Religious Survey

[therealUT]

True, but the length or type of punishment wasn't the point. In any event, we punish ourselves. No one is singled out. It's a broadly applied reward/punishment system. There is no respector of persons. The law applies to me just as much as anyone.

So, God casts everyone who does not believe in him into the eternity of hell? Hell is eternal damnation, by the way. Therefore, those who did not believe in God or in Jesus, upon seeing that Christ does in fact exist, are not allowed to repent and find salvation at that point? Yet, even the very Apostles whom Jesus lived with and preached with, had trouble accepting his resurrection and believing it had happened. So, the standard for us to get into heaven, is then higher than the standard for the Apostles? Since, at least they were provided the opportunity to see and feel for themselves that Jesus had risen from the dead, yet, at the point when we are actually allowed to see, after our death, those of us who possess some semblance of doubt, are in hell. To return to the point, hell is eternal, and therefore we have no chance to repent to save ourselves at that moment...

 

[GVF]

Less than 10% of the books of the Bible are written by people who were present with Jesus. Also, none of the NT books were written journalistically or during the time in which the things written about were taking place. They were recounting their experiences some 20 and 30 years later, when they realized that Jesus was not going to return during their lifetimes. You are going to tell me that, unlike the rest of humanity, they had absolutely perfect memories of every last word that was said? I am going to have to check the box labeled "No" for that one.

Sorry, but I beleive it accurate. I believe they were inspired by God in those writings to retain that accuracy. What I see is various writers who bore witness to Jesus, who wrote at different times, all have consistent and accurate writings and references to eah other. The 4 gospel acounts of Christ are synoptic. The letters of the others are consistent in the teachings. Heck, ya'll base Catholocism on the apostle Peter who only wrote 2 of the letters at even later dates, and who also denied Christ 3 times. That's not exactly thick ice if you please. I feel better believing the new testament to be the inspred word, and inerrant at that. I have no regrets.

 

[therealUT]

Sorry, but I beleive it accurate. I believe they were inspired by God in those writings to retain that accuracy. What I see is various writers who bore witness to Jesus, who wrote at different times, all have consistent and accurate writings and references to eah other. The 4 gospel acounts of Christ are synoptic. The letters of the others are consistent in the teachings. Heck, ya'll base Catholocism on the apostle Peter who only wrote 2 of the letters at even later dates, and who also denied Christ 3 times. That's not exactly thick ice if you please. I feel better believing the new testament to be the inspred word, and inerrant at that. I have no regrets.

Yes, knock St. Peter for beginning the Catholic Church prior around 40 A.D. CoC started when? Oh yes, the 1800s, and uses the Bible revised by Queen Elizabeth I in the 1500s. Your ice is most definitely the thickest....????

 

[GVF]

So, God casts everyone who does not believe in him into the eternity of hell? Hell is eternal damnation, by the way. Therefore, those who did not believe in God or in Jesus, upon seeing that Christ does in fact exist, are not allowed to repent and find salvation at that point? Yet, even the very Apostles whom Jesus lived with and preached with, had trouble accepting his resurrection and believing it had happened. So, the standard for us to get into heaven, is then higher than the standard for the Apostles? Since, at least they were provided the opportunity to see and feel for themselves that Jesus had risen from the dead, yet, at the point when we are actually allowed to see, after our death, those of us who possess some semblance of doubt, are in hell. To return to the point, hell is eternal, and therefore we have no chance to repent to save ourselves at that moment...

You know, they kind of had to learn as they went. They were Jewish, so they inhrently struggled with some traditional beliefs. It's not hard to find God chastising them during his teachings to them and his preparation of them to continue after his death. Ultimately, they did beleive, none of the apostles are recorded to have left the faith. Most died for it. They continued their travels preaching and establishing churches after Christ died. After the crucifiction however, we are transformed from sight and signs to faith based committment. Yes, after the fact it is basically permanent. Anybody can change their views when they find out they really were wrong and should have never rejected God all their life.

Luke13:3 I tell you no but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
Luke 16:19-31 ...v.26-And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.

Full passage of Luke 16:19-31
19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
from the dead.' "

Sounds pretty permanent to me.

Luke 6:
49But the one who hears my words and does notBut the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."
John3:
18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Matt.23:
33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

37"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in
the name of the Lord.

 

[GVF]

Yes, knock St. Peter for beginning the Catholic Church prior around 40 A.D. CoC started when? Oh yes, the 1800s, and uses the Bible revised by Queen Elizabeth I in the 1500s. Your ice is most definitely the thickest....????

CoC is new testament christianity. we just picked up the word and study it. It was already there. didn't rewrite anything. As studied as you are on various faiths and the reformation, you know where we came from, what we beleive, and where we got it w/o my input. My faith and what I study comes from Jesus and His Word. The new testament church as we worship was established on the cross.

 

[GVF]

Yes, knock St. Peter for beginning the Catholic Church prior around 40 A.D. CoC started when? Oh yes, the 1800s, and uses the Bible revised by Queen Elizabeth I in the 1500s. Your ice is most definitely the thickest....????

Actually, we are not required to use KJV. I use NIV and New Century (which is a plain English version translated from the greek and hebrew text to english and not revised of another version). I'm a southern boy. KJV just ain't easy reading. Doesn't make it inaacurate. It is the widely used version, or was, even outside CoC. You'll probably find more NIV and modern translations than KJV in a lot of CoC houses. I've got several different. Actually, a full set of commentaries, 2 study bibles, and about 10 bibles in all.

 

[GVF]

Yes, knock St. Peter for beginning the Catholic Church prior around 40 A.D. CoC started when? Oh yes, the 1800s, and uses the Bible revised by Queen Elizabeth I in the 1500s. Your ice is most definitely the thickest....????

Wasn't knocking him. I still don't see the proof he started Catholocism when he was preaching the gospel of christ, as were the other apostles. he was a great apostle of christ. in his 2 books he wrote around the time of catholocism or later, he did not mention starting his own church separate and different from christ's teachings that he'd been instructed in.

Have a good evening, what's left. I'm late for sleep. enjoyed it.

 

[dan4vols]

My offering to this discussion isn't backed by a whole page of references....and I don't know the scripture as well as most of you. I would say the best bet a man could do is follow the example set by Christ when he was flesh, and love God the Father with all your heart. A little faith is placed in all mens hearts so that they know right from wrong. The 10 commandments...love your neighbor as you love yourself, and be merciful to others when they are mean to you. In this day and time many are cruel and selfish, its easy to rant and moan about how others treat you badly...but give kindness for selfishness.....give mercy for rudenss....but mostly is the private personal realationship you have with Jesus. Talk to him when no ones is around, tell him your fears as if he sat next to you at the red light in your SUV. I think its this relationship with the Son that'll save you from everlasting flames and torment, and transports you to a field of wildflowers and soft breezes....and a still small voice that talks to your spirit, and says I love you little one...come and be safe and secure in the house of the Father. I love all ya'all.

 

[dan4vols]

My offering to this discussion isn't backed by a whole page of references....and I don't know the scripture as well as most of you. I would say the best bet a man could do is follow the example set by Christ when he was flesh, and love God the Father with all your heart. A little faith is placed in all mens hearts so that they know right from wrong. The 10 commandments...love your neighbor as you love yourself, and be merciful to others when they are mean to you. In this day and time many are cruel and selfish, its easy to rant and moan about how others treat you badly...but give kindness for selfishness.....give mercy for rudenss....but mostly is the private personal realationship you have with Jesus. Talk to him when no ones is around, tell him your fears as if he sat next to you at the red light in your SUV. I think its this relationship with the Son that'll save you from everlasting flames and torment, and transports you to a field of wildflowers and soft breezes....and a still small voice that talks to your spirit, and says I love you little one...come and be safe and secure in the house of the Father. I love all ya'all.

 

[therealUT]

Wasn't knocking him. I still don't see the proof he started Catholocism when he was preaching the gospel of christ, as were the other apostles. he was a great apostle of christ. in his 2 books he wrote around the time of catholocism or later, he did not mention starting his own church separate and different from christ's teachings that he'd been instructed in.

Have a good evening, what's left. I'm late for sleep. enjoyed it.

St. Peter was the very first Pope. Proof that he started Catholicism is very easy to find.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Trut, I think I mentioned this before, and I could not remember the thread it was in, but we need to start a discussion about Attila the Hun and the power of the Catholic Church.

If ya'nt too! :aggressive: :air_kiss:

 

[GVF]

St. Peter was the very first Pope. Proof that he started Catholicism is very easy to find.

I thought I just asked for that proof. So, Peter the Apostle became St. Peter, the first Pope in 40 A.D., before the time scholars believe he wrote I&II Peter. All the while still promoting the teachings of Christ as the other Apostles were doing and stablishing churches as they were commanded all throughout the region. While he was doing this he also came out with the Catholic creed and went his own way? Just like that? Only a few years removed from walking with Christ himself, he jumped ship and exalted himself to pope. Which means if the historical times are correct for Peter's letters in the new testament, he came back and wrote 2 christian letters included in the new testament after he invented catholocism and became the 1st pope and started preaching that religion instead of the one christ taught him. There is no righteous above men except God. I respect the pope and what he stands for, but he ain't above me in God's eyes or mine. that's no different than you accusing me of thinking i'm better. God puts no man above another. He who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted. The whole structure of confessional based religions relies on the inference that you have to go to human priest for confession and forgiveness. That exalts them towards God's level. Is that somewhat accurate, or is there too much between the lines there?

 

[therealUT]

I thought I just asked for that proof. So, Peter the Apostle became St. Peter, the first Pope in 40 A.D., before the time scholars believe he wrote I&II Peter. All the while still promoting the teachings of Christ as the other Apostles were doing and stablishing churches as they were commanded all throughout the region. While he was doing this he also came out with the Catholic creed and went his own way? Just like that? Only a few years removed from walking with Christ himself, he jumped ship and exalted himself to pope. There is no righteous above men except God. I respect the pope and what he stands for, but he ain't above me in God's eyes or mine. that's no different than you accusing me of thinking i'm better. God puts no man above another. He who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted. The whole structure of confessional based religions relies on the inference that you have to go to human priest for confession and forgiveness. That exalts them towards God's level. Is that somewhat accurate, or is there too much between the lines there?

First, Peter did not exalt himself. As the other Apostles became Bishops of the areas they worked in, he went to Rome and became the Bishop of Rome. Since Peter was told by Jesus that he has the key to the kingdom of heaven and that he is the rock on which the church will be built, the other Apostles lent their submissiveness to his edicts. Early Christianity quickly recognized the overriding doctrine from the Bishop of Rome and all other Bishops submitted to the authority of Rome for greater than 500 years (the Great Schism.) As Catholics we believe in the Apostolic succession of Bishops (each Apostle was commissioned by Jesus to spread the word and on the Pentecost were made Bishops. Each Bishop then created more Bishoprics, or diocesese, therefore, every current Bishop can trace their lineage back to one of the Apostles.)

 

[therealUT]

I thought I just asked for that proof. So, Peter the Apostle became St. Peter, the first Pope in 40 A.D., before the time scholars believe he wrote I&II Peter. All the while still promoting the teachings of Christ as the other Apostles were doing and stablishing churches as they were commanded all throughout the region. While he was doing this he also came out with the Catholic creed and went his own way? Just like that? Only a few years removed from walking with Christ himself, he jumped ship and exalted himself to pope. Which means if the historical times are correct for Peter's letters in the new testament, he came back and wrote 2 christian letters included in the new testament after he invented catholocism and became the 1st pope and started preaching that religion instead of the one christ taught him. There is no righteous above men except God. I respect the pope and what he stands for, but he ain't above me in God's eyes or mine. that's no different than you accusing me of thinking i'm better. God puts no man above another. He who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted. The whole structure of confessional based religions relies on the inference that you have to go to human priest for confession and forgiveness. That exalts them towards God's level. Is that somewhat accurate, or is there too much between the lines there?

Just for you, GVF:

So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them who were saying, "The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!"
Luke 24:32-34

Peter was the first of the disciples that Jesus appeared to...

He was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures: that he appeared to Cephas (Aramaic for Rock, or Peter,) then to the Twelve.

1 Cor. 15:4-5

John 21 is another good Chapter for you to read on the primacy of Peter among the disciples...

 

[Jasongivm6]

This is an interesting thread to read.

I love the stories in the NT more than I do the OT. The OT is just downright scary to me. And there's too much, "And he came from so and so, and he came from so and so,etc., etc" Who can keep up with all of that stuff? And it's just plain BORING!! Not to say the OT is boring, but the specifics are just :dunno: . This many people did this, this family got this land, they had 219 this, which had 47 this, who each one of the 47 had 9 of these, etc. etc.

But I know who Peter is. Today, he probably wouldn't like when South Carolina scores a TD and the Cock crowes.

I guess I'm not a religious scholar like some of you are.

I do know more than someone who has never picked up a Bible, though. But not much.

But I'm just not that in depth.


How did Purgatory ever come about?

Why is Mary so important to Catholics? I know who Mary is, but why do Cathlolics revere her so much?

I guess, what I'm trying to ask, is, why do Catholics revere humans and protestants only revere Jesus?


Not to stir the pot, just curious?

 

[therealUT]

How did Purgatory ever come about?

Why is Mary so important to Catholics? I know who Mary is, but why do Cathlolics revere her so much?

I guess, what I'm trying to ask, is, why do Catholics rever humans and protestants only revere Jesus?
Not to stir the pot, just curious?

Purgatory is referred to and explained in the seven OT books that the Protestant Bibles tossed to the side. A better question would be, why did Protestants throw away seven of the forty-six OT books?

Mary is important to Catholics for the following reason: she gave birth to Jesus. As Catholics, we feel that if there are any humans that we can unequivically state are in heaven, she would be it. If Mary did not make it to heaven, then, basically, none of us are going to make it. However, we do not revere Mary. We treat her as a Saint. We revere God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We pray to the God of the Trinity and we also pray through, not to, the Saints.

 

[Jasongivm6]

Purgatory is referred to and explained in the seven OT books that the Protestant Bibles tossed to the side. A better question would be, why did Protestants throw away seven of the forty-six OT books?

Mary is important to Catholics for the following reason: she gave birth to Jesus. As Catholics, we feel that if there are any humans that we can unequivically state are in heaven, she would be it. If Mary did not make it to heaven, then, basically, none of us are going to make it. However, we do not revere Mary. We treat her as a Saint. We revere God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We pray to the God of the Trinity and we also pray through, not to, the Saints.

I understand now.

Why do we leave out so many things?

I think I heard about 1 book that was left out, where Jesus actually got mad and struck another man.

Is it for convenience?


Why not use ALL of what was written, instead of the "whole" story that they teach us?

Is the excuse, "Well, that is not acceptable here, and we can't confirm that ever happening?"


I'm just as confused as anyone.

 

[therealUT]

I understand now.

Why do we leave out so many things?

I think I heard about 1 book that was left out, where Jesus actually got mad and struck another man.

Is it for convenience?
Why not use ALL of what was written, instead of the "whole" story that they teach us?

Is the excuse, "Well, that is not acceptable here, and we can't confirm that ever happening?"
I'm just as confused as anyone.

It is not all that confusing. The Old Testament, or Septuagint, was compiled by 72 Greek translators around 200 B.C. These translators took the Hebrew texts and translated them to Greek. The Septuagint was then widely dispersed among the Hebrew populations, because it was written in a language all could understand (before that many Jews spoke Aramaic, others Persian, Hebrew, etc.) All educated Jews could speak Greek (later Latin.) These 46 Books were the Scriptures of Jewish Jerusalem.

When Christ came and died, the Jews in power at the time did all they could to deny that he was the Messiah. One of the first things they did was abandon the 'apocryphal' books. Since Christians believed that Christ had opened the gates of heaven, they had to get rid of any and all scripture in which was displayed any semblance of a holding place, between heaven and hell, for those not yet in heaven. They did this so they could argue against Christianity, stating that people like Abraham and Moses could not have gone to hell, therefore (without these books,) they had to have been in heaven all along. If they were in heaven all along, then Christ was not needed to open the gates of heaven, and therefore Christ's death was not divine.

In regards to NT era books that are not in the Bible, many are just left out due to the fact that they centered not around the message of Christ but around his life in general. They were more autobiographical than inspirational (some were heretic, but the majority were not.) The Church has always encouraged its clergy and its educated laity to read these books, as well as many other religious works through the years. However, they have little value in preaching salvation, therefore they were left out of the Bible.

 

[GVF]

First, Peter did not exalt himself. As the other Apostles became Bishops of the areas they worked in, he went to Rome and became the Bishop of Rome. Since Peter was told by Jesus that he has the key to the kingdom of heaven and that he is the rock on which the church will be built, the other Apostles lent their submissiveness to his edicts. Early Christianity quickly recognized the overriding doctrine from the Bishop of Rome and all other Bishops submitted to the authority of Rome for greater than 500 years (the Great Schism.) As Catholics we believe in the Apostolic succession of Bishops (each Apostle was commissioned by Jesus to spread the word and on the Pentecost were made Bishops. Each Bishop then created more Bishoprics, or diocesese, therefore, every current Bishop can trace their lineage back to one of the Apostles.)

So Titus and Timothy are inaccurate in how the early churches were commanded to operate. Each of the churches were instructed to select from among themselves men to serve as elders and were given the qualifications for those asked to serve as the spiritual leaders of that body. Instructions were also given on selecting deacons along with their qualifications to look after the busy work such as caring for widows and such so the elders can tend to the flock. No where were in the scriptiure does it dictate to any of these churches that any of the former apostles were now becoming bishops and these congregations were to serve up under them each in his own district. each church was given their own individual instruction on selecting leaders for their body only. There is no basis in scripture for the organization of christ,s body to be earthly mandated up through one supreme human. How many of these apostles also became martyrs, losing their lives for teaching the gospel of Christ, not anything else.


8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! 9If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is " 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.[a]' 12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

13When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.

An interesting tidbit since you claim you can basically be saved in generic forms and by any means you call a God of your own if that is where you get your inner strength. You said you encourage people that way. This Apostle Peter whom you claim the first pope of the Catholics, says salvation is found in no one else. No other name under heaven (Jesus) given to men by which we must be saved. If your so fond of him as your pope and founder, why do you tell people they can be saved by whom they want if it makes them happy and peaceful. Peter is saying, you must be saved through Jesus. Why don't you teach what your "pope" taught.

 

[vader]

More 1st Corinthians goodness:

1 Corinthians 13
Love
1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

[a] 1 Corinthians 13:1 Or languages

 

[GVF]

Just for you, GVF:

Peter was the first of the disciples that Jesus appeared to...
John 21 is another good Chapter for you to read on the primacy of Peter among the disciples...

It's no secret jesus had favorites among the twelve. Still does give proof to my question. Show me where Jesus specifically tells Peter that he will be the supreme leader of a new church, a new religion different from what he taught his 33 years, and that the other eleven were going to be district bishops, when that is not how titus and timothy account the governing and structure of the early church. God nor Jesus ever taught earthly heiarchial structure in their church.

 

[therealUT]

So Titus and Timothy are inaccurate

Why don't you teach what your "pope" taught.

The Book of Titus and the 2 Books of Timothy are the most doctored up books in the KJV (aside from the 7 books Queen Elizabeth I got rid of.) So, yes, your Titus and your Timothy are more than inaccurate.

To your second point, you believe that if one does not accept Jesus during life on earth, they suffer eternal damnation in hell. You believe this because your book lacks all books referring to purgatory. In purgatory, the dead are faced with the reality that God does exist and that Jesus is his son. All the dead must account for their sins, purify their souls, in purgatory before being accepted into heaven. Part of this is for all, professed believers and non believers, to completely and without doubt accept God in the Trinity. Nothing Jesus nor Peter preached ever strayed from this.

 

[GVF]

The Book of Titus and the 2 Books of Timothy are the most doctored up books in the KJV (aside from the 7 books Queen Elizabeth I got rid of.) So, yes, your Titus and your Timothy are more than inaccurate.

To your second point, you believe that if one does not accept Jesus during life on earth, they suffer eternal damnation in hell. You believe this because your book lacks all books referring to purgatory. In purgatory, the dead are faced with the reality that God does exist and that Jesus is his son. All the dead must account for their sins, purify their souls, in purgatory before being accepted into heaven. Part of this is for all, professed believers and non believers, to completely and without doubt accept God in the Trinity. Nothing Jesus nor Peter preached ever strayed from this.

So, carving out more scipture that does not suit your taste. Titus and Timothy show the introduction of local elders and deacons leading each church, and in your wisdom you eliminate that in leiu of the heiarcial traditions. There are also traditions that give account of Peter, and Paul may have suffered as Martyrs in Italy under Nero for their teachings. This by Clementine in his writings as an account. If he suffered death for teaching the gospel in Rome and Italy, where in there did he win their hearts and upstart the Catholic church. Rome obviously accepted and thrived in Catholocism.

I suppose you would be the expert though in who doctored what. You seem to discount half of the teachings and recordings of a religion your "first pope" preached with 11 others for decades concerning christianity, and supposedly came out of to start catholocism. Why would he do that. He as already establishing churches with the others?

 

[therealUT]

So, carving out more scipture that does not suit your taste. Titus and Timothy show the introduction of local elders and deacons leading each church, and in your wisdom you eliminate that in leiu of the heiarcial traditions. There are also traditions that give account of Peter, and Paul may have suffered as Martyrs in Italy under Nero for their teachings. This by Clementine in his writings as an account. If he suffered death for teaching the gospel in Rome and Italy, where in there did he win their hearts and upstart the Catholic church. Rome obviously accepted and thrived in Catholocism.

I suppose you would be the expert though in who doctored what. You seem to discount half of the teachings and recordings of a religion your "first pope" preached with 11 others for decades concerning christianity, and supposedly came out of to start catholocism. Why would he do that. He as already establishing churches with the others?

Rome did not accept Catholicism until Constantine. Peter was the Bishop of Rome and, yes, he was martyred by the Roman gov't. Your statement concerning Rome's acceptance shows exactly how ignorant you are of the historical context in which the Christianity began.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Actually Christianity had on and off periods of 'tolerance' even before Constantine. Just before Constantine Galerius gave an official tolerance of Christianity. Rome even if not official from the Roman government was considered the heart of Christianity for many years prior to Constantine.