[charlesherring]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

@ Charles the Red Herring

No amount of text can change the fact that Cathylickers worship Mary and rape little boys.

thats really a mature way to handle seeing something you dont like, it was intresting how you did not refute a single quote, or bring anything constructive to the conversation

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

@ Charles the Red Herring

No amount of text can change the fact that Cathylickers worship Mary and rape little boys.

[charlesherring]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

Pope Clement I


"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).


Hegesippus


"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).


Irenaeus


"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).


Tertullian


"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).

"[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood" (ibid., 21).

"But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" (ibid., 32).

"But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory" (ibid.).

"Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith" (ibid.).


Cyprian of Carthage


"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).


Jerome


"Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians" (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).


Augustine


"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

[charlesherring]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

if any of that was true and peter was not the head explain these few quotes from the early christians
Tatian the Syrian


"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).


Tertullian


"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).


The Letter of Clement to James


"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).


The Clementine Homilies


"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).


Origen


"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).


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. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. 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. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . 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?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).


Firmilian


"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

"[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).


Ephraim the Syrian


"[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’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).


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]).


Ambrose of Milan


"[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]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

"It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).


Pope Damasus I


"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] 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. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, 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]).

[Levi Jones]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

Paul who?

The writer of the Epistle to the Romans. The apostle who was imprisoned and tried in Rome. The one who wrote many of his letters from Rome, yet never once mentions Peter as being in Rome.

Oh really hmmm then why do they always tell me that the Vatican City is in Rome someone has been lying to me right?

Early Christians did not acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

The Bible clearly indicates that Mother Mary is the Queen of Heven, and the Ark of the new convenant. Book of Revelations, is a good example

Did you not read the scriptures I just posted about the "queen of heaven"? It's a pagan goddess the Romans co-oped.

Mary is called Queen of Heaven because her Son is the King. There is a pagan goddess mentioned in Scripture as the "queen of heaven". Just because there is a false queen of heaven does not mean there is no authentic queen of heaven.

Then show me where in the scriptures does the Bible mention Mary being the queen of heaven?

Didn't seem like it from what I read so a Catholic Priest told a Protestant go get slaves?

Ask the Portuguese. They are the ones who began the African slave trade.

I posted your concerns in a Catholic forum and here are some responses just curious if you want to check it out. They might banned me from this site any minute so I welcome you to come over and see the Catholic perspective on any type of concerns that you have regarding the Church brethren.

You won't be banned for interfaith dialogue here as long as you are respectful.

[Eddy714]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

[QUOTE=Levi Jones;613869]Rome is the capital of Christianity, according to whom? Who established the church in Rome? (Hint:it was Paul.)

Paul who?

Who established the church in Antioch? (Peter)

Oh really hmmm then why do they always tell me that the Vatican City is in Rome someone has been lying to me right?

The Catholic church calls Mary the "Queen of Heaven."

The Bible clearly indicates that Mother Mary is the Queen of Heven, and the Ark of the new convenant. Book of Revelations, is a good example

You worship a pagan deity. How is that working out for you?

Mary is called Queen of Heaven because her Son is the King. There is a pagan goddess mentioned in Scripture as the "queen of heaven". Just because there is a false queen of heaven does not mean there is no authentic queen of heaven. Pharoah is known as Ra - God on Earth. The Egyptians supposedly believed this, but it does not mean there isn't an authentic God on Earth.

Las Casas also was the first to advocate getting slaves from Africa instead of using the Indians.

Didn't seem like it from what I read so a Catholic Priest told a Protestant go get slaves?

Was that actually possible?

I posted your concerns in a Catholic forum and here are some responses just curious if you want to check it out. They might banned me from this site any minute so I welcome you to come over and see the Catholic perspective on any type of concerns that you have regarding the Church brethren.


The site http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=502014


May God Bless you and you Family and keep looking for truth.

[Levi Jones]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

Because that is the capital of Christianity.

Rome is the capital of Christianity, according to whom? Who established the church in Rome? (Hint:it was Paul.)

Who established the church in Antioch? (Peter)

You mean the Mother of God?

The Catholic church calls Mary the "Queen of Heaven."

Jeremiah 7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?
20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.

Let's read more about the "Queen of Heaven" from secular sources.

Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Astarte/Ashtoreth is the Queen of Heaven to whom the Canaanites had burned incense and poured libations."
"Through her identification with the Greek Aphrodite and the Roman Venus, Inanna-Ishtar, the queen of heaven, still survives in Roman Catholic iconography - e.g., as the Virgin Mary standing on the moon."

"Known by many names, across time and space, Lilith or Eve, Anath and Asherah, Astarte, the Queen of Heaven, the Shekhinah and the Matronit.... No matter Her name, she was loved."


You worship a pagan deity. How is that working out for you?

Las Casas has been called the Father of anti-imperialism and anti-racism.

Las Casas also was the first to advocate getting slaves from Africa instead of using the Indians.

[Eddy714]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

[QUOTE=Levi Jones;613631]

No it is not. It is historically accurate. I'm sorry if facts are anti-catholic.

Seek truth Brother.

Why is it important where Peter died, assuming it was actually in Rome?

Because that is the capital of Christianity.

Just out of curiosity, why didn't Peter write in Latin if he died in Rome?

Your guess is as good as mine.

For the Saved, the catholic church became extinct. What can I say? Satan is certainly powerful in this world. His false prophets have twisted the Message into their own demonic cult.

What makes you think your saved that still troubles me?

Really? The "queen of heaven?" Do you know what the Bible says about that person?

You mean the Mother of God?

Why does it matter where he allegedly died? Why not where he was born? Why not where he was married?

Well I guess you have some praying to do maybe God will give you the answer.

Your link says Luther moved them in the order. It says nothing about deleting them.

Search Bartolome De Las Casas

.

Las Casas has been called the Father of anti-imperialism and anti-racism.


Here is a list of 36 Popes before the 1 that you mention all the time. Hopefully it helps.

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)

[Levi Jones]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

Well isn't it?

No it is not. It is historically accurate. I'm sorry if facts are anti-catholic.

Well you shouldn't its unbiblical you should know by now remember you go by the Bible and in the Bible this is what Jesus says Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. now your own falliable interpretation might say other wise but there I can't help

Why is it important where Peter died, assuming it was actually in Rome?

Just out of curiosity, why didn't Peter write in Latin if he died in Rome?

Wow its so exposed its about to be extinct do you agree?

For the Saved, the catholic church became extinct. What can I say? Satan is certainly powerful in this world. His false prophets have twisted the Message into their own demonic cult.

Really? The "queen of heaven?" Do you know what the Bible says about that person?

He didn't die in Jerusalem or Antioch so why would he be the Bishop there?

Why does it matter where he allegedly died? Why not where he was born? Why not where he was married?

I would be more then glad to give you a link. Did you not learn that while you where studying the history of the CC or did you fall asleep? http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...on/re0134.html

Your link says Luther moved them in the order. It says nothing about deleting them.

Sources plz?

Search Bartolome De Las Casas.

[Eddy714]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

Levi Jones;613616]Way to move the goalposts. You ask for a source. You attack my source as being anti-catholic.

Well isn't it?

The papacy has existed since the murderous whoremonger "St." Damasus declared it to be so. I maintain my stance.

Well you shouldn't its unbiblical you should know by now remember you go by the Bible and in the Bible this is what Jesus says Matthew 16:18 COLOR="Blue"]And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it[/COLOR] now your own falliable interpretation might say other wise but there I can't help

Don't diminish what Luther did. He risked everything to expose the catholic monstrosity for what it was.

Wow its so exposed its about to be extinct do you agree?

Did Jesus say, "I'm going to make you the Pope and your palace will be in Rome."?

Rome is where he got martyr you know that too.

No, He did not. Just because Peter may or may have not died in Rome does not make him the bishop of the place.

See you know you history but you no willing to accept it is another thing.

If anything, the bishop of Jerusalem or at least Antioch should be the final authority.

He didn't die in Jerusalem or Antioch so why would he be the Bishop there?

Luther did not delete any books of the Bible. I demand a link that says he did.

I would be more then glad to give you a link. Did you not learn that while you where studying the history of the CC or did you fall asleep? http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...on/re0134.html

No I don't think the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unbiblical at all. I have spoken ad naseum about it with Catholics for years.

Yea and what happened?

Shall we?

Shall we what?

No, I cannot, considering no such verse exists.

So when it affirms Catholic doctrine you just turn around or do you just skip the verse? Because it does stick like a sore thumb.

You do know its a sin to lie right?

1 Corinthians 4:6 6And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Acts 17:11-12 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

[/QUOTE]

Amen Brethern

A drop in the bucket compared to the wholesale savage culturacide brought on by the Spaniards and Portuguese.

You serious? You have to read more american history.

Slavery is a biblical principle. The only reason the negroes were brought over in the first place is because a Spanish catholic priest warned that the injuns were no good as slaves.

Sources plz?

God Bless

[Levi Jones]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

The papacy existed sine Jesus talked to Peter you now wanting to acknowledge that is another thing. Give me sources and plz no anti catholic ones?

Way to move the goalposts. You ask for a source. You attack my source as being anti-catholic.

The papacy has existed since the murderous whoremonger "St." Damasus declared it to be so. I maintain my stance.

Yea and he might spend it with Luther also lol.

Don't diminish what Luther did. He risked everything to expose the catholic monstrosity for what it was.

So then if it says it in the Bible.Why aren't you Catholic? Don't you follow what the Bible says or are you disobedient when it comes to that verse?

Did Jesus say, "I'm going to make you the Pope and your palace will be in Rome."?

No, He did not. Just because Peter may or may have not died in Rome does not make him the bishop of the place.

If anything, the bishop of Jerusalem or at least Antioch should be the final authority.

They tried to kill all the heretics that were twisting the verses and sentences in the Bible so they could use it towards there favor. But obviously it didn't work Martin Luther deleted 7 books of the old testament,

Luther did not delete any books of the Bible. I demand a link that says he did.

and he said that by faith alone you would be saved and that the Bible is the only authority Sola Scriptura which they are both unbiblical don't you think?

No I don't think the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unbiblical at all. I have spoken ad naseum about it with Catholics for years.

Shall we?

Even that is what you follow can you explain to me Tes 2:15?

No, I cannot, considering no such verse exists.

And can you also tell me in the Bible where it says that the Bible is the authority?

1 Corinthians 4:6 6And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Acts 17:11-12 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
[/quote]

Protestants also have a violent history from the massacre of indians,

A drop in the bucket compared to the wholesale savage culturacide brought on by the Spaniards and Portuguese.

too mis treatment of slaves and the salem witch hunt?

Slavery is a biblical principle. The only reason the negroes were brought over in the first place is because a Spanish catholic priest warned that the injuns were no good as slaves.

[Eddy714]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

[QUOTE]

No, they just blew it out of the water. The "papacy of Rome" didn't exist until 300 years after Peter died. Your first "Pope" was also a murderer and a whoremonger.

The papacy existed sine Jesus talked to Peter you now wanting to acknowledge that is another thing. Give me sources and plz no anti catholic ones?

No doubt Satan spends extra time with the monster Damasus every day.

Yea and he might spend it with Luther also lol.

Damasus was the first bishop of Rome to invoke the "Petrine text" (Matthew 16:18) in terms that sought to establish a serious theological and scriptural foundation on which the primacy of the Roman church could be based. From Damasus onwards, there is a marked increase in the volume and importance of claims of authority and primacy from the Roman bishops.

So then if it says it in the Bible.Why aren't you Catholic? Don't you follow what the Bible says or are you disobedient when it comes to that verse?

And the catlicks tried to kill anyone who even attempted to reform their madness. Do you really want a history lesson on the Roman Catholic church?[

They tried to kill all the heretics that were twisting the verses and sentences in the Bible so they could use it towards there favor. But obviously it didn't work Martin Luther deleted 7 books of the old testament, and he said that by faith alone you would be saved and that the Bible is the only authority Sola Scriptura which they are both unbiblical don't you think? Even that is what you follow can you explain to me Tes 2:15?

And can you also tell me in the Bible where it says that the Bible is the authority?

I thought it was the Church the Pillar Of Truth?

Protestants also have a violent history from the massacre of indians, too mis treatment of slaves and the salem witch hunt?

Trust me I know my Catholic history you can teach an old dog new tricks

[Levi Jones]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

No they actually don't they just reaffirmed our Catholic belief.

No, they just blew it out of the water. The "papacy of Rome" didn't exist until 300 years after Peter died. Your first "Pope" was also a murderer and a whoremonger.

No doubt Satan spends extra time with the monster Damasus every day.

Damasus was the first bishop of Rome to invoke the "Petrine text" (Matthew 16:18) in terms that sought to establish a serious theological and scriptural foundation on which the primacy of the Roman church could be based. From Damasus onwards, there is a marked increase in the volume and importance of claims of authority and primacy from the Roman bishops.

Remember Luther wanted to reform the Church but he failed horribly but that opened all sorts of doors for other people to put in there 2 cents and now we have all this mess.

God Bless

And the catlicks tried to kill anyone who even attempted to reform their madness. Do you really want a history lesson on the Roman Catholic church?

[Eddy714]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

How many times have you been sodomized by a "father," Eddy?

None Pastor what makes you think I would be.

So am I welcomed here because I keep receiving messages that are not that welcoming.

I want to learn the truth that you proclaim but all I see is bigotry and hatred if thats what you congregation is all about I don't want no part of it.

Thank You God Bless

[Eddy714]

Re: The Birth of the Papacy

Let's just hope you don't pick up a wetback dictionary anytime soon and are forced to minister to them as well.

You don't have to worry about that wetbacks are Catholic

Plus we don't listen to right wing wackos either

God Bless