The Rock that Jesus Builds his Church is not Peter

[cj]

Thanks for the forewarning- but I already know the source of your rants.

Darkness such as yours can only know darkness.

Thanks, Mr. Obvious.

One would think it should be obvious,.... but in your speaking you seem oblivious to this truth.

Jesus chose Twelve, according to the gospel in the Holy Bible that I have before me (my copy lacks your edits).

It is not your copy that lacks OC, its your person.

Jesus chose twelve, but millions upon millions have become the many sons of God.

Fact is, you spoke foolishness.

Thomas was there in the upper room, and the same Spirit who was breathed upon the Apostles and fell upon the disciples also was given to Matthias at the laying on of hands.

Thomas was not in the room when the disciples first received the Holy Spirit into their spirit (were born-again).

Read the following.......

John 20:19-24,

"When therefore it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and while the doors were shut where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said to them, Peace be to you.

And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced at seeing the Lord. Then Jesus said to them again, Peace be to you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.

And when He had said this, He breathed..... INTO.... them and said to them,..... RECEIVE..... the Holy Spirit."

Whosever sins you forgive, they are forgiven them; and whosever sins you retain, they are retained. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came."

In the typical way of false doctrine you confuse the receiving of the Spirit inwardly with the falling-on (annointing) of the Spirit outwardly.

Read and understand......


Acts  2 : 4, "And they were all..... filled...... with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, even as the Spirit gave to them to speak forth."

Greek "pletho" (used also in 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9; Luke 1:15, 41, 67), meaning to fill outwardly.

According to its usage in this book, pleroo denotes the filling of a vessel within, as the wind filled the house inwardly in v. 2, and pletho denotes the filling of persons outwardly, as the Spirit filled the disciples outwardly in this verse. The disciples were filled ( pleroo) inwardly and essentially with the Spirit (13:52) for their Christian living, and were filled ( pletho) outwardly and economically with the Spirit for their Christian ministry.

The inward filling Spirit, the essential Spirit, is in the disciples (John 14:17; Rom. 8:11), whereas the outward filling Spirit, the economical Spirit, is upon them (1:8; 2:17). Every believer in Christ should experience both aspects of the Holy Spirit. Even Christ as a man experienced the same thing: He was born of the Holy Spirit essentially (Luke 1:35; Matt. 1:18, 20) for His being and living, and He was anointed with the Holy Spirit economically (Matt. 3:16; Luke 4:18) for His ministry and move. The essential Spirit was within Him and the economical Spirit was upon Him.

The outward filling of the poured out Spirit was the ascended Head's baptizing of His Body into the Spirit. On the day of Pentecost the Jewish believers, the first part of His Body, were baptized; in the house of Cornelius the Gentile believers, the second part of His Body, were baptized in the same way (10:44-47). By these two steps He baptized once for all His entire Body into the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), who is the application and realization of Himself. His baptizing His Body into the Spirit was His baptizing it into Himself. This was the accomplishment of the baptism in the Holy Spirit promised in 1:5 by Christ, the Head of the Body.

Are you for real?

Moreso than the lies you speak.




In love,
cj

 

[cj]

I do stand for the Truth who is Jesus Christ, and I stand with my brethren, some who are not in my communion. Who are my brothers? Those who do the will of the Father, those who keep the commanments of God, and those who acknowledge the visible unity of the Church- even in it's present imperfection.

"The visible unity of the Church, even in its present imperfection."

What utter crud.


You know nothing of the reality of oneness OC.

God is one..... He Himself is the source, reality and expression of oneness.

The visible unity of the Church is simply God expressed.

Jesus said that if you saw Him you saw God. And if God, certainly perfect oneness expressed.

Yet we know that Jesus was/is a man, and said this as a man; the Son of man.


Oneness is not the "united nation's" of Christianity's religions, oneness is simply God, and Him expressed.


And God expressed is always perfect.


In love,
cj

 

[thessalonian]

More lies from a source that was not there.

So you call Irenaus a liar? On what basis do you find him to be a liar. Let's check your Biblical "evidence" below.

Peter is buried in Jerusalem and was the Apostle to the Jews according to the Bible, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles according the the Bible in Galatians.

Well Antioch wasn't exactly a Jewish city though we know there were Jews there. You seem to be saying Peter didn't leave jerusalem. But we know he was in Antioch. Now there were gentiles and Christians there and it seems he was not just associating with the Jews as you imply. Look at what Gal says:

[11] But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
[12] For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

So he was associating and most certainly preaching to gentiles. Yes, Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles but that does not mean that Peter was banned from preaching to them and in fact in Acts 10 Peter converts Cornelius, a gentile. However even if what you say is true, there were known to be many Jews because around the 60's AD the Roman emporer expelled them from Rome. So if Peter was only for the Jews, your point is still no proof of anything about whether Peter went to Rome or not because there were known to be MANY jews there. Some historians put it up at around 50,000. There was noone who questioned that Peter went to Rome until John Calvin in the 1600's. Secular, Protestant, and Catholic sources attest to this fact that was not disputed until one who hated the Papacy latched on to it. Now you tell me who is the liar.

Whatever the pro-Roman Catholic bunch dream up that is not in the Bible is more than likely a lie.

So your telling me that the Protestant theory that Constantine started the Catholic Church is a lie, since Irenaus and Eusibuis lived long before Constantine and it is the likes of these that we get are evidence that Peter was in fact in Rome. Thank you for proving that Protestant history contains lies based on Protestant bias. You guys simply can't keep your stories straight. I was on a jury last fall and the easiest way to tell who was the liar is the one who could not keep their stories straight.

Thanks for your post.

Blessings

 

[Solo]

Your swelling words are unable to keep up with the truth that has been posted both scripturally and historically. Even the pope at the time recognized that Peter had been buried in Jerusalem. Peter is the apostle to the Jews according to the Bible.

People have a choice to believe the lies you spew or the truth in the scripture and in history.

Many times in this forum alone your story has had holes shot in it over and over, yet you continue to refuse truth as it subverts you position of faith, which is in a false teaching institution instead of the true bread of life.

 

[SpiritualSon]

I could care less what swedonberg saw. He is no different than Luther in my book. A false teacher and prophet. Those who followed him were duped.

I could care less what Thomas Aquinas wrote, which is all false.

Harry

All that Thomas Aquinas wrote is false? You can't discern truth very well. I don't believe that all swedonberg wrote was false. But he mixed truth with error as the serpant did in the garden. It makes truth very hard to discern.

The first error made by the Catholic Church was at the Council of Nicene.
A Trinity of Persons was unknown in the Apostolic Church, but was hatched by the Nicene Council, and from that was introduced into the Roman Catholic church, and from that again into the churches separated from it.

By the Apostolic church is meant the church that existed in various places not only in the time of the apostles, but also in the second and third centuries after. But at length men began to wrench the door of the temple off its hinges, and to break robber-like into its sanctuary. The temple is the church; the door is the Lord God the Redeemer; and the sanctuary His Divinity; for Jesus says:
Verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheep fold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. I am the door; by Me if any man enter in he shall be saved John 10:1-9.
This crime was committed by Arius and his followers. To enter the door another way is to be wise from oneself. This is meant by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

On this account a council was convoked by Constantine the Great at Nice, a city in Bithynia; and in order to overthrow the pernicious heresy of Arius it was devised, decided upon, and ratified by the members of the council that there were from eternity three Divine persons, a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit, to each one of whom belonged personality, existence, and subsistence, by Himself and in Himself; also that the second person, or the Son, came down and took on a Human and wrought redemption; and therefore His Human, by a hypostatic union, possesses Divinity, and through that union He has close relationship with God the Father.

From that time heaps of abominable heresies about God and the person of Christ began to spring up from the earth, and Antichrists began to rear their heads and to divide God into three persons, and the Lord the Savior into two, destroying the temple set up by the Lord through the apostles, and this until not one stone was left upon another that was not thrown down, according to the Lord's words Matthew 24:2, where by "the temple" not only the edifice at Jerusalem is meant but also the church, the consummation or end of which is treated of in the whole chapter.

Whose is the head of the church? Is it the Father, Son or Holy Spirit? If you say the Father, you are wrong, because the Father became Man under the name Jesus Christ. That makes the Father and Son the same Person, as the soul and body make one person. If you say the Holy Spirit, you are wrong, because the Father and Son as one Person, is the Holy Spirit.

Harry

 

[thessalonian]

Your swelling words are unable to keep up with the truth that has been posted both scripturally and historically.

biblically? You claim that Peter being Apostle to the Jews "proves" that he died in Jerusalem? If that's not a non-sequitor I don't know what is. As I said, what was he doing in Antioch if somehow this shows that he never left Jerusalem and what was he doing associating with those gentiles. Your Biblical evidence is severely difficient.

Even the pope at the time recognized that Peter had been buried in Jerusalem. Peter is the apostle to the Jews according to the Bible.

Pope at which time? Calvins? Handwaving (which is all I seem to be getting will )not do. Post your quote.

[qoute]People have a choice to believe the lies you spew or the truth in the scripture and in history.[/quote]

There's only one spewing here and its not me.


Blessings though

Many times in this forum alone your story has had holes shot in it over and over, yet you continue to refuse truth as it subverts you position of faith, which is in a false teaching institution instead of the true bread of life.[/quote]

 

[thessalonian]

All that Thomas Aquinas wrote is false? You can't discern truth very well. I don't believe that all swedonberg wrote was false. But he mixed truth with error as the serpant did in the garden. It makes truth very hard to discern.

The first error made by the Catholic Church was at the Council of Nicene.
A Trinity of Persons was unknown in the Apostolic Church, but was hatched by the Nicene Council, and from that was introduced into the Roman Catholic church, and from that again into the churches separated from it.

By the Apostolic church is meant the church that existed in various places not only in the time of the apostles, but also in the second and third centuries after. But at length men began to wrench the door of the temple off its hinges, and to break robber-like into its sanctuary. The temple is the church; the door is the Lord God the Redeemer; and the sanctuary His Divinity; for Jesus says:
Verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheep fold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. I am the door; by Me if any man enter in he shall be saved John 10:1-9.
This crime was committed by Arius and his followers. To enter the door another way is to be wise from oneself. This is meant by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

On this account a council was convoked by Constantine the Great at Nice, a city in Bithynia; and in order to overthrow the pernicious heresy of Arius it was devised, decided upon, and ratified by the members of the council that there were from eternity three Divine persons, a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit, to each one of whom belonged personality, existence, and subsistence, by Himself and in Himself; also that the second person, or the Son, came down and took on a Human and wrought redemption; and therefore His Human, by a hypostatic union, possesses Divinity, and through that union He has close relationship with God the Father.

From that time heaps of abominable heresies about God and the person of Christ began to spring up from the earth, and Antichrists began to rear their heads and to divide God into three persons, and the Lord the Savior into two, destroying the temple set up by the Lord through the apostles, and this until not one stone was left upon another that was not thrown down, according to the Lord's words Matthew 24:2, where by "the temple" not only the edifice at Jerusalem is meant but also the church, the consummation or end of which is treated of in the whole chapter.

Whose is the head of the church? Is it the Father, Son or Holy Spirit? If you say the Father, you are wrong, because the Father became Man under the name Jesus Christ. That makes the Father and Son the same Person, as the soul and body make one person. If you say the Holy Spirit, you are wrong, because the Father and Son as one Person, is the Holy Spirit.

Harry[/quote]

Harry, this is all a fairy tale meant to prop up your little denomination that started very late in the cycle of rebellion and division of Protestantism. The fact of the matter is that the trinitarian doctrine existed in the Church from day one. It was the word that was officially conined at nicea to give a name for what the Church always taught. Though the word trinity was used to describe God much earlier by Theolphius in around 180 AD. The Father did not become man and you have the Christ desending upon himself as a dove in John 1 and Christ speaking to himself, basically "I am my beloved Son" in that same chapter. You want God in a box and you can't wrap your arms around the Trinitarian concept, you cannot understand it, and so you deny it. You want a God that is completely understandable. Which is why you have embraced oneness. This is a false God. An idol.

Blessings

 

[Solo]

Your swelling words are unable to keep up with the truth that has been posted both scripturally and historically.

biblically? You claim that Peter being Apostle to the Jews "proves" that he died in Jerusalem? If that's not a non-sequitor I don't know what is. As I said, what was he doing in Antioch if somehow this shows that he never left Jerusalem and what was he doing associating with those gentiles. Your Biblical evidence is severely difficient.

Even the pope at the time recognized that Peter had been buried in Jerusalem. Peter is the apostle to the Jews according to the Bible.

Pope at which time? Calvins? Handwaving (which is all I seem to be getting will )not do. Post your quote.

[qoute]People have a choice to believe the lies you spew or the truth in the scripture and in history.

There's only one spewing here and its not me.


Blessings though

Many times in this forum alone your story has had holes shot in it over and over, yet you continue to refuse truth as it subverts you position of faith, which is in a false teaching institution instead of the true bread of life.[/quote][/quote]
You have obviously not read the articles that I have posted multiple times showing that the pope in 1953 recognized that Peter had died and was buried in Jerusalem. The Bible says that Peter was the apostle to the Jews and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. No where in the Bible is it recorded that Peter was in Rome.

Keep believing lies and one day when it is too late you will recant and go into outer dardness weeping and gnashing your teeth. I am here to warn you, not to judge you. The RCC is leading many into the gates of hell.

 

[thessalonian]

Many times in this forum alone your story has had holes shot in it over and over, yet you continue to refuse truth as it subverts you position of faith, which is in a false teaching institution instead of the true bread of life.

[/quote]

Your a legend in your own mind.

You have obviously not read the articles that I have posted multiple times showing that the pope in 1953 recognized that Peter had died and was buried in Jerusalem. The Bible says that Peter was the apostle to the Jews and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. No where in the Bible is it recorded that Peter was in Rome.

I don't normally waste my time with links but I did go out and see your little story. At least a quick glance. It a kind of a he said he said thing. Even if Pius XII were to have said what is claimed it proves nothing. He can make mistakes in such matters and the historical evidence is that Peter died in Rome. But so what. Even if he didn't die in Rome it is a non-sequitor that he never went there and spent a great share of his life there. Yet the preponderance of evidence that you will ignore says that Peter was martyred upside down in Rome. Your historical handwaving has many more holes in it but I don't have the time to waste on someone who has his hands over his ears with everything I post.

Blessings


Keep believing lies and one day when it is too late you will recant and go into outer dardness weeping and gnashing your teeth. I am here to warn you, not to judge you. The RCC is leading many into the gates of hell.[/quote]

 

[SpiritualSon]

When the Lord preached, He did so in correspondences. Everything in nature is a correspondenes to the spiritual world. The Lord said, if any man hears My words and does them not, is like a man who builds his house on sand. It is the same as people who hear the Word of God and do nothing, are like people who build their homes on sand, below sea-level, like the city of New Orleans. When the rains, winds and floods came, no house stood up. I see the correspondences of things in this world. The city of New Orleans should had never had been build on that land. It was built there because of the lake. The correspondence of the sun in the Word means love, the moon means faith. The woman clothed with the sun, means the New Church, with the moon under her feet means faith. And upon the head a crown of twelve stars," signifies its wisdom and intelligence from the knowledges of Divine good and Divine truth from the Word. The child that was about to be delivered, means the doctrine of that church. The woman delivering the child in pain, means a difficult reception on account of the resistance against the New Church by those who are meant by the dragon.

Revelation 12:1-18 was meant against the Protestant Church. Verse 3. "And another sign was seen in heaven." This signifies revelation from the Lord concerning those who are against the New Church and its doctrine. Revelation 12:3 "And behold a great red dragon." This signifies those in the Protestant Church who make God into three persons and the Lord two; Who separate charity from faith, and make faith alone saving, and not charity and good works saving at the same time. "Having seven heads." This signifies insanity from the truths of the Word falsified and profaned. "And ten horns." This signifies much power. "And upon his heads seven diadems." This signifies all the truths of the Word falsified and profaned. The Catholic Church also made God into three persons, as the Protestant Church did, but the Catholic Church have not divided charity from faith. Martin Luther was warn by an angel not to divide charity from faith.

Harry

 

[thessalonian]

Revelation 12:1-18 was meant against the Protestant Church.

Yours is another Protestant Church Harry. Blessings though. A splinter sect with roots in Luther and his rebels. A part of the division that is not of God and there can only be one source.

 

[Solo]

Many times in this forum alone your story has had holes shot in it over and over, yet you continue to refuse truth as it subverts you position of faith, which is in a false teaching institution instead of the true bread of life.

Your a legend in your own mind.

Jesus is a legend, I am only his child.

You have obviously not read the articles that I have posted multiple times showing that the pope in 1953 recognized that Peter had died and was buried in Jerusalem. The Bible says that Peter was the apostle to the Jews and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. No where in the Bible is it recorded that Peter was in Rome.

I don't normally waste my time with links but I did go out and see your little story. At least a quick glance. It a kind of a he said he said thing. Even if Pius XII were to have said what is claimed it proves nothing. He can make mistakes in such matters and the historical evidence is that Peter died in Rome. But so what. Even if he didn't die in Rome it is a non-sequitor that he never went there and spent a great share of his life there. Yet the preponderance of evidence that you will ignore says that Peter was martyred upside down in Rome. Your historical handwaving has many more holes in it but I don't have the time to waste on someone who has his hands over his ears with everything I post.

Blessings

Perhaps if you started to read a little more outside of the RCC you would have a better idea of what you need to do to get out of the world of deception. There is no historical evidence that Peter died in Rome, nor is there any historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. There is historical evidence that Peter is buried in Jerusalem, and there is pleny of evidence that Peter ministered to the Jews and spent his life in Jerusalem. As I have said before, no where in the scriptures does it record that Peter was ever in Rome.

Keep believing lies and one day when it is too late you will recant and go into outer dardness weeping and gnashing your teeth. I am here to warn you, not to judge you. The RCC is leading many into the gates of hell.

 

[thessalonian]

Jesus is a legend, I am only his child.

Your Jesus child? I thought Christians were his brothers. Hey do you go along with that Oneness stuff. Your starting to sound like your God is that false one.

Perhaps if you started to read a little more outside of the RCC you would have a better idea of what you need to do to get out of the world of deception.

How do you know what I read and don't read. I read your silly posts. I've got many books by anti-catholics such as yourself like Lorainne Boetners pack of lies and half truths that are verifiable. Another book by a guy named Ron Gendron who says he was a faithful Catholic in one breathe and then in the next says he was leading a hedonistic lifestyle. I've read much of the tripe posted on many Protestant websites. It actually builds my faith because they have to go through such gyrations and fairy tales such as your article about Pius XII believing Peter died in Jerusalem, as if it would prove anything if he did. Of course it is all hush, hush super secret because this lie has been kept going since Irenaus. It's silly and shows how gullible you are. Anything to prop up your beliefs. Such distortions and half truths only confirm my Catholic faith so I actually do enjoy reading them and have read much Protestant propoganda on such things.

There is no historical evidence that Peter died in Rome, nor is there any historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. There is historical evidence that Peter is buried in Jerusalem, and there is pleny of evidence that Peter ministered to the Jews and spent his life in Jerusalem. As I have said before, no where in the scriptures does it record that Peter was ever in Rome.

You are truly blind. I've posted some and have much more. You don't back your statement that Eusibuis said Peter was never in Rome. I simply am supposed to take your word for these things and the word of your author that Pius XII believed a couple of priests who might have said what the story claims. Even if he did it only shows your ignorance of Catholicism becuase it proves nothing about the succession of the Papacy. Only that we might have some history wrong. Which we don't. It's of the same quality as Boetner's book where the was this supposed council of Toulouse that banned the Bible when there was no such council. And supposedly the bible was put on the list of forbidden books in 1256 when there was no such list for 300 more years. You guys just make your history up as you go to prop up your false religion.

 

[thessalonian]

Solo,

Please show proof that Eusibius says that Peter was not in Rome. You make a claim such as this you need to back it up.

I say you can't and your just taking a man's word for it.

 

[Solo]

Jesus is a legend, I am only his child.

Your Jesus child? I thought Christians were his brothers. Hey do you go along with that Oneness stuff. Your starting to sound like your God is that false one.




[quote:4bc2c]
Perhaps if you started to read a little more outside of the RCC you would have a better idea of what you need to do to get out of the world of deception.

How do you know what I read and don't read. I read your silly posts. I've got many books by anti-catholics such as yourself like Lorainne Boetners pack of lies and half truths that are verifiable. Another book by a guy named Ron Gendron who says he was a faithful Catholic in one breathe and then in the next says he was leading a hedonistic lifestyle. I've read much of the tripe posted on many Protestant websites. It actually builds my faith because they have to go through such gyrations and fairy tales such as your article about Pius XII believing Peter died in Jerusalem, as if it would prove anything if he did. Of course it is all hush, hush super secret because this lie has been kept going since Irenaus. It's silly and shows how gullible you are. Anything to prop up your beliefs. Such distortions and half truths only confirm my Catholic faith so I actually do enjoy reading them and have read much Protestant propoganda on such things.

There is no historical evidence that Peter died in Rome, nor is there any historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. There is historical evidence that Peter is buried in Jerusalem, and there is pleny of evidence that Peter ministered to the Jews and spent his life in Jerusalem. As I have said before, no where in the scriptures does it record that Peter was ever in Rome.

You are truly blind. I've posted some and have much more. You don't back your statement that Eusibuis said Peter was never in Rome. I simply am supposed to take your word for these things and the word of your author that Pius XII believed a couple of priests who might have said what the story claims. Even if he did it only shows your ignorance of Catholicism becuase it proves nothing about the succession of the Papacy. Only that we might have some history wrong. Which we don't. It's of the same quality as Boetner's book where the was this supposed council of Toulouse that banned the Bible when there was no such council. And supposedly the bible was put on the list of forbidden books in 1256 when there was no such list for 300 more years. You guys just make your history up as you go to prop up your false religion.[/quote:4bc2c]

Was Peter the Apostle to the Jews? Was Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles?
Does Jesus address the Church at Rome at anytime like he does the Church of Sardis, Philidelphia, Laodocia, Thyatira, Ephesus, Smyrna, and Pergamos?

All of the Churches in Asia minor that are mentioned in Revelation were not founded by Peter; instead they were founded by the preaching of the Apostle Paul, and perhaps Sardis by the Apostle John.

In all probability the church at Smyrna was founded by Paul during his third evangelistic journey (53-56 a.d.).

Sardis is said to have been the first city in that part of the world that was converted by the preaching of the apostle John.

The church in Ephesus was founded by the Apostle Paul (see Acts 18:19-21, 19:1-10). During his ministry the apostle Paul spent a total of about three years in Ephesus. He stay in the city longer than in any other where he preached the gospel.

Through the preaching of the apostle Paul at Philippi a woman named Lydia and her household became converted. She was a seller of purple, or rather of cloth dyed with this colour, who was from Thyatira ( Acts 16:14). Lydia may have been used by God to first carry the Gospel to her native town.

Philadelphia is a city of Natolia, seated at the foot of mount Tmolus, by the river Cogamus. It is about 25 miles south-east of Sardis. Philadelphia was founded by Attalus Philadelphus, brother of Eumenes, from whom it derived its name.

Paul traveled through Pergamus in one of his missionary journies.

The apostle Paul was very instrumental in planting the gospel in this city, from which he wrote a letter, as he mentions in the last chapter of Colossians.

 

[thessalonian]

Are you going to answer my question above.

Did Peter preach to any gentiles in scripture? yes, or no?

I don't care how many Churches Paul started and where from the standpoint of whether or not Peter was in Rome. I even acknowledge that Paul started the Church in Rome. Was Paul starting a different Church than Peter? How does Paul establishing the Christian faith prove that Peter was never in Rome? Talk about non-sequitor. How does Paul being apostle to the gentiles prove anything about Peter never being in Rome? Do you think there were any Jews in Rome? Or was the emporer just making nonsensical expulsions? You seem to be having great difficulty addressing what I ask and so must go off on tangents that do not address the issue at hand. All this has nothing to do with whether Peter was the head of the Church or not. Most companies I know of do not have the best engineer as the CEO. Your scriptures prove nothing.

 

[thessalonian]

I see I have to post this again to get an answer.

Solo,

Please show proof that Eusibius says that Peter was not in Rome. You make a claim such as this you need to back it up.

I say you can't and your just taking a man's word for it.

 

[Solo]

I see I have to post this again to get an answer.

Solo,

Please show proof that Eusibius says that Peter was not in Rome. You make a claim such as this you need to back it up.

I say you can't and your just taking a man's word for it.

Eusebius lived around 300 AD and is quoted as saying that Peter and Paul were in Rome. Eusebius also claimed to know where the graves of each were, but these graves were not where two popes claimed that the remains of Peter were. Today they are claimed to be at the Basilica, but Eusebius said that they were in cemeteries with markers; the Basilica was completed by the time Eusebius claimed to have knowledge of the tombs of Peter and Paul.

According to RCC legend, Peter would have been in Rome for about 16 years; and this would have been when Paul also was in Rome. Paul writes 4 letters from Rome, and one letter to the Romans, and lists the believers that were with him, and Peter is not mentioned one time.

I believe that Eusebius was mistaken in his assertion that Peter was in Rome. I believe that Paul would have noted his presence had he been there.

 

[thessalonian]

Your article says:

Eusebius, one of the most learned men of his time, wrote the Church history up to the year 325 A.D. He said that Peter never was in Rome.

You say:

Eusebius lived around 300 AD and is quoted as saying that Peter and Paul were in Rome.

I guess your author is a biased liar. Of course there are many othre obvious distortions in hs article.

Eusebius also claimed to know where the graves of each were, but these graves were not where two popes claimed that the remains of Peter were. Today they are claimed to be at the Basilica, but Eusebius said that they were in cemeteries with markers; the Basilica was completed by the time Eusebius claimed to have knowledge of the tombs of Peter and Paul.

Your article says that there was no evidence Peter was in Rome. Evidently a false claim. Eusibius is evidence and there is ALOT more. As far as the grave being in one place and not another. It is well known that the Catholic Church is not against taking the bones of a saint and moving them. Currently Peter's remains are under the Basillica at St. Peters. That does not mean they were there at the time of Eusibius and in fact they most likely were not. More lies by your author. Obsiously he cannot be trusted. And why does he go through such gyrations. Why doesn't he just start some conspiracy theory that the bones were moved from Jerusalem. Hey you could write such an article. I bet you would be good at rewriting history.

According to RCC legend, Peter would have been in Rome for about 16 years; and this would have been when Paul also was in Rome. Paul writes 4 letters from Rome, and one letter to the Romans, and lists the believers that were with him, and Peter is not mentioned one time.

Gee, George bush has been in Minnesota 4-5 times over the last four years and I haven't once written about him. I doudt that each time he is the Governor sends a letter out. I guess noone knows that George Bush was in Minnesota. I've seen some of Cardinal Ratzinger's leters before he became Pope. Don't recall any mention of JP II in them. Hey, James was in Jerusalem and he doesn't mention Peter at all. Why? There are all kinds of reasons why Paul might not mention Peter. I don't have time to list them. Such arguements as yours are silly.

I believe that Eusebius was mistaken in his assertion that Peter was in Rome. I believe that Paul would have noted his presence had he been there.

Lot's of handwaving here and a few lies from your author whom you put so much stock in that Peter was buried in jerusalem and their is a conspiracy by the Catholic Church to cover it up.

What I find interesting is all these Protestants, and you may well be one of them who say "oh, whore of Bablyon, that's the Catholic Church, see there in Rome". Yet when Peter mentions Babylon in his letters you are silent about the possibility that he cound mean Rome. he certainly doesn't mean the city that was destroyed 600 years earlier.

Blessings

 

[SpiritualSon]

To All,
The Lord is faith in man, therefore He is the Rock on which man must built his house on. Faith only comes from the Lord. No one can receive anything, unless it is given to him from heaven. The Most Ancient Church acknowledged no other faith than love itself or charity itself. The celestial angels as well do not know what faith is, except faith which stems from love. Love pervades the whole of heaven, for in the heavens no other life is found except the life that belongs to love. This is the source of all happiness in heaven, a happiness so great that no aspect of it can be described or in any way captured in human concepts. People in whom this love is present love the Lord wholeheartedly. Yet they realize, say, and perceive that all love, all life, which belongs exclusively to love, and so all happiness, come from the Lord and nowhere else, and that they derive not one trace of love, life, and happiness from themselves. The Lord's being the source of all love was again represented by the greater light, that is, the sun, at the Transfiguration, for His face shone like the sun, and His garments became white as the light, Matthew 17:2. What is inmost is meant by His face, and what emanates from the inmost by His garments. His Divinity is meant by the sun or love, and His Humanity by the light or wisdom coming from love.

Revelation 3:2
Verse 2. Be watchful. This signifies they who are in truths and life according to them. By "watching," in the Word, nothing else is signified; for he who learns truths and lives according to them, is like one who is awakened out of sleep and becomes watchful, and builts his house, which is his soul on the Lord; for the Lord is the Rock on which man must be regenerated on. But he who is not in truths, but only in worship, is like one who sleeps and dreams. Natural life, considered in itself, or without spiritual life, is nothing else but sleep; but natural life, in which there is spiritual life, is watchfulness; and this cannot be acquired otherwise than by truths, which are in their own light and in their own day, when man is in the life according to them.

Such is signified by "watching" in the following passages:
Watch, for ye know not in what hour the Lord will come Matthew 24:42.
Happy are those servants whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: Be ye therefore ready, for the Son of man will come at an hour when ye think not Luke 12:37-40.

Harry :fadein: