Let's see what history says:

"And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail..." Origen,Commentary on John,5:3(c.A.D. 232),in ANF,X:347

"Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...' " Tertullian,On the Prescription Against the Heretics,22(c.A.D. 200),in ANF,III:253

" '...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?" Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae(Primacy text),4(A.D. 251),in NE,228-229

"It was right indeed that he(Paul) should be anxious to see Peter; for he was the first among the apostles, and was entrusted by the Savior with the care of the churches." Ambrosiaster,Commentary on Galatians,PL 17:344 (A.D. 384),in SPP,62

" 'Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church', Wherefore where Peter the Church is..." Ambrose,Commentary on the Psalms,40:30 (AD 395),in DOP,184

"At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church." Ambrose,Commentary on the Psalms,43:40(AD 397),in GILES,145

"...the chief of the disciples...the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church." Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15(A.D. 337),in SPP,58

"In order that he may show his power, God has endowed none of his disciples with gifts like Peter. But, having raised him with heavenly gifts, he has set him above all. And, as first disciple and greater among the brethren, he has shown, by the test of deeds, the power of the Spirit. The first to be called, he followed at once....The Saviour confided to this man, as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times 'Lovest thou me?'. And he receive the world in charge..." Asterius,Homily 8(A.D. 400),in GILES,145-146

"Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer." Augustine,Psalmus contr Partem Donati(A.D. 393),in GILES,182

"Peter bore the person of the church" Augustine, Sermon 149:7(inter A.D. 391-430),in SPP,69

"Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church." Basil,In Isaias,2:66(A.D. 375),in SPP,55

"Peter is again called 'the coryphaeus of the Apostles" Basil of Seleucia,Oratio 25(ante A.D. 468),in FOC,II:49

Peter was proncounced blessed by the Lord...the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has NEVER turned away from the path of truth in ANY direction of ERROR, whose AUTHORITY, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced..." Agatho Pope,To Ecumenical Council VI at Constantinople,(A.D. 680),in NPNF2,XIV:328-339

" 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven'? When Wilfrid spoken thus, the king said, 'It is true, Colman, that these words were spoken to Peter by our Lord?' He answered, 'It is true O king!' Then says he, 'Can you show any such power given to your Columba?' Colman answered, 'None.' Then added the king,"Do you both agree that these words were principally directed to Peter, and that the keys of heaven were given to him by our Lord?'They both answered,'We do.' " Bede Venerable, AD 700, Ecclesiastical History,3:5(A.D. 700),in RCH,I:271

"[B]ut that great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the authority in faith and priesthood. Tell us therefore, tell us we beg of you, Peter, prince of the Apostles, tell us how the churches must believe in God." Cassian John,Contra Nestorium,3:12(A.D. 430),in SPP,61

"A copy of the letter sent by the holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council to Agatho, the most blessed and most holy pope of Old Rome...Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed (father); and therefore Christ our true God, who is the creator and governing power of all things, gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church. Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up.." Constantinople III Council to Pope Agatho,(A.D. 680),NPNF2,XIV:349

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith..." Council of Chalcedon,Session III (A.D. 451),in NPNF2,XIV:259-260

"He promises to found the church, assigning immovableness to it,as He is the Lord of strength, and over this he sets Peter as shepherd." Cyril of Alexandria,Commentary on Matthew (A.D. 428),in SPP,74

"Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church..." Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,11:3(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VIII:64

"(Peter)The first of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of disciples." Chrysostom John,Ad eos qui scandalizati 17(ante A.D. 407),in SEP,74

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who recieved revelation not from man but from the Father...this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey" Chrysostom John, De Eleemosyna,3:4(ante A.D. 407),in SEP,74

"[W]e have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by 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..."...The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it" Damasus Pope, Decree of Damasus,3(A.D. 382), in JUR,I:406

"[T]he first of the apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built." Epiphanius, In Ancorato,9:6 (A.D. 374),in SPP,in 57

"Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter(Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me...I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures." Ephraim, Homily 4:1,(A.D. 373),JUR,I:11

"...Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others..." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,2:14 (A.D. 325),in NPNF2,I:115

"And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail' " Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,6:25 (A.D. 325),in NPNF2,I:273

"...folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid..." Firmilian,Epistle To Cyprian,Ep 75(74):17(A.D. 256),in ANF,V:394

"To Peter,that is, to his church, he gave the power of retaining and forgiving sins on earth." Fulgentius, De Remissione Peccatorum,2:20(A.D. 523),in SPP,71

"The holy Roman Church is senior to the other churches not by virtue of any synodal decrees, but obtained the primacy from Our Lord and Savior in the words of the Gospel,'Thou art Peter...' " Gelasius Pope,Decree of Gelasium(A.D. 492),in SPP,166

"Who could be ignorant of the fact that the holy church is consolidated in the solidity of the prince of the Apostles, whose firmness of character extended to his name so that he should be called Peter after the 'rock', when the voice of the Truth says, 'I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven'. To him again is said "When after a little while thou hast come back to me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren." Gregory the Great Pope,Epistle 40(A.D. 604),in SPP,66

"Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the church." Gregory of Nazianzen,Oration 32:18(A.D. 380),in SPP,56

"The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles...he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the savior built his Church." Gregory of Nyssa,Panegyric on St. Stephen,3(ante A.D. 394),in SPP,56

"[B]lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom..." Hilary de Poiters,On the Trinity,6:20(A.D. 359),in NPNF2,IX:105

"By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' By this Spirit the rock of the Church was stablished." Hippolytus,Discourse on the Holy Theophany,9(ante A.D. 235),ANF,V:237

"[T]he statement of Our Lord Jesus Christ who said, 'Thou art Peter,and upon this rock I will build my Church,'...These (words) which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain.'' Hormisdas Pope,Libellus professionis fidei,(A.D. 519),in DEN(171),73

"The decrees of the Roman Pontiff, standing upon the supremacy of the Apostolic See, are unquestionable." Isidore of Seville,(ante A.D. 636),in PL:84

"But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one(ie. Peter)among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism." Jerome,Against Jovinianus,1 (A.D. 393),in NPNF2,VI:366

"As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!" Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18

"[B]lessed Peter preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he under took...And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications,it is of his work and merits whos power lives and whose authority prevails in his See...to him whom they know to be not only the patron ofthis See, but also primate of all bishops. When therefore...beleive that he is speaking whose representative we are:..." Leo the Great(Pope),Sermon 3:3-4(A.D. 442),in NPNF2,XII:117

"[T]he Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery." Leo the Great(Pope),To Bishops of Vienne,Epistle 10 (A.D. 450),in NPNF2,XII:8

"For the extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy Councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the Keys of right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High" Maximus the Confessor,Opuscula theologica et polemica(A.D. 650),in PG(91:137-144)

"This Peter on whom Christ freely bestowed a sharing in his name. For just as Christ is the rock, as the Apostle Paul taught, so through Christ Peter is made rock, when the Lord says to him: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church..."' Maximus of Turin,Homily 63(A.D. 408),in SPP,61-62

"[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardone only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest." Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum,7:3(A.D. 370),in GILES,120

"[T]he Lord spoke to Peter a little earlier; he spoke to one, that from one he might found unity, soon delivering the same to all." Pacian,To Sympronianus,Epistle 3:2(AD 372),in GILES,123

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.'Peter, the apostle, who is the rock and support of the Catholic Church' " Paschasinus, Council of Chalcedon,Session III(A.D. 451)in NPNF,XIV:259-260

"You know that the Lord proclaims in the Gospel: 'Simon, Simon, behold:Satan has desired to possess you,so that he might sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you,that your faith may not fail. And you,once you have converted, confirm your brethren!'(Lk 22:31-32). Consider that the truth could not have lied,nor will the faith of Peter be able to be shaken or changed forever. For, although the devil desired to sift all the disciples,the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for Peter alone,and wished that the others be confirmed my him;and to Peter also was committed the care of 'feeding the sheep'(John 21:15);and to him also did the Lord hand over the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven'(Matthew 16:19),and upon him did He promise to 'build His Church' (Matthew 16:18);and He testified that 'the gates of Hell would not prevail against it' (Matthew 16:19)." Pelagius II(Pope),Quod Ad Dilectionem(c.A.D. 685),in DNZ(246),95

"We exhort you, honourable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part,for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome." Peter Chrysologus,Epistle 25 of Leo from Peter(A.D. 449),in SPP,215

"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 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 to-day and forever, lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine,according to due order,is his successor and holds his place..." Philip,Council of Ephesus,Session III (A.D. 431),in NPNF,XIV:223

"...the most firm rock, who(Peter) from the principal Rock recieved a share of his virtue and his name" Prosper of Aquitaine,The Call of All Nations,2:28(A.D. 426),in SPP,71

"If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your apostolic see in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges." Theodoret of Cyrus,To Pope Leo,Epistle 113(A.D. 449),in NPNF2,III:293

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 05, 2003

Answers

Catholic bishops are not apostles, nor do they have their authority of the apostles.

Catholics claiming apostolic succession remind me of the Jewish leaders who were bragging that they had Abraham as their father. Then the Lord rebuked them, “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Matthew 3:9)

Also, Eastern Orthodox Churches claim apostolic succession. Who's right? I think they have a stronger claim then Roman Catholics, but Both are still wrong.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 07, 2003.

It is interesting to note that Gail does NOT provide one ounce of Scriptural evidence that Peter was the first Pope. Instead she resorts to her cut and paste history just as all Catholics do to try to prove their doctrines...

If she had proof from the word of God, I am sure that she would provide it!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 07, 2003.

Where did the bible come from.....Who codified it? INteresting that the first Christians didn't even have a bible as we know it....I wonder when did the bible really come out? If you place all authority on the bible are you better than the first Christians?

Joe

-- jcbiltz (joebiltz@netzero.net), August 08, 2003.

Joe,

The Bible came from men who were inspired to write exactly what the Holy Spirit directed. All of the NT was written and placed in distribution before the last apostle died.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 08, 2003.

The Church leaders I quoted quote from scripture regarding the headship of Peter. He was obviously the first amongst the apostles from scripture. He was given the shepherd's mantle. His name is mentioned 3 times more than any other apostle. Christ called him the rock upon which he would build his Church. I don't know what more proof can be offered to you, Kevin.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 08, 2003.

Whoops, I forgot one -- PETER WAS GIVEN THE KEYS!!!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 08, 2003.

Gail,

There is NO proof from scripture that Peter was "obviously the first among the apostles" as you so state. Peter was also NOT given the "shepherd's mantle" as you erroneously state, if this is the case, where is this PLAINLY stated in the word of God???

You wrote, "His name is mentioned 3 times more than any other apostle."

Gail obviously has not been told the truth once again, for I did a name search on Peter and Cephas and Paul and Saul, and this was what I came up with:

Peter - 158 Cephas - 6

Paul - 156 Saul - 26

So, this has Paul and Saul mentioned more times than that of Peter so your statement, "His name is mentioned 3 times more than any other apostle." is NOT the truth according to the word of God.

You wrote, "Christ called him the rock upon which he would build his Church."

No Gail, that is once again NOT the truth for Jesus did NOT build His church upon Peter, but upon the Confession that Jesus is the Son of God.

You wrote, "I don't know what more proof can be offered to you, Kevin."

The proof is right there in God's word, and yet you reject it and would rather believe what Man has told you (the pope), instead of what God's word actually says. Peter was NOT the first pope, nor did that office ever exist except in the mind of man for it was man that created it for this office never had sanction in God's word. You have REJECTED the stone (Jesus) and have put a man (the pope) in His place. (1 Peter 2:7-8). You don't need God, you have the pope.

You wrote, "Whoops, I forgot one -- PETER WAS GIVEN THE KEYS!!!"

Once again Gail you are WRONG. Peter was NOT the only one given the keys for if you will go back and re-read Matthew 18:18 for ALL of the apostles were given the same ability to bind and loose.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 11, 2003.

Kevin,

"But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one(ie. Peter)among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism." Jerome,Against Jovinianus,1 (A.D. 393),in NPNF2,VI:366

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:

KEY ke (maphteach, an "opener"; compare kleis, "that which shuts"):

Made of wood, usually with nails which fitted into corresponding holes in the lock, or rather bolt (Judges 3:25). Same is rendered "opening" in 1 Chronicles 9:27.

See HOUSE.

Figurative:

Used figuratively for power, since the key was sometimes worn on the shoulder as a sign of official authority (Isaiah 22-22). In the New Testament it is used several times thus figuratively: of Peter: "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:19); of Christ, in Revelation, having the "keys of death and of Hades" (Revelation 1:18), also having "the key of David" (Revelation 3:7). An angel was given "the key of the pit of the abyss" (Revelation 9:1; 20:1). our Lord accused the teachers of the law of His day of taking away "the key of knowledge" from men, that is, locking the doors of truth against them (Luke 11:52; compare Matthew 23:13).

The Apostles were given the power to bind and loose as a group, but it is God Himself who revealed to Peter the Christian Confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:15), and it is Christ who gave the Keys of the Kingdom (the same as the Key of David) to Peter, even in the manner of Eliachim (Isa 22:20-22).

-- Andrea Schlosser (firstclass1095@yahoo.com), August 19, 2003.

Andrea,

Peter was NOT the only one who was given authority. ALL of the apostles had this SAME authority to Bind and Loose. Peter was NOT given primacy over all of the other apostles.

Please visit the links below:

Binding and Loosing

Was Peter the "Rock"?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 19, 2003.

Kevin, you've been shown what scripture says, and then you've been shown what history says, and still you don't believe . . .

Gail

P.S. It is iron-clad. Irrefutable. Unequivocal! Ahhh, the beauty of scripture AND tradition! Thank you Lord Jesus!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 19, 2003.

No Gail, all we have been shown is isolated quotes from church fathers who did not agree 100 percent with catholic doctrine and isolated scriptures that are taken out of context.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 19, 2003.

Gail writes,

Kevin, you've been shown what scripture says, and then you've been shown what history says, and still you don't believe . . .

I have shown through scripture how your interpretation or should I say that Catholic Church's interpretation is NOT the truth according to the word of God and you still refuse to believe what God says. You would rather believe in what a man tells you (the Pope) instead of what God actually states in His word.

Gail continued,

P.S. It is iron-clad. Irrefutable. Unequivocal! Ahhh, the beauty of scripture AND tradition! Thank you Lord Jesus!

It is unfortunate that you have been deceived into believing that tradition is equal to the word of God today. We will be judged by what is written (John 12:48), NOT by your so called tradition.

Jesus did NOT establish the Catholic Church for this human establishment is far removed from the church Jesus stated He would build.

It is a ERRONEOUS claim of the Catholic Church that Jesus built His church upon the apostle Peter. This is FALSE and is DISPROVED by the New Testament. The Holy Spirit said in Ephesians 2:19-20 through the apostle Paul, "Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,"

Paul wrote to the church at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 3:10-11, "According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Jesus Christ IS the foundation upon which the church is built, NOT the apostle Peter. The fact that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the living God, MUST be preached in order for one to truly preach Christ. When Catholics claim that the church was built upon Peter, they make a FALSE claim, which PLAINLY CONTRADICTS the teachings of the Holy Spirit. This is a deadly offense against Christ.

The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, but he is NOT the head of the Lord's church. The New Testament CLEARLY, and emphatically teaches that JESUS CHRIST is the head of the church. (See Ephesians 5:23; 1:22; Colossians 1:18). These and other scriptures teach that CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH and that He is over ALL THINGS to the church. That leaves NO ROOM for Peter to be the head of the church, and it certainly doesn't leave any room for the Pope of Rome to be the head of the church in which Jesus Christ built.

It is unfortunate that you continue to hold to the ERRONEOUS and FALSE teachings of the Catholic Church. You won't have the Pope or tradition to blame on judgment day when you learn that you have believed a lie and trusted in man for your salvation instead of the God.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 19, 2003.

The last sentence should have read:

You won't have the Pope or tradition to blame on judgment day when you learn that you have believed a lie and trusted in man for your salvation instead of God.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 19, 2003.

Uh, David?

This is the same thing Martin Luther did and look at where you are at now. You are part of the domino effect started by Luther when he went against Church doctrine. It isn't as simple as you think, now is it?

I know; you're gonna say that you have nothing to do with the Reformation and that the Assemblies of God are not part of that domino effect. Uh.....let's see.......BALONEY!

Why not have a look at the fathers of the Assemblies of God and try to make some kind of assessment about their "inspiration" or "correctness". I'm confident that Kevin would disagree with your conclusions, as many here would also disagree.

My point?
There has too be one truth and one path by which all can agree. That true must be surmised or inspired by the Holy Spirit. You and I can read the Bible all of our lives and never agree on the truth that the Bible reveals. If it were up to both of us to convert the masses to Christianity, the masses are pretty much sunk. It would become a power struggle between us. Pretty much describes the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church; niether one is going to budge anytime soon. But, the bottom line is this:

Who is right?
Who has the history?
Who has the credentials?
Who do you believe?

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 19, 2003.

Kevin, you have shown me what YOU believe scripture is saying. That is ALL you have shown me.

I want you to give me one good reason . . . just one . . . why your interpretation is superior to that of mine.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 19, 2003.

Gail,

You wrote, "Kevin, you have shown me what YOU believe scripture is saying. That is ALL you have shown me."

No Gail, I have shown you what scripture actually states and NOT my own opinion of what scripture states. I believe EXACTLY what the word of God states is required in order to be saved and have not added, nor subtracted from His requirements.

Belief (or Faith) is required in to be saved (Catholics deny this with their infant baptism), Repentance is required in order to be saved (Catholics also deny this with their infant baptism), Confession is also required in order to be saved (Catholics once again deny this with infant baptism), and Baptism is required in order to wash away one's sins (Catholics negate this command of Jesus by stating that sprinkling or pouring is acceptable - this CANNOT be possible for baptism is a burial).

It is not hard to understand God's word, Men make it hard when they add to His word with their human creeds and catechisms.

You continued with,

"I want you to give me one good reason . . . just one . . . why your interpretation is superior to that of mine."

God states that the Gospel is His power to salvation (Romans 1:16), and obedience to the Gospel is the ONLY way for us to be saved (Romans 6:16-17). Those who do NOT know God and do NOT obey the Gospel will be subject to the wrath of God. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). The Catholic Church does NOT teach this doctrine that one must obey the gospel in order to be saved. I believe what God has said in His word and have obeyed His commandments in order to be saved. (John 14:15).

The word of God does NOT need an interpreter (the Catholic Church) for it is easy enough to understand what God requires if one has an honest and good heart and is willing to do ALL of what He requires for salvation. (See the parable of the sower in Luke chapter 8). We are admonished in 2 Timothy 2:15 to, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." You CANNOT do this if the word of God has already been interpreted for you. Each one of us is responsible for "rightly dividing the word of truth." I know my interpretation is correct because it agrees with the word of God. That is why I study His word and do my best to apply it to my life and try real hard in my writing to "abide in the doctrine of Christ". (2 John 9).

When I am wrong, I willing submit to the fact that I am wrong and am quick to apologize. Are you willing to do the same?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 19, 2003.

I agree with you on some of your interpretations of scripture, Kevin, but not all.

You certainly do not take Christ's words at face value with regard to the Eucharist, and they are pretty clear. Or at least they were to those who disserted Him.

Let me ask you this:

Are your beliefs as stated thus far on this forum 100% infallible? (Please just a "yes" or "no")

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 19, 2003.

Gail,

You wrote, "You certainly do not take Christ's words at face value with regard to the Eucharist, and they are pretty clear. Or at least they were to those who disserted Him."

I do take Christ's words "at face value with regard to the Eucharist" for these words are PLAINLY explained in v 63. I provided you a lengthy explanation of this in another thread.

You wrote, "Let me ask you this: Are your beliefs as stated thus far on this forum 100% infallible? (Please just a "yes" or "no")"

No man or woman is "infallible" (neither is the Pope), for God is the ONLY one who is "infallible". I have told you that my interpretation agrees with the word of God and have already answered this question although NOT to your satisfaction.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 19, 2003.

Kevin,

How do you know your interpretation agrees with God's?

Scripture has made it very clear that it is _the Church of the living God_ which is "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), and not your own opinions.

-- Andrea Schlosser (firstclass1095@yahoo.com), August 20, 2003.

Andrea,

Please go back and re-read what I wrote to Gail in yesterdays post when I said:

"Gail,

You wrote, "Kevin…"

This will answer your question.

Christ is the foundation, NOT the church. (See 1 Cor 3:11). The church can ONLY proclaim the truth from His word, NOT legislate truth as the Catholic Church falsely asserts.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 20, 2003.

For Catholics:

NO OFFICE OF POPE IN THE SCRIPTURES

By David J. Riggs

Those who claim that Peter was the Supreme Pontiff, the Pope, look to him and his successors as a source of authority. Christians, who deny that Peter was the Prince of the Apostles, look to the holy Scriptures alone as the standard of authority. Of course all understand that Jesus Christ, being the Son of God, Lord of Lords, and King of Kings, is the true source of authority in religion. However, does Christ express Himself, and thus guide and govern His church, through the Pope, or through the Scriptures alone?

If the Pope is a source of authority in religion, and not the Scriptures alone, we must look to him for instruction and guidance in matters of faith and practice. However, if the Bible is our only source of authority, we must look to it to furnish us to every good work and to guide us to heaven. If the Pope is not a true standard of authority, he is therefore the most colossal fraud ever perpetrated on man, and is the fulfillment of the prophecy of the "man of sin" in 2 Thess. 2:3-4. Here the apostle Paul declared, "Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God."

The holy Scriptures contain the laws of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37). All teachers are to be tested by the Scriptures to verify the truthfulness of their teaching (1 Cor. 4:6; Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1). The sacred writings are the standard which will judge us in the last day (Rev. 20:12). The Scriptures repeatedly warn us not to follow men (Col. 2:8; Eph. 4:14; Matt. 15:9; 2 Cor. 11:13-15). Indeed, "...Let God be true but every man a liar." (Rom. 3:4).

In order to prove the authority of the present day Pope, at least three things must be established by the holy Scriptures. First, it must be proven that Christ established such an office or position as that of Pope, or Vicar of Himself. Secondly, it must be established that Christ appointed Peter to the first such office. Thirdly, it must be proven that Christ ordained that Popes or Vicars would continue in succession from Peter to the end of time.

Let us consider first of all, "Did Christ establish such an office as that of Pope, or Vicar of Himself." An office of such magnitude as "Pope," "Supreme Pontiff," or "Vicar of Christ," should be clearly revealed in the Scriptures. If the office of Pope is true, it is without question the greatest office and position which has ever been or could be bestowed upon man. When we search the Scriptures, we discover that there is not a single reference which gives the slightest hint that Christ wanted a Vicar of Himself. The terms "Pope," "Supreme Pontiff," "Primacy of Peter" are not mentioned in the Scriptures. As a matter of fact, the only reference to someone taking the place of God (Christ Himself is God) is the "man of sin" in 2 Thess. 2:3-12. The only reference to the "Holy Father" is to God Himself (John 17:11). Surely, if Christ had intended to establish such a magnificent, supreme office as a Pope, He would have stated its powers, duties, and given the qualifications for its officers. Undoubtedly, He would have revealed to mankind how such officers are to be selected, and by what means they are to succeed one another.

When God appointed the Levitical priesthood in the Old Testament era, He defined in elaborate detail their qualifications and duties, i.e., the whole book of Leviticus. In the New Testament, bishops (also called pastors or elders) who were overseers of the local congregations, are distinctly and repeatedly mentioned (Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28-31; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). The terms "bishop" and "office" are clearly established (1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:5-7). Their qualifications and how they were to be appointed are plainly and clearly specified (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-11). Moreover, their functions and responsibilities are explicitly defined as is shown by the following:

Bishops (or elders) are to take heed to themselves. Acts 20:28

Bishops are to oversee the church. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; 1 Tim. 3:2- 5

Bishops are to feed the flock. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; Eph. 4:11

Bishops should seek to rule well. 1 Tim. 5:17; Rom. 12:5-8

Bishops are to admonish us. 1 Thess. 5:11-12

Bishops are stewards of God. Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:3

Bishops are to watch for souls. Heb. 13:17

Furthermore, the duties of the members toward the bishops are abundantly revealed in the Scriptures. Our responsibilities toward them are:

Recognize and esteem them highly. 1 Thess. 5:12-13

Obey and submit. Heb. 13:17

Receive the food and follow their example. 1 Pet. 5:1-3

Give double honor to those who rule well. 1 Tim. 5:17-18

Don't receive gossip against them. 1 Tim. 5:19

Use them. James 5:14-15

In contrast to the above, we do not find in the holy Scriptures a single mention or allusion to the office of a Pope. The qualifications for one, and the duties or powers of one are nowhere revealed. Successors are not mentioned. The responsibilities of the members toward such officer is never mentioned. In all of the holy Scriptures, there is not a single hint or allusion to an office of a Pope or Vicar of Christ. Instead, the Bible is emphatic in stating that Christ is the only foundation on which we can lay. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11). The Scriptures strongly affirm that Christ has all authority both in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). They state that Christ is head over all things in the Church (Eph. 1:22-23), and that He is "the" head, not "a" head, but "the" head of the body, the church (Eph. 5:23). They proclaim that in all things Christ holds the preeminence (Col. 1:18). For a mere man to claim to be head of Christ's body, the church, is to supplant the Lord, and is the height of arrogance and blasphemy. Truly, only the "man of sin" would attempt such (2 Thess. 2:3-12).

Catholics tell us that Christ is the head, but the Pope is the visible, sub-head of the church. They have simply assumed and then asserted that the Pope is the visible head. To assume something and then assert it, is no way to prove anything. We ask, "Where in the Scriptures does it mention a visible head of the church?" The church or kingdom is a spiritual one (Luke 17:20-21; John 18:36), and therefore needs a spiritual head or king. For Catholics to prove the authority of the Pope, they must prove that Christ wanted a visible sub-head, a viceregent, a representative or proxy. This is what the Pope is supposed to be. The Scriptures do not sanction or allow such. They clearly teach that Christ is "the" head over ALL things to the church.

In Eph. 5:23-24 the apostle Paul declares, "...Because a husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church, being himself savior of the body. But just as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things." Thus, the Scriptures plainly state that the church is subject to Christ, not to Peter as Christ's Vicar. Certainly, if Christ had appointed a Vicar to be the visible head of His church, the apostles would have mentioned it at least once in their inspired writings. Surely, they would have mentioned it in their discourses on the head and to whom the church is subject. Friends, the Sacred Oracles say that the church is "subject to Christ." To whom will you be subject, to Christ, or, to an authority which can only be established by humans? As we mentioned, "Let God be true, but every man a lair..." (Rom. 3:4).

The Scriptures teach that the wife is subject to her husband as the church is to Christ. Just as the wife is subject to only one head-- her husband, the church is subject to only one head--Christ. Just as the husband does not send a substitute or vicar to rule over his wife, Christ does not authorize a vicar to rule over His body, the church.

The church is often compared to the human body in the Scriptures. The members of the church are represented as the various parts of the body. Christ is always said to be the head. (See 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15-16). Our question is: "What part of the body is the Pope?" Also, "How does one get the idea of a sub-head into the body?"

In Eph. 4:11-12, Paul lists the officers of the church over which Christ is the head, "And he himself gave some men as apostles, and some as prophets, others again as evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers, in order to perfect the saints for a work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ..." Paul lists: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, but no Pope. Definitely, this would have been a logical place to mention the office of Pope, but alas, it is not there. He lists the offices which are clearly established in the Scriptures both here and elsewhere. However, both here and elsewhere, there is absolutely no mention of a Pope. There is no mention of any of the other names by which the Pope is addressed. As we mentioned, the only time the term, "Holy Father" is found, it is used of God Himself (John 17:11). Notice that in Eph. 4:11-12 those offices were given for the perfecting of the saints and building up of the body. Thus, the office of Pope adds nothing to the perfection of the saints or edification of the body. It adds nothing because it comes from man rather than God.

Since there is no mention of the office of the Pope, or any of the many other names which the Pope has assumed (Supreme Pontiff, Vicar of Christ, Holy Father), we must conclude that such an office does not exist. If the office does not exist, Peter could not have been placed into that office, and there could be no successors to that office. As we mentioned, the nearest thing to one claiming to take the place of God is the "man of sin" revealed in Paul's prophecy of the great apostasy. We quote it in full here, and encourage you to read and study it carefully.

"Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things? And now you know what restrains him, that he may be revealed in his proper time. For the mystery of iniquity is already at work; provided only that he who is at present restraining it, does still restrain, until he is gotten out of the way. And then the wicked one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth and will destroy with the brightness of his coming. And his coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all wicked deception to those who are perishing. For they have not received the love of truth that they might be saved. Therefore God sends them a misleading influence that they may believe falsehood, that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have preferred wickedness."

The Papacy has already fulfilled the prophecy, for it agrees in all the following points:

It has one official man as it head, and the arrogance of its claims are centered in him.

That man came with and out of an apostasy, the very kind the apostles describe elsewhere (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Acts 20:28-31; 2 Pet. 2:1-3). He exalts himself against all that is called God; i.e., he is addressed by terms (Pope, Supreme Pontiff, Holy Father, etc.) which belong only to God.

He sits in the temple of God, i.e., his sphere of dominion is in the church.

His appearance was hindered by some force in Paul's time (2 Thess. 2:6-7); i.e., when the bishops of Rome began to assert power, they were in conflict with the Roman civil government which dominated and persecuted; however, when the Roman empire collapsed, the Roman church became powerful.

The mystery of iniquity was already working in Paul's day (2 Thess. 2:7) and would continue until the Lord's coming (2 Thess. 2:8).

The Lord shall destroy him with the brightness of His coming (2 Thess. 2:8). Only by a continual succession of these men of sin could be this possible.

The apostasy would produce fraudulent miracles, signs and wonders; i.e., supposed cures brought about by relics and shrines.

The whole system is perfected through people's lack of love for truth (2 Thess. 2:10); i.e., Catholics do not love and respect the holy Scriptures as the only authority in religion, but rely on the Pope along with the Scriptures.

This is a serious matter. Eternity is involved. Please ask yourself these questions: "Am I following the man of sin of the great apostasy or, am I following Christ?" "Have I been building my hope of heaven on the false assumption that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ?" We hope you will turn from that false assumption and become a simple New Testament Christian, a follower of Christ and none other, a member of Christ's church, and nothing else.

Copied from: No Office of Pope in the Scriptures

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 20, 2003.

Andrea,

would you please provide the passage where it says something about our "opinions". If you are refering to the "private interpretations" scripture, I would like you to know that it is talking about the origin of it, not who can interpret it. What is meant is that the scriptures are not made of men, because it is God's perfect word. The Holy Spirit was the author of it, dictated it also.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 20, 2003.

How about we just take the scripture at face value rather than read our own biases into it!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 21, 2003.

For anyone who doesn't know what Gail means by "face value", well I'll give an example:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

That is "face value".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2003.

Supposedly, the above verse is used by the Catholic Church (or rather misused) to prove that they are the only interpreters of the Holy Scriptures. After reading the whole passage, one concludes that it is talking about the origin of scripture and not who can interpret it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2003.

Okay, well, David, let's just look at the portion you didn't cross out, according to Strong's.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy (forth-telling of the will and mind of God) of the scripture (written Word of God) is of any private (one's own, his own, alone) interpretation, (to loose, solve, explain, give a solution).

Isn't that exactly what you have in Protestantism, men "solving" "explaining" "loosing" their "private interpretation" on scripture?

The second part that you crossed out does not negate the first part!

Gail

2 Peter 3:16 . . . as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 21, 2003.

Gail, that is what it would mean if we isolate the verse. We have to look at the context. Your pretext doesn't prove Catholicism right.

The following is 2 Peter 1:20,21 in different bible versions.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: New International Version (NIV) Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB) But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: The Message (MSG) The main thing to keep in mind here is that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private opinion. And why? Because it's not something concocted in the human heart. Prophecy resulted when the Holy Spirit prompted men and women to speak God's Word.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: Amplified Bible (AMP) [Yet] first [you must] understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is [a matter] of any personal or private or special interpretation (loosening, solving). For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so--it never came by human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: New Living Translation (NLT) Above all, you must understand that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophets themselves or because they wanted to prophesy. It was the Holy Spirit who moved the prophets to speak from God.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: King James Version (KJV) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: English Standard Version (ESV) knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: Contemporary English Version (CEV) But you need to realize that no one alone can understand any of the prophecies in the Scriptures. The prophets did not think these things up on their own, but they were guided by the Spirit of God.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: New King James Version (NKJV) knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) knowing this first: that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. for the prophecy came not in olden times by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: American Standard Version (ASV) knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE) First you must understand this. The words from the prophets in the holy writings did not come from their own minds. The prophets did not say what they wanted to say. But the Holy Spirit made them speak. And they spoke God's message.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: Young's Literal Translation (YLT) this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition, for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: Darby Translation (DARBY) knowing this first, that [the scope of] no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation, for prophecy was not ever uttered by [the] will of man, but holy men of God spake under the power of [the] Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: Wycliffe New Testament (WYC) And first understand ye this thing, that each prophecy of scripture is not made by proper interpretation; [First understanding this thing, that each prophecy of scripture is not made by proper, or own, interpretation;] for prophecy was not brought any time by man's will, but the holy men of God inspired with the Holy Ghost spake.

2 Peter 1:20-21 :: New International Version - UK (NIV-UK) Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I believe the NIV has the best translation you can understand Gail.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2003.

Hi David.

I am quite skeptical of the "popular" Bible versions/translations that are out there. The only reason I have so many different Bibles is for clarification of the basic meaning. I really have to do more "digging" for the "true" meanings of the Scriptures. The NIV shouldn't be the final resource, as I'm sure you already know this. I don't put too much faith in any "paraphrased" version either. But, I think that newcomers who need smaller portions to digest would do fine and should eventually graduate to the more "traditional" versions. Of course, I will always resort to the Catholic versions (many of them) and the English Standard Version. The King James Version, which contains the Deuterocanical Books, is "o.k" for the general idea. Afterall, I did learn that "foxes have holes".

rod..<

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 21, 2003.

I believe in that the King James Version is the best version. Tell me, if you believe there is only one true church how come you don't believe there is only one true bible?

Anyways, we have already talked about the Apocrypha and why it is not inspired. The Catholic church did not give us the N.T. either. This is where Gail's church fathers are helpful, they show us that they had the canon long before the RCC made it "official".

The Catholic bible is a good translation, except for the Apocrypha which shouldn't be there, but I suggest having different bibles to compare.

The King James Writers did NOT consider the Apocrypha as inspired.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 21, 2003.

David were you addressing me? I'll answer.

David:I believe in that the King James Version is the best version.

rod:Well, it was written in retaliation toward the Catholic Church. And, it was an attempt to use the language and style of the times. All languages becomes unfamiliar over time. Some languages remain universal: latin, latin, latin.

David:Tell me, if you believe there is only one true church how come you don't believe there is only one true bible?

rod:(If you are asking me...)You might want to review my comments as to my ecumenical influence (if any). I don't believe that there is "one true" translation that is 100% pure and error free. "Lilith" proved this, along with several other edits. Also, our languages do change over time and certain words lose their original meanings. I also believe that meanings of the Scriptures reveal themselves over time. The most obvious Gospels do not change, but as man grows, man is given more "light".

David:Anyways, we have already talked about the Apocrypha and why it is not inspired. The Catholic church did not give us the N.T. either. This is where Gail's church fathers are helpful, they show us that they had the canon long before the RCC made it "official".

rod:The name "Catholic" was just a name given in order to unify and establish a consistency of what was already in belief.

David:The Catholic bible is a good translation, except for the Apocrypha which shouldn't be there, but I suggest having different bibles to compare.

rod:Yes, we will probably never agree; you say "toe-may-toe";I say "toe-mah-toe"; You say "Apocrypha"; I say "Deuterocanonical".

David:The King James Writers did NOT consider the Apocrypha as inspired.

rod:You can probably blame Martin Luther, Henry VIII, and many others who followed (Benny Hill....uh , Hinn) for starting the rebellious behaviour and opening a can of worms for the state of Christianity today. (BTW, Sirach describes Jewish life.)

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 21, 2003.

Here is a little bit of logic:

If the Jews lived by the inspired laws given to Moses by god...

If the Jews tailored there customs and traditions on those inspirations...

If the Jews lived by their belief in God...

If the Jews lived by the Old Testament...

If the Jews lived believing the O.T. as the inspiration of God...

If the Jews' lives are written about in the Deuterocanical...

It is only logical that those books should reamain as do the other O.T. books reamain.

rod ...

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 21, 2003.

Good Morning,

David, you keep saying the Catholic Church did not give us the N.T. Just to clarify, the scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Church, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, "made it official" at the above mentioned councils. The teachings on purgatory, veneration of the saints, Mary were already established (loosely) at the time of the officialization, as is evidenced by the voluminous writings of the fathers.

You said on another thread that you do not deem anyone a Christian who holds to these "Catholic" doctrines. So your view would have to be that NON-Christians officiated the N.T. canon; Is that what you believe?

Athanasius, who stood the tide against Arianism, in your view, was not even a Christian . . . right? Because he definitely WAS Catholic in his beliefs.

History proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that church leaders have ALWAYS CONDEMNED private interpretation of scripture because they knew it would lead to schism . . . which it has!

Gail

P.S. I have a KJV WITH the Apochrypha (my favorite Bible).

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 22, 2003.

Gail says, "History proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that church leaders have ALWAYS CONDEMNED private interpretation of scripture because they knew it would lead to schism . . . which it has!"

Gail thinks that men (and women) are too IGNORANT to understand the Bible, so we CANNOT have a private interpretation of the word of God because it leads to schism. That is why Catholics claim to be the sole interpreter of the Bible because we (the laity as they call it) cannot understand what God has PLAINLY written in His word.

Please review the following:

IS THE BIBLE UNDERSTANDABLE?

By David J. Riggs

The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is not understandable.

Notice the following: "Secondly, the Bible is not a clear and intelligible guide to all. There are many passages in the Bible which are difficult and obscure, not only to the ordinary person, but to the highly trained scholar as well. St. Peter himself tells us that in the Epistles of St. Paul there are 'certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction' (II Peter 3:16)." (The Faith of Millions, pp. 152-153).

"We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith...because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of highest importance..." (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 73).

The passage quoted above by the Catholic writer (2 Pet. 3:16) does not state that the Scriptures are not clear and intelligible to all. Peter simply said that in Paul's writings are certain things "hard" (not "impossible") to be understood. He said that the unlearned and unstable wrest (twist, distort) these, as they do the other Scriptures (the Old Testament ones) to their own destruction. In other words, their misuse (twisting, distorting, mis-applying) of the Scriptures would cause their eternal destruction.

Peter went on to say in the next verses, "You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Pet. 3:17-18). Thus, Peter admonished Christians to grow in knowledge lest they, too, like the unlearned and unstable, wrest or distort difficult passages to their own destruction. This instruction of the beloved apostle is far removed from the Catholic claim.

There is much misunderstanding of the Bible when men try to harmonize Catholic teaching with the Bible for in many instances it is contrary to it. For example, the Catholic Church practices pouring water as a mode for baptism, but the Bible teaches immersion or a burial in water (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12; Acts 8:38-39). Thus, in such matters, instead of rejecting the false teachings of the Catholic Church, many conclude that the Bible is not a clear and intelligible book. Many so-called Protestants do likewise. When comparing their human traditions with the Bible, instead of abandoning their man-made doctrines, they say, "the Bible is a mysterious and difficult book."

The inspired writers declared that the things which they wrote were understandable (1 Cor. 1:13; Eph. 3:3-5). The many passages which compel us to read, study, search, and grow in knowledge imply that the Scriptures are understandable. The fact that God commanded these things shows that He Himself considers His Word understandable. God made the mind of man and is fully capable of addressing man in words which he can understand. God will judge all men by the Scriptures in the last day (Rev. 20:12).

Will He judge men by a standard which cannot be understood?

Copied from: Is the Bible understandable?

Did the Catholic Church give us the New Testament? Check out the link below:

Did the Catholic Church give us the Bible?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 22, 2003.

The Catholic Church exhorts its members to feed on the Word of God daily. The Catholic Church understands the devastating effects of schism and realizes what happens when man, in his own strength, endeavors to expound the Word of God without a guide.

According to Kevin, I am "still in my sins", "God doesn't hear me." Likewise, David cannot even admit that the Church fathers were Christian because, afterall, they were "Catholic" Hence, he carries a Bible declared canonical by NON-Christians!

My guess is that neither of you can consider each other brothers in the Lord either. I have an Assembly of God sister-in-law who cannot REALLY believe that Baptists are of the sort she should fellowship. I have a Word of Faith friend who feels the same way about any non- tongue speaking Christians. So it goes in Protestantism ... one group pitted against another, each regarding each other with suspicion.

And why is it that both of you cannot call me your sister-in-the- Lord? Because I do not believe your PRIVATE interpretation of scripture!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 22, 2003.

Gail, the church of Rome is not united. With Catholicism is right?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 22, 2003.

David,

Gail would rather have someone else tell her what she is to believe. She has no problem when it comes to understanding any other book, but when it comes to the word of God then she CANNOT understand it without an interpreter. Who can believe it?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 29, 2003.

And yet Gail's Church has not disintegrated into thousands of squabbling denominations teaching conflicting doctrine but all claiming to be biblically correct. Seems like that Church must be doing something right! Jesus said "by their fruits shall ye know them". When the fruit of one system is 2,000 years of unchanging doctrinal truth and worldwide unity of belief, and the fruit of another system is 450 years of division, fragmentation, and doctrinal chaos, what can we deduce from this observable situation? The Bible says the Holy Spirit is a spirit of order, not confusion. Which system seems more orderly? The Bible says a house divided against itself cannot stand. Does this sound more like Catholicism or denominational religion? Jesus prayed "Father, that they all may be ONE, even as you Father and I are ONE". Where can such unity of teaching be found today? Only where Jesus Himself guaranteed it would be - in the One Church He founded for all men!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 08, 2003.

Go back and READ the response I posted to the Catholic Moderator (aka Paul) in the "Is the Catholic Church the True Church" thread about all of the things that Catholics said to me in their forum.

This is a TRUE statement "by their fruits you will know them".

We really saw the TRUE "fruit" of Catholics during the Inquisition. If they had the same power now that they did then, there is NO doubt in my mind that people would still be burned at the stake.

I challenge anyone to go over to the Catholic forum and see their "fruits", calling people names, insulting them, threatening to ban them etc.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 08, 2003.

Kevin, you are speaking about one man and his sadistic/masochistic methods--Torquemada. You are also leaving out the problem with conversos who would have definately destroyed the doctrine. The methods used were wrong. Those methods were employed by men. This is much like Jim Jones and his methods. So, the idea of mixing evil men as representing the Church simply doesn't make any sense.

rod..

..<

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 08, 2003.

Am I to conclude that the only person in this forum who we should believe is you? If I bring up the names of Luther or Henry VIII, you will include them in your list of infamous "fruits'. No, wait. I can hear your voice now,"It isn't me you should believe nor my interpretations because it is God's Word that is clear." But, listen to your perceptions of His Word. You have fail to find any Salvation for any case study that I have provided. You have settled for their damnation. Can you see that God isn't as clear cut as your indoctrinations imply? Do you know what Devine Mercy is? I truly wonder what the church of Christ is all about. Could it be a meeting of individuals center on self-salvation? Is is a community of believers or a room of theologians? Would I feel comforted and joyful in your congregation? We shall know them by their "fruit" can work both ways.

rod.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 08, 2003.

Kevin, you surely know that the Reformation began a revolt that took the lives of millions of people, don't you? Not only did it spark the murder of 30 million peasants in Germany, but that schism waylaid all of Europe and still does to some extent.

But, I would like a honest answer from Kevin and David to a question I have. It's not a trick question . . . honestly!! In all the many many threads I have posted on the Church fathers, if you had to categorize these fellows as either "Catholic" or "Protestant", based on their writings, which would it be?

The reason I ask is because I heard William Webster on the Bible Answer Man last week. He has written a book entitled "Holy Scripture, the pillar and foundation of the truth." (Notice the misuse of scripture in the very name of his book!!) His book states that the Church fathers -- all of them -- were Protestant evangelicals really, even though they were "Catholic". Methinks the fellow has mistated his case to the point of absurdity . . . and culpability!!

But anyway, seriously, I would like a honest answer from David and Kevin since they are not Catholic.

Thanks,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 08, 2003.

"Am I to conclude that the only person in this forum who we should believe is you? If I bring up the names of Luther or Henry VIII, you will include them in your list of infamous "fruits'. No, wait. I can hear your voice now,"It isn't me you should believe nor my interpretations because it is God's Word that is clear." But, listen to your perceptions of His Word. You have fail to find any Salvation for any case study that I have provided. You have settled for their damnation. Can you see that God isn't as clear cut as your indoctrinations imply? Do you know what Devine Mercy is?"

I have never stated, NOR will I ever state that someone has to believe Kevin now have I rod? I have said and will continue to say that one has to believe God in order to be saved. It is the gospel that is the power of God to salvation, (Rom. 1:16) and ALL who do NOT obey the gospel will be lost (2 Thes. 1:7-9). This is NOT hard to understand except when people let their Catholic or denominational bias (works salvation or faith only salvation) get in the way of the truth of what God has PLAINLY revealed in His word what one must do in order to be saved. NONE of those case studies that you have provided obeyed the gospel. Catholics do not obey the gospel, nor do those who are in denominations. God IS as clear cut as I have stated and you have not provided any evidence to refute this fact. Yes, Jesus is merciful however, He will ONLY save those who OBEY Him. (Heb. 5:9).

"I truly wonder what the church of Christ is all about." Could it be a meeting of individuals center on self-salvation? Is is a community of believers or a room of theologians? Would I feel comforted and joyful in your congregation?"

The ONLY way for you to find out is for you to go to one of the churches of Christ in your community and worship God with them there. I am sure that they will be able to answer any questions that you have concerning what somone must do to be saved. The apostle Paul told those on the day of Pentecost to "Be saved from this perverse generation." (Acts 2:40). The same call is true today!!! The ONLY way to know for sure the answers to your questions above is to visit your local church of Christ.

Gail,

Sorry, I cannot honestly answer your question because I have not, nor do I have any desire to read any of these church fathers for what they believed or wrote is of no significance. The ONLY thing that matters is what God has revealed in the NT.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 09, 2003.

It is plain foolish to point to the sins of men as representative of the church they belong to. The excesses of the Inquisition - the real excesses I mean, not all the folklore and fiction that has been spawned by the likes of Chick and Boettner - are no more representative of Catholic teaching than the witch hunts culminating in the hanging and burning of hundreds of innocent women by superstitious Protestants was representative of Protestant teaching. Such sins are clearly deviations AWAY FROM the teachings of these churches, not examples of their teaching. All men sin. But not all churches teach the fullness of truth. Pointing to the sins of men is simply a tactic designed to direct attention away from the real issue - the reliability of doctrinal truth. And those who resort to such tactics obviously have serious doubts about the authority and validity of their own church's teaching.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 10, 2003.

Well now, I cannot say all the 'church fathers' were Roman Catholic because the only quotes you show us are the ones that support Roman doctrine. And even those 'church fathers' are not Roman Catholic because the Roman organization did not exist until aroud 300?AD and derived from 4,000 year old pagan doctrines. The 'church fathers' that would be deemed as 'protestant' are seen as heretics by the Roman organization.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

You know David, I really didn't ask this question to spar some sort of match with you, but I see that that is all you are able to do. It should irk you to your innermost being that a fellow so-called believer, such as William Webster, would have the audacity to misquote a scripture and use it for the name of his book! But like so many fundies I have met, the end justifies the means, even if you have to pervert history and scripture to do it.

BTW, Mr. Webster and Hank Hanengraf claim that AUGUSTINE, OF ALL PEOPLE, was "Protestant in his beliefs." They name Ignatius, Clement, Athanasius as Protestants as well, which is SOOO completely absurd that it would be laughable if it weren't so INCREDIBLY dishonest.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 10, 2003.

Gail,

I heard that broadcast and it is you who is making the assumption that he twisted scriptures. He said he got the name of the book from a church father quote, not scripture.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

So it's okay to misquote scripture as long as someone else did it before you? Hummm, never heard that before. Very clever indeed.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 11, 2003.

Here's Irenaeus (One of Mr. Webster's star witness in favor of sola scriptura, and the one from whom he derives the title for his book):

"True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199),in ANF,I:508

Here's a review on the book:

REVIEW

Lets summarize the work of Catholic scholar and theologian Yves Congar -- since Webster and King have tried to use him to support their Protestant fundamentalist/evangelical assertions -- from Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (1967), pages 23ff

(A) The true Catholic Faith and true interpretation of the Scriptures is found only in the Church which is bound up with the succession of its ministers (apostolic succession, not of doctrine only -- as wrongly claimed by Webster/King -- but of its bishops, ministers, pastors succeeding the authority of the apostles);

(B) The "rule of faith" or "rule of truth" was not the whole of Tradition; it may be the principal part, but there are other things transmitted from the apostles by tradition: rules of discipline, conduct/behavior, on worship/liturgy, etc.

(C) The content of tradition consisted "materially" of the Scriptures, but "formally" of the Faith of the Catholic Church, its reading of the Scriptures in the Creed, etc; the mere text of Scripture alone was insufficient; heretics also quoted Scripture but they did not read that Scripture in the context of the Tradition or the orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church;

(D) The Catholic Church alone has received the apostolic deposit of truth, for in her the Holy Spirit of truth lives (John 14:16f; 16:13f); the Church alone is the sole inheritor of the true Christian teaching from God through Christ to the Apostles;

(E) This Tradition -- the Churchs Tradition -- is itself oral; and if there were no NT Scriptures it would have been sufficient for the Church to follow "the order of tradition" received from the apostles; in the minds of the early Christians it made no difference if the transmission was purely oral since there was an assured connection to the apostles through the Churches founded by the apostles to guarantee authenticity;

(F) Scripture was everything for the Fathers, and Tradition was everything also;

(G) What was the nature of the Church of the Fathers? It was one universal visible Church ruled by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters/priests, deacons, etc in succession from the apostles (apostolic succession, again not "succession of doctrine" only);

(H) The entire activity of the Fathers demonstrates that they united three terms that were separated and set in opposition by the controversies of the 16th century -- these three terms were Scripture, Tradition, and Church; it was always affirmed that Scripture is the rule and norm of faith only when conjoined to the Church and her Tradition;

(I) Hence, the Scriptures were never considered by the Fathers as formally "sufficient" or exclusive.

See also Congar in "Excursis A: The Sufficiency of Scripture According to the Fathers and Medieval Theologians" for his conclusions on "material sufficiency" in the Fathers.

Congar demonstrates and concludes (after much evidence and analysis) that the Church Fathers did not believe in Sola Scriptura in the "formal sufficiency" sense required by the Protestant Reformers. Webster/King accept this distinction and set out to prove "formal sufficiency" from many quotations of the Fathers. However, they fail to overthrow the consistent conclusions of Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, and Congar above.

Joe Gallegos in his 160 pages on the Fathers (see Not By Scripture Alone, p. 389-554), following Congars research, analysis and conclusions, has conceded the "material sufficiency" of Scripture in the Fathers, so "formal sufficiency" is where the debate needs to center. The vast majority of quotations brought forward by Webster/King on the authority, inspiration, inerrancy, power, beauty, etc of Holy Scripture in the Fathers ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE. Even the perspicuity (clearness and clarity) of Scripture in the Fathers contradicts the assertions of Webster/King since the Fathers universally interpreted the text of Scripture in accordance with Catholic doctrine today (despite Websters assertions on Matthew 16:18 which is not a problem -- note the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Matthew 16:18f, paragraphs 424, 442, 552, 586, 756, 881, etc).

Webster/King really could have saved us and them a lot of time by cutting out a great amount of irrelevant material from the three volumes, perhaps add more of a direct "biblical defense" (which is where ultimately their case must be established) of Sola Scriptura, and trimmed it down to one book of about 500 pages.

Volume 3 contains a lot of quotations from the Church Fathers, about 99% of which are irrelevant since no Church Father pitted the Tradition of the Catholic Church or the Dogmas of the Catholic Church AGAINST Scripture, which is what Webster/King would have you believe.

Vatican Council II affirms Sola Scriptura to the fullest extent according to their logic since: the Council Fathers teach the inspiration and authority of Scripture; the inerrancy of Scripture; quote from 2 Tim 3:16-17 the classical Protestant proof text; call Scripture the "Word of God"; say the Word of God for the Church is the "supreme rule of her faith"; that Scripture presents Gods own Word in an unalterable form; they are the voice of the Holy Spirit bringing the words of the prophets and apostles to us; that ALL the preaching of the Church, and the ENTIRE Christian religion should be ruled by Scripture; the Word of God has force and power as the Churchs support and vigor; the children of the Church get strength for their faith, food for the soul, and find a pure fount of spiritual life in Holy Scripture (see Vatican II Dei Verbum, 11, 21).

If you are an Evangelical or Catholic interested in this issue, you should get these volumes. Then take out the 38 volumes of the Fathers edited by Protestant scholars and see what Webster/King do not tell you. They are available online. And dont forget to purchase the 600 page Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura and compare especially the chapters by Sungenis, Blosser, and Gallegos where they have already answered much that is found in the Webster/King volumes.

Phil Porvaznik

You see, David, it's not scripture versus tradition, it's scripture AND tradition. The detractors always try to pit them against each other, which the Fathers NEVER did. Did they hold scripture in high esteem? You betcha! But they also were strict adherents to the teachings of the Church (tradition) in light of scripture!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 11, 2003.

Gail,

Roman tradition does not agree with the bible!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 13, 2003.

Yes it does!!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 13, 2003.

I believe most likely the first Pope, if we can use this word which did not exist then, was Saint Paul.

Only the Bible mentions the followeres of Paul in Rome in Ch. 16 or Romans. And only the last chapeter of Acts says Paul was the first apostle to be in Rome, since the Jewish leaders there wanted to know what the Christian doctrine was.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 13, 2003.

Peter is never mentioned in scripture to be in Rome. The only place is Babylon, which still existed in Peter's day.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 13, 2003.

Yikes! I once made that comment and had to run for cover. Peter was never in Rome, but.....

rod..

,,

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 13, 2003.

THE ROCK ~ THE 2000 YEAR OLD MOST HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS :

It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well- founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.

That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ's prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not -- "And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God" (John, xxi, 18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.

St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (v, 13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Apoc., xvii, 5; xviii, 10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).

From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xv; III, xl; VI, xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, i). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.

Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): "Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles--St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory". He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom "among us" (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chap. Iv). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.

In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: "I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive" (Ad. Rom., iv). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.

Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says: "You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom" (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii).

Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as "the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" (Adv. haer., III, iii; cf. III, i). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.

In his "Hypotyposes" (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xiv), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: "After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them".

Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In "De Praescriptione", xxxv, he says: "If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John" (scil. the Baptist). In "Scorpiace", xv, he also speaks of Peter's crucifixion. "The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross". As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book ("On Baptism", ch. v) that there is "no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber"; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, "to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood" (Adv. Marc., IV, v).

The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his "Dialogue with Proclus" (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii) directed against the Montanists: "But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church". By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to "the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial- places there" (i.e. at Rome).

There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment ("Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat", ed. Preuschen, Tubingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter's death in Rome.

The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome. ~ Catholic Encyclopedia

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 15, 2003.

I have already read all of these passages, James.

As you can see, none come from our accepted texts (New Testament).

If you read the story where Jesus says "Quo Vadis " to Peter. Notice who ordered his execution.

It wasn't Nero, who then was the Emperor, but Agrippa, who was the King of Judea then. This shows Peter was crucified in or around Jerusalem, not by the vatican Hill as it is assumed today.

Could Peter's rests be now be buried in Rome? Probably. This I cannot argue since it was common, and it is still common to break the bones of the saints and take them to other places.

This they did to Mother teresa of calcutta. The news only mentioned her blood.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 15, 2003.

Elpidio,

Obviously, your sole singular self is contesting an Encyclopedia, and Catholic! for that matter. Do you have any disagreement with The U.S. Constitution as well? If you do, I bet you think you are right and the U.S. Constitution is wrong.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 15, 2003.

The Constitution of the declaration of Independence, or the bill of rights.

In the beginning, Blacks, who were slaves counted as 3/5 s. That was wrong. Women coudn't vote. That was wrong. Indians and Hispanics couldn't be citizens. That was wrong.

Thank God for ammendments.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 15, 2003.

Now, James, the Acts of Peter, not in the Bible, mention Peter at Rome, but who is his judge, not Nero.

Acts of Peter.

[This last chapter, and the last sentence of XL, are thought by Vouaux to be an addition by the author of i-iii, in other words by the compiler of the Greek original of the Vercelli Acts.]

But Nero, learning thereafter that Peter was departed out of this life, blamed the prefect Agrippa, because he had been put to death without his knowledge; for he desired to punish him more sorely and with greater torment, because Peter had made disciples of certain of them that served him, and had caused them to depart from him: so that he was very wrathful and for a long season spake not unto Agrippa: for he sought to destroy all them that had been made disciples by Peter. And he beheld by night one that scourged him and said unto him: Nero, thou canst not now persecute nor destroy the servants of Christ: refrain therefore thine hands from them. And so Nero, being greatly affrighted by such a vision, abstained from harming the disciples at that time when Peter also departed this life.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 15, 2003.

James,this is the Agrippa in the Acts of Peter.

Herod Agrippa II

Herod Arippa II was the son of Herod Agrippa I and Cypros, and great- grandson of Herod the Great. Claudius (see Roman Emperors) made him tetrarch of the provinces of Philippi and Lysanias, with the title of king. He enlarged the city of Caesarea Philippi, and called it Neronias, in honor of Emperor Nero. It was before him and Bernice that Paul made his defence at Caesarea (Acts 25:13-27, 26:1-32). Herod Agrippa II died at Rome about 100 A.D.

See the rest of The Herods.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 15, 2003.

The Amendments are part of the U.S. Constitution.

You have already declared that your own personal interpretations and translations of biblical passages were right and the 2000 year old Sacred and Infallible Most Holy Catholic Church was wrong.

Now you are declaring that the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong and your personal assertion that Peter was not in Rome is right.

Wow!

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 15, 2003.

It is not me who says it, James

Origin preferred the Hebrew text to the Septuagint. That is why the Church doesn't consider him a saint.

Jerome (400 AD)preferred the hebrew text of the scriptures from the Masoretic text to the Septuagint . He used them for the vulgate. The Vulgate was later revised to conform to the Septuagint.

Luther knew Hebrew. He left the Catholic Church when the Church refused to see things the Bible way.

Fray Luis de Leon (1591)knew Hebrew. For 4 years he suffered until he broke down.

The founder of the Ecole Biblique (1930s)knew Hebrew. He had to suffer in his last days because he wanted to conform the Vulgate to the archeological finds in Palestine(now Israel). His traslating group gave us the Catholic Bible of jerusalem which uses God's name as Yahweh.

Only one other Bible, Catholic of course, uses God's name: Yavé, La Biblia Latinoamericana.

So James, those who know hebrew, tend to see the light.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 24, 2003.

taken from < a href:"http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi- bin/citw.cgi?">The table.

Barcelona’s archbishop bans Küng . Banned from giving a lecture in a Barcelona church, Professor Hans Küng has criticised “the limited outlook of senior officials”, and challenged the head of the Church in Barcelona to a public debate. The Swiss theologian was due to speak on 11 November in the fourteenth-century church of Santa Maria Del Pi. But the Archbishop of Barcelona, Cardinal Ricard María Carlés, denied him permission to use any church in his archdiocese. In a statement explaining the decision, Cardinal Carlés’s office noted that Küng’s canonical mission to teach as a Catholic theologian had been withdrawn by the Vatican. Küng “has marked the 25 years of the papacy of John Paul II by publishing an article on the person of the Holy Father that is disrespectful and lacking in objectivity”, the statement said.

The Swiss theologian was in Spain to promote his autobiography, reports Julius Purcell from Barcelona. Cardinal Carlés had asked the the co-organisers of the speaking event – Unesco and the World Parliament of Religions – to ensure that Küng did not make his speech in a church. They had “immediately complied” with the cardinal’s request and relocated the meeting to Barcelona University, the statement added.

An audience of 600, some seated on the floor due to lack of space, listened to Küng’s talk on “The Importance of Inter-religious and Intercultural Dialogue in my Life” in the elegant surroundings of Barcelona University’s Paraninfo.

The publicity surrounding the ban is unlikely to have harmed sales of Küng’s autobiography, appropriately entitled My Struggle for Freedom. In it he refers to John Paul as “an authoritarian and senile Polish Pope”.

Küng said he deplored the ban. “There has been enough dictatorship and prohibition from speaking in public,” in recent Spanish history, he said. He challenged Cardinal Carlés to a public debate on theology. “In order to criticise, the first thing one has to do is to read the books, not just to condemn them”, he told The Tablet.

Anyone who reads his books can “see clearly that I am a faithful Catholic”, Küng went on. “Whoever reads my autobiography can witness that I am used to putting up with the limited outlook of senior officials and their entourage. But this can never shake my Catholic faith.”

At the age of 75, Küng added, he would not “give in” to a “regression” to the times before the Second Vatican Council.

Now emeritus professor of theology at Tübingen University in Germany, Küng was a theological adviser to the Second Vatican Council alongside his then colleague, Joseph Ratzinger..

The bolding is mine.

Another theologian who knows Hebrew.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 24, 2003.

Elucidation. The editor of this American Series confines himself in general to such occasional and very brief annotations as may suggest to students and others the practical views which are requisite to a clear comprehension of authors who wrote for past ages; for a sort and condition of men no longer existing, whose extinction as a class is, indeed, largely due to these writings. But he reserved to himself the privilege of correcting palpable mistakes, especially in points which bear upon questions of our own times.

That our learned translators have unaccountably admitted a very inaccurate translation of the crucial paragraph in book iii. cap. iii. sect. 2, I have shown in the footnote at that place. It is evident, (1) because they themselves are not satisfied with it, and (2) because I have set it side by side with the more literal rendering of a writer who would have preferred their reading if it could have borne the test of criticism.

Now, the authors of the Latin translation486 may have designed the ambiguity which gives the Ultramontane party an apparent advantage; but it is an advantage which disappears as soon as it is examined, and hence I am content to take it as it stands. Various conjectures have been made as to the original Greek of Irenaeus; but the Latin answers every purpose of the author's argument, and is fatal to the claims of the Papacy. Let me recur to the translation given, in loco, from a Roman Catholic, and this will be seen at once.

For he thus renders it:-

1. In this Church, "ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from apostles." How would such a proposition have sounded to Pius IX. in the Vatican Council? The faith is preserved by those who come to Rome, not by the Bishop who presides there.

2. "For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are, on every side, faithful) resort." The greatness of Rome, that is, as the capital of the Empire, imparts to the local Church a superior dignity, even as compared with Lyons, or any other metropolitical Church. Everybody visits Rome: hence you find there faithful witnesses from every side (from all the Churches); and Their united testimony it is which preserves in Rome the pure apostolic traditions.

The Latin, thus translated by a candid Roman Catholic, reverses the whole system of the Papacy. Pius IX. informed his Bishops, at the late Council, that they were not called to bear their testimony, but to hear his infallible decree; "reducing us," said the Archbishop of Paris, "to a council of sacristans."

Sustaining these views by a few footnotes, I add (1) a literal rendering of my own, and then (2) a metaphrase of the same, bringing out the argument from the crabbed obstructions of the Latin text. This, then, is what Irenaeus says: (a) "For it is necessary for every Church (that is to say, the faithful from all parts) to meet in this Church, on account of the superior magistracy; in which Church, by those who are from all places, the tradition of the apostles has been preserved." Or, more freely rendered: (b) "On account of the chief magistracy [of the empire], the faithful from all parts, representing every Church, are obliged to resort to Rome, and there to come together; so that [it is the distinction of this Church that], in it, the tradition of the apostles has been preserved by Christians gathered together out of all the Churches." Taking the entire argument of our author with the context, then, it amounts to this: "We must ask, not for local, but universal, testimony. Now, in every Church founded by the apostles has been handed down their traditions; but, as it would be a tedious thing to collect them all, let this suffice. Take that Church (nearest at hand, and which is the only Apostolic Church of the West), the great and glorious Church at Rome, which was there founded by the two apostles Peter and Paul. In her have been preserved the traditions of all the Churches, because everybody is forced to go to the seat of empire: and therefore, by these representatives of the whole Catholic Church, the apostolic traditions have been all collected in Rome: and you have a synoptical view of all Churches in what is there preserved." Had the views of the modern Papacy ever entered the head of Irenaeus, what an absurdity would be this whole argument. He would have said, "It is no matter what may be gathered elsewhere; for the Bishop of Rome is the infallible oracle of all Catholic truth, and you will always find it by his mouth." It should be noted that Orthodoxy was indeed preserved there, just so long as Rome permitted other Churches to contribute their testimony on the principle of Irenaeus, and thus to make her the depository of all Catholic tradition, as witnessed "by all, everywhere, and from the beginning." But all this is turned upside down by modern Romanism. No other Church is to be heard or considered; but Rome takes all into her own power, and may dictate to all Churches what they are to believe, however novel, or contrary to the torrent of antiquity in the teachings of their own founders and great doctors in all past time.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 31, 2004.