Let's have a christian discussion, why catholicism is the best option?

>why catholicism is the best option?
because they killed the most people and hoarded the most riches and influence?

No, of course not. Such a thing did not exist.

Peter was murdered by Rome.

Peter was never the "leader" of the apostles, and he never claimed to be. He was sent by the apostles; the sender is greater than the one sent. Even when it comes to Jesus.

Acts 8
Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter 5:1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:

The primacy of Peter is the root of much evil in the Catholic church.

ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Because it did more for Europe.
No, he got Martyr in Rome. Which is why they needed to pick someone else.

Define God and give three examples.

>No, he got Martyr in Rome.
Is there evidence of this (both his martyrdom and it being in Rome)?

It seems that the earliest account is Tertullian writing 100 years later.

>No, of course not. Such a thing did not exist.
When did the bishophood/episcopate first come into being? I've read that the end of the first century is the earliest attestation but surely that's pretty damn late?

I asked a question, why are you returning my question with another one?

His bones.

Those are the Nicolaitans that eventually became the Roman Catholics. They had a hierarchical structure of clergy down to laity.

Jesus hates their ways and their beliefs, and said as much.

Never let any man stand between you and God, and tear down any who try.

There's only one church that acknowledges ALL of Christ's revelations on Earth.

His bones were actually discovered in Bethany.

Very shortly thereafter, "Peter's" bones were found in the Vatican.

Surprise, surprise.

And we know for a fact that they belong to him?

So he got buried in Bethany after being killed by the romans and got his bones placed in Rome.
Because faith, something that this board doesn't have and wants to drive blindly into falling into a failure.

Again, is there evidence he got martyred by the Romans?

What about Clement I? Though he is still quite late (88AD or thereabouts)

I like Catholicism because it allows repentance. If you commit a sin, later in life you can realise what you've done and pledge to not do it again, and you're absolved of your sin. I'm not sure if Christianity has this but it's much more stressed in Catholicism

The reports.
Are you Orthodox?

Reminds me of that tale I recently read.
It happens in the middle ages, it's a French devout catholic that wants to save his Jewish friend from hell. Through eloquence and tenacity he almost succeeds, and the Jew tells him that he's going to Rome to see the pope and his court, and will convert if what he sees seems holy.
The Christian is disappointed by this and tries to convince his friend not to go to Rome, and to go meet the doctors of the Sorbonne instead. But the Jew's decision is made and so he goes.
When he comes back his devout friend sheepishly ask him about his trip, and as expected he is told about the corruption, the greed and hypocrisy, and concludes sadly that the Jew is now a lost cause.
But the Jew asks him to lead him to the nearest church to get baptized : because if a religion, like Christianity, despite led by people that put all their forces into making a mockery of it, still manages to spread across the world... It obviously means that it got God's support.

To give you a glimpse of the size of your question, obviously. And quite obviously, the attempt failed.

Nestor did not understand the hypostatic union; that Jesus could be both the Son of Man and the Son of God seamlessly, at once. So he posited that Jesus had two natures, one human and one divine. He was denounced as a heretic.

The Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox church used to be one church. They split over the primacy of the pope, the Bishop of Rome, with the people leaving desiring their own patriarchy.

They are essentially the same religion, and have essentially the same rites and rituals.

They stress that you must be a member of their church, baptized in their church, and for the latter, smeared with oil to let the Holy Spirit in.

I wish I were kidding about that.

I see them both as legs on the same statue; the statue that Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar was the empires of the world as they related to the Hebrews. Rome was the two legs of iron; the 10 toes are mixed iron and clay, and are the kingdom of the antichrist.

All of the kingdoms get obliterated by Jesus, who is as much man as though not God, and as much God as though not man. They hypostatic union between Man and God; our Kinsman Redeemer; our Mediator between us and God.

No, he was killed by Rome and taken back home for burial.

The Vatican's bones of Peter are the least of their deceptions.

I hold all proto-Catholics to the same disdain as regular Catholics.

>No, he was killed by Rome and taken back home for burial.
Isn't that what I just said? Anyways, his bones get taken back to Rome.

Roman reports? I'm not trying to be hostile but it feels like you're being intentionally vague here.

Technically Orthodox, but I'm more of a deist in practice

Nestor was patronized for awhile before his beliefs were decanted as being heretical though.

Let me tell you the truth.

Your sins were forgiven you before you were born.

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

You don't have a sin barrier between you and God anymore; you have a barrier between life and death.

If you have the Spirit of God, you have life; if you have not the Spirit of God, you have not life.

Catholics continuously require their membership to live an empty life of sin, confess, repent, penance, sin, repent, confess, penance, however you slice it, it comes up banal and meaningless. You can never know all of your own sins, and thus can never confess them.

But they were all forgiven at the cross; they were all forgotten at the cross.

Because I don't have all the info and I'm trying to figure out what the hell happen and trying to explain it to you, the fag that wants to spit on Peter.

No, they did not. They are still in Bethany.

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over [pg. 4] Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures show the story. The first show an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".

The pope, as always, lied.

>Your sins were forgiven you before you were born.
The Original sin is cleared from you. That means you are blessed without sin, but with time you get dirty with sin.

Which is why I do not follow men's understanding, but seek God's.

Keeps me out of foolishness like God wanting me to be a vampire and a cannibal.

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

That is a lie from the pit of hell.

Arianism is superior.

No they aren't, they are in Rome. It is in Rome.
The only lie is the one that you can live a degenerate life and come out in heaven. That is not how it works.

Bones that were not Peter's are in Rome.
Bones that were Peter's are in Jerusalem.

Your lie that you can live a righteous life is a lie from satan himself to Eve.

Here's your righteousness, right here:

Isaiah 64
But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.

pls

youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE

The bible despises Nicolaitans, and Catholics are Nicolaitans.

Clergy over laity.

> This thread

You trying to start shit? The bones are in Rome, they were in Jerusalem and now they reside in Rome.

You're that autistic French guy who posts the same pictures on here every day aren't you?

Forgive me for being skeptical when there's no evidence for anything resembling the papacy or apostolic succession before 88AD.

>le conman face
cesletter.com/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf

Into the trash it goes.

>You're that autistic French guy who posts the same pictures on here every day aren't you?
My only posts ITT are and

>You're that autistic French guy who posts the same pictures on here every day aren't you?
Who?
>Forgive me for being skeptical when there's no evidence for anything resembling the papacy or apostolic succession before 88AD.
And forgive me for telling you that Orthodoxy has done jack shit to defend the holy land and is just a puppet of the government.

I know such "holy relics" are of such worth to you papists.

It would be nice if you actually tried to meet the real Peter, instead of rubbing his bones for luck.

Oh and I would never call someone a ''fag''.

>And forgive me for telling you that Orthodoxy has done jack shit to defend the holy land and is just a puppet of the government.
>no evidence for anything resembling [...] apostolic succession
You think I'm trying to defend Orthodoxy? My statement was just as much of a dig at them.

My bad

>It would be nice if you actually tried to meet the real Peter
No shit, but he's dead, so that is a moot point.

>That bald guy that's trying to seduce the emperor.

Are you saying Nestor is wrong?

But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, "lest," said he, "forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one." This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!

newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

Protestants explain

Sorry to interrupt the shitposting fest which has been started boys but let me remind you that:

ctrl+f: ''0p0k'' or ''Keepa''
peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich16.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE

Again, who's the rock, that would be Peter. Peter died to spread the word of Christ, and now it's an office, to die and be the one as close to Christ like he was.

It's both.
Patristic fathers explained it as both faith and/or Jesus, and as Peter.
t. Ortho

Bible was written in Greek, not Aramaic.

So no, your argument is garbage. The author writing in Greek went out of his way to demonstrate that Petros, Peter, and petra, foundation, are two entirely different things.

"and upon you, Peter, will I build my church."

--Things Jesus never said.

>Bible was written in Greek, not Aramaic.
Except Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic...*gasp*

Rock is Jesus.

Jesus died to make the church possible.

Ironically, by worshiping Peter, you will never meet him.

See

Which might be convincing if you think Matthew was written before the 50s AD or even the 80s. I'm not one of those people, but that's a discussion for another time.

The closet thing to a leader Christianity had was Jesus's brother James organizing a small group of Jews. Paul talks of meeting with him and it's clear Peter works for James.

Beyond that there were unrelated "house churches", small groups of a dozen or so people that would gather in the residence of the guy with the largest house once a week to discuss religion and share meals.

There were no such things as bishops

Reminder for the shitposting heretic proddies ITT:

scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html
scripturecatholic.com/justification.html

protestanterrors.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=kd66KXIbAjc
youtube.com/watch?v=xL2Hyve-kwg
youtube.com/watch?v=K_4RFoknrwc

They are. The fact that a hierarchy of sorts already existed in the NT itself only makes this a problem for Protties who have issues with them.

James is the leader of the Jerusalem church and Paul holds authority hence his letters.

The Apostles are on top with the college of presbyters who might be led by a bishop or a head in each city.

BAIT
A
I
T

PRODDIES ON SUICIDE WATCH

Going from
>James was the leader
to
>The Apostles are on top with the college of presbyters who might be led by a bishop or a head in each city.

Seems like a bit of a leap

Luther BTFO

I believe the word of God and it is why I am today a christian and why I profess the Reformed faith which is I truly believe the faith of the apostles and the church as Christ intended and restored to it uncorrupted foundation by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century. It is why I renounce Roman Catholic whore and her pope and all her apostate teachings

I owe my salvation to God and His son Jesus Christ alone, He (God) gave me the intelligence to search for and find the truth by opening my mind to His word and receiving in my soul His grace which then revealed to me the truth of the written word of God.

See

I said that James is the leader of the Jerusalem church.

The NT makes this clear.

This matches the structure of a college of presbyters led by a leading bishop in each city.

Explain this

The first clear attitude to emerge on the relation between Scripture, tradition and the church was the coincidence view: that the teaching of the church, Scripture and tradition coincide. Apostolic tradition is authoritative but does not differ in content from the Scriptures. The teaching of the church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition. The classical embodiment of the coincidence view is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian.

These both reject the Gnostic claims to a secret tradition supplementing Scripture. Apostolic tradition does not add to Scripture but is evidence of how it is correctly to be interpreted. This tradition is found in those churches which were founded by the apostles, who taught men whose successors teach today. These apostolic churches agree as to the content of the Christian message, in marked contrast to the variations among the heretics. It is important to note that it is the church which is the custodian of Scripture and tradition and which has the authentic apostolic message. There was no question of appealing to Scripture or tradition against the church. This is partly because the apostolic tradition was found in the church but not just for this reason: the Holy Spirit preserves the church from error and leads her into the truth. The real concern of Irenaeus and Tertullian was not with the relation between Scripture and tradition but with the identity of ecclesiastical with apostolic teaching. Any exposition of their teaching on Scripture and tradition which fails to show this is to that extent defective. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 39, 40)

That's one of Protestantism's core doctrine gone down the drain

>restored to it uncorrupted foundation by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century
Daily reminder that Luther and Huss's reforms considered the greek church on example on how christianity should work. So the original intention was just removing some medieval catholic crud like indulgences that had sprung up from Western Christendom, not protestantism.

3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones." Ephesians 5:30 He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body.

newadvent.org/fathers/0103502.htm

Oops, this isn't a Reformed view of the Eucharist. Oh wait who's right, Luther or Calvin? Both CANNOT be correct or God is inconsistent with himself

>The NT makes this clear.
I know that
>the structure of a college of presbyters led by a leading bishop in each city.
but there's no evidence it worked the same way back then

Also, why is Peter answering to James if Peter is meant to be top dog?

Not a protestant but I'd be careful throwing Catholic Encyclopedia articles around. I've read some embarrassing stuff on there.

We do from Clement, Ignatius and the authority the Apostles have. NT also details the Council of Jerusalem which further amplifies the Apostles as leaders.

Your question is irrelevant. I said that the Apostles are on top. I didn't put any one apostle above all the others.

Catholic Encyclopedia's translations of the Church Fathers are fine.

Actually, Calvin and Luther believed in the Eucharist, and their churches still do.
As i said, before the Reformation turned into a, pardon my expression, european clusterfuck, their view of Church would have been some sligthly stripped down cathortodox hybrid.

Calvin doesn't believe that the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ. Luther does.

The entirety of the Early Church does as well.

If we are to trust history, Luther is right. If we trust the Protestant view, we get God contradicting himself since we now have to opposing views claimed as true.

Yeah, you are right.

Luther said the same and what did Zwingli and Calvin do? They both say no.

The true church believes in all the mysteries of God presented in scriptures.

Holy scriptures does not teach apostolic succession.. And the roman Church can not even prove they have it nor do they have it, this man made up qualification .

Gods true Church are sinners who cling only to Christ AND HIS FULL AND FREE FORGIVNESS of their sin's.

Guess the true church of the Reformers fail to comprehend this mystery if any.

Apostolic Succession is necessary and entails the passing of teachings from one generation to another with physical lineage as proof of its authenticity.

No one in the Early Church even hold onto a notion of Sola Scriptura. Academic sources even by Protestant scholars themselves shows this time and time and time again.

Comprehend is a bad word. More appropriate would be "believe" and "agree" on this mystery.

In any document predating Ignatius the distinction between a presbyter and a episcopus is unclear. Ignatius is the first place we hear of a there tiered priesthood

Ignatius lived close to the Apostles time. Even closer is Clement of Rome who emphasize the authority of the clergy and hierarchy.

Three tiered*

>Clement, Ignatius
Did they demonstrate this structure was in place at the time of James and Peter?
I have issues with Acts as scholars date it post-80AD at the earliest (when the episcopate could have already been in place) and the author most likely didn't know Paul, Peter or James.

>Your question is irrelevant. I said that the Apostles are on top. I didn't put any one apostle above all the others.
You're right, my bad

Is that you, Constantine?

My understanding is he was writing at the end of the 1st century. While it is often argued he was a student of one of the apostles, There is no support for this outside church tradition that I am aware of.

In any case it seems likely there was not a clear division between presbyter and bishops for the first few decades

shopped?

From what I've heard there were some ancient registers listing a succession of bishops which were actually tampered with several times over the course of the centuries.

That alone should tell you that even if there was was sort of succession system it was on that would have disqualified the church as being the real leaders.

You mean this quote by Irenaeus?

>The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

I don't recall it being tampered with however Irenaeus is our only source for Linus and Anacletus so it doesn't rank high in terms of credibility. Nobody was keeping track of apostolic succession in the mid first century because they thought the Second Coming was going to happen pretty soon.

No clear division but a hierarchy existed. That's the main point one that obviously puts the Apostles on the top followed by the presbyter-bishops.

Given the Jewish background which Christianity emerged from, it wouldn't be surprising if they took their organizational structure from the Synagogues of their day. There are after all Jews amongst them.

Why do you have issue with Acts? academical sources like the Cambridge History of Christianity sees its events as historical, at least regarding the whole dispute between the Jewish and Gentile factions of the church.

I'm not Constantine but I'm her husband

Probably. Would be nice if it's real though