The BEGINNING OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH:

[Jude3b]

Roman Catholicism was formed in the 4th century A.D. Peter was not a Pope at all. The first pope was Siricius. He was the first one to use the term "POPE."

While it can be said that the visible church of God had become so apostate that Roman Catholicism was started about 270 A.D., it actually was not until 384 A.D. when Siricius (384-399) became the first Roman Bishop to call himself "Pontifex Maximus" and a new term, "POPE" (papa). Satan was a busy fellow. He could not kill the church of God off by persecution, so he joined the visible religious church.

Now pagan Rome became the so-called "holy" city. The pope had the religious powers of Caesar and claimed to rule the "church."

In reality the true church of God, the body of Christ fled into the wilderness. They knew that Rome was the "whore of Babylon" and they could see the handiwork of the devil in creating the anti-christ Papacy.

[furay]

In reality the true church of God, the body of Christ fled into the wilderness. They knew that Rome was the "whore of Babylon" and they could see the handiwork of the devil in creating the anti-christ Papacy.

Funny how this "true church of God" left behind no evidence of its existence. Hmmm... how convenient....

[betzerg]

Funny how this "true church of God" left behind no evidence of its existence. Hmmm... how convenient....

The parshat this sabbath was on Elijah...and how he assumed that he was the only one who was following G-d. G-d told him that there were 7,000 who had not bent their knees to Baal. G-d always keeps a remnent to holds on to truth. Some times they aren't as visible as we would like...but they still exist.

Read REvelation 12. In my opinion this is a picture of Israel giving birth to Messiah and then being protected from the dragon by fleeing into the wilderness for a "times time and a time".

I think it's time.

Shalom,

BETZER

[Jude3b]

Funny how this "true church of God" left behind no evidence of its existence. Hmmm... how convenient....

Are you really that ignorant of the Word of God, that you have never heard or read about the church of God - the body of Christ??

[furay]

Are you really that ignorant of the Word of God, that you have never heard or read about the church of God - the body of Christ??

Show me evidence that this 'church of God' existed between A.D. 384 to let's say A.D. 1000. Surely you can name at least 10 believers in this 600 + year period. Give me some names and some hard facts please. Thank you very much.

[Jude3b]

Show me evidence that this 'church of God' existed between A.D. 384 to let's say A.D. 1000. Surely you can name at least 10 believers in this 600 + year period. Give me some names and some hard facts please. Thank you very much.

I'm not that old, so I was not living between A.D. 384 and A.D. 1000.

However, I have proof that the church of God - the body of Christ, existed during the Apostolic period - during the first century A.D.
Would you like that proof?

[furay]

I'm not that old, so I was not living between A.D. 384 and A.D. 1000.

So, you aren't aware of any documents or persons living during these 600 years who were members of this church? That's strange! I would think that God would want the Gospel to be preached openly to all nations and that some evidence from this period would survive to the present day. Weird... I guess the gates of hell prevailed against the Church. Doh! Christ was wrong... let's pack it all up and move on...

The above is sarcasm, by the way.

However, I have proof that the church of God - the body of Christ, existed during the Apostolic period - during the first century A.D.
Would you like that proof?

Nah, I'm already familiar with that proof a.k.a. the Holy Scriptures. Not to mention the Didache and other early Christian writings.

[betzerg]

I'm not that old, so I was not living between A.D. 384 and A.D. 1000.

However, I have proof that the church of God - the body of Christ, existed during the Apostolic period - during the first century A.D.
Would you like that proof?

But you were living in the first century A.D? Why do you guys have to play such silly games. If you don't have any evidence...just say it. What is it? Pride? Arrogance? The desire to be right? that keeps us from just saying...I really don't know on that one....maybe there isn't any evidence.


Shalom,

BETZER

[Hail Mary]

Roman Catholicism was formed in the 4th century A.D. Peter was not a Pope at all. The first pope was Siricius. He was the first one to use the term "POPE."

Jude, I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but most everything you've written about the Church is just wrong. Specifically about the above, Siricius wasn't the first to use the term POPE. If you think about it, thats really an absurd statement. Pater and Papa were in use LONG before the 4th century, and even priests were known as Pope long before the 4th century too.

Do you have a source for the above, or did you just make it up?

[VFarris01]

Pater and Papa were in use LONG before the 4th century, and even priests were known as Pope long before the 4th century too.

Do you have a source for the above, or did you just make it up?

A.A. Hodge

For more than three hundred years after the apostles they (the RCC, VF) have very little, and that contradictory, evidence for any one of their traditions.

They are thus forced to the absurd assumption that what was taught in the fourth century was therefore taught in the third, and therefore in the first.

© source where applicable

What are YOUR sources? (Tradition does not count.)

FYI, Mr. Hodge was a professor of Theology at Princeton, I am sure he checked HIS sources.

[Hail Mary]

What are YOUR sources? (Tradition does not count.)

I'll provide my source just as soon as Jude supplies his source for his statement that Siricius was the first one to use the term "POPE." I'm not expecting that I'll actually have to provide it anytime in the near future, but just think about it. Its remarkably easy to provide a pre-4th century reference to the term itself. I'm really not sure why you would be defending Jude's absurd claim here. (Actually I can think of a few reasons, but in the interest of Christian unity, I'll avoid writing them)

Now, if you wanted to enter into a wager about this, say a $10 donation to TheologyWeb, I'll be happy to supply my source. If you'll agree to donate $10 once this has been supplied.

FYI, Mr. Hodge was a professor of Theology at Princeton, I am sure he checked HIS sources.

You can expect me to write a strongly worded letter to Princeton about this matter! Actually, lets assume Mr Hodge checked his sources, that really has nothing to do with my objections to his writings. He first presupposes he has the authority to interpret scripture outside the teachings of the Church, then he remarkably later concludes he has the authority to interpret scripture. Well, isn't that profound! (He does have a cool looking beard though)

[VFarris01]

What are YOUR sources? (Tradition does not count.)

I'll provide my source just as soon as Jude supplies his source for his statement that Siricius was the first one to use the term "POPE." I'm not expecting that I'll actually have to provide it anytime in the near future, but just think about it. Its remarkably easy to provide a pre-4th century reference to the term itself. I'm really not sure why you would be defending Jude's absurd claim here. (Actually I can think of a few reasons, but in the interest of Christian unity, I'll avoid writing them)

Now, if you wanted to enter into a wager about this, say a $10 donation to TheologyWeb, I'll be happy to supply my source. If you'll agree to donate $10 once this has been supplied.

Would it not "help" your cause if you provided support of a person being called "pope" before Siricius, I mean, if it IS that easy. I do not "support" Jude in his "causes" and I do not care who was first called "pope."

FYI, Mr. Hodge was a professor of Theology at Princeton, I am sure he checked HIS sources.

You can expect me to write a strongly worded letter to Princeton about this matter!

Actually, lets assume Mr Hodge checked his sources, that really has nothing to do with my objections to his writings. He first presupposes he has the authority to interpret scripture outside the teachings of the Church, then he remarkably later concludes he has the authority to interpret scripture. Well, isn't that profound!

You mean we cannot independently interpret scripture. Better tell the Bereans.

A.A. Hodge

20. What is the objection which the Romanists make to this doctrine, on the ground that the church is our only authority for believing that the scriptures are the word of God?

Their objection is, that as we receive the scriptures as the word of God only on the authoritative testimony of the church, our faith in the Scriptures is only another form of our faith in the church, and the authority of the church, being the foundation of that of Scripture, must of course be held paramount.

This is absurd, for two reasons:

1st. The assumed fact is false. The evidence upon which we receive Scripture as the word of God is not the authority of the church, but—(1.) God did speak by the apostles and prophets, as is evident (a) from the nature of their doctrine, (b) from their miracles, (c) their prophecies, (d) our personal experience and observation of the power of the truth. (2.) These very writings which we possess were written by the apostles, etc., as is evident, (a) from internal evidence, (b) from historical testimony rendered by all competent cotemporaneous witnesses in the church or out of it.

2nd. Even if the fact assumed was true, viz., that we know the Scriptures to be from God, on the authority of the church's testimony alone, the conclusion they seek to deduce from it would be absurd. The witness who proves the identity or primogenitor of a prince does not thereby acquire a right to govern the kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince.

© source where applicable

Well, isn't that profound! (He does have a cool looking beard though)

I was not sure where to split this up. Profound Mr. Hodge has a beard? I thought they were common in the late 1800's.

[Hail Mary]

Would it not "help" your cause if you provided support of a person being called "pope" before Siricius, I mean, if it IS that easy. I do not "support" Jude in his "causes" and I do not care who was first called "pope."

Ahh, wimping out on the $10 TWeb donation wager ?

You mean we cannot independently interpret scripture. Better tell the Bereans.

The Bereans read scripture after receiving guidance from Paul. After they reached a decision on Christ, they verified this with Paul. This is the essense of interpreting scripture WITHIN the teachings of the Church. You can't just go and form an independent opinion without guidance from the Church. That leads to groups such as Heaven's Gate where they thought UFO's were scripturally based transport mechanisms for the rapture.

[VFarris01]

Would it not "help" your cause if you provided support of a person being called "pope" before Siricius, I mean, if it IS that easy. I do not "support" Jude in his "causes" and I do not care who was first called "pope."

Ahh, wimping out on the $10 TWeb donation wager ?

Nope. Remember, I do not care when the pope was first called the pope. Besides, it is not worth $10 for you to do something I could just as easily do... $0.25 perhaps. The Bishop of Rome was first called "pope" in 384, this was Siricius (any internet search will turn up this information btw). Jude's OP is correct. Saying otherwise is simply a cover-up by the RCC. Other bishops were called pope as well, starting in the 4th century (that is >300). This is a verifiable FACT not unverifiable tradition.

You mean we cannot independently interpret scripture. Better tell the Bereans.

The Bereans read scripture after receiving guidance from Paul. After they reached a decision on Christ, they verified this with Paul. This is the essense of interpreting scripture WITHIN the teachings of the Church. You can't just go and form an independent opinion without guidance from the Church.

The point is, what the Bereans were taught was to be found in scripture. To the best of my knowledge, oral tradition is not and can not be found in scripture. Who gave the RCC the authority to be the sole interpreter of scripture? To the best of anyone's knowledge the RCC gave itself the authority as the sole interpreter of scripture. Do not get into the "pillar and ground of the truth" dodge because it just ain't so. Please, no more on scripture here because we are discussing that topic elsewhere, yes? I have (will have) more on scripture there.

[Mark_S]

Roman Catholicism was formed in the 4th century A.D. Peter was not a Pope at all. The first pope was Siricius. He was the first one to use the term "POPE."

While it can be said that the visible church of God had become so apostate that Roman Catholicism was started about 270 A.D., it actually was not until 384 A.D. when Siricius (384-399) became the first Roman Bishop to call himself "Pontifex Maximus" and a new term, "POPE" (papa). Satan was a busy fellow. He could not kill the church of God off by persecution, so he joined the visible religious church.

Now pagan Rome became the so-called "holy" city. The pope had the religious powers of Caesar and claimed to rule the "church."

In reality the true church of God, the body of Christ fled into the wilderness. They knew that Rome was the "whore of Babylon" and they could see the handiwork of the devil in creating the anti-christ Papacy.

I'm not going to touch the rest of your post right now, but Gregory the Great was probably the first "pope" (I don't think he ever gave himself that title) in the manner that you are using the word pope.