Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Prove that Peter was the first Pope.

Re: reply

golfjack said:
There is no such think as Peter or any other man being a Vicar of Christ.

Does anyone have an Idea of who the last Pope will be, and what his name will be? Or do you think that Pope Benedict is the last Pope?



May God bless, golfjack

4. a person who acts in place of another; substitute.


Luke.10
[16] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."


John.8
[12] Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Matt.5
[14] "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.


Eph.2
[20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

1 cor 3

[11] For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.


Matt.16
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt.18
[18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Gal.2
[20] I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Do you tell me you truly do not understand these passages? There are more.
 
Lewis W said:
Peter's body was buried on the Vatican hill and his successors later moved there. Thus, why the Roman See is called the "Vatican".
That is another RCC lie, that is not Peter in that tomb, unless his body was stolen from Jerusalem.


I addressed your Jersalem post. There is no proof that Simon (not Peter as was put in paranthesis) is Simon, the Apostle. There is no reason to think that there could not be other Simon Bar Jonah's in Jerusalem. Especially with the common Christian practice of naming Christians after previous saints, which can be found in the early church. You cannot in any way prove that the alleged tomb on your website was Peter. It may well have been a forgery also like the one of the brother of Jesus a few years back. You have proven no lies.
 
francisdesales said:
Lewis W said:
francisdesales said:
[quote="Lewis W":c635e]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.

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[/quote:c635e]

*******Lewis W wrote:
PROOF ONE: We should consider Christ’s commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles.

You say:
How is this "embarrassing"? Don't you realize that the "circumcised", were located throughout the Roman Empire? The Diaspora numbered more people than in Palestine. Thus, Peter went throughout the world to evangelize. The idea that "Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles" does NOT preclude the FACT that other apostles, to include Peter, preached the Gospel to pagans throughout the world. This idea is upheld by Church historians writing of the other Apostles who spread the word from England to India.


John here: You also said the above about embarrassment?? He backs it up with scripture, (also see Matthew 10:5-6! & who do you know to have had Peter killed! Acts 12:1-5) yet, you so far use your arm of flesh, with no scripture! (Jeremiah 17:5) It doesn't take much time to deflate his scripture that Paul was a Gentile minister! (2 Timothy 3:16-17 Matthew 4:4) If it is there? And 'we' will not help 'our' case with the 2 Corinthians 4:2's reversal of the question.

He seems to have his 'spiritual irritations' with the thread topic, and mine is the jesuit 2 Cor. 4:2 tactics of never answering questions by the Thus Sayeth the Word! All that this talk, talk, & arm of flesh does, is show that the individual post, is a waste of time. (not all others perhaps! Revelation 18:4)

This is how the ones come to their senses in Revelation 18:4. :fadein: One has a solid foundation of Christs Word, while the other foundation(?) is just shifting jesuit catholic sand! :sad Matthew 7:26-27
 
There was a large number of Jews in Rome at the time. This is proven by the emporer's order of their expulsion around 48 I believe it was. Many did not leave however. Estimates are about 50,000. It is no embarrassment at all that Peter was apostle to the Jews. Paul was apostle to the gentiles and yet it can be shown many times that he minstered to Jews as well. So the arguement is scripturally pointless nonsense.


I truly wonder if any of you guys evaluate these articles you post with any critical thought? I know lewis does not. Shall I resurrect the thread about Gal 1:19 Lewis? The Bible smashed your article's claims on James.
 
I truly wonder if any of you guys evaluate these articles you post with any critical thought? I know lewis does not. Shall I resurrect the thread about Gal 1:19 Lewis? The Bible smashed your article's claims on James.
Go right ahead and resurrect it. Even though I don't remember what you are talking about.
 
John the Baptist said:
You also said the above about embarrassment?? He backs it up with scripture

You are missing my point! St. Paul was AN APOSTLE to the Gentiles, not the ONLY one... Scripture doesn't say that Paul was the ONLY apostle to the Gentiles...

John the Baptist said:
(also see Matthew 10:5-6! & who do you know to have had Peter killed! Acts 12:1-5) yet, you so far use your arm of flesh, with no scripture! (Jeremiah 17:5) It doesn't take much time to deflate his scripture that Paul was a Gentile minister! (2 Timothy 3:16-17 Matthew 4:4) If it is there? And 'we' will not help 'our' case with the 2 Corinthians 4:2's reversal of the question.

He seems to have his 'spiritual irritations' with the thread topic, and mine is the jesuit 2 Cor. 4:2 tactics of never answering questions by the Thus Sayeth the Word! All that this talk, talk, & arm of flesh does, is show that the individual post, is a waste of time. (not all others perhaps! Revelation 18:4)

This is how the ones come to their senses in Revelation 18:4. :fadein: One has a solid foundation of Christs Word, while the other foundation(?) is just shifting jesuit catholic sand! :sad Matthew 7:26-27


I have no idea what you are talking about but stringing together some fanciful verses from Scriptures. As to "shifting Jesuit Catholic sand", which Church was built on a Rock and which was built 1500 years later that can't make up its mind what it believes, because with every generation, things change in Protestantism. One example is abortion. A Church built on rock will continue to preach the same thing - one built on sand will change with the tides... He with ears to hear will hear.

Regards
 
John here: Proven by the Emperor's (check your spelling for your evaluate & verification statement? :o ) order??? :roll: Jeremiah 17:5

thessalonian said:
There was a large number of Jews in Rome at the time. This is proven by the emporer's order of their expulsion around 48 I believe it was. Many did not leave however. Estimates are about 50,000. It is no embarrassment at all that Peter was apostle to the Jews. Paul was apostle to the gentiles and yet it can be shown many times that he minstered to Jews as well. So the arguement is scripturally pointless nonsense.

I truly wonder if any of you guys evaluate these articles you post with any critical thought? I know lewis does not. Shall I resurrect the thread about Gal 1:19 Lewis? The Bible smashed your article's claims on James.

*****
John here:
Personal attacks? Suggested stuff against a person by name even! And that by a 'mod'? (+ any and all others persons as well, huh?)

Surely if you know.. 'I know Lewis does not.' (now you can even read ones mind! :sad) then if that is your truth statement, it must need verification for others sake & for the accused to reply as he see's it! Personally, I do not think much of your 'postings' regardless :roll: , (up front!) but your creditability is on the line as speaking for the catholic church or for some catholics membership perhaps?? Whatever? Also notice that even if one did unintentionally make a posted mistake, this 'one' [degrades the character] of all the persons postings! :sad

And you talk about evaluate & verification???
Again forum see 2 Corinthians 4:2. Here we see exactly what I was referring to, no Gospel or scripture against the thread, just PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST THE POSTER!!
This is the catholic jesuit way of evading ALL Truth!
Revelation 18:4!!

---John
 
Georges said:
stray bullet said:
Georges said:
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...

It's not historically accurate. Simon Magus, he is speculated to have existed from the apostles to the second century. The truth is, we don't know, just as we don't know whether or not Simon in acts is the same founder of Gnosticism.

Regardless, he was not the founder of the Roman See because only an apostle can found a See. Furthermore, the Church flatly rejects Gnosticism and always has- it was the first heresy (which, btw, surface in the second century, which gives support for Simon being born later). There were four other Sees founded at the time and all others recognized the Roman See.
 
Back
Top