What's new
By:
Filters
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!

There Is No Proof Of Peter Ever Going To Rome

Lewis

Lewis

Member
So tell me Lewis, why did protestants have to lie about Peter never going to rome? If they are so hell bent on proving something that the Catholics know to be true as false (i.e. that Peter went to rome) then it seems that there whole basis for forming truth is messed up. I would also be that at some point you yourself have used the arguement that Peter was never in Rome.

With regard to the Simon Magnus fairy tail, so what if the Catholic Encyclopedia says he went to Rome. The biggest problem with the theory that he started the Catholic Church is that the name Simon does not equal the name Peter. Secondly, your artilces site the evidence that proves Peter the Apostle was in Rome from the church fathers, but then later inserts Simon Magnus in to the leadership role that these very same Church fathers speak about in Rome. Bottom line Lewis is that your articles and you are using the same prejudice to interpret history and scripture as those who say Peter was never in Rome. In the end the truth doesn't really matter to you.

Blessings
 
I never debate Catholic topics, as I know must of you know. But Thess, Lewis did ask a honest question. One that should be proven for the position that you hold. With out pointing fingers at protestants etc. I think you should set that all aside and answer the man's question.
 
Atonement said:
I never debate Catholic topics, as I know must of you know. But Thess, Lewis did ask a honest question. One that should be proven for the position that you hold. With out pointing fingers at protestants etc. I think you should set that all aside and answer the man's question.
Click to expand...

The same question could be asked of the topic of sola scriptura and sola fide among many others. It is pointless to answer his question because it is not asked with the intention of objectively examining the evidence. Further his "quest" for proof relies on the false doctrine of sola scriptura. The only proof he will take is something out of the bible. I don't limit my evidence to scripture alone. His articles did a good job of articulating that Peter was in Rome. The position that he was not has enough support as to be worthy of little doudt. But those who want to will find a way, just as democrats continue to support abortion and gay marriage, though it is untenable. Nobody "proves" these things wrong for them and so they go on believing error.
 
The same question could be asked of the topic of sola scriptura and sola fide among many others. It is pointless to answer his question because it is not asked with the intention of objectively examining the evidence.
Click to expand...

Then why did you respond at all to this thread? I find it pointless to respond and not provide an answer. But cause an argument that seize to never end here.

Catholics vs. Protestants
one on one

Just answer the man's question or don't respond, Plain and Simple. But it seems as an outsider that you can not prove it or you would! But instead you must argue a point that has no substance but only error to being argumentive.
 
thessalonian said:
Yes, it is always Catholics being arguementive. :-?
Click to expand...

See there you are point fingers again. I'm being nice and understanding and you come off with a heated bad attitude. Don't respond unless you can answer the man's questions okay... Or your post will be deleted for not following context..
 
Atonement said:
See there you are point fingers again. I'm being nice and understanding and you come off with a heated bad attitude. Don't respond unless you can answer the man's questions okay... Or your post will be deleted for not following context..
Click to expand...
I have no particular empathy with Catholic beliefs - I have not studied them.

But of this there is no doubt - the Catholic posters have clearly been less argumentative and more reasonable in their comportment.
 
Atonement said:
Maybe in the past, but not here on this thread Drew. Thank you for your reponse.

God Bless you
Keith
Click to expand...
I would suggest that the use of the word "garbage" in the OP is clearly argumentative. I will drop this issue and give you the last word if you wish, so that we can return to the topic.
 
I think the issue seems rather simple. Why would the early Christians consider Peter to have been the first bishop of Rome if Peter was never there? Why was Rome given primacy, even by the church that does not acknolwdge Papal authority? If Peter's presence in Rome was fabricated by Catholics to trick the Christian world into submission then I think the Eastern churches would contest this and would clearly not consider Rome to be the "first among equals".

Do you know that all the ancient Councils formative to the Christian faith, such as Nicea, whereby the bishops of the Christian world assembled and authoratatively declared the normative wordings of Christian doctrine acknowledged the primacy of the Roman Episcopate? And that it was regarded so because of Peter?

Christian writings in the second century testify to the conviction that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. This is evidence right there. I guess the real question is what evidence do you have to show that Peter was never in Rome?
 
Was Saint Peter the first Pope?

Question: "Was Saint Peter the first Pope?"

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the Book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.â€Â

The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes, were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,†from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.

But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the Church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the Church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,†a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome, comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding†authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

Also, nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into†those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).

What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,†but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...†(Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).

Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic no. Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere is his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the Gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock†that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader†over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Bible pope, Bible papacy and The Word of God by James McCarthy.

Retrieved from http://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html
 
Every time that I hear about Peter being the first Pope' I want to bust out laughing' why ? Because it's a joke to me and millions of others. Peter was not the first Pope. And you all can't prove it' and you never will be able to prove it. And plus Peter would not have been the leader of a church who has doctrines' that are off the mark. Simply put just not Biblical. He just would not have done that. If Peter could come back today' he would condem' the RCC.
 
Lewis W said:
Every time that I hear about Peter being the first Pope' I want to bust out laughing' why ? Because it's a joke to me and millions of others. Peter was not the first Pope. And you all can't prove it' and you never will be able to prove it. And plus Peter would not have been the leader of a church who has doctrines' that are off the mark. Simply put just not Biblical. He just would not have done that. If Peter could come back today' he would condem' the RCC.
Click to expand...

The mormons and Jw's agree with you. Isn't that nice. You are blinded by your own understanding. Prov 3:5. Proof can never be attained for someone who does not want to look at the evidence. You of course say that of me but in fact I have looked at the historical and biblical evidence in detail and have in fact considered if it could be wrong quite extensively. Catholicis is beyond the grasp of man but not beyond his reason. Outside looking in you will never understand it except by the grace of God.
 
However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding†authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).
Click to expand...

Another edited twisting of Catholic theology again solo. The loosing and binding was given collectively to all the Apostles. The councils which are successors of all the Apostles have this authority. The council includes the Pope. Acts 15 is an excellent example of this authority of the group.

Peter in Matt 16 was singularly given the authority of binding and loosing. This is clear. Peter was a leader of the 12. In scripture this is overwhelmingly clear as he is always named first, is said to be first, though Andrew was chosen before him, always speaks when a question is directd at the twelve, is referred to far more than any of the twelve and many other things I could say that make it clear Peter was the leader.

Of course you will insist that a Catholic of 48 years does not know what he is talking about becuase you know Catholicism better than I. Oh well.
 
thessalonian said:
Another fine display of ignorance and twisting of Catholic theology again solo. The loosing and binding was given collectively to all the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Solo, excuse me for jumping in here. Thess is not attempting to deal with your comments.

Thess makes an assertion that the apostles are in all the texts of "binding and loosing." This is a mere assertion, and he will not defend it. Let me quote the text.
17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This is the same phrase found it Matthew 16:19.
19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

First, notice Matthew 18 presents a problem between two people. By verse 17 the problem goes before the assembly or Church. Who then makes a decision in Matthew 18? Where are the apostles in this process? In Romes dogma, Peter has the keys of the kingdom, and he has the authority to bind and loose. That is how they think the office of pope is being created. Matthew 18 is a serious issue that Thess will only dodge by claiming only he can interpret Catholic dogma, because he has been a Catholic for 48 years.

thessalonian said:
The councils which are successors of all the Apostles have this authority. The council includes the Pope. Acts 15 is an excellent example of this authority of the group.
Click to expand...

Notice the dodge here. Suddenly the Pope is nothing more then another apostle. Thess here presents the Pope is just another guy hanging out at the Jerusalem council. What is this? Now Thess is telling us that the Pope never intended to preside over the Church? Peter was never a prince of apostles. The pope never claimed to be "Pontificus Maximus?" It seems to me that if anyone presided over the Jerusalam conference it was not "Pontificus Maximus" but it was the half brother of our Lord, James.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me:................
19 Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God;

We see no binding and loosing authority of Peter within Acts 15 and we see no binding and loosing authority of the 12 in Acts 15, but rather we see the Jerusalem Church requesting certain things of the Gentiles.

thessalonian said:
Peter in Matt 16 was singularly given the authority of binding and loosing. This is clear. Peter was a leader of the 12. In scripture this is overwhelmingly clear as he is always named first, is said to be first, though Andrew was chosen before him, always speaks when a question is directd at the twelve, is referred to far more than any of the twelve and many other things I could say that make it clear Peter was the leader.
Click to expand...
Yes, Peter was a leader. He was most likely older then many of the other apostles. He was one of the three in the innermost circle. On the other hand, John was the one loved by Christ.
23 There was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
24 Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and saith unto him, Tell us who it is of whom he speaketh.
Notice at the upper room discourse that Peter has to beckon to John to ask Jesus as question. Now the head seats next to Jesus are seats of honor. Why does Peter have to becon to John to ask a question, and why is John the one called "whom Jesus loved."

thessalonian said:
Of course you will insist that a Catholic of 48 years does not know what he is talking about becuase you know Catholicism better than I. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Even if you know more then Solo about Roman dogma, that is a meaningless brag. Do you claim infallible knowledge of Roman dogma? Is Solo permitted to disagree with you? So are you so innerrant and infallible that you need not quote original sources stating Roman dogma?
 
Even if you know more then Solo about Roman dogma, that is a meaningless brag. Do you claim infallible knowledge of Roman dogma? Is Solo permitted to disagree with you? So are you so innerrant and infallible that you need not quote original sources stating Roman dogma?
Click to expand...

So if a nuclear physicist is correcting me on nuclear physics it is a meaningless brag if he tells me about his phd in physics? Facts are facts. It is not bragging to note that I have 48 years in studying Catholicism. Credentials are not bragging. Solo is like a grade school kid telling a college graduate that he knows better.

The teachings of the Catechism are made plain in the teachings of the councils and the catechism. Your questoin may make sense in protestantism but it does not in Catholicism. The teachings of the Catholic Church are plain.
 
Let me add this, I think there is evidence of Peter being in Rome. I do not have the evidence before me, and am not sure if I could even find it. One of the Church Fathers speaks of both Peter and Paul being crusified in Rome. It is based upon statements of only one Church Father, and so the evidence is slim.

Nevertheless, this evidence is a far cry from establishing that Peter was a functioning bishop in Rome. It is a great and huge leap to go from one father who says Peter was crusified in Rome to establishing that he was the first practicing Pope in a fully developed Roman system.

Where does Clement mention this?
 
Notice the dodge here. Suddenly the Pope is nothing more then another apostle.
Click to expand...
'

Edited: It is no dodge. The popes ratify the council. The popes are members of the council. The council has equal authority to a pope. This fits with scripture of which you really prove nothing as you claim I cannot and dodge defending your beliefs by attacking mine. :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top