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.
I would like to know where in the NT Peter is given a chair to rule and where does a bishop rule over the believers, to decide over life and death? I have seen in the Spirit only two thrones. One was sitting the Lord, all was light and the other was the devil, filled with darkness. When a Lutheran pastor said on a funeral "we all go to Heaven", I saw a black chair over his head. Every one can make a claim, have an opinion or an interpretation, but what is spiritual truth? It is the word of God interpreted by the Holy Spirit. The bible is not written in our heart, it is the law of God, what is right and what is evil, the word of God confirms it as a path of light, which the believer has to go, it is the narrow way.
For ages, Protestants and Catholics have debated over Peter being the 'Vicar of Christ" and highest authority within the Church after Christ left. This debate is nice and all, but I've never seen anyone successfully connect the dots sufficient for me to believe the Pope of Rome (aka the Bishop of Rome) is in any way the rightful successor of Peter. I think there is ample evidence to suggest that Peter was the chief apostle, but I can't for the life of me comprehend what that has to do with the Bishop of Rome. I think you gotta connect Peter to the Bishop of Rome or the entire debate is pointless.
Can you do it? Can you convincingly demonstrate that the Bishop of Rome is the rightful successor of Peter?
For ages, Protestants and Catholics have debated over Peter being the 'Vicar of Christ" and highest authority within the Church after Christ left. This debate is nice and all, but I've never seen anyone successfully connect the dots sufficient for me to believe the Pope of Rome (aka the Bishop of Rome) is in any way the rightful successor of Peter. I think there is ample evidence to suggest that Peter was the chief apostle, but I can't for the life of me comprehend what that has to do with the Bishop of Rome. I think you gotta connect Peter to the Bishop of Rome or the entire debate is pointless.
Can you do it? Can you convincingly demonstrate that the Bishop of Rome is the rightful successor of Peter?
Thunder, that is an excellent point to raise. Kind of the "keystone" if you will to everything else the Roman church teaches about itself. Without it, nothing else matters.
I see where Peter was usually the spokesman for the Apostles, I never see where he was given any authority over them, however by the time Paul comes to Jerusalem for the conference it seems Peter has taken a back seat to the Bishop of Jerusalem who is given the last word in that meeting. And of course later Paul has to correct Peter face to face about his conduct. And even Peter claims that all of Paul's letters are scripture.
So like yourself, I see no evidence for Peter becoming the head of any church much less the entire faith. Also at no time was the Bishop of Rome given authority over any other church. For the record I do not recognize any authority on earth above the local church.
Thunder, that is an excellent point to raise. Kind of the "keystone" if you will to everything else the Roman church teaches about itself. Without it, nothing else matters.
I see where Peter was usually the spokesman for the Apostles, I never see where he was given any authority over them, however by the time Paul comes to Jerusalem for the conference it seems Peter has taken a back seat to the Bishop of Jerusalem who is given the last word in that meeting. And of course later Paul has to correct Peter face to face about his conduct. And even Peter claims that all of Paul's letters are scripture.
So like yourself, I see no evidence for Peter becoming the head of any church much less the entire faith. Also at no time was the Bishop of Rome given authority over any other church. For the record I do not recognize any authority on earth above the local church.
Peter does seem to have held a leading role among the apostles, but as you point out, that did not make him unconditional dictator over the early Church. He was certainly capable of being wrong about things. Paul and other apostles did have to correct him from time to time. Peter certainly never exercised the kind of absolute authority that the Roman Popes would later claim for themselves.
But all that is looking beyond the mark. If the RCC cannot convincingly demonstrate that the Bishop of Rome is the rightful and sole successor of Peter, then it's absolutely pointless worrying about how much or how little authority Peter actually had to begin with. If the Bishop of Rome didn't inherit Peter's authority to begin with then that fact alone brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.
Peter does seem to have held a leading role among the apostles, but as you point out, that did not make him unconditional dictator over the early Church. He was certainly capable of being wrong about things. Paul and other apostles did have to correct him from time to time. Peter certainly never exercised the kind of absolute authority that the Roman Popes would later claim for themselves.
But all that is looking beyond the mark. If the RCC cannot convincingly demonstrate that the Bishop of Rome is the rightful and sole successor of Peter, then it's absolutely pointless worrying about how much or how little authority Peter actually had to begin with. If the Bishop of Rome didn't inherit Peter's authority to begin with then that fact alone brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.
Peter died in Rome. His ministry was in Rome. He wrote from Babylon (the code name for Rome at the time) to others. This is in the NT.
Peter died in Rome. His ministry was in Rome. He wrote from Babylon (the code name for Rome at the time) to others. This is in the NT.
Pope Clement, a Roman was ordained by Peter.
Yes you are correct, Rome murdered the apostle Peter. That doesn't really help Rome's cause in my book. Clearly you do believe that murdering a servant of God was a good thing for Rome and apparently that's why you keep bringing it up. There is some doubt that Peter was ever in Rome prior to his imprisonment and subsequent execution, but it is abundantly clear that the vast majority of his ministry was spent elsewhere. Peter spent far more time in Jerusalem and Antioch than he did in Rome.
The only thing Rome can claim exclusivity on is murdering Peter (and Paul too). Jerusalem blows them completely out of the water on that score. Jerusalem sawed Isaiah in asunder, beheaded John the Baptist, killed Stephen and James -- and that's just off the top of my head. Jerusalem's holy man body count can only be guessed at really, but just going from what we know, it's absolutely huge. And by killing the Christ Jesus, the Son of God, Jerusalem wins the race of piling up corpses of holy messengers from God by miles. Rome cannot hope to come anywhere close. Kind of a ridiculous race though since it's definitely not something anyone should be proud of.
Yes you are correct, Rome murdered the apostle Peter. That doesn't really help Rome's cause in my book. Clearly you do believe that murdering a servant of God was a good thing for Rome and apparently that's why you keep bringing it up. There is some doubt that Peter was ever in Rome prior to his imprisonment and subsequent execution, but it is abundantly clear that the vast majority of his ministry was spent elsewhere. Peter spent far more time in Jerusalem and Antioch than he did in Rome.
The only thing Rome can claim exclusivity on is murdering Peter (and Paul too). Jerusalem blows them completely out of the water on that score. Jerusalem sawed Isaiah in asunder, beheaded John the Baptist, killed Stephen and James -- and that's just off the top of my head. Jerusalem's holy man body count can only be guessed at really, but just going from what we know, it's absolutely huge. And by killing the Christ Jesus, the Son of God, Jerusalem wins the race of piling up corpses of holy messengers from God by miles. Rome cannot hope to come anywhere close. Kind of a ridiculous race though since it's definitely not something anyone should be proud of.
The Rome argument is the only sliver of hope the fundamentalists have. OK, I forgot the little rock argument.
That Peter was the leader is irrefutable. And Jesus re-appointed Peter after the resurrection.
Quote:
John 21:15-17
Jesus Reinstates Peter
15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.
That Peter is the Vicar of Christ is crystal clear.
And I have news for you. Peter could be Pope from another land. The Queen of England does not stop being the queen of England when she is out of the UK.
And the Christians of that era cherished the bones of the Christian martyrs. Everyone knew Peter was martyred in Rome.
So, basically, the Bishop of Antioch has a better claim than the Bishop of Rome since it was clear that Peter was not Bishop in Jerusalem or Rome?
Seriously, this whole thing is laughable.
I think you guys are misinformed.
Peter did not elect his successor. The Popes do not elect their successors. Peter consecrated Clement as a priest, but did not elect him Pope. The apostolic succession goes back to all apostles and not only Peter.
I think you guys feel Peter has to be in Rome 24/7 to name the line of successors to the papacy. It does not work that way. The only thing that matters is that Christendom needs a leader. Jesus picked Peter as the first leader. After Jesus left it was up to the Church to pick their leaders. It happens that the bishop of Rome is the leader. However, it could have been the bishop of any other city. There is no magic about Rome.
What matters is that Jesus got the ball rolling with Peter. And from there the Catholic Church took over. Peter was the first, that is all.
For example Obama is the 44th President and resides in the White House, in DC. Obama is the successor of George Washington, who BTW was not even in DC. Washington lived in Philadelphia. Presidents do not appoint each other, same as Popes. Presidents have special powers, same as the Pope.
Your Rome issue is meaningless and moot because Peter was in Rome.
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.
