Posted on 08/12/2006 7:45:47 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Act 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those hearing the Word. Act 10:45 And those of the circumcision, who believed (as many as came with Peter), were astonished because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the nations also. Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, Act 10:47 Can anyone forbid water that these, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we, should not be baptized? Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they begged him to stay certain days.
But who wrote the Book of Romans? Didn't the author of the Book of Romans have to chastize Peter for his treatment of the Gentiles - even after the above incident???
Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter to the circumcision; Gal 2:8 for He working in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision also worked in me to the nations.Gal 2:11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was to be blamed. Gal 2:12 For before some came from James, he ate with the nations. But when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision.
Paul was a Roman citizen! Peter never would have stood a chance in Rome.
Yes, Paul was chosen, which nobody denies. But Peter was also told by God, no less, that the Gentiles should hear the gospel by his very mouth. Do you deny scripture:
The key phrase here is in the scriptures. Where does scripture indicate that every single action of the Apostles was recorded? The scriptures don't say one way or the other whether Peter was ever in Rome. So to find out we must rely sources outside scripture.
Neither of them did; they were both martyred.
Yes he did. You've blown Diego's argument that Peter was never to go to the Gentiles out of the water.
No one is denying the visit to Cornelius who was already a God fearing man [Acts 10:2]. In other words....he didn't need converting. God used Peter here as an instrument to show that the way was open to Gentile believers....but He still chose Paul to do the evangelizing. Peter was sent to the House of Israel. The Romans were not "of the circumcision".
See post #26.
Scripture does not record him there and the Lord told him not to go there. Scripture does record him elsewhere and that elsewhere is specifically where he was told to go!
And with that I'll say goodnight. You aren't going to convince me, nor I you...which is about the usual product of these exchanges. God bless you.
I know I won't convince you....but who knows? Someone reading this may see the logic of my argument and it will lead them closer to The Word.
Blessings also to your home......and all who dwell within.
Paul survived as long as he did on his Roman passport. Peter wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes. Remember, it was circa 45 AD that these dudes were on the march, not 1995. Roma hadn't been admitted to the EU yet.
Yes he did. You've blown Diego's argument that Peter was never to go to the Gentiles out of the water.
Peter was called mainly to the lost Sheep of Israel/Judah. Surely, he had to mingle with the gentiles along the way, but Paul was most certainly the one who wrote Romans and the one who was specifically called to the Gentiles.
Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter to the circumcision;
Cornelius was a Gentile not "the Gentiles, as in the plural of Acts 15:7. Scripture doesn't say one way or the other whether Peter ever went to Rome.
I didn't use the large font and beautiful colors, but this scripture passage still doesn't say that Peter never went to Rome and was never allowed to go to Rome. This scripture passage also doesn't say there was no community of Jews in Rome.
Yeah, we're just a bunch of pagans... Idiot.
Gal 2:8 for He working in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision also worked in me to the nations.
It's possible that Peter went to Rome. I don't believe it, but it is possible and I will cede the point. My point is that Rome was Paul's turf. Peter was an uneducated, Jewish fisherman. Paul was a Roman citizen that was so educated we are still trying to figure out what he was talking about. If Peter went there, wouldn't there have been mention of it since he and Paul apparently bickered every other time they got together?
One theme that is very hard to ignore is how much of a stubborn Jew Peter was. Peter did not like Gentiles. Even after having two visions and witnessing the Holy Spirit falling on Gentiles, this guy had to get rebuked by a mere mortal named Paul. God knew this, since He knows everything, and I find it incredibly unlikely that God would send someone as racist as David Duke to Compton to evangelize.
And the Baptists say they are that Church, etc. etc. None of that makes it true. The body of Christ (all who really believe) are the Church. You know what I mean by those who believe I am sure.
I understand the points you have been making, and it is perfectly fine that you don't believe Peter ever went to Rome. I do, based on the preponderance of evidence outside of scripture. My only point has been that scripture doesn't prove it one way or the other.
Thanks for the discussion.
Good point. Romans would have considered Peter a Jew and he would have been banished, the same as Priscilla and Aquila:
Act 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens and came to Corinth;
Act 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; because that (Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
I think this is one of the primary reasons why Paul's ministry was primarily to the gentiles...he was a Roman citizen and had access where those born as Jews might not.
Sure there is:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
However, I am heartened to hear you acknowledge that there is no biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. Now if your tradition had chosen Paul as the first pope in Rome then it would have been an easier sell because Paul was actually recorded as having been in Rome.
Which is exactly what would have been done - taking the easy sell - if the Church was just making it up.
Yup, all who have God's holy spirit ARE the Church. It's not a very hard distinction to make yet some can't make it. :-)
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.