Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
>>These things cannot be known and at most this is accepted by faith. <<
Or simple gullibility.
>>He is always named first <<
Perhaps you haven't noticed. This practice ended in Acts of the Apostles and James began to be named first since he became the boss.
No he didn't. That's just the story interpolated into Matthew which I quoted above and demonstrated some of the errors it contains.(eg contradicts John 1 on when and by whom Simon was told Jesus was the messiah and when Jesus changed his name, etc.)
Acts 12:17 ASV American Standard Version:
"But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him forth out of the prison. And he said, Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went to another place." And he's not heard from again!
And we never hear of Peter being in Rome in either Paul's Epistles or Acts of the Apostles. It may be the place Peter went was Babylon on the Euphrates which was the largest center of Jews and Jewish learning outside of Israel.
Second century writers (starting in 180 AD) claimed that Peter moved to Rome. But the epistles of Paul all written before 64 AD, and Acts of the Apostles written about 80 AD do not place Peter in Rome. And Clement's first letter to the Corinthians written in 96 AD seems to still have Peter somewhere in the East, not in the West or martyred in Rome.
When James the leader of the first Jerusalem community was murdered, Simon, another of Jesus' brother, assumed leadership. But in 125 AD (under Titus) Jerusalem and hence the Jerusalem community was destroyed.
What remained wher the Christian communities outside of Israel. A several of these had been founded by Paul.
No he didn't. That's just the story interpolated into Matthew which I quoted above and demonstrated some of the errors it contains.(eg contradicts John 1 on when and by whom Simon was told Jesus was the messiah and when Jesus changed his name, etc.)
Acts 12:17 ASV American Standard Version:
"But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him forth out of the prison. And he said, Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went to another place." And he's not heard from again!
And we never hear of Peter being in Rome in either Paul's Epistles or Acts of the Apostles. It may be the place Peter went was Babylon on the Euphrates which was the largest center of Jews and Jewish learning outside of Israel.
Second century writers (starting in 180 AD) claimed that Peter moved to Rome. But the epistles of Paul all written before 64 AD, and Acts of the Apostles written about 80 AD do not place Peter in Rome. And Clement's first letter to the Corinthians written in 96 AD seems to still have Peter somewhere in the East, not in the West or martyred in Rome.
When James the leader of the first Jerusalem community was murdered, Simon, another of Jesus' brother, assumed leadership. But in 125 AD (under Titus) Jerusalem and hence the Jerusalem community was destroyed.
What remained wher the Christian communities outside of Israel. A several of these had been founded by Paul.
Pauline Christianity is what we have today.
Paul was influential because he was vastly more educated than the fishermen that followed Jesus. Because of his education he obviously had much more to say than the other disciples (who were not formally educated). It is no accident that he wrote most of the NT. However, Paul was not one of the 12 and Paul was not hand picked by Jesus.
Lastly the Gospels and Peter were likely written by unknown authors that attributed their writings to known figures to make them more valid.
But, regardless of authorship Matthew 16: 18-19 is a very powerful statement and the CC founders seized the moment. IMO, the whereabouts of Peter are moot. Jesus did not specify that Peter needed to go to Rome. We will never know where Peter traveled. Just because Paul ignored Peter does not give you the authority to read the mind of Paul regarding things Paul did not write.
You guys are trying to change history, but that is a difficult task 2000 years later. The early Christians believed that Peter was the first leader and that is the way it goes. There was no conspiracy back them.
You guys are trying to change history, but that is a difficult task 2000 years later. The early Christians believed that Peter was the first leader and that is the way it goes. There was no conspiracy back them.
Please supply a quote and source from ANY 1st century Christian writer who ever said Peter was the primary Apostle, etc AND anyone up to the middle of the second century as well. "Christians" in the 1st century did not see Peter as you claim. That is a later doctrine to support A church and its desire for primacy.
1. Thee is not a lot of evidence that Peter ever went to Rome, much less that he was Bishop of Rome, or that he was crucified there.
2. There isn't a lot of evidence that this was Peters bone.
3. Even if this is his bone, why the need to worship it?
No proof of Jesus being the son of God, either.
Worship Peter's bones? Please educate yourself from Catholic sources instead of repeating anti-Catholic vitriol.
Peter not being and dying in Rome is a great argument against Catholicism. Continuing to believe in something just because it agrees with your Protestantism and because it gives you hope that you are on the right side of Christianity is quite frankly, pathetic. Go down to Walmart, Aisle 22, about half way down on the right, second shelf from the top. They have something you desperately need: Reason and Logic.
"I'm not going to believe in that because it messes everything up.....so there!"
Jesus was a trailblazer, a pioneer, a mover and a shaker. He changed the world and challenged the status quo at every turn. He said follow me, but be aware that you will probably go it alone possibly forsaking your own family. Are you walking in the footsteps of Jesus or are you hiding out in a safe comfortable place? Think about it and challenge yourself. There's a whole other world out there that's bright and lit up. Seek and you shall find. For God's sake, SEEK!
Maybe you won't agree with these books, but at least you would be "seeking" and at least attempting to get all the possible perspectives, and along with a open heart and mind, allow yourself to come to an educated conclusion using, god forbid, reason and logic...and faith.
Last edited by GoodToBeHome; 12-01-2013 at 01:06 PM..
Please supply a quote and source from ANY 1st century Christian writer who ever said Peter was the primary Apostle, etc AND anyone up to the middle of the second century as well. "Christians" in the 1st century did not see Peter as you claim. That is a later doctrine to support A church and its desire for primacy.
As many great characters in history Peter was recognized later and not while he was alive. As events unfolded in the first century the Christians of that era did not know in which direction they were going.
The supremacy of Peter became common knowledge in the second century and his death in Rome was all that was needed to establish the link to Peter. This was so well known that Saint Peters was built over the tomb of Peter. Otherwise, why would they do that? There were no Protestants in that era so there was no need to deceive other Christians.
Please supply a quote and source from ANY 1st century Christian writer who ever said Peter was the primary Apostle, etc AND anyone up to the middle of the second century as well. "Christians" in the 1st century did not see Peter as you claim. That is a later doctrine to support A church and its desire for primacy.
Peter becomes head of the apostles
In especially solemn fashion Christ accentuated Peter's precedence among the Apostles, when, after Peter had recognized Him as the Messias, He promised that he would be head of His flock. Jesus was then dwelling with His Apostles in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, engaged on His work of salvation. As Christ's coming agreed so little in power and glory with the expectations of the Messias, many different views concerning Him were current. While journeying along with His Apostles, Jesus asks them: "Whom do men say that the Son of man is?" The Apostles answered: "Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets". Jesus said to them: "But whom do you say that I am?" Simon said: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God". And Jesus answering said to him: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock], and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven". Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21).
By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ. This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words "bind" and "loose" are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ. Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops.
Entirely inconsistent and in itself untenable is the position of Protestants who (like Schnitzer in recent times) assert that the primacy of the Roman bishops cannot be deduced from the precedence which Peter held among the Apostles. Just as the essential activity of the Twelve Apostles in building up and extending the Church did not entirely disappear with their deaths, so surely did the Apostolic Primacy of Peter not completely vanish. As intended by Christ, it must have continued its existence and development in a form appropriate to the ecclesiastical organism, just as the office of the Apostles continued in an appropriate form.
Objections have been raised against the genuineness of the wording of the passage, but the unanimous testimony of the manuscripts, the parallel passages in the other Gospels, and the fixed belief of pre-Constantine literature furnish the surest proofs of the genuineness and untampered state of the text of Matthew (cf. "Stimmen aus MariaLaach", I, 1896,129 sqq.; "Theologie und Glaube", II, 1910, 842 sqq.).
Worship Peter's bones? Please educate yourself from Catholic sources instead of repeating anti-Catholic vitriol.
Peter not being and dying in Rome is a great argument against Catholicism. Continuing to believe in something just because it agrees with your Protestantism and because it gives you hope that you are on the right side of Christianity is quite frankly, pathetic. Go down to Walmart, Aisle 22, about half way down on the right, second shelf from the top. They have something you desperately need: Reason and Logic.
"I'm not going to believe in that because it messes everything up.....so there!"
Jesus was a trailblazer, a pioneer, a mover and a shaker. He changed the world and challenged the status quo at every turn. He said follow me, but be aware that you will probably go it alone possibly forsaking your own family. Are you walking in the footsteps of Jesus or are you hiding out in a safe comfortable place? Think about it and challenge yourself. There's a whole other world out there that's bright and lit up. Seek and you shall find. For God's sake, SEEK!
Maybe you won't agree with these books, but at least you would be "seeking" and at least attempting to get all the possible perspectives, and along with a open heart and mind, allow yourself to come to an educated conclusion using, god forbid, reason and logic...and faith.
1. Thee is not a lot of evidence that Peter ever went to Rome, much less that he was Bishop of Rome, or that he was crucified there.
2. There isn't a lot of evidence that this was Peters bone.
3. Even if this is his bone, why the need to worship it?
1) There is "some" evidence that Peter was rounded up in Antioch and transported to Rome to be interrogated and eventually crucified. There is no real evidence that Peter was THE leader of THE church in Rome. More likely there were several churches in Rome, most of which probably did not knw about eachother. Sorry, I do not have a source handy.
2) yep!
3) in theory, Christiana/Catholics do not "worship" relics, but you know it it goes, especially in the middle ages, an age of ignorance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
