Does Saint Peter need to live in Rome to prove the Papacy? (Gospel, church)
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.
It isn't where he lived it is the unsubstantiated claim he did live in Rome, that is the problem.
No contemporary of Peter mentions it, no words of Peter or any other Epistle writer, no Historian from that time. No one, but later folks with a vested interest in the claim.
It isn't where he lived it is the unsubstantiated claim he did live in Rome, that is the problem.
No contemporary of Peter mentions it, no words of Peter or any other Epistle writer, no Historian from that time. No one, but later folks with a vested interest in the claim.
OK, I guess you would vote NO. The leadership of Peter and the papacy are not dependent on Rome.
No. There are many historical reasons for the Papacy to be based in Rome, but there's nothing theologically mandating it. The Pope could move the Vatican to Buenos Aires and it wouldn't illegitimize his authority.
No. There are many historical reasons for the Papacy to be based in Rome, but there's nothing theologically mandating it. The Pope could move the Vatican to Buenos Aires and it wouldn't illegitimize his authority.
Jesus never set up the Bishop of Rome/Peter as the head of the church. Christ is the head of the church. To replace Jesus with a pope is to set up a false God to replace Christ.
Eph 1:10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
Eph 1:22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,
Eph 4:15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
It isn't where he lived it is the unsubstantiated claim he did live in Rome, that is the problem.
No contemporary of Peter mentions it, no words of Peter or any other Epistle writer, no Historian from that time. No one, but later folks with a vested interest in the claim.
Quote:
1 Peter 5:13
New English Translation (NET)
13 The church in Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does Mark, my son.
Here is Peter writing from babylon, code name for Rome. More importantly Peter is with Saint Mark one the early saints in the chain of Apostolic Succession (another truth denied by the Protestants).
We all know Saint mark was a disciple of Saint Peter. And Peter called mark son in the same manner Paul called Timothy son.
Where did Mark write his gospel? Most scholars say he wrote the Gospel in Rome. And if Mark was in Rome Peter was in Rome. But, this is a moot point because Peter died in Rome and if Peter died in Rome then Peter was in Rome.
Because it is a silly question. NOTHING about Peter or Rome can do anything to prove the Papacy as anything other than the creation of men . . . NOT Christ.
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.
It's one of those questions, "Have you ever been caught ...?"
