Enjoy Delphi Forums ad free! Click here.
Bible Facts and Fun Topics -  Did the 12 Go Out To Other Nations? (342 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
 
From: Secundus555Sep-15 12:38 PM 
To: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (21 of 30) 
 40916.21 in reply to 40916.20 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>Per the bible, Paul, as far as I have found, is the only apostle that actually went to other lands, as he was the apostle to the gentiles.

At the time the narrative of the Book of Acts ends, that was true. But DID HISTORY STOP WHEN ACTS ENDED?

Did everything remain the way it was at the end of Acts in perpetuity? No. Life went on. The other Apostles, most of them, anyway, eventually left Jerusalem and went to foreign lands. 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

Christ told the 11 not to leave Israel till He told them to and we don't see in the NT that He did tell them to and I don't find in the NT where any of the 11 did go to other lands.

No, he said to wait in Jerusalem "until you are clothed with power from on high". That condition was fulfilled at the Day of Pentecost. 

He said "And you (meaning ALL OF THEM) will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria AND TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH "

Christian History didn't end where Acts left off. It had only barely BEGUN!

James the Less (brother of Jesus) stayed in Jerusalem as the bishop of the Church there. Most of the rest eventually left to go to other lands. 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

Writtings outside the bible are not on the level as the bible, the RCC has lots of writting/dogma you and I don't accept, right? 

Not on the same level as the Bible, but that isn't necessary for the accounts to still be accurate and true. 

It is not just the "RCC" that says this. We have accounts from the actual disciples of the Apostles themselves and the men they taught. These aren't Scripture, but do you think they are LYING???

Do you really think that Christian history STOPPED and the conditions as they existed at the end of Acts were FROZEN IN TIME and none of the Apostles did or said ANYTHING ELSE after that?

What happened to Peter? Acts leaves his story and focuses on Paul about halfway through the book. Did Peter just retire and go home?

We can know with a fair amount of certainty that the Apostolic Fathers and the Early Church Fathers were in a position to know what happened to the Apostles after the narrative of Acts was over. Their writings don't have to be considered SCRIPTURE in order to be generally reliable and trustworthy. 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>Does the NT say any of this? I know the RCC does. Do you agree Peter was the first pope? 

Sigh...the NT leaves Peter's story halfway through the Book of Acts. Do you REALLY think that's all he ever did for the rest of his life?

No, he was not "pope" in the sense that term is understood today. But he WAS the Bishop of the Church at Rome. And he WAS martyred there, hung upside down on a cross. 

Your ant-Catholicism blinds you to basic history. History is history. We have the accounts of the early Christians LONG before the "RCC" as you understand it existed in the way it does today. There was just THE CHURCH. And, yes, they called themselves "Catholic", but it wasn't a separate denomination. It just meant "Universal" as in the one universal Apostolic church. Try not to think of the Catholic Church in the sense that it became in the Middle Ages. There was no "pope" in the sense that they have today. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Not the pope. The Papacy evolved over centuries. The first claims of Universal Supremacy of the Pope over the WHOLE Church didn't occur until the 5th Century, and those claims were NEVER accepted by the Eastern Churches. 

I'm not sure if you can understand what I'm talking about without understanding the history of the Church and how the power structures evolved and morphed over the Centuries. 

Peter went to Rome. That is a fact. It's not in the Bible, but a LOT of things aren't in the Bible. The Book of Acts didn't tell us EVERYTHING and wasn't trying to. It didn't tell us what Peter and the other Apostles did after it turned the focus of it's story to Paul. But they weren't FROZEN IN TIME. They did many things that aren't recorded in the Bible. We know about some of those things from their disciples and from the men those disciples taught. 

I don't accept the writings of the Church Fathers as Scripture, but as HISTORICAL RECORDS...and so should you. 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>The problem with church history is it's written by man, right? 

Does that mean it isn't true?

Boy, you must have been really bad in school if you think the ONLY things that are true are those things that are in the Bible and ANYTHING written by Man can't be true!

C'mon Bob!

Think!

History continued to occur after Acts. The Apostles did things after that. We have a record of some those things in the writings of the Church Fathers. We have no reason to believe they LIED about what the Apostles did. 

Do YOU have any reason to think they lied?

 

Secundus

  • Edited September 16, 2020 9:32 am  by  Secundus555
 
 Reply   Options 

 
From: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostSep-17 10:48 AM 
To: Secundus555  (22 of 30) 
 40916.22 in reply to 40916.21 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>Per the bible, Paul, as far as I have found, is the only apostle that actually went to other lands, as he was the apostle to the gentiles.

At the time the narrative of the Book of Acts ends, that was true. But DID HISTORY STOP WHEN ACTS ENDED?

bob>I'm looking for evidence in the NT where the 12 went to gentiles nations. It's not there and keep in mind, it's my understanding as Paul says in Gal 2:7 that Peter/fold was to the Jews and that Paul's/fold was to the gentiles. So, I don't see where this separation, as the Holy Spirit puts it, ever ended. 

bob>But, let's say the 12, in the fold of Peter which is to the Jews, did leave Israel to go to other lands, which is not in the bible, did go to JEWS in other lands/gentile lands. That would work for both of us. I don't see how, according to the RCC, that Peter was over both folds in Rome or any fold there, I don't see any proof he went there. In your studies, do you find Peter did go to Rome and was over Roman Christians? 


 

 

 
From: Secundus555Sep-17 12:18 PM 
To: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (23 of 30) 
 40916.23 in reply to 40916.22 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>I'm looking for evidence in the NT where the 12 went to gentiles nations. It's not there

Neither are the names of the Author's if the 4 Gospels. 

But you accept that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, even though it isn't written anywhere in the Bible that he did. 

You accept that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, even though it doesn't SAY SO in the Bible. 

You accept that Luke wrote both Like and Acts. But HOW DO YOU KNOW HE DID? It doesn't SAY that anywhere in the Bible!

Nor is John said to be the author of the Gospel of John anywhere in Scripture. 

Yet you accept these things. 

Guess where our information on the authorship of the Gospels comes from? THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS! They are the SAME people who tell us that the Apostles left Jerusalem and went to foreign lands!

You already, without realizing it, have accepted the trustworthiness of the Early Church Fathers by accepting their word for it about who wrote the Gospels and Acts. Why would you distrust those SAME PEOPLE on where the Apostles went after the events in Acts?

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>But, let's say the 12, in the fold of Peter which is to the Jews, did leave Israel to go to other lands, which is not in the bible, did go to JEWS in other lands/gentile lands. That would work for both of us. I don't see how, according to the RCC, that Peter was over both folds in Rome or any fold there, I don't see any proof he went there. In your studies, do you find Peter did go to Rome and was over Roman Christians? 

There us ZERO evidence in history of your dual branch theory. There WAS ONLY ONE CHURCH in Rome or in any city. There wasn't a separate Jewish congregation with its own bishop and then one for Gentiles. There was ONE bishop in each city, and we have the historical records to prove it, who was over BOTH Jewish and Gentile converts. This is a fact.

Your entire theory lacks ANY historical evidence that it was ever so. The Evidence indicates NO separate Jewish Church, and NO separate Jewish church leadership. This indicates that most likely,  you have MISUNDERSTOOD the Scriptures and held onto that mistaken Interpretation in the face of OVERWHELMING Evidence that you are wrong. 

Most of the Apostles, not just Paul, left Jerusalem and went into all the world as they were commanded. 

Peter did in fact go to Rome and was in fact the bishop of Rome. 

This is not the "RCC" saying this, it is THE HISTORICAL RECORD. It is the Disciples of the Apostles themselves, and the men whom they taught that are saying this, and they were in a position to know. 

 

Most of the Apostles did NOT stay in Jerusalem to the end of their lives. Acts doesn't record it because they went out AFTER the events recorded in Acts. Just because it isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means it happened AFTER Acts leaves off. 

I don't consider the writings of the Church Fathers to be on the same level as the Scriptures, but I do consider them good, trustworthy HISTORICAL RESOURCES for information about the Early Church and the Apostles. 

Maybe you should read them for yourself. 

You Can Read the Church Fathers for Yourself

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

I don't see how, according to the RCC, that Peter was over both folds in Rome or any fold there, I don't see any proof he went there. In your studies, do you find Peter did go to Rome and was over Roman Christians? 

Yes. Absolutely. It is attested to by numerous Church Fathers and recorded by the first great Church Historian, Eusebius of Caesarea. 

This is accepted by Catholic AND Protestant scholars, even Evangelical Scholars, as well as Eastern Orthodox scholars. Historians accept this as a reliable evidence that Peter in fact did go to Rome, was the Bishop of the Roman Church, and was eventually martyred there, crucified upside at his own request because he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as Jesus did.

That doesn't mean he was "pope" in the sense we understand that term today. The Papacy evolved over many Centuries to become what it is today. The other Apostles did NOT consider Peter to be the head over the entire Church, as his encounters with Paul and with James over the Circumcision controversy demonstrates. 

But he did go to Rome, he WAS the Bishop of the WHOLE Roman Church (that included both Jews and Gentiles) and he was martyred there. Those should be accepted as historical facts. 

 

Secundus

  • Edited September 17, 2020 12:23 pm  by  Secundus555
 

 
From: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostSep-18 11:12 AM 
To: Secundus555  (24 of 30) 
 40916.24 in reply to 40916.23 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>I'm looking for evidence in the NT where the 12 went to gentiles nations. It's not there

Neither are the names of the Author's if the 4 Gospels. 

But you accept that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, even though it isn't written anywhere in the Bible that he did. 

You accept that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, even though it doesn't SAY SO in the Bible. 

You accept that Luke wrote both Like and Acts. But HOW DO YOU KNOW HE DID? It doesn't SAY that anywhere in the Bible!

Nor is John said to be the author of the Gospel of John anywhere in Scripture. 

Yet you accept these things. 

bob>You and I accept the bible as being from God, what I am questioning is issues that don't appear in the bible, such as the 12 going out to other nations. They are told to, by Christ, and to do it when He tells them to, so I accept that they did. 

Guess where our information on the authorship of the Gospels comes from? THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS! They are the SAME people who tell us that the Apostles left Jerusalem and went to foreign lands!

bob>I consider the apostles to be the church fathers as lead by God. Are you saying the 180 at Nicea are the church fathers? 

You already, without realizing it, have accepted the trustworthiness of the Early Church Fathers by accepting their word for it about who wrote the Gospels and Acts. Why would you distrust those SAME PEOPLE on where the Apostles went after the events in Acts?

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>But, let's say the 12, in the fold of Peter which is to the Jews, did leave Israel to go to other lands, which is not in the bible, did go to JEWS in other lands/gentile lands. That would work for both of us. I don't see how, according to the RCC, that Peter was over both folds in Rome or any fold there, I don't see any proof he went there. In your studies, do you find Peter did go to Rome and was over Roman Christians? 

There us ZERO evidence in history of your dual branch theory.

bob>Gal 2:7 and Paul says 34 times that he is the apostle to the gentiles. Why does that not count with you here? 

There WAS ONLY ONE CHURCH in Rome or in any city.

bob>What does Rome have to do with anything. God established Israel, nothing about Rome. 

There wasn't a separate Jewish congregation with its own bishop and then one for Gentiles. There was ONE bishop in each city, and we have the historical records to prove it, who was over BOTH Jewish and Gentile converts. This is a fact.

bob>Let's talk about apostles, I as pointed out, there was Peter to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. It's in the bible. 

Your entire theory lacks ANY historical evidence that it was ever so.

bob>God established gentiles and Jews in the OT, thru the NT and today. The separation is still there. 

The Evidence indicates NO separate Jewish Church, and NO separate Jewish church leadership. This indicates that most likely,  you have MISUNDERSTOOD the Scriptures and held onto that mistaken Interpretation in the face of OVERWHELMING Evidence that you are wrong. 

Most of the Apostles, not just Paul, left Jerusalem and went into all the world as they were commanded. 

Peter did in fact go to Rome and was in fact the bishop of Rome. 

bob>Where do you see this information? 

This is not the "RCC" saying this, it is THE HISTORICAL RECORD. It is the Disciples of the Apostles themselves, and the men whom they taught that are saying this, and they were in a position to know. 

bob>Some say Christ traveled from Israel during His life, is this what you think as well? Man has written many things over time, i'm not saying everything is wrong, I think Josephus adds a lot to understanding the culture, religion and so on. He's not on the level with the bible of course, but as a historian he does add to the times. 


 

 

 
From: Secundus555Sep-18 2:07 PM 
To: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (25 of 30) 
 40916.25 in reply to 40916.24 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>I consider the apostles to be the church fathers as lead by God. Are you saying the 180 at Nicea are the church fathers? 

There were 318 bishops, along with hundreds more Priests, Legates, Deacons, and Archdeacons and other supporting figures. But only the bishops or their appointed Legates could vote.

And yes, the Nicene Bishops would generally be considered Church Fathers if they were of orthodox doctrine. (The Arian bishops would not be)

But many Church Fathers had come in the 300 yrs before Nicaea as well. 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>You and I accept the bible as being from God, what I am questioning is issues that don't appear in the bible, such as the 12 going out to other nations. They are told to, by Christ, and to do it when He tells them to, so I accept that they did.

My point is that the very names of the authors of the 4 Gospels which are commonly accepted ARE NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE ITSELF. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark or that Matthew, also called Levi, wrote the Gospel of Matthew, etc. We ONLY know who wrote them because we are TOLD by the Early Church Fathers, like Polycarp, Papias, Clement, Irenaeus, and Eusebius. 

You take it for granted that the 4 Gospels were written by who we think they are written by...but THAT INFORMATION IS NOT ACTUALLY FOUND IN THE BIBLE ITSELF! It is information that we ONLY know about because of sources OUTSIDE the Bible, the Early Church Fathers of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Centuries. 

So the fact is that you are ALREADY accepting their testimony by accepting that the Gospels were written by those who. THEY TELL US wrote them. It ain't in the Bible, my friend. 

In fact, the whole Table of Contents is not in the Bible. The whole Canon of Scripture was determined over a period of about 500 yrs by the general consensus of many of these same men we call the Church Fathers.

What we call the New Testament wasn't fully canonized until the mid 5th Century. And it was by the testimony of and acceptance by a consensus of these godly men over several Centuries that it was finally agreed upon. 

So accepting the word of these great men of God should be no problem....unless you wish to question the Authorship of the Gospels and the make-up of the Biblical canon too. 

I believe these men were led by God to ultimately accept the current biblical canon. Does that make them infallible? No

But it does make them wise guides, whom we ought to listen to and take seriously. Are their own writings equal to Scripture? No. Absolutely not. But they are good godly men who lived far closer to the Apostles (some were taught directly by the Apostles themselves or by those who were), and so their testimony should carry a lot of weight. 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

Peter did in fact go to Rome and was in fact the bishop of Rome. 

bob>Where do you see this information? 

Peter did write 1 Peter, the mention of “Babylon” in 5:13 is fairly reliable evidence that Peter resided at some time in the capital city.the presence of this cryptic reference witnesses at least to a tradition of the late 1st or early 2nd century. “Babylon” is a cryptic term indicating Rome, and it is the understanding utilized in Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5, 6 and in the works of various Jewish seers.

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

The strongest evidence to support the thesis that Peter was martyred in Rome is to be found in the Letter to the Corinthians (c. 96 CE; 5:1–6:4) of St. Clement of Rome:

Peter, who by reason of wicked jealousy, not only once or twice but frequently endured suffering and thus, bearing his witness, went to the glorious place which he merited (5:4).…To these men [Peter and Paul] who lived such holy lives there was joined a great multitude of the elect who by reason of rivalry were victims of many outrages and tortures and who became outstanding examples among us (6:1).

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning [Nero reigned from 54–68], Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

 

Is that sufficient? There's a lot more, but I think these are enough to establish the point with actual Historical record.

 

Secundus

  • Edited September 18, 2020 2:20 pm  by  Secundus555
 

 
From: Vector (GPL89034)Sep-20 10:37 AM 
To: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (26 of 30) 
 40916.26 in reply to 40916.1 
 

 
From: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostSep-21 10:49 AM 
To: Secundus555  (27 of 30) 
 40916.27 in reply to 40916.25 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>I consider the apostles to be the church fathers as lead by God. Are you saying the 180 at Nicea are the church fathers? 

There were 318 bishops, along with hundreds more Priests, Legates, Deacons, and Archdeacons and other supporting figures. But only the bishops or their appointed Legates could vote.

And yes, the Nicene Bishops would generally be considered Church Fathers if they were of orthodox doctrine. (The Arian bishops would not be)

bob>So that is your definition of the church fathers. I consider the apostles to be the church fathers, but I don't think anyone else does. 

But many Church Fathers had come in the 300 yrs before Nicaea as well. 

bob>So, who are your church fathers? 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>You and I accept the bible as being from God, what I am questioning is issues that don't appear in the bible, such as the 12 going out to other nations. They are told to, by Christ, and to do it when He tells them to, so I accept that they did.

My point is that the very names of the authors of the 4 Gospels which are commonly accepted ARE NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE ITSELF. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark or that Matthew, also called Levi, wrote the Gospel of Matthew, etc. We ONLY know who wrote them because we are TOLD by the Early Church Fathers, like Polycarp, Papias, Clement, Irenaeus, and Eusebius. 

You take it for granted that the 4 Gospels were written by who we think they are written by...but THAT INFORMATION IS NOT ACTUALLY FOUND IN THE BIBLE ITSELF! It is information that we ONLY know about because of sources OUTSIDE the Bible, the Early Church Fathers of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Centuries.

bob>I consider them written by and at the hand of God. Writings outside the bible may or may not be true.  

So the fact is that you are ALREADY accepting their testimony by accepting that the Gospels were written by those who. THEY TELL US wrote them. It ain't in the Bible, my friend. 

In fact, the whole Table of Contents is not in the Bible. The whole Canon of Scripture was determined over a period of about 500 yrs by the general consensus of many of these same men we call the Church Fathers.

What we call the New Testament wasn't fully canonized until the mid 5th Century. And it was by the testimony of and acceptance by a consensus of these godly men over several Centuries that it was finally agreed upon. 

So accepting the word of these great men of God should be no problem....unless you wish to question the Authorship of the Gospels and the make-up of the Biblical canon too. 

I believe these men were led by God to ultimately accept the current biblical canon. Does that make them infallible? No

But it does make them wise guides, whom we ought to listen to and take seriously. Are their own writings equal to Scripture? No. Absolutely not. But they are good godly men who lived far closer to the Apostles (some were taught directly by the Apostles themselves or by those who were), and so their testimony should carry a lot of weight. 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

Peter did in fact go to Rome and was in fact the bishop of Rome. 

bob>Where do you see this information? 

Peter did write 1 Peter, the mention of “Babylon” in 5:13 is fairly reliable evidence that Peter resided at some time in the capital city.the presence of this cryptic reference witnesses at least to a tradition of the late 1st or early 2nd century. “Babylon” is a cryptic term indicating Rome, and it is the understanding utilized in Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5, 6 and in the works of various Jewish seers.

bob>It's not a big deal if he did go to Rome, except that some religions make it a big deal, as the RCC make Peter the pope of their gentile church, which persecuted Jews. 

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

bob>Do you consider Rome as the center of God's people or nation or what? God established the Hebrew and Israel for them, so why Rome?

...[Message truncated]


 

 

 
From: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostSep-21 10:51 AM 
To: Vector (GPL89034) unread  (28 of 30) 
 40916.28 in reply to 40916.26 

bob>Interesting, thanks very much. 


 

 

 
From: Secundus555Sep-21 12:00 PM 
To: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (29 of 30) 
 40916.29 in reply to 40916.27 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>So, who are your church fathers? 

They aren't just mine. They don't belong to me or to the "RCC", they are wise guides and the Spiritual forefathers of ALL Christians. 

Here are some of them:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html

 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>I consider them written by and at the hand of God. Writings outside the bible may or may not be true.  

The Scriptures are God-breathed. But how did we GET the Bible we have now? Who decided WHICH books were Scripture and which were not?

That question wasn't fully answered until the early-mid 5th Century.

And it was these godly men we call the Church Fathers who helped us discern which books were Scripture. 

And it is they who told us who WROTE the Gospels. 

My point is that while we shouldn't treat the Church Fathers as if they were themselves inerrant, we should consider them generally good and trustworthy sources. But we also must be discerning. Because it is also true that they were mere men, howbeit wiseawise and and godly men, whotwho could at times be mistaken.

But we also shouldn't discount their testimony because of some anti-Catholic prejudice. We consider them early Christian witnesses. Not perfect, but people in a position to know certain things we don't know from history or from the Bible, such as what happened to the Apostles after the narrative of Acts leaves off. 

Since they were the Disciples of the Apostles themselves or were taught by those who were, their voices should carry some weight. 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>Do you consider Rome as the center of God's people or nation or what? God established the Hebrew and Israel for them, so why Rome?

No, I don't consider Rome to be the center of Christianity. I am NOT a Roman Catholic. I don't believe Peter was "pope" in the sense that is understood today. I believe he WAS the Bishop of Rome, and died a martyr's death there. He DID go to both Jews and Gentiles and WAS bishop over the Church at Rome which included both Jews and Gentiles. 

So also, the other Apostles went to Gentile lands and planted churches that included both Jews and Gentiles. 

There is NO indication in history of there being a separation between Jewish believers and Gentile believers in any of the churches they planted. Your theory is simply historically wrong. 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>"Temple" to God? He may have built a synagogue, as Peter was and was going to the Jews. Paul would not build a temple either. 

You are being too literal. He is just referring to the Church Peter planted and led in Rome. It wasn't a literal "temple". The Fathers often spoke in symbolic imagery about the glorious Church of God.

 

Secundus

 

 
From: Bob (Bobbylee7) DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostSep-22 10:39 AM 
To: Secundus555  (30 of 30) 
 40916.30 in reply to 40916.29 

 

 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>I consider them written by and at the hand of God. Writings outside the bible may or may not be true.  

The Scriptures are God-breathed. But how did we GET the Bible we have now? Who decided WHICH books were Scripture and which were not?

That question wasn't fully answered until the early-mid 5th Century.

And it was these godly men we call the Church Fathers who helped us discern which books were Scripture. 

And it is they who told us who WROTE the Gospels. 

My point is that while we shouldn't treat the Church Fathers as if they were themselves inerrant, we should consider them generally good and trustworthy sources. But we also must be discerning. Because it is also true that they were mere men, howbeit wiseawise and and godly men, whotwho could at times be mistaken.

But we also shouldn't discount their testimony because of some anti-Catholic prejudice. We consider them early Christian witnesses. Not perfect, but people in a position to know certain things we don't know from history or from the Bible, such as what happened to the Apostles after the narrative of Acts leaves off. 

Since they were the Disciples of the Apostles themselves or were taught by those who were, their voices should carry some weight. 

bob>You have changed my understanding on two things, Paul left the gentiles on Sunday sabbath, an issue I had been dealing with for years and that many or perhaps all the apostles did leave Israel to other lands. I thank you for this. On the issue of the church fathers, I haven't studied on them as I have an unfavorable opinion of who is called the various church fathers by which religion. I would say the 12 and Paul were and the issue I have is it seems the teaching and guidance of the various churches went astray very soon after the apostles left and stayed messed up until Luther started to shine new light on religion. I think we may today have a much better understading of the bible and Christ and the apostles then those from 200ad to Luther, what do you think? 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>Do you consider Rome as the center of God's people or nation or what? God established the Hebrew and Israel for them, so why Rome?

No, I don't consider Rome to be the center of Christianity. I am NOT a Roman Catholic. I don't believe Peter was "pope" in the sense that is understood today. I believe he WAS the Bishop of Rome, and died a martyr's death there. He DID go to both Jews and Gentiles and WAS bishop over the Church at Rome which included both Jews and Gentiles. 

bob>As Paul being the apostles to the gentiles, went to gentiles, but he allowed Jews in those areas to join his gentile fold and follow as gentiles. I think the same is true of Peter, he was to the Jews and went to Jews and allowed gentiles to proselytize into his fold.Peter may have also allowed gentiles to join his fold from a distance, as we done in the OT. 

So also, the other Apostles went to Gentile lands and planted churches that included both Jews and Gentiles. 

bob>The issue we have is you assume Jews and gentiles were all moved into gentile churches, right? I think the 12 being the first messianics remained messianics and that was their fold. 

There is NO indication in history of there being a separation between Jewish believers and Gentile believers in any of the churches they planted. Your theory is simply historically wrong. 

bob>I concentrate on the bible, I have not read about early churches, perhaps you have. Another issue is gentile Christians persecuted Jews, why? 

Bob (Bobbylee7) said...

bob>"Temple" to God? He may have built a synagogue, as Peter was and was going to the Jews. Paul would not build a temple either. 

You are being too literal. He is just referring to the Church Peter planted and led in Rome. It wasn't a literal "temple". The Fathers often spoke in symbolic imagery about the glorious Church of God.

bob>Okay, thanks for your educated and thoughtful replies. 


 

 

First Discussion>>

Navigate this discussion: 1-10 11-20 21-30
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.