Arch Stanton
Well-known member
no denomination - we didn't split from the original......... we are the original
What does this quote from Ignatius mean?
- Thread starter valtteri21
- Start date
Yes you are the original demonination, if of course, you were ever part of the original and that can be debated.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
That's hilarious!!!!! tell us another one!!!
And again. Avoidance of the history of your denomination. Jesus and the true apostles never murdered anyone.
Athanasian_Creed
Member
While Peter is mentioned a lot in the gospels and in the earliest chapters of Acts, often this is because he's the most outspoken and rash of the disciples (Matthew 16:16, Matthew 16:22, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 26:33, Mark 9:5, John 18:10). This is why Peter received so much attention from Jesus (Matthew 16:23, Luke 22:31-34, John 18:11, John 21:15-17). From the second half of Acts forward, however, Paul is mentioned much more than Peter. Paul ends up writing much more of the New Testament than Peter does, and the earliest church fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.) speak more of Paul than they do of Peter, and they make statements about Paul that are more exalted than what they say about Peter. Paul, by far, receives the most attention early on, even though Peter became more popular among many of the church fathers who wrote from the third century onward.
Did the apostles have any concept of Peter being their ruler? No (Luke 9:46, Luke 22:24, 2 Corinthians 12:11).
Did Jesus think that Peter was a "shepherd" in the sense that he would oversee the other apostles? No. To the contrary, He tells Peter that John's future is none of his (Peter's) concern (John 21:21-22).
The apostles are repeatedly portrayed as being at the same level of authority (Matthew 19:28, Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14). During the doctrinal dispute in Acts 15, Peter's testimony is heard (Acts 15:7-11), but doesn't settle the dispute. James has the last word (Acts 15:13-21), and his terminology is incorporated into the letter that's sent out (Acts 15:23-29). The letter mentions "the apostles and the brethren who are elders", but says nothing of papal authority.
Did the apostles view the Roman church as some sort of "Mother Church" that had supreme authority? No. To the contrary, Paul writes a letter of doctrinal and moral instruction to the Roman church. In his letter to the Romans and in his letters written from prison in Rome, Paul never mentions a papacy, nor does he even mention Peter in association with the Roman church. Paul refers to himself instructing and caring for all of the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28), something he surely couldn't have done if he didn't have authority over the Roman church. Paul writes about church government over and over again (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11-12, etc.), but never mentions a papacy. To the contrary, he refers to "apostles" as the highest authority (1 Corinthians 12:28), with no mention of a Pope who is above the authority of an apostle.
Peter himself also had no concept of a papacy. He refers to his authority as an apostle (1 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1) and an eyewitness to Christ's earthly ministry (1 Peter 5:1, 2 Peter 1:16), but never as a Pope. Although he had just as much apostolic authority as the other apostles, Peter referred to his governmental authority as nothing more than that of a "fellow elder" (1 Peter 5:1). When Peter was nearing death, he said that he was leaving behind written documents in order for people to be able to remember, after he died, what he had taught (2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2). He doesn't say anything about leaving behind a successor, much less a Roman bishop with papal authority.
Obviously, there was no papacy during the time of the apostles, contrary to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. And it isn't a matter of a papacy not being mentioned just because there was never any occasion for it to be mentioned. If there was a papacy during the time of the apostles, there would have been many contexts in which mentioning it would have been appropriate (Luke 22:24, John 21:22, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2, etc.). Yet, a papacy is never mentioned. It's even contradicted by Paul's repeated references to his equality with and his independence from the other apostles, for example (Galatians 1-2, etc.). Even if the doctrine of the papacy wasn't contradicted by the New Testament, its absence would be enough to make the claims of the Catholic Church untenable.
(Source(s) Unknown)
Did the apostles have any concept of Peter being their ruler? No (Luke 9:46, Luke 22:24, 2 Corinthians 12:11).
Did Jesus think that Peter was a "shepherd" in the sense that he would oversee the other apostles? No. To the contrary, He tells Peter that John's future is none of his (Peter's) concern (John 21:21-22).
The apostles are repeatedly portrayed as being at the same level of authority (Matthew 19:28, Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14). During the doctrinal dispute in Acts 15, Peter's testimony is heard (Acts 15:7-11), but doesn't settle the dispute. James has the last word (Acts 15:13-21), and his terminology is incorporated into the letter that's sent out (Acts 15:23-29). The letter mentions "the apostles and the brethren who are elders", but says nothing of papal authority.
Did the apostles view the Roman church as some sort of "Mother Church" that had supreme authority? No. To the contrary, Paul writes a letter of doctrinal and moral instruction to the Roman church. In his letter to the Romans and in his letters written from prison in Rome, Paul never mentions a papacy, nor does he even mention Peter in association with the Roman church. Paul refers to himself instructing and caring for all of the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28), something he surely couldn't have done if he didn't have authority over the Roman church. Paul writes about church government over and over again (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11-12, etc.), but never mentions a papacy. To the contrary, he refers to "apostles" as the highest authority (1 Corinthians 12:28), with no mention of a Pope who is above the authority of an apostle.
Peter himself also had no concept of a papacy. He refers to his authority as an apostle (1 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1) and an eyewitness to Christ's earthly ministry (1 Peter 5:1, 2 Peter 1:16), but never as a Pope. Although he had just as much apostolic authority as the other apostles, Peter referred to his governmental authority as nothing more than that of a "fellow elder" (1 Peter 5:1). When Peter was nearing death, he said that he was leaving behind written documents in order for people to be able to remember, after he died, what he had taught (2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2). He doesn't say anything about leaving behind a successor, much less a Roman bishop with papal authority.
Obviously, there was no papacy during the time of the apostles, contrary to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. And it isn't a matter of a papacy not being mentioned just because there was never any occasion for it to be mentioned. If there was a papacy during the time of the apostles, there would have been many contexts in which mentioning it would have been appropriate (Luke 22:24, John 21:22, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2, etc.). Yet, a papacy is never mentioned. It's even contradicted by Paul's repeated references to his equality with and his independence from the other apostles, for example (Galatians 1-2, etc.). Even if the doctrine of the papacy wasn't contradicted by the New Testament, its absence would be enough to make the claims of the Catholic Church untenable.
(Source(s) Unknown)
Last edited:
Jesus was NEVER with Catholicism. Their own translating proves them as false religion, along with the hundreds or thousands of her branches as well.
Theo1689
Well-known member
That doesn't say anything about "pre-eminence".
Let me remind you of what happened...
1) Peter thrice denied Christ. He ruined his repuration.
2) Christ forgives him, and raises him BACK up to the same level as the other Apostles.
3) No "pre-eminence" there.
Not sure how that demonstrates "pre-eminence".
Care to eleborate?
Are you trying to create a "triple pope" system, since Peter, James, and John were mentioned by name together? Or is that just conveniently ignored?
In Matt. 18, ALL of the Apostles were given the keys.
Any of them.
Eleven of them never denied Christ.
Yet Peter did it, not once, not twice, but THREE times a denial.
Oops!
Theo1689
Well-known member
I usually learn the term, "impetuous", but "rash" is accurate as well.
He reminds me of a student who is insecure, and always seeking attention and affirmation.
Our Lord's God
Well-known member
There's absolutely nothing here to prove their Papacy. They are shamelessly reading things into the text which are not there because they want it to say what it does not say. All you can say from the text is that they were somehow privileged and they also had taught others. That they were privileged could mean a whole lot of things. That they taught others doesn't really mean anything significant but that they did what they were called to do.
But Rome won't care about the truth of the matter either. They are the root cause of Christendom's many diseases.
Last edited:
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
posts 2 and 27
Here is a fact that disproves the papacy--The bible says--do not call any man on earth-FATHER. Matt 23:9)--this is not speaking about a dad, it speaks about a spiritual teacher= simple bible milk-Yet Catholicism has their clergy called FATHER and the Pope has elevated himself into Gods position by being called Holy FATHER. THE Pope fathered 0 spiritual things, God fathered all of them. Shame on the great apostasy in their darkness. Errors are one thing if they are corrected but to remain in them misleads all following them into not entering Gods kingdom.
Another simple bible milk= No Israelite male was allowed to have long hair( 1Cor 11:14)-it was a dishonor( With the exception of the Nazarites( Samson) not Nazarenes) Jesus was a Nazarene, thus they display to all creation, Jesus bringing dishonor to his Fathers name in their pictures of him.
Not to mention the bible condemns-statues, icons and graven images.
One must ask--Why after over 1700 years that religion can't even understand simple bible milk? This why-2Thess 2:3 is who they are.
Beloved Daughter
Super Member
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
Father Abraham.... next
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
Who to listen to.... ? ? Christ's Church [NT writers, ECF's] or mister white
You institution is NOT His church. It does not meet the description of His church and it ignores most of scripture.Who to listen to.... ? ? Christ's Church [NT writers, ECF's] or mister white
Abraham didn't live when Matthew spoke the words-Do not call any man Father. And Abraham did Father something important. God promised him that the seed would come through Isaac. Whom Abraham was the Father of that seed. The Pope fathered-0
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
1Thess 2:11 As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children,
1 Cor 4:15 Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
1 Jn 2:13-14 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.
I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.
I write to you, children, because you know the Father.
I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men, because you are strong and the word of God remains in you, and you have conquered the evil one.
I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.
I write to you, children, because you know the Father.
I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men, because you are strong and the word of God remains in you, and you have conquered the evil one.
Job 29:16 I was a father to the poor; the complaint of the stranger I pursued
Gen 45:8 So it was not really you but God who had me come here; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, lord of all his household, and ruler over the whole land of Egypt.
2 Kg 2:12 and Elisha saw it happen. He cried out, “My father! my father! Israel’s chariot and steeds!” Then he saw him no longer.
2 Kg 6:21 When the king of Israel saw them, he asked, “Shall I kill them, my father? Shall I kill them?”
Rom 9:10 And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac
Acts 7:2 And he replied, “My brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he had settled in Haran
Acts 7:2-53 (Saint Stephen says father 17 times)
Yes father as in dad, not as a spiritual teacher-they have fathered 0 spiritual truth. God alone fathered all spiritual truth.
1Thess 2:11 As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children,
1 Cor 4:15 Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
1 Jn 2:13-14 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.
I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.
I write to you, children, because you know the Father.
I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men, because you are strong and the word of God remains in you, and you have conquered the evil one.
Job 29:16 I was a father to the poor; the complaint of the stranger I pursued
Gen 45:8 So it was not really you but God who had me come here; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, lord of all his household, and ruler over the whole land of Egypt.
2 Kg 2:12 and Elisha saw it happen. He cried out, “My father! my father! Israel’s chariot and steeds!” Then he saw him no longer.
2 Kg 6:21 When the king of Israel saw them, he asked, “Shall I kill them, my father? Shall I kill them?”
Rom 9:10 And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac
Acts 7:2 And he replied, “My brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he had settled in Haran
Acts 7:2-53 (Saint Stephen says father 17 times)
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
Let us see Abraham left all of his people to follow God. He disobeyed his father. He did not follow men who did not meet the scriptural leadership for leaders. He was a leader.Sure.... Abraham, Isaac, Paul, etc..... sure
Isaac another leader. He was the child promised to Abraham. He followed God.
Paul left His people and followed Jesus. Not called father.
RCs follow men who fail the scriptural requirements for leaders.
There is such a difference.