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.
You know that. The early Christians spread Christianity by word of mouth. people knew about the Jesusu before the gospels were published many years later.
Paul and Peter were heroes as soon as they were martyred together in Rome.
You really need to read something besides Catholic teachings....
Peter is the most prominent disciple of Jesus. To deny that requires some serious "denial" of the gospels or worst "serious misunderstanding".
Your ignorance of scripture is abysmal.
Your words are un-Christian.
Quote:
Anyone with a rudimentary bible knowledge knows Paul tutored Tim.
Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
Yes as a minister of the Gospel. Just as Aquila and his wife tutored Apollos.
Quote:
Anyone knows Paul spend 15 days in training with Peter.
Please provide the reference in Scripture. Though so what, Paul was also tutored by Barnabas.
[/quote]Anyone knows that Peter trained Mark who wrote the Gospel.[/quote]
Peter did help him and provide information, but so did others as a congregation met in his and his mother's home.
[/quote]Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John.[/quote]
So were many others including many, if not all, of the ones who were responsible for the mess in Rev 2 and 3,
[/quote]This concept that the apostles never transmitted their knowledge and ways by Oral Tradition and Apostolic Succession is misinformation by the Sola Scriptura folks that do not understand thet THERE WAS NO CANON OF THE NT during those days.
Wow!![/quote]
Uh the words nor the position are ever spoken of as a succession. That is from the desire of men for prominence. Paul actually warned about that.
DRA 2 Corinthians 11:12 But what I do, that I will do: that I may cut off the occasion from them that desire occasion: that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.13 For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
NIV Titus 1:16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
The history of the Papacy is full of lying, scheming, murder and hatred for others. Their works expose them. Evidence God was not and is not with such. Note of any religion, not just the RCC.
Forgive them------for they do not know what they are doing
The entire argument against Peter is based on the fact that Peter did not move to the vatican.
This has got to be the weakest argument in the world to deflect the primacy of Peter among the disciples and the fact that Jesus favored Peter by giving him the keys.
It is really laughable that they cling to such a weak argument.
Nevertheless Peter wrote from Babylon which was the hidden key word for Pagan Rome when it persecuted Christians. Also known as the ***** of babylon.
Was Babylon actually Rome mentioned in 1 Peter? These Bible scholars say no;
Thomas Horne, in his Introduction, vol. 4: p. 425, mentions the following.
Quote:
According to Bishop Pearson, Mill, and Le Clerc, it was Babylon in Egypt; according to Erasmus, Drusius, Beza, Dr. Lightfoot, Basnage, Beausobre, Dr. Cave, Wetstein, Drs. Benson and A. Clarke, it was Babylon in Assyria; according to Michaelis, it was Babylon in Mesopotamia; and according to Grotius, Drs. Whitby, Lardner, Macknight, and Hales, Bishop Tomline, and all the learned of the Romish communion, it is to be taken figuratively for Rome, according to what was done by John in Revelation 17:and 18:What renders the last opinion very improbable is, that to date an epistle at a place to which a figurative name is given, is without another instance in Scripture, and the thing itself seems quite absurd. The language of prophecy is quite a different matter. Paul wrote several of his epistles at Rome, and in no instance did he do anything of this kind. Such an opinion would have never gained ground, had there not been from early times a foolish attempt to connect Peter with Rome.
Part of the reason for the confusion is that there were two-three towns named Babylon at that time, and that Roman Catholics believe that the Babylon in the Book of Revelation/Apocalypse refers to Rome, so the verse in 1 Peter probably does as well.
Catholics are correct that the Babylon in the Book of Revelation is Rome, as the following Catholic scholar wrote:
Quote:
There was a strong anti-Roman tradition in the early Church. Rome was the harlot city soaked in the blood of the saints, the centre from which spread out wave after wave of persecution. The Book of Revelations’ gloating vision of the coming ruin of Rome, ‘Fallen, fallen, is Babylon the great’ (Revelations 14:8), remained a persistent strand so long as the empire continued to persecute the church, and survived even into the Middle Ages (Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. Yale University Press, New Haven (CT), 2002, pp.2,6).
I can certainly understand the need to grasp onto a belief that Peter was in Rome and the whole Apostolic-Papal Succession thing. It's the glue holding their house together. So every argument will be met with "weak." These are not stories made up by a bunch of "Anti-Catholic Sola Scriptura" thugs out to discredit the Mother Church. These are highly respected, noted biblical scholars from all walks of life and training that studied biblical history most if not all of their adult lives. They are not trying to destroy anything nor are they trying to protect anything.
Also, what makes no sense is, if there was such a thing as "Apostolic Succession" then the Apostle John would have followed Peter because John lived another 30 years after Peter died.
I can certainly understand the need to grasp onto a belief that Peter was in Rome and the whole Apostolic-Papal Succession thing. It's the glue holding their house together.
Not at all. There was no vatican or any church property in Rome when Peter was elected. Rome has no importance as to the papacy in that era. In fact, the papacy was once in France.
I think some forums are confused. Perhaps they think each Pope is ordained by the prior Pope to keep the chain going. They don't realize that the priests that become Pope have already been ordained by someone else in the world and that is the chain that goes back to the Apostles.
I just read that it is unChristian to say Peter was the most prominent disciple.
The only thing the Sola Scriptura folks do to put up a feeble fight is to say Peter did not live in Rome.
In any event Peter died in Rome. This was a known fact in the first three centuries of Christianity.
Really? What? Atheist teachings on the RCC? Oh that would be smart. geesh,
I suggest you start here. This is not written by atheists. The insight is eyeopening, for those bold enough to read it objectively.
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.
