Arcura asked “What Scripture verse show that Peter was the leader?” He writes:

I read the Book entitled "The Rock" long ago.
Unfortunately I have misplaced it.
In the book there were quite a few bible verses and passages that show that the Peter was appointed the leader and the other apostles recognized that and adhered to it.
I need to refresh those in memory.
So I ask what verses and passages in Scripture (and if you know some from sacred tradition) show that the other apostles treated Peter as their leader?
Peace and kindness,

I was very impressed with Rick's response (link) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/what-scripture-verse-show-peter-leader-324239.html#post1580603)

Many have understood the Scripture to give Primacy to Peter since Christ's era. This can be illustrated in a letter written by Pope Clement I (third in succession to Peter and had personally known Peter) to the Corinthians (circa) 95 AD claiming authority over Corinth. St. Irenaeus tells the second hand account from St. Polycarp where John was heard to say “the faithful wo are everywhere must agree with this Church (Rome) because of its more important principality.” During the Councils and Synods surrounding the early heresies the Popes decision settled the matter. This is illustrated in 431 AD. Where the Bishops responded to Pope Celestine's decision, “He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successor's gives judgment.”

Consequently, I'd like to extend this question to include

Part 2: Can we find other similar authoritative evidence in antiquity of Peter's leadership outside of scripture?

JoeT

There's more Irenaeus: Adversus haereses 3.3.2-3.

Also the early ecumenical councils, especially Nicaea and Constantinople: Council of Nicaea (325), canon 39, recognizes the primacy of Rome on account of its being the see of Peter. The Council of Constantinople (381), canon 3, reaffirms the primacy of Rome.

It's worthy of note that Clement's Epistle, which you mention in the OP, was included in the canon of the NT at Corinth.

I was very impressed with Rick’s response (link) (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/what-scripture-verse-show-peter-leader-324239.html#post1580603)


It was very easily refuted https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/what-scripture-verse-show-peter-leader-324239-5.html#post1581468

There's more Irenaeus: Adversus haereses 3.3.2-3.

Also the early ecumenical councils, especially Nicaea and Constantinople: Council of Nicaea (325), canon 39, recognizes the primacy of Rome on account of its being the see of Peter. The Council of Constantinople (381), canon 3, reaffirms the primacy of Rome.

It's worthy of note that Clement's Epistle, which you mention in the OP, was included in the canon of the NT at Corinth.

What would you thinking of St. Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans? For those who don't know St. Ignatius of Antioch, sometimes called Theophorus (ho Theophoros) was born in Syria, 50 A.D. -117A.D. (some believe his death may be as early as 98 A.D.) was one of the earliest ecclesiastical writers. He claims to be the child Christ embraced at the Capharnaum house described in Mark 9:35. There is a strong possibility that St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John. There is strong evidence that he was appointed Bishop over the See of Antioch. While he didn't write of Peter, he did allude to the primacy of the See of Rome.

ProkaΘhmenh thd agaphd “Presiding in the love” (did the greek fonts come through?)

Ignatius writes to Rome presumably as Bishop of Antioch.

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God. St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans


JoeT

What would you thinking of St. Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans? For those who don’t know St. Ignatius of Antioch, sometimes called Theophorus (ho Theophoros) was born in Syria, 50 A.D. -117A.D. (some believe his death may be as early as 98 A.D.) was one of the earliest ecclesiastical writers. He claims to be the child Christ embraced at the Capharnaum house described in Mark 9:35. There is a strong possibility that St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John. There is strong evidence that he was appointed Bishop over the See of Antioch. While he didn’t write of Peter, he did allude to the primacy of the See of Rome.
proka?hmenh thd agaphd “Presiding in the love” (did the greek fonts come through?)

Ignatius writes to Rome presumably as Bishop of Antioch.

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God. St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans


JoeT

St. Ignatius bears compelling testimony to the monarchial episcopate. And he was a disciple not just of John, but of Peter and Paul (who ordained him a deacon). In his Epistle to the Ephesians (which was part of some early NT canons), he defines orthodoxy as fidelity and obedience to the bishop (7.1). He also writes: “Be zealous to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and the presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles, and the deacons (Epistle to Magnesians 6.1)” .

Joe,
Thank you so much for extending this question in the direction that you have.
It is very helpful for me and I think it will be for others who are sincerely interested in Church authenticity and it's history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Joe,
Thank you so much for extending this question in the direction that you have.
It is very helpful for me and I think it will be for others who are sincerely interested in Church authenticity and it's history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Well, I meant to ask forgiveness for hijacking your thread. Be mindful that the authority of the Church is only of consequence to those who don’t recognize it. We learned this in the 60’s where the first thing a protesting hippie did was to deny authority; any form of authority.

JoeT

JoeT
I remember the hippie 60s well.
I thought then, and still do, that resisting any and all authority was foolish and very poorly thought out.
One of the issues that attracted me into the Catholic Church was it's authority given by God The Son.
I dearly loved Jesus and believed that He knew what was best for us and I still do.
He not only founded His Assembly (The Church) He gave it His authority on this planet.
No other denomination or religion has that.
The Church represents and speaks for Christ here on earth and has the keys to heaven as given to Peter. What more of such great value can this human ask for of this human race to trust than that?
As a servant of Christ in dealing with others here that is why I was needing a refresher on what the Bible and history had to say about that God given authority.
And so that is why I'm so pleased that you continued my request for that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Early church leaders affirmed it too:


Clement of Alexandria


"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).



Tertullian


"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19].. . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).



The Letter of Clement to James


"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).



Origen


"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter.. . A great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).



Cyprian of Carthage


"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’.. . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).



Cyril of Jerusalem


"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him.. . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright.. . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).

"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]" (ibid., 17:27).



Ephraim the Syrian


"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).



Ambrose of Milan


"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church.. . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).



Pope Damasus I


"Likewise it is decreed.. . That it ought to be announced that.. . The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.. . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).



Jerome


"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well.. . One among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).



Pope Innocent I


"In seeking the things of God.. . You have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged" (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).



Augustine


"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).



Council of Ephesus


"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you.. . You joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of losing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).



Pope Leo I


"Our Lord Jesus Christ.. . Has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).

"Our Lord Jesus Christ.. . Established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion.. . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery" (ibid., 10:2–3).

"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others.. . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid. 14:11).

Let's not forget when the disciple asked who?


Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

Let's also consider another word of truth by Jesus speaking..


Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last [shall be] first.(Matthew 19:29-30)

There are no favorites in the heart of God.

And the Spiritual Truth brought forth in scripture shows us The Key of David, the (supposed man ) was both.. man, and the begotten Son of God.. King of Kings and Lord of Lords forever...

So let me ask again..

Everyone, "Do you hear Christ, and His Way, His Light is the Life..." "Do you understand that Peter accepted Christ, and loved Christ".. "Peter followed Christ..." "And The House of God is for thankfulness and praise to Christ the Anointed One, our Saviour and Lord" " Your faith is the Christian faith that Peter proclaimed." Do we agree?

Matthew 18:18-19 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

It is interesting that those who believe Peter is the head of the church are basing it primarily on opinions of others.

So let me ask again..

Everyone, "Do you hear Christ, and His Way, His Light is the Life..." "Do you understand that Peter accepted Christ, and loved Christ".. "Peter followed Christ..." "And The House of God is for thankfulness and praise to Christ the Anointed One, our Saviour and Lord" " Your faith is the Christian faith that Peter proclaimed." Do we agree?

Matthew 18:18-19 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.


Yes, you did ask this question once before and deserve an answer. Of course I believe Christ is the way, the light and the truth. Furthermore, I follow the faith of Peter in his pronouncement that Christ is “the Son of the living God.” I follow in obedience to Christ, Peter, and Peter's successors.

As to Matthew 18-19: If it is intended here to state that only two need be together in prayer to constitute “church” it completely misses the point of the passage. This can only be true when that assembly calls on the authority of Christ in unity with His Church. I've quoted a small portion of St. Cyprian's treatise on the Unity of the Church. I chose to cite the entire paragraph so that you can see that my words rely on 2,000 years of faithful obedience to Jesus Christ. It's through the successors of Peter that Christ's words breathed in antiquity properly sounded though his mouth piece Peter, on through the interceding tube of ages to the faithful Church today, the great bell sounding out Christ's Truth.

St. Cyprian concludes the following the paragraph cited, “Thus, also, when He gave the law of prayer, He added, saying, And when you stand praying, forgive, if you have ought against any; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. And He calls back from the altar one who comes to the sacrifice in strife, and bids him first agree with his brother, and then return with peace and offer his gift to God: for God had not respect unto Cain's offerings; for he could not have God at peace with him, who through envious discord had not peace with his brother.” St. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae.

St. Cyprian was baptized A.D. 246 – year of birth and death is unknown.

Nor let any deceive themselves by a futile interpretation, in respect of the Lord having said, Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.Matthew 18:20 Corrupters and false interpreters of the Gospel quote the last words, and lay aside the former ones, remembering part, and craftily suppressing part: as they themselves are separated from the Church, so they cut off the substance of one section. For the Lord, when He would urge unanimity and peace upon His disciples, said, I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth touching anything that you shall ask, it shall be given you by my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, I am with them; showing that most is given, not to the multitude, but to the unanimity of those that pray. If, He says, two of you shall agree on earth: He placed agreement first; He has made the concord of peace a prerequisite; He taught that we should agree firmly and faithfully. But how can he agree with any one who does not agree with the booty of the Church itself, and with the universal brotherhood? How can two or three be assembled together in Christ's name, who, it is evident, are separated from Christ and from His Gospel? For we have not withdrawn from them, but they from us; and since heresies and schisms have risen subsequently, from their establishment for themselves of diverse places of worship, they have forsaken the Head and Source of the truth. But the Lord speaks concerning His Church, and to those also who are in the Church He speaks, that if they are in agreement, if according to what He commanded and admonished, although only two or three gathered together with unanimity should pray— though they be only two or three— they may obtain from the majesty of God what they ask. Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, I, slays He, am with them; that is, with the simple and peaceable— with those who fear God and keep God's commandments. With these, although only two or three, He said that He was, in the same manner as He was with the three youths in the fiery furnace; and because they abode towards God in simplicity, and in unanimity among themselves, He animated them, in the midst of the surrounding flames, with the breath of dew: in the way in which, with the two apostles shut up in prison, because they were simple-minded and of one mind, He Himself was present; He Himself, having loosed the bolts of the dungeon, placed them again in the market-place, that they might declare to the multitude the word which they faithfully preached. When, therefore, in His commandments He lays it down, and says, Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am with them, He does not divide men from the Church, seeing that He Himself ordained and made the Church; but rebuking the faithless for their discord, and commending peace by His word to the faithful, He shows that He is rather with two or three who pray with one mind, than with a great many who differ, and that more can be obtained by the discordant prayer of a few, than by the discordant supplication of many. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm) Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1 De Unitate Ecclesiae. Par. 12. (link)

JoeT


Added note: All Christians should recognize Peter as Head of the Church, but Catholics do predominantly rely on the opinion of others; 266 successors of Peter have pronounced their opinion.

I follow in obedience to Christ, Peter, and Peter's successors.


added note: All Christians should recognize Peter as Head of the Church, but Catholics do predominantly rely on the opinion of others; 266 successors of Peter have pronounced their opinion.

My posted quote of # 10 are in reference to Jesus, and His words spoke as to "Who" His answer was clear, Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. (Matthew 18:1-5)

Being one with Christ, and walking in His ways, and doing the Will of God are the keys that offer Eternal Life. I have no doubt that Peter, himself love Christ. Peter followed Christ, in doing His ways in doing His will... Just as Christ had shown us in doing His Father's Will .. That is the truth of what Christ brought forth and fulfilled in all that is written.

To place anyone as Head other then Christ would not be the doctrine of Christ. But rather it would be the the doctrine of man. It is written:
1 Corinthains 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

It is also very clear what was posted in #10 (And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.)But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last [shall be] first. (Matthew 19:29-30)

Acts 20.28: “Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers [episkopous], in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.”

1 Pet.5.1-3: presbyters are shepherds of the flock gathered to the Church by Christ.

Tit.1.5, 7: Appoint presbyter-bishops in every town. A bishop is “God’s steward”.

Bishops protect the community from false doctrine: Tit.1.9-2.1; 1Tim.4.1-11, 5.17.

Chief function of the bishop is to teach sound doctrine. See Tit.1.9, 2.1; 2Tim.3.14.

The faithful are to be obedient to the bishops: “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow” (Heb.13.17). See also Tit.3.1.

The Apostles are vicars of Christ: Lk.10.1-2, 16; Jn.13.20; 2Cor.5.20; Gal.4.14; Acts 5.1-5.

St. Cyprian was baptized A.D. 246 – year of birth and death is unknown.
Nor let any deceive themselves by a futile interpretation, in respect of the Lord having said, Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.Matthew 18:20 Corrupters and false interpreters of the Gospel quote the last words, and lay aside the former ones, remembering part, and craftily suppressing part: as they themselves are separated from the Church, so they cut off the substance of one section. For the Lord, when He would urge unanimity and peace upon His disciples, said, I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth touching anything that you shall ask, it shall be given you by my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, I am with them; showing that most is given, not to the multitude, but to the unanimity of those that pray. If, He says, two of you shall agree on earth: He placed agreement first; He has made the concord of peace a prerequisite; He taught that we should agree firmly and faithfully. But how can he agree with any one who does not agree with the booty of the Church itself, and with the universal brotherhood?

I can agree if this were the Christian Church with the Head being Christ.




How can two or three be assembled together in Christ's name, who, it is evident, are separated from Christ and from His Gospel?

That would be my question... The Word fulfilled by Christ, in Christ, and in glory of His Father. The Christian fellowship walking as one with Christ, doing the Will of God in His way, and His light.




For we have not withdrawn from them, but they from us; and since heresies and schisms have risen subsequently, from their establishment for themselves of diverse places of worship, they have forsaken the Head and Source of the truth.

Does my belief in Christ as the Head sound as if I have withdrawned from Christian fellowship.. 1 Corinthains 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.



With these, although only two or three, He said that He was, in the same manner as He was with the three youths in the fiery furnace; and because they abode towards God in simplicity, and in unanimity among themselves, He animated them, in the midst of the surrounding flames, with the breath of dew: in the way in which, with the two apostles shut up in prison, because they were simple-minded and of one mind, He Himself was present; He Himself, having loosed the bolts of the dungeon, placed them again in the market-place, that they might declare to the multitude the word which they faithfully preached.

The full power of His strength, His love, and His presence with us. Never to forsake us, or leave us .(Hebrews 13:5)



When, therefore, in His commandments He lays it down, and says, Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am with them, He does not divide men from the Church, seeing that He Himself ordained and made the Church; but rebuking the faithless for their discord, and commending peace by His word to the faithful, He shows that He is rather with two or three who pray with one mind, than with a great many who differ, and that more can be obtained by the discordant prayer of a few, than by the discordant supplication of many. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm) Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1 De Unitate Ecclesiae. Par. 12. (link)
JoeT


Every (single person) has his or her own foreordained predestination by devine power of God's Will.. For it is us who are to call upon God, that we as individuals call upon him as long as we live, and God has promised to inclined his ear to those who follow Him.

Psa 91:15 He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I [will be] with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.

Luke 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

Psa 27:7 Hear, O LORD, [when] I cry with my voice: have mercy also upon me, and answer me.

Psa 27:8 When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek.

Psa 23:4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou [art] with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

1 Pet.5.1-3: presbyters are shepherds of the flock gathered to the Church by Christ.


1 Peter 5:2-3 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

Neither being what? Lords over God hertiage... But as an ensample, that is as a molded vessal to the flock, One that would be one with Christ and His way. It was Christ 's way to always show glory to His Father.

Acts 20.28: “Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers [episkopous], in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.”



Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

For those who have The Holy Spirit, walk one with Christ. And so true it was Christ's blood that conquered death. Each feeds the Bread of Life = The Word = Christ own Flesh...

Nothing here says we feed them Peter or follow Peter.

sndbay,
So what has that to do with the weak man Peter?
He was selected by Jesus nor because is was the favorite but rather because Jesus knew that Peter would be the best leader of His Church.
Note that all the others followed Peter as the leader.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

added note: All Christians should recognize Peter as Head of the Church, but Catholics do predominantly rely on the opinion of others; 266 successors of Peter have pronounced their opinion.

As a Christian, I accept what scripture says, not your denomination.

Eph 5:22-24
23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
NKJV

Why would any professing Christian want to deny Jesus as the head of the Church? Especially when scripture is quite direct and explicit.

sndbay,
So what has that to do with the weak man Peter?
He was selected by Jesus nor because is was the favorite but rather because Jesus knew that Peter would be the best leader of His Church.
Note that all the others followed Peter as the leader.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, Jesus would build upon what God revealed to Peter.. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


And Christ said: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: The keys to heaven are that which opens the door to heaven, and can not be open by man... Christ The Anointed One

Peter's authority was exercised in Act 2 in Israel and in Acts 10 among the Gentiles. The Holy Spirit was the leader and directed Peter in every case. (God hath shewed me)

His disciples were endued with power from God. Noting that they would be witnesses of Christ (Luke 24:48)
Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Tj3,
So do I and what authentic history proves to be a fact.
Fred

Tj3,
So do I and what authentic history proves to be a fact.
Fred

I know authentic history and it agrees with the Bible:

Christ is head of the church

My posted quote of # 10 are in reference to Jesus, and His words spoke as to "Who" His answer was clear, Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. (Matthew 18:1-5)

Yes, who? Who indeed? The “insane with the madness of discord, that either he should believe that the unity of God can be divided or should dare to rend it – the garment of the Lord ‘the Church of Christ”? (Cyprian of Carthage, Unity of the Church.) Yes who? Is it to be those adulterers who worship at the foot of a book, pouncing upon a page, every line, salivating over their freedom while they shackle God to their subjective wills? But, such a faith is doomed to division, division again, division upon division. “As the twelve tribes of Israel were divided, the prophet Abijah rent his garment. But because Christ's people cannot be rent, His robe, woven and united throughout, is not divided by those who possess it; undivided, united, connected, it shows the coherent concord of our people who put on Christ. By the sacrament and sign of His garment, He has declared the unity of the Church.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Unity of the Church)


Being one with Christ, and walking in His ways, and doing the Will of God are the keys that offer Eternal Life. I have no doubt that Peter, himself love Christ. Peter followed Christ, in doing His ways in doing His will... Just as Christ had shown us in doing His Father's Will .. That is the truth of what Christ brought forth and fulfilled in all that is written.

That’s funny, pronounce man totally depraved, every one, and then give said same keys to the Holiest Throne room as their right to a self proclaimed faith, while at the same time denying the bride of Christ, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Yeah right! I’ve got a cold and your making my head hurt.


To place anyone as Head other then Christ would not be the doctrine of Christ. But rather it would be the the doctrine of man. It is written:
1 Corinthains 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

What other Head would our faith have, each a member of the body, but Jesus Christ.


It is also very clear what was posted in #10 (And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.)But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last [shall be] first. (Matthew 19:29-30)

So it is very clear, that Christ selected of the world twelve, twelve loaves that were like the only loaves available to the Son of David to feed his army, was served to mankind. "Bread of the faces", i.e. "bread of the presence (of Yahweh)" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.), also called "holy bread" (1 Samuel 21:6), "bread of piles" (1 Chronicles 9:32; 23:29), "continual bread" (Numbers 4:7), or simply "bread" (Hebrew Version, Exodus 11:23). ’ártoi tês prothéseos, "loaves of the setting forth" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.) which the Latin Vulgate also adopts in its uniform translation panes propositionis, whence the English expression "loaves of proposition", as found in the Douay and Reims versions (Exodus 35:13, etc.; Matthew 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4). The Protestant versions have "shewbread" These loaves of bread formed the most important sacrificial offering prescribed by the Mosaic Law. These 12 Apostles , loaves “in the presence of God;” these men become the holiest of sacrifices in New Covenant; bread made of wheat sieved multiple times; absent the tars.

The twelve holy loves were present – facing God, “face bread” when 12 Apostles were in the presence of God; when He held the bread Christ said at the last supper “this is my body,”The loaves were to be consumed by the people in each word taught; they nourish the masses with the body and blood of Christ. As in the Old Tabernacle at the end of their time, new freshly baked loaves were replaced with new “.

After Peter confessed his faith he was he open to the presence of God; the Most Holy of Sacrificial Lambs. Thus when Christ says, “That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The intent is crystal clear to 12 Jewish Apostles. Christ was God, Peter was to be the head of the Church – that same church called by the world, “Roman Catholic Church,” but whose proper name is the Church of Jesus Christ.

JoeT

added note: All Christians should recognize Peter as Head of the Church, but Catholics do predominantly rely on the opinion of others; 266 successors of Peter have pronounced their opinion.

Recognize Who as the Head?




What other Head would our faith have, each a member of the body, but Jesus Christ.

JoeT

Did all 266 change their minds?


Joe, I hope you feel better soon..

Tj3,
Sorry.
I do not believe you.
There is very much evidence that The Church existed long before you have claimed.
The writings of the early Church fathers and the early popes prove beyond a doubt that Peter was the first leader of The Church.
In fact on the last couple of days several of those writing have been posted here.
Perhaps you did not bother to read them
Fred

I do not believe you.

I don't care - I do not ask you to believe me. I would hope that you would believe the Bible when it says, and I quote"

Christ is head of the church

Seems clear. I do not find any such statement about Peter.



There is very much evidence that The Church existed long before you have claimed.

I thought that we were discussing who the head of the church is, not how Constantine brought your denomination into being.

how Constantine brought your denomination into being.

Oh PLEASE explain this! It would be so much fun.

Joe, I hope you feel better soon..

Thanks, we've got Akoue's plumbing to thank for this. He put a pox on me and I cought a cold!

I think pox is Latin for cold beer? You think?

Did all 266 change their minds?

You lost me?

JoeT

Oh PLEASE explain this! It would be so much fun.

I thought that you claimed to know church history.

As a Christian, I accept what scripture says, not your denomination.

I got bad news. You read Catholic truth every time you open the Bible. You may not recognize it, but it's there.

JoeT

Added Maybe I should have said good news. I guess it depends on one's point of view.

I got bad news. You read Catholic truth every time you open the Bible. You may not recognize it, but it’s there.

Then why do you deny it when it says that Christ is the head of the church?

I know authentic history and it agrees with the Bible:

Christ is head of the church

So, why don't you tell us your version of Catholic History?

JoeT

So, why don't you tell us your version of Catholic History?

JoeT

I don't have my version. I accept the truth.

And now Tom is back to playing games, trying to dodge the question.

Tom, YOU said that Constantine started the Catholic Church. Why don't you stop dancing around and put your cards on the table. Give your justification for the claim that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century.

I thought that you claimed to know church history.

I do. That's why I'm so eager to hear your account of the origin of the Catholic Church.

And now Tom is back to playing games, trying to dodge the question.

Tom, YOU said that Constantine started the Catholic Church. Why don't you stop dancing around and put your cards on the table. Give your justification for the claim that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century.

I don't dance around. You keep avoiding starting a thread on that topic.

I do. That's why I'm so eager to hear your account of the origin of the Catholic Church.

I don't have an account. I rely on history

I don't dance around. You keep avoiding starting a thread on that topic.

And I explained why: The mods delete or alter OP's on those sorts of topics.

So I can infer that you are once again going to hide? You keep making the claim. If you are confidant of its truth I should think you'd be eager to demonstate it. Why keep it a secret? You claim to speak the truth no matter what, so tell us why you think the Catholic Church started in the fourth century.

And I explained why: The mods delete or alter OP's on those sorts of topics.

So then you are trying to circumvent the rules of the board.

Tj3,
Yes, Jesus IS the head of The Church and He selected Peter to be the earthly leader of it.
You did not comment about this so I guess you did not read the evidence posted here by Rickj and others that was written and done long before Constantine was born.

I don't have an account. I rely on history

Then tell us the history as you understand it.

I don't have my version. I accept the truth.

Well then Tom, tell us the Tj3 Truth.

Then tell us the history as you understand it.

Start a thread. If the mods don't want it discuss, then it would not be appropriate to discuss it here either. It sounds to me like you just want to try to hijack every thread with the same topic.

Tj3,
Yes, Jesus IS the head of The Church and He selected Peter to be the earthly leader of it.

Then your Jesus is not on earth?

So then you are trying to circumvent the rules of the board.

I am asking you to give evidence for your claim, a claim RickJ has also indicated he would like to see addressed.

These little evasions of yours are completely transparent. It's obvious that you're afraid to answer. So in that case, why not just stop posting the claim? If you don't want to answer for the things you say, then don't say them.

Start a thread. If the mods don't want it discuss, then it would not be appropriate to discuss it here either. It sounds to me like you just want to try to hijack every thread with the same topic.

Tom, it's not hijacking if the OP is okay with it.

Are you beating around the bush again?

Then your Jesus is not on earth?

Is yours? I'd like to meet him.

I am asking you to give evidence for your claim, a claim RickJ has also indicated he would like to see addressed.

THen starting another thread would not be an issue.

The reason is that I am tired of seeing members of one denomination thinking that they have the right to hijack every thread.

Tj3,
YOU stared it here by posting about your version of Peter.If you want another Thread about the History of the Church why don't you start it?

Start a thread. If the mods don't want it discuss, then it would not be appropriate to discuss it here either. It sounds to me like you just want to try to hijack every thread with the same topic.

Nope. I just ask you to substantiate the claim when you make it. If you don't want to have to substantiate it then stop making it. It's really easy.

Is yours? I'd like to meet him.

I'd like you to meet HIm

Nope. I just ask you to substantiate the claim when you make it. If you don't want to have to substantiate it then stop making it. It's really easy.

I have - many times. But it is annoying when a small group keeps hijacking every thread over the same issue when it has been addressed many many times on this board.

THen starting another thread would not be an issue.

The reason is that I am tired of seeing members of one denomination thinking that they have the right to hijack every thread.

As Altenweg points out, it isn't hijacking if the OP is okay with it, which he clearly is. So now that that's settled, you need have no further moral qualms about answering the question.

Tj3,
YOU stared it here by posting about your version of Peter.

I did not post my version of anything. I posted a quote from scripture which sys explicitly that Jesus, not Peter is the head of the church.


If you want another Thread about the History of the Church why don't you start it?

I am not the one that keeps hijacking threads.

I'd like you to meet HIm

Already have. :)

You know what happens when you assume, right?

Already have. :)

You know what happens when you assume, right?

Then you know that He is on earth.

THen starting another thread would not be an issue.

The reason is that I am tired of seeing members of one denomination thinking that they have the right to hijack every thread.

Do you want to hear a list of things we're tired of Tom? It's a long list.

You are the only one hijacking this thread. You refuse to answer questions asked of you that you claim you have the answers to. Because you don't, you start spouting off on hijacking the thread.

Either give us the answer or admit you don't have it. Those are your options.

Then you know that He is on earth.

No changing the subject. You owe us all an explanation: What evidence supports your claim that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century?

You brought it up. So now back it up.

Do you want to hear a list of things we're tired of Tom? It's a long list.

You are the only one hijacking this thread. You refuse to answer questions asked of you that you claim you have the answers to. Because you don't, you start spouting off on hijacking the thread.

Ah, so now it is time to move from hijack to false accusations - kangaroo court next?


Either give us the answer or admit you don't have it. Those are your options.

I have answered many times on many threads on here. I will answer again on an appropriate thread.

No changing the subject. You owe us all an explanation: What evidence supports your claim that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century?

You brought it up. So now back it up.

I mentioned a historical fact in passing. You are the one that hijacked this and many other threads with it.

Tom, it's not hijacking if the OP is okay with it.

Are you beating around the bush again?


The opening proposition of this thread had to do with Peter as the head of the early Catholic Church and to early Christian documents showing that precept. Consequently, it would seem to me if history could counter that precept then by all means I love to see it. I’ve never seen a re-write of antiquity. Who knows Tj may be able to reveal a Martian hidden under the cover of Greco-Roman world.

JoeT

Then tell us the history as you understand it.

Well why don't you start the thread as you have been asked to do, and give us your history as you understand it then we can discuss it.

I mentioned a historical fact in passing. You are the one that hijacked this and many other threads with it.

Fred and Joe and Alty have all asked you to answer it as well, and they don't seem to think I'm hijacking anything. You made a claim so substantiate it.

Well why don't you start the thread as you have been asked to do, and give us your history as you understand it then we can discuss it.


Do it here. Put-up or shut-up as they used to say in the school yard.

JoeT

I mentioned a historical fact in passing. You are the one that hijacked this and many other threads with it.

Tom, do you not realize that we're on to you? Can you really be that naïve?

Either fish or cut bait, but stop playing around. If you want, I'll start a new thread so that you can feel free to answer the question that was asked of you. Something tells me we still won't get an answer then.

We're tired of all your games, so give us the goods, we're all agog with anticipation.

Tj3,
I and others here agree that Jesus is the supreme head of The Church.
That Is NOT what this thread is about.
It is about who is the earthly leader of The Church, namely Peter.
He is the one mentioned in the threads first post.
So either address that and answer the questions you've been asked.
I would like to see your answer to what you claim about Constantine as others have asked about.
Yiu say you posted about that befoe, Fine
Then it should be easy for you to do so again for those who asked.
.

Well why don't you start the thread as you have been asked to do, and give us your history as you understand it then we can discuss it.

Nope, the onus is on you Tom.

Tj3,
I and others here agree that Jesus is the supreme head of The Church.

Good. Then that is the end of the story.


That Is NOT what this thread is about.
It is about who is the earthly leader of The Church, namely Peter.

Is your Jesus not on earth?

Nope, the onus is on you Tom.

No, it isn't. Just because Akoue disagrees with history and even historians and leaders of his own denomination, and feels the need to hijack a thread as a result does not put the onus on me to help him.

Tom, we're still waiting...

Tom, we're still waiting.......

You can wait... let me know when the new thread is started.

Tj3,
What kibd of question is that?
My Jesus is everywhere.
But the subject here is Peter as mention in the first post on this thread.
Are you going to answer the questions asked of you about your Constantine claim or not?

Tj3,
What kibd of question is that?
My Jesus is everywhere.

Then He must be on earth also.

No, it isn't. Just because Akoue disagrees with history and even historians and leaders of his own denomination, and feels the need to hijack a thread as a result does not put the onus on me to help him.

You claim to have proof, so show it to us. That's all we want Tom.

You must not have a lot of faith in your "truth", why is that?

And once again, it's only hijacking the thread if the OP isn't okay with it. Read back, the Op wants to hear what you have to say also. So stop playing the hijack card!

Tom, your runaround games won't work anymore, the proof is in the pudding, show us the pudding.

Tj3,
Address my whole post, PLEASE!!
This thread is about Peter.
Are you or are you not gointo answer the questions asked of you?

You can wait .... let me know when the new thread is started.

So you've got nothing.

You claim to have proof, so show it to us. That's all we want Tom.

It has been on this board dozens of time. The same people hijacking this thread hijacked many other threads for the same reason. I wonder why this small group fear a thread dedicated to the topic.

So you've got nothing.

Then starting a new thread should not scare you so much.

Akoue,
I think you go that right.
He has been asked several time and dose not address the questions.
Fred

Tj3,
Address my whole post, PLEASE!!!
This thread is about Peter.
Are you or are you not gointo answer the questions asked of you?

I have answered all relevant questions.

Jesus is on earth. The Bible says that He alone is head of the church. I do not need anything else.

Apparently you don't like the answer. I cannot help that.

It has been on this board dozens of time. The same people hijacking this thread hijacked many other threads for the same reason. I wonder why this small group fear a thread dedicated to the topic.

And I wonder why you won't answer the darn question. If it's already posted somewhere else then cut and paste, is that too hard for you?

Here we go round the mullberry bush. This is getting old Tom. :(

Then starting a new thread should not scare you so much.

As I can see that you're so eager (not) to give us the answer, why don't you start it?

Then starting a new thread should not scare you so much.

So you'll post pages of evasions because you don't want to "hijack" the thread--even though it's not hijacking because the OP and the rest of us want you to explain your claim--but you won't answer the question. That's pretty flimsy rationalizing. You can either answer the question or admit that you can't answer it. It's pretty clear that you can't answer it, so why not just admit it?

And I wonder why you won't answer the darn question. If it's already posted somewhere else then cut and paste, is that too hard for you?

Here we go round the mullberry bush. This is getting old Tom. :(

Well, I do not agree with hijacking of threads. This small groups seems to take pleasure in getting thread after thread shut down.

Then Akoue refuses to start a new thread because he says that it apparently is contrary to a policy by the mods and will be shut down. If it is not an issue on here, hijacking a thread, then it should be no issue in a new thread.

All the time wasted avoiding the issue by Akoue would be plenty of time to start a new thread. Something that he apparenly fears.

As I can see that you're so eager (not) to give us the answer, why don't you start it?

Because it is a non-issue to me. Akoue seems to be the one who thinks that it is so important that he hijacks every thread that I post any message on.

Jj3.
Once aagain...
This thread is about Peter
Please address that AND answer the questions asked about your accusation concerning Constantine.
That is what the questions were about, not about Jesus.

Well, I do not agree with hijacking of threads. This small groups seems to take pleasure in getting thread after thread shut down.

Then Akoue refuses to start a new thread because he says that it apparently is contrary to a policy by the mods and will be shut down. If it is not an issue on here, hijacking a thread, then it should be no issue in a new thread.

All the time wasted avoiding the issue by Akoue would be plenty of time to start a new thread. Something that he apparenly fears.

Second verse same as the first, a little bit louder and a little bit worse!

Try again.

So you'll post pages of evasions because you don't want to "hijack" the thread--even though it's not hijacking because the OP and the rest of us want you to explain your claim--but you won't answer the question. That's pretty flimsy rationalizing. You can either answer the question or admit that you can't answer it. It's pretty clear that you can't answer it, so why not just admit it?

Akoue, you know better. If you believed for a moment what claim, you'd be starting that thread. But you use the "mods will shut it down excuse" and instead hijack every other thread.

Well, I do not agree with hijacking of threads. This small groups seems to take pleasure in getting thread after thread shut down.

Then Akoue refuses to start a new thread because he says that it apparently is contrary to a policy by the mods and will be shut down. If it is not an issue on here, hijacking a thread, then it should be no issue in a new thread.

All the time wasted avoiding the issue by Akoue would be plenty of time to start a new thread. Something that he apparenly fears.

That's right, Akoue is the mean guy who expects you to back up your claims. You insist that others support their claims with evidence. Now it is your turn to do the same. You're trying to pick fights in the hope that you can wait out the closing of the thread. But this has gone on long enough that it's obvious to anyone reading that you like making dismissive claims about the Catholic Church but, when push comes to shove, you haven't the wherewithal to back up those claims. So prove me wrong: Give us evidence for your assertion that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century.

Jj3.
Once aagain...
This thread is about Peter

Right and that is the point that I made.


Please address that AND answer the questions asked about your accusation concerning Constantine.

I made no accusation.


That is what the questions were about, not about Jesus.

So when you discuss who the head of the church is, we are to keep the name of Jesus out of it?

Tj3,
I do not want this thread to be shut down.
I was the one who started the threads about Peter because I wanted the answers and I still do.
So don't accuse me or others about shutting down this thread.

That's right, Akoue is the mean guy who expects you to back up your claims.

But every time I do, you just come back and hijack another thread and do this all over again.

Because it is a non-issue to me. Akoue seems to be the one who thinks that it is so important that he hijacks each and every thread that I post any message on.

You know I’ve really got to question why a person would claim to have “the Light of the World” and then sticks said light under a basket. Let’s see how many lumens your light has, if any.

JoeT

Tj3,
I do not want this thread to be shut down.

That is why I am trying to Akoue to move the other topic off here.

Oh Tom, this is embarrassing, you're the only one that's believing your crap. Why don't you just give up already, admit that you cannot substantiate your claims and then we can move on. Is it that hard for you to admit you're wrong?

Page after page of you dodging and ducking.

Please read what we've all written, comprehend it, then either answer the darn question asked of you or admit that you can't.

I swear, if I read the word hijack again I'm going to get my whip. ;)

You know I've really got to question why a person would claim to have “the Light of the World” and then sticks said light under a basket. Let's see how many lumens your light has, if any.

JoeT

Ho hum - Fred just told me not to talk about Jesus, and you say that I am hiding the light under a basket.

But every time I do, you just come back and hijack another thread and do this all over again.

But you haven't. As Altenweg has suggested, if you have answered it then it would be easy to cut and paste. I've been asking you to explain this assertion since November. You haven't done it. So here's your opportunity: You have an engraved invitation from us all. Now answer the question.

That's right, Akoue is the mean guy who expects you to back up your claims. You insist that others support their claims with evidence. Now it is your turn to do the same. You're trying to pick fights in the hope that you can wait out the closing of the thread. But this has gone on long enough that it's obvious to anyone reading that you like making dismissive claims about the Catholic Church but, when push comes to shove, you haven't the wherewithal to back up those claims. So prove me wrong: Give us evidence for your assertion that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century.

Wait a minute! Being the bad guy is my Job!

JoeT

I swear, if I read the word hijack again I'm going to get my whip. ;)


I like the cut of your jib, Alty. And I don't even know what a jib is.

Oh Tom, this is embarrassing, you're the only one that's believing your crap.

Right - me, Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman, numerous historians, both Catholic and secular, and hundreds of thousands or millions of others.


I swear, if I read the word hijack again I'm going to get my whip. ;)

Hijack! :D

Ho hum - Fred just told me not to talk about Jesus, and you say that I am hiding the light under a basket.

So, I take it you're the master of saying nothing in 10,000 words or more.

JoeT

But you haven't.

But I have - we have had this discussion before. It has only been the last few threads that you hijacked that I have put my foot down regarding your tactics.

Wait a minute! Being the bad guy is my Job!

JoeT

Not anymore, I'm here. :D

So, I take it your the master of saying nothing in 10,000 words or more.


I have never seen such a concerted effort to avoid starting a new thread in my life. I am getting quite a laugh out of this.

I have never seen such a concerted effort to avoid starting a new thread in my life. I am getting quite a laugh out of this.

And I've never witnessed a grown man squirming so desperately. It's funny to see how you behave when you are pressed to justify your claim.

But I have - we have had this discussion before. It has only been the last few threads that you hijacked that I have put my foot down regarding your tactics.

Blah, blah, blah!

Hijacked, putting your foot down. Who do you think you are? God?

Boys, I believe that we've gotten our answer. Tom is pulling things out of thin air, has nothing to substantiate his claims and is now trying to (unsuccessfully) sidetrack us with talk of hijacking and tactics.

In other words, we're right.

So, carry on. :)

Tj3,
I did not ask you to talk about Jesus.
I asked you to talk about Peter and what you claim Constantine did.

Right - me, Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman, numerous historians, both Catholic and secular, and hundreds of thousands or millions of others.

But we're making it easy for you, Tom. Just give us YOUR evidence for the claim. You say you've studied all of this extensively, so it should be very easy for you.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/history-church-325955.html#post1589400

Ok Tom - go for it! Here's your new thread

Blah, blah, blah!

Hijacked, putting your foot down. Who do you think you are? God?

No, that was the last thread we have - some folk here (even some on this thread) claiming men become God. I was opposing that position.


Boys, I believe that we've gotten our answer. Tom is pulling things out of thin air, has nothing to substantiate his claims and is now trying to (unsuccessfully) sidetrack us with talk of hijacking and tactics.

So using bullying tactics and violating the rules of the board makes you right?

That may be convincing to you,

So using bullying tactics and violating the rules of the board makes you right?

That may be convincing to you,

No, I think the point is that your evasive tactics aren't convincing to us.

No, that was the last thread we have - some folk here (even some on this thread) claiming men become God. I was opposing that position.



So using bullying tactics and violating the rules of the board makes you right?

That may be convincing to you,



Tom, I don't see your post on the new thread.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/history-church-325955.html#post1589400

No, that was the last thread we have - some folk here (even some on this thread) claiming men become God. I was opposing that position.



So using bullying tactics and violating the rules of the board makes you right?

That may be convincing to you,

Blah, blah, blah. Too late, you had your chance to prove your position. In fact, we gave you page after page, post after post of chances to state your claim.

You didn't, so you, we're right.

I'm more than willing to hear your side of things, but as of yet, you haven't stated your side, so I can only conclude that you don't have anything to back you up.

As I said, continue boys. :)

Please, everyone,
Forget about Tj3 his run around tactic and get back to the subject of this thread.
Don't let him shut it down.
Fred

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/history-church-325955.html#post1589400

Ok Tom - go for it! Here's your new thread

Great. Now Tom can just go to that thread and explain his claim that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century.

I'll be checking in with some regularity. I'm sure Tom's exlanation will appear there in very short order.

Please, everyone,
Forget about Tj3 his run around tactic and get back to the the subject of this thread.
Don't let him shut it down.
Fred

If it gets shut down, it won't be me shutting it down. I was trying to keep it on topic by asking Akoue to stop hijacking it and start a nother thread to ask his question.

Please, everyone,
Forget about Tj3 his run around tactic and get back to the the subject of this thread.
Don't let him shut it down.
Fred

I agree Fred. But really, it was about time someone gave him a taste of his own medicine.

Now that there's a new thread there's no reason to continue the argument.

I'll leave you boys to the original topic.

Good luck.

Peace to you all. :)

Great. Now Tom can just go to that thread and explain his claim that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century.

I'll be checking in with some regularity. I'm sure Tom's exlanation will appear there in very short order.

That is a rather vague vague question. Entire volumes of books have been written on it, and it has nothing about your denomination. I thought that what you were asking was specific to your denomination. We'll see how the discuss goes.

I agree Fred. But really, it was about time someone gave him a taste of his own medicine.

Now that there's a new thread there's no reason to continue the arguement.

I'll leave you boys to the original topic.

Good luck.

Peace to you all. :)

Let's hope that they do get back on topic.

Great. Now Tom can just go to that thread and explain his claim that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century.

I'll be checking in with some regularity. I'm sure Tom's exlanation will appear there in very short order.

I've got two monitors assigned to it. Haven't seen anything yet.

I've got two monitors assigned to it. Haven't seen anything yet.

Neither have I seen anything regarding your denomination to respond to.

That is a rather vague vague question. Entire volumes of books have been written on it, and it has nothing about your denomination. I thought that what you were asking was specific to your denomination.

Oh look, another dodge! Go to Joe's brand new thread and give us evidence for your assertion that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century. There's nothing vague about the question.

Neither have I seen anything regarding your denomination to respond to.

The person who opens the thread gets to ask the questions, remember?

Oh look, another dodge! Go to Joe's brand new thread and give us evidence for your assertion that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century. There's nothing vague about the question.

I will be watching for any posts along that line - all I see at the moment is a question regarding the church, not a denomination.

I see that the hijacking is not stopping, though.

The person who opens the thread gets to ask the questions, remember?

Right - so if you don't ask about a denomination, don't expect people to rush in to discuss that denomination.

I will be watching for any posts along that line - all I see at the moment is a question regarding the church, not a denomination.

I see that the hijacking is not stopping, though.

Still more evasions. Do you really believe that anyone is buying this? It's obvious that you're afraid to answer the question you've been asked, a question for which you claim to have mountains of evidence just waiting in the wings. So come on, show us this evidence.

Still more evasions. Do you really believe that anyone is buying this? It's obvious that you're afraid to answer the question you've been asked, a question for which you claim to have mountains of evidence just waiting in the wings. So come on, show us this evidence.

Akoue,

No matter how many times I respond to your questions, you always say the same thing. Your approach in the regard has meant that since you don't listen to what I have to say, the fact that you reject everything that I have to say is a given and does not matter to me.

If you want to discuss, head over to the new thrread and start setting the tone, and stop hijacking this thread. Otherwise I question whether you seriously want an answer to whatever your question is regarding your denomination.

Akoue,

No matter how many times I respond to your questions, you always say the same thing. Your approach in the regard has meant that since you don't listen to what I have to say, the fact that you reject everything that I have to say is a given and does not matter to me.

If you want to discuss, head over to the new thrread and start setting the tone, and stop hijacking this thread. Otherwise I question whether you seriously want an answer to whatever your question is regarding your denomination.

And still more evasion.

Akoue, Joe, and Altenweg'
See there. Tj3 has dodge it already.
He asked for a new thread, git it, and dodge it.
I hope everyone here keeps an eye on it to see if TJ relents and answers the questions there that were asked here.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue, Joe, and Altenweg'
See there. Tj3 has dodge it already.
He asked for a new thread, git it, and dodge it.
I hope everyone here keeps an eye on it to see if TJ relents and answers the questions there that were asked here.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Interesting how some folk didge the question and then try to point fingers with false accusations while hijacking another thread.

It will be interesting to see how it goes.

And still more evasion.

Still more hijacking...

WOW!!
So you won't answer the questions on the thread you asked for.
LOL LOL LOL!!

WOW!!!!
So you won't answer the questions on the thread you asked for.
LOL LOL LOL !!!

More false accusations.

And I did not ask for it, but if someone so wants to know about their own denomination that they must hijack every thread, then it is more appropriate for them to start a thread.

Tom Tj3 Smith.
It is you who is making the false accusations here and everyone knows it.
That IS the truth.

Tom Tj3 Smith.
It is you who is making the false accusations here and everyone knows it.
That IS the truth.

Ho hum. Fred, you may be able to get away with that here, but you should be aware that in eternity there is another judge.

Tj3.
I know there is a supreme Judge and I thank God it is not you.