Posted on 01/31/2008 5:45:17 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Do tell! ?????
Jews in Rome.....Jews here, there, everywhere???????
In Greece at the temple of Delphi, the main object of worship was "Petra". At the temple were little niches in the walls that held small idols and these were called the "Petrae". The sacred writings that were used in the ceremonies were called "Peteroma", Peter's Book!
The temples themselves were also called "Peters". The one temple at Elis in Greece was known as "Petron"; at Delphi it was called "Petraessa". The temple dedicated to Apollo in Asia was called "Patara" and it's oracle was "Patareus". "Peter" worship is traced back to ancient Mesopotamia at the Tower of Babel and the chief Peter god was none other than Nimrod [Genesis 10:8] of the Babylonian Mysteries. Simon Magus, coming from Samaria was an heir to this mystery religion. It was his ancestors who were brought from Babylon to fill the void left by the departed Israelites [II Kings 17:24-34] in Samaria. They were blending the worship of God and paganism even here! Simon took it to Rome where it flourished!
And Of course the Catholic Church stood firm AGAINST the heretic Simon Magus as is seen here in the writings of Blessed Saint Ignatius...
from http://www.logoslibrary.org/ignatius/philadelphians1/06.html
“If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of SIMON MAGUS, NOT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT”
(Saint Ignatius -Epistle to the Philadelphians Capter6)
The Same Saint Ignatius who also wrote this..
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
SIMON MAGUS HAD NO INFLUENCE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHATSOVER!
Well...yes. Originally you had stated something to the effect of the apostles were told to steer clear of the Gentiles so why would Peter be in Rome? Peter, if limited to Jewish circles would go to Rome as there were Jews there. But he was not so limited as the aforementioned Scripture makes clear.
Yes....[Matthew 10:5-6] is quite clear: These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Our Lord is commanding the twelve original disciples.... the Apostles....to not evangelize the Gentiles but instead go to the "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel". The Gentiles were to be evangelized but this is the mission Our Lord had in mind for the Apostle Paul [Acts 9:15].
Rome did have a contingent of Jews.....who being of the Tribe of Judah did constitute membership in the House of Israel. But......the majority of Israelites did not live in Rome.....nor did they live in or about Jerusalem.
Please read post #22,58,66,134,137, and 145. I think you'll understand better the difference between the House of Judah (The Jews) and the House of Israel (the Jews and the other eleven tribes). Peter's commission was to these twelve tribes.....not just the Jews. Paul's commission was to the Gentiles.....as well as the Israelites (all twelve tribes).
Seeing as Israel was the Father of Judah, the twelve tribes would include the Jews, no?
Our Lord is commanding the twelve original disciples.... the Apostles....to not evangelize the Gentiles but instead go to the "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel".
But Peter was later given a vision in which it was revealed that the Gospel is to be extended to the Gentiles as well.
Yup....the Jews were one of the tribes (Judah). They, the twelve tribes, were known jointly as "The House of Israel" i.e. "The Children of Israel".
The other eleven tribes were [Genesis 49] Ruebenites, Simeonites, Levites, Zebulunites, Issacharites, Danites, Gadites, Asherites, Naphtalites, Benjamites and the half tribes of Ephraim and Manessah. The last two being the sons of Joseph. [Genesis 48:5]
Twelve sons and twelve tribal divisions. After the Israelites reached the promised land and David their King died, God rent the Kingdom of Israel in two [I Kings 11:11-13]. This was because of the sins of Solomon. [I Kings 11:30-31]. The Northern Kingdom retained the name Israel and was composed of Ten tribes. The Southern Kingdom took the name Judah as that was the largest tribe. The other two tribes of Judah were Benjamin and Levi.....three tribes altogether....one Kingdom.
In 721 B.C. the Northern Kingdom (Israel) was carried captive to Assyria [II Kings 17:22-23] and scripture does not record their return. In fact, if you read this scripture....it says they are still there. This scripture was written long after the actual event. 125 years later the Southern Kingdom (Judah) was take captive to Babylon [II Kings 25:11] but some of them returned to the promised land. You will find that documented throughout the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
When Our Lord commanded the Apostles to go to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel He was speaking of these folks who were God's chosen (Israel), were exiled and had lost their way. I don't know if you read my earlier post (#145) but Josephus tells us there were so many Israelites "Beyond The Euphrates" they could not be counted. I would assume this meant millions! These are the folks that Peter was evangelizing when he said he was in Babylon [1 Peter 5:13]. He was writing to other Israelites who lived along the shores of the Black Sea [1 Peter 1:1-2] who were God's elect according to the foreknowledge. Many folks read these scriptures and think these people were just some more Gentiles. They were Israelites!
Many people not familiar with the exiles tend to lump them all (Israelites) together and refer to them as Jews. The Jews were one of the tribes.....1/12 of the total population and the Apostles were told to go and evangelize the other 11/12ths. Paul's commission [Acts 9:15] allowed him to minister to Israelites and Gentiles and this is why you see Paul in Rome witnessing to Jews [Acts 28:17-25]....as well as Gentiles.
Absolutely....you are correct. But.....it was Paul's domain. At the time he was still in Arabia getting education from The Lord [Galatians 1:17] so the task of opening the door to the Gentiles fell to Peter.
When Paul re entered the scene after three years he took that responsibility to himself. From that point on Peter concerned himself only with the Israelites who had been scattered worldwide [Amos 9:9].
No. I thought you were referring to the fact that Jesus called "Peter" by different names at different times as implying there was a "name change".
But there are two little words missing from the verses you quoted that say there was no name change---"Thou art...", as in "Thou art Cephas...".
"Protestants would not accept me as one of their own. Why would you label me as one?"
An unchurched ignoramus (I was too, until I actually studied Catholic doctrine from Catholic sources, instead of the mounds of BS published by Protestants bashing the Catholic church).
The boldened part above was something that Marcion the apostate pontificated, against whom Irenaeus wrote, both of whom did their pontificating and writing some 50 years after Ignatius died, thus more evidence that the Epistle to the Philadelphians is spurious with stuff lifted from things and people not around at the time of its writing.
You would do better by quoting Justin Martur and Irenaeus on the Simon Magus matter as their works are more credible. [Those capital letters for there "Catholic Church" are also a dead giveaway]
All invented out of whole cloth by Leucius Charinus, yet Igntaius of Antioch describes what Hippolytus describes, half a century before Lecuius Charinus. That Ignatius: using time travel to prevent Hippolytus from looking foolish! I bet the Catholic Church makes a saint out of him!
I don’t suppose that source you used will be descredited in your eyes, will it?
Ignatius-Forgeries? Authentic? Who knows.
And:
We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius ("Hist. eccl.", III, xxxvi) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius
Catholic Encyclopedia - Ignatius
BTW there was no big "C"atholic Church at the time of Ignatius.
But they never cease to quote from these "interpolated epistles" whose actual 4th century author is an unknown interpolator and propagator of spuriousness. Perhaps whenever Ignatius is quoted, we should ask: "which Ignatius?" -- the first century Ignatius who left nothing in writing or the fourth century Ignatius who wrote voluminously???
I wouldn't read too much into that....for it is quite normal behavior for that particular poster.
Seldom do I see logic, scripture or plain old respect from that source. Instead the position is defended with vitriol, innuendo and utter cussedness. C'est la vie.
Go Giants....LOL!
Yup....you're saying it like it is....again. Dale Carnegie would not give you "any" resemblance of a passing grade. LOL
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
Not when it comes to clear consistencies that were in line with what Saint Ignatius believed that we can trace through the centuries.
We can very easily accept what Ignatius believed from the The writings of Saints like Justin Martyr,Irenaues ,Eusebius and others who said many of the same things. Thus ,the importance of consistent oral tradition as a safeguard.
Like it or not Dear Friend,you use this same principle to believe that the Bible is the word of God since we have only scraps of the originals and no signed copies from the Apostles to authenticate them.
“”BTW there was no big “C”atholic Church at the time of Ignatius.””
I am aware of that, I added the capitols to emphasize it.
I wish you a Blessed Day!
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.