Posted on 01/31/2008 5:45:17 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
But "Peter" does translate into "Pater" meaning "Father" and Simon Magus, as Irenaeus notes, is the Father [Pater] of all Gnosticism. Vaya con Dios --
Both. Gaius is talking about two different Apostles. Peter was buried on the Vatican, Paul was buried near the Ostian, where now stands the Basilica of Paul outside the Walls.
I’m not sure if Eusebius mentions other graves of Peter. But even if he does, the sheer weight of history pointed to the Vatican above all the others.
Ok, then you say that at some point in history, some as yet unidentified people "rejected from the beginning [that which was not Scripture]".
Who?
What were their criteria for "rejecting some" and "accepting others"?
Did you know that for centuries the Book of Revelation was not considered "obviously Scripture"? It's veracity was actually, for many centuries, debated. Did you know that, or are you going to say to me, "That's man made history; who cares what your Catholic scholars say" (by the way, plenty of non-Catholic scholars say the same thing about Revelation's history).
The point is staring in front of your face, that there are no "table of contents" in the Bible. So, you have no way of verifying that the books in the Bible SHOULD be in there, by using the Bible ALONE. You need history as a source of THEOLOGICAL knowledge, whether you want to admit it or not.
Huh? "Peter" in Latin is "Petrus". You can see that for yourself if you go to St. Peter's and look up at the frieze around the base of the dome, which has "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" in both Greek and Latin.
Are you a Monty Python fan? I love the taunts of the French. Not proud of it, but that’s how I feel right now :-)
I KNOW many people argued whether James, 2 Peter, Revelation, Jude, Hebrews were Scripture or not. That men took a while to recognize what God had authored merely shows why nobody can trust Rome - the RCC is an organization of men!
Here’s a good site for church history. http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/hall.htm have a look and let me know which parts make your head explode - just kidding about the explosion part.
He was never a bishop of the Church.
St Peter's Basilica???
No, Santa Francesca Romana.
There are a lot of "claims" that come from Rome. The wise man sifts through them to separate fact from fiction.
And then he takes the fiction, embellishes it quite a bit, and runs with it on an Internet message board. Evidently.
Venerating a tomb on a hill known to be the burial site of sorcerers and mystics.
Do you think people are accursed because they're buried in a low class cemetery? How quaintly superstitious.
Then why do you trust them to get your NT canon right?
Maybe Luther was right when he wanted to get rid of James. How do you know?
Like that obelisk in the center of Vatican Square???
The church leaders from the early days had strict criteria by which they examined documents that were alleged to be Scripture. Authorship, alignment with what was known to be Scripture, etc. As today, men differ in their interpretations of a document, some being submissive to the Lord at times and not others. It’s easy to see why someone would have trouble with James - or Hebrews or Revelation. I do not set myself - or Luther or any pope - to tell me what the cannon is.
I research the process and arguments and have to examine my attitude towards God each time I wonder about what is in the cannon. I am sure of this - there’s nothing left out of the cannon. I have confidence that the men who were closest to the Apostles were in a better place - in time and relationship - to make the decisions about this.
How do you know the pope is always correct when he speaks “ex cathedra” (from the chair)? What gives him such purity and knowledge, etc. for only those occasions? Is the chair magic?
He was the bishop of an ecclesiastical structure that ran parallel to the church and whose members enjoyed being referred to as "Christians".
And then he takes the fiction, embellishes it quite a bit, and runs with it
Kind of like what the magisterium did with the myth of Peter in Rome.
Have you taken the tour yet -- I hear that it is now open to the public. Do you think people are accursed because they're buried in a low class cemetery? How quaintly superstitious.
The low class cemeteries were where Christians and Jews were buried and that was not on Vatican Hill, where those who peddled their sorceries, prophecies, fortune tellings, and other such mysticism on that side of the Tiber River were buried. Thus the name "vatican" from the Latin meaning "seer" -- taken from the activities of those fortune tellers and their kin buried there.
Of all the places in Rome for a basilica and Constantine chooses a pagan graveyard as the foundation of the Church of Rome.
He was never a bishop of the Church.
He was the bishop of an ecclesiastical structure that ran parallel to the church and whose members enjoyed being referred to as "Christians".
And then he takes the fiction, embellishes it quite a bit, and runs with it
Kind of like what the magisterium did with the myth of Peter in Rome.
Do you think people are accursed because they're buried in a low class cemetery? How quaintly superstitious.
The low class cemeteries were where Christians and Jews were buried and that was not on Vatican Hill, where those who peddled their sorceries, prophecies, fortune tellings, and other such mysticism on that side of the Tiber River were buried. Thus the name "vatican" from the Latin meaning "seer" -- taken from the activities of those fortune tellers and their kin buried there.
Of all the places in Rome for a basilica and Constantine chooses a pagan graveyard as the foundation of the Church of Rome.
John 21:
[15] When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
[16] A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
[17] He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
Peter was not sent to...."just the Jews". His commission included all twelve tribes of Israel [Matthew 10:5-6] and there were millions living beyond the Euphrates: [Josephus "Antiquities" Book XI, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2, lines 5-6].
There were also tribes of Israel living along the shores of the Black sea [ Peter 1:1-2]. These folks were outside of the Roman sphere of influence (as were their Babylonian brethren) and were descended from the other eleven sons of Jacob [Genesis 49]. Indeed, many descendants of these tribes of Israel had been migrating throughout the world since the Assyrian Empire collapsed about 600 B.C.
For Peter to concentrate his efforts in Rome among a small contingent of Jews (House of Judah) would be in direct opposition to His Lord's command to "Go to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel". These folks had been exiled in 721 B.C. to Assyria [II Kings 17:23] and scripture does not record their return. The House of Judah (Jews) had been exiled to Babylon 125 years later [II Kings 25:11] and Ezra and Nehemiah record many returning to Jerusalem.
I say this as a non Roman Catholic.
St. Peter was in Rome, and died there. Were exactly he was buried is not known for sure, but there are inscriptions of the fact that both he and St. Paul were buried in the area around Rome.
As for Peter being the first “Pope”, it depends on what is meant by Pope. The idea of the universal primacy of Rome was not accepted in the west until Pope Gregory the Great, and even then not 100% (the Gallic Churches rights, etc.) and was never accepted in the East. But Rome was looked to in the early church for guidance in doctrinal matters. Partially because that was one of the places with the largest amount and most educated Christians after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
But even then, there was a large amount of local control. There wasn't any office quite like what the Pope's today until the early Middle Ages, when they basically became the only organized govermential body left in Europe after the collapse of the Western Empire.
You weren't....and no apology is necessary.
But just to respond to Gal. 2:7-8, I don’t really think that undermines Peter in Rome. There were plenty of the circumcised in Rome at this time, as is indicated by Suetonius’s statement that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in A.D. 49. They were being instigated “by one Chrestus”—I take that to mean there were contentions within Roman Jewry over the Christ. Perhaps Peter moved within a fairly narrow group of Roman Jewry and it took Paul to really expand the Church in Rome to Gentiles as well.
Please see post #134. There is some confusion among many folks as to just who was the "House of Israel"....and who was the "House of Judah". Many times in Old Testament scripture you will see them referred to jointly. Other times....they are singled out by The Holy Spirit as the prophecy....or statements....do not apply to both houses. In the case of [Matthew 10:5-6] the instructions by Our Lord was to go to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. This command would indeed include the Jews (House of Judah) ....but not just the Jews. There were eleven other tribes included in His command. Peter....and the others were to take the Gospel to these folks as well.
With chutzpa like that, you'll go far in the world, my boy!
I shall retire to Bedlam!
If this story had any merit (Peter in Rome) and were as important to the scheme of things as you folks want to believe, I'm sure The Holy Spirit would have seen fit to mention him being there. He didn't.....and he wasn't!
But to be deep into Protestantism is to ignore history, so that's just fine ... right?
I'm not a Protestant. I'm a first century Christian. I predate them by 1500 years. My beliefs are radically different than that of most Protestant sects. I predate you also....by the way. :)
I answered that challenge in post #66.
By the way, what makes you think there were no Jews in Rome?
I cannot remember ever making this statement. Can you point it out to me?
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.