Skip to comments.
Did the Apostle Peter Ever Visit Rome?
Hope-Of-Israel Mnistries ^
| Unknown
| John D. Keyser
Posted on 10/27/2006 6:20:15 PM PDT by DouglasKC
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-36 last
To: Diego1618
Simon Magus is explained much more fully here than what we touched on with the other thread. This will be interesting. I skimmed through the other thread but didn't notice that Simon Magus was discussed...but I wasn't following it all that closely either. Sorry if this is a rehash.
Yah, I read the Tigers lost. We'll get 'em next year though. :-)
To: ThomasThomas
Never mind it is late. Wrong person. Peter Paul
To: saradippity
How difficult it must have been for Peter to do what Christ asked him to do and yet remain humble;a servant of all,confirm the other apostles,tend to and feed the lambs and the sheep and take care of the administrative matters. All the while evangelizing,baptizing and teaching all what He had taught them and most important following Him. If that's how you want to think about it, rock on. I prefer to read the plain scripture and believe it.
I myself would have said "OK,I am boss now and I am telling you that the Son of God told me that He would send me the Holy Spirit to help me guide you. And He did and you better start toeing the line,stop misbehaving and start loving one another and forgiving each other or you are going to Hell in a hand basket".
How would you have handled it?
If it said that, then that's how I would believe.
Peter never had the monopoly on the Holy Spirit. I do not diminish Peter's Apostleship in any way. If Peter was top dog, though, why did they roll the bones to choose between Barsabas and Mathias? Why didn't Peter just decide it?
Act 1:26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
23
posted on
10/27/2006 9:00:01 PM PDT
by
kerryusama04
(Isa 8:20, Eze 22:26)
To: DouglasKC
Why would you post such hate filled drivel here?
Do you really think that the Catholic Church contains "ELEMENTS OF THE PAGAN BABYLONIAN MYSTERY RELIGION?" (not my emphasis)
Do you really think that the Catholic faith is "A COUNTERFEIT OF CHRISTIANITY?" (Not my emphasis)
Do you really think that the Catholic Church is "Synagogue of Satan" as this website declares?
Do you really think that the Papacy is the anti-Christ, as this website declares?
Do you really believe that the cross is the mark of Cain, as this website declares?
Do you really believe that a cross or crucifix is the mark of the beast" " This "mark" could also refer to a sculptured figure or figurine -- such as a CROSS, or a small crucifix! In other words, it IDENTIFIES ONE AS BELONG TO CAIN and his modern representatives -- the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH!" That's what this website screeches.
Do you really believe this: "The third and last of these three enemies of the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God is Catholicism"?
So the faith that printed the Bible for us is one of the three greatest enemies of God? So the faith that led Mother Teresa to care for the impoverished through out the world was one of the three enemies of the Kingdom of God? So the faith that has led the Catholic Church to stand alone in its unwavering defense of God's gift of life, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, is one of the three greatest enemies of God? So the faith that has led the establishment of schools, orphanages and hospitals through out the world, is one of the three greatest enemies of God? So the faith the produced the Sistine Chapel, Notre Dame and the works of Palestrina and Byrd is one of the three greatest enemies of God? So the faith that gave us Project Rachel is one of the three greatest enemies of God?
As of 1994:
"The Church run 5,478 Hospitals with 4,500 million people treated, 14,806 Dispensaries, 793 Leprosariums, 27,281 Homes for the aged homeless and handicapped, 7,102 Orphanages, 9,293 Nurseries, 97,823 Special Centers for Social Services, 8,216 Matrimonial Advice Centers... and practically "billions" attended in their "homes", for sickness, aged, children, emotional problems, marriages, drugs, alcohol...
- The Catholic Church in 1992 run 52,828 kindergartens with an attendance of 5 million students, 80,612 Elementary and Primary Schools with 25 million students, 31,711 Secondary Schools with 13 million students, and 2 million students in its 6,400 Colleges and Universities.
- In the USA, in 1993, the Church run 606 hospitals with 54 million patients treated; 1,592 Specialized Homes; 188 Orphanages took care of 75,890 children; 2,115 Centers for Social Services helped 20 million people... it run 7,136 Elementary Schools with 2 million students, 1,248 High Schools with 603,679 students, 227 Colleges and Universities with 643,127 students, 96 Schools for Handicapped with 8,764 students (The Official Catholic Directory, 1994)." This is the work of one of the three greatest enemies of God?
Should I go on?
Did you bring this here to attack your fellow Christians? To hurt them? To insult them? Or do you really believe what this website proclaims?
24
posted on
10/27/2006 11:36:43 PM PDT
by
mockingbyrd
(Good heavens! What women these Christians have-----Libanus)
To: mockingbyrd
Why would you post such hate filled drivel here? I don't necessarily agree with everything in the article or on the website. I "Asked" (I don't use google) the terms "Peter" and "Rome" and came across this article. I did it because it was germane to another topic being discussed on the board...whether or not Peter was the first pope. It presents an alternative. I think the article accomplished it without being "hate filled"...although I understand that it's a challenge to those that believe differently.
To: DouglasKC
You didn't answer my other questions, the ones pertaining to this article and the ones pertaining to the website you chose to link here.
So once again, I ask you, do you really believe what the article claims?
Do you really believe what the website claims?
Why would you link from such a hate filled website?
26
posted on
10/28/2006 8:39:48 AM PDT
by
mockingbyrd
(Good heavens! What women these Christians have-----Libanus)
To: DouglasKC
You represent an extreme fringe of Christian thought, the Judaizer movement. Then you post this cack. It does have lots of exclamation points!!!! and ALL CAPS LETTERS so it must be the truth.
There's so much to pick apart here but I'm just addressing this one point:
This presents the Catholic Church with a considerable problem -- Peter, the first "pope," was not supposed to be married!
Baloney. The New Testament itself notes that Peter had a mother-in-law. Logically speaking, he had a wife at some point. He may have been a widower. It stands to reason he might have had a daughter too. This does not pose any problem to Catholics whatsoever.
To: DouglasKC
"The approximately 25 years between Peter's first and last visit to Rome were spent in evangelizing all corners of the Roman Empire. The man who spent 25 years in the "sacerdotal chair" was the magician from Samaria -- SIMON MAGUS!"
_____________________________
I have a hard time with this in that I would think that the Apostles would have made an uproar about a non-believer running their church. I do believe the historical evidence is pretty clear Peter was not the Bishop of the church in Rome.
28
posted on
10/28/2006 9:07:56 AM PDT
by
wmfights
(Psalm : 27)
To: mockingbyrd
"Peter was the first pope. Regardless of where he was, he was the first pope. It's not a viewpoint, it's a fact."
________________________________
Based on what? A mistranslation of one passage in Matthew?
29
posted on
10/28/2006 9:10:01 AM PDT
by
wmfights
(Psalm : 27)
To: wmfights
Based upon what the word "pope" means.
Catholics recognize Peter as their first temporal leader. It has nothing to do with being in Rome. The Pope could never once set foot in Rome and he still would be the Pope.
30
posted on
10/28/2006 9:13:03 AM PDT
by
mockingbyrd
(Good heavens! What women these Christians have-----Libanus)
To: DouglasKC
"Yah, I read the Tigers lost. We'll get 'em next year though. :-)"
_____________________________
Not a chance. The White Sox will bounce back!
31
posted on
10/28/2006 9:14:47 AM PDT
by
wmfights
(Psalm : 27)
To: kerryusama04
"Act 1:26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles."
________________________________
FWIW, after he was selected we never heard from him again. I think that is a good illustration of what God thinks of man made successors.
32
posted on
10/28/2006 9:18:06 AM PDT
by
wmfights
(Psalm : 27)
To: mockingbyrd
"Based upon what the word "pope" means."
_____________________________
Pope is translated as "father". If your giving the title "father" to whomever runs your church, that's your business. Peter was never a "super Apostle" he was one of twelve. If you were going to give a title to the "top" Apostle the evidence would rest with James the brother of Jesus, or John the Apostle who never ran away.
33
posted on
10/28/2006 9:25:12 AM PDT
by
wmfights
(Psalm : 27)
To: wmfights
Who said anything about "super apostle?"
Catholics went with the one Christ instructed to "Feed my sheep."
34
posted on
10/28/2006 9:45:12 AM PDT
by
mockingbyrd
(Good heavens! What women these Christians have-----Libanus)
To: Conservative til I die
He may have been a widowerShe evidently went along with him on some of his missionary travels [1 Corinthians 9:5].
To: wmfights
FWIW, after he was selected we never heard from him againMatthias and Barnabas are one and the same.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-36 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson