Why do they hate being called Christians

[BreadOfLife]

What are you talking about? I was stating all those quotes you provided weren't primary sources!

Then WHY were you referring tpo Kepha31 in that post and not me??

Anyway - it's easy for Sola Scripturists like yourself to dismiss the writings of the Early Church.
However - you don't have a Scriptural leg to stand on with that false doctrine . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No... Thats not my point. I haven't addressed that at all. That's what YOU are trying to make my point.

I was discussing BoL's list of quotes from people who wrote 100+ years after Peter died as not being primary sources (and I am 100% correct) and how they contradict each other (and again i am 100% correct). I am not even concerned about your desire to prove or disprove any notion you have about whether Peter had primacy over the other apostles.

Once again you are making me look good!

Can you show me from the quotes I presented where they contradict each other??

 

[FHII]

Can you show me from the quotes I presented where they contradict each other??

Good heavrns Bread... I already did! I wrote a rather lengthy post on it! Im not going to do it again.

 

[FHII]

Then WHY were you referring tpo Kepha31 in that post and not me??

Anyway - it's easy for Sola Scripturists like yourself to dismiss the writings of the Early Church.
However - you don't have a Scriptural leg to stand on with that false doctrine . . .

Wow.... You really aren't making sense here. Please try to follow the flow of the conversation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have to admit an error... Small one. I asked for "prime" sources. The proper term is "primary sources". I apologize.

Nonetheless, none of these are primary sources. And I hesitate to comment too much on them because I haven't read enough of their writings to justly form an assessment of them.

However, from the quotes you provide, yes I can show where they contradict the Bible. Not only that... They contradict each other! And some offer very little support to tour arguement. Some simply state they were in Rome... Ive alrady agreed to that!

Tertullian for example... He was simply stating that both Peter and Paul "left" the gospel with the Romans (in Rome) and died there to "seal it".

But he also says Paul was in Corinth yet he leaves out Peter's name...what!?!? Ain't he the first Pope? Not important enough? Well... One of the others thought it was important enough to state Peter was in Corinth too.

This is a moronic argument.

First of all – Tertullian is CLEAR that both Peter and Paul were in Rome giving (bequeathing) them the Gospel and dying in Rome for it. Not really sure what problem you see there . . .

Secondly - WHY would Peter have to be mentioned regarding Paul’s missions to Corinth??
Nobody is claiming that Peter went with Paul to Corinth. Besides – this is a small excerpt from Tertullian’s debate with Marcion.

Yea... I know you will spin that and how you will. Fine... But consider that one said peter preached the gospel in rome for 25 years while another says he didn't arrive in Rome until after Nero became emporer and another says it was after he established the church at antioch.

This is a chronological impossibiity. Nero became emporer in 54 AD. Peter martyred in 64 AD. Do the math. Paul would have had to arrive in 39 AD and stayed there until his death. And THAT does go against the Bible.

No. You can't even say it didn't have to be 25 consecutive years because we can't even get 25 years out of that either. He wouldn't have been in Rome between 49 and 54 AD.

Ummmmm – NOWHERE does it say that Peter preached in Rome for 25 years – but that he preached the Gospel for 25 years starting in Antioch – and THEN Rome.

There are other things that I am not sure about because I haven't read the ful context or style of writing of the authors. See... I believe you can't pull a quote out of a writing without reading the whole letter. But one first glance...
Mark was a disciple of Peter? Really? Well, if its the Apostle Mark.... THATS A LIE! Mark was an Apostle and by Jesus"s words, his equal.

This is a perfect example of your ignorance.
There was NO Apostle named “Mark”. The Apostles that Jesus chose were:

Peter, Andrew, James, John, James the Less, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, Philip, Jude, Simon the Zealot and Judas

Peter was NOT the first Apostle chose. HOWEVER, he is always listed first – and in Matt. 10:2, he is CALLED “Protos” (First).



Another... Peter was the first chosen of the Apostles? No! By what Johnoted he was clearly third. Read John 1. But see... I am a fair man. I am going on what you provided me. I don't know what he was getting at. Word for word, he's clearly wrong.
Was he the first chosen? No. But did the author mean he was chosen to be the leader of the Apostles?

I don't know. And even the latter is debatable, but i will not go there yet.

ANow... If YOU BoL have read all these men extensively. I salute you! But i still won't trust your opinion. Its clouded by Catholicism. Saying mine is clouded by doubt is fair game. We can throw down staves and see were almonds bud.

[SIZE=9pt]But BoL.... If you think that listing of pull quotes was brilliant...well... It wasn't.[/SIZE]

It was brilliant enough to expose YOU . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wow.... You really aren't making sense here. Please try to follow the flow of the conversation.

Then start making sense . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Good heavrns Bread... I already did! I wrote a rather lengthy post on it! Im not going to do it again.

Uhhh . . . no, you didn't, as I have amply illustrated in post #145.

 

[epostle1]

Good heavrns Bread... I already did! I wrote a rather lengthy post on it! Im not going to do it again.

No, you did not. If you disagree with what a primary source is against a stack of dictionary definitions, then you will re-define what a contradiction means to suit your opinion. There are no contradictions against scripture in BoL quotes, and you haven't proven anything, except that you don't know what a primary source is, and you don't know what a contradiction is either.

I explained how Eusebius was correct.
Then you misquoted Tertullian, then you made a big deal because he didn't name Peter as 1st Pope in one letter.
Regarding any other Apostle, you don't understand how Peter and all the Apostles are equal, with Peter being an equal as bishop of Rome, but the only Apostle as leader of all the Apostles. It's a two fold leadership that the other Apostles did not have. Protestants deny the evidence, and jump to conclusions that are misleading. Like Bol pointed out, Mark was not an Apostle. The Gospel of Mark was probably witten by an anonymous author.

Then you confuse being called first with being assigned full authority. The Father did not first reveal to John who Jesus was, John did not have his name changed, was not the first to be given the keys of the kingdom... I could go on...but you highlight John's calling because you think it can diminish Peter's role. Your agenda is at the expense of the truth.

There are no contradictions to scripture in any of BoL ECF quotes, you have failed to prove otherwise.

con·tra·dic·tion wikipedia
ˌkäntrəˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
"the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
"the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
"the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"
synonyms: denial, refutation, rebuttal, countering
"a contradiction of his statement"

According to this wikipedia definition, you contradict yourself.

 

[FHII]

Ummmmm – NOWHERE does it say that Peter preached in Rome for 25 years – but that he preached the Gospel for 25 years starting in Antioch – and THEN Rome.

Yes he was. That is the proper context. Even Kelpha agrees that Eusebius meant Peter was in Rome for 25 years. And just to be sure I looked at several catholic sites and they agree too. Not to meantion that you fail to address those who say Peter didn't arrive till after Nero became Emperor.

Eusebius claimed Peter preached the gospel for 25 years in Rome. That is the proper context of his quote.

Yea i dropped the ball on the Mark bit. Mark still wasn't Peter's disciple though.

 

[FHII]

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.

That's from wikipedia. I think that of all the sources we have discussed Ignatius was the earliest at around 110 AD. The others range from 180 to 400 AD.

Now when Peter was in Rome is somewheres around 42 to 67 AD. Guess what? With the possible exception of Ignatius (and even this is doubtful) NONE OF THESE WRITERS WERE ALIVE WHEN IT HAPPENED!!!! They didn't write what they wrote when it happened. You can't produce a primary source if you weren't even born yet.

I am a civil war buff. I have read countless civil war books and watched many documentaries. I can write some great and truthful essays on the civil war, but I can't be a primary source. None of the church fathers we are discussing are primary sources.

The only primary source in this discussion is the Bible... And you folks blast me for sticking to it and not wavering on it.

 

[FHII]

Uhhh . . . no, you didn't, as I have amply illustrated in post #145.

Uhh... Yea I did. And the fact that you responded to it is proof that I did. How is it that you responded to something I didn't do?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes he was. That is the proper context. Even Kelpha agrees that Eusebius meant Peter was in Rome for 25 years. And just to be sure I looked at several catholic sites and they agree too. Not to meantion that you fail to address those who say Peter didn't arrive till after Nero became Emperor.

Eusebius claimed Peter preached the gospel for 25 years in Rome. That is the proper context of his quote.

Yea i dropped the ball on the Mark bit. Mark still wasn't Peter's disciple though.

Mark wasn't Peter's disciple - based on what, exactly??
On the same criteria you use to declare that the Gettysburg Address is a fairy tale??

 

[FHII]

BoL wrote:


"First of all – Tertullian is CLEAR that both Peter and Paul were in Rome giving (bequeathing) them the Gospel and dying in Rome for it. Not really sure what problem you see there . . "


Ummm... That is the same thing I said. It isn't proof that Peter wad Pope. It says he was in Rome. This is something you are blind to.

I DO NOT DENY PETER WAS IN ROME!


(Actually... Want to know a secret? I know that you just copied and pasted that from another website!)

 

[BreadOfLife]

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.

That's from wikipedia. I think that of all the sources we have discussed Ignatius was the earliest at around 110 AD. The others range from 180 to 400 AD.

Now when Peter was in Rome is somewheres around 42 to 67 AD. Guess what? With the possible exception of Ignatius (and even this is doubtful) NONE OF THESE WRITERS WERE ALIVE WHEN IT HAPPENED!!!! They didn't write what they wrote when it happened. You can't produce a primary source if you weren't even born yet.

I am a civil war buff. I have read countless civil war books and watched many documentaries. I can write some great and truthful essays on the civil war, but I can't be a primary source. None of the church fathers we are discussing are primary sources.

The only primary source in this discussion is the Bible... And you folks blast me for sticking to it and not wavering on it.

Nobody blasts you for using the Bible to prove something.
We take issue with you for your hypocrisy in stating that you are not a Sola Scripturist, when in fact - you ARE.

Can you answer something about that?
When was the expiration date for 2 Thess. 2:15?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Uhh... Yea I did. And the fact that you responded to it is proof that I did. How is it that you responded to something I didn't do?

WHAT are you talking about??
In post #142 - I said: "Can you show me from the quotes I presented where they contradict each other??"

You never contradicted a single thing.
You tried - and failed . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

BoL wrote:


"First of all – Tertullian is CLEAR that both Peter and Paul were in Rome giving (bequeathing) them the Gospel and dying in Rome for it. Not really sure what problem you see there . . "


Ummm... That is the same thing I said. It isn't proof that Peter wad Pope. It says he was in Rome. This is something you are blind to.

I DO NOT DENY PETER WAS IN ROME!


(Actually... Want to know a secret? I know that you just copied and pasted that from another website!)

Copied and pasted what, exactly??

 

[FHII]

Nobody blasts you for using the Bible to prove something.
We take issue with you for your hypocrisy in stating that you are not a Sola Scripturist, when in fact - you ARE.

Can you answer something about that?
When was the expiration date for 2 Thess. 2:15?

That is a false charge and I have demonstrated that. How is it that I agree that Peter was in Rome when the Bible only hints one time he may have been?

 

[FHII]

WHAT are you talking about??
In post #142 - I said: "Can you show me from the quotes I presented where they contradict each other??"

You never contradicted a single thing.
You tried - and failed . . .

Yea... I did. Just cause you don't like it doesn't mean I didn't. You are at odds with Kelpha and every catholic source i consulted on the Eusebius quote and you refrained from my other points.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That is a false charge and I have demonstrated that. How is it that I agree that Peter was in Rome when the Bible only hints one time he may have been?

Because the Bible says so (1 Pet. 5:13).
As for your being a Sola Scripturist - you CLAIM that you're not but you're doing a pretty good impersonation . . .


PS - you never answered my question:
When was the expiration date for 2 Thess. 2:15?

 

[FHII]

Because the Bible says so (1 Pet. 5:13).
As for your being a Sola Scripturist - you CLAIM that you're not but you're doing a pretty good impersonation . . .


PS - you never answered my question:
When was the expiration date for 2 Thess. 2:15?

Insult me and then scold me for not asking a stupid question....

And that is a pretty stupid question.