A question for the Christians here
- Thread starter Hitro
- Start date
hm.. now I'm not sure what do you think..Roman church or you think church of Roman Empire. If you think first I think that can be applied since at that time (of Peter) there were not Roman church with that name but simply Christianity. If you think of second Constantinopolis was in Roman Empire before it split on two.
...I think..
What I'm trying to say is the Peter founded an institution, based at Rome. He had successors, and the catholic popes are in direct succession line from Peter, Lino and the others.
The Orthodox Church is as old as the Catholic one, in the sense that it was part of the Catholic Church, and that they consider themselves the ones who kept Jesus's teachings. However it's a fact that the line of succession from Peter goes to the popes, not the Patriarchs, who never held authority over the entire Christianity.
When was the first patriarch? was the position founded when Constantine adopted Christianity? Or was there a serving "underground" Patriarch before this? And yes Constantinopolis was in the Empire then. If the position of patriarch began with Constantine then yeah the Popes (even if they didn't use that name) are older than the Patriarchs.
However this matters squat because they both started as the same faith. Christianity (any type) began around the time of Christ, IIRC
However this matters squat because they both started as the same faith. Christianity (any type) began around the time of Christ, IIRC
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
The Pope is a Patriarch.
Peter would never claim to be a pope since this Jesus spoke so strongly againest this. " the scribes and the pharisees sit in Moses' seat ..." Chapter 23 of Matthew; this speech that Jesus made was his strongest amd toughest speech againest religious hypocrites. the Pope sits In Moses' Seat !!! this is why some churches refused to join the United Roman Church and was killed for being heretics. Also Jesus made it very clear not to call anyone father ( spiritually) .(remember it was the religious rulers who hated Jesus the most.)
Paul was the apostle to the gentiles not Peter since Paul was both a Jew and a Roman citizen. ( that why Paul ; roman name; is also called Saul ; his Jewish name) Peter wasn't comfortable with the gentiles like Paul was.
some Catholics trys to use matthew 16:18 to claims Peter was the rock which the church was built BUT Peter made it very clear in his own letter that he wasn't that rock but Christ . 1 Peter 2:5-8
The church is built on Peter's statement in matthew 16:16 NOT on Peter himself.
Paul was the apostle to the gentiles not Peter since Paul was both a Jew and a Roman citizen. ( that why Paul ; roman name; is also called Saul ; his Jewish name) Peter wasn't comfortable with the gentiles like Paul was.
some Catholics trys to use matthew 16:18 to claims Peter was the rock which the church was built BUT Peter made it very clear in his own letter that he wasn't that rock but Christ . 1 Peter 2:5-8
The church is built on Peter's statement in matthew 16:16 NOT on Peter himself.
I didn't differ on this.
I'm talking about The Council of Trento in XVI Century where catholisism was created as we know it today. wich is different from the original christianism before it was made the official religion in the 4th century.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Yes
Here is the
Original Greek:
kago de soi lego oti su ei Petros kai
I also (And) to you say that you are Peter and
epi taute te petra oikodomeso mou ten ekklesian;
on this - rock I will build of me the church
Latin:
et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
I wonder how it sounds in Aramaic
Interestingly, the early Roman church did not emphasize St Peter...that was a later development
let look at the full statement that Jesus made . ask yourself what is the mean topic Peter statement made in vs 16(Jesus is the Christ) or Peter himselfOriginally posted by luiz
Jesus to Peter(in that time known as Simon)
"Simon, you are Peter(rock) and over that rock I shall build my Church".
Now, are you calling Jesus a liar? Cause that would make a pretty lousy christian... j/k
Matthew 16:17-18 : "Blessed art thou,Simon Bar-jona : for flesh and blood hath not revealed it( What! That Peter was a rock ? no; what peter said in verse 16) unto thee , but my Father which is in heaven. and I say also unto thee that thou art Peter , and upon this ( peter's statement) rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail againest it."
let read verse 20 incase you still in doubt
vs 20 " Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that" peter is the rock
( no! that not what is claims but instead it says ) he was Jesus the Christ as you can see the main topic is "Jesus is the Christ" from vs 16 - 20 . So No I'm not calling Jesus a liar
p.s. Peter was the first to claim "Jesus is the Christ":
1) privately to Jesus in Matthew 16
2) publicly to the Jews on the days of pentecost in Acts 2
3)publicly to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius in Acts 10
ShiplordAtvar
Texan by the grace of God
I know I'm jumping in late, but I was raised in the Methodist persuasion, but am considering switching to a non-denominational Protestant church in my area.
h4ppy
You sir, pineapple?
I'm a Methodist and the difference between my church and all the others is that mine is correct.
What many are forgetting in the Orthodox versus catholic debate is that the Patriarchy of Constantinople was the last one established. (there were ones in Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, and Jerusulem before the Patriarchy of Constantinople)
What many are forgetting in the Orthodox versus catholic debate is that the Patriarchy of Constantinople was the last one established. (there were ones in Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, and Jerusulem before the Patriarchy of Constantinople)
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Well, I think the Patriarchate of Moscow is actually the last, in 1589.
Packer-Backer
Conservative Christian
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 763
For me each church has had it's dark sides. Catholicalism: What do I have to say? The Crusades, the Inquisition, and all of that other brutality towards the reformists and native peoples. Lutheranism: Luther was a great man but Lutheranism has kind of deteriorated. Protestantism: Well, constant war with the Catholics. Evangelicalism/Evangelism: Evangelists have never really held power as a monarchy, so they haven't reall had the chance to be corrupted to wage war on Catholics or something. So for now I consider myself an Evangelical.
Man has always strayed away from the main message throughout time, for example Mary, although it was a miracle of how Jesus was born that is no reason to pray to her. Reformists like Luther or Calvin intended good and have awoke the eyes of many misled Catholics, however their churches have been corrupted. Evangelicals seems to have things straight: Mary was a great woman but she is not any form of goddess! Peter holds the keys to the gate of heaven which have just been a metaphor, but still, why have relics to him? Evangelicalism knows that Jesus and God are the only owns you should pray too and that Peter, Mary, etc. are just great people, but nothing more than people in heaven.
Man has always strayed away from the main message throughout time, for example Mary, although it was a miracle of how Jesus was born that is no reason to pray to her. Reformists like Luther or Calvin intended good and have awoke the eyes of many misled Catholics, however their churches have been corrupted. Evangelicals seems to have things straight: Mary was a great woman but she is not any form of goddess! Peter holds the keys to the gate of heaven which have just been a metaphor, but still, why have relics to him? Evangelicalism knows that Jesus and God are the only owns you should pray too and that Peter, Mary, etc. are just great people, but nothing more than people in heaven.
bobgote
Trousers
My church is a "Bethesda" church, which is a Pentecostal denomination. I guess what makes it special is that it actually sticks to the bible, and doesn't compromise on the big issues, like so many other churches has done. (A church with a gay minister can no longer be considered a church IMO). It also allows for individual learning and questioning of doctrine etc. Encourages free thinking and to a large extent accepts differences of opinion. Our youth group is actually a very good place to debate beliefs etc. And that's why I like it, it addresses things that I need addressed.
oh yeah, i do disagree with them on some things, most notably the 'tongues' thing that archer brought up. I think it's completely wrong, but hey, they can do that, so long as they don't try to make me conform
hehe Baal. best god ever.
@Packer-Backer: so what denomination are you then?
Archer 007
Rebirth
I think he was refering to the very old group.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Originally posted by archer_007
I think he was refering to the very old group.
Yeah, probably....but just in case, you know
yeah, everybody got some hang-up or two so it wise not to make a fuss about some areas like "tongues" . It more important to watch out for gossip which can really damage the church and other believers.Originally posted by bobgote
oh yeah, i do disagree with them on some things, most notably the 'tongues' thing that archer brought up. I think it's completely wrong, but hey, they can do that, so long as they don't try to make me conform
Archer 007
Rebirth
Originally posted by bobgote
My church is a "Bethesda" church, which is a Pentecostal denomination. I guess what makes it special is that it actually sticks to the bible, and doesn't compromise on the big issues, like so many other churches has done. (A church with a gay minister can no longer be considered a church IMO). It also allows for individual learning and questioning of doctrine etc. Encourages free thinking and to a large extent accepts differences of opinion. Our youth group is actually a very good place to debate beliefs etc. And that's why I like it, it addresses things that I need addressed.
oh yeah, i do disagree with them on some things, most notably the 'tongues' thing that archer brought up. I think it's completely wrong, but hey, they can do that, so long as they don't try to make me conform
My church structure is similar to yours. Works nicely in my experience. Except Im a Baptist instead of a Pentecostal.
Tongues make little to no sense and most of the people doing it are liars. They are not able to tell you what they said, altothough scripture clearly notes that if more then two people hear it, someone in the rooms is suppost to be able to translate. Also, they almost all use the same words.
bobgote
Trousers
yup.
my objection is based on the fact that during pentecost the disciples were trying to talk and different words were coming out (and also the fact that it was a real language, that foreigners understood was their own). The way my fellow churchies do it, they're just making up some garbage, which is entirely wrong IMO but i won't force that on them as long as they don't force it on me.
