCH FATHERS: Apology Against Rufinus, Book II (Jerome)


33. In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion. Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not having written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and freely that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.

 

[kyredneck]

Roman Catholicism denies justification by faith alone.

...which is biblical. Its the Reformed insistence of sola fide that is anti-biblical.

As a Synergist I expect you to disagree with me on the Solas.

The system you parrot blatantly contradicts scripture:

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2

....and that's just the 'tip of the iceberg'. There's a mountain of scriptural support for 'justification not only by faith'.

What perplexes me is why smart guys like you choose to keep quoting this archaic, unscriptural, overreaction to the errors of Rome on the part of the Reformers.

...and I'm no synergist, and you know that.

 

[BobRyan]

He said which is absolutely true, that the Apocrypha was not canonical to MODERN JEWS,

He was the only one there who COULD read both Hebrew and Greek -- and knew that the texts of the Apocrypha were not at all canonical as part of the OT. Recall "no Christians were writing the Apocrypha" or the OT at all. Late comers who could not even read the language (Christian church leaders at the time of Jerome) were in no position to argue otherwise.

As Josephus noted long before Jerome - they had not changed their canon for over 300 years before Christ - but rather it was fixed set kept in the temple for that entire time.. no additions.

It was only extreme "arm twisting" that that got Jerome to the point of including apocryphal material at all...

==========================================

1. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
   "From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
   
   Jerome completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate, in 405. In the Middle Ages the Vulgate became the de facto standard version of the Bible in the West. These Bibles were divided into Old and New Testaments only; there was no separate Apocrypha section. Nevertheless, the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues[11] that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical. In the prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, which is often called the Prologus Galeatus, Jerome described those books not translated from the Hebrew as apocrypha; he specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd "are not in the canon". In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he mentioned "the book of Jesus son of Sirach and another pseudepigraphos, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon". He says of them and Judith, Tobias, and the Books of the Maccabees, that the Church "has not received them among the canonical scriptures".
   
   
   
   =====================================
   
   But Damasus ignorant of Hebrew simply did not know the material - the subject matter upon which he spoke.

And he did not issue his statement ex cathedra saying "by all the fullness of apostolic power" the way that Pope Clement XIV did in the 18th century when extinguishing the Jesuit order "forever".

1. 
   Thus Damasus' forcing Jerome did not stop him from including the clarifying fact in the prologue. And Damasus' decree is not "ex cathedra" so it is lumped in with the rather large pile of statements from Popes over many centuries that are not ex cathedra - and coming from the illiterate Damasus – is clearly flawed.
   
   Jerome certainly knew that the tiny group forcing him to include the apocyrpha are not scholars, are ill-informed, but he does not consider them to represent the entire church as noted in his own statements.

 

[BobRyan]

Jerome writes --

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO TOBIAS

1Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!

I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in the 3Chaldean language into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. 6For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans 9 is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words.

12 I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.

END OF THE PROLOGUE

~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO JUDITH

1Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found1 among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, 3it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council2 to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly 6 curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work3 translating more sense from sense than word from word. I have removed the extremely faulty variety of the many books; only those which I was able to find in the Chaldean words with understanding intact did I express in Latin ones.

 

[utilyan]

He was the only one there who COULD read both Hebrew and Greek -- and knew that the texts of the Apocrypha were not at all canonical as part of the OT. Recall "no Christians were writing the Apocrypha" or the OT at all. Late comers who could not even read the language (Christian church leaders at the time of Jerome) were in no position to argue otherwise.

As Josephus noted long before Jerome - they had not changed their canon for over 300 years before Christ - but rather it was fixed set kept in the temple for that entire time.. no additions.

It was only extreme "arm twisting" that that got Jerome to the point of including apocryphal material at all...

==========================================

1. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
   "From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
   
   Jerome completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate, in 405. In the Middle Ages the Vulgate became the de facto standard version of the Bible in the West. These Bibles were divided into Old and New Testaments only; there was no separate Apocrypha section. Nevertheless, the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues[11] that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical. In the prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, which is often called the Prologus Galeatus, Jerome described those books not translated from the Hebrew as apocrypha; he specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd "are not in the canon". In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he mentioned "the book of Jesus son of Sirach and another pseudepigraphos, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon". He says of them and Judith, Tobias, and the Books of the Maccabees, that the Church "has not received them among the canonical scriptures".
   
   
   
   =====================================
   
   But Damasus ignorant of Hebrew simply did not know the material - the subject matter upon which he spoke.

And he did not issue his statement ex cathedra saying "by all the fullness of apostolic power" the way that Pope Clement XIV did in the 18th century when extinguishing the Jesuit order "forever".

1. 
   Thus Damasus' forcing Jerome did not stop him from including the clarifying fact in the prologue. And Damasus' decree is not "ex cathedra" so it is lumped in with the rather large pile of statements from Popes over many centuries that are not ex cathedra - and coming from the illiterate Damasus – is clearly flawed.
   
   Jerome certainly knew that the tiny group forcing him to include the apocyrpha are not scholars, are ill-informed, but he does not consider them to represent the entire church as noted in his own statements.

Bob, I just quoted him, Jerome says if anyone claims that he is against the Apocrypha they are a SLANDERER and a FOOL.

Bob he is calling you that? Is Jerome is saying you are a FOOL AND SLANDERER? Why would he call you that?

Ill put his quote right here:

But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.



The pharisee/Jewish canon was meaningless to the christian's because it was so butchered to be anti-gentile.

When we see Jesus or the Apostles quote the old testament they quote the Septuagint.

The Christian canon is OLDER then the JEWISH PHARISEE canon.

The Christians were the COMPLETE JEWS lacking nothing of the Jewish faith. If anything the Jews would have to check with us on how to be Jewish.

 

[Yeshua1]

Bob, I just quoted him, Jerome says if anyone claims that he is against the Apocrypha they are a SLANDERER and a FOOL.

Bob he is calling you that? Is Jerome is saying you are a FOOL AND SLANDERER? Why would he call you that?

Ill put his quote right here:

But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.



The pharisee/Jewish canon was meaningless to the christian's because it was so butchered to be anti-gentile.

When we see Jesus or the Apostles quote the old testament they quote the Septuagint.

The Christian canon is OLDER then the JEWISH PHARISEE canon.

The Christians were the COMPLETE JEWS lacking nothing of the Jewish faith. If anything the Jews would have to check with us on how to be Jewish.

ONLY messianic jews are completed jews, and neither Jesus nor His Apostles ever accorded authority to non canonical books like Rome does!

 

[BobRyan]

Jerome explains himself in his book: Apology Against Rufinus (BOOK II)
..


(link below to his book)
CHURCH FATHERS: Apology Against Rufinus, Book II (Jerome)

33. In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. .

The quote was in this context -- showing how they lumped the spurious works in with the actual book of Daniel

As to Daniel, it was necessary to point out that Bel and the Dragon, and similar stories were not found in the Hebrew.
33. In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet.

in that quote alone we have the same defense of Daniel as a prophet - that we all make -- even though WE reject the spurious books.

Note that the last 6 chapters of Daniel are in HEBREW. The first six in Aramaic.

This is a specific response to attacks made against Jerome in regard to claiming that Daniel was not a true prophet.

It does nothing to extricate the Catholics from Jerome's devastating claims regarding the Apocrypha in the prologues to the apocryphal books - in his Vulgate which he himself freely admits - the apocryphal works were included solely as a result of arm-twisting by Catholic adminstrators.

,,...

A vindication of the importance of the Hebrew Text of Scripture.
34. I beg you, my most sweet friend, who are so curious that you even know my dreams, and that you scrutinize for purposes of accusations all that I have written during these many years without fear of future calumny; answer me, how is it you do not know the prefaces of the very books on which you ground your charges against me? These prefaces, as if by some prophetic foresight, gave the answer to the calumnies that were coming, thus fulfilling the proverb, The antidote before the poison. What harm has been done to the churches by my translation? You bought up, as I knew, at great cost the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and the Jewish authors of the fifth and sixth translations. Your Origen, or, that I may not seem to be wounding you with fictitious praises, our Origen, (for I may call him ours for his genius and learning, though not for the truth of his doctrines) in all his books explains and expounds not only the Septuagint but the Jewish versions. Eusebius and Didymus do the same. I do not mention Apollinarius, who, with a laudable zeal though not according to knowledge, attempted to patch up into one garment the rags of all the translations, and to weave a consistent text of Scripture at his own discretion, not according to any sound rule of criticism. The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words He that believes in me, as the Scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, and in the words used on the cross itself, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, which is by interpretation My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? not, as it is given by the Septuagint, My God, my God, look upon me, why have you forsaken me? and many similar cases. ...

Jerome says this -
I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs.
Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these exist in the Hebrew. Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from the Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end.

 

[utilyan]

ONLY messianic jews are completed jews, and neither Jesus nor His Apostles ever accorded authority to non canonical books like Rome does!

Jesus Christ is the perfection and full Jewish faith. And we see Jesus debate Sadducee over the plot of the book of Tobit.

 

[rsr]

Jesus Christ is the perfection and full Jewish faith. And we see Jesus debate Sadducee over the plot of the book of Tobit.

So Jesus' expounding on popular culture equates with his endorsement of an entire deuterocanonical book?

And it really wasn't a debate. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah as Scripture and didn't believe in the resurrection. (See Paul on this.) They were propounding a "gotcha" question and he set them straight. Move along, nothing to see here.

It's amazing how unhistorical Catholics, who pride themselves on their own (contradictory) history, can be when they desperately want to prove a point.

 

[Bro. James]

The quote was in this context -- showing how they lumped the spurious works in with the actual book of Daniel

As to Daniel, it was necessary to point out that Bel and the Dragon, and similar stories were not found in the Hebrew.
33. In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet.

in that quote alone we have the same defense of Daniel as a prophet - that we all make -- even though WE reject the spurious books.

Note that the last 6 chapters of Daniel are in HEBREW. The first six in Aramaic.

This is a specific response to attacks made against Jerome in regard to claiming that Daniel was not a true prophet.

It does nothing to extricate the Catholics from Jerome's devastating claims regarding the Apocrypha in the prologues to the apocryphal books - in his Vulgate which he himself freely admits - the apocryphal works were included solely as a result of arm-twisting by Catholic adminstrators.

,,...

A vindication of the importance of the Hebrew Text of Scripture.
34. I beg you, my most sweet friend, who are so curious that you even know my dreams, and that you scrutinize for purposes of accusations all that I have written during these many years without fear of future calumny; answer me, how is it you do not know the prefaces of the very books on which you ground your charges against me? These prefaces, as if by some prophetic foresight, gave the answer to the calumnies that were coming, thus fulfilling the proverb, The antidote before the poison. What harm has been done to the churches by my translation? You bought up, as I knew, at great cost the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and the Jewish authors of the fifth and sixth translations. Your Origen, or, that I may not seem to be wounding you with fictitious praises, our Origen, (for I may call him ours for his genius and learning, though not for the truth of his doctrines) in all his books explains and expounds not only the Septuagint but the Jewish versions. Eusebius and Didymus do the same. I do not mention Apollinarius, who, with a laudable zeal though not according to knowledge, attempted to patch up into one garment the rags of all the translations, and to weave a consistent text of Scripture at his own discretion, not according to any sound rule of criticism. The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words He that believes in me, as the Scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, and in the words used on the cross itself, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, which is by interpretation My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? not, as it is given by the Septuagint, My God, my God, look upon me, why have you forsaken me? and many similar cases. ...

Jerome says this -
I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs.
Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these exist in the Hebrew. Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from the Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All embellishments of scripture notwithstanding: Why was John Wycliffe murdered, his translations burned, his body exumed and burned, 44 years after burial? See: john wycliffe on www.

"You shall know The Truth, It shall make you free."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[utilyan]

So Jesus' expounding on popular culture equates with his endorsement of an entire deuterocanonical book?

And it really wasn't a debate. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah as Scripture and didn't believe in the resurrection. (See Paul on this.) They were propounding a "gotcha" question and he set them straight. Move along, nothing to see here.

It's amazing how unhistorical Catholics, who pride themselves on their own (contradictory) history, can be when they desperately want to prove a point.

Common now....I'll even let you write the history book of Christianity 32 to 200 ad, And you'll still get it wrong.

It was more of a mockery then a "gotcha" question. The Sadducee do not accept the book of Tobit as scripture and they where sticking Jesus with it.

Everyone already knew their unbelief of angels and afterlife.

The Sadducees could have made their challenge in millions of different ways......but oh the one way the choose is by mocking the Book of Tobit and throwing it in Jesus' face.

Why use a story with the same plot?

You already know they only accept 5 books. So they are already ON BOARD with you not accepting the book of Tobit. Your right it is just pop fairy-tale for them

They could have made their point with just 2 brothers.

No they were attacking the fact that The Book of Tobit . IS HOLY SCRIPTURE to Jesus Christ.

 

[utilyan]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All embellishments of scripture notwithstanding: Why was John Wycliffe murdered, his translations burned, his body exumed and burned, 44 years after burial? See: john wycliffe on www.

"You shall know The Truth, It shall make you free."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

While he was saying Mass in the parish church on Holy Innocents' Day, 28 December 1384, he suffered a stroke, and died as the year ended. Wycliffe was 64 years old.(googled)

Murdered by God apparently.

Then 44 years later......you know how it is with them vampires.

 

[Bro. James]

While he was saying Mass in the parish church on Holy Innocents' Day, 28 December 1384, he suffered a stroke, and died as the year ended. Wycliffe was 64 years old.(googled)

Murdered by God apparently.

Then 44 years later......you know how it is with them vampires.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I stand corrected regarding the circumstances of Wyclifffe's death. He reportedly died in bed having suffered a stroke. Some say he had a stroke while preaching. Exactly where he fell is probably not beatified anyway. I was thinking about William of Tyndale, another Bible scholar. He was strangled and burned. He too was a translator of scripture into the common vernacular. Will John and Bill ever be canonized?

What were the religious powers that be trying to hide? Surely it was those nasty misguided secular magistrates.

Regardless of the circumstances of Wycliffe's death, are we saying he was exumed and burned for being a bad exorcist? Surely you jest about vampires. Throwing his ashes in a river is an interesting gesture--not much blood left in 44-year old ashes. The motives were satanic for sure--Satan loves to try to destroy The Faith, once for all delivered to the saints. See Book of Jude--it describes our situation even today. Satan has been defeated--at Calvary--before the foundation of the world, when the names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life--long before In Hoc Signo Vinces.

Satan wants lots of company in Hades.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Martin Marprelate]

On the subject of Peter being the 'Rock,' I came across this by William Webster:

There is no doubt that Peter plays a dominant role in the New Testament history prior to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. When the apostles are named in Scripture, Peter is almost always mentioned first; Peter was the one who generally spoke for the other apostles and he is the most fully-drawn figure of them all in the Gospel accounts of the ministry of Jesus. But do we see Peter as the dominant figure, the supreme ruler and teacher in the Church after the resurrection of Christ? No. Peter is the first to preach the gospel to the crowds at Pentecost and is also the first to open the kingdom to the Gentiles by preaching to Cornelius-pioneering actions which are certainly a fulfilment of Christ’s promise to him. However, the biblical accounts present powerful evidence that Peter was not accorded greater authority than the other apostles and was certainly not seen as the head of the new Church.

The book of Acts records that the Jerusalem Council was presided over not by Peter, but by Jesus’ brother James. Peter was sent by the Church along with John on a mission to Syria, an unlikely event if Peter was the defacto leader; while in one of the most dramatic events of the apostolic era, Paul actually rebuked Peter at Antioch for behaviour which was compromising the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:11-14). Paul was responsible for establishing churches and setting up their ruling organizations across Europe and Asia Minor, but he says absolutely nothing in any of his epistles about the need to be in submission to Peter as the supreme head of the Church. In fact, Paul regarded himself as personally responsible for overseeing, guiding and protecting these fledgling believers. He considered himself to be on an equal plane with all the other apostles (2 Cor 12:11) — he was the apostle to the Gentiles while Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Paul operated independently and on his own authority, as opposed to being under the authority of Peter.

While there is some historical evidence that Peter may have been in Rome and was martyred there, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that he was ever bishop of Rome. There are a number of writings from the first to the fifth centuries which speak of the fact that both Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome and that both were martyred there. But these records say nothing about Peter staying in Rome and exercising a ministry as a bishop. In fact, Irenaeus specifically says that Peter and Paul both left Rome after founding the church there.

The Catalogus Liberianus (354 A.D.) reports that Peter went to Rome and spent twenty-five years in the city as bishop until his martyrdom. But this statement is contradicted by the facts of history. Peter was an apostle and apostles did not function as bishops over local churches. They ordained presbyters who became overseers, and it was these men who were, in turn, responsible to the apostles. To speak of anyone being a bishop over the church as early as the first century is anachronistic, for the episcopate was a later development.

Further, when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans and his various epistles from prison in Rome there is absolutely no mention of Peter. Paul also wrote to the Romans expressing the wish to come to them to impart some spiritual gift, in order that they might be established. He would scarcely have done so if Peter were already in Rome. And we know from other scriptures that it was Paul, not Peter, who was called to lead in the evangelization of the Gentiles (Gal. 2:8).

It has also been claimed that Peter established his line of successors by ordaining Linus to take over the bishopric at his death. But in his major work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus tells us that when Peter and Paul had founded the church at Rome and built it up, they both committed its oversight to Linus then left the city. Anacletus followed Linus, and he was followed by Clement. It is obvious that Peter, according to Irenaeus, was not the bishop of Rome and Linus was not the second pope for he exercised his ministry in Rome while Peter was still alive. From a Roman Catholic perspective this presents the problem of having two popes reigning at the same time.

The fact is, we know very little about the activities and whereabouts of the Apostle Peter after the resurrection of Christ. We know that he was in Jerusalem and Antioch, but his life and ministry are very much eclipsed by the Apostle Paul. Given that Peter was certainly in Antioch, it would seem that the bishop of Antioch has more of an historical right to claim the supposed supremacy of Peter than the bishop of Rome, if the right rests on the actual place where Peter exercised his ministry.

There has been a strong tradition that Peter was martyred at Rome, but whereas we do know that Paul was in Rome and had a direct influence on the church there, we do not know that for certain about Peter. In the light of these facts, the Roman Catholic historian Richard McBrien concludes: ‘The question to be posed, therefore, on the basis of an investigation of the New Testament is not whether Peter was the first pope, but whether the subsequent, post-biblical development of the Petrine office is, in fact, consistent with the thrust of the New Testament.’

Vatican I claims that the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 has been held universally throughout the Church and that it can appeal to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Yet the early Fathers are quite varied in their opinions and interpretations of Matthew 16:18-19. Some speak of the ‘rock’ to mean Christ, some to mean Peter and others to mean Peter’s confession of Christ. No Fathers of the first two centuries can be cited as supporters of the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18.6 They are silent on the interpretation of the ‘rock’, and the overwhelming majority of the Fathers through the entire patristic age (Augustine, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Basil the Great, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Pacian, Epiphanius, Aphraates, Ephraim, John Cassian, Theodoret, Eusebius, Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville, John of Damascus, and many others) all disagree with the Roman Church’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18.6 The vast majority of the Fathers do not recognize the personal prerogatives of Peter as being transferred in a personal way to the bishop of Rome, thereby making him the head of the Church.
[Continued]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

[Concluded]
Roman Catholic apologists are quick to protest against such a statement by referring to the many adulations given by the Fathers to the apostle Peter. What they say is partially true. Many of the Fathers speak in very exalted terms of Peter referring to him as ‘coryphaeus’, leader of the apostles, first of the disciples, foundation of the Church and teacher of the world. But such praise of Peter does not support the Roman Catholic claims. First of all, many of the terms such as ‘coryphaeus’, teacher of the world and foundation of the Church were applied by the Fathers not only to Peter but to the other apostles as well, especially Paul and John. Secondly, Roman Catholic apologists make the common error of assuming that because a particular Father speaks of Peter in a certain way, his comments likewise refer to the bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor. But this is simply not the case. Their words about Peter are unique to Peter, or they apply to the other apostles as well. But they have no reference to the bishops of Rome at all, because the Fathers make no such application. This is a classic case of a much-later generation reading a preconceived theology into earlier writings. An examination of patristic literature on Matthew 16:18-19 will prove this point. We will find a unanimity of interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, but it is one of near unanimous opposition to the Roman Catholic interpretation as articulated by Vatican I.

Augustine is fairly representative of the opinion of the Fathers in these comments on Matthew 16:

'But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God,” I also say unto thee, ‘Thou art Peter.” For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the Living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.

For men who wished to be built upon men, said, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,” who is Peter. But others who did not wish to build upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, “But I am of Christ.” And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.'

These comments by Augustine are highly significant. Here we have the man claimed by Rome as their most renowned theologian of the patristic age, the pre-eminent member of the ‘infallible’ magisterium, and yet he gives an interpretation of the most important passage in all the Bible for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church and its authority, which is diametrically opposed to the Roman interpretation. How does one explain this? If there were truly, as Vatican I states, a unanimous consensus of interpretation of the Roman meaning of this passage, why do we find Augustine deliberately going against such a consensus? The answer, quite simply, is that there never was such a consensus.

 

[Bro. James]

Thank you so much for the 1000 # bombs to some already shaky foundations. Where do we find more from William Webster?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[utilyan]

On the subject of Peter being the 'Rock,' I came across this by William Webster:

There is no doubt that Peter plays a dominant role in the New Testament history prior to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. When the apostles are named in Scripture, Peter is almost always mentioned first; Peter was the one who generally spoke for the other apostles and he is the most fully-drawn figure of them all in the Gospel accounts of the ministry of Jesus. But do we see Peter as the dominant figure, the supreme ruler and teacher in the Church after the resurrection of Christ? No. Peter is the first to preach the gospel to the crowds at Pentecost and is also the first to open the kingdom to the Gentiles by preaching to Cornelius-pioneering actions which are certainly a fulfilment of Christ’s promise to him. However, the biblical accounts present powerful evidence that Peter was not accorded greater authority than the other apostles and was certainly not seen as the head of the new Church.

The book of Acts records that the Jerusalem Council was presided over not by Peter, but by Jesus’ brother James. Peter was sent by the Church along with John on a mission to Syria, an unlikely event if Peter was the defacto leader; while in one of the most dramatic events of the apostolic era, Paul actually rebuked Peter at Antioch for behaviour which was compromising the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:11-14). Paul was responsible for establishing churches and setting up their ruling organizations across Europe and Asia Minor, but he says absolutely nothing in any of his epistles about the need to be in submission to Peter as the supreme head of the Church. In fact, Paul regarded himself as personally responsible for overseeing, guiding and protecting these fledgling believers. He considered himself to be on an equal plane with all the other apostles (2 Cor 12:11) — he was the apostle to the Gentiles while Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Paul operated independently and on his own authority, as opposed to being under the authority of Peter.

While there is some historical evidence that Peter may have been in Rome and was martyred there, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that he was ever bishop of Rome. There are a number of writings from the first to the fifth centuries which speak of the fact that both Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome and that both were martyred there. But these records say nothing about Peter staying in Rome and exercising a ministry as a bishop. In fact, Irenaeus specifically says that Peter and Paul both left Rome after founding the church there.

The Catalogus Liberianus (354 A.D.) reports that Peter went to Rome and spent twenty-five years in the city as bishop until his martyrdom. But this statement is contradicted by the facts of history. Peter was an apostle and apostles did not function as bishops over local churches. They ordained presbyters who became overseers, and it was these men who were, in turn, responsible to the apostles. To speak of anyone being a bishop over the church as early as the first century is anachronistic, for the episcopate was a later development.

Further, when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans and his various epistles from prison in Rome there is absolutely no mention of Peter. Paul also wrote to the Romans expressing the wish to come to them to impart some spiritual gift, in order that they might be established. He would scarcely have done so if Peter were already in Rome. And we know from other scriptures that it was Paul, not Peter, who was called to lead in the evangelization of the Gentiles (Gal. 2:8).

It has also been claimed that Peter established his line of successors by ordaining Linus to take over the bishopric at his death. But in his major work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus tells us that when Peter and Paul had founded the church at Rome and built it up, they both committed its oversight to Linus then left the city. Anacletus followed Linus, and he was followed by Clement. It is obvious that Peter, according to Irenaeus, was not the bishop of Rome and Linus was not the second pope for he exercised his ministry in Rome while Peter was still alive. From a Roman Catholic perspective this presents the problem of having two popes reigning at the same time.

The fact is, we know very little about the activities and whereabouts of the Apostle Peter after the resurrection of Christ. We know that he was in Jerusalem and Antioch, but his life and ministry are very much eclipsed by the Apostle Paul. Given that Peter was certainly in Antioch, it would seem that the bishop of Antioch has more of an historical right to claim the supposed supremacy of Peter than the bishop of Rome, if the right rests on the actual place where Peter exercised his ministry.

There has been a strong tradition that Peter was martyred at Rome, but whereas we do know that Paul was in Rome and had a direct influence on the church there, we do not know that for certain about Peter. In the light of these facts, the Roman Catholic historian Richard McBrien concludes: ‘The question to be posed, therefore, on the basis of an investigation of the New Testament is not whether Peter was the first pope, but whether the subsequent, post-biblical development of the Petrine office is, in fact, consistent with the thrust of the New Testament.’

Vatican I claims that the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 has been held universally throughout the Church and that it can appeal to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Yet the early Fathers are quite varied in their opinions and interpretations of Matthew 16:18-19. Some speak of the ‘rock’ to mean Christ, some to mean Peter and others to mean Peter’s confession of Christ. No Fathers of the first two centuries can be cited as supporters of the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18.6 They are silent on the interpretation of the ‘rock’, and the overwhelming majority of the Fathers through the entire patristic age (Augustine, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Basil the Great, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Pacian, Epiphanius, Aphraates, Ephraim, John Cassian, Theodoret, Eusebius, Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville, John of Damascus, and many others) all disagree with the Roman Church’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18.6 The vast majority of the Fathers do not recognize the personal prerogatives of Peter as being transferred in a personal way to the bishop of Rome, thereby making him the head of the Church.
[Continued]

Which of these early church fathers can be absolutely trusted as to having a better understanding of Christianity then yourself?

I bet you would say NONE can be trusted from even 1500s to today, let alone can any early church father be trusted at all.

Pick ONE....and its like shooting your theology dead.

 

[Yeshua1]

Which of these early church fathers can be absolutely trusted as to having a better understanding of Christianity then yourself?

I bet you would say NONE can be trusted from even 1500s to today, let alone can any early church father be trusted at all.

Pick ONE....and its like shooting your theology dead.

Just stick to the scripture ALONE for theology!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Which of these early church fathers can be absolutely trusted as to having a better understanding of Christianity then yourself?

I bet you would say NONE can be trusted from even 1500s to today, let alone can any early church father be trusted at all.

Pick ONE....and its like shooting your theology dead.

I do say none of them any further than the Scriptures. The apostasy started pretty much at once. 'For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after themselves' (Acts 20:29-30).

 

[utilyan]

Just stick to the scripture ALONE for theology!

I would if it was biblical.