Prove that Peter was the first Pope.

[Georges]

Who's buried in Peter's Toomb?

 

[AVBunyan]

Folks - you are trying to dicsuss issues that require spiritual discernment - I firmly believe most Catholics are lost because their church teaches a false gospel that is based on works so...why discuss these things with Rome.

Again with feeling...
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How can a lost man understand any spiritual truths? So the only thing a lost man can get (assuming God is in it) is the gospel - all else is a waste of time. Understanding this truth will eliminate 75% of discussions on forums.

You will never convince a lost Unitarian anything.
You will never convince a man who does not believe Christ's deity that Christ is God..
You will never convince a non-trinitarian that there is a trinity.
You will never convince a Church of Chrsit that water can't save.

The only thing a lost man might get is the gospel.

When will we learn this? :o

This is not redeeming the time or edifying just going back and forth on non-issues.

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;

Leave these folks alone and get back to discussions that will edify the saint or discussions that will evangelize the lost.
The above statment is the duty of the saint - not debating over issues that the lost cannot see anyway. You are wasting your time.

 

[stray bullet]

Folks - you are trying to dicsuss issues that require spiritual discernment - I firmly believe most Catholics are lost because their church teaches a false gospel that is based on works so...why discuss these things with Rome.

We do not believe in a Gospel based on works, but one based on faith and Christ. Please learn what the Church teaches before you assert, falsely, what it does.

 

[stray bullet]

Who's buried in Peter's Toomb?

Pardon?

 

[Lewis]

Who's buried in Peter's Toomb?

It ain't Peter. Peter never went to Rome.

 

[AVBunyan]

We do not believe in a Gospel based on works, but one based on faith and Christ. Please learn what the Church teaches before you assert, falsely, what it does.

I've read your official Canons and catechisms - I've read your books - I've talked with your priests face to face - I've dealt with you folks in everyway for over 22 years - I know exactly what your church teaches.

Don't try to tell me your church doesn't teach a works salvation - you don't understand grace so you can't understand what a works salvation is.

 

[Georges]

Who's buried in Peter's Toomb?

It ain't Peter. Peter never went to Rome.

Isn't someone entoombed in a toomb? :-D

From the ole who's buried in Grant's toomb joke....


Wasn't it Simon Magnus who was the first pope? People confused Simon Magnus with Simon Peter?

 

[Lewis]

Isn't someone entoombed in a toomb?

Yeah George but it ain't Peter.

 

[stray bullet]

I've read your official Canons and catechisms - I've read your books - I've talked with your priests face to face - I've dealt with you folks in everyway for over 22 years - I know exactly what your church teaches.

With all these reading, how about you quote the things that say salvation is by works, since the Council of Trent declares such a belief ANTHEMA?

Yon't try to tell me your church doesn't teach a works salvation - you don't understand grace so you can't understand what a works salvation is.

If I have shown misunderstanding on matters of faith, then point it out. Don't make baseless accusations.

 

[stray bullet]

Who's buried in Peter's Toomb?

It ain't Peter. Peter never went to Rome.

Isn't someone entoombed in a toomb? :-D

From the ole who's buried in Grant's toomb joke....


Wasn't it Simon Magnus who was the first pope? People confused Simon Magnus with Simon Peter?

Simon Magus was the founder of Gnosticism and wasn't even a contemporary of the aposltes.

 

[Lewis]

PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter –who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.

PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church. Peter Not in Rome

PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn’t there!

 

[stray bullet]

Lewis, are you asking me to address that?

 

[Lewis]

Lewis, are you asking me to address that?

Yup

 

[stray bullet]

Well, it's rather simple really. No one is suggesting that Peter founded the Church in Rome. In fact, it was established long before Peter got there.

Paul didn't address Peter because he wasn't there.
It wasn't a conflict with Paul's supposedly policy because Peter wasn't there.

"However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius."

That's simply not true. I'm not sure where this guy is basing it on.

Peter went much later on, as an old man, with Paul to Rome. There Peter founded the See of Rome- not the individual regional church.

 

[Lewis]

Peter went much later on, as an old man, with Paul to Rome. There Peter founded the See of Rome- not the individual regional church.

You are kidding me right, why hasn't this been recorded somewhere ? There has never been any real proof of Peter being in Rome. He was for the Hebrews, not for the gentiles, the gentiles were not his commission, it was Paul's. And Paul never ever mentioned Peter being in Rome. Don't you find that strange ? If you really take a good look at that post, that I posted you will see the truth. But see your mind is made up, so that post will do nothing for you

 

[stray bullet]

Peter went much later on, as an old man, with Paul to Rome. There Peter founded the See of Rome- not the individual regional church.

You are kidding me right, why hasn't this been recorded somewhere ? There has never been any real proof of Peter being in Rome. He was for the Hebrews, not for the gentiles, the gentiles were not his commission, it was Paul's. And Paul never ever mentioned Peter being in Rome. Don't you find that strange ? If you really take a good look at that post, that I posted you will see the truth. But see your mind is made up, so that post will do nothing for you

Paul and Peter went to Rome and were martryed. Paul didn't mention Peter being in Rome because they went together. We know that Paul, from his early writings, wanted to go to Rome. However, we don't hear from him in Rome, because that was the end of his ministry.

Your post isn't the truth, because it is based on the premise that Catholics believe Peter founded the Church at Rome. That is absolutely not true, we don't believe that. All the arguments are based on that.

in short, Peter and Paul went to Rome together. Rome already had a Church established, which Paul already wrote to. There in Rome, Peter established an Apostolic See. His brother, Andrew, had already established an Apostolic See in Constantinople, the eastern center of the empire..

 

[stray bullet]

I've already addressed the 'proof' about Peter being in Rome dozens of times here already.

If Peter didn't establish the See of Rome, who did? Did Andrew not establish the one in Constantinople? Or Mark in Alexandria? Or James in Jerusalem?

Who founded the Vatican? Did someone just make up a See and start claiming it was founded by Peter one day? This is just silly.

 

[John the Baptist]

Folks - you are trying to dicsuss issues that require spiritual discernment - I firmly believe most Catholics are lost because their church teaches a false gospel that is based on works so...why discuss these things with Rome.

Again with feeling...
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How can a lost man understand any spiritual truths? So the only thing a lost man can get (assuming God is in it) is the gospel - all else is a waste of time. Understanding this truth will eliminate 75% of discussions on forums.

You will never convince a lost Unitarian anything.
You will never convince a man who does not believe Christ's deity that Christ is God..
You will never convince a non-trinitarian that there is a trinity.
You will never convince a Church of Chrsit that water can't save.

The only thing a lost man might get is the gospel.

When will we learn this? :o

This is not redeeming the time or edifying just going back and forth on non-issues.

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;

Leave these folks alone and get back to discussions that will edify the saint or discussions that will evangelize the lost.
The above statment is the duty of the saint - not debating over issues that the lost cannot see anyway. You are wasting your time.

********

John here: Hay, as you know, I am a old timer. And you make some good points. Yet, as far as some Catholics go, (if even one) that person might just be here on this forum that Christ requires one of us to present His Words from Revelation 18:4 to??

And then, there might be another one that just might be persuaded by their 'easy' religion to live by, yet a bad one to die by,.. to believe their trash of Peter being the pope even? You do know that some here, other than catholics, do not think that Rome is the Mother of Harlots in Revelation 17:5 even, right?

So some very important 'simple' things do come to 'spiritual' light about the Real Christians growth of some on these forums even!
And when 'easy' seen Truth is not understood by the 'very elect, if possible' what does Christ say about that??

Anyway: As an old timer, I think that of all the things that I had seen over the years on just [Peter & the 9 Proof Rome remarks] that Lewis W. posted up, were the best that I had ever read! I would like to have seen them posted up in bold larger print & in 3 parts. Perhaps Lewis would give me permission to do this for my own use? :fadein:

 

[francisdesales]

[quote="Lewis W":8cb63]That is another RCC lie, that is not Peter in that tomb, unless his body was stolen from Jerusalem.

Another lie? What evidence do YOU have to make such a statement?
Seems like your whole argument is based on wishful thinking with absolutely no historical evidence.


Regards

Them scriptures that was in them post of mine sheds a lot of light on the issue.[/quote:8cb63]

I addressed ALL of your so-called "proofs". Where is your evidence? Everything you say is based strictly on an argument from silence and wishful thinking. Do you really think you will convince anyone by merely repeating the same thing over and over without evidence?

Regards

 

[Georges]

Isn't someone entoombed in a toomb? :-D

From the ole who's buried in Grant's toomb joke....

Wasn't it Simon Magnus who was the first pope? People confused Simon Magnus with Simon Peter?

Simon Magus was the founder of Gnosticism and wasn't even a contemporary of the aposltes.

Sorry, but you are mistaken....

This is Simon Magus....

Act 8:9 ¶ But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:


Act 8:10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.

and,

Check the Pseudo Clementines and the Acts of Peter for more history...

Please don't use the "not in the canon" line with the two references above...I can use them as you use the source that states Magus was the father of Gnosticism...

Except mine are more historically accurate...