Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
AMEN.
Thanks for your kind posts.
to the Catholic Church which maintained the deposit of faith for us for centuries and fought off heresies.
= = =
Not sure how the balance sheet will look vis a vis the Roman group.
Glad I don't have to calculate it. God had His remnants in lots of places unsupervised by Rome.
Am reminded of God noting to the prophet that God had still 20,000 who had not bowed the knee to baal that the prophet didn't know anything about. Getting puffed up about one's own importance leads to lots of different kinds of blindness.
If you look at the timeline map of Christianity today, you'll see in order of appearance
- Several particular Churches in communion with the Pope, starting of course with the largest Latin Church;
- Several pre-Chalcedon Churches such as the Arminian Church;
- Several Orthodox Churches that share with us the fundamentals of the faith and agree on primacy (not inallibility) of the Pope;
These are the three branches that were there from the beginning, formed the scripture and heard the apostles.
- The Protestant communities of faith that departed from the Latin rite of the Catholic Church , and continue fracturing themselves. Whatever their accomplishments are, their existence is wholly secondary to the Latin Church of Rome, of whom they received everything they continue to keep.
This is all I meant: that genetically the Protestant communities are children of Rome.
By no means do I want to get into an argument about it; I've just been trying to sort it out for myself. There are still some things that don't add up, probably never will.
Like you say, there is ample evidence in the scriptures that he had some sort of special status rather than going into supremacy and all that, but all the apostles were given the same powers as he had, binding and loosing. What Jesus' intent was as to passing them down to generations yet to come, isn't clear in scriptures. My assumption would be that he did intend a structural organization(s) after the apostles died, but scripture is silent about that.
The part I don't get is that James was the presider over the first council in Jerusalem and spoke with authority there, not Peter.
Then there is the mystery of John. I haven't plowed through the scriptures for awhile, but I don't know what his relationship was to Peter and the rest of the church. For all I know, he never died. Now the Spirit spoke to him with some words about the churches [note plural in Asia]. So which is it, church or churches? Who can know at this point? Many of the apostles appeared to exercise their valid ministries totally apart from Peter and outside of his authority. It's just that the Church of Rome ended up prevailing in Western history.
Also, in Revelation we have a model of the New Jerusalem, "14And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." There is nothing about a rock or cornerstone or one foundation having eminence over the others there, it sounds equal. It's all shrouded in mystery, but I can't help conjecturing now and then.
Logic tells me that there was a leader of the early Roman community; the fact that the individual isn't named is of no particular significance given that St. Peter's wife wasn't named, a lot of details are missing from that early time. Now Joseph of Arimathea was no apostle insofar as we know, but if the legends are true that he went to England and established a church there, it would have had some kind of authority for a head, but not necessarily a bishop per se, until they much later came under the umbrella of the organized church from Rome. I don't know if that is really true or not; it always kind of intrigued me, especially the legend about the unique hawthorne tree, a clone of which used to be and perhaps still is growing in one of the botanical gardens in London. Sorry I drifted off course with the latter.
And how the Irish figure into all this, I haven't read up on, but there is talk that an early, independent Celtic church existed there.
Since there became 2 copies of Ignatius' Epistles (one set where there is no mention of the Catholic church), which ones are you referring to???
My apologies ---
Syriac Fathers say Peter was Bishop of Antioch for 30 years. Can you prove that he was not Bishop of Antioch for 30 years?
It explains that Peter came to Rome first, and it describes how Paul eventually joined Peter. But the narrative begins with Peter already being in Rome.
but all the apostles were given the same powers as he had, binding and loosing. /
Not exactly. The Keys were given to Peter only, and the power to bind and loose was given him first. Two chapters down, in Matthew 18 the power to bind and loose is given to the apostles also, in the context of the church legislation. It is reasonable to conclude that Peter's binding and loosing referred to the matters of salvation (as he holds the keys to the Kingdom of heaven), as the Apostles deal solely with Church matters.
Only Peter was charged with the feeding and shepherding the sheep.
Jesus certainly meant His Church to be till He comes again, even as He foresaw the fracturing. This is explicit in the promise of gates of Hell not prevailing, in the image fo the Innkeeper in the parable fo the Good Samaritan, and in His prayer in John 17 "that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world." Peter also understood his "tabernacle" to extend in perpetuity: "I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things" (2 Peter 1).
James was the presider over the first council in Jerusalem and spoke with authority there, not Peter.
This is because James was the head of Jerusalem Church. Nevertheless you see that Peter speaks first and sets things in motion, while James concludes the proceedings.
So which is it, church or churches?
I think that when we read of churches, these are local organizations headed up by a bishop. It is clear that they are all to follow the same doctrine, as the Letters put back into line those that strayed. Again, Christ prayed that they be one and on other occasions He spoke of His Church as a single unit.
Church of Rome ended up prevailing in Western history
As a visible symbol of unity, that could be nowhere else but in imperial Rome. It is however, incorrect to say that the local churches operated independently as the local heresies were put out by acts of ecumenical councils. It is true that the early Church was far more consiliar than the later, more authocratic Latin model of the middle ages and till today. But on the other hand, do not forget that the church today is primarily the Latin Church and the Pope's strong hand is as a patriarch of the Latin Church. The Churches of the East, for example, are pretty much left to their own devices (they even don't insert the Filioque)because they face no heresies and are very traditional, while all the heresy in the past 5 centuries is coming from the Latin West.
The earliest example of a Pope exercising authority across the head of the local bishop is Pope Clement I reaching to Corinth to demand reinstallment of certain bishops over the head of no less a figure than apostle John! (Letter to the Corinthians).
nothing about a rock or cornerstone or one foundation having eminence over the others there, it sounds equal.
As it will be, as it was at the table of the Last Supper. The New Jerusalem is Christ in glory and His bride unified and in glory. At that point, the Papacy has filfilled its centrifying role.
Hang in there Uncle Chip. Those accusing you of being uncharitable are among the most brutal, ruthless, and hypocritical people on the FR.
The sheep being spoken of are the "Lost sheep of the House of Israel". [Matthew 10:5-6] Our Saviour tells the Twelve not to visit the Gentiles....but go to the House of Israel.
During the first century the area around Jerusalem was known as Judea. Earlier in history it had been known as Judah [II Kings 17:18-23]. The Lost sheep were called "Israel....the Northern Kingdom" and the Southern Kingdom was called Judah.....and Judah was never lost! The Nation of Judah also included the tribe of Benjamin and a portion of the priestly tribe of Levi [I Kings 12:23][II Chronicles 11:1].
The reason the Northern Kingdom was called lost is because they never returned from their Assyrian captivity [verse 23][II Kings 17:6]. In fact, the Assyrian King brought people from Babylon to inhabit the area the Israelites were taken from [II Kings 17 24]. These people still resided in Samaria during the first century and that is where Simon Magus comes from [Acts 8]. The people of Judah (Jews) did return from their Babylonian captivity later in scripture and you will find the return noted in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. You will find three tribes mentioned in these books; Judah, Benjamin and their share of the priestly tribe of Levi. There is no mention of the other ten tribes in these scriptures.....meaning they were lost from scripture. The Lord had decided to remove the Northern ten tribes from history [I Chronicles 17:9-10].
There is great distinction in both the Old and New testaments when it comes to these two "Houses of Israel". Both are mentioned numerous time in prophecy, both separately and jointly....but they are two separate entities and when New Testament scripture refers to the "Lost Sheep" or "Feed my Sheep" or "Take care of my Sheep" or "Feed my Lambs" our Saviour is referring to the Nation of Israel[ Matthew 10:6][Matthew 15:24].
To reiterate....the Twelve and subsequently, the Eleven were instructed to evangelize these "Lost Ten Tribes" and not go to the Gentiles. There were plenty of other disciples for that task [Acts 1:15][Acts 2:40]. That is why we say that Peter's primary task was not in Rome....and it is very doubtful he even went there.
What the scripture tells (Gal. 2, Acts 10f) us is that it was established by St. Peter and possibly in congress with James and John, who, of course, were all lead by the Holy ghost in all they did. The impetus to go to the Gentiles originated from Jesus at the parable of the guests at the wedding and the workers at the vinyard; it was given the natural apostles as the Great Commission, but St. Paul had to be adopted into the apostolic college and be given the mission at that later time.
You stated earlier that Paul's commission was handed out by Peter...This was to show Peter's primacy...As you'll notice in the next verse, both apostles commission was given from someone else...And of course it would be from God...Not Peter...
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
that the scripture tells (Gal. 2, Acts 10f) us is that it was established by St. Peter and possibly in congress with James and John, who, of course, were all lead by the Holy ghost in all they did.
I don't see biblically where any of it was established by Peter...Peter did not establish ministering to the first Gentile...Peter didn't even know why he was ordered to go to the Gentile...
The Great Commission had nothing to do with Gentiles...When THAT commission was given, salvation was of the Jews. John 4:22...
When Peter had the experience with the Gentile in Acts 10, it was part of the 'transition'...Acts is the book of transition...Lots of things changed from the Gospels to Romans in the book of Acts...
but St. Paul had to be adopted into the apostolic college and be given the mission at that later time.
Paul didn't have to do any such thing...Paul was in the mission field for 3 years before he set his eyes on another apostle...And Paul had already received the commission from God before he knew what Peter looked like...Paul was already preaching to the Gentiles when this meeting took place in Gal. chapter 2...
That makes more sense as Antioch was part of the old Assyrian Empire where the Israelites had been take captive...and many remained there during the first century.
Peter, being an Apostle to the circumcised, would naturally go there.
Good points, except the disciples couldn't go to the lost tribes as they had no idea where they were! Plus they were forbidden to go to any cities in Samaria. I think if you check the Greek word for "lost" you will see that its definition is more towards "the perishing", so in fact they were sent out to the Jews who lived around there.
That's ridiculous
I would like to meet these people. Perhaps they would like to participate in a joint venture in the spirit of ecumenicism in pursuit of the genuine truth about the legends of Peter in Rome.
They knew exactly where they were....they had only been lost to scripture. The first century historian, Josephus, mentions in his "Antiquities" Book XI, Chapter V, Paragraph 2 that there were only two tribes left in Asia (minor) subject to the Romans, the other ten were beyond the Euphrates and were beyond counting.....they were so many!
Also please see this.... Babylonian Jewry
Don't you think that divinely appointed Apostles would be able to find these folks.....if they had been told to do so?
But you see, the Roman Church simply ignores the words of these Syriac Ante-Nicene Fathers and can't produce the words of any other Ante-Nicene Father to rebut this claim. Where's their evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch? Two can play that game.
Well he sent out the 12 and they couldn't have been gone for long as they were back for other events in His life. Plus they went on foot. The tribes were assimilated into other cultures by then, in fact, were probably considered Gentiles. Even today, there is speculation on who they are, and some evidence to support it, that they dispersed just about everywhere.
Do you ever read "Debka.com"?
Peter got around. He went Ireland where they called him "Patrick" (no doubt from Pater and Bishopric) where he chased all the snakes out. From there he went to Scotland where he was called "Paddy" and they named wagons after him. Gold tablets found in the Americas reference... well you get the picture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.