Catholics

[aspen]

Do not know any Catholics, personally who worship Mary

 

[epostle1]

I have showed you already that Peter was never in Rome. That he did not establish the Roman Church.

Peter could have been in Paris, where he was has absolutely no bearing on his papacy. Your ace card is a joker.
[/quote]You, my friend, are part of the Roman Church. Not the Catholic Church. Unless you have been born-again. Have you? [/quote] Why do you insist on this mythical "Roman Church"? Too proud to take correction? You've only been told 100 times.

"Thus your claim to trace your church back to the apostles is a lie." Thus, history is your enemy. That's why you are forced to dismiss the the Catholic early church fathers as "uninspired" because your theology is light years from them.
De-Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

​

 

[epostle1]

In my opinion there is a huge difference between giving honor to someone, and making them a deity, or equal to God, or in some peoples minds I have met, she is above Jesus, which is unbelievable to me. How can they substitute the Son of God, the resurrected Son of Man, with a human woman who was blessed by God, to be able to carry His seed and give birth to His Son ? I really do not get it.
Be imitators of Christ indeed, I don't see very much of that on this forum.....

 

[pia]

Well I have not met many, but the ones I have, could tell me a whole lot about Mary and how to use her as an intercessor to talk to God . They prayed to her......When I spoke of Jesus to them, their faces were like question marks....I'm not here to offend, and in all honesty, I am wondering what this form can do to some people, harm wise I mean....This is all about as anti the Lord, as I have come across. There are a few who seem to understand the reality of Christ, but the flack they have to cop by other 'christians' is appaling.
I wish you well

 

[aspen]

Well I have not met many, but the ones I have, could tell me a whole lot about Mary and how to use her as an intercessor to talk to God . They prayed to her......When I spoke of Jesus to them, their faces were like question marks....I'm not here to offend, and in all honesty, I am wondering what this form can do to some people, harm wise I mean....This is all about as anti the Lord, as I have come across. There are a few who seem to understand the reality of Christ, but the flack they have to cop by other 'christians' is appaling.
I wish you well

Yes. I've wondered the same thing about the hatred displayed here. As far as Mary is concerned, I ask her to pray with me all the time

 

[epostle1]

Hey Stranger... I actually believe Peter was in Rome. Not for as long as those of the RCC believe, and I certainly believe he didn't establish the Church at Rome.
I haven't followed the 80+ pages of this thread all the way through, so if there is something you want me to view on this topic, let me know.
The Church at Antioch was started by migrant believers with no leader. Later, leaders were semt. Interestingly enough, Peter is said to have founded that Church as well. But the bible never says Peter was in Antioch EXCEPT Paul saying he was.
The point is that Antioch was started by grassroots believers and later received leadership. I believe Rome's Church was the same. I believe it was started by believers and later received leadership in the form of Paul. Peter did arrive but his importance was more of reputation. It certainly would've benefitted from him. But i doubt he built it.

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, 3rd bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Pt.1:1; 5:1) Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, points out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.

This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The idea of a church being independent, local and congregational is rejected. Thus, by the late second century Irenaeus writes, “Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world…therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies…by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul…for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”
http://www.patheos.com/blog00s/standingonmyhead/the-early-papacy-2.

IGNATIUS? IRENAEUS?
NO!
NO!
NO!

​

 

[aspen]

Some of my favorite quotes from Pope Francis:

"There is urgent need for an ecumenism that, along with theological dialogue aimed at settling traditional doctrinal disagreements between Christians, can promote a shared mission of evangelization and service." (6/10/16)

"In God’s heart there are no enemies. God only has sons and daughters. We are the ones who raise walls, build barriers and label people. God has sons and daughters, precisely so that no one will be turned away. God’s love has the flavor of fidelity towards everyone, for it is a visceral love, a parental love that never abandons us, even when we go astray. Our Father does not wait for us to be good before he loves the world, he does not wait for us to be a little bit better or more perfect before he loves us; he loves us because he chose to love us, he loves us because he has made us his sons and daughters. He loved us even when we were enemies (cf. Rom 5:10). The Father’s unconditional love for all people was, and is, the true prerequisite for the conversion of our pitiful hearts that tend to judge, divide, oppose and condemn." (11/19/16)

"Indeed, we are a single human family that is journeying on toward unity, making the most of solidarity and dialogue among peoples in the multiplicity of differences. "(5/24/13)

"The walls which divide us can be broken down only if we are prepared to listen and learn from one another. We need to resolve our differences through forms of dialogue which help us grow in understanding and mutual respect. A culture of encounter demands that we be ready not only to give, but also to
receive." (1/24/14)

"You cannot insult the faith of others"

"A person who thinks only of building walls wherever they may be and not building bridges is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel"

"May every Church and Christian community be a place of mercy amid so much indifference."

"We, the women and men of the Church, we are in the middle of a love story: each of us is a link in this chain of love. And if we do not understand this, we have understood nothing of what the Church is...."

"The gift of piety means to be truly capable of rejoicing with those who rejoice, of weeping with those who weep, of being close to those who are lonely or in anguish, of correcting those in error, of consoling the afflicted, of welcoming and helping those in need. The gift of piety is closely tied to gentleness. The gift of piety which the Holy Spirit gives us makes us gentle, makes us calm, patient, at peace with God, at the service of others with gentleness." (6/4/14)

"Authentic dialogue also demands a capacity for empathy. For dialogue to take place, there has to be this empathy. We are challenged to listen not only to the words which others speak, but to the unspoken communication of their experiences, their hopes and aspirations, their struggles and their deepest concerns. Such empathy must be the fruit of our spiritual insight and personal experience, which lead us to see others as brothers and sisters, and to “hear”, in and beyond their words and actions, what their hearts wish to communicate. In this sense, dialogue demands of us a truly contemplative spirit of openness and receptivity to the other. I cannot engage in dialogue if I am closed to others. Openness? Even more: acceptance! Come to my house, enter my heart. My heart welcomes you. It wants to hear you. This capacity for empathy enables a true human dialogue in which words, ideas and questions arise from an experience of fraternity and shared humanity." (8/17/14, Bishops)

 

[Stranger]

Peter could have been in Paris, where he was has absolutely no bearing on his papacy. Your ace card is a joker. Why do you insist on this mythical "Roman Church"? Too proud to take correction? You've only been told 100 times.
Thus, history is your enemy. That's why you are forced to dismiss the the Catholic early church fathers as "uninspired" because your theology is light years from them. De-Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

​

​

There is the Catholic Church which I am a part of. There is the Roman Church or the Church at Rome which you are part of. If you are born-again, then you are also part of the Catholic Church. If not, then you are just a thief who has stolen the true meaning of the Catholic Church. Which is what the Roman Church has done.

Scriptures are my ace card. You say the church fathers are inspired as the writers of Scripture. No wonder the Church at Rome has turned in to what it has. I haven't seen any correction yet to take. When you produce some let me know.

Peter had no bearing on the papacy. The 'papacy' simply used Peter to obtain some sort of authority. Scriptures are clear, Neither Peter or Paul started the Roman Church. You trust so called 'church fathers' who simply were instrumental, knowingly or unknowingly, in helping further this lie.

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

As far as Mary is concerned, I ask her to pray with me all the time

But why??

Its a bit like being at home and needing money for petrol, so being sacred to ask dad in case he might say no, so you go to mum. Mum can you ask dad for twenty dollars for petrol?? Mum says, if you want money go ask Dad. Why are people afraid to ask Jesus , is it because they may not get what they"want". God has an ear for His people, problem is He doesnt have many who have an ear for Him, or trust Him as was put to a friend of mine.

 

[Stranger]

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, 3rd bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Pt.1:1; 5:1) Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, points out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.

This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The idea of a church being independent, local and congregational is rejected. Thus, by the late second century Irenaeus writes, “Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world…therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies…by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul…for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”
http://www.patheos.com/blog00s/standingonmyhead/the-early-papacy-2.

Paul and his companions did not return to Jerusalem to give report of their missionary journey's. They always returned back to the Church at Antioch, from which they were sent, from which God called them. (Acts 13:1-2), (Acts 14:26), (Acts 18:22)

Paul's missionary journeys were not directed from Jerusalem. He was called by God from the Church at Antioch. And that is where he always returned. He went to Jerusalem to have the Gentile question settled because it was from Jerusalem that the trouble was reportedly come . Rome is nowhere in the picture. Rome has to do a hop, skip, and jump to get the authority from the Antioch and Jerusalem Church moved to Rome. Just like the hop, skip, and jump they do with John, Polycarp, and Irenaeus.

Scriptures are clear. Neither Peter or Paul founded the Church at Rome. (Gal. 2:7), (Rom. 1:8,13)

Your claim that Phillip traveled to and from Jerusalem is not true. After the Lord moved him from Samaria to Azotus and the area of Casarea,(Acts 8:40) you never hear of him again until (Acts 21:8), where he is still in Casarea. Perhaps your church fathers have more insight than the writers of Scripture.

Your claim that John Mark traveled to and from Jerusalem with a teaching ministry linked back to Jerusalem is false also. Mark went on the first missionary journey with Paul and Barnabas. There the Lord called Paul and Barnabas, not Mark. (Acts 13:2) But Mark went with them and then abandoned them at Pamphylia. (Acts 13:13) After that Mark would be linked to Barnabas on the Second missionary journey, as Paul didn't trust him. (Acts 15:36-41) The last you see of Mark is Paul requesting him to come to him while he was a prisoner at Rome. (2 Tim.4:11)

There is nothing to indicate any so called 'authority' from the Jerusalem church. If there is any 'authority' to be found it is at the Church at Antioch where Paul and Barnabas were called of God. Which is where they always returned to give account. The Jerusalem church is only in the picture as a problem. Either they are producing legalizers or they need financial help. And that is the only link that Paul had in going to Jerusalem. He didn't answer to them at all. (Acts 2:4-6) (Acts 2:9)

Only through the Roman dog and pony show is authority moved to Rome. A hop, skip, and jump. No connection. The Roman church has stolen the title of Catholic to give them some authority over all churches. They are not Catholic. They are Roman. The true Catholic church is every born-again believer.

I always have noticed that when some start to see their position weaken, they respond with deception in presenting others posts and in pictures. How elementary. They don't have the words, their position is weak, so they respond with pictures, or distorting posts. It is very predictable.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

There is the Catholic Church which I am a part of. There is the Roman Church or the Church at Rome which you are part of. If you are born-again, then you are also part of the Catholic Church. If not, then you are just a thief who has stolen the true meaning of the Catholic Church. Which is what the Roman Church has done.

The Church regards all baptized Protestants as Christian even with varying degrees of separation. Most Protestant confessions of faith have borrowed "catholic church" from the Nicene Creed which was promulgated at the Council of Nicae. Even when the particular Protestant confessional formula does not mention the Nicene Council or its creed, its doctrine is nonetheless always asserted, as, for example, in the Calvinist Scotch Confession, or in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of 1647.
If Scripture is your sole rule of faith, why, then, do you bother to bring up "catholic church" that the reformers BORROWED from Catholic councils and creeds?

Scriptures are my ace card.

I wasn't referring to Scriptures, I was refering to your blind arrogant denial of historical FACTS. That is your joker card.

You say the church fathers are inspired as the writers of Scripture.

I said no such thing. I know better. Use quotes instead of making things up.

No wonder the Church at Rome has turned in to what it has.

I haven't seen any correction yet to take. When you produce some let me know.

You can't be corrected. Your thick prejudice compels you to assert the same nonsense over and over again, and you get corrected over and over again..

Peter had no bearing on the papacy. The 'papacy' simply used Peter to obtain some sort of authority. Scriptures are clear, Neither Peter or Paul started the Roman Church. You trust so called 'church fathers' who simply were instrumental, knowingly or unknowingly, in helping further this lie.

Scriptures are clear, Jesus founded the One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church on Peter's personal leadership. Like I said, you don't like the ECF because your man made system has very little in common with them. They ONLY canonized the Bible so what could a bunch of "liars" know?

Baptists at Nicea by Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem. ::

 

[mjrhealth]

Scriptures are clear, Jesus founded the One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church on Peter's personal leadership

The bible clearly says no such thing, a flight of fantasy by religious ,men who Usurped His authority and who have and will pay the price for making a mockery of God. And we and all men are Christians because of Christ, couldnt care less what your church thinks it has no authority, certainly none given from God.

 

[epostle1]

Paul and his companions did not return to Jerusalem to give report of their missionary journey's. They always returned back to the Church at Antioch, from which they were sent, from which God called them. (Acts 13:1-2), (Acts 14:26), (Acts 18:22)
​

Paul's missionary journeys were not directed from Jerusalem. He was called by God from the Church at Antioch. And that is where he always returned. He went to Jerusalem to have the Gentile question settled because it was from Jerusalem that the trouble was reportedly come . Rome is nowhere in the picture. Rome has to do a hop, skip, and jump to get the authority from the Antioch and Jerusalem Church moved to Rome. Just like the hop, skip, and jump they do with John, Polycarp, and Irenaeus.​

Your time frames are jumbled. Quotes of ECF's dates should not be overlooked.
The Council of Jerusalem was around 48 AD. Paul was in Rome around 62 AD according to anti-Catholic Matt Slick. WHEN Peter got to Rome is an endless debate, but historians agree that Peter and Paul were executed in Rome, Peter in 67 AD. Do the math. 67-48=19 years between the Jerusalem Council and Peter's death. Scholars tell is the book of Romans was written around 57-58 AD, and the book of Acts was written no later that 62 AD. It's safe to conclude that the Church in Rome did not exist at the time of the council in 48 AD., That may explain why the Church in Rome was out of the picture, it wasn't there yet.

Scriptures are clear. Neither Peter or Paul founded the Church at Rome. (Gal. 2:7), (13)

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Different functions has nothing to do with primacy, and would you mind telling me who founded the Church in Rome?

Why does Paul go to Peter, James, and John to verify his gospel in Galatians 2:2 "lest he run in vain"??? There may have a small number of Christians in Rome 19 years after the CofJ, but there could never be a church without a bishop.

Your claim that Phillip traveled to and from Jerusalem is not true. After the Lord moved him from Samaria to Azotus and the area of Casarea,(Acts 8:40) you never hear of him again until (Acts 21:8), where he is still in Casarea. Perhaps your church fathers have more insight than the writers of Scripture.

I didn't mention Philip, not once.

Your claim that John Mark traveled to and from Jerusalem with a teaching ministry linked back to Jerusalem is false also. Mark went on the first missionary journey with Paul and Barnabas. There the Lord called Paul and Barnabas, not Mark. (Acts 13:2) But Mark went with them and then abandoned them at Pamphylia. (Acts 13:13) After that Mark would be linked to Barnabas on the Second missionary journey, as Paul didn't trust him. (Acts 15:36-41) The last you see of Mark is Paul requesting him to come to him while he was a prisoner at Rome. (2 Tim.4:11)

I didn't mention Mark either.

There is nothing to indicate any so called 'authority' from the Jerusalem church.

Reaching decisions is called authority. Acts 16:4)

If there is any 'authority' to be found it is at the Church at Antioch where Paul and Barnabas were called of God. Which is where they always returned to give account. The Jerusalem church is only in the picture as a problem. Either they are producing legalizers or they need financial help. And that is the only link that Paul had in going to Jerusalem. He didn't answer to them at all. (Acts 2:4-6) (Acts 2:9)

Acts 2:4-6 is about Pentecost, not the CofJ. Acts 2:9 also has nothing to do with the CofJ. He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch, but not before the laying of hands (Acts 13:1-4).. Yes, Paul was sent by God, but that does not cancel out the harmony of God with the Church. Antioch was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).

Only through the Roman dog and pony show is authority moved to Rome. A hop, skip, and jump. No connection. The Roman church has stolen the title of Catholic to give them some authority over all churches. They are not Catholic. They are Roman. The true Catholic church is every born-again believer.

The invisible church is a man made theory and it's not in the Bible. Institutional authority, that you despise, was authored by God before the NT existed. You are forced to deny the evidence.
[/quote]I always have noticed that when some start to see their position weaken, they respond with deception in presenting others posts and in pictures. How elementary. They don't have the words, their position is weak, so they respond with pictures, or distorting posts. I always have noticed that when someone starts to see their position weaken, they repeat the same stupid insults.

​

THE ANTI-CATHOLIC FASHION SHOW
​

​

 

[bbyrd009]

personally I wouldn't want the devil as my VP

ha me neither, but it sure is funny how the case can be made that God did lol

 

[bbyrd009]

We sure get a lot of heat for imitating Christ.

the heat comes from bloating the concept out of all proportion, kepha

 

[Marymog]

Well you see Mary, there was this man called Saul, after teh even even said he was a Pharisee of Pharisees, a very learned man, knew the scriptures like the back of His hand, didn know Jesus, so many christians just like him, know the bible backwards, dont know Jesus. As HE put it,Joh_6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
But christians prefer mcdonalds christianity, get filled with non nutritional garbage.

Hi mjrhealth,

If they are Christians then they know Jesus....If they know Jesus then they are Christians. Right? So what you said doesn't make sense.

I'm pretty sure in the past YOU have said all you have to do is know Him and believe in Him. Are you saying that those "McDonalds Christians" don't know him as good as you?

There was also a man named Judas that was an Apostle of Jesus. Do you see yourself more of a Judas or Saul?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

"The Church is a whore and she is my mother" - Augustine

Dear Aspen,

I am not sure if you know this or not but this "quote" was not written by Augustine.

Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

Dear Aspen,

I am not sure if you know this or not but this "quote" was not written by Augustine.

Mary

seems to be attributed to him a lot. Who do you think, Martin Luther?

 

[Stranger]

The Church regards all baptized Protestants as Christian even with varying degrees of separation. Most Protestant confessions of faith have borrowed "catholic church" from the Nicene Creed which was promulgated at the Council of Nicae. Even when the particular Protestant confessional formula does not mention the Nicene Council or its creed, its doctrine is nonetheless always asserted, as, for example, in the Calvinist Scotch Confession, or in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of 1647.
If Scripture is your sole rule of faith, why, then, do you bother to bring up "catholic church" that the reformers BORROWED from Catholic councils and creeds?
I wasn't referring to Scriptures, I was refering to your blind arrogant denial of historical FACTS. That is your joker card. I said no such thing. I know better. Use quotes instead of making things up.

You can't be corrected. Your thick prejudice compels you to assert the same nonsense over and over again, and you get corrected over and over again..
Scriptures are clear, Jesus founded the One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church on Peter's personal leadership. Like I said, you don't like the ECF because your man made system has very little in common with them. They ONLY canonized the Bible so what could a bunch of "liars" know?

Baptists at Nicea by Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem. ::

In your post #1742 you stated that I dismissed the early church fathers as uninspired. Which I do. Which means you see them as inspired. Read again what you wrote.

The reformers left the Roman church. Not everything in the Roman church was to be rejected. In fact many held on to things they shouldn't have.
Like I said before, let me know when all this correction takes place. I haven't seen any yet.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

kepha 31

Concerning your post #1754

When Paul wrote Romans their faith was already known throughout the whole world. (Rom. 1:8). Thus by 57-58 they had been in existance quite a while. No one knows who started the church at Rome. But it certainly wasn't Peter or Paul.

Peter's ministry was to the circumcision. Paul's to the uncircumcision. Who said anything about primacy. That has nothing to do with Peter ever going to Rome. Oh....I see. You must get Peter to Rome to have him be the first pope. Sure.

Paul was clear that Peter, James, and John, 'seemed' to be something, (Gal. 2:6), seemed to be something in conference, (2:6), seemed to be pillars. But they added nothing to Paul. (2:6) "...for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:". Yet when Peter spoke of Paul he had a hard time understanding his doctrine. (2 Peter 3:15-16) "...as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things;in which are some things hard to be understood."

So, no authority from Peter over Paul.

Your post 1746, 3rd paragraph down you mentioned Philip and Mark. Now I don't believe you're lying about it. It just must mean you didn't write the post that bears your name. Copied from somewhere no doubt. This seems to be consistent with the Romanists here. You should at least proofread what you copied.

Antioch was where Paul was sent out by God. Not Rome. Not Jerusalem. Antioch is where Paul always answered to. Not Rome. Not Jerusalem. (Acts 14:26) (18:22) As I said the only time any went to Jerusalem was to give them money because they were broke, or because some legalists from Jerusalem were starting trouble.

Your link from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome is not there. No matter how you weave your 'history'.

Stranger
​