There Is No Proof

[Lewis]

There is no proof that Peter was ever in Rome and became the first Pope. I am posting 2 articles below, 1 says No and the other says yes. Draw your on conclusions. And until I am convinced I still say no.

Was the Apostle Peter Ever in the City of Rome?
http://www.christianbeliefs.org/articles/peter&rome.html

Was the Apostle Peter Ever in Rome?
http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/miscstudies/peterrome.htm

 

[follower]

(Edited. Off topic. Obadiah.)

 

[Lewis]

(Deleted. Response to deleted post. Obadiah)

 

[Obadiah]

Let's all think about what the topic actually is before responding to it. K?

And since I can see this easily slipping into a debate about Catholic doctrine, let's remember that is against the rules here, so let's not let it head that way.

 

[Lewis]

Let's all think about what the topic actually is before responding to it. K?

And since I can see this easily slipping into a debate about Catholic doctrine, let's remember that is against the rules here, so let's not let it head that way.

No it is not' unless someone takes it there. This is about Peter ever being in Rome. And if the Catholics are mentioned as long as they are not bashed will there still be a problem ?

 

[Obadiah]

No it is not' unless someone takes it there. This is about Peter ever being in Rome. And if the Catholics are mentioned as long as they are not bashed will there still be a problem ?

That's part of ToS 2.2 where it specifically says "Discussion of Catholic doctrine is limited and will only be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs." I think I would agree that the "spirit" of this rule is to prevent bashing as well as prevent promoting of Catholic doctrine. In the past these things have been big problems, so I've been told. I think as long as the Catholic aspect doesn't turn into an argument, an insult-fest, or a promotion or defense of the RCC I won't personally have a problem with it. I guess if a member makes a report of any posts, we'll have to just make individual calls on those should it happen.

In the meantime, lets try to figure out if Peter took a Roman holiday or not! 2

 

[Sinthesis]

(Edited. Off topic and trolling. ToS 2.4. Obadiah) Was Peter in Rome? Yes. If one believes otherwise then perhaps they should explain how Jesus fulfilled Matt 16:18, in their view.

 

[Knotical]

(Edited. Off topic and trolling. ToS 2.4. Obadiah) Was Peter in Rome? Yes. If one believes otherwise then perhaps they should explain how Jesus fulfilled Matt 16:18, in their view.

What does that have to do with Peter ever being in Rome.

Honestly, why does someone actually have to be in Rome in order to be Pope. Peter could have been Pope prior to the church establishing its headquarters in Rome.

 

[th1b.taylor]

This entire string is nonsense. This is a distraction used by Satan to keep us off subject, the subject being Faith as taught by the recorded and preserved Word of God. The name of the first Pope matter not.

 

[Sinthesis]

What does that have to do with Peter ever being in Rome.

Honestly, why does someone actually have to be in Rome in order to be Pope. Peter could have been Pope prior to the church establishing its headquarters in Rome.

Given Matt 16:18, as long as one can acknowledge that Jesus' church was built upon Peter, and His church ultimately prevails even against the gates of hell, then all that is left to question is the nature of the church which Pope Peter founded. If not headquartered in Rome, then where was this church established? Why would Jesus hide His church?

 

[follower]

In fact, no mention is made of Peter ever being in Rome at ANY time in the 27 documents of the oldest existing record of the Christian Faith. The Apostle Paul wrote an Epistle to the church at Rome, named approximately SIXTEEN (16) people, by name, and never mentioned Peter. That was NO oversight on his part. Peter was never there! Peter's tomb was also discovered outside *Jerusalem*; there is historical documentation to verify this factor. Even if that were not the case, Paul's neglect at mentioning Peter, in Romans 16, is INEXCUSABLE, if Peter were Head of the Church.
As far as anyone can determine today, Peter did not support any current church today, though many try to claim some kind of hand-me-down authority from Peter or other Apostles.

There's no worldwide headquarters nor reason to think there'd be a headquarters for the true ekklesia.

 

[th1b.taylor]

In fact, no mention is made of Peter ever being in Rome at ANY time in the 27 documents of the oldest existing record of the Christian Faith. The Apostle Paul wrote an Epistle to the church at Rome, named approximately SIXTEEN (16) people, by name, and never mentioned Peter. That was NO oversight on his part. Peter was never there! Peter's tomb was also discovered outside *Jerusalem*; there is historical documentation to verify this factor. Even if that were not the case, Paul's neglect at mentioning Peter, in Romans 16, is INEXCUSABLE, if Peter were Head of the Church.
As far as anyone can determine today, Peter did not support any current church today, though many try to claim some kind of hand-me-down authority from Peter or other Apostles.

There's no worldwide headquarters nor reason to think there'd be a headquarters for the true ekklesia.

Follower,
Please, what didderance does any of this have to do with your faith? For that line of thought, what good can come of this for anybodies faith?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Maybe Peter wasn't the first Pope.
(Edited, ToS 2.4, Trolling. Obadiah)

 

[Knotical]

Maybe Peter wasn't the first Pope.
(Edited, ToS 2.4, Trolling. Obadiah)

 

[turnorburn]

The church was built upon the Rock Jesus Christ not Peter the pope was built upon Pontifex Maximus..Today, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, is still called the Pontifex Maximus. It's a political or governing office that has been in existence and in perpetual use for nearly 3,000 years.. Peter was crucified under Roman rule and was buried in Jerusalem, at least that's what i was taught what the world teaches is anyone's guess..

tob

 

[jasonc]

oh, the early church was at one time hq'd at rome. doesn't make the rcc the church as they say but it doesn't mean they weren't either. if that is what synthesis is saying. I agree. I don't think peter was a pope. the papacy didn't exist then, not even at the time of the nicean council.

 

[Lewis]

In fact, no mention is made of Peter ever being in Rome at ANY time in the 27 documents of the oldest existing record of the Christian Faith. The Apostle Paul wrote an Epistle to the church at Rome, named approximately SIXTEEN (16) people, by name, and never mentioned Peter. That was NO oversight on his part. Peter was never there! Peter's tomb was also discovered outside *Jerusalem*; there is historical documentation to verify this factor. Even if that were not the case, Paul's neglect at mentioning Peter, in Romans 16, is INEXCUSABLE, if Peter were Head of the Church.
As far as anyone can determine today, Peter did not support any current church today, though many try to claim some kind of hand-me-down authority from Peter or other Apostles.

There's no worldwide headquarters nor reason to think there'd be a headquarters for the true ekklesia.

 

[th1b.taylor]

The church was built upon the Rock Jesus Christ not Peter the pope was built upon Pontifex Maximus..Today, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, is still called the Pontifex Maximus. It's a political or governing office that has been in existence and in perpetual use for nearly 3,000 years.. Peter was crucified under Roman rule and was buried in Jerusalem, at least that's what i was taught what the world teaches is anyone's guess..

tob

TOB,
The highlighted in your post is about 1000 years wrong. And the rest just doesn't matter.

 

[follower]

somewhere it is written there is no other way , maybe no other authority,
by which anyone can be saved;
so if an authority is using a false teaching, it is best that be brought ought in
the open ,
especially as it is "the truth" that can set people free (from sin, from death, from satan, even from themselves).

 

[turnorburn]

How is the office of Pontifex Maximus is 1000 years wrong Bill?

tob