I totally support this topic being on the front page! It doesn't change a thing. . .I just think it creates an avenue for the cross fertilization and pollination of ideas. It's been very educative and expository for some folks in here. For those of us who see it as another avenue to fan the embers of disunity amongst Christians,  well good luck to you!

Very interesting. Problem is the basis of Christianity itself as well as the nature of the individual in from whose name the Church derived its essence. Did Jesus Christ ever exist? If he did, then all the story of his origin (Virgin Mary conceiving a child without hooking up with a man), needs to be revisited. If he did not exist, then the church has, for thousands of years, been perpetrating the biggest fraud in human history. Can anyone enlighten us on this? Oh yes, please do not start quoting the Bible, give us empirical (observable, testable, and provable) evidence.

@Topic, The difference between the pope and General Overseer is
1. Most GOs are founders of churches while the pope is not a church founder
2. The church of most GOs are family business while the reverse is not the case
3. Overtime, the GO churches tend to weaken; sometimes after the death of the founder: Idahosa, ZOE ministry but RCC is ever strong
4. There are many General Overseers but only one pope
5. Should I continue?

FYI

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church, with more than a billion members.[1] Its leader is the Pope who is head of the College of Bishops. A communion of the Western church and 22 Eastern Catholic churches, it comprised a total of 2,795 dioceses in 2008.[2] The Church defines its mission as spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, administering the sacraments and exercising charity. It operates social programs and institutions throughout the world including schools, universities, hospitals, missions, shelters and charities.[3]

The Church teaches that it is the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" founded by Jesus Christ, that its bishops are consecrated successors of his apostles and that the Pope as the successor of St. Peter possesses a universal primacy of jurisdiction and pastoral care. Church doctrines have been defined through 21 ecumenical councils and the Church maintains that by guidance of the Holy Spirit, it can define its teachings on faith and morals infallibly under specific conditions.[4][note 1][5] Catholic beliefs are based on the Holy Bible and Sacred Tradition interpreted by the Church's teaching authority and detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Catholic worship is called the liturgy, the central component of which is the Eucharist.

The issue is you that claim to be a stunch follower of the Roman Catholic Church and you a stunch member of the Protestant church, which one of you is really practising what the Bible teaches? We keep deceiving ourselves,if truly God exists then he must have left the Church a long time ago to find solace else where consdering the rot we have in churches today, Is`t the pedophiles priest in the Catholic Church or the Materialistic dumb G.O`s of the modern Churches that God will dwell with?? I can`t imagine the God the Bible speaks of to be so Holy to be associated with this Churches. that are directed by this fellons, May be someone out there knows better and can put me through.

This question goes to the catholics can you  please explain what PURGATORY is all about 


Pls back up with scriptural references

Purgatory was implied in a no of bible passages most notably in 1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the "prison." These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision.where it was called prison

For more on these see the thread here


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-484995.0.html

well said

de-moore:

                                                    steroid




Purgatory is the condition or process of purification or temporary punishment[1] in which the souls of those who die in a state of grace are made ready for Heaven. This is an idea that has ancient roots and is well-attested in early Christian literature, while the conception of purgatory as a geographically situated place is largely the creation of medieval Christian piety and imagination.[1]

The bible said that u cannot enter heaven with the smallest element or atom of of Sin right. The same  bible told us that the most holy man sins __?_____ times a day. So if you a born again Christian dies with a sin you committed unknowingly where are you going?

This link best explains the passage of the Bible you have given as a reference

http://www.jba.gr/spirits-in-prison.htm

@Steroid

You mean to te;ll me that jesus went and preached to angels to repent abi?Did he die for men or for angels.

That verse was so explicit that even a JSS1 student can perfectly interpret it.

I Peter 3:18-20
“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which alsoHe went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, who once were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water[.”

These were the people who refused to listen top Noah shortly before the great flood.They were never angels ,angels don't have salvation ,Men do.

It was repeated in 1 pet 4:6

For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.

Do angels have flesh ?Stop twisting the bible because it does not suit your beleif.The bible should tell us what to beleive and not the other way round.

What about in 1 cor 15;29-30 that talks about the baptism of the dead,you mean to tell me that this ones also refers to angels.

If the dead will not be raised, what point is there in people being baptized for those who are dead? Why do it unless the dead will someday rise again?

From the explanation ^^


It means I can go ahead sinning because I've been guaranteed "purification" and heaven so to say.


but how do you now reconcile those explanations you have given with Hebrews 9: 27-28


Which tells me after death comes judgement.

It means I can go ahead sinning because I've been guaranteed "purification" and heaven so to say.

That is not what it means.1 John 5;16-17 tells us we can only pray for those whoose sin do not lad to death.

but how do you now reconcile those explanations you have given with Hebrews 9: 27-28


Which tells me after death comes judgement

How does this bible quotation contradict the teaching on purgatory? Is it not after judgement that it is decided that you either go to hell,heaven or purgatory

Anybody with a little bit of history knows that Christianity did not start nor did it initially flourish in Rome. Christians were persecuted severely in Rome(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_persecutions) until emperor emperors Constantine I and Licinius of the western and eastern halves of the roman empire signed the Edict of Milan(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan) in AD 313.

Now Jesus Christ died approx. 313 years before that edict and Peter(who is taunted as the first pope) presumably died 233 years before that in Rome, can any Catholic here tell me who was the pope in that period?

A little research into pre-Christian Roman reliogious systems shows that the word 'pope' or 'high priest' had been in existence before they were converted as a state and it was called the 'Pontifex Maximus'(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus). So that when Emperor Constantine was converted as a result of his dream, Christianity became the most politically strong religion and I am going to leave you @chukwudi44 to figure out what those pagan priests did to remain relevant. A deep look at some of the rites and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church would show so much similarities with what you would read in the Pontifex Maximus article.

So what happened to the early church as founded by Christ? They were scattered abroad in obedience to Christ's command to spread his teachings to all the world and though their was a council in Jerusalem it was effectively disbanded after Titus sacked Jerusalem and the prophecy of Christ concerning the Temple of Herod was brought to pass.

Roman Catholic Church is not the first church by any spiritual reckoning considering that their was much doctrinal dispute at the time amongst believers, disputes which preceded the founding of the RCC(Arianism vs. Trinitarianism) and Theodosius I supported the Trinitarian doctrine as expounded in the Nicene Creed(which became the RCC's Cornerstone Doctrine) from the 1st Council of Nicea. But RCC was the first politically supported church and hence was given much power and influence.


I am just a student of history and I am pretty sure that all institutions based on the same precepts would encounter the same problem given the same resources and all the "Daddy G.O's and His Eminences" are just a slimmed down version of "His Holiness", "Holy Father".

I stand to be challenged.

Anybody with a little bit of history knows that Christianity did not start nor did it initially flourish in Rome.

Every tom ,dick and harry knows that christianity did not start in Rome.Of course it started in Jerusalem on the day of the pentecost.

For the umpteenth time ,let me state it here that the bishop of Rome is regarded as the leader of the catholic church simply because Peter died as the bishop of Rome and nothing more.

Now Jesus Christ died approx. 313 years before that edict and Peter(who is taunted as the first pope) presumably died 233 years before that in Rome, can any Catholic here tell me who was the pope in that period

see the link here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

Your level of ignorance is amazing,are u sure you truly read the links you provided

Fela don talk am archbishop na miliki pope na enjoyment imam na gbaladun: na on G.O and pope life dey experience miracle and people are been told 2 pay tithe which is unscriptural and scam. men even if there is heaven or hell na pope and pastor go first go hell wat happened to our traditional belief:white man don nak una AFRICANS

@ chukwudi44
“wikipedia remains the most reliable online piece of information because it allows everyone to contest any piece of information on it.” - chukwudi44

It only shows how speculative your reasoning is. Wikipedia is not in anyway reliable when it comes to gathering facts. You can write your own story it’s free and wikipedia does not take responsibility for any information supplied. If you need references you may read some of Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch’s work. Many historians would readily reckon with his name. Most journals are online only that you may need to pay to read them.

Anabaptist?
You have quoted well that Anabaptist started in the 16th century. But let me ask if you know that these so called Anabaptist members are still in the US and other parts of the world today but not known by the name Anabaptist as in those days? There are many things you don’t know about Anabaptists yourself. It’s like claiming Christianity started in Antioch just because they were first called Christians at Antioch. They were called Anabaptist by the people at that time but that was not their origin. You may have to hear what they said about themselves.

Roman Catholic Church may lay claims to many things but there is quite a lot of paganism in RCC and many things not founded in scripture. As much as I am not interested in the authenticity of the Roman catholic claims and beliefs It is worth to note that chukwudi44’s suggestion that one catholic might have died and a supposedly true Roman catholic church stood means he has little or no understanding of the church that Christ died for. I am of the opinion that chukwudi44 is not in any way objective about history but a mere Roman Catholic bigot. For instance North Korea has a sizeable number of Christians but 80% of these Christians are in prison jailed for their faith. Does it mean the church of Christ in North Korea is dead? The church that Christ is coming for is not Roman Catholic Church or one denomination but a glorious church whose members are scattered all over the world. Being a believer is not known by claiming to be a member of a Roman Catholic movement, a Pentecostal movement of whatever movement but a member of that glorious church headed by Christ and your life would prove that.

While it is of no profit to argue about whose historical record is best about church or which denomination is better let alone with someone whose source of information is wikipedia. The point I was stressing in this thread is that although many Pentecostals would criticize Roman Catholics for their beliefs, Nigerian Pentecostal movement is “as guilty” as the Roman Catholic church that she has always criticized. And to my initial post, did Constantine’s Roman church advanced by force and not necessarily by coverts knowing the Lord? YES it did. Killed non –Catholics? YES it did. Taught many things not based on Jesus’ teachings? YES it did.

@Blackode

In Catholic circles, when Tertullian, a Montanist, furiously applied the term to Pope Callixtus I, with whom he was at odds, c.  220, over Callixtus's relaxation of the Church's penitential discipline, allowing repentant adulterers and fornicators back into the Church, under his Petrine authority to "bind and loosen," it was in bitter irony:

    "In opposition to this [modesty], could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth, and a peremptory one too. The 'Pontifex Maximus,' that is the 'bishop of bishops,' issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.' O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, 'Good deed!' … Far, far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation!" (Tertullian, On Modesty ch. 1)

It is not clear if the word Pontifex was commonly used by early 3rd-century Christianity, as it was later, to denote a bishop. Tertullian's usage is unusual in that most of the technical terms of Roman paganism were avoided in the vocabulary of Christian Latin in favour of neologisms or Greek words.

I got the quote above from the link you provided below.

[/quote]
A little research into pre-Christian Roman reliogious systems shows that the word 'pope' or 'high priest' had been in existence before they were converted as a state and it was called the 'Pontifex Maximus'(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus). So that when Emperor Constantine was converted as a result of his dream, Christianity became the most politically strong religion and I am going to leave you @chukwudi44 to figure out what those pagan priests did to remain relevant. A deep look at some of the rites and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church would show so much similarities with what you would read in the Pontifex Maximus article.
[quote]

Why do people always wish history happened the way they imagine it to suit whatever argument they have to bring forward? The above quote from Tertulian containing the words 'Pope' and the use of 'Pontifex Maximus' was written 220 AD, more than 100 years before Constantine became a Christian and far more than 100 years before the Edict of Milan.
I've gone through this "Pontifex Maximus article" of yours and I'm yet to see those rites and rituals. Maybe my Catholic eyes evaded them, so can you please quote them here in words so that we all can see them? I believe there is enough space for that here.
Again, you are of this Imagination that after Constantine converted to Christianity, everybody in the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, including Roman Priests and thus came up with things so as to remain relevant in the Church, You are mistaken! Christianity was still very much in the minority and were only allowed to thrive. You might also think that the Edict of Milan made Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire, another mistake. The Edict of Milan made Christianity an 'acceptable religion'. That is, a religion which was before then considered 'unacceptable' now 'acceptable', a religion which before then was persecuted and later allowed to just be now considered acceptable. That was how Christianity, from unrestricted proselytism grew in leaps and bounds.
To affirm your statement, Yes, Christianity was persecuted in Rome, just like it was persecuted in Jerusalem, Egypt and almost everywhere it got. It is also true that it came to be widely accepted almost everywhere it was persecuted, less so in Jerusalem but more so in Rome and Egypt and Ethiopia et al. Christianity spread and grew by the persecution of Christians, making them flee abroad and the strength of their faith, making them impossible to silence, planting Christianity wherever they fled, which in time came to be 'accepted' by divine turn of events in her lands of her bitter persecution.

I would like to also have us know that whatever language we use now once belonged to Pagans. Name it; Greek, Latin, English, French, German, Ibo, Hausa, Yoruba, Arabic and even Hebrew! So, there is virtually no religious word, which if properly looked into has no Pagan meaning at once upon a time, the difference is, what is it used to mean? Or, what is your own understanding of it? Thus, since the word Allah means "God" to muslims, does it not also mean God when a Christian Arab uses it? Since the word "Ubangiji" means "God" even to Pagan Hausas in those, does it connote a Pagan God when their Christian descendants use it? In my language to today, there is no way the word Priest (An English word which I also believe was used to refer to Pagan Priests when the English people were Pagans) can be translated without sounding the same as Shrine overseers are called! But when a Christian uses it, everyone know what he meant. There are also titles today which are ascribed to God almighty which were once used to refer to our various deities! For example 'Odogu na nya', 'Ojo Odoba Ogalagwu', 'Owoicho Agaba Idu', and every language has his', Hausa, Yoruba, Latin, Greek, et al. I could go on and on, you can either accept it or reject it but are you being fair both in the eyes of God and man in your condemnations?   

Latin was the language of intellectualism up till late 15th century, not just a Catholic Church thing. Before Christianity, Latin, just like every other language was spoken by Pagans. Pontif, is a Latin word used to denote a Bishop. In the Catholic Church, the same word is used to denote the most senior Bishop, the Bishop of Rome, also called 'papa', 'poppa' 'Pope' all translating to Father!

@ Belabela

Support your claims with authorities. Who are the Anabaptists? When did their movement in Christianity started? What are their claims? How were they persecuted? By whom and when?
The general idea of your post is understood but some of your assertions are a product of malicious lies fed into you which you took without verification. You've been hearing from one source, now you hear from a different source and all you do is make statements without grounds. Don't you even think that some of your statements need verifications? There are written literatures from neutral sources to either prove your points or set you straight, why not go through them? The writtings of Fathers of the Church long before the birth of Constantine are still available, why prefer "eye witness accounts" of those who tell you all these things that happened long ago and in far away lands?
Wikipedia is not an acceptable source of authority to you, provide a more acceptable unbiased source so that we can clarify ourselves atleast.

chukwudi44:

For the umpteenth time ,let me state it here that the bishop of Rome is regarded as the leader of the catholic church simply because Peter died as the bishop of Rome and nothing more.
Your level of ignorance is amazing,are u sure you truly read the links you provided

It's quite ironic that a religion that was not acceptable in Rome until AD 313 managed to not only keep a list of popes but also managed to guess their pontificate, it makes you wonder who appointed them successors since you might argue that peter was given the keys and is the first pope but how and where was it written that he  passed on those keys?

And where in unbiased history was it stated that Peter was bishop of Rome at any time period? That was simply a RCC attempt at legitimacy ala "we are establishing this church in the tradition of Saint Peter".

@The Clown are you sure you read anything in that article? read it again, It was included to show that in ancient pagan Rome, there exists a title and office of both religious and political power, a priest above all priests and literally the last and ultimate source in all matters of divinity

" His real power lay in the administration of jus divinum or divine law; the information collected by the pontifices related to the Roman religious tradition was bound in a corpus which summarized dogma and other concepts"

That sounds familiar?

I have nothing against catholics, I just don't like been force feed facts, use your intellectual minds, a religion that had operated in the minority been persecuted for every ill and most visible under Nero where every natural disaster was a fault of the Christians and they were fed to Lions and then suddenly the Emperor had a life-changing experience and ruled that Christians are to be "accepted"  as part of normal society and that He in fact is now a Christian.

Imagine you are a worshiper of say Ares or some pagan god, you would quickly rethink your religious situation as Christianity is now fashionable and it quickly became a political tool and did they manage to import some of their pagan belief systems into this newly accepted religion, yeah they did, saints,symbols, pomp and regalia was not part of Christianity as written in the Bible or was it?

RCC's history is littered with instances where it showed just how politically powerful and un-christianly it had become, the Spanish Inquisition and the name of Fredrick Babarossa quickly comes to mind. It had persecuted more people for their beliefs than any continuously existing organized entity in history that I find both annoying nauseating that it is now at the fore front of religious ecumenical movements.

A tree can only bear its fruits and I still stand to be challenged

@belabela

It only shows how speculative your reasoning is. Wikipedia is not in anyway reliable when it comes to gathering facts. You can write your own story it’s free and wikipedia does not take responsibility for any information supplied.  If you need references you may read some of Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch’s work. Many historians would readily reckon with his name. Most journals are online only that you may need to pay to read them.

Professor macculloch is living now in the twentieth century,while the church fathes like Ignatius,tertullian,Ireneaus,Justin Matyr,Cyprian,Clement of alexendria,Clement of Rome,Ambrose,Augustine e.t.c lived in the 1st,2nd,3rd and 4th centuries .Do you really think that Profesor MacCulloch would know better than this Men who actually lived and witnessed this events.
I really feel for you

It's quite ironic that a religion that was not acceptable in Rome until AD 313 managed to not only keep a list of popes but also managed to guess their pontificate, it makes you wonder who appointed them successors since you might argue that peter was given the keys and is the first pope but how and where was it written that he passed on those keys?

"The blessed Apostles, then, founded and built up the church in Rome. They committed the office of bishop into the hands of Linus. Of this, Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus. After him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the office of bishop." St. Irenaeus ("Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.)
"But since it would take too long to set out here the successions of all the churches, we shall turn to that great, ancient and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, and we shall show that the tradition it has received of the apostles and the faith that it preaches to men has come down to our time through the regular succession of its bishops; and thus we shall confute all those who, in whatever way, whether by self-complacency, vainglory, blindness or error, enter into unauthorized assemblies. For it is with this Roman church, by reason of its more powerful pre-eminence that every other church, that is to say all the faithful everywhere, ought to agree, inasmuch as in this church the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who come from everywhere." St. Irenaeus ("Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.)
"Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ. This was by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the election of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men, This occurred when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter and the degree of the priestly chair, was vacant." St. Cyprian Of Carthage ("Epistle 53 to Antonius," c. 250 A.D.)
"On him (Peter) He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep, and although He assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet He founded a single chair (cathedra), and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity, If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he (should) desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" St. Cyprian Of Carthage ("On the Unity of the Catholic Church," 251 A.D.)
"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis (Acts 9:32-34)." St. Cyril of Jerusalem ("Catechetical Lectures" c. 350 A.D.)
"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures." St. Ephraim of Syria ("Homily 4," c. 351 A.D.)
"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head--that is why he is also called Cephas ['Rock']--of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church." St. Optatus ("The Schism of the Donatists," c. 367 A.D.)
"[Christ] made answer: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .' Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" St. Ambrose of Milan ("The Faith," c. 379 A.D.)
"They (the Novatian heretics) have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven (by the sacrament of confession) even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.'" St. Ambrose of Milan ("On Penance," 388 A.D.)
"It is to Peter that He says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church' (Matthew 16:18). Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal." St. Ambrose of Milan ("Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David" c. 389 A.D.)
"(Pope) Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter's twenty-second successor in the See of Rome." St. Jerome ("Against the Luciferians" c. 383 A.D.)
"'But,' you [Jovinian] will say, 'it was on Peter that the Church was founded' [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division." St. Jerome ("Against Jovinian," c. 393 A.D.)
"I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church (Rome) whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ." St. Jerome ("Letter 15," 396 A.D.)
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none, but the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails." St. Jerome ("Letter 15," 396 A.D.)
"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to over-throw Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord." St. Jerome ("Lives of Illustrious Men," c. 396 A.D.)
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" St. Augustine of Hippo ("Against the Letters of Petilani" c. 402 A.D.)
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear 'I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.'" St. Augustine of Hippo ("Sermon 295," c. 411 A.D.)
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, ' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus, " St. Augustine of Hippo ("Letter 53," 412 A.D.)
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" St. Augustine of Hippo ("Commentary on John," c. 416 A.D.)
"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [St. Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of Hell prevail not." St. Sechnall of Ireland ("Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick," c. 444 A.D.)

http://www.catscans.com/catholicsite/papacy2.htm

And where in unbiased history was it stated that Peter was bishop of Rome at any time period? That was simply a RCC attempt at legitimacy ala "we are establishing this church in the tradition of Saint Peter".

That You do not beleive it does not mean it is biased.The bible the church fathers gave us, was it also biased for the catholics?

The Papacy
What did the Early Church Fathers Say?
St. Irenaeus
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Pope Julius I

"[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Council of Sardica

"[I]f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

St. Jerome

"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

,
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (ibid., 15:2).

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

Ambrose of Milan

"[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]" (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).

St. Augustine

"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Pope Leo I

"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (Letters 110 [A.D. 445]).

"Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]" (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).

Peter Chrysologus

"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Council of Chalcedon

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

chukwudi44:

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

With each early catholic church resource I have access to, I keep having this feeling that I am reading history the way these men wished it had happened and the above quote is a good example, who gave the  episcopal chair to Peter? Where in the bible was it mentioned that Peter was even in Rome let alone being its bishop? and it would have been mentioned cause its impact on early church history would have been profound.

"A 2009 critical study by Otto Zwierlein has concluded that "there is not a single piece of reliable literary evidence (and no archaeological evidence either) that Peter ever was in Rome."

1 Clement, a document that has been dated anywhere from the 90's to the 120's, is one of the earliest sources adduced in support of Peter's stay in Rome, but questions have been raised about the text's authenticity and whether it has any knowledge about Peter's life beyond what is contained in the New Testament Acts. The Letter to the Romans attributed to St. Ignatius of Antioch implies that Peter and Paul had special authority over the Roman church,telling the Roman Christians: "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did" (ch. 4). However, the authenticity of this document and its traditional dating to c. 105–110 have also been questioned, and it may date from the final decades of the second century."

The above is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Saint Peter and his being in Rome is simply a catholic tradition, nothing more.

chukwudi44:

@belabela


Professor macculloch is living now in the twentieth century,while the church fathes like Ignatius,tertullian,Ireneaus,Justin Matyr,Cyprian,Clement of alexendria,Clement of Rome,Ambrose,Augustine e.t.c lived in the 1st,2nd,3rd and 4th centuries .Do you really think that Profesor MacCulloch would know better than this Men who actually lived and witnessed this events.
I really feel for you

Do you know why everybody agrees that the Bible must have been divinely inspired? because with a timeline of more than 3000 years and authors numbering in the tens, it still manages to maintain a correlation that makes it feel like the same person wrote it all. The same cannot be said for the early so-called church fathers whose literatures were filled with wrangling, claims and counter-claims about who is right and who isn't with the catholic folks pointing to the Chair of Saint Peter and the Keys of the kingdom as proof of their credence in spiritual matters and with the greatest political power in the world at their side, they labeled the rest heretics.

With each early catholic church resource I have access to, I keep having this feeling that I am reading history the way these men wished it had happened and the above quote is a good example, who gave the episcopal chair to Peter? Where in the bible was it mentioned that Peter was even in Rome let alone being its bishop? and it would have been mentioned cause its impact on early church history would have been profound.

Well it might interset you to know that the bible did not exist until the fourth century.It is this same catholic church whih you so despise that compiledthe bible late in the fourth century.

Even the authors of the entire gospels were not named in the bible,it was the same catholic apostolic tradition that gave us their authors through st Ireneaus.

1 Clement, a document that has been dated anywhere from the 90's to the 120's, is one of the earliest sources adduced in support of Peter's stay in Rome, but questions have been raised about the text's authenticity and whether it has any knowledge about Peter's life beyond what is contained in the New Testament Acts. The Letter to the Romans attributed to St. Ignatius of Antioch implies that Peter and Paul had special authority over the Roman church,telling the Roman Christians: "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did" (ch. 4). However, the authenticity of this document and its traditional dating to c. 105–110 have also been questioned, and it may date from the final decades of the second century."

Virtully every book in the bible was contested before the synod of hippo in 393CE and even today by diverse scholars,books like Hebrews,Jude,2nd peter,2nd and 3rd John,Revelation only narrowly made it to the bible.

Do you know why everybody agrees that the Bible must have been divinely inspired? because with a timeline of more than 3000 years and authors numbering in the tens, it still manages to maintain a correlation that makes it feel like the same person wrote it all. The same cannot be said for the early so-called church fathers whose literatures were filled with wrangling, claims and counter-claims about who is right and who isn't with the catholic folks pointing to the Chair of Saint Peter and the Keys of the kingdom as proof of their credence in spiritual matters and with the greatest political power in the world at their side, they labeled the rest heretics

The same "confused" church fathers gave us the bible.

who gave the episcopal chair to Peter?

Jesus Christ did.

Shortly before he ascended into heaven he handed his sheep to Peter to take care of them for him

John 21:15-17 (New International Version)

Jesus Reinstates Peter
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."

17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

The same cannot be said for the early so-called church fathers whose literatures were filled with wrangling, claims and counter-claims about who is right and who isn't with the catholic folks pointing to the Chair of Saint Peter and the Keys of the kingdom as proof of their credence in spiritual matters and with the greatest political power in the world at their side, they labeled the rest heretics.

Several of the church fathers suffered matyrdom uner the roman empire,Vitually all the popes who lived before constantine were matyred.

Even some of those whooose quotes Ipasted likeCyprian,Clement,Ignatius,e.tc also suffered matyrdom in the hands of the roman epire,so your claims holds no water

chukwudi44:

Well it might interset you to know that the bible did not exist until the fourth century.It is this same catholic church whih you so despise that compiledthe bible late in the fourth century.

Even the authors of the entire gospels were not named in the bible,it was the same catholic apostolic tradition that gave us their authors through st Ireneaus.

Virtully every book in the bible was contested before the synod of hippo in 393CE and even today by diverse scholars,books like Hebrews,Jude,2nd peter,2nd and 3rd John,Revelation only narrowly made it to the bible.


The same "confused" church fathers gave us the bible.

The bible as we know it didn't exist for a long time but early Christians collected all known letters and books and read them amongst themselves to strengthen their faith and saying RCC that gave us the bible would be wrong. The individual books that make up the bible had been in distribution way 'fore RCC came about and the fact that there is a marked difference between the catholic and protestant versions proves that we didn't agree about what they allowed in.

chukwudi44:



Jesus Christ did.

Shortly before he ascended into heaven he handed his sheep to Peter to take care of them for him

John 21:15-17 (New International Version)

Jesus Reinstates Peter
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."

17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.




Several of the church fathers suffered matyrdom uner the roman empire,Vitually all the popes who lived before constantine were matyred.

Even some of those whooose quotes Ipasted likeCyprian,Clement,Ignatius,e.tc also suffered matyrdom in the hands of the roman epire,so your claims holds no water

Look at the scriptures you quoted, I didn't see episcopal chair anywhere, okay maybe that was a bit simplistic but what did Christ telling Peter to"Feed his flock" have to do with this statement from Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367])."

Unless you know another scripture quote that has Rome and Chair in the same sentence then Optatus and those of his ilk were upholding a tradition that has no biblical basis. And please if there were popes before Constantine how is it that the RCC cannot state categorically their pontificates and here is a church that knows for a fact that Peter spent the last 25 years of his life in Rome.

The bible as we know it didn't exist for a long time but early Christians collected all known letters and books and read them amongst themselves to strengthen their faith and saying RCC that gave us the bible would be wrong. The individual books that make up the bible had been in distribution way 'fore RCC came about and the fact that there is a marked difference between the catholic and protestant versions proves that we didn't agree about what they allowed in.

That Individual books of the bible had been in existence before the synod of hippo in 393 CE is not in doubt .The fact still remains that it was the RCC that decided what books should be in the bible.

Maybe if you don't know more than 18 gospels were in circulation contradicting themselves and some teaching very dangerous heresy.The marcionites,Valentinians and other gnostic sects has their own set of scriptures,it was the RCC approved scriptures that was given the name bible.Any other thing apart from that is not a bible.

It was also the RCC that named the various books of the New testament,since a lot of them were anonymous most especially,the entie gospels,Hebrews,acts.

The RCC was also responsible for the delineation of the bible into chapters and verses for easier reading and understanding.The early scrolls did not have chapters and verses,it was still this same "evil" RCC that did all these for the bible.

The is difference between the books used by the RCC and the protestants because the protestants criminally removed seven books from the bible in the nineteenth century.
The first King James bible was complete when it was first published until about 200 years later in the nineteenth century when the anglican church decided to do away with these seven books simply because the jews did not include them in their canon .

It is most noteworthy to note that the jewish council of Jamnia in 100 CE that decided the jewish canon also excluded the entire books of the new testament and rejected Jesus Christ.If you want tp comply with the jewish canon you can go ahead and reject the entire NT.

What the protestants use id the HYBRID canon i.e a combinatio of the jewish canon and the catholic NT which is hypocrisy of the first order.

You can either comply with either canon or forget about the combination.Also note that the council of Jamnia which decided the jewish can and protestant OT did not have the influence of the holy Spirit,since it rejected Jesus christ andn the entire NT

Look at the scriptures you quoted, I didn't see episcopal chair anywhere, okay maybe that was a bit simplistic but what did Christ telling Peter to"Feed his flock" have to do with this statement from Optatus

OL boy you re very funny indeed.You are actually waiting to see where they wrote chair in the bible.That term chair only denotes leadership .The words keys were actually used by Jesus in mattew 16:13-19 to decribe the authourity given to st Peter There it was clearly stated that the church was founded on the authourity of st Peter

Mattew 16:13-19

[13] Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

[14] And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

[15] He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

[16] Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

[17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.

[18[b]] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.[/b]

[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

And please if there were popes before Constantine how is it that the RCC cannot state categorically their pontificates and here is a church that knows for a fact that Peter spent the last 25 years of his life in Rome.

Even the bible could not produce the pontificates of the entire kings who governed Isreal as well as the year they ruled.The year of their reign are only guessed from secular historical documents.

Unless you know another scripture quote that has Rome and Chair in the same sentence then Optatus and those of his ilk were upholding a tradition that has no biblical basis

Even the creation of the bible by the RCC and the word bible has no biblical basis

@chukwudi44 you are really trying.

chukwudi44:

That Individual books of the bible had been in existence before the synod of hippo in 393 CE is not in doubt .The fact still remains that it was the RCC that decided what books should be in the bible.

Maybe if you don't know more than 18 gospels were in circulation contradicting themselves and some teaching very dangerous heresy.The marcionites,Valentinians and other gnostic sects has their own set of scriptures,it was the RCC approved scriptures that was given the name bible.Any other thing apart from that is not a bible.
,

The is difference between the books used by the RCC and the protestants because the protestants criminally removed seven books from the bible in the nineteenth century.
The first King James bible was complete when it was first published until about 200 years later in the nineteenth century when the anglican church decided to do away with these seven books simply because the jews did not include them in their canon .

It is most noteworthy to note that the jewish council of Jamnia in 100 CE that decided the jewish canon also excluded the entire books of the new testament and rejected Jesus Christ.If you want tp comply with the jewish canon you can go ahead and reject the entire NT.

What the protestants use id the HYBRID canon i.e a combinatio of the jewish canon and the catholic NT which is hypocrisy of the first order.

,

Like I said you are really trying and while your discourse about the relationship between RCC and what we have come to accept as the bible may be true and their work on it is praise-worthy. But the apocrypha was removed because they were not quoted from by any authoritative figure outside of them and their significance was seriously in question.

the protestants criminally removed seven books from the bible ?
No sir.

And I never called the RCC evil just that they render very questionable histories to suit their purposes e.g. creating a lineage of popes from Peter and have committed acts that make their claims as THE church worthless.

chukwudi44:
OL boy you re very funny indeed.You are actually waiting to see where they wrote chair in the bible.That term chair only denotes leadership .The words keys were actually used by Jesus in mattew 16:13-19 to decribe the authourity given to st Peter There it was clearly stated that the church was founded on the authourity of st Peter

You probably forgot that there is a physical chair called Saint Peter's chair and a host of other regalia(Fisherman's Ring) that was purportedly saint Peter's including relics and you should read through your earlier post with the early fathers quotation and realize that the Chair is PHYSICAL and while Jesus' charge to Peter is not in question, we ask, did Peter head a church? Yes in was recorded that he was a very important Christian leader after Christ's ascension headquartered in Jerusalem , did peter go to Rome? NO but Catholics had to 'bring' saint Peter to Rome as proof of their legitimacy and every document invented could not tell us anymore about this 25 years he spent in Rome outside of what we already know about him. It would have been interesting to know how Peter had handed over the keys to Linus.

chukwudi44:


Even the bible could not produce the pontificates of the entire kings who governed Isreal as well as the year they ruled.The year of their reign are only guessed from secular historical documents.

Even the creation of the bible by the RCC and the word bible has no biblical basis

The bible accounts of Israel's kings is a functional summary of their life and times as it relates to religious and spiritual issues. putting that in the same vein with RCC's pontificates is ridiculous and yet they know for a fact that Peter indeed lived for 25 years and was martyred in Rome. Come on dude.

Like I said you are really trying and while your discourse about the relationship between RCC and what we have come to accept as the bible may be true and their work on it is praise-worthy. But the apocrypha was removed because they were not quoted from by any authoritative figure outside of them and their significance was seriously in question.

The boldened portion is a very fat lie.More than 70% of the OT quotes found in the NT was taken from the septuagint.The septuagint was the OT used by the early church and was quoted by the apostles including Peter and Paul.

To say the accounts of the deuteronicanonical books are not significant is to be making another big mistake.Judas Macabees ,one of the most significant figures in jewish history was covered in this books.The desecration of the temple dscribed by the prophet Daniel was fulfilled during that time.

The festival of the redidication of the temple or hanukkah was also described in these books.It is most noteworthy to state here that the jews who rejected the septuagint still celebrate this feast today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

And I never called the RCC evil just that they render very questionable histories to suit their purposes e[b].g. creating a lineage of popes from Peter and have committed acts that make their claims as THE church worthless.[/b]

I was expecting you to bring out evidence to discredit their claims but am yet to see any.

If you don't beleive the RCC ,why should you beleive the bible they compiled ?afterrall muslims claim the bible was corrupted.The only difference b/w muslims amd ptotestants is that while the muslims claim the scriptures and the church was corrupted.The protestants claim the church was corrupted.

You probably forgot that there is a physical chair called Saint Peter's chair and a host of other regalia(Fisherman's Ring) that was purportedly saint Peter's including relics and you should read through your earlier post with the early fathers quotation and realize that the Chair is PHYSICAL and while Jesus' charge to Peter is not in question, we ask, did Peter head a church? Yes in was recorded that he was a very important Christian leader after Christ's ascension headquartered in Jerusalem , did peter go to Rome? NO but Catholics had to 'bring' saint Peter to Rome as proof of their legitimacy and every document invented could not tell us anymore about this 25 years he spent in Rome outside of what we already know about him. It would have been interesting to know how Peter had handed over the keys to Linus

Young man please there is nothing like physical key or chair of st Peter,the terms are only used to denote authourity