The original Church

All original churches only go back around 5,000 years this is nothing we’ve been here 100’s of thousands of years some say Jesus was an Egyptian what was before that person every topic in ATS has a far out way of thinking which I respect. But the original church was made to regroup our numbers to restore our soul to a one complete soul. And the original church was to help keep us on the straight and narrow. But our dilemma is the Human Ego manipulating our scattered soul for there is One Soul here Adams and many people. The original church is lost I have a website with all the pieces of the puzzle I can find. In the Address Bar
www.imonesixbillionthofoursoul.com
Mail [email protected]
It’s always been the Human Ego vs. Our Soul

reply to post by soleprobe


So
After doing much research, and focusing on the context of the words quoted before

The Way is NOT what early christians called themselves, it was what outsiders, called followers of the Christ.

The four scriptures in Acts are all using the term The Way as from someone in opposition to the disciples...so...

I take it back. Early christians did not call their belief 'The Way'

As regards CHRISTIANS...the term was first used in Antioch, and it is not entirely clear by whom...probably ridiculers... but by the time 1 Peter 4:16 was penned, the congregations had obviously embraced the title, and used it toward eachother.

1 Peter 4:16 "Yet if any man suffer as a christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

Yay, I learned something today.

Originally posted by Xcouncil=wisdom
reply to post by soleprobe

 

So
After doing much research, and focusing on the context of the words quoted before

The Way is NOT what early christians called themselves, it was what outsiders, called followers of the Christ.

The four scriptures in Acts are all using the term The Way as from someone in opposition to the disciples...so...

I take it back. Early christians did not call their belief 'The Way'

As regards CHRISTIANS...the term was first used in Antioch, and it is not entirely clear by whom...probably ridiculers... but by the time 1 Peter 4:16 was penned, the congregations had obviously embraced the title, and used it toward eachother.

1 Peter 4:16 "Yet if any man suffer as a christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

Yay, I learned something today.

We can all agree that they were certainly not called Jehovah's Witnesses..lol
Learned something too.

reply to post by oliveoil



Good one!

True christians, or followers of Christ...are those who do what he commanded...he didn't command much, Love the Father, love your neighbor and preach the good news of the Kingdom of God, just as he did...those followers did not formally take that name until 1931

You probably know its based on Isaiah 43:10 "You are my witnesses is the utterance of Jehovah"

Just for fun...
(Luke 24:47-48) ". . .and on the basis of his name repentance for forgiveness of sins would be preached in all the nations—starting out from Jerusalem, 48 YOU are to be witnesses of these things."
(Acts 1:8) ". . .YOU will be witnesses of me . . ."
(Acts 2:32) ". . .This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses. . ."
(Acts 3:15) ". . .. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses. . ."
(Acts 5:31-32) ". . .God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these matters. . ."
(Acts 10:39) ". . .And we are witnesses . . ."
(Acts 13:31) ". . .who are now his witnesses to the people."
(1 Thessalonians 2:9-10) ". . .that we preached the good news of God to YOU. 10 YOU are witnesses. . ."

I looked, couldn't find catholic in the bible...?

Originally posted by Xcouncil=wisdom
The Way is NOT what early christians called themselves, it was what outsiders, called followers of the Christ.

Yes I know ... i was just quoting you. I already posted how believers referred to themselves

Originally posted by Xcouncil=wisdom
but by the time 1 Peter 4:16 was penned, the congregations had obviously embraced the title, and used it toward eachother.

No... it's not obvious.... it was only used that one time and in reference to persecution... if they used it repeatedly in various contexts yes... but the original believers, unlike this counterfeit satanic cult called Christianity today, obeyed Christ and did not label themselves according to the labels created by unbelievers.

Originally posted by Xcouncil=wisdom
Yay, I learned something today.

Yes ... you are a Christian



[edit on 27-7-2010 by soleprobe]

Originally posted by Xcouncil=wisdom
reply to post by oliveoil

 

Good one!

True christians, or followers of Christ...are those who do what he commanded...he didn't command much, Love the Father, love your neighbor and preach the good news of the Kingdom of God, just as he did...those followers did not formally take that name until 1931

You probably know its based on Isaiah 43:10 "You are my witnesses is the utterance of Jehovah"

Just for fun...
(Luke 24:47-48) ". . .and on the basis of his name repentance for forgiveness of sins would be preached in all the nations—starting out from Jerusalem, 48 YOU are to be witnesses of these things."
(Acts 1:8) ". . .YOU will be witnesses of me . . ."
(Acts 2:32) ". . .This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses. . ."
(Acts 3:15) ". . .. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses. . ."
(Acts 5:31-32) ". . .God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these matters. . ."
(Acts 10:39) ". . .And we are witnesses . . ."
(Acts 13:31) ". . .who are now his witnesses to the people."
(1 Thessalonians 2:9-10) ". . .that we preached the good news of God to YOU. 10 YOU are witnesses. . ."

I looked, couldn't find catholic in the bible...?

That has absolutely got to be the number one greatest comeback of all times! I loved it. Though I'm not a Jehova's Witness, I respect them and acknowledge them as a legitimate form of Christianity. Catholicism is considered the "mystery religion" in my books. Can't find pagan practices in the JW doctrine. I can find mountains of pagan practices in the catholic doctrine. Kudos to you good sir.... or ma'am. Not sure.

reply to post by Locoman8


Thanks!
I do try to please.
But not insult, so don't take that last post too personally Oliveoil...you and I do not see eye to eye on many things, but I do have great respect for your zeal and tenacity.

And Soloprobe,
(John 7:7) . . . The world has no reason to hate YOU, but it hates me, because I bear witness . . .

Oh, and Locoman, its Mr.

reply to post by Xcouncil=wisdom


Okay. Thanks for clearing that up for me MR. Xcouncil=wisdom. Very clever reply to oliveoil. I have the same disagreements with oliveoil but the same mutual respect as well. Peace.

Well lets just all go out and have a beer or two and bond in brotherly love.

What happened to you Oliveoil? One day you're speaking of the keeping of the true sabbath and the next day you're following in the great apostasy of the Catholic Church.

I have stated many times from the beginning that I tend to lean towards Catholic theology. Big FYI for yea, CHRISTIANITY STEMMED FROM JUDAISM. The covenants discussed in the OT between God and Jew are made new in the NT between Jesus and ALL. There is nothing Pagan about celebrating the birth of Christ.Who cares what day it falls on, or why the church placed it on this day.Actually it maid perfect sense to have it on this day.How many Pagans became christian because of this?Have you ever heard of any Christians becoming Pagan because the church placed Christs birth on Dec 25. ohhh~ that evil church deceiving all those Christians.Your imagination doesnt serve your intellect.

The Roman Catholic church was founded by Simon Magus, not Simon Peter

I have read your thread on this and quite frank ,the entire account lacks all historical basis.
Another case of your imagination not serving your intellect.

And as far as the church being universal, Think about it for a minute, All nations, all doctrine, all ages...one. This would be the Apostolic Church built upon Peter . The word Catholic is not in the bible, However, to describe the church that Jesus founded not as being universal is seriously using ones imagination instead of intellect.
-universal adj. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide:

Originally posted by Xcouncil=wisdom
And Soloprobe,
(John 7:7) . . . The world has no reason to hate YOU, but it hates me, because I bear witness . . .

The “YOU” you are referring to in that scripture is not ME because I am not an unbeliever.

In that scripture the “YOU” Jesus was talking to were His physical brothers, not His true brothers who were His disciples and friends.

“His brothers therefore said to Him, ‘Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing.… show Yourself to the world.’ For even His brothers did not believe in Him.”

So it is clear that His physical brothers were unbelievers, "For even His brothers did not believe in Him", therefore they were of the world and the world had no reason to hate them. This is why the Lord says in the scripture you posted,

"Therefore Jesus told them, 'The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil.'"

But when the Lord spoke to His true brothers who were His disciples and friends, “the elect” He says to them, “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”

So Xcouncil=wisdom, the world DOES have a reason to hate ME, because before it hated me it hated my Lord.






[edit on 28-7-2010 by soleprobe]

reply to post by oliveoil


As far as the Simon Magus argument goes, fair enough... but there's no real proof that Peter was the first pope. It's just a claim the RCC makes.

Now to the holidays vs. Holy Days argument.....

The birth of Christ was a replacement of the old pagan winter solstice festivals and you say this doesn't matter.

Deuteronomy 12:29-32
29 “When the LORD your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land,
30 take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.’
31 You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.
32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.


Do not worship God the way the pagans worship their gods. Nordic evergreen worship. The nordic god Odin flying in the sky in a chariot pulled by an eight-legged horse while giving presents to his soldiers. The birth of Christ being celebrated in replacement of the pagan sun god's birth. Not to mention the greed associated with this consumer driven holiday... it's so commercialized that people don't even celebrate it for it's original christian intent.
There was an interesting display I noticed last christmas season. I was eating at Chic-fil-A and noticed a glass mural painting. Now in this painting there was a manger scene with baby Jesus in the manger. The shepherds, Mary and Joseph were all gathered together..... and guess who was in the background getting ready to hold Jesus? SANTA CLAUSE!!! The mural also had the words reading "The Reason for the Season." I'm sorry but taking a dressed up version of the pagan nordic god Odin and mixing it with Jesus is the same thing as the scripture I posted above. Lifting up a tree and decorating it is the same thing.

Jeremiah 10:1-5
1 Hear the word which the LORD speaks to you, O house of Israel.
2 Thus says the LORD:


“ Do not learn the way of the Gentiles;
Do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven,
For the Gentiles are dismayed at them.
3 For the customs of the peoples are futile;
For one cuts a tree from the forest,
The work of the hands of the workman, with the ax.
4 They decorate it with silver and gold;
They fasten it with nails and hammers
So that it will not topple.
5 They are upright, like a palm tree,
And they cannot speak;
They must be carried,
Because they cannot go by themselves.
Do not be afraid of them,
For they cannot do evil,
Nor can they do any good.”

And this is just Christmas we're talking about here. Don't even get me started on easter.... a pagan fertility holiday that replaced the christian passover and feast of unleavened bread!

Point is, not one of the modern christian holidays are mentioned in the bible... New or Old testaments. The 7 Holy Day Feasts are clearly commanded in both testaments. The RCC has taken the masses for fools and the tradition carries on in the protestant denominations as well.

reply to post by Locoman8


The laws in which God gave the Jews in the OT regarding Pagan 'Holidays' / Jewish "HOLY DAYS" were directed to Jews not Gentiles.And the Jews still follow these laws to this day.Ask yourself these questions.Who is it that celebrates Christmas, Jews or Gentiles? Who is it that believes that the messiah has come, Jews or Gentiles? Why would a non-Jew adhere to Jewish custom? Wouldn't a Christian who follows Jewish customs make that person a Jew? What you are doing in fact is asking the non Jew to follow Jewish Law. We who celebrate Christmas, Easter,ect are not Jewish.Gods covenant was and is with them.His chosen people.We as Christians are not disrespecting Gods law(that was intended for Jews), We adhere to the New Covenant which Jesus established with us, Gentile and Jews alike,(who believed in him). This new covenant superseded the old as the old has been fulfilled.

Originally posted by oliveoil
What would be the true original church(the one Jesus established) as it is today?.All searches and findings lead me to the Universal Church which is still in existence today.I guess it is safe to say that the Catholic Church is the original,thus being the true Church that Jesus established.

Huh???

The book of Acts says the believers at Antioch Syria were the first. And they outright rejected the Textus Vinaticus and Textus Sinaticus Greek manuscripts that gave birth to the Catholic bible.

"Salvation is by grace of God through faith alone, and not of works lest any man should boast.."

Catholics believe and teach faith + works + sacraments = Salvation.

Originally posted by Xcouncil=wisdom
reply to post by oliveoil

 

Good one!

True christians, or followers of Christ...are those who do what he commanded...he didn't command much, Love the Father, love your neighbor and preach the good news of the Kingdom of God, just as he did...those followers did not formally take that name until 1931

You probably know its based on Isaiah 43:10 "You are my witnesses is the utterance of Jehovah"

Just for fun...
(Luke 24:47-48) ". . .and on the basis of his name repentance for forgiveness of sins would be preached in all the nations—starting out from Jerusalem, 48 YOU are to be witnesses of these things."
(Acts 1:8) ". . .YOU will be witnesses of me . . ."
(Acts 2:32) ". . .This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses. . ."
(Acts 3:15) ". . .. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses. . ."
(Acts 5:31-32) ". . .God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these matters. . ."
(Acts 10:39) ". . .And we are witnesses . . ."
(Acts 13:31) ". . .who are now his witnesses to the people."
(1 Thessalonians 2:9-10) ". . .that we preached the good news of God to YOU. 10 YOU are witnesses. . ."

I looked, couldn't find catholic in the bible...?

The apostles were witnesses to the acts and teachings of Jesus Christ. Which of His acts or teachings have you witnessed?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Huh???

The book of Acts says the believers at Antioch Syria were the first. And they outright rejected the Textus Vinaticus and Textus Sinaticus Greek manuscripts that gave birth to the Catholic bible.

Yes, the first to be called Christians. What does this have to do with the original church that Jesus founded which was built upon Peter, who was an Apostle, Who was the first Pope. Textus Vinaticus ? Textus Sinaticus ? Please elaborate!

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Huh???

The book of Acts says the believers at Antioch Syria were the first. And they outright rejected the Textus Vinaticus and Textus Sinaticus Greek manuscripts that gave birth to the Catholic bible.

Yes, the first to be called Christians. What does this have to do with the original church that Jesus founded which was built upon Peter, who was an Apostle, Who was the first Pope. Textus Vinaticus ? Textus Sinaticus ? Please elaborate!

Huh again??

Peter was martyred in 67 AD during Nero's reign of power. The "Catholic Church" wasn't even around then. The fable that Peter was the first pope is just that... a fable. There was no Catholic Church then (67 AD) and the Romans didn't embrace Christianity until the reign of Constantine who died in 337 AD. peter only worked for the Lord for 30 some years after Christ's death before he was killed. The Apostle John lived the longest dying in 97 AD.

Now if you have no idea about the "Textus Receptus", "Textus Sinaticus", and "Textus Vinaticus" Greek manuscripts, where they all 3 originated, and the beliefs of the men who formed them I suggest you read this brief history of the different manuscripts and the different Bibles we have today because of them.

HERE

[edit on 29-7-2010 by oliveoil]

[edit on 29-7-2010 by oliveoil]

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Peter was martyred in 67 AD during Nero's reign of power. The "Catholic Church" wasn't even around then

Catholic tradition and doctrine holds that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st century A.D.
source-.wikipedia.org

Wasn't Jesus around before 67AD? Do you know something that wiki doesnt? If it wasnt founded by Jesus than who?

The fable that Peter was the first pope is just that... a fable.

Fable means a deliberately false or improbable account -www.google.com
Lets take a closer look and see if it was improbable that Peter could have been the first pope.

St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.

* That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ's prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not — "And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God" (John 21:18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.
* St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
* From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, Church History II.15, 3.40, 6.14); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.
* Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (chapter 5): "Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory". He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom "among us" (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chapter 4). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.
* In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: "I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive" (Epistle to the Romans 4). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.
* Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says: "You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom" (in Eusebius, Church History II.25).
* Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as "the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" (Against Heresies 3.3; cf. 3.1). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.
* In his "Hypotyposes" (Eusebius, Church History IV.14), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: "After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them" (see above).
* Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In De Præscriptione 36, he says: "If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John". In Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter's crucifixion. "The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross". As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (On Baptism 5) that there is "no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber"; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, "to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood" (Against Marcion 4.5).
* The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his "Dialogue with Proclus" (in Eusebius, Church History II.25) directed against the Montanists: "But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church". By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to "the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there" (i.e. at Rome).
* There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment ("Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat", ed. Preuschen, Tübingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter's death in Rome.
* The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome. -www.newadvent.org

So here we see that it was very probable that Peters Activities and death in Rome have been established.

Now lets take a look at your next statement.

There was no Catholic Church then (67 AD) and the Romans didn't embrace Christianity until the reign of Constantine who died in 337 AD

Paul mentions in 2 Timothy 4:21 the name Linus who in fact was the 2nd Roman Bishop here it is right here:

2 Timothy 4:21 Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.

Now Linus' reign was from about 64 AD to around 79 AD.

Now take a look at Irenaeus' and what he had to say.(Against Heresies III.3.3) fter the Holy Apostles (Peter) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

Answer me this? How is Peter being the first Roman Bishop a deliberately false or improbable account, When there are credible witnesses? Your definition of Fable is correct, However this is most certainly not that.

Now if you have no idea about the "Textus Receptus", "Textus Sinaticus", and "Textus Vinaticus" Greek manuscripts, where they all 3 originated, and the beliefs of the men who formed them I suggest you read this brief history of the different manuscripts and the different Bibles we have today because of them.

I acctually do have limited knowledge of Autographs,Manuscripts, and translations concerning both old and new tesaments alike. Accually there are earlier Manuscrips such as the Bodmer p66,Chester Beatty p46, Bodmer p75, Chester Beatty p45, Lets not forget P52 which was copied within 35 years of the original, Not to mention the other 5500 which are still in existence.
Question. What is the point you are trying to get accross? Did Jesus base his church on what the NT says? I dont quite understand.Please if you will.

reply to post by oliveoil

Answer me this? How is Peter being the first Roman Bishop a deliberately false or improbable account, When there are credible witnesses? Your definition of Fable is correct, However this is most certainly not that.

Have you ever heard of Clement of Rome? He makes NO mention whatsoever of any doctrines of Catholicism, (Infant baptism, Maryolitry, etc), nor does he EVER mention that Peter was anything other than Jesus's apostle, ZERO mention of Peter 'being the first pope'.

Clement was Peter's own disciple. Polycarp was John's disciple. Both these men's writings are available.