Papal succession as allegedly from the episcopate of St Peter
has always been catholic’s pride but will that be acceptable exposing
insufficiencies of evidences? Or is it a white-wash for its numerous offences
and doctrinal errancies that plague their church to the point of murder?
1Jn 4:1 “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out
into the world.”
They said Peter and Paul
was martyred in Rome.
“the researches of German professors like
A. Harnack and Weizsaecker, of the Anglican Bishop
Lightfoot, and those of archaeologists like De Rossi and Lanciani,
of Duchesne and Barnes, have all come to the same conclusion: St.
Peter did reside and die in Rome.
Beginning with the middle of the second century, there exists
a universal consensus as to Peter's martyrdom in Rome;
·
Dionysius of Corinth speaks for Greece,
·
In the third century the popes claim
authority from the fact that they are St. Peter's successors, and no
one objects to this claim, no one raises a counter-claim.
There he died, there he left his inheritance; the fact is never
questioned in the controversies between East and West. This argument, however, has a weak point:
it leaves about one hundred years for the formation
of historical legends, of which Peter's presence in Rome may be one just as much as his
conflict with Simon Magus. We have then to go farther back into
antiquity.”
This argument, however, has a weak point: it leaves about one
hundred years for the formation of historical legends, of
which Peter's presence in Rome may be one just as much as his
conflict with Simon Magus.
·
“Earlier still is Clement of Rome writing
to the Corinthians, probably in 96, certainly before the end of
the first century. He cites Peter's and Paul's martyrdom as
an example of the sad fruits of fanaticism and envy. They
have suffered "amongst us" he says,
andWeizsaecker rightly sees here another proof for
our thesis.
·
Clement’s letter:
Chapter 5. No Less Evils
Have Arisen from the Same Source in the Most Recent Times. The Martyrdom of
Peter and Paul.
“But not
to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most
recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples
furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the
greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let
us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter,
through unrighteous envy, endured
not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom,
departed to the place of glory due
to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the
reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown
into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After
preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due
to his faith, having
taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of
the west, and suffered martyrdom under
the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holyplace,
having proved himself
a striking example of patience.”
Is that
true? Was paul also martyred or that, he died of old age?
Luke,
Paul’s companion throughout his roman experience never indicated paul’s
martyrdom, which they thought was that, the book of acts was written prior to
his death.
Some
of the text (Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-21:18, 27:1-28:16) refers to the author as one
of the “we” who traveled with Paul, but Paul's execution is not mentioned, and
no reference to his letters is made.
Some scholars have reasoned therefore
that the book was written before Paul's death (circa 61) and before the
collection of his letters early in the 2nd century. Because the Acts is
designed to serve as a second volume, however, the book must be at least
slightly later than the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel is almost certainly
later than that of Mark. The result is to put Luke's two volumes sometime in
the last two decades of the 1st century.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. ©
1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Here scholars decided the veracity of unknown
things as though opinions equates to facts but an in-depth knowledge of
biblical testimonies will prove these perverts wrong. Paul was not executed at
all.
Here is
Paul’s own testimony concerning his death.
2Ti 4:6 “For I am now ready to be offered, and the
time of my departure is at hand.
2Ti 4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished [my] course, I
have kept the faith:
2Ti 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of
righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day:
and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.”
This indicates
Paul’s expectation of his imminent death. Was he talking about martyrdom or was
he talking about departure bec he was old?
Was he
imprisoned under the prefects?
2Ti 4:11 “Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with
thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
2Ti 4:12 And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus.
2Ti 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou
comest, bring [with thee], and the books, [but] especially the parchments.
2Ti 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord
reward him according to his works:
2Ti 4:15 Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood
our words.”
When he
said that his departure is at hand, he was not writing it under captivity, but
liberally he was on his ministry still.
Was he
martyred then? Was there a possibility?
2Ti 4:17 “Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened
me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and [that] all the Gentiles
might hear: AND I WAS DELIVERED OUT OF THE MOUTH OF THE LION.
2Ti 4:18 AND THE LORD SHALL DELIVER ME FROM EVERY EVIL WORK AND
WILL PRESERVE ME UNTO HIS HEAVENLY KINGDOM: to whom [be] glory for ever and
ever. Amen.”
AND THE LORD SHALL DELIVER ME FROM EVERY EVIL
WORK AND WILL PRESERVE ME UNTO HIS HEAVENLY KINGDOM
That is God’s assurance that he will not be martyred
but to die of old age.
1C 14:37 “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual,
let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”
Ga 1:20 “Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before
God, I lie not.”
How about
Peter, was he martyred?
Jn 21:17 “He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas,
lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest
thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that
I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Jn 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young,
thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt
be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and
carry [thee] whither thou wouldest
not.
Jn 21:19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify
God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.”
“but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands,
and another shall gird thee, and carry [thee] whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God.”
This clearly indicates how peter will die of old
age also, and not as some intellectual liars’ spurious reports of martyrdom. but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt
stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry [thee] whither
thou wouldest not. Carry thee
whither thou wouldest not is of course the grave when he dies of old age as
implied by this: This
spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God.
but when
thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird
thee. and carry [thee] whither thou wouldest not.
But they might argue, that was his
crucifixion when they tied him and carry him where he wouldest not-his
martyrdom!
Wrong. And another shall gird thee means
another will dress thee, as implied by this: When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou
wouldest. To gird himself when he is young and another gird him when he was
old, indicates clothing, peter will reach that point during old age in
near-death situation wherein he is incapable of dressing himself and that another
dress him up preparatory of carrying him whither he wouldest not when he was
younger, that is the imminent grave as proven by the verse: This spake he, signifying by what death he
should glorify God. That is, death by old age.
During his alleged martyrdom, was he not the
one who dresses himself or other people? Was he unable to dress himself?
Now folks,
ask this to yourselves, who lied? The bible or the catholic’s unreliable
sources?
Both paul and peter died of old age. They said,
no! By martyrdom! But they doubted it themselves.
Let’s quote
their doubts.
“There he died, there he left his inheritance;
the fact is never questioned in the controversies
between East and West. This
argument, however, has a weak point: it leaves about one hundred years for the
formation of historical legends, of which Peter's presence
in Rome may be
one just as much as his conflict with Simon Magus. We have then to go farther back into
antiquity.”
100 years is too long for an inerrant research.
They admitted, it is their argument’s weak point. It makes it more un-trustworthy esp having
these biblical confirmations. It is man who researched it therefore has errors
and bec it has no absolute exactness. This
argument, however, has a weak point: it leaves about one hundred years for the
formation of historical legends.
How sure are you now that your evidences were
not historical legends?
How about their proof of Episcopal succession
from peter then to linus to anacletus to clement etc…, was there convincing
proof of such descent? Though I tackled this from previous post, I want to
reiterate.
(1) Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul
as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).
(2) The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how
"Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself
had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in
ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's
chair).
(3) Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the
thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).
(4) Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop
of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).
(5) Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as "the place of
Peter" (Ep ad Anton), and as "the Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Pope
Cornelius).
(6) Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen's claim to the
"succession of Peter" and to the "Chair of Peter" (Ep ad
Cyprian).
(7) Eusebius (314) says that Peter was "the bishop of
Rome for twenty-five years" (Chron an 44), and calls Linus "first
after Peter to obtain the episcopate" (Chron an 66). He also says that
Victor was "the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter" (HE III, 4).
(8) The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the
Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases
involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and
Ep ad Pope Julius).
(9) Athanasius (340's) calls Rome the "Apostolic
Throne" -- a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy
that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).
(10) Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome
was first established by Peter, "in which chair sat Peter himself."
He also says how "Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair," which
"is the first of the marks of the Church." (Schism Donat II, 2 and
II, 3).
(11) Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the "Apostolic
chair" in which "the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how
to guide the helm of the Church" (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V,
10). Damasus also states how "The first See is that of Peter the Apostle,
that of the Roman church" and says how Rome received primacy not by the
conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the
Lord, when He says, "Thou art Peter..." (Decree of Damasus 382).
(12) Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as "Peter's
chair" and the Roman church where "Peter, first of the Apostles,
first sat" (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).
(13) Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of
Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the
episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I,
1).
(14) Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of
Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of
"the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat" (Contra Lit
Petil).
(15) Prudentius (405) writes how in Rome there were
"the two princes of the Apostles, one the Apostle of the Gentiles, the
other holding the First Chair" (Hymn II in honor of St Laurent, V).
(16) Bachiarius (420) speaks of Rome as "the chair of
Peter, the seat of faith" (De Fide 2).
(17) Prosper of Aquitaine (429) calls Rome "the
Apostolic See" and the "Chair of the Apostle Peter" (Carm de
Ingratis).
(18) The Roman legates at the Council of Ephesus (431)
declare how "it is a matter doubtful to none that Peter lived and
exercised judgement in his successors" and how "the holy and most
blessed [Pope] Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds
his place" (Acta Councilia, session 3, tom III, col 621).
(19) Peter Chrysologus (440) speaks of "blessed Peter
living and presiding in his own see" (Ep ad Eutech).
(20) Pope Leo the Great (440) says how "the whole
Church acknowledges Peter in the See of Peter (Rome)" (Serm II, 2).
(21) At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the assembled
bishops respond to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great by crying out,
"Peter has spoken through Leo." The sentence of the council is
pronounced by the legates "in the name of Leo, the Council, and St.
Peter" (Canons of Chalcedon).
(22) The Synodical Letter to Pope Leo from Chalcedon calls
the Pope "the interpreter of Peter's voice."
(23) Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of
"the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the
merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops" (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI,
col 637).
Are these
people reliable as infallible witnesses of truth?
Eph 6:11 “Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to
stand against the wiles of
the devil.”
2Ti 3:13 “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”
Now that there are deceivers,
how will you authenticate the reliability and inerrancy of these sources? How?
2Ti 3:14 “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned
and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy
scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which
is in Christ Jesus.”
knowing of whom thou hast learned [them]- means the apostles.
As the verses say, we must
only rely on holy scriptures and the apostles and not from ignorant catholic
sources however preeminent and prominent are they or how twistedly are they
exploited for advantage.
The holy scriptures say,
peter was never a bishop of rome as president of the whole church. Peter never
had been an administrator of the church but Paul, so how can these catholic
sources say, Linus took over Peter’s Episcopal seat when peter was never a
church’s administrator. Can you site a verse wherein, Peter was an
administrator? They might quote:
Jn 21:16” He saith to him again the second time, Simon, [son] of
Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love
thee. He saith unto him, Feed my
sheep.”
If indeed that this was an
anointment of presidency but was it Linus indeed who succeeded that throne? but
why was paul mentioned as the administrator of the whole church instead? taking
logic, was it supposed to be paul that should have inherited peter’s
presidential seat and not Linus if so that that was the case? In fact, Paul was
the administrator of the church.
Col 1:24 “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up
that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's
sake, WHICH IS THE CHURCH:
Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation (OIKONOMIAN
in greek: ADMINISTRATION) of
God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;”
according to the ADMINISTRATION OF GOD which
is given to me for you. (dispensation is a wrong translation.)
____________
Greek interlinear bible transliterated:
Greek definition for the mistranslation:“dispensation”
Oikonomia
oy-kon-om-ee’-ah
ADMINISTRATION (of a household or estate) specially a
(religious) economy
_____________
That’s Paul folks! The president of the church then,
even over Peter.
PETER
WAS NEVER MENTIONED AS THE LEADER OF THE CHURCH- THE INCORPORATION OF BOTH JEWS
AND GENTILES ALIKE. ONLY PAUL HAD THAT PRIVILEGE.
You
might argue, but was it not to peter that god gave the privilege of having the
keys of the kingdom of heaven meaning that indeed he was president?
Mt 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.
Mt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven.”
If that is your understanding
of it, but why was Paul the church’s president then, also, as indicated by this
authority.
Ga 2:11 “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Ga 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with
the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself,
fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Ga 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch
that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Ga 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to
the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a
Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why
compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
That’s a rebuke of
authority against an alleged should-be leader. This is a circumstantial
evidence but supportive of the fact of paul’s administration.
By what biblical principle
made Linus a successor of peter and not a successor of paul instead, if so that
Linus headed the church likewise?
PAUL WAS THE ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE CHURCH. PAUL WAS THE CHURCH’S PHYSICAL HEAD.
Col 1:24 “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up
that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's
sake, WHICH IS THE CHURCH:
Col 1:25 WHEREOF I AM MADE A MINISTER ACCORDING TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF GOD WHICH IS GIVEN ME FOR YOU, to fulfill the word of God;”
They say, peter was
testified to by some that he was president, and that his presidential seat was
in rome. Is that so biblically speaking?
Ga 2:7 “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision
(gentiles) was committed
unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision
(jews) [was] unto Peter;
Ga 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the
apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the
Gentiles:)”
This verse concludes the
more, that peter was never in rome and never had been an episcopate in rome but
instead on gospel ministry in jewish
societies. Peter’s ministry was to jew-unbelievers while paul was to
gentile-unbelievers but when it concerns the church’s administration paul was
tasked for it.
Don’t reject that fact and
sticks to an erroneous faith and lying testimonies of liars. Don’t be
knuckleheads. There were and will always be deceivers in this world.
Now folks, ask this to yourselves again, who
lied? The bible or the catholic’s unreliable sources. Ask some more, how did
Linus now become a successor of Peter and not a successor of paul?
But if you stick to your
sources than the bible then inevitably, you believed on this one:
Re 12:9 “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent,
called the Devil, and Satan, WHICH DECEIVETH THE WHOLE WORLD he was cast out
into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”
Be careful catholic folks!
Eph 6:11 “Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to
stand against the wiles of
the devil.”
2Ti 3:13 “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”
That’s all. I hope it
suffice for some doubts and some profound thought and considerations.
Truly yours
DENNIS Y BUTIC https://www.facebook.com/sin.yogi
PS: more of it from this site> nobiblicalcontradiction
PS: more of it from this site> nobiblicalcontradiction
No comments:
Post a Comment