$10,000 Challenge. Any takers.

[thessalonian]

Thess:I wasn't going to reply to this thread because I frankly think it is fruitless. I don't think you would believe it if God Himself told you. "Proof" is only what one is willing to accept anyway and neither side would consider anothers' "proof" anyway. So what is the point?Can anyone prove Peter was IN ROME? NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO! Oh, you can site NON-INSPIRED writings indicating someone named Peter. But the ONLY INSPIRED book we have says NOTHING about Peter ever being in Rome. Was he ever in Rome? I really don't care one way or the other. It has nothing to do with salvation and my faith in Christ Jesus.The church Jesus built was built upon HIM; not Peter! It began in Jerusalem; NOT ROME!So make your challenge and feel good about yourself that no one can "prove" to your satisfaction, but then on the other hand can you "prove" that the apostle Peter was in Rome? Didn't think so!By the way, I have talked with enough Catholics to know their arguments against what I would use as "proof" from the Bible. So I want get into that with you. Oh! One other thing, when did Peter supposedly go to Rome?

Collier,

I ave to say I find your post incredibly uninsightful. First of all it is not I that insists that Peter was in Rome. I would never post the issue except that there are protestants who continuously must insist that Peter was never in Rome. This post was a result of many comments in JM's post. It is protestants who feel they MUST prove that Peter was never in Rome. In some sense I could really care less.

As for the non-inspired writings, we have witnesses from many different countries speaking different languages who say Peter was in Rome for quite some time and died there. The Bible is silent on the matter so why should we not believe them. Do you believe that the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalemn in 70 AD. The scriptures don't record the event even though the Apostle John may well have been alive them. How odd. History is all we have to go on that something propheside in the Bible actually happened. Jesus made prophesies about the end of Peter's life at the end of John's Gospel. History records he was crucified upside down in rome and this seems to fit those prophecies. Why should we not believe them? Do you have some problem with Martin Luther being in Germany and the Diet of Worms and all of that just because it is not in the Bible. Silly. You can't tell me you don't look to unispired writings for information.

Of course the Church started in Jerusalem. The day of pentecost. The Church is not just the Church of Rome. We don't claim the Church started in Rome. Your arguing red herrrings and straw men. I know people get tired of me using those terms but that is what they are. When you say such things it only shows bias and predjudice and not a real engaging of your mind. You raise a false dichotomy concerning whether the Church was build ton Peter or on Jesus. It's not either/or. It's both and. Tell me something. Did your local pastor start his Church or did Christ start it. If the local pastor started it exclusive from Christ then it would seem to me that if someone got saved by the Church being there then they would attribute some part of their salvation to that pastor apart from Christ as well. No. If someone built a Church it cannot be separated from Christ. If someone makes it to heaven because that Church was there it was because the pastor building it was one in the same as Christ building it.

What does this mean?
"So I want get into that with you"


Peter was in Rome around 45-48 I believe. He spent his first dozen years in Jerusalem where, yes the Church began and then was in Antioch as Bishop of Antioch for a short time. History records this as well. It is consistent with scripture. Then he moved to Rome and died, hung upside down on a cross in around 66..
Blessings.

 

[Georges]

Thess:I wasn't going to reply to this thread because I frankly think it is fruitless. I don't think you would believe it if God Himself told you. "Proof" is only what one is willing to accept anyway and neither side would consider anothers' "proof" anyway. So what is the point?Can anyone prove Peter was IN ROME? NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO! Oh, you can site NON-INSPIRED writings indicating someone named Peter. But the ONLY INSPIRED book we have says NOTHING about Peter ever being in Rome. Was he ever in Rome? I really don't care one way or the other. It has nothing to do with salvation and my faith in Christ Jesus.The church Jesus built was built upon HIM; not Peter! It began in Jerusalem; NOT ROME!So make your challenge and feel good about yourself that no one can "prove" to your satisfaction, but then on the other hand can you "prove" that the apostle Peter was in Rome? Didn't think so!By the way, I have talked with enough Catholics to know their arguments against what I would use as "proof" from the Bible. So I want get into that with you. Oh! One other thing, when did Peter supposedly go to Rome?

That pretty much sums it up.....nice post and right on the mark....It can't be proven...and if it could be it wouldn't be believed anyway....

 

[Gary]

Prove that Peter was the "pope"

Prove that there is an unbroken line of popes

Prove the first ten pope's names

Prove that Peter wore all the paraphernalia that the current "pope" wears

Prove that popes have never been wrong when making theological pronouncements

 

[Georges]

An interesting read on Peter from Jewishencyclopedia.com


http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... arch=Peter

 

[thessalonian]

Prove that Peter was the "pope"

Prove that there is an unbroken line of popes

Prove the first ten pope's names

Prove that Peter wore all the paraphernalia that the current "pope" wears

Prove that popes have never been wrong when making theological pronouncements

The usual buffoonery I expect from you Gary. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Collier]

Thess:Yes, the Bible is silent on Peter being in Rome but have you ever asked yourself why there is no mention of this? Could it be because he wasn't there? (Just a thought, okay) When Paul wrote to the Romans, why didn't he mention Peter? When Paul wrote to Timothy some 15 years after Peter supposedly went to Rome, why did Paul say that only Luke was with him (2 Timothy 4:11). Why is it when Paul came to Rome as a prisoner in Acts 28 did he have to expound and testify concerning the kingdom of God to the Jews? (wasn't Peter the apostle to the Jews? why wasn't Peter preaching the good news to them?) As far as uninspired writings, no I don't use them in matters of faith. Oh and yes I believe the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. Why? because the Bible did say it would happen in Matthew 24:1-2.Now as far as the comments about pastors. This is an entirely different subject to discuss in detail. We don't have "pastors" in the way denominations do. Pastor is another term used to describe elders not a preacher!Oh! and I am glad you know where the church began, you might be surprised to know some Catholics (and others) don't know that. I didn't mean to insult your intelligence, just wanted to make sure you understood that point.Again Thess, it comes down to the fact that you can't prove that Peter was ever in Rome nor can I prove otherwise, at least not to the others satisfaction. However, the silence you speak of the Bible on the subject speaks loud and clear to me.Take care Thess.

 

[thessalonian]

Thess:Yes, the Bible is silent on Peter being in Rome but have you ever asked yourself why there is no mention of this? Could it be because he wasn't there? (Just a thought, okay)

Of course this thought has crossed my mind and it would provide no impediment to my beliefs if he was never in Rome. Historically things wouldn't fit as well as they do. The fact is the preponderance of evidence, much of which you ignore says he was.

When Paul wrote to the Romans, why didn't he mention Peter? When Paul wrote to Timothy some 15 years after Peter supposedly went to Rome, why did Paul say that only Luke was with him (2 Timothy 4:11).

Well, maybe because Luke was with Paul and Peter was off on his own. This makes alot of sense you know since Luke is the one whom it is said did the actually scribing of Paul's letters. Wasn't Paul the Apostle to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews. It is unlikely that the Jews and the gentiles lived in the same parts of Rome and so it is not likely that Peter and Paul would be together.

Why is it when Paul came to Rome as a prisoner in Acts 28 did he have to expound and testify concerning the kingdom of God to the Jews? (wasn't Peter the apostle to the Jews? why wasn't Peter preaching the good news to them?)

• [/list

• ]
  
  Thank you for proving that there were Jews in Rome by the way. I hadn't noticed that passage before. Think I'll keep it in my back pocket if you don't mind. I'll respond to this a bit later. It is very interesting.
  
  Blessings

 

[Collier]

Hey Thess.Just wanted to bump this thread so you will remember to respond to the verse you wanted to study. No hurry, just didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle.

 

[thessalonian]

Hey Thess.Just wanted to bump this thread so you will remember to respond to the verse you wanted to study. No hurry, just didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle.

It's in your PM. I'll post my answer on the board soon.