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.