Peter NOT the 1st pope and the keys of the kingdom

Water baptised by immersion of believers only

We differ on that one.

John's baptism was symbolic of the baptism that Jesus would initiate.

Jesus fulfilled the baptism of John with the baptism of fire (Holy Spirit).

Matthew 3:11
As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Did Jesus baptize the disciples with the Holy Spirit or with water?

Good question.

Obviously the Holy Spirit baptised them .. not water baptism in Acts 2.

Hmmmm...

I'm supposing that the disciples were also baptised by immersion in water. So they would have had both... but I need to check this..

Thank you

This is not an easy one.

It looks as though the early church baptized in water but perhaps later they understood the fulfillment.

Acts 1:5
For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.

Acts 11:16
And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

Yes, also there is a key thing of the Holy Spirit indwelling a believer and then a group having the Holy Spirit come 'in the midst' or 'upon' them.

Two different roles of the Holy Spirit among others.

And baptised with water.. could also be translated 'in water'.. as it should be with the immersion baptism.

Not true friend.

Just passing through for now. Will be back shortly to answer. As I mentioned earlier, St. Irenaeus, who tells us that already in the 2nd Century, the Church of Rome, being the Apostolic Church of St. Peter, was a great and universally respected Church in Christendom, is also one of our main Early Witnesses for who wrote the 4 Holy Gospels and when:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

The Church Fathers always held to and defended the traditional authorship and Apostolic orign of the Gospels. Many of those who reject the Church Fathers today now believe the Gospels were written late, are anonymous, not from the Apostles etc and have become liberals. That's just one e.g. of how rejection of the Church Fathers leads to liberalism even concerning the Gospels.

As I mentioned in another thread that Darwins false theory of Evolution (which also contradicts the traditional interpretation of Genesis) is one of the reasons for the widespread loss of Christian Faith in much of the West today, so also another reason for that loss of Faith is the false idea, held by many liberals, that Christs Disciples themselves did not write the Gospels but others did. The best way to refute those liberal errors is from the Church Fathers.

I wrote an article about that for 1P5, mentioning Sir William Ramsay, an Oxford educated Archaeologist, who once believed that and was a non-Christian and skeptic. Yet later on, his study showed him the Gospels were accurate, the Church Fathers were right, and he became a Christian. Will share the links later on, as I'm on my phone right now.

God bless.

Ok, back now. So, first, here's the link for what St. Irenaeus wrote: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

And article on most likely dates the Gospels were written https://onepeterfive.com/matthew-first-dates-gospels/

Now, Inquisitor, let's come back to our discussion:

There was no separate entity called the "Orthodox Church" until the Schism broke out much later. I already showed you from 2nd Century Church Father Saint Irenaeus that the Church of Rome, being the Apostolic Church where St. Peter and St. Paul preached and were buried, held a pre-eminent place in the Universal Church of his time. What is your response to that?

Here's the passage again:
"that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles ... In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth." Taken from: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Again, just because Calvin claimed there was no Hierarchy in Early Christianity doesn't mean he was right. Every Local Church had Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. And when there was a doubt or difficulty, they would ask the Roman Church.

St. Irenaeus clearly says above that the Church of Rome had Pre-Eminent Authority because of its relation to Peter/Pauletc

2) Second question. I also quoted for you Apostolic Father St. Ignatius, who incidentally was from Antioch. This Church Father also bears witness that there were Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons in the Early Church, something the Orthodox Church fully agrees with 100%. Even the Anglican Church or Church or England largely preserves this threefold order.

St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote his own glorious martyrdom for the Lord Jesus before 107 A.D. Some records say he was one of the children that the Lord Jesus held in His lap. Do you believe he was wrong, on what Early Christianity was like?

3) Thirdly, you will notice St. Irenaeus mentions St. Clement of Rome, the 4th Pope above, as dispatching a powerful letter to settle a disciplinary or doctrinal controversy in the Early Church. Here is Historian Philip Schaff with more on that:

"Philip Schaff, the Protestant historian, writes: The first example of the exercise of a sort of papal authority is found towards the close of the first century in the letter of the Roman bishop Clement (d. 102) to the bereaved and distracted church of Corinth. This epistle, full of beautiful exhortations to harmony, love, and humility, was sent, as the very address shows, not in the bishop’s own name, which is not mentioned at all, but in that of the Roman congregation, which speaks always in the first person plural. It was a service of love, proffered by one church to another in time of need. Similar letters of instruction, warning and comfort were written to other congregations by Ignatius, Polycarp, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus.

Nevertheless it can hardly be denied that the document reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." What Schaff relates basically shows that even St. John, while he was still alive, preferred the Bishop of Rome to settle the issue. Think about that for a moment.

Above taken from: https://eclecticanecdotes.com/2021/10/philip-schaff-on-pope-clement-i

Will post Scriptures on the issue subsequently. Please note I already showed earlier on, from the Greek, that different Greek words are used for Episcopous (Bishop) and Presbyterous (Presbyter/Priest in the NT). Some English translations, with an anti-clerical bent, mask this distinction which is clearly present in the Greek. Hence, some think there are no Bishops in the Church per the Bible, but that is based on a translation error. For now, I post the relevant verses in English.

"Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you Bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28)

"For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint Presbyters in every town, as I directed you" (Tit 1:5)

"to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a Priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." (Rom 15:16)

Even in the OT, there was hierarchy. Think of Moses, Aaron etc ministering as Priests for the people. So also, in the NT, there is.

We'll look at the Greek root words in a subsequent post. God Bless.

Wrong! The break between the Roman & Greek churches was because of the filioque clause!
"Prominent among these were the procession of the Holy Spirit (Filioque),"

"Filioque, Latin for "and (from) the Son", was added in Western Christianity to the Latin text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which also varies from the original Greek text in having the additional phrase Deum de Deo (God from God) and in using the singular "I believe" (Latin, Credo, Greek Πιστεύω) instead of the original "We believe" (Greek Πιστεύομεν), which Oriental Orthodoxy preserves."

"Filioque states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, a doctrine accepted by the Catholic Church, by Anglicanism and by Protestant churches in general. Christians of these groups generally include it when reciting the Nicene Creed. Nonetheless, these groups recognize that Filioque is not part of the original text established at the First Council of Constantinople in 381, and they do not demand that others too should use it when saying the Creed. Indeed, the Catholic Church does not add the phrase corresponding to Filioque (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) to the Greek text of the Creed, even in the liturgy for Latin Rite Catholics.

At the 879–880 Council of Constantinople the Eastern Orthodox Church anathematized the Filioque phrase, "as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed", and in their 1848 encyclical the Eastern Patriarchs spoke of it as a heresy. It was qualified as such by some of the Eastern Orthodox Church's saints, including Photios I of Constantinople, Mark of Ephesus, and Gregory Palamas, who have been called the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy. The Eastern church believes by the Western church inserting the Filioque unilaterally (without consulting or holding council with the East) into the Creed, that the Western Church broke communion with the East.[

Minor things like the difference between leavened & unleavened bread could have easily been resolved!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East–West_Schism

the "church" is the body of believers, not a denomination or man made organization anyway.

Yeah, it didn't begin with a famous person starting it. It began with Jesus and His disciples.

Isaiah 22:22-25
Easy-to-Read Version
22 “I will put the key to David’s house around his neck. If he opens a door, no one will be able to close it. If he closes a door, no one will be able to open it. 23 He will be like a favorite chair in his father’s house. I will make him like a strong peg in a solid board. 24 All the honored and important things of his father’s house will hang on him. All the adults and little children will depend on him. They will be like little dishes and big water bottles hanging on him.”

25 The Lord All-Powerful said, “At that time the peg that is now in the solid board will get weak and break. It will fall to the ground, and everything hanging on it will be destroyed. Then everything I said in this message will happen. It will happen because the Lord said it would.”

East-West Schism, also called Schism of 1054

Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Era

• ca. 37-53 Episcopacy of Apostle Peter in Antioch.
• 64 Martyrdom of Peter in Rome.
• 67 Election of Linus, first bishop of Rome.
• 135 First recorded use of title Pope by a Roman bishop (Hyginus).
• 210 Hippolytus of Rome, bishop and martyr and last of the Greek-speaking fathers in Rome, writes Refutation of All Heresies (Philosophumena), and Apostolic Tradition.
• 255 Cyprian of Carthage rejects Pope Stephen I's ruling on the Donatist controversy.

Conciliar Era

• 325 Original Nicene Creed ratified at First Ecumenical Council.
• 330 Founding of Constantinople as New Rome, renaming the city of Byzantium.
• 357 Pope Liberius signs Semi-Arian creed (possibly under duress).
• 379 Emperor Gratian permits Roman pope authority over neighboring bishops.
• 381 Nicene Creed expanded at Second Ecumenical Council.
• 382 First use of papal title Pontifex Maximus, as Emperor Gratian relinquishes the former pagan imperial religious title and bestows it on Pope Damasus I of Rome.[1][note 1]
• 395-405 Series of correspondences between Augustine of Hippo and Jerome, where Augustine maintains the validity of the Septuagint, while Jerome favours the Hebrew (Rabinnical) Bible which becomes the OT basis for the Latin Vulgate.[note 2]
• 410 Rome sacked by Visigoth invaders.
• 417 Pope Zosimus waffles on Pelagianism.
• 447 Pope Leo I wrote to the bishops of Sicily, rebuking them for permitting baptism at Epiphany, as the Greeks did, and ordering them to observe the Roman custom of baptizing on Easter and Whitsunday.[2]
• 451 Fourth Ecumenical Council notes that Rome's primacy is because it was "the imperial city"; Tome of Pope St. Leo I endorsed by Council after review.
• 455 Rome sacked by Vandals.
• 476 Fall of the Western Roman Empire as Romulus Augustulus, the last Western Roman emperor, is deposed by the German Odoacer, leaving the emperor in the Greek East as the sole imperial authority, and an unstable political environment in the West where the Church of Rome slowly developed a centralized structure, concentrating religious as well as secular authority in the office of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome.[note 3]

Estrangement and Schism

• 792 Charlemagne accuses "Greeks" of deleting Filioque from original Creed.
• 800 Usurpation of Western Roman Empire by Charlemagne.
• 809 Pope Leo III forbids addition of Filioque to Creed and has original Creed in both Greek and Latin inscribed on silver tablets displayed in Rome.
• 869-870 Robber Council of 869-870 deposes St. Photius the Great.
• 870 Gradual collapse of the Moravian mission beginning with the death of Prince Rostislav of Moravia, who is captured and deposed by his nephew, Svátopulk, who favours more the Latin liturgy and Bavarian clergy represented by the Frankish Bp. Wiching of Nitra (consecrated in 880 as the first Bp. of Nitria);[note 5]
• 874 The Great Moravian king Svátopulk subjugated the Vistulan tribe of Lesser Poland, resulting in the Christianization of Little Poland in the Orthodox Cyrillo-Methodian style, (as opposed to the Western Bohemian style), as early as the end of 9th century, before the conversion of Polish King Mieszko I in 966;[note 6]
• 879-880 Council in Constantinople (endorsed by papacy) reinstates St. Photius and anathematizes any changes to Nicene Creed, including the Filioque.[note 7]
• 962 Founding of Holy Roman Empire.
• 966 Mieszko I, the first historical ruler of Poland, accepts Baptism, after marrying the Christian princess Dobrawa in 965, who as a Czech, had strong Orthodox connections.[note 8]
• 996 After the repose of Pope John XV (985-996), the Frankish King Otto III installs his cousin Bruno of Carinthia as Pope Gregory V (996–999), the first German (non-Roman) Pope, marking the point at which the Roman papacy is converted to a Frankish organization.[3][note 9]
• 1009 Patr. Sergius II of Constantinople removes name of Pope Sergius IV from the diptychs of Constantinople, because the pope had written a letter to the patriarch including the Filioque.[4][note 10]

Good discussion all

Chapter 12
First of all, sir, I said, explain this to me: What is the meaning of the rock and the gate? This rock, he answered, and this gate are the Son of God. How, sir? I said; the rock is old, and the gate is new. Listen, he said, and understand, O ignorant man. The Son of God is older than all His creatures, so that He was a fellow-councillor with the Father in His work of creation: for this reason is He old. And why is the gate new, sir? I said. Because, he answered, He became manifest in the last days of the dispensation: for this reason the gate was made new, that they who are to be saved by it might enter into the kingdom of God. You saw, he said, that those stones which came in through the gate were used for the building of the tower, and that those which did not come, were again thrown back to their own place? I saw, sir, I replied. In like manner, he continued, no one shall enter into the kingdom of God unless he receive His holy name. For if you desire to enter into a city, and that city is surrounded by a wall, and has but one gate, can you enter into that city save through the gate which it has? Why, how can it be otherwise, sir? I said. If, then, you cannot enter into the city except through its gate, so, in like manner, a man cannot otherwise enter into the kingdom of God than by the name of His beloved Son. You saw, he added, the multitude who were building the tower? I saw them, sir, I said. Those, he said, are all glorious angels, and by them accordingly is the Lord surrounded. And the gate is the Son of God. This is the one entrance to the Lord. In no other way, then, shall any one enter in to Him except through His Son. You saw, he continued, the six men, and the tall and glorious man in the midst of them, who walked round the tower, and rejected the stones from the building? I saw him, sir, I answered. The glorious man, he said, is the Son of God, and those six glorious angels are those who support Him on the right hand and on the left. None of these glorious angels, he continued, will enter in unto God apart from Him. Whosoever does not receive His name, shall not enter into the kingdom of God.