|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Peter in Rom
« Back to club forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Peter in RomIn the film about Martin Luther he says "Peter was never in Rom". And if he wasnt,then who was the first bishop of Rom? |
||
|
I'm drawing a blank here. The only possible exception might be the following quote from the book of 1st Peter. 1 Peter 5:13 "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son." This however would require the symbolic rendering of "Babylon" for Rome. Revelations might give licence for such a rendering, but it seems a bit of a long shot to interpret the passage in Peter in light of the passage(s) in Revelations cited below. Revelation 17: 9"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits." (ie: Rome the city built on seven hills) 18"The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth." I'm not much help on this one I'm afraid. Blessings Paul |
||
|
solascriptura 19-May-09, 20:10 |
Interesting Post Roman Catholic tradition states that the apostle Peter was the first pope, the first bishop of Rome. Is this claim true? Does the testimony of Scripture and history provide any substantiation of this claim? The answer to both questions is a resounding "NO"! Let us first look to the Scriptures for the answer. We will find much evidence that Peter wasn't even in Rome, not less the bishop of Rome. A good example is the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. The custom of the times was to include greetings to friends and important people at the end of a letter. Paul was no exception. At the end of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul sent the following greetings: Romans 16: 1-15 - "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ. Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us. Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Greet Amplias my beloved in the Lord. Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved. Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus' household. Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord. Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord. Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine. Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them. Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them." In the above passage, we can see that Paul was very conscientious in greeting the saints in Rome and recording their names. We can also see that Paul doesn't mention Peter. Why would Paul ignore his own boss? The answer - Peter was not in Rome and was not Paul's superior. Another point arises from the Epistle to the Romans. If, in fact, Peter was the Bishop of Rome, what right did Paul have to send the Romans instructions in the Faith? None! He would thus be usurping his superior's authority. It would have been Peter's responsibility to teach the christian faith to his own diocese, not Paul. Yet we have no record in the Bible or elsewhere, of Peter issuing instructions to the diocese of Rome. What an amazing oversight by a supposedly infallible commander-in-chief! In Paul's epistle to Timothy we read: 2 Timothy 4:9-12 - "Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus." Notice that Paul, writing from Rome, says that only Luke was with him. Where was Peter? Certainly not in Rome or Paul would have mentioned it. And once again we have Paul sending religious instructions to Timothy when, according to Rome, that was Peter's job as the Supreme Pontiff! So what gives? Peter was not in Rome. Peter was not the bishop of Rome. Peter was not the Supreme Pontiff. Peter was never a pope. Now if, as Rome teaches, Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, we should expect to see proof in the writings of the so-called early church fathers from which Papists always quote to prove catholic doctrine. Who should better know the facts than the ministers and Bishops of the first few centuries after Christ, right? So, let's see what some of these "fathers" had to say about Peter being the first bishop of Rome apologetics.scriptmania.com What followed was a very well debated issue, a good read for sure. Len |
||
|
Interesting post Len allowed. This may very well have been an oversight on your part Len. Please refrain from using any comments other than your own, and in the future stick to the rules of using ONLY quotes from the Scriptures themselves when making your points. The "quote" you posted above has numerous Scriptures within it. I'll let this one stand without deleting it. One more item that may be of interest Len. This club does not exist for the purpose of slagging Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals or any other church. I've spoken to you about this before. We want to talk about ideas and questions here Len. True believers and false can be found within any church you might care to name. We do not automatically write people off, just because they belong to a group that officially holds error of one type or another. We accept you for example, in spite of your Calvinist connections, and all that entails re: the character and morality of God. I am not a Catholic myself Len, but I will not have you slagging them in any way. No more "dang Mary's" and the like. Understood? Regards Paul |
||
|
solascriptura 22-May-09, 17:37 |
Interesting post Len If you wish to have any type of interest in your board here you need to learn to moderate less and encourage more posting. It is quite obvious, only those whom adhere to your brand of theology are actually welcome, are you sure you are not Catholic? Len |
||
|
vanir 24-May-09, 06:55 |
Deleted by vanir on 24-May-09, 06:55.
|
||
|
vanir 24-May-09, 06:55 |
Interesting post Len I also agree with solascriptura's last comment: If you wish to have any type of interest in your board here you need to learn to moderate less and encourage more posting. What if solascriptura refrained from posting that comment because it wasn't his original work and it didn't come straight from the Bible? It is very likely that antinephilehi's question still would not have nearly as thorough an answer as it does now. Why are you against siting/quoting a source that is not from the Bible? As long as it uses lots of Scripture and has sound and logical reasoning, shouldn't it be allowed?? |
||
|
vanir 24-May-09, 07:04 |
Another thing... I am extremely sorry if I have gone out of line with either of my last 2 comments. I am only attempting to share my thoughts on the subject, and I sincerely hope that I will not be kicked out of the club for them. Also, I agree with solascriptura's analysis (even if it wasn't his own) about Peter being the bishop of Rome. That was a very insightful post, and I rather think it cleared up antinephilehi's question. I've always wondered about that, so thanks to all who have posted their thoughts. |
||
|
The spirit of Len's quote was within club guidelines. to rephrase information gleaned in books, Internet, Bible studies, etc. in ones own words however. If your position (whatever it might be), is truly your own, finding ones own words to express that opinion should not be that much of a burden. It's not fair to the readers of these threads to simply plug them up with "cut and paste" theology which we haven't fully taken the time to internalize ourselves. I want the "database" to remain user friendly, efficient, and authentic in every respect. In the other thread (Drexel's "Salvation presentation" which is now locked), Len cited human religious tradition on several occasions, which technically did not break the posting rules but did in fact violate "the spirit of the rule", by citing human authority as a basis for determining spiritual truth. None of Len's posts were deleted however. They were all allowed to remain. He has not been "over-moderated" IMO. I am within my rights to keep the club on mission, and within its founding principles. My corrective comments have all been given with a view to maintaining this forum as a useful "Database of Bible answers" for all who would want to search out such answers. Posters wishing to post mere opinions on these topics without Biblical support, or without seeking the Bible answers from others re: the topic at hand; are encouraged to make comments/ chit chat/ etc. etc. in other clubs. Please keep all posts here within the stated goals and guidelines set out on the club profile page, and clarified further in a few of the leading "sticky" threads. Blessings in Christ Paul |
||
|
solascriptura 25-May-09, 05:08 |
I am surprised I would remind the reader concerning that particular thread it was arbitrarily closed not by myself, but by the founder of this forum. He deemed it closed because though he had offed the ultimate "checkmate" which was far from the truth. That is ok I suppose, the old adage it is my "ball" and you will play by my rules or else is often found by moderators. We should of course be careful not to "to rephrase information gleaned in books", this is called Plagiarism. LOL, people can actually go to jail for doing such things. I do however agree with Paul (that is a shocker), too many times we find on discussions board such as this lots of the ""cut and paste" posting. I believe a person should quote whom they should quote giving credit where credit is due by offering a snippet and a link back to the original article. Contrary to what Paul thinks, the Fathers of the Church do carry weight when they write commentary and opinion concerning scripture. They are of course not always right on all subjects, but to dismiss them is of course shallow to say the least. Already we are not discussing antinephilehi question but rather proceedure on how to post concerning it. I would love to see any other scripture which supports the RCC claim that Peter was in Rome and was the first Pope. We see Paul definitely not considering Peter to be the head of the church. It was in Acts15:19 that James made his judgment concerning Gentiles coming into the church. In we see Paul actually being opposed to Peter :Gal 2:11 "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." The point of antinephilehi question is actually about the RCC tradition which claims sole ruler-ship and authority by Rome's bishop over the entire church in matters of faith and what should be taught about it. Happy Memorial Holliday to all. Len |
||
|
By your fruits ye shall know them. Len on the other hand has developed a very acidic tone in his posts. He has openly criticized my running of this forum. Now he seems to want to make it his mission to point out error within the catholic church (to which antinephilehi belongs). This forum does not exist for such purposes Len. Len is in consistent, unrepentant breach of decorum in this club by my reckoning. Len, perhaps its time to find another club. This is your final warning. You've given a most helpful answer as to Peters whereabouts (whether in Rome or not), and we thank you for this. If it is as you say len, " The point of antinephilehi's question is actually about the RCC tradition which claims sole ruler-ship and authority by Rome's bishop over the entire church in matters of faith and what should be taught about it.", then it is surely up to antinephilehi herself to press such a point, not for you to turn her question into an assertion which she declined to press. You have no business putting words in someone else's mouth. Regards Paul Blackmore (club founder & reluctant enforcer by times as well) P.S. All this serves to strengthen my own personal resolve to maintain a wide-open heart towards all professing faith in Christ (Calvinists included here), (Protestants and Catholics too); who by their speech and manner demonstrate to all around them the true Christian graces of peace, joy and love in the Holy Spirit. Conversely, I have poorer and poorer opinions by the day of the anger, dissension, and bitterness of those who would imagine themselves beyond theological reproof or correction. Such was I once upon a time. I despised all others who professed Christ, who followed not in the rut I was mired in at the time. Len, I just ask that you be nice around here. Surely that is not asking too much of you. Be like you were when you first joined this club. That brother, is the "Len" we all want to see posting again. |
||
|
solascriptura 26-May-09, 09:33 |
Argggg There was no disrespect of Antinephilehi, only what you perceived. I completely told the truth concerning the RCC foundation concerning sole authority concerning matters of faith for the entire church being based upon the See of Rome and the Chair of Peter. Your perception of my not being "nice" is only with you. You need to lighten up. You have been very quick to point out the supposed errors of the Calvinist without regard to feelings. Far as I am concerned, that is great. It gives everyone a chance to see what is true and what is not. You are absolutely correct, Mr. Club Founder, you have the privilege to moderate as you wish. I promise to always tell the truth concerning scripture or the traditions of men. Sometimes it can be most unsettling when truth tears downs those long held beliefs that we all hold so dear. So far as we have debated I have not told anyone "That's unbiblical and just plain silly", can you? Regards. |
||
|
Paul to ROFTL You've got me there Len. Guilty as charged I'm afraid. =-D Regards BP |
