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 are free to believe what you will about the RCC, Julian . . . as we all are. I simply cannot trust the traditions of an organization that has shown itself to be so anti-Christ, corrupt and completely evil for so long . . . REGARDLESS of its claimed provenance! The massacre of the Albigensians and so many others in various Inquisitions are so egregiously anti-Christ and evil as to be inexcusable for an institution that claims to represent Christ!!! There is no way such a benighted organization could ever contain men who could legitimately profess to be infallible in representing Christ's faith and morals! (Of course, NO MAN can be infallible about ANYTHING!). Is that clear enough for you, Julian?
Amen, amen and amen! As long as they have that tradition they cannot claim to serve Jesus Christ.
You are free to believe what you will about the RCC, Julian . . . as we all are. I simply cannot trust the traditions of an organization that has shown itself to be so anti-Christ, corrupt and completely evil for so long . . . REGARDLESS of its claimed provenance! The massacre of the Albigensians and so many others in various Inquisitions are so egregiously anti-Christ and evil as to be inexcusable for an institution that claims to represent Christ!!! There is no way such a benighted organization could ever contain men who could legitimately profess to be infallible in representing Christ's faith and morals! (Of course, NO MAN can be infallible about ANYTHING!). Is that clear enough for you, Julian?
I have the same opinion as you do about the atrocities of the past. The church was run by medieval barbaric men. No need to blame the church, blame the men running the church. And men that run churches make mistakes, particularly if they are ancient.
I would never say the Assembly of God Church is wrong because of Jimmy Swaggert.
You need to examine the history of the church and filter out the barbaric men of the era. If you do this you will find a more authentic form of Christianity.
For the love God, you are very wet on this one. Peter's presence in Rome was secret. It the Romans knew he would be martyred right away. In fact, his presence in Rome was only noted after he was caught and crucified.
In all honesty, I rapidly giving up. The RCC side of this works exactly like a conspiracy theory. You can never debunk a good conspiracy theory because it automatically changes and adapts whenever any part of it is proven wrong. "Nobody ever mentions him because he's hiding!" Right. And I'm sure he was invisible too.
Okay fine, Peter was in hiding. And none of your NT writers mentioned that he was in hiding? Even after Peter is dead? And why don't we have any account from the folks that were supposedly hiding Peter? Surely they'd mention it to somebody after Peter was dead, don't you think?
And then there's the whole idea that Rome was a great hiding place. Um ... no it's not. You'd have to be an idiot trying to hide from Roman capture in the city of Rome itself. He could have fled to the Essenes near the Dead Sea, which is probably where John the Baptist lived and hid. He could have headed east into the Persian Empire where Rome's authority was meaningless. There are countless wilderness locations he could have run to. So why on earth would he go to Rome? It certainly wouldn't do anyone any good. He was clearly so well hidden that absolutely nobody knew he was even there. Kinda limits your ability to "Go and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." So rather than going and finding somewhere he could preach Christ to, he hangs out in Rome for decades and accomplishes absolutely nothing -- as evidenced by the fact that nobody ever saw him or spoke to him or remembers being baptized by him, etc. So yeah, Peter heads for Rome, hides and opts out of the ministry for the remaining few decades of his life.
Insisting that Peter was in Rome is essential to the Roman Catholic cause. The problematic part is making sense out of Peter being in Rome in the first place. It's like trying like mad to slam a square peg through a round hole. It just doesn't fit.
I'd stick with "Peter probably wasn't in Rome for 20+" years. Just a suggestion.
Quote:
Why would you expect Peter to act as the Pope in Rome during a time when he would have been instantly murdered? Even when he wrote from Rome Peter used code words for Rome such as Babylon. Check your bible please.
The proof is in the NT.
The New Testament does a great job of demonstrating that Paul was in Rome, but it doesn't give you jack squat for Peter. Babylon might mean Rome and it might not. In the highly unlikely event that Peter was indeed writing from the city of Rome, it doesn't mean he lived there for a few decades. He might have been passing through, who knows?
If Peter really did hold primacy over the entire Church, then I would honestly expect him to go somewhere where he could actually lead the Church -- ie not hiding in Rome for 20+ years.
In all honesty, I rapidly giving up. The RCC side of this works exactly like a conspiracy theory. You can never debunk a good conspiracy theory because it automatically changes and adapts whenever any part of it is proven wrong. "Nobody ever mentions him because he's hiding!" Right. And I'm sure he was invisible too.
Okay fine, Peter was in hiding. And none of your NT writers mentioned that he was in hiding? Even after Peter is dead? And why don't we have any account from the folks that were supposedly hiding Peter? Surely they'd mention it to somebody after Peter was dead, don't you think?
And then there's the whole idea that Rome was a great hiding place. Um ... no it's not. You'd have to be an idiot trying to hide from Roman capture in the city of Rome itself. He could have fled to the Essenes near the Dead Sea, which is probably where John the Baptist lived and hid. He could have headed east into the Persian Empire where Rome's authority was meaningless. There are countless wilderness locations he could have run to. So why on earth would he go to Rome? It certainly wouldn't do anyone any good. He was clearly so well hidden that absolutely nobody knew he was even there. Kinda limits your ability to "Go and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." So rather than going and finding somewhere he could preach Christ to, he hangs out in Rome for decades and accomplishes absolutely nothing -- as evidenced by the fact that nobody ever saw him or spoke to him or remembers being baptized by him, etc. So yeah, Peter heads for Rome, hides and opts out of the ministry for the remaining few decades of his life.
Insisting that Peter was in Rome is essential to the Roman Catholic cause. The problematic part is making sense out of Peter being in Rome in the first place. It's like trying like mad to slam a square peg through a round hole. It just doesn't fit.
I'd stick with "Peter probably wasn't in Rome for 20+" years. Just a suggestion.
The New Testament does a great job of demonstrating that Paul was in Rome, but it doesn't give you jack squat for Peter. Babylon might mean Rome and it might not. In the highly unlikely event that Peter was indeed writing from the city of Rome, it doesn't mean he lived there for a few decades. He might have been passing through, who knows?
If Peter really did hold primacy over the entire Church, then I would honestly expect him to go somewhere where he could actually lead the Church -- ie not hiding in Rome for 20+ years.
Another post stating that Peter must live in Rome to be the first leader of Christianity. Peter's primacy was not dependent on Rome. At one time Popes lived in France.
You are free to believe what you will about the RCC, Julian . . . as we all are. I simply cannot trust the traditions of an organization that has shown itself to be so anti-Christ, corrupt and completely evil for so long . . . REGARDLESS of its claimed provenance! The massacre of the Albigensians and so many others in various Inquisitions are so egregiously anti-Christ and evil as to be inexcusable for an institution that claims to represent Christ!!! There is no way such a benighted organization could ever contain men who could legitimately profess to be infallible in representing Christ's faith and morals! (Of course, NO MAN can be infallible about ANYTHING!). Is that clear enough for you, Julian?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
I have the same opinion as you do about the atrocities of the past. The church was run by medieval barbaric men. No need to blame the church, blame the men running the church. And men that run churches make mistakes, particularly if they are ancient.
I would never say the Assembly of God Church is wrong because of Jimmy Swaggert.
You need to examine the history of the church and filter out the barbaric men of the era. If you do this you will find a more authentic form of Christianity.
This is what comes of thinking that The Church is some institution separate from the people that comprise it, Julian. The Church is NOT some mystical entity divorced from the men who make up its hierarchy! THAT is why I do not believe they have ANY resemblance to Christ . . . let alone can infallibly proclaim Christ's faith and morals.
This is what comes of thinking that The Church is some institution separate from the people that comprise it, Julian. The Church is NOT some mystical entity divorced from the men who make up its hierarchy! THAT is why I do not believe they have ANY resemblance to Christ . . . let alone can infallibly proclaim Christ's faith and morals.
I actually agree with you, but the main difference is that you still have your atheist sunglasses when you look at religion. I had my sunglasses too but, I got rid of them.
Religion is religion and in religion anything goes. That is why I see no issues with Mormons, Jews, or Muslims. I actually think they also have beautiful religions. And I don't see anything wrong with reformers. Their religion is beautiful too and they make good points.
Arguing about why the Catholic Church thinks Peter is the first Pope is actually a moot point. It would be like me arguing why some people only like gospel music and others only like country music. Folks are as different as religious views are different.
There is a huge difference between religion and God. Religion is easy do dissect and analyze whereas God is a mystery.
You may ask why do I defend the Catholic Church? I defend the Church because it is the original Church and has more tradition than others. The only ones ahead of us are the Jews when it comes to tradition. And I grew up with Catholicism and in some ways it feeds the spiritual side of my human condition.
For others it may be different. I think there is a boatload of folks in the forum that take religion very seriously---------to the point that they retreat to their homes and read the bible and make their own one man church. That is OK too.
You may ask why do I defend the Catholic Church? .
No, I ask why you claim it is the "right" church and that anyone who understood it would become a part of it. Now ask why I counter this with demonstrations of the errors of that church causing you to defend it.
He could have headed east into the Persian Empire where Rome's authority was meaningless. There are countless wilderness locations he could have run to. So why on earth would he go to Rome? It certainly wouldn't do anyone any good. He was clearly so well hidden that absolutely nobody knew he was even there.
If Peter really did hold primacy over the entire Church, then I would honestly expect him to go somewhere where he could actually lead the Church -- ie not hiding in Rome for 20+ years.
Yes, Babylon was NOT in the Roman empire sooo, a great place to be if you were avoiding issues with ... Romans. BUT that blows the whole "he was in Rome hiding" thing away.
Yes, Babylon was NOT in the Roman empire sooo, a great place to be if you were avoiding issues with ... Romans. BUT that blows the whole "he was in Rome hiding" thing away.
Built on ... sand.
Peter was with Mark, his disciple whom he called son. And Mark was in Rome!
Per Gabriel's request, I'm starting this new thread to alleviate confusion. Hopefully we can move the entire discussion on this one point to this thread.
Why does the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Bishop of Rome is the exclusive and rightful successor to the apostle Peter? With respect, I just don't see it. All I see is a line of bishops with no more and no less authority than any other line of bishops.
This is a point which is rarely discussed. The debate rages on between Catholics and Protestants over whether Peter had all of the authority that the RCC claims he did. Lovely as all of that is, that entire debate is completely irrelevant if the Bishop of Rome was never the exclusive and rightful successor of St Peter in the first place.
I came upon your very good thread starter today.
I believe that Martin Luther was right to question the authority of the pope to be the exclusive and rightful successor to the apostle Peter. The Roman Catholic church had many non-scriptural traditions, such as saying that the pope is infallible when speaking theologically, that Mary was sinless and never had sex with Joseph, and that statues of saints were worthy of being worshipped, and that indulgences [in Luther's time] would guarantee getting our of purgatory [which purgatory is not authenticated by scripture.]
I believe that we are promised eternal life if we repent, accepting Jesus as being the Son of God, and keep His sayings, and hold on to the Holy Spirit [which the apostles said God gives to THOSE WHO OBEY HIM] until we die.
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.
