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 do not disagree that Peter visited and even died in Rome. So what? There was a bishop there before him.
My question is where did the figure 20 years come from? Thin air. Not an absence of proof question, but one calling for proof, as without such it cannot stand as just your opinion.
But Rome is moot. Jesus did not select Peter with the condition that he was supposed to go to Rome.
priest
O.E. preost, shortened from the older Gmc. form represented by O.S., O.H.G. prestar, O.Fris. prestere, from V.L. *prester "priest," from L.L. presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Gk. presbyteros (see Presbyterian). In O.T. sense, a translation of Heb. kohen, Gk. hiereus, L. sacerdos.
Note the origin of the title priest.
BTW, your quotes strongly support the concept of apostolic succession and Sacred Tradition. I think you shot yourself in the foot.
Oops wrong.
The word for "Priest" is already in the Greek language and is used in the NT.
KJV Hebrews 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
3031 hiereus , priest
Bishop is:
DRA 1 Timothy 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.
2497 episkopoi, overseer, guardian; bishop
Elder is:
KJV 1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
5031 presbyteroi , a , on elder (of the Jewish religious leaders and of church leaders); elder (of two sons); eldest (Jn 8.9); old man or woman (Ac 2.17; 1 Tm 5.2);
Thus a Bishop is NOT a Priest. Misuse of the word to gain prominence.
Inappropriate quoting the bible to support anti catholic statements is suspicious of Sola Scriptura. I hope I am wrong!
I think you're wrong.
I've been reading Mystic's posts for about a year now and what I've learned is that he believes in the power of the Holy Spirit as Comforter. That's his approach and I think it's just sort of wonderful. I've yet to detect an anti-Catholic bias in his posts. (Anti-Catholic bias from Sola Scripture believers is something I can smell a mile away. There have been some doozy anti-Catholic posts that you have let pass. BTW.)
What Mystic does have is a pro-Comforter bias.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 04-27-2014 at 09:29 PM..
I've been reading Mystic's posts for about a year now and what I've learned is that he believes in the power of the Holy Spirit as Comforter. That's his approach and I think it's just sort of wonderful. I've yet to detect an anti-Catholic bias in his posts. (Anti-Catholic bias from Sola Scripture believers is something I can smell a mile away. There have been some doozy anti-Catholic posts that you have let pass. BTW.)
What Mystic does have is a pro-Comforter bias.
Actually, I was pulling his chain. I tend to agree with most of his posts.
But Rome is moot. Jesus did not select Peter with the condition that he was supposed to go to Rome.
Dear Julian,
Yeshua picked Peter as well as Judas Iscariot to fulfill Scripture. Peter was to be the worthless shepherd of Ze 11:17, who was to leave the "flock". Judas was the 30 shekels of silver guy of Ze 11:13.
Ze 11:17,"Woe to the worthlesss shepherd who leaves the flock! A sword will be on his arm." , and somebody's bloody ear will be on the ground.
All Apostles got the keys, but Peter is always named in an intimate personal manner by Jesus.
And the Apostolic Succession flows down from all apostles. No one in the church believes otherwise.
All Bishops in the Catholic Church have equal power, but the Bishop of Rome is consider the leader. All Apostles were equal, but Peter was the leader.
The term Pope was not in use at that time. Don't be a Sola Scriptura literalist, that gives you severe myopia. Peter was simply the first leader of the church. The NT provides ample evidence regarding the supremacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles.
We are going here in a circle. If all Apostles had the succession and Rome is not important as you say, than all orthodox churches have the succession. Why Rome and the Vatican claim, that they are the only one, you have no proof that Peter gave the succession to Rome, he ordained James in Jerusalem and another in Antioch. But when Linus became bishop of Rome, Peter was not in Rome and Peter was never the first bishop of Rome. But we know your oracle: Peter got the keys. It is just your paid job to defend Catholicism. Others follow as blind sheep. But God gave as not only the Holy Spirit but I think in this case also enough intellect to discern right from wrong.
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.
Today we have seen a huge NEW level of understanding of what it means to be Catholic.
