Posted on 03/27/2018 6:59:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
And is not even mentioned among the 30+ people who are named in Paul;s letter to the Romans, leaving RC to spuriously postulate that Paul did not mentioned him out of concern for persecution, yet who thus endangered multitude of believers he did name.
The closest Catholics can come to for support is that of "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son," (1 Peter 5:13) and Peter exercising a general pastoral role in that letter, but not in addressing not churches but to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, (1 Peter 1:1)
Show us where your RC idea of this headship is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels), that of Acts thru Revelation. You have a substantially different Peter, as likewise with Mary .
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:6)
Catholicism has and is.
Paul already had authority to preach as one sovereignly chosen by Christ who Himself revealed to him the gospel.
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12)
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. (Galatians 1:15-17)
Paul prefaces his testimony to Galatians - who are being seduced by Judazers at conflict with Paul - with such words of his sovereign commission by the Lord and revelation from Him, and adds that "after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Galatians 1:18-19) Thus Paul was preaching with authority for years before going up again to Jerusalem (not Rome).
From this it is surmised that since many rejected Paul as an authority, which could overthrow the faith of the churches he founded, then manifestly obtaining the "right hand of fellowship" (Galatians 2:9) from those who "seemed to be pillars" was warranted. And in which Peter is not presented as the supreme head, but is named second among 3, after James and before John.
But holy Peter (a far far better man than I) has distinction as being the only apostle charged with misleading the brethren and being publicly reproved for so doing by the apostle you have him singilarly giving authority to, to do what he already was.
That itself sounds like typical Hollywood reading into Scripture what is not there. Does it show what Scripture does?
Does it show this faith of early Christians?
But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions; Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used. For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. (Hebrews 10:32-34)
Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: .. Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: (1 Peter 1:6,8)
I am not sure how y Paul’s struggle and loneliness in prison is described, but does it also describe,
Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction. (Philippians 4:11-14)
As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things. (2 Corinthians 6:10)
Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. (2 Corinthians 12:10)
Likely prior to this there was this:
For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life: But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead: Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us; (2 Corinthians 1:8-10)
Great is my boldness of speech toward you, great is my glorying of you: I am filled with comfort, I am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation. For, when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears. Nevertheless God, that comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus; (2 Corinthians 7:4-6)
So you think being buried in Rome means he was reigning as the supreme infallible head of the church from there? Typical RC extrapolation. Peter is nowhere placed in Rome in the NT, but in Jerusalem, and is not even mentioned among the 36 persons Paul greets or names in his letter to the Romans (Phebe, Priscilla, Aquila, Epaenetus, Achaia, Mary, Andronicus, Junia, Amplias, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus, Herodion, Narcissus, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, Philologus, Julia, Nereus, Olympas, Timotheus, Lucius, Jason, Sosipater, Tertius, Gaius, Erastus, Quartus. Rm. 16)
Absolutely it conveys that.....
Go see it, or don’t go see it.
I just know I was blessed
Distinguish what is recognized by God and what is recognized by man. According to the men of the day, with whom Paul had to deal with, he had no authority as he was not one of the original 12 Apostles. Peter recognized this and gave Paul his blessing as indicated in 2 Peter 3. Apostolic authority was crucial and many had claimed it falsely. So it was vital for Paul to establish his authority in order to be taken seriously (especially considering his job while he was Saul of Tarsus).
Thus Paul was preaching with authority for years before going up again to Jerusalem (not Rome).
AFTER his visit with Peter.
And in which Peter is not presented as the supreme head, but is named second among 3, after James and before John.
I believe this was because James was elected as Bishop of Jerusalem, not Peter. Peter humbled himself, IMHO, due to the conflict with Paul and the Gentile question.
But holy Peter (a far far better man than I) has distinction as being the only apostle charged with misleading the brethren and being publicly reproved for so doing by the apostle you have him singilarly giving authority to, to do what he already was.
Does not stop Peter from being the head of the Apostles and the one that the majority of people in Jerusalem (and Judea for that matter) to be the Apostle that folks sought approval from. Paul wrote the majority of epistles in the NT, as his mission became that of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 15) but Peter lead the effort in Judea. Agreed that Paul called out Peter on his hypocrisy (which also caused the separation between Paul and Barnabas), but that does not change the fact that Peter was still considered the Big Apostle on Campus (Paul called him a 'Super Apostle'). The dispute between Peter and Paul over how to handle Gentile conversion may have played into James becoming Bishop of Jerusalem.
Yes but Peter also preached to the gentiles.
Except it's not an issue because there is no record of Peter being in Rome anywhere in Scripture.
I'm looking forward to seeing it.
There’s no Scriptural record of either of your claims.
One time.
Scripture and Paul are very clear that Peter was the apostle to the Jews and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.
I saw the Paul movie. It’s excellent and I highly recommend it.
There's no discussion of the end of Peter's life at all in Scripture. Should we conclude therefore that he's still alive?
Fact: Peter died. Fact: Scripture doesn't tell us why, how, or where. Fact: Tradition, related by Eusebius in the 3rd century, describes how he was executed by being crucified upside down in Nero's circus. Fact: the tomb under the high alter of St. Peter's basilica has Greek inscriptions indicating that it's the burial place of Peter.
That's what we know. Do with it what you like.
Everyone but two people have died.
It’s no compelling argument for Peter being in Rome.
Nor is the tradition of Catholicism, nor is the writings of someone at least 200 years after the *fact*.
Tradition does not necessarily = fact. The only *fact* is that Rome has a tradition about it. It’s not that anyone can prove the tradition itself is fact.
Peter’s tomb?
Also speculation. Where’s the proof that it was Peter of the Disciples. ANYBODY’S body could be in that tomb.
So the movie IS Scripturally accurate as far as the lack of mention of Peter in Rome.
The author of this piece is not accurate. He’s just working on speculation.
You have no compelling argument for Peter dying anywhere other than Rome. He wasn't in (Mesopotamian) Babylon, and certainly there is no record or tradition of him dying there. He died somewhere. Where do you think his tomb is, if not on Vatican Hill?
And yet YOU made the claim that it was in Rome and can't prove what you claim as fact.
He died somewhere.
No kidding.
Where do you think his tomb is, if not on Vatican Hill?
It doesn't matter. And it's a big world out there. It could be anywhere.
And yes, it MIGHT be in Rome. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.
And again, it doesn't matter because ne's no longer alive on this earth.
But that still doesn't change the fact that Scripture says nothing about Peter being in Rome and where he died, and there's nothing in this movie that contradicts anything in Scripture.
The author's claim is spurious.
Saw it yesterday and was disappointed. More about a fictional account of Christians in Rome than Paul’s life. I personally didn’t like it.
When posting in the Religion Forum either remove your tagline or supply a translation.
Please review the guidelines by clicking on my name at the end of this post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.