Iskander

No, I dint know that.

The title of bishop began to be used when you said it did and the status of bishops was later made dogma under penalty of hell fire by his imperial majesty the holy usurper, lord of the world and master of Hades, but all that had been acknowledged to be so by practicing Protestants and some Catholics for some time now without being considered anything more than an change in the administration of the church. Cardinals came later without causing a ripple.


When I questioned the significance of the 2nd century bishops I simply meant that this fact did not mean Christianity was the invention of Constantine and it would not give comfort to the army of deniers.

If you were taking a broader view, not only the denier’s one, I will say that my comment was not directed against that broader view.

Nothing is known to us about the life of the church in Rome during the first century and what is available to us is classified by Christian authors as fable


I’ll read your posts with interest.

tanya

I agree: those who berate aa5874, I have found to be, themselves, relatively less well informed, than he is. I also include the name of Iskander on my list of must reads....

thanks for your help....

Duvduv

Personally I like aa5874. I just notice that he doesn't respond thoroughly to people's questions - in this case my own.

andrewcriddle

See the discussion by Lightfoot Clement of Rome

Andrew Criddle

Chili

We all like him as somebody pounding on the table to be heard . . ..

Oh, and please do not count me in as I do not even belong here as consious objector to it all.

sotto voce

Ripples had been banished quite beyond memory, by then.

It all started long ago, before mankind had men in funny hats telling them the limits to their behaviour. No, people did the sensible, natural thing, and got the older guys, elders, to get their wise heads together and sort out any matters that needed attention. Israel got its elders together and called them their assembly, or ekklesia, that the Greeks were to call their own pow-wows. When synagogues were set up, they were naturally set up and run by elders, though of course, anyone, even a young carpenter, could stand up and say his bit. All jolly democratic. When the ekklesia of Jews who recognised Jesus as the Messiah set up their house 'synagogues', again in which anyone and everyone could contribute, they likewise made use of the elders, or bishops, of each congregation to decide issues that arose within their limited purview. Their decisions never overrode the apostolic instruction to permit each believer to decide his own limits to behaviour, where they did not affect others. They did decide on issues that affected the reputation of the whole congregation, though even here, full democracy seems to have been the usual practice. That made sense, since full democracy operated when electing an apostolic successor, a task previously carried out by Jesus himself. Action taken was never applied outside private meetings, by legal or any other means.

That is how the genuine church operates, democratically, as in the days of Moses and Joshua. The lone 'bishop' who has no local congregation may have friends in high places; but friends not high enough. He is in antithesis to the principles of either natural or biblical practice. Even more so, 'cardinals', who were liable to override apostolic command, telling people the limits to their behaviour, with legal sanction, while the reputation of the whole congregation and wider ekklesia could become as dark as dark can be. Indeed, it was after the institution of cardinals that the scandals occurred that precipitated the upheavals of the Reformation. There was then more than a ripple.

stephan huller

What? Is it that you only hate him impersonally? Only an anarchist could enjoy aa's presence here or perhaps if one grew up with an abusive delusional father figure who wrote things out in block capital and emboldened letters for no apparent reason. Perhaps both could be true. Someone could have had an abusive delusional father figure which caused them to want to derail every discussion out of an anarchistic desire for futility.

tanya's love of aa is easy enough to explain as avi always liked aa and tanya is avi. oops.

Duvduv

I don't know him other than here in the couple of weeks I am participating here

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the thoroughness your replies. I value this.

Jake

aa5874

Again, all writings of apologetic sources and Church writers should have been PUBLICLY known and CIRCULATED.

The supposed letters of Ignatius do clearly show that he regarded Bishops as the highest authority.

The Bishop was to considered as God or Jesus Christ.

Examine the Epistles to the Magnesians.

Examine the Epistles to the Trallians .


Examine the Epistle to the Philadelphians. Examine the Epistle to the Smyrerians So based on the Epistles attributed to Ignatius, the Bishop was the most significant authority in the Church structure and Nothing was to be done WITHOUT the authority of the Bishop.

The Bishop represented God and his Son Jesus.

How, then could the Church writers not know when Clement was Bishop of Rome?

1. Rufinus claimed Clement was the FIRST Bishop.

2. Ignatuis claimed Clement was Second.

3. Irenaeus claimed Clement was THIRD.

4. Tertullian claimed Clement was FIRST.

5. Eusebius claimed Clement was THIRD.

6. Augustine of Hippo claimed Clement was SECOND.

Please remember that these writers should have been KNOWN by the Public and their writings should have been circulated.

It is clear that Clement of Rome, the Switching Bishops and the Epistle to the Corinthians attributed to Clement were invented and has Exposed the fact that writings from so-called Church writers were products of Fraud.