The Chair of Peter

[GodsGrace]

I'm was reading some scripture and in starting to think John was the diciple at the cross. Because in acts it says Peter went to the house of Mary the mother of John. No other Mary is mentioned having a son called John and Jesus said to Mary a diciple is her Son and he had a diciple called John. It just seems to fit but then again who knows.

I need more information to
convince me. Anyone got anything?

King Dan
It is accepted by all Christian denominations that John was the apostle at the cross.

No need for you to be convinced

It's a known fact.

 

[Corn Pop]

King Dan
It is accepted by all Christian denominations that John was the apostle at the cross.

No need for you to be convinced

It's a known fact.

So everyone who believes it should be able to back up there claims. I don know everything so I'm not just going to believe John was the diciple at the cross because someone told me. I just wan to see how everyone come to that conclusion I like facts and evidence. What scriptures. I'm only asking questions I don't know and trying to learn more.

 

[Mungo]

So everyone who believes it should be able to back up there claims. I don know everything so I'm not just going to believe John was the diciple at the cross because someone told me. I just wan to see how everyone come to that conclusion I like facts and evidence. What scriptures. I'm only asking questions I don't know and trying to learn more.

There are somethings that we accept because they have been generally accepted from the beginning.
Who wrote the Gospel according to John? There is nothing in scripture to say who wrote it.
Who wrote the Gospel according to Mark? There is nothing in scripture to say who wrote it.

There is no explicit evidence in scripture that the apostle John wrote the fourth gospel that is attributed to him. However if you put the pieces of evidence together then, with the external evidence from early acceptance, it seems conclusive.

However this is off topic. If you would like to pursue this I would prefer to start a different thread.

 

[GodsGrace]

So everyone who believes it should be able to back up there claims. I don know everything so I'm not just going to believe John was the diciple at the cross because someone told me. I just wan to see how everyone come to that conclusion I like facts and evidence. What scriptures. I'm only asking questions I don't know and trying to learn more.

KD
It's not "someone" telling you John was at the foot of the cross. Christian theologians who study the bible and every facet thereof, are AGREED that it's John at the foot of the cross.

If you cannot accept something all scholars agree on, I'd say you have a real problem.

John 19:25-27
New International Version
​

25 Near the cross(A) of Jesus stood his mother,(B) his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.(C) 26 When Jesus saw his mother(D) there, and the disciple whom he loved(E) standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman,[a] here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Who is the disciple that Jesus loved?
Every Christian knows that it is John, the youngest apostle.

John speaks of himself as The Disciple That Jesus Loved. He did this out of humbleness so as not to refer to himself in the first person,,,,"I" or "me".

 

[GodsGrace]

So everyone who believes it should be able to back up there claims. I don know everything so I'm not just going to believe John was the diciple at the cross because someone told me. I just wan to see how everyone come to that conclusion I like facts and evidence. What scriptures. I'm only asking questions I don't know and trying to learn more.

If you have questions you could begin a thread in questions and answers, or in bible study.

You will get many answers there.

Will be replying as to Peter a little later, no time now.

 

[Niblo]

I do agree that it's a mess.
But we must admit that Protestantism focuses more on the Word than does the CC.
I've spoken to a couple of priests about injecting some teaching into their sermon,
but I'm told it's a Mass and not a classroom.

There's a priest on EWTN that was very good at doing this. I can't remember his name. I think he's passed away.
So, it can be done...but they feel the sermon should be more pastoral - which is also good.

I just wish Catholics knew more about their faith.
It's better now however.

You have me at an advantage, since most of the folk I knew throughout my formative years as a Catholic (I was once a Baptist) were either priests, religious or professed lay-members (tertiaries) of a particular Order. They knew their Faith very well, and were excellent teachers.

For ten years, I was a professed member of the Carmelite Third Order; at first associated with the Order at Aylesford, and later with the friars of Hazlewood Castle in Yorkshire (now a hotel).

I spent over a year with the Cistercians (Trappists) at Mount Saint Bernard Abbey in Leicester, testing a vocation (I was a regular visitor to the Abbey for seven years prior to this, and knew the community well. My spiritual adviser throughout this time was the Abbey’s Secretary; Fr Simon Cumming OCSO, of happy memory).

It became clear that life in a religious order was not my calling, and so I became a husband and father (I recall Fr. Simon saying: ‘Our novitiate is a seedbed of good Catholic marriages!’). I look back at my time with the Carmelites and Cistercians with great affection. I admire their spirituality, their honest convictions; and their way of life – especially that of the Cistercians. It has been my privilege to know many excellent Catholics; each an example of the best of their Faith.



How often we read the Bible is not the issue. The reason that Christianity has disintegrated into competing factions is how that Book is interpreted.

What was intended – by Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) – to be clear teaching on the essential truths that underpin our relationship with the Beloved has become a quagmire of confusion and – often violent – disagreement.

I am reminded of this quote:

‘There seems to be some perverse human characteristic that likes to make easy things difficult.’ (Warren Buffett).

Peace and blessings. Have a great weekend, sister, and very best regards.

 

[GodsGrace]

If you have questions you could begin a thread in questions and answers, or in bible study.

You will get many answers there.

Will be replying as to Peter a little later, no time now.

King Dan of Great the 1st

I'm going to post some links as to the history of the Papacy.
What I usually write is from memory and, I must admit, I've forgotten a lot.
However, my hope is that I could find, online, what I know to be true about the history of the church.
I say...The Church...there was only one church at the beginning and it turned out to be the Catholic Church.
Whether or not some wish to accept this is irrelevant...the truth is the truth.

I do hope you read the links.

Roman-Catholics recognize the pope as both the successor to Peter[2][3] and the first bishop of Rome.[4] Official declarations of the church speak of the popes as holding within the college of the bishops a position analogous to that held by Peter within the "college" of the Apostles, namely Prince of the Apostles, of which the college of the Bishops, a distinct entity, is viewed by some to be the successor.[5][6]

Pope Clement I, the earliest of the Church Fathers, is identified with Clement of Philippians 4:3. His letter to the Corinthians is the "first known example of the exercise and acceptance"[7][better source needed] of the ecclesiastical authority of the papacy. Written while John the Apostle was still alive, Clement commanded that the Corinthians maintain unity with each other and bring to an end the schism that had divided the church in that region. This papal letter from Clement was held in such esteem that it was considered by some as part of the New Testament canon, as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church still does. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, writing to Pope Soter ("as a father to his children") references Pope Clement's letter:

Today we have kept the holy Lord's day, on which we have read your letter, which we shall ever possess to read and to be admonished, even as the former one written to us through Clement ... [8]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_papacy


*********************************************************************************************

papacy, the office and jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, the pope (Latin papa, from Greek pappas, “father”), who presides over the central government of the Roman Catholic Church, the largest of the three major branches of Christianity. The term pope was originally applied to all the bishops in the West and also used to describe the patriarch of Alexandria, who still retains the title.

source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/papacy

*********************************************************************************************

Bishops in the Early Church​

During the early periods of Christianity, five cities arose as significant core of Christianity. These were Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople and Alexandria. Even though the Roman Church was highly regarded, the Churches in the East in general had more influence and numbers than those of the West. Following the granting of legal status to Christianity by the Decree of Milan, the church took up the same governmental structure as the Empire whereby geographical provinces were ruled by bishops. These bishops of key cities therefore rose in power.​

Rome wasn’t only the city that could profess to have had a unique responsibility in Christ’s Church. Jerusalem had the reputation of being the city of Christ’s death and resurrection. Furthermore, a significant church council took place there in the first century. Antioch was the location where the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians”. Alexandria was an important early center of Christian belief. Constantinople developed into a very significant city after Constantine shifted his capital there in 330 AD.​

Nevertheless, by the fifth century, the bishop of Rome started claiming his superiority over all other bishops. Moreover, several church fathers made this claim for him as well.​

Why Rome?​

Rome’s association with Peter was the main “spiritual” reason its ultimate dominance. According to customs, Peter visited Rome all through his life and, more significantly, was martyred there. This is affirmed by the belief that his remains are below the St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City. St. Paul was thought to have been martyred in Rome as well.​

The majority of the claims for the pope’s authority are supported by one major argument- the so called Petrine theory. Affirmed by the Council of Florence in 1439, outlined as a subject of faith by the First Vatican Council in 1870, and approved by the Second Vatican Council in 1964, Jesus Christ bestowed the position of Primacy in the church upon Peter only. The First Vatican Council based their claim on a classical New Testament text long linked with it. In Mathew 16, Jesus inquires from his disciples who they think he is. Peter responds, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Jesus responds: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”​

source: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/bishops-in-the-early-church-history-essay.php


*******************************************************************************************


My last link is my favorite.
Those on this thread that really wish to learn about the Papacy should read all links.
And perhaps we could begin to stop debating history...

 

[GodsGrace]

You have me at an advantage, since most of the folk I knew throughout my formative years as a Catholic (I was once a Baptist) were either priests, religious or professed lay-members (tertiaries) of a particular Order. They knew their Faith very well, and were excellent teachers.

This is how it is for me now.
I know a Catholic Priest and theologian that speaks Hebrew and Greek. He also taught theology somewhere in the middle east or maybe Israel...can't remember.

I know a priest that is very conservative, as I am, he became a priest at the age of 38 and my husband regarded him like a son. It's so pleasant to be with him...he had lunch with us often but I haven't seen him in a while because the Bishop has moved him up to the high mountains...unfortunately...long story.

Then I know a Priest that does not know much theology but he's very pastoral and everyone loves him.
He's very loving and exhudes the love of God. He knows my story but tells me God loves me and does give me communion.

Then there is Fra' Lorenzo,,,he lives at a sanctuary with about 5 other friars. I don't even know of what order they are.
I've been going up there for about 12 years now for study. There's about 15 of us. But this was cancelled due to Covid.
Too many were afraid to gather. They pray and study all the time. I feel like he knows everything and he'll always give a straight answer. He knows I have some problem with doctrine, one time we discussed John 3:5 and, of course, he said the water is baptism...I believe it's it's natural birth...what can I do? They tell me to pray about it, but I just understand it as being physical and spiritual...2 births.

Unfortunately, it wasn't like this in the 70's when I came to know our Lord.
If it was, I would have remained Catholic.

For ten years, I was a professed member of the Carmelite Third Order; at first associated with the Order at Aylesford, and later with the friars of Hazlewood Castle in Yorkshire (now a hotel).

An order of Carmelite nuns is associated with this sanctuary...
Prayer, holidays, etc.
Fra' Lorenzo might send a woman with problems to them...
They're about an hour away from them.

I spent over a year with the Cistercians (Trappists) at Mount Saint Bernard Abbey in Leicester, testing a vocation (I was a regular visitor to the Abbey for seven years prior to this, and knew the community well. My spiritual adviser throughout this time was the Abbey’s Secretary; Fr Simon Cumming OCSO, of happy memory).

It became clear that life in a religious order was not my calling, and so I became a husband and father (I recall Fr. Simon saying: ‘Our novitiate is a seedbed of good Catholic marriages!’). I look back at my time with the Carmelites and Cistercians with great affection. I admire their spirituality, their honest convictions; and their way of life – especially that of the Cistercians. It has been my privilege to know many excellent Catholics; each an example of the best of their Faith.

Not familiar with the Trappists, but I understand what you're speaking of.
I know that when God is in a marriage, it is a better marriage - with God at the head of it.
You've most probably answered your callings...the one God meant for you.

How often we read the Bible is not the issue. The reason that Christianity has disintegrated into competing factions is how that Book is interpreted.

What was intended – by Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) – to be clear teaching on the essential truths that underpin our relationship with the Beloved has become a quagmire of confusion and – often violent – disagreement.

I am reminded of this quote:

‘There seems to be some perverse human characteristic that likes to make easy things difficult.’ (Warren Buffett).

Peace and blessings. Have a great weekend, sister, and very best regards.

Agreed.
Jesus spoke simply and plainly.
Do whatever Jesus tells you...
And the same to you dear brother in Christ.

 

[jaybo]

King Dan of Great the 1st

I'm going to post some links as to the history of the Papacy.
What I usually write is from memory and, I must admit, I've forgotten a lot.
However, my hope is that I could find, online, what I know to be true about the history of the church.
I say...The Church...there was only one church at the beginning and it turned out to be the Catholic Church.
Whether or not some wish to accept this is irrelevant...the truth is the truth.

I do hope you read the links.

Roman-Catholics recognize the pope as both the successor to Peter[2][3] and the first bishop of Rome.[4] Official declarations of the church speak of the popes as holding within the college of the bishops a position analogous to that held by Peter within the "college" of the Apostles, namely Prince of the Apostles, of which the college of the Bishops, a distinct entity, is viewed by some to be the successor.[5][6]

Pope Clement I, the earliest of the Church Fathers, is identified with Clement of Philippians 4:3. His letter to the Corinthians is the "first known example of the exercise and acceptance"[7][better source needed] of the ecclesiastical authority of the papacy. Written while John the Apostle was still alive, Clement commanded that the Corinthians maintain unity with each other and bring to an end the schism that had divided the church in that region. This papal letter from Clement was held in such esteem that it was considered by some as part of the New Testament canon, as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church still does. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, writing to Pope Soter ("as a father to his children") references Pope Clement's letter:



source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_papacy


*********************************************************************************************

papacy, the office and jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, the pope (Latin papa, from Greek pappas, “father”), who presides over the central government of the Roman Catholic Church, the largest of the three major branches of Christianity. The term pope was originally applied to all the bishops in the West and also used to describe the patriarch of Alexandria, who still retains the title.

source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/papacy

*********************************************************************************************

Bishops in the Early Church​

During the early periods of Christianity, five cities arose as significant core of Christianity. These were Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople and Alexandria. Even though the Roman Church was highly regarded, the Churches in the East in general had more influence and numbers than those of the West. Following the granting of legal status to Christianity by the Decree of Milan, the church took up the same governmental structure as the Empire whereby geographical provinces were ruled by bishops. These bishops of key cities therefore rose in power.​

Rome wasn’t only the city that could profess to have had a unique responsibility in Christ’s Church. Jerusalem had the reputation of being the city of Christ’s death and resurrection. Furthermore, a significant church council took place there in the first century. Antioch was the location where the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians”. Alexandria was an important early center of Christian belief. Constantinople developed into a very significant city after Constantine shifted his capital there in 330 AD.​

Nevertheless, by the fifth century, the bishop of Rome started claiming his superiority over all other bishops. Moreover, several church fathers made this claim for him as well.​

Why Rome?​

Rome’s association with Peter was the main “spiritual” reason its ultimate dominance. According to customs, Peter visited Rome all through his life and, more significantly, was martyred there. This is affirmed by the belief that his remains are below the St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City. St. Paul was thought to have been martyred in Rome as well.​

The majority of the claims for the pope’s authority are supported by one major argument- the so called Petrine theory. Affirmed by the Council of Florence in 1439, outlined as a subject of faith by the First Vatican Council in 1870, and approved by the Second Vatican Council in 1964, Jesus Christ bestowed the position of Primacy in the church upon Peter only. The First Vatican Council based their claim on a classical New Testament text long linked with it. In Mathew 16, Jesus inquires from his disciples who they think he is. Peter responds, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Jesus responds: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”​

source: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/bishops-in-the-early-church-history-essay.php


*******************************************************************************************


My last link is my favorite.
Those on this thread that really wish to learn about the Papacy should read all links.
And perhaps we could begin to stop debating history...

Why do you keep claiming that "there was only one church at the beginning and it turned out to be the Catholic Church"? That clearly in disagreement with the Bible.

There are many churches mentioned in the Bible, the church in Rome being only one of them. How about the churches in Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonica, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea? And you mention even more in your post: Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria. That's sixteen in all, and I'm sure there were more in other places.

And again, there is no mention of the Catholic denomination anywhere in Scripture. And it is convenient to ignore the Orthodox denomination, which also claims to be the oldest.

Finally, Jesus was a Jew, as were all the apostles and all the authors of the New Testament with the exception of Luke. The origin of the church clearly lies with the Jews. Even Peter, whom you claim was the first Christian leader (even though Scripture clearly states that he was the apostle to the Jews), was a Jew.

Acts 11:26b, "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch" years after the crucifixion. Why not present church history as it clearly happened instead of continuing the self-serving Catholic myth? Rewriting history doesn't equate to the truth.

 

[GodsGrace]

Why do you keep claiming that "there was only one church at the beginning and it turned out to be the Catholic Church"? That clearly in disagreement with the Bible.

There are many churches mentioned in the Bible, the church in Rome being only one of them. How about the churches in Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonica, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea? And you mention even more in your post: Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria. That's sixteen in all, and I'm sure there were more in other places.

And again, there is no mention of the Catholic denomination anywhere in Scripture. And it is convenient to ignore the Orthodox denomination, which also claims to be the oldest.

Finally, Jesus was a Jew, as were all the apostles and all the authors of the New Testament with the exception of Luke. The origin of the church clearly lies with the Jews. Even Peter, whom you claim was the first Christian leader (even though Scripture clearly states that he was the apostle to the Jews), was a Jew.

Acts 11:26b, "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch" years after the crucifixion. Why not present church history as it clearly happened instead of continuing the self-serving Catholic myth? Rewriting history doesn't equate to the truth.

Hi Jaybo
It's nice to see you back on the thread...haven't seen you here.

I think we need to get a couple of things straight before continuing or the convo becomes meaningless and is just a back and forth of the same topic.

1. Do you believe history continued when John finished writing Revelation?

2. All the churches you mention that were in the bible were started by one of the Apostles.
They were NOT different DENOMINATIONS. They were the churches that the Apostles started.

Could we agree on the above?


Also, I'd like to remind you that I do not have a "catholic agenda" since I left that church many years ago.
However, I do believe the truth is the truth. And history is history.

 

[jaybo]

Hi Jaybo
It's nice to see you back on the thread...haven't seen you here.

I think we need to get a couple of things straight before continuing or the convo becomes meaningless and is just a back and forth of the same topic.

1. Do you believe history continued when John finished writing Revelation?

2. All the churches you mention that were in the bible were started by one of the Apostles.
They were NOT different DENOMINATIONS. They were the churches that the Apostles started.

Could we agree on the above?


Also, I'd like to remind you that I do not have a "catholic agenda" since I left that church many years ago.
However, I do believe the truth is the truth. And history is history.

Mungo banned me for a few days. It's nice to know that the thread could carry on without me! LOL

Question 1 is absurd. History is the recording of events as they occur over time, so obviously it continues. Now, written history is something else. It is a recording of what has happened over time. The history of the church as written by Catholics is just propaganda. It is a clear deception to claim that the Catholic denomination is the original church. The church -- the body of Christ -- has existed for thousands of years in different locations. As I have said earlier, the Orthodox denomination also claims to be the original church and, IMHO, has more justification for that claim than the Catholic denomination.

If there is any group that can claim to be the original "church", it is Messianic Judaism. All the apostles were Jews who believed in the Messiah. With the single exception of Luke, every "book" of the Bible was written by Jews. Even Peter, whom people claim was the first Pope -- an unscriptural term -- was a Jew. It was the Jews who first believed that Yeshua (Jesus) was the Messiah. At the last Passover dinner, when Yeshua shared the (unleavened) bread and wine, every single person there was a Jew. (There were no Gentiles present!)

The Catholic denomination has written their own history of the church, but it has no factual basis. Again, it is all propaganda.

The church is the body of Christ! (This bears repeating!) The church is the body of Christ! If there is an accurate history of the church, then it must include the story of all believers everywhere, all those who have believed that Jesus is Lord and have been born of the Spirit, regardless of their location.

Until that factual story is written truthfully and accurately, everything else is self-serving propaganda.

 

[GodsGrace]

Mungo banned me for a few days. It's nice to know that the thread could carry on without me! LOL

Question 1 is absurd. History is the recording of events as they occur over time, so obviously it continues. Now, written history is something else. It is a recording of what has happened over time. The history of the church as written by Catholics is just propaganda. It is a clear deception to claim that the Catholic denomination is the original church. The church -- the body of Christ -- has existed for thousands of years in different locations. As I have said earlier, the Orthodox denomination also claims to be the original church and, IMHO, has more justification for that claim than the Catholic denomination.

If there is any group that can claim to be the original "church", it is Messianic Judaism. All the apostles were Jews who believed in the Messiah. With the single exception of Luke, every "book" of the Bible was written by Jews. Even Peter, whom people claim was the first Pope -- an unscriptural term -- was a Jew. It was the Jews who first believed that Yeshua (Jesus) was the Messiah. At the last Passover dinner, when Yeshua shared the (unleavened) bread and wine, every single person there was a Jew. (There were no Gentiles present!)

The Catholic denomination has written their own history of the church, but it has no factual basis. Again, it is all propaganda.

The church is the body of Christ! (This bears repeating!) The church is the body of Christ! If there is an accurate history of the church, then it must include the story of all believers everywhere, all those who have believed that Jesus is Lord and have been born of the Spirit, regardless of their location.

Until that factual story is written truthfully and accurately, everything else is self-serving propaganda.

Must go, but did you see that last link I posted?
I think it's ok if you don't believe that the CC is the first church. The schism could be debated.
I've been to the prison in Rome where Paul was kept. Would you believe that?
I've been to a church there named San Pietro in Catene. Would a church be built for an unimportant person?
To say nothing of St. Peter's Basilica,,,built in his honor.
Why would this be?
What possible reason except that Peter was revered?

 

[GodsGrace]

Mungo banned me for a few days. It's nice to know that the thread could carry on without me! LOL

Question 1 is absurd. History is the recording of events as they occur over time, so obviously it continues. Now, written history is something else. It is a recording of what has happened over time. The history of the church as written by Catholics is just propaganda. It is a clear deception to claim that the Catholic denomination is the original church. The church -- the body of Christ -- has existed for thousands of years in different locations. As I have said earlier, the Orthodox denomination also claims to be the original church and, IMHO, has more justification for that claim than the Catholic denomination.

If there is any group that can claim to be the original "church", it is Messianic Judaism. All the apostles were Jews who believed in the Messiah. With the single exception of Luke, every "book" of the Bible was written by Jews. Even Peter, whom people claim was the first Pope -- an unscriptural term -- was a Jew. It was the Jews who first believed that Yeshua (Jesus) was the Messiah. At the last Passover dinner, when Yeshua shared the (unleavened) bread and wine, every single person there was a Jew. (There were no Gentiles present!)

The Catholic denomination has written their own history of the church, but it has no factual basis. Again, it is all propaganda.

The church is the body of Christ! (This bears repeating!) The church is the body of Christ! If there is an accurate history of the church, then it must include the story of all believers everywhere, all those who have believed that Jesus is Lord and have been born of the Spirit, regardless of their location.

Until that factual story is written truthfully and accurately, everything else is self-serving propaganda.

More tomorrow.

 

[jaybo]

Must go, but did you see that last link I posted?
I think it's ok if you don't believe that the CC is the first church. The schism could be debated.
I've been to the prison in Rome where Paul was kept. Would you believe that?
I've been to a church there named San Pietro in Catene. Would a church be built for an unimportant person?
To say nothing of St. Peter's Basilica,,,built in his honor.
Why would this be?
What possible reason except that Peter was revered?

Peter was/is revered by the Catholic denomination. So what! Who is more important, Peter or Jesus Christ?

Pizzaro's bones are in the cathedral in Lima Peru. He was instrumental in murdering countless "Indians" because they wouldn't accept Catholicism. Was/is he also revered?

Make sure you visit Siena, where you can see St Catherine's head.

 

[Corn Pop]

There are somethings that we accept because they have been generally accepted from the beginning.
Who wrote the Gospel according to John? There is nothing in scripture to say who wrote it.
Who wrote the Gospel according to Mark? There is nothing in scripture to say who wrote it.

There is no explicit evidence in scripture that the apostle John wrote the fourth gospel that is attributed to him. However if you put the pieces of evidence together then, with the external evidence from early acceptance, it seems conclusive.

However this is off topic. If you would like to pursue this I would prefer to start a different thread.

I know the authors of the gospel are unknown and are second copies. Where did the name Mark come from?. Its that the John who was called Mark so Mark is really John, who knows. Lol.

 

[Niblo]

wondering

Greetings, Sister.

I suspect that Fra’ Lorenzo is a Carmelite. The habit will a dead giveaway: brown tunic, cowl and scapular, with a large, hooded, white mantle (cloak). In the UK, the white Carmelite mantle led to their being called ‘Whitefriars’; as opposed to the black mantled Dominicans, known as ‘Blackfriars’.

If I’m right, then it is very likely that one of the sanctuary friars is chaplain to the nuns you speak of.

As for John 3:5; I’m with Fra’ Lorenzo on this one. But, of course, in order to have a water baptism one has to be born in the first place. So, I guess you also have a point!

What can you do about your doubts? Learn as much as possible about the various opinions (theologies) behind this and that, and then act according to your conscience.

If, in the course of time, some new insight comes along – one that persuades and, by so doing, requires a change of heart – then act accordingly. ‘This above all, to thine own self be true.’ (Hamlet; Act 1, Scene III).

At the end of it all, the Beloved knows best!

Have a great day, sister, and very best regards. May the Beloved guide you to His truth, and grant you peace.

 

[Mungo]

Peter was/is revered by the Catholic denomination. So what! Who is more important, Peter or Jesus Christ?

Jesus is worshipped.

Peter is revered/honoured.

Worship more important than reverence/honour.

 

[Mungo]

I know the authors of the gospel are unknown and are second copies. Where did the name Mark come from?. Its that the John who was called Mark so Mark is really John, who knows. Lol.

Well whatever - it's off topic so let it drop.
Start another thread on it if you want to pursue it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Peter was/is revered by the Catholic denomination. So what! Who is more important, Peter or Jesus Christ?

Pizzaro's bones are in the cathedral in Lima Peru. He was instrumental in murdering countless "Indians" because they wouldn't accept Catholicism. Was/is he also revered?

Make sure you visit Siena, where you can see St Catherine's head.

How can I be sure it's Pizzaro's bones?
How do we know he was instrumental in murdering countless Indians?
Might it be due to history?

You've always made it sound like all the Christian history that ever took place is in the NT.
No....Christian history continued after Jesus died and to this day. The church is making history right now.

Peter is revered, and also Paul, by the CC and by every church because, were it not for them, Christianity might have died out in the first 50 years after Jesus resurrected. They, and some of the other Apostles, spread the gospel to the existing world - I'm sure you know this so I don't understand why we're even speaking about it.

As to Messianic Judaism...Jews that came to believe Jesus was the true Messiah were eventually abolished from the Synagogue, where they had worshipped till this time, I believe it was approx. 100AD or some time before.

The Christians then had to develop their own church and places of worship.
And thus, a new religion ha begun.

We can either believe history or not.
Men did terrible things even in the Protestant religion/faith.
We can move ahead or get stuck in the past.

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering

Greetings, Sister.

I suspect that Fra’ Lorenzo is a Carmelite. The habit will a dead giveaway: brown tunic, cowl and scapular, with a large, hooded, white mantle (cloak). In the UK, the white Carmelite mantle led to their being called ‘Whitefriars’; as opposed to the black mantled Dominicans, known as ‘Blackfriars’.

If I’m right, then it is very likely that one of the sanctuary friars is chaplain to the nuns you speak of.

As for John 3:5; I’m with Fra’ Lorenzo on this one. But, of course, in order to have a water baptism one has to be born in the first place. So, I guess you also have a point!

What can you do about your doubts? Learn as much as possible about the various opinions (theologies) behind this and that, and then act according to your conscience.

If, in the course of time, some new insight comes along – one that persuades and, by so doing, requires a change of heart – then act accordingly. ‘This above all, to thine own self be true.’ (Hamlet; Act 1, Scene III).

At the end of it all, the Beloved knows best!

Have a great day, sister, and very best regards. May the Beloved guide you to His truth, and grant you peace.

Hi Niblo,
Thank you.

I tried to upload some images of the sanctuary, but am unable to and I don't know why.
I hope to hear from the administration soon.
Will remember to do this....

Blessings