From 1: Peter 5: 13

"The Church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son."

Now, according to my Ryrie Study Bible (KJV), Babylon is code for Rome.  And we are told later that Peter and Paul were both persecuted in Rome.  

Other Christins also refer to the RCC as the "Whore of Babylon"  , (which is rather insulting to Christ's bride) .

So, it is clear to me that Babylon=Rome in this context.  Which means Peter was in Rome.

Which brings up an interesting dilemma, because if we ALWAYS take the Bible 100% literally then we would have to believe Peter was accually in babylon, when it was Rome that he was refering too.

Modern Day Iraq.

ETA:  There are many references (biblical and historical) to Babylon as a center for art and culture long before the founding of Rome.  Those who refer to Rome as Babylon are referring to Rome as a center of art, culture and most of all a denizen for perversion and sin.  

The ancient city of Babylon was in Persia, which is modern day Iraq.

Yes, I know where the real baylon is.  I was refering to this particular passage.  In this passage Peter clearly states he is in babylon.  Now, either Peter is using code or he is not.

All my studies have taught me that he is using the word Babylon as code for Rome.

Quoted: Yes, I know where the real baylon is.  I was refering to this particular passage.  In this passage Peter clearly states he is in babylon.  Now, either Peter is using code or he is not. All my studies have taught me that he is using the word Babylon as code for Rome.

Yes, Peter is referring to Rome.  During this time, Rome had ceased being the center for arts and literature.  Democtatic rule had broken down and the Roman Empire had become a welfare state.   Its citizens weren't required to work, the state would support them.  Every sick whim and pleasure was accepted if not sanctioned by the state.  The Empire and its leaders no longer stood on moral ground and the levels of debauchery and sin rivaled that of Sodom,  Gommorah and Babylon.  

I don't think that is why Peter use code for the name of Rome.

Quoted: I don't think that is why Peter use code for the name of Rome.

I'll bite, why do you think Peter referred to Rome as Babylon?

Quoted: Quoted: I don't think that is why Peter use code for the name of Rome. I'll bite, why do you think Peter referred to Rome as Babylon?

Because at that time the persecutions of Christians have already began.

If you really wish to think that 'Babylon = Rome', then by all means, do so.

But when you come to the Book of Revelation, remember your choice....

BTW, historically, I think it very likely that St. Peter ventured to Rome and was executed there in the manner in which human 'tradition' tells us.

But, from the Scriptures, such an event means absolutely nothing, except the 'precious' story of the death of a Saint...in the Sight of the Lord...Psalm 116:15

That is all.

Eric The(Obvious)Hun

Actually it means quite a bit.

Jesus told Peter He would build His Church upon "this rock" of Peter.  We know Peter was in Rome.  We know that Peter was at Penticost (the very start of the church).  

No church other then the Catholic Church has a direct lineage.

The only way the Protestnt or born again church can make the same claim is if they first go thru the Catholic Church since they are off shoots.

Also in the first half of Acts there are many examples of Peter taking charge and being a leader.  Along with this quote from 1 Peter

1Pe 5:13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.

Pay very special attention to the word "elected".  Peter was selected by Jesus, and elected by the  people.

Clearly, Peter was the head of the Church of that time, 1st Century Chirtianity(Catholic).  So if a person trys to claim they are following 1st Century Christianity then they must be followers of Peter since he was the head of the church at that time.  And Peter and those that came after him all were instrumental in the founding of the Catholic church.


I am not sure what Revelation has to do with this.

But either Peter was in Rome or he was not.  Clearly this passage shows he was.  So belief in this truth will not harm me in anyway concerning Revelations.

Quoted: Actually it means quite a bit.

Nothing insofar as the Church of Christ is concerned, but the Romans have made quite a bit of mileage with it.

Jesus told Peter He would build His Church upon "this rock" of Peter.

No, He most certainly did NOT.

Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Matthew 21:42

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:10-12  

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;  Ephesians 2:19-20

If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 1 Peter 2:3-8

What we see is that Jesus Christ is the Chief Corner Stone, upon Whom His Church was wholly built....and upon no one else!

And that is even admitted by St. Peter!

We know Peter was in Rome.

No, we know no such thing.

We may think he was in Rome, we may hope that he was in Rome, but we are simply not told in the Scriptures that St. Peter ever made it to Rome!

And, for you Romans, this is an incredible omission, IF your doctrines are to be supported by anything more than historical happenstance.

BTW, Armenia officially became a Christian nation before Rome ever did.

(But you don't hear them claiming 'Primacy' in the Church!)

We know that Peter was at Penticost (the very start of the church).

St. Peter was certainly in Jerusalem at Pentecost, for we are specifically told this in Scripture.

Don't presume to speak where Scripture has not spoken.  

No church other then the Catholic Church has a direct lineage.

There is NO direct lineage whatsoever.

Want to also include a few really 'great' popes in that 'Holy' succession?

I have a rather long list of some popes and 'anti-popes' who were real asshats when it comes to their personal morality.

Chosen by God?

Yeah....right!

Hardly likely.

More like 'chosen by the Borgias', or 'chosen by the de Medicis', or 'chosen by the Emperors', than chosen by the Lord!

But let me know IF you'd like to hear that list of the 'dark Popes.'

The only way the Protestnt or born again church can make the same claim is if they first go thru the Catholic Church since they are off shoots.

Unless Jesus Christ was mistaken, the very gates of Hell did NOT prevail against His Church, so there has always been a 'saving remnant' of Believing Christians on this planet.

At times, within the bodies of the non-Roman churches, some of which are quite older than the Roman Church...such as the Church at Antioch (you know, where we were first called 'Christians'), and some that are just as old as any church at Rome, and, at other times, within the Roman Church itself.

My own church claims to be a 'restoration' of the original First Century Church after years and years, and maybe millenia, of heresy and failure by the others.....

Also in the first half of Acts there are many examples of Peter taking charge and being a leader.

Baloney!

Show us one such instance!

At the so-called 'Council of Jerusalem' of c. 50 AD, spoken about in Chapter 15 of Acts, we find the council presided over by St. James, as the 'leader' of the church, and...we find this passage:

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Acts 15: 15-211

'Wherefore my sentence is...' said St. James, and that was precisely what was done.

Clearly, Peter was the head of the Church of that time, 1st Century Chirtianity(Catholic).  So if a person trys to claim they are following 1st Century Christianity then they must be followers of Peter since he was the head of the church at that time.  And Peter and those that came after him all were instrumental in the founding of the Catholic church.

Baloney, yet again.

St. Peter fled from Jerusalem and after mid-point in Acts, we never hear him spoken of again....

Hardly the 'leader' of the First Century Church!

Otherwise, he could have just said, 'Let it be so...' and that would have been the end of it.

I am not sure what Revelation has to do with this.

That doesn't surprise me, in the very least.

But you should read it...and see what 'Babylon' has to do with it.

But either Peter was in Rome or he was not.

We have no Scriptural statement that St. Peter was ever in Rome.

Period.

Clearly this passage shows he was.

What passage?

The 'Babylon' passage?

Not at all.

So belief in this truth will not harm me in anyway concerning Revelations.

Believe as you wish. Believe as you may. Believe as you are led.

It won't stop a damn thing.

But you should really begin your reading of evelations starting with Chapter 14...and continue...

After you finish, you will know what I mean when I asked you if you 'really, really' wanted to continue to identify Rome with Babylon!

For what it's worth....a lot of folks already do!

Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

Say, was St. Peter ever married?



Eric The(WonderingAloud)Hun

ETH, if Babylon is not Rome in that passage then where is it?

And you always refer to the RCC as the Whore of babylon so again, where was Peter when he wrote 1 Peters?

Either the Bible means what it says or it does not.

Period.

And read Acts 5.  It talks about the purging of the Church from with in, with Peter as the leader.  Now of course Jesus is the corner stone of the Church.  And from that Peter continued.  And I am sure I can find bad people in any organization including any christian church, just like you can find bad popes in the Catholic Church. Remember, Popes are sinners just like you and I.

You went to great pains using scripture to point out your arguemnets, yet you can not debunk that which Peter had written himself.

Either Babylon was Rome or is was not.  If not Rome, what city was it?

Quoted: Say, was St. Peter ever married? Eric The(WonderingAloud)Hun

I believe he was.

And he left his fmily to follow Christ.

I could be mistaken.

Say...was Paul at the Penticost?

Quoted: ETH, if Babylon is not Rome in that passage then where is it?

I have no idea.

It could have literally been Babylon.

Or it could have been dozens of different places where St. Peter fled following his departure from Jerusalem.

He certainly didn't go to Rome during that part of the Book of Acts in which he appears.

And you always refer to the RCC as the Whore of babylon so again, where was Peter when he wrote 1 Peters?

I have never referred to the RCC as the 'Whore of Babylon', and you just continue to lie and lie about this.

Why?

Why would you continue to do such a thing?

Troubled, are we?

Either the Bible means what it says or it does not.

Tell me where the Bible says that St. Peter was in Rome.

Period.

Period.

And read Acts 5.  It talks about the purging of the Church from with in, with Peter as the leader.

St. Peter is NOT called the leader of the Church.

Jesus Christ is the 'leader' of His Church.

He is Its Head.

A body cannot have two heads, and neither does his Church.

Now of course Jesus is the corner stone of the Church.

Yes, that is certainly what the Scriptures say.

And from that Peter continued.

The Church does NOT have two corner stones.

There is Only One.

Period.

And I am sure I can find bad people in any organization including any christian church, just like you can find bad popes in the Catholic Church.

Not just 'bad people' in 'any organization', but the 'personal representative of Jesus Christ Himself.'

That is a blasphemy!

Remember, Popes are sinners just like you and I.

Lord, what an understatement!

But sitting in the Throne of St. Peter??!!!

They can be as wrong as Hades.

And as evil as sin iteself.

You went to great pains using scripture to point out your arguemnets, yet you can not debunk that which Peter had written himself.

There is nothing to 'debunk.'

St. Peter didn't say, 'writing to you from my Throne in the Holy City', as some Pope might do.

But from the 'church at Babylon.'

Either Babylon was Rome or is was not.  If not Rome, what city was it?

For likely the umpteenth time...we simply have 'no earthly idea.'

Can't you understand simple English?

Maybe not....

Eric The(WiseFirstCentury)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: Say, was St. Peter ever married? Eric The(WonderingAloud)Hun I believe he was.

You believe well.

And he left his fmily to follow Christ.

You believe poorly.

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 1 Timothy 5:8

I could be mistaken.

Hopefully, you are, indeed.

Now, why would any Roman bishop ever ordain celibacy when the supposed first pope was married?

Didn't Jesus Christ know that this supposed first pope was married?

Apparently Roman thoughts on this have changed, eh?

Say...was Paul at the Penticost?

If he was there, he sat among the scoffers.

But we are NOT told whether he was or not, and it is immaterial to our present case whether St. Paul was there or not.

Eric The(StillFirstCentury)Hun

Well, like I said originally, according to the Ryrie Study bible (KJV) Peter used the word babylon as code for Rome.

Many other great biblical scholars agree with this point.  Yet you do not ETH.  Now maybe you are much better educated then these men, I do not know.  But for now, I am gonna go with what they said.


The deapth of your hatred for the RCC is quite appalling I must say ETH.  I am rather shocked.  As a catholic I have never seen this level of hatred towrds other christians in any of my fellow catholics, as we believe all christians will eventually (or rather hopefully) come back into the fold.  Nor have I seen it with most other members of Christian denominations.  

Quoted: The deapth of your hatred for the RCC is quite appalling I must say ETH.  I am rather shocked.  As a catholic I have never seen this level of hatred towrds other christians in any of my fellow catholics, as we believe all christians will eventually (or rather hopefully) come back into the fold.  Nor have I seen it with most other members of Christian denominations.

I forgive you for your utterly false witness, as I am almost certain, the Lord does.



Eric The(LovableFirstCentury)Hun

Now did St. Paul suppose that he lacked the very same 'authority' that any of the other Apostles had?

Nope.

For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. 2 Corinthians 11:5

I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. 2 Corinthians 12:11

'For in nothing' was St. Paul behind any other Apostle.

St. Peter included.

Or were St. Paul's words 'uninspired'???

Take that, Roman!

Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

Yes I know you are a great follower of Paul, who was a good man.  But Paul was not at Penticost and he was not chosen as the leader of the church by Jesus or by the Apostiles.

However, Peter was.  And we do know Peter was in Rome, we also know he was probably killed in Rome.

We also know that Peter went to Samaria and blessed the city PRIOR to Pauls conversion in Samaria.

So all thru out the first century it was Peter that led the flock, with the power and blessing of the Holy Spirit of course.  This of course does not mean Paul didn't do great things, he did.  But God choose Paul for differant reasons then why He choose Peter.  He used them both in differant ways.

So as you can see, the catholic church can directly trace it's roots right back to the very day the church was started, on Penticost.  No other Christian  (with the possible exception of some orthidox catholics churches) church can claim that unless they go thru the catholics.




They key sticking point here is the word "Babylon" that Pter refred too when he wrote 1 Peters.  Again, all my studies have shown he meant Rome.  This important bit of info should not be glossed over nor rejected, it should however be inspected.


Because if you ignore certain facts or flat out refuse to investigate certain facts then that may indeed warp your view of facts.

ANd I am an American, please have the common courtesy to call me by my proper title.

Quoted: Yes I know you are a great follower of Paul, who was a good man.  But Paul was not at Penticost and he was not chosen as the leader of the church by Jesus or by the Apostiles.

What does being at Pentecost have to do with this discussion?

Nothing whatsoever, and again, to quote from St. Paul....

'For not in a whit am I behind the chiefest Apostles' and 'for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.'

Now, you still didn't answer my question, IF you believe that St. Paul was writing inspired Scripture, how could he be mistaken?

He was in no whit, no manner, no way, behind St. Peter.

Simple enough if you take St. Paul to say what the Holy Spirit led him to write.

However, Peter was.  And we do know Peter was in Rome, we also know he was probably killed in Rome.

Again, so what?

There were 12 Apostles at Pentecost.

Doesn't mean that any one of them were the 'chiefest' Apostle, nor that there is any such thing.

We also know that Peter went to Samaria and blessed the city PRIOR to Pauls conversion in Samaria.

You don't bless a city...like some do a shrimp fleet.

So what?

So all thru out the first century it was Peter that led the flock, with the power and blessing of the Holy Spirit of course.

What we see is an absence of St. Peter from Missionary work....that he continued in so doing, I have no doubt.

But beginning in mid-Acts, he slips off the screen...and St. Paul's travels become the focus of the story.

And IF St. Peter was the 'chiefest' Apostle, upon whom Jesus built His Church, why even have a Council of Jerusalem, and why have St. James preside and make the 'sentence'?

St. Peter could have just said, 'Thus sayeth the rock....', and the Church would have obeyed.

But he didn't, and they didn't.

This of course does not mean Paul didn't do great things, he did.  But God choose Paul for differant reasons then why He choose Peter.  He used them both in differant ways.

Incredible.

You and yours have the various Apostles competing with each other.

Heresy. Pure and simple.

You should hold all of them the same regard....as servants of the Lord.

So as you can see, the catholic church can directly trace it's roots right back to the very day the church was started, on Penticost.  No other Christian  (with the possible exception of some orthidox catholics churches) church can claim that unless they go thru the catholics.

Then the bishop of Jerusalem should be the head of the Church IF you believe that mere presence at Pentecost.

But then Jerusalem wouldn't serve your purposes, so you move the 'seat' to Rome...'where all vices and things odious to mankind seem to gather.'

They key sticking point here is the word "Babylon" that Pter refred too when he wrote 1 Peters.  Again, all my studies have shown he meant Rome.  This important bit of info should not be glossed over nor rejected, it should however be inspected.

You live by 'Babylon', you die by 'Babylon.'

Capiche?

Because if you ignore certain facts or flat out refuse to investigate certain facts then that may indeed warp your view of facts.

What's left to investigate?

All Romans love Rome, all Christians love Christ.

It cannot be any plainer than that!

We non-Romans simply do NOT love Rome.

In the least.

ANd I am an American, please have the common courtesy to call me by my proper title.

American you may have been born, Rome have you chosen to glorify.

Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

Quoted: You and yours have the various Apostles competing with each other. Heresy. Pure and simple. You should hold all of them the same regard....as servants of the Lord. Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

I am not as good at cut and pasting as you are.  But no where did i say Apostles compete.  I said they were uesed differantly.   You keep trying to claim I hold certain people as equals to Jesus, i do not.  I am stating clearly how they each were used by Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

I think you fail to see the specialness of uniqueness in peoples talents.

Quoted: All Romans love Rome, all Christians love Christ. It cannot be any plainer than that! We non-Romans simply do NOT love Rome. In the least. Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

Wow, I simple do not understand where this hatred of your's comes from.  Seriously, Catholics are not taught nor incouraged to hate the other Christain sects like it appears you have been taught by your "1st Century Church".  I didn't know so many born again Christians had such biased towards Catholics.

Until I came here.


I truly do not understand it.  Not only is it obvious biased but it is outright lies what you just wrote.


And what's worse, is I think you know that you are lying.

Of well, I best to let this topic go as it is off topic, I do hope you are not a true representative of your churches teachings.  I doubt it is.

I will add btw that the word Babylon is mention several times in the bible (NT) and is not always refering to the same city.  

It's a town on Long Island N.Y. in suffolk co.

On the subject:

It seems likely that Peter is in Rome when he writes I Peter and refers to Rome as Babylon.  This does enlighten our study of Revelation where it seems likely that Babylon = Rome.

On the extensive sidebar that has developed:

Peter's mere presence in Rome at some point does not give ANY authority to the church at Rome.  No more than his presence in Jerusalem or Antioch at some point gives authority to the church there.

Peter's presence in Rome at the time of the letters does not indicate the nature of his ministry there.  Peter mentions Paul's letters and ongoing persecution.  This means the letters were written during the reign of Nero at the earliest.  Traditionally, Peter died during the reign of Nero.  It is quite possible the only reason that Peter is in Rome is because he is about to be tried and executed.  2 Peter 1:13 indicates Peter was anticipating his death very soon. The last time he is mentioned in Acts(15:7)  he is back in Jerusalem.  Galatians indicates he traveled to Antioch for a time.  It seems unlikely that Peter had any lengthy ministry in Rome.

Peter was A leader among the early church not THE leader.  Paul establishes pretty clearly the division of labor "For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. (Galatians 2:8)"  Here Peter and Paul are described as equal.  In the next verse "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars , gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship."  In this passage James = Peter = John and as ETH has stated James seems to be most prominent.

Continuing on, "When Peter came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."  That doesn't sound like Paul recognized Peter as being THE representative of Christ.

Quoted: Continuing on, "When Peter came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."  That doesn't sound like Paul recognized Peter as being THE representative of Christ.

Thanks for the info.  I never ment to imply that Peter was the only representative of Christ, just that he and paul where each used in differant ways and also to show how the catholic church views it's direct link to the time of Christ.  That link includes BOTH Peter and Paul, along with all of the apostles.  People can be equal but differant at the same time as far as their talents and how they are used.  They can also disagree over important issues, and if both paries are open minded that is how those issues get resolved.

Which is exactly how it continues on today with the Cardinals of babylon Rome.

Quoted: If you really wish to think that 'Babylon = Rome', then by all means, do so. But when you come to the Book of Revelation, remember your choice.... BTW, historically, I think it very likely that St. Peter ventured to Rome and was executed there in the manner in which human 'tradition' tells us. But, from the Scriptures, such an event means absolutely nothing, except the 'precious' story of the death of a Saint...in the Sight of the Lord...Psalm 116:15 That is all. Eric The(Obvious)Hun

What do you think ETH?
My understanding has always been that Rome will be reborn...i.e. the EU.
A quick glance at some EU imagery gives me chills.

Quoted:

What do you think ETH?

I'd better not say.



Eric The(Ecumenical)Hun

Quoted: At the so-called 'Council of Jerusalem' of c. 50 AD, spoken about in Chapter 15 of Acts, we find the council presided over by St. James, as the 'leader' of the church, and...we find this passage: <snip> Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Acts 15: 15-211 'Wherefore my sentence is...' said St. James, and that was precisely what was done. Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

Maybe in your translation.  Try a more accurate one:

Act 15:19  For which cause, judge that they who from among the Gentiles are converted to God are not to be disquieted" (DRB)

James stood up to speak to back up what Peter had just said.  He was speaking in agreement.  There had been much disputing until Peter stood up and spoke.  In fact, he said:
God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

You will notice that after Peter speaks, there is no more disputing.  The disagreement, and argueing are finished (v.12: And all the multitude held their peace).  James speaks upafter Paul and Barnabas confirmed Peter's decision by relating the wonders God was working through the gentiles (even through they weren't circumcised), and reminds everyone that what Peter has said coincides with the prophets, and he then suggests a course of action to let the gentile converts know about the decision that had been reached.

Your take on Acts 15 just doesn't coincide with reality or history.  History tells us that Peter was indeed in Rome and that he was considered first among the Apostles.
.  
Celment of Rome, the third successor of Peter (ca. 80AD), confirmed he was there.  

Eusebius records that Peter and Paul were both in Rome during Nero's reign and both died there.  He writes that a man of the Church in Rome (Caius by name ~200AD): This Gaius, in a a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphyrygians [Montanists] says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned Apostles were deposited:  "I can point out the trophies of the Apostles.  For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church."

Dionysius of Corinth (ca. 166-174AD):  "You have also, by yor very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time."

Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, (ca. 200AD):  Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place... if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives.  How happy is that Church, on which Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord..."

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3 chapter 3 & 4(ca. 180AD) is too long to post, but needless to say he confirms not only that Peter was in Rome, but that "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 -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. "


History simply doesn't bear out your misinterpretation of things, ETH, but then that hasn't stopped you from misinterpreting Scripture to suit your beliefs before.


ETA:  Here's a website that gives more info on the issue:  Was Peter the First Pope?

Babylon is between your ears.

Quoted:

Maybe in your translation.  Try a more accurate one:

Nonsense.

I'll stick with the KJV, as always.

But answer the questions that DarkHalf has, so far, refused to answer.

Let's talk about the moral quality of the Popes over the ages...shall we?

Or does utter moral depravity not disqualify someone from being the 'vicar of Christ'??

James stood up to speak to back up what Peter had just said.  He was speaking in agreement.

And yet, it was St. James pronounced the 'sentence.'

Not St. Peter....and then St. Peter 'disappeared' from the Pages of the Holy Scriptures.

Tell you what, just explain why there was any even doubt...no one appealed to St. Peter to put an end to the dispute.  

Because, as St. Paul said, the other Apostles 'were not one whit behind' any other.

There had been much disputing until Peter stood up and spoke.  In fact, he said: God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

And yet we know for an historical certainty that it was St. Paul that brought Christianity to the Gentile world.

Tell us the number of churches that St. Peter founded in the Gentile world.

Answer - we know of none.

St. Peter was called 'the Apostle to those of the Circumcision'

You will notice that after Peter speaks, there is no more disputing.

Yes, St. Peter finally accepted what St. Paul had been saying all along.

Ever since the former was confronted at Antioch by St. Paul and chastised.....face to face.

Your take on Acts 15 just doesn't coincide with reality or history.

Not so far as the Romans would try and consider 'reality or history', but they have a penchant for making stuff up wholesale.

Maybe you would like to discuss the so-called 'Donation of Constantine' at this point?

How many 'good' Popes lived by the lie of that document?

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

The alleged 'Vicars of Christ' should never engage in such baldfaced chicanery.

History tells us that Peter was indeed in Rome and that he was considered first among the Apostles.

No, it certainly doesn't.

Celment of Rome, the third successor of Peter (ca. 80AD), confirmed he was there.

Again, human history and tradition, but NOT Scripture.

Sorry. That Roman dog won't hunt around these parts.

Eusebius records that Peter and Paul were both in Rome during Nero's reign and both died there.  He writes that a man of the Church in Rome (Caius by name ~200AD): This Gaius, in a a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphyrygians [Montanists] says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned Apostles were deposited:  "I can point out the trophies of the Apostles.  For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church."

Jesus Christ founded His Own Church, thank you!

He needed no other to do so for Him.

Dionysius of Corinth (ca. 166-174AD):  "You have also, by yor very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time."

Sorry, but you describe something from human history...not from Scripture.

Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, (ca. 200AD):  Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place... if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives.  How happy is that Church, on which Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord..."

Yes, indeed, St. Peter's alleged 'passion' was so very much 'like that of the Lord's'!

Baloney.

There was and is only One Passion worth even mentioning in our Church and that is the Passion of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Human historians seeking to exalt a man, and a city, have nothing to do with His Church!

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3 chapter 3 & 4(ca. 180AD) is too long to post, but needless to say he confirms not only that Peter was in Rome, but that "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 -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. "

Again, history is NOT at issue here, at all.

The issue is that, whether St. Peter ever made it to Rome or not, the Bible is silent, it still does NOT mean that St. Peter had any special role in the Church of Christ, different from any other Apostle.

Tell us, did St. Peter ever raise a single person from the dead?

Did he do any great miracles in the name of Jesus Christ?

Give us the 'human history' of St. Peter's 'Miracles' as accepted by the Roman Church.

Please.

Then let us compare such miracles with the modern-day miracles of the 'Vicars of Christ.'

And, afterwards, let us discuss the debauchery and perversions of some of those choice Roman bishops, who guided the Roman Church throughout much of its history.

History simply doesn't bear out your misinterpretation of things, ETH, but then that hasn't stopped you from misinterpreting Scripture to suit your beliefs before.

Sorry, my dear Roman friend, but I only base my beliefs upon Scripture...not the foibles of mere men.

Discuss the so-called 'Donation of Constantine' here, if you please.

Why would any Roman bishop seek to fosit such a charade upon his fellow Christians?

Pious fraud?

Nope.

ETA:  Here's a website that gives more info on the issue:  Was Peter the First Pope?

Heh-heh-heh.

Nope.

BTW, when was the term 'Pope' first used by any bishop of Rome?

Why?

Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

Quoted: Babylon is between your ears.

It certainly is between some people's ears.

Maybe Pope Gregory XIII can tell us what was between his ears in August, 1572....

Know what this is?



Or this...?



Any guesses?

I suppose that I should be pleased to think that as wretched as my personal life may have been at times, I have never sunk to the moral depths of some of these so-called 'vicars of Christ.'

Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: Maybe in your translation.  Try a more accurate one: Nonsense. I'll stick with the KJV, as always.

Surprise, surprise.

But answer the questions that DarkHalf has, so far, refused to answer. Let's talk about the moral quality of the Popes over the ages...shall we?

The reason why is because it's a red herring and off topic, but I can tell that you refused to read the link I posted, as it was explained in that link.  Nevertheless...

Or does utter moral depravity not disqualify someone from being the 'vicar of Christ'??

The office remains, no matter how immoral the person who occupies the office may be.  Was the office of the presidency any less valid just because Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office?  No.  The office of the presidency was still true and valid, even though the one holding that office was an adulterer, liar, perjerer, slanderer, and alleged rapist.  Any executive order he signed still carried the same weight, regarless of the scoundrel's personal immoral lifestyle.  Same with the papacy.  The person may be a fornicator, adulterer, murderer, liar, etc., but the office of Pope still is valid.

James stood up to speak to back up what Peter had just said.  He was speaking in agreement. And yet, it was St. James pronounced the 'sentence.' Not St. Peter....

Once again, "sentence" is only in your translation.  Not only that, but St. Paul gives us indication that James believed the opposite, as some who "came from James," did not support associating with uncircumcised converts.  Yet after Peter speaks, James speaks in support of Peter.  Hmm...

and then St. Peter 'disappeared' from the Pages of the Holy Scriptures.

Yeah, except for those two letters he wrote, one of which was written from... ROME!

Tell you what, just explain why there was any even doubt...no one appealed to St. Peter to put an end to the dispute.

That's why everyone held their peace after Peter spoke.  They recognized his authority.

There had been much disputing until Peter stood up and spoke.  In fact, he said: God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And yet we know for an historical certainty that it was St. Paul that brought Christianity to the Gentile world.

And who gave Paul their right hand in partnership that Paul would go to the gentiles and he to the circumcised?  Hmmm???  You need to get your timeline straight, as well.  It was after the Council of Jerusalem that Kephas (PETER) along with John and James sent Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles while they focused on the Jews. (Gal. 2:9)  When Peter spoke in Acts 15:7, he was still the one to go to the Gentiles.  It was after the council, that Peter focused on the Jews, according to Paul.

Tell us the number of churches that St. Peter founded in the Gentile world. Answer - we know of none.

Antioch, Corinth, and Rome, at the least.

You will notice that after Peter speaks, there is no more disputing. Yes, St. Peter finally accepted what St. Paul had been saying all along. Ever since the former was confronted at Antioch by St. Paul and chastised.....face to face.

Your timeline is off, according to Paul himself.  Re-read Galatians.  Paul went to Jerusalem the first time and met with... Kephas (Aramaic for PETER).  He then went to Jerusalem again with Barnabas (the Council of Jerusalem), and after the Council of Jerusalem Peter came to Antioch where Paul was, and he confronted Peter.  He was chastising Peter for not living up to what he himself had proclaimed at the council.  A person can believe something from the beginning (Acts 11:1-18) and yet not practice it as he/she should.  It's called human weakness, and sometimes it's even called sin.

Your take on Acts 15 just doesn't coincide with reality or history. Not so far as the Romans would try and consider 'reality or history', but they have a penchant for making stuff up wholesale.

You mean like Martin Luther did?  Yeah, quotes from people who knew Peter and those a mere generation or two removed from the Apostles themselves doesn't really count for reality or history in your book, does it?  You'd rather rely on someone 1500 years later making up their own doctrines.

Maybe you would like to discuss the so-called 'Donation of Constantine' at this point? How many 'good' Popes lived by the lie of that document? Tsk, tsk, tsk. The alleged 'Vicars of Christ' should never engage in such baldfaced chicanery.

Oh, for crying out loud.  Do you really think going that far off topic proves your point?  Just how much have you really looked into the intricacies of that forgery (and yes, it was a forgery) and the differing viewpoints, even among the anti-Catholic viewpoints?  Probably not as much as you'd like to lead us to believe.  Just throwing out the "Donation of Constantine" as proof of your position is sad.  Really.  If you have the guts, and are truly seeking after truth, try reading this explanation.
There is plenty of scholarly evidence to show that the forgery wasn't made by any pope, but by the Franks.  Should the popes of the time used it?  Of course not.  But how does that refute whether Peter was in Rome and he had been given primacy of place?  It doesn't.  Your argument is  just another red herring

History tells us that Peter was indeed in Rome and that he was considered first among the Apostles. No, it certainly doesn't.

Yes, it does, you just refuse to accept it since "it's not in the Bible."  However, you have yet to prove that all relevant history is in the Bible.  You assume a fact that you have not proven to be true.  Those closest to the time of the Apostles wrote that he was in Rome.  In fact, historical texts show that Peter ordained a man named Clement, and that same man was later a successor of Peter.

Celment of Rome, the third successor of Peter (ca. 80AD), confirmed he was there. Again, human history and tradition, but NOT Scripture.

Neither is the "Donation of Constantine" in Scripture, but you consider the document's existence to be history, yes?  Prove it from Scripture.  You try to use history to disprove the claims of the Catholic Church, but refuse to listen to history when it proves the claims of the Catholic Church.  How selective.

Sorry. That Roman dog won't hunt around these parts.

Wow.  You accept the Bible and Christian beliefs, but not the history surrounding the development of the Bible and those Christian beliefs?  Talk about belief  being in a vaccuum!

Eusebius records that Peter and Paul were both in Rome during Nero's reign and both died there.  He writes that a man of the Church in Rome (Caius by name ~200AD): This Gaius, in a a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphyrygians [Montanists] says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned Apostles were deposited:  "I can point out the trophies of the Apostles.  For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church." Jesus Christ founded His Own Church, thank you! He needed no other to do so for Him.

And your statement relates to the quote how...?  It doesn't.  Christ founded His Own Church and then sent the Apostles out to all the nations.  Paul brought Christianity to the gentile world by founding churches.  Peter did the same.  They were all a part of Christ's Church, which is the Body of Christ.,

Dionysius of Corinth (ca. 166-174AD):  "You have also, by yor very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time." Sorry, but you describe something from human history...not from Scripture.

And once again, you try to divorce Scripture from the history surrounding it.  How sad.

Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, (ca. 200AD):  Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place... if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives.  How happy is that Church, on which Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord..." Yes, indeed, St. Peter's alleged 'passion' was so very much 'like that of the Lord's'! Baloney. There was and is only One Passion worth even mentioning in our Church and that is the Passion of the Lord Jesus Christ. Human historians seeking to exalt a man, and a city, have nothing to do with His Church!

And you are refuting Tertullian's argument how...?  Your ad hominem argument does nothing to refute what he stated.  Why don't you actually read what he wrote, including the paragraphs prior (no, I don't have time to type it all in, but you can find it online)?

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3 chapter 3 & 4(ca. 180AD) is too long to post, but needless to say he confirms not only that Peter was in Rome, but that "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 -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. " Again, history is NOT at issue here, at all. The issue is that, whether St. Peter ever made it to Rome or not, the Bible is silent, it still does NOT mean that St. Peter had any special role in the Church of Christ, different from any other Apostle.

So why in the world do you bring up the moral qualities of some popes and the "Donation of Constantine," since those things have nothing to do with whether St. Peter ever made it to Rome and any special role????  You've just proven that all you've done is throw up red herrings in this entire thread!  Some argument in your favor!

And no, the Bible is NOT silent on whether St. Peter ever made it to Rome.  He wrote a letter from there, for crying out loud!  And history is what shows that to be the case, so it is indeed at issue, and far, far more relevant than a document from the 8th century and the lifestyles of some who followed Peter.

Tell us, did St. Peter ever raise a single person from the dead?

For claiming to have such knowledge of the Bible, I figured you'd know the answer to this one.  Of course he did.  And he didn't even say "In the name of Jesus Christ..."

Did he do any great miracles in the name of Jesus Christ?

Again, yes, he did.

Give us the 'human history' of St. Peter's 'Miracles' as accepted by the Roman Church. Please. Then let us compare such miracles with the modern-day miracles of the 'Vicars of Christ.'

Another red herring.  Irrelevant to the topic.

And, afterwards, let us discuss the debauchery and perversions of some of those choice Roman bishops, who guided the Roman Church throughout much of its history.

Once again, a red herring!  You have singlehandedly provided almost enough herring for a Catholic fish fry!  

History simply doesn't bear out your misinterpretation of things, ETH, but then that hasn't stopped you from misinterpreting Scripture to suit your beliefs before. Sorry, my dear Roman friend, but I only base my beliefs upon Scripture...not the foibles of mere men.

You mean you base your beliefs on your interpretation of Scripture, an interpretation that is far different from historical Christianity.

ETA:  Here's a website that gives more info on the issue:  Was Peter the First Pope? Heh-heh-heh. Nope.

So much for seeking the truth.  I can see that you actually have no interest in actually seeking the truth or answers to these questions, but are just trying to argue and justify your rejection of the Catholic Church.

Quoted: Nonsense. I'll stick with the KJV, as always. But answer the questions that DarkHalf has, so far, refused to answer. Let's talk about the moral quality of the Popes over the ages...shall we?

That's not the topic at hand.  We are discussing if Peter was in Rome or not.

Quoted: Tell us, did St. Peter ever raise a single person from the dead? Did he do any great miracles in the name of Jesus Christ?

Act 9:36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.


Act 9:37 And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid [her] in an upper chamber.


Act 9:38 And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent unto him two men, desiring [him] that he would not delay to come to them.


Act 9:39 Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them.


Act 9:40 But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning [him] to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.


Act 9:41 And he gave her [his] hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive.




Apparently Peter did raise the dead, all with the power of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit of course.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe in your translation.  Try a more accurate one: Nonsense. I'll stick with the KJV, as always. Surprise, surprise.

There should be no surprise here at all.

I speak English, and the Bible that has been around for the longest period in the English-speaking world has been the KJV.

IF the bishops of Rome had been convinced that lay folks reading Scripture was profitable, maybe the Douay-Reims Bible would have outstripped the KJV.

But they didn't and it hasn't.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: But answer the questions that DarkHalf has, so far, refused to answer. Let's talk about the moral quality of the Popes over the ages...shall we?

The reason why is because it's a red herring and off topic, but I can tell that you refused to read the link I posted, as it was explained in that link.  Nevertheless...

Nonsense, if it is the postiion of the Romans that the Pope is and was the personal representative of Jesus Christ on earth, then the moral qualtities that one would expect of any who stepped into the 'shoes of the fisherman' are crucial indetermining whether this might be true or not.

We see nothing but human failings amongst the many Popes.

Hardly the sort of men whom Jesus Christ would have entrusted His Own Church to...

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: Or does utter moral depravity not disqualify someone from being the 'vicar of Christ'??

The office remains, no matter how immoral the person who occupies the office may be.

That is so absurd!

'The office remains'..

You have gone from arguing that Peter was hand-picked to be the leader of the church of Christ to arguing that Jesus Christ established any office.

And an office that was never mentioned in the New Testament...anywhere.

Was the office of the presidency any less valid just because Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office?

What does the American Presidency have to do with the Church of Christ?

The Presidency was founded by mere men. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ!

Remember?

And what does 'valid' mean in this case? Constitutional?

Well, then argue from the Scriptures and not from the Constitution.

The office of the presidency was still true and valid, even though the one holding that office was an adulterer, liar, perjerer, slanderer, and alleged rapist.

That may be Constitutional Law, devised by men, but that is NOT Scripture.

A good tree cannot produce evil fruit and an evil tree cannot produce good fruit.

This tree is evil and it produces evil fruit.

Any executive order he signed still carried the same weight, regarless of the scoundrel's personal immoral lifestyle.  Same with the papacy.  The person may be a fornicator, adulterer, murderer, liar, etc., but the office of Pope still is valid.

So, Romans hold that the orders, pronouncements, bulls, letters, and encyclicals of a 'dark and depraved' Pope are, nevertheless, the 'Word of God.'

Yes. It is so.

Regrettably.

The first time that one Christian ordered the death of another Christian based upon what that Christian believed...whatever authority the first Christian may have had fled....

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: And yet, it was St. James pronounced the 'sentence.' Not St. Peter....

Once again, "sentence" is only in your translation.

My dear man, the word used is the koine Greek word, κρίνω krinō, which in everyone's lexicon is defined as....'Properly to distinguish, that is, decide (mentally or judicially); by implication to try, condemn, punish.'

The word is found in 98 verses in the New Testament, 114 times.

It's pretty clear....look it up, for yourself, please!

Not only that, but St. Paul gives us indication that James believed the opposite, as some who "came from James," did not support associating with uncircumcised converts.  Yet after Peter speaks, James speaks in support of Peter.  Hmm...

'Hmmm', nothing.

The delegation was sent from the 'leader' of the Church at Jerusalem to make the inquiry.

Why not just ask good old St. Peter??

He was around...and didn't he supposedly have 'all authority'????

That's a pretty good indication that his fellow Apostles must not have clearly understood St. Peter's role in the Church of Christ.

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: and then St. Peter 'disappeared' from the Pages of the Holy Scriptures.

Yeah, except for those two letters he wrote, one of which was written from... ROME!

Uh, we have no Scriptural basis for believing that St. Peter ever was in Rome.

I understand your denomination's need to have St. Peter in Rome....but that is beside the point.

But since you insist, as does your denomination, that Babylon = Rome, does 'Babylon' always refer to Rome?

Hmmmm???

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: Tell you what, just explain why there was any even doubt...no one appealed to St. Peter to put an end to the dispute.

That's why everyone held their peace after Peter spoke.

No, they held their peace after St. James spoke and issued his κρίνω.

They recognized his authority.

What authority?

Why did they even have to ask anyone other than St. Peter?

Surely his word would have been the 'Word of God', right?

I mean from the Roman view, and all.

But it wasn't, was it?

Originally posted from Eric The Hun: And yet we know for an historical certainty that it was St. Paul that brought Christianity to the Gentile world.

And who gave Paul their right hand in partnership that Paul would go to the gentiles and he to the circumcised?  Hmmm???

Uh, St. James, St. Peter, and St. John (given in that order, by the way).

Sounds like St. Peter was just one of many, eh?

 

You need to get your timeline straight, as well.

Sorry, but my timeline comes from Acts.

It was after the Council of Jerusalem that Kephas (PETER) along with John and James sent Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles while they focused on the Jews.

Never said it wasn't, did I?

Stop speaking foolishly, if you can.

When Peter spoke in Acts 15:7, he was still the one to go to the Gentiles.  It was after the council, that Peter focused on the Jews, according to Paul.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

But since you brought up Galatians, let's look there....

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. Galatians 2:9-17

St. Paul had to upbraid St. Peter openly for his hypocrisy concerning Jews and Gentiles....

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: Tell us the number of churches that St. Peter founded in the Gentile world. Answer - we know of none.

Antioch, Corinth, and Rome, at the least.

Really?

What Scriptures reveals this?

We know without a doubt that St. Paul found a church in Rome long before St. Peter could have ever gotten there.

We know that Priscilla and Aquila were expelled from Rome in 49 AD by order of the Emperor Claudias
and they were members of the church in Rome.

Are you trying to say that St. Peter personally established the church in Rome before 49 AD?

Hmmm?

A person can believe something from the beginning (Acts 11:1-18) and yet not practice it as he/she should.  It's called human weakness, and sometimes it's even called sin.

Sorry, but St. Peter apparently needed a revelation from God to accept Gentiles.

St. Paul did not.

Sin we should expect in everyone, St. Peter and St. Paul are no exceptions.

But essential Doctrinal errors?

From the 'vicar of Christ'???

Never!

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: Not so far as the Romans would try and consider 'reality or history', but they have a penchant for making stuff up wholesale.

You mean like Martin Luther did?

I don't believe in Jesus Christ because of Martin Luther.

I'm not a Lutheran, and I have grave problems with Martin Luther and his views.

So what?

We ALL have the Scriptures upon which to base our beliefs and to assure ourselves of the Doctrines of His Church!

What need we of a Martin Luther...or a Pope?

Yeah, quotes from people who knew Peter and those a mere generation or two removed from the Apostles themselves doesn't really count for reality or history in your book, does it?  You'd rather rely on someone 1500 years later making up their own doctrines.

Nonsense!

You really haven't read my posts, at all.

IF you had, you would clearly see that I have a great deal of respect for the historical record of Christianity...

But I don't limit myself to 'history' as accepted by the Roman denomination....they weren't anything but a small church in faraway Italy...from the beginning of Christianity's spread.

I understand that St. Peter may indeed have been in Rome. I think that St. Peter's may even be situated over an ancient Roman cemetery in which St. Peter may have been nuried.

But all of that means absolutely NOTHING in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It adds absolutely NOTHING to Our Faith, or our UNDERSTANDING of Jesus Christ.

If anything, it has been a 'golden albatross' hung about the neck of His True Church.

How many Christians have been murdered under the express orders of the Roman Church?

Give us the Scriptural authority for the murder of anyone, Christian or non-Christian.....by any Christian.

The 'holy' men who gave such orders and told such lies are of the Devil....understand?

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: Maybe you would like to discuss the so-called 'Donation of Constantine' at this point? How many 'good' Popes lived by the lie of that document? Tsk, tsk, tsk. The alleged 'Vicars of Christ' should never engage in such baldfaced chicanery.

Oh, for crying out loud.  Do you really think going that far off topic proves your point?

Anything that evidences the errors of the Roman denomination should continue to cast doubts on their remarkable claim of 'primacy' within the Church of Christ.

This does...as do other gross and shameless errors.

Just how much have you really looked into the intricacies of that forgery (and yes, it was a forgery) and the differing viewpoints, even among the anti-Catholic viewpoints?

Enough to come to the same conclusion that just about everyone else has.....

And, I always use the New Advent Catholic Encylopedia...in determining what Romans believe and disbelieve....

Probably not as much as you'd like to lead us to believe.

I give a fig for what you may believe...in just about any matter, doctrinal or otherwise.

Just throwing out the "Donation of Constantine" as proof of your position is sad.  Really.  If you have the guts, and are truly seeking after truth, try reading this explanation.

Read it....whoop-tee-do!

'How to answer anti-Catholic charges against it...'

Yeah, y'all are singing from the same hymnal...

There is plenty of scholarly evidence to show that the forgery wasn't made by any pope, but by the Franks.

Yeah, the Popes merely 'used' it.

What an excuse!

Should the popes of the time used it?  Of course not.  But how does that refute whether Peter was in Rome and he had been given primacy of place?  It doesn't.  Your argument is  just another red herring

It gets back to the moral qualities of the men who some think occupied 'the throne of St. Peter.'

My answer....big deal.

There is NO 'throne of St. Peter.'

There is NO Foundation of the Church of Christ other than Jesus Christ Himself.

History tells us that Peter was indeed in Rome and that he was considered first among the Apostles.

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: No, it certainly doesn't.

Yes, it does, you just refuse to accept it since "it's not in the Bible."

Thank you for such a grand admission!

It isn't in the Bible, at all.

It is 'traditions of men', and nothing more.

Ancient traditions, but mere traditions nevertheless.

What are we to think about Christianity?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

That's all we truly need....and nothing more.

And when this 'more' becomes so apostate that it orders the deaths of others, 'in the Name of Jesus', then it has forfeited any respect whatsoever.

However, you have yet to prove that all relevant history is in the Bible.

There is nothing of an 'historical' nature that we need, in the words of St. Peter, quoted above, 'to be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.'

And you have yet to show that how human history should change, modify, edit, amend, or add to Christian Doctrine or Beliefs.

You assume a fact that you have not proven to be true.

I assume nothing, you assume everything.

Those closest to the time of the Apostles wrote that he was in Rome.

And...so what?

How does that impact Doctrine?

It doesn't.

In fact, historical texts show that Peter ordained a man named Clement, and that same man was later a successor of Peter.

And...so what?

How does that impact Doctrine?

It doesn't.

Neither is the "Donation of Constantine" in Scripture, but you consider the document's existence to be history, yes?

Yes, it is indeed a part of the 'all too human' history of the Roman denomination.

Prove it from Scripture.

Let's see, even the Romans admit that the Scriopture was 'closed' by the end of the First Century AD...and the Donation of Constatine admittedly (now!) comes from the Eighth Century AD or thereabouts...

Why would Scripture even mention this? As prophecy? What?

My, but you have a strange manner of argument...

You try to use history to disprove the claims of the Catholic Church, but refuse to listen to history when it proves the claims of the Catholic Church.  How selective.

I understand human history as well as anyone, I think.

But human history has NO impact whatsoever upon Christian Doctrines and Beliefs.

You and the Romans think that it should, but it doesn't.

Period.

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: Sorry. That Roman dog won't hunt around these parts.

Wow.  You accept the Bible and Christian beliefs, but not the history surrounding the development of the Bible and those Christian beliefs?

It is very interesting, and I would challenge you that for every book that you have likely read about Roman History, I have read five, but so what?

When discussing the Doctrines and Beliefs of Christianity, there is only one Book that should be consulted.

Talk about belief  being in a vaccuum!

Nonsense.

It are those of you who are tied inextricably to a stake in Rome that live their lives in a vaccum.

Christianity is much, much bigger than any single denomination...or any mortal man.

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: Jesus Christ founded His Own Church, thank you! He needed no other to do so for Him.

And your statement relates to the quote how...? It doesn't.

And how does the 'quote' that I replied to relate to the issue at hand?

It didn't, and I pointed that out.

Thank you, but your critique is unnecessary.

Christ founded His Own Church and then sent the Apostles out to all the nations.  Paul brought Christianity to the gentile world by founding churches.  Peter did the same.  They were all a part of Christ's Church, which is the Body of Christ.

So good, so far....

...but where does it say anything beyond that?

It doesn't.

Quoted: Dionysius of Corinth (ca. 166-174AD):  "You have also, by yor very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time."

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: Sorry, but you describe something from human history...not from Scripture.

And once again, you try to divorce Scripture from the history surrounding it.  How sad.

And once again you attemot to confuse human history with the 'Word of God' clearly expressed in the Holy Scriptures.

How very sad!

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: There was and is only One Passion worth even mentioning in our Church and that is the Passion of the Lord Jesus Christ. Human historians seeking to exalt a man, and a city, have nothing to do with His Church!

And you are refuting Tertullian's argument how...?

Why should I refute Tertullian's statement?

It's not Scripture, it's mere human history.

It cannot add anything to the 'Word of God.'

Your ad hominem argument does nothing to refute what he stated.  Why don't you actually read what he wrote, including the paragraphs prior (no, I don't have time to type it all in, but you can find it online)?

You know, when I walk into a courtroom, I purposefully presume that everyone there knows the law as well as I do.

This presumption serves me well.

You should likewise presume that everyone you discuss these matters with, has read the same writings that you have read, unless it can be shown otherwise.

And, again, what was written in human history does NOT occupy the same place in Doctrine as what has been inspired of God in the Holy Scriptures.

Period.

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: Again, history is NOT at issue here, at all. The issue is that, whether St. Peter ever made it to Rome or not, the Bible is silent, it still does NOT mean that St. Peter had any special role in the Church of Christ, different from any other Apostle.

So why in the world do you bring up the moral qualities of some popes and the "Donation of Constantine," since those things have nothing to do with whether St. Peter ever made it to Rome and any special role????

Any 'special role' for St. Peter claimed by the Roman denomination is likewise claimed by the Romans for his successors...and these men were as far from the Apostles as the East is from the West.

Are the bishops of Rome chosen by God, by lot, as Matthias was, or are they selected by voting blocs of wealthy and powerful men, inside and outside the College of Bishops?

Hmmmm?

You've just proven that all you've done is throw up red herrings in this entire thread!  Some argument in your favor!

Tell me, is a red herring a suitable fish for Fridays?

My 'argument' comes solely from the Bible...and nowhere else.

And no, the Bible is NOT silent on whether St. Peter ever made it to Rome.  He wrote a letter from there, for crying out loud!

Actually, he wrote a letter from a church that he identified as being from 'Babylon.'

So, should we always identify 'Babylon' in the New Testament as solely referring to Rome?

Quite frankly, I would be pleased to do so...if you insist!



Fortunately, it matters not to Christian Doctrine or Beliefs...what the Romans, or Eric The Hun, thinks of history.

And history is what shows that to be the case, so it is indeed at issue, and far, far more relevant than a document from the 8th century and the lifestyles of some who followed Peter.

Nope.

You either live or die by the history that you wish to claim....and IF 'Babylon' is the same as 'Rome', then it is always the same in Scripture.

Revelations, included.

The 'good news' for Romans, is that a good knowledge of the Book of Revelations is NOT required for Salvation!

Whew! That was close!

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: Tell us, did St. Peter ever raise a single person from the dead?

For claiming to have such knowledge of the Bible, I figured you'd know the answer to this one.

Sorry, but the new Testament is not new to me. I asked this of someone else to see what he would say.

And he said precisely what we all knew to be the case.

(See, I am presuming that even you knew it!)

But more on that in a following post.

Of course he did.  And he didn't even say "In the name of Jesus Christ..."

Does the fact that we are not told that St. peter did NOT say 'In the Name of Jesus Chirst' mean anything to you?

It doesn't to me, as I would think it wouldn't make any difference with other Christians.

But does it make a difference to you?

I mean, St. Peter had already used the Name of Jesus Christ in healing a fellow in Verse 34 of that same Chapter of Acts, but you purposefully said that in this case, St. Peter didn't do it 'in the Name of Jesus Christ.'

Are you trying to say that you think that St. Peter raised Tabitha from the dead in his own name?

Please explain this, if you will....for it sounds rather 'Roman' to me.

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: Did he do any great miracles in the name of Jesus Christ?

Again, yes, he did.

Yes, he surely did!

No doubt about it...and whether he said it or not, St. Peter gave every bit of glory to God for all that he did.

Do you doubt that?

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: Give us the 'human history' of St. Peter's 'Miracles' as accepted by the Roman Church. Please. Then let us compare such miracles with the modern-day miracles of the 'Vicars of Christ.'

Another red herring.  Irrelevant to the topic.

Nonsense.

It bears upon the very issue before us...did St. Peter have any 'special role' in the Church of Christ?

A 'special role' that could be passed on, at the whim of other men?

If so, this 'special role' would be just as 'special' in the 20th and 21st Centuries as it was at the time of Tabitha...and the others.

So, name some folks raised from the dead by the last several bishops of Rome.

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: And, afterwards, let us discuss the debauchery and perversions of some of those choice Roman bishops, who guided the Roman Church throughout much of its history.

Once again, a red herring!  You have singlehandedly provided almost enough herring for a Catholic fish fry!

In view of the History of the Roman denomination, in such matters as the Inquisition, etc., the words 'Catholic' and 'fry' should never appear in the same sentence!

Originally posted by Eric The Hun: Sorry, my dear Roman friend, but I only base my beliefs upon Scripture...not the foibles of mere men.

You mean you base your beliefs on your interpretation of Scripture, an interpretation that is far different from historical Christianity.

Nonsense.

Even the Romans have had difficulty in firguring out who the real pope might be!

Schism, anyone? Anti-popes?

Yeah, a really 'seamless' history, it appears!

So much for seeking the truth.

Why would you presume that I didn't read that website?

IF I presented a website and said, 'Go there', wouldn't you trouble yourself to go there if for no other reason than to acquire some embarrassing statements?

Trust me, I look at everything!

I have all the time in the world!

I can see that you actually have no interest in actually seeking the truth or answers to these questions, but are just trying to argue and justify your rejection of the Catholic Church.

That is simply your mistaken belief.

I love the Truth...and seek it diligently.

Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

Save your breath ETH.

It''s obvious you pick and choose scripture and history as you see fit.

I already proved to you that Peter did indeed perform miricles, I already proved Peter was in Rome, and I can also prove that Peter taught the gentiles prior to Paul. (Check Acts 11)


But you won't listen to any of it because you do not really care for the truth it appears.  While Paul was a great man he didn't do neerly as much as you give him credit, after all he didn't even start his first missionary work till about 16 years AFTER Penticost.


Have a nice day.

Quoted: Tell us, did St. Peter ever raise a single person from the dead?

Quoted: Apparently Peter did raise the dead, all with the power of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit of course.

Yes, he certainly did!

Now, my friend, give us the names of just a couple of folks raised from the dead by any of the most recent bishops of your denomination.....

Eric The(Patient)Hun

Quoted: Save your breath ETH.

Nope.



I will keep on, keeping on!

It''s obvious you pick and choose scripture and history as you see fit.

Yeah, you don't see that in the Roman denomination!

I already proved to you that Peter did indeed perform miricles, I already proved Peter was in Rome, and I can also prove that Peter taught the gentiles prior to Paul.

None of that proves any 'special role' in the Church of Christ.

Which is the only issue that this thread was made to discuss.

But, tell me, does 'Babylon' always refer to 'Rome'???

You haven't answered that question!

But you won't listen to any of it because you do not really care for the truth it appears.

Truth is all that I care about, frankly.

While Paul was a great man he didn't do neerly as much as you give him credit, after all he didn't even start his first missionary work till about 16 years AFTER Penticost.

I think it best just to allow that statement to stand (or fall) on its own!

It's truly amazing that in order to 'magnify' St. Peter, you must 'minimize' St. Paul.

St. Peter would be so discouraged with that sort of attitude.....

Have a nice day.

Nonsense!

You wish that every day could be St. Bartholomew's Day!



Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

Quoted: It's truly amazing that in order to 'magnify' St. Peter, you must 'minimize' St. Paul.

No, I am just pointing out facts.  Paul did lots of great works, as did Peter.  All along I have just poiinted out how God used each of them differently.

It is you that minimizes the works of St. Peter, to the point were you are flat out ignoring him.

Which quite frankly I do not understand why.

You ignore what Jesus said to him, you ignore his role with the Gentiles, and you ignore his obvious role as a very important leader of the early church, of which you claim to be a member.  If you are gonna be a member of "first century christianity" then you can not ignore the first 16 years BEFORE Paul started his first missionary.  But you don't, you ignore that period and start with Paul mission.

Quoted: Quoted: It's truly amazing that in order to 'magnify' St. Peter, you must 'minimize' St. Paul. No, I am just pointing out facts.

No, that's precisely what you are NOT doing.

You are indulging in speculation.

Pious speculation, maybe, but mere speculation nevertheless.

And highly charged partisan speculation, at that!

Paul did lots of great works, as did Peter.  All along I have just poiinted out how God used each of them differently.

Yeah, that's why you said:

While Paul was a great man he didn't do neerly as much as you give him credit, after all he didn't even start his first missionary work till about 16 years AFTER Penticost.

You are simply attempting to minimize what St. Paul did in order to magnify what you think St. Peter did.

That's not honest, at all.

Of course, both men served God, ably and to their deaths, but you must NOT attempt to elevate St. Peter above St. Paul simply to be in line with your denomination's particular doctrines.

It is you that minimizes the works of St. Peter, to the point were you are flat out ignoring him.

Not at all.

I have nothing but the greatest admiration for 'the great fisherman', and I can only feebly hope to live a life as worthy as his....

He was not, however, imbued by God with any greater significance, powers, or authority, than any other Apostle.

Which quite frankly I do not understand why.

Stop worrying about it, for I think both St. Peter and St. Paul equal actors in the Greatest Story Ever Told.

It is you that appears to think St. Paul lacks something simply because he was not present from the very beginning....as at Pentecost.

You ignore what Jesus said to him, you ignore his role with the Gentiles, and you ignore his obvious role as a very important leader of the early church, of which you claim to be a member.  If you are gonna be a member of "first century christianity" then you can not ignore the first 16 years BEFORE Paul started his first missionary.  But you don't, you ignore that period and start with Paul mission.

I do no such thing.

How many times can YOU recall MY quoting St. Peter's 'First Christian Sermon' at Pentecost in this Forum as a solid foundation for the Christian Doctrine that 'Repent and be baptized' was required of every Believer in order to inherit Eternal Life?

If you cannot remember me doing so, then all I can say is 'Welcome to the Religion Forum.'

Now, get back with the list of those names of folks raised from the dead by any bishop of Rome within the past couple of generations.

I can hardly wait....

Eric The(FirstCenturyIndeed)Hun

I didn't choose Peter, but Jesus did.

And while Peter doesn't have any specuial powers other than what he got from the Holy Spirit he does indeed have a special role in the church.

The whole point of this thread was to ask about babylon and if eter ment Rome.  So far I and others have presented over whelming evidence to support this claim that Peter was indeed refering to rome.

You claim he was not but can not provide any proof or facts to support your claim he wasn't in Rome.

Then we went on to show that Peter did the work of the Holy Spirit (along with the other apositiles) prior to Paul ever even coming onto the scene.  This is all clearly documented in the first part of Acts.  Even after Pauls conversion he waited 3 years before returning to the other disiplies in Jersualim.

All of this info supports the direct lineage of the  Catholic Church to the very begining of the foundation of the church itself (penticost).

So as you can see, the Catholic church and ONLY the Catholic church can directly trace itself to the time of Christ.

That is a fact that has been proven here.  If you want to be a "first Century Christian" then you are gonna have to go thru the Catholic Church, there is no other way to get there.

I know you hate to hear that, but facts are facts.  Your church did not exist until recently.

Please come back to the true church where you will always be welcome.

Quoted: I didn't choose Peter, but Jesus did.

So what?

What point are you trying to make?

Jesus Christ chose Judas Iscariot, as well.

What does that tell us?

Anything? Nothing?

Make a point, if you wish to continue this discussion.

And while Peter doesn't have any specuial powers other than what he got from the Holy Spirit he does indeed have a special role in the church.

No. Not at all.

And if you think that St. Peter has such a special role, then prove this from the Scriptures.

The whole point of this thread was to ask about babylon and if eter ment Rome.  So far I and others have presented over whelming evidence to support this claim that Peter was indeed refering to rome.

There is no point in trying to show that 'Babylon = Rome', unless it is in connection of showing that St. Peter possessed some 'special role' in the Church of Christ.

You have continued to argue far beyond the simple, 'Babylon = Rome', haven't you?

So, don't suddenly try to reduce this argument to one of mere geography and place names.

But since you brought it up, IS 'BABYLON' ALWAYS = TO 'ROME' in the Scriptures?

My, my, but that must be the third or fourth time that I've asked that question, and still, no response!

You claim he was not but can not provide any proof or facts to support your claim he wasn't in Rome.

Sorry, but I did NO such thing.

I merely said that the Bible does NOT specifically reveal the presence of St. Peter in Rome....ever.

You, as a devout Roman, take issue with that simply by saying, OK, but the 'history of the church' says that St. Peter made it to Rome!

And, as I said a long time ago in this discussion....on Page 1, and my very first post in this thread...

BTW, historically, I think it very likely that St. Peter ventured to Rome and was executed there in the manner in which human 'tradition' tells us.

Did you somehow 'miss' my clear and concise statement?

Then we went on to show that Peter did the work of the Holy Spirit (along with the other apositiles) prior to Paul ever even coming onto the scene.  This is all clearly documented in the first part of Acts.  Even after Pauls conversion he waited 3 years before returning to the other disiplies in Jersualim.

See how you continue, perhaps uncontrollably and despite your best efforts, to diminish the works of St. Paul?

This doesn't come from your denomination's early history, but possibly from its latter realization that its hold on some folks was beginning to slip.

'St. Peter must increase, while St. Paul must decrease' appears as the customary formula.

All of this info supports the direct lineage of the  Catholic Church to the very begining of the foundation of the church itself (penticost).

Christianity began in Jerusalem, on the Day of Pentecost.

From there, it was spread, and continues to be spread, throughout the world.

Jerusalem still maintains its unique position as the 'Holy City', and it will be the location where Jesus Christ returning in His Glory, will first step back on Planet Earth.

NOT Rome, NOT the Vatican, NOT the papal apartments.

So as you can see, the Catholic church and ONLY the Catholic church can directly trace itself to the time of Christ.

Continuing to say this, over and over, without any evidence whatsoever, simply does NOT make it true.

There are many, many denominations that are older than the church at Rome.

Capiche ?

Besides which, IF there was any importance placed upon the bishops of Rome, which I firmly deny, it left when the first Roman bishop ordered the death of the first Christian Believer.

And that didn't take very long, did it?

That is a fact that has been proven here.

Not in the least. Not even a little.

If you want to be a "first Century Christian" then you are gonna have to go thru the Catholic Church, there is no other way to get there.

No, IF I wanted to be a Roman, I surely know where to go for that....or should I say, return for that?

I know you hate to hear that, but facts are facts.

There have been no 'facts' presented by anyone in support of 'papal primacy' in the Church of Christ.

Your church did not exist until recently.

I belong to the Body of Christ, as described by St. Paul, which has existed since Pentecost.

You apparently belong to a all-too-human denomination that dates from the Fourth Century...or thereabouts.

Please come back to the true church where you will always be welcome.

Sorry, but Jesus Christ and I already have a 'relationship,' and it's Eternal.

Eric The(FirstCenturyForever)Hun

This is what I do not understand.  The RCC claims Peter as it's first Pope.  We know Peter was choosen to be the "rock" He would build His earthly church on.  

Yet you reject that part of scripture as meaning something other than what it says.  Then you say Peter and Paul where just like any other men, yet they performed miricles while others did not.  Now surely they were blessed in special ways by Jesus and the Holy Spirit to do such deeds.  All throught out the Bible there are stories of men that were special in the eyes of God (Daivid, John the Baptist, etc)

And that part that really confuses me is that you believe so powerfully in the Holy Spirit yet at the same time think He stopped communicating with us after the first century.  No where can I find in my religious studies has God EVER been silent to His people for a period as long as 2000 years.  


That is just silly.  You are ignoring 1900 years of Christian history for whatever reason claiming to follow the first century.

Well, if you were a true followers of what you preach then you must be wearing sandles and selling ALL of your property and giving it to the church.  Because THAT is what first century christians did, they lived in communes.  It's all in Acts clear as day.

But you either have to take off your glasses or put on your glasses to see it.

I am not sure which it is in your case.

Quoted: This is what I do not understand. The RCC claims Peter as it's first Pope.

IF it were that simple, we wouldn't have any problem.

IF the Roman denomination simply wished to say that, 'As a denomination, we claim that St. Peter was the first of our leaders, and was followed by others, chosen among ourselves, and these others have full authority over the members of our community', there would not be any problem.

But this is NOT what they chose to do.

They claimed that they are 'the only True Church' and that the bishop which they chose to rule over the church located in their city was to be ruler over ALL Christians, everywhere.

No matter whether those other Christians agreed with this usurpation of authority, or not.

We know Peter was choosen to be the "rock" He would build His earthly church on.

We 'know' no such thing.

St. Peter, by his confession that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, was one of the 'lively stones' which he later wrote about in 1 Peter 2:5, that would be laid upon the Foundation of Jesus Christ.

Strange that St. Peter should use that particular term, isn't it?

Yet you reject that part of scripture as meaning something other than what it says.

It certainly doesn't say what you wish it to say...at all.

Then you say Peter and Paul where just like any other men, yet they performed miricles while others did not.

No I did NOT!

I said they were like every other Apostle...no more, no less.

You never answered my question about what St. Paul specifically meant when he wrote that he was in no way behind any of the other Apostles.

Not behind St. Peter?

Yep, that's what he said!

And you cannot explain that away in the least!

Now surely they were blessed in special ways by Jesus and the Holy Spirit to do such deeds.

Yes, they both certainly were so blessed!

In a way that neither you, nor me, nor the current bishop of Rome is presently blessed.

Right?

All throught out the Bible there are stories of men that were special in the eyes of God (Daivid, John the Baptist, etc)

Yep.

We are certainly told that...in the Bible.

And that part that really confuses me is that you believe so powerfully in the Holy Spirit yet at the same time think He stopped communicating with us after the first century.

When did I ever say such a thing as that?

Never.

You have no idea what I think about the continuation of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit into this present Age.

But I do know one thing....the bishop of Rome has neither more of it, nor less, of it than I do...or you do.

No where can I find in my religious studies has God EVER been silent to His people for a period as long as 2000 years.

Gos continues to speak to His People through the Scriptures.

If He has yet another message for us, He will confirm is as He always has, in both the Old and New...with signs and wonders.  

That is just silly.

Silly?

I wouldn't describe anything that the Lord chose to do or not do, as 'silly.'

Tell me, is the Christian Canon closed?

There's no 'new' Scripture?

The Romans haven't accepted any, but maybe you know of some newer stuff?

Even Clement of Rome's epistle is NOT accepted by the Romans as 'Scripture.'

So, basically, NO Christians, at least mainline Christians, appear to think that the Lord continues to inspire folks to write...Scripture.

You are ignoring 1900 years of Christian history for whatever reason claiming to follow the first century.

The Gospel of Christ was complete by the End of the First Century.

What has been 'added' since, is NOT 'of God.'

Well, if you were a true followers of what you preach then you must be wearing sandles and selling ALL of your property and giving it to the church.

That is simply absurd....

Who was it that said something about that?

Do you know?

Because THAT is what first century christians did, they lived in communes.  It's all in Acts clear as day.

Well, we are certain that the Romans never followed this part of Acts.

'Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee.' is something that St. Peter could truthfully say.

But not so the bishops of Rome, eh?

Ever watch the movie, 'The Shoes of the Fisherman'???

With Anthony Quinn starring as a fictitious Pope?

Every Roman should view it.

But you either have to take off your glasses or put on your glasses to see it.

Judge not....now, Who said that?

I am not sure which it is in your case.

You really needn't worry about it.

Eric The(EternalFirstCentury)Hun

You have a great knack for imposing your views on others written word.

Darkhalf & ETH,

We've kind of gotten away from the original thread which was about one particular text.  

I think you guys ought to start another thread (or DH since you started this could you change the title?) about whether there is sufficient scriptural and historical evidence to justify the popes claim to be the vicar of Christ.  That seems to be your main point of disagreement, now.  A few pointers to both of you.

1.  The fact that some popes were incredibly immoral is irrellevent to their authority.  Remember that Saul was sinful and trying to kill David and David still accepted his authority as God's annointed one.  At the very least this should be handled as a separate topic than the evidence for papal authority.

2.  Whether or not Peter was IN Rome is also irrellevent.  To support RCC claims it is essential to demonstrate that Peter established the church at Rome and was consdiered the authority at Rome and then invested this authority in his successors.

Some topics I think you should address.

What is the rock that Christ founded his church on in Matthew 16?

Is Peter given any authority that is not given to other apostles?

Is there any historical evidence that Peter's authority (if any) was handed down to subsequent bishops at Rome?

Was that authority recognized by other churches?  Why?

Well, I don't recall Jesus ever saying He planned on starting TWO churches, just one.  And it was peter he said "upon this rock".

So either that means something or it does not.

And as far as bad Popes go, well there where also bad apostiles but the church survived.

Any organiztion needs a leader.  The Pope is the RCC's leader, just like many other churches have leaders.  Even your first century followers have leaders.

Peter was the first leader.  Simple as that.

Quoted: Well, I don't recall Jesus ever saying He planned on starting TWO churches, just one.

 

No disagreement there.

And it was peter he said "upon this rock". So either that means something or it does not.

Ahh, there's the rub.

But WHAT does it mean?

Possibilities of the top of my head.

The rock is Peter
The rock is the confession Peter made

Any organiztion needs a leader.  The Pope is the RCC's leader, just like many other churches have leaders.  Even your first century followers have leaders. Peter was the first leader.  Simple as that.

OK, a few things

1.  Try not to confuse leadership with authority.  In the chruch I'm in I don't have the authority to tell anyone to do anything.  However, because of my knowledge, charisma, good looks and general likeability (oh, yeah I forgot staggering humility) people generally listen to what I say.  I am a leader, possibly the leader of the local congregation, but I have no authority.

2.  Second, in this paragraph it sounds like you are just claiming that the Pope is the RCC's organizational leader and that his authority does not extend to other Christians.  If that's the case it's kind of hard to argue with you.  But, you don't mean that do you?  If there is only one church and if the pope is the ultimate authority in that church, then all who call themselves Christians need to submit to that authority.  There's a big difference between universal spiritual authority and limited organizational leadership.  Which is it?

3.  If you are claiming universal spiritual authority, then it is not so simple.

Quoted: Darkhalf & ETH, We've kind of gotten away from the original thread which was about one particular text.

'Baby Things Change' ~ Dwight Yoakum

Things like that happen, don't they.

But that's what sometimes makes for an interesting thread.

Surely you don't believe that DarkHalf was asking a geographical  question...do you?

Nope, there's a reason for this thread.  

I think you guys ought to start another thread (or DH since you started this could you change the title?) about whether there is sufficient scriptural and historical evidence to justify the popes claim to be the vicar of Christ.

No one here is confused about the subject matter of this thread.

No one.

1.  The fact that some popes were incredibly immoral is irrellevent to their authority.

Says you.

But we are simly arguing in a vaccum, for there is NO discussion of a 'vicarship' for Jesus Christ anywhere in the Scriptures, so that we would know the conditions, requirements, terms of office, how such men are to be chosen, or any other aspect of such an 'office.'

The very lack of such a discussion, leads a whole lot of folks to believe that there is no such 'office' and surely no such 'authority.'

2.  Whether or not Peter was IN Rome is also irrellevent.

As I have said before, as a matter of human history, I think it highly possible that St. Peter made it to Rome, that he actually died in the manner that human history alleges, and that it's very likely that he is buried somewhere in the ancient cemetery upon which St. Peter's Basilica presently sits.

Absolutely NONE of which provides any Scriptural basis for establishing any Church Doctrine.

Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

Surely you don't believe that DarkHalf was asking a geographical question...do you?

Actually, I kind of did.  I try not to read things in between the lines.

No one here is confused about the subject matter of this thread.

Are you saying it was about "whether there is sufficient scriptural and historical evidence to justify the popes claim to be the vicar of Christ" from the beginning?

No one.

except apparently me

1.  The fact that some popes were incredibly immoral is irrellevent to their authority. Says you.

ETH, imagine for a moment that Christ did establish the postion of pope/vicar/whatever.  IF that were true, what some men did with it centuries later would not negate the office itself. It might negate whether they were legitimate holders of the office.  

I assume from some of your posts that your a member of the Churches of Christ (Restoration Movement).  Is your local church led by a group of elders?  Haven't you ever seen or heard of elders who were involved in immorality?  I think we would agree that God established elders to lead the local church.  The immorality of some doesn't call the office into question, just the fitness of the man for the office.

there is NO discussion of a 'vicarship' for Jesus Christ anywhere in the Scriptures, so that we would know the conditions, requirements, terms of office, how such men are to be chosen, or any other aspect of such an 'office.'

This is the issue and the burden of proof is on DarkHalf.  DH can you show us in Scripture where the office of pope is established, where any provision for succession is made, where that office is connected with the city of Rome?


 

Quoted: Are you saying it was about "whether there is sufficient scriptural and historical evidence to justify the popes claim to be the vicar of Christ" from the beginning?

Pretty much.

It's the continuation of another thread in which DarkHalf and I were discussing this very issue.

ETH, imagine for a moment that Christ did establish the postion of pope/vicar/whatever.  IF that were true, what some men did with it centuries later would not negate the office itself. It might negate whether they were legitimate holders of the office.   I assume from some of your posts that your a member of the Churches of Christ (Restoration Movement).  Is your local church led by a group of elders?  Haven't you ever seen or heard of elders who were involved in immorality?  I think we would agree that God established elders to lead the local church.  The immorality of some doesn't call the office into question, just the fitness of the man for the office.

IF, IF, IF......

There was NO such position as pope/vicar/whatever established by Jesus Christ or by the Scriptures.

The position of 'Elders' does have Scriptural basis.

Simply because some men cannot 'contain' themselves is no condemnation of the office of Elder, but simply a condemnation of the sinful holder of such office.

Now, what about Matthias, 'the replacement Apostle', the one who took the place of Judas Iscariot, written about in Acts, Chapter 1?

Let's see what the qualification for being an Apostle was...according to the Scriptures:

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. Acts 1:21-26

In order to be a 'replacement' Apsotle, the candidate HAD to be an actual follower of Jesus Christ during the time of His Ministry...and he was chosen by lot.

And the Scriptures only reveal that one such 'replacement' Apostle was ever chosen for the Church.

Eric The(FirstCenturyPurist)Hun