Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
Believe me, it was an "Uggghgly job", but both of us tried to do it with a good attitude.
This morning I talked with our Maintainence Man at noon. I mentioned that the kitchen had been so trashed and that the other lady and I spent so long before we did our dishes cleaning it up.
It was all worth it when he replied, "I always come in through the kitchen door and do a visual. This morning I saw that it was left clean."
That's all I needed. (But I did let him know how long we worked on cleaning up the other persons' messes.
Which proves my point when I said to someone on this thread that Jesus extended his ministry to the Gentiles. Thanks.
**The Church fathers were always in agreement that Babylon was code for Rome.**
And so was John in the writing of Revelation. That's why he refers to Babylon.
Babylon=Rome
Beast= Roman ruler of the day -- was it Diocletian? (spelling? Or someone else?
There are other code parallels that the persecuted Christians understood.
One is the woman clothes by the sun -- many Catholics think of Mary.
But primarily, as I understand it, the woman represented Israel.
I forget what the harlotry in the warnings to some of the cities was a parallel to, but I am thinking, without getting my Bible study book out in the car, that it was idolatry.
See 1467.
At the beginning of the present era there were many conversions to Judaism all over the Middle East. In about 40 CE, in northern Iraq, the Royal Family and many of the people of Adiabene became Jews. It is estimated that there may have been as many as one million Jews around Babylonia at that time.
The above paragraph is about one third of the way down here.
The Church Fathers were obviously wrong here also as even Josephus says "The Ten Tribes beyond the Euphrates were of such a large number no one could estimate the total". [Antiquities XI, Chapter X, Paragraph 2]
Who do we believe....your guy or mine. The point remains....Our Lord told the Twelve to "Go to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel". He didn't mean Rome.
I'm not assuming Peter was never in Rome.....I know he wasn't because The Lord told him not to go there! I'm getting my facts from scripture! [Matthew 10:5]
Who do you think the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel are?
This was prior to the Crucifixion, Christ later was quite clear when He said, "all nations" (your dispute of that has NEVER been accepted by the Church) and either way, it is irrelevant as there were Jews in Rome.
Pontificate | Common English name | Regnal (Latin) name | Personal name | Place of birth | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 to 67 | Peter Saint Peter |
Petrus, Head of the Church | Simon Peter שמעון בן יונה (Shimon ben Yona) Shimon Kipha ΣΙΜΗΟΝ ΚΗΦΑΣ (Simeon Kephas) |
Bethsaida, Galilea | Disciple of Jesus from whom he received the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, according to Matthew 16:18-19. |
post42/ante57 to 64/67(?) | Petrus, Episcopus Romanus | Executed by crucifixion upside-down; feast day (Feast of Saints Peter and Paul) 29 June, (Chair of Peter) 22 February | |||
64/67(?) to 76/79(?) | Linus Saint Linus |
Linus, Episcopus Romanus | Linus | Tuscia (Northern Latium) | Traditionally martyred (no evidence); Feast day 23 September |
76/79(?) to 88 | Anacletus (Cletus) Saint Anacletus |
Anacletus, Episcopus Romanus | Anacletus | Probably Greece | Martyred; feast day 26 April |
88/92 to 97/101 | Clement I Saint Clement |
Clemens, Episcopus Romanus | Rome | Martyred; feast day 23 November | |
97/99 to 105/107 | Evaristus (Aristus) Saint Evaristus |
Evaristus, Episcopus Romanus | Aristus | Traditionally martyred (no evidence); feast day 26 October | |
105/107 to 115/116 | Alexander I Saint Alexander |
Alexander, Episcopus Romanus | Alexander | Rome | |
It's great discussing all this with you folks...I really mean that. I have a ongoing medical situation that requires an early morning hospital procedure...so I'm going to sign off now.....for today....maybe tomorrow also.
God Bless you all.
Is it important that there is a difference between 'literally millions" and "It is estimated that there may have been as many as one million Jews around Babylonia at that time"?
Source of this information, please.
**Do you know who has that code book now? Is that code book part of the canon of scripture? Did they also have a secret decoder ring that came with it?**
Oh, it's a secret code. You have to be Catholic to learn it! <saecasm off/
Let me rephrase what I said. I am not persuaded that the instruction to confine their ministry to the lost sheep of the house of Israel remained in force after the resurrection, whoever the lost sheep of the House of Israel might be.
May the Lord bless whatever medical monkey business you have to endure.
I got mine at the ceremony in the crypt!
God bless you , too, and may your medical condition resolve promptly.
RD
**Clearly Jesus and his apostles had become a close-knit family. They were all members of the same family --- the family of God.**
So you are saying that the use of the word "brethen" in the scriptures does not necessarily mean blood-brouther and blood-sister. It could be a close - knit group such as the apostles??
I think you finally have it! Glory be! Thanks!
Actually according to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul founded the church of Rome, not Peter alone. However, if you read the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans, neither Peter nor Paul founded the church of Rome. It was functioning just fine without an apostolic visit of any kind when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans in 56 AD.
But also: Do you remember my question: When did Peter become Bishop of Rome as legend has it?
Read your quote from Irenaeus carefully. Irenaeus says that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, followed by Clement then Anacletus. So according to Irenaeus Peter was never the Bishop of Rome and there is no indication that he resided there for any period of time.
Well, I did read my extract from Irenaeus carefully. And it said:
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.
So, according to the extract from Irenaeus, the apostles committed the Church into the hands of Linus, then Anacletus, and then to Clement. So I am not sure where you get from this that Peter was never the bishop of Rome.
Now Irenaeus does not give indications of dates, but Eusebius states:
6. But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.Eusebius, Church History, Book II, 14.6
The reign of Claudius was from 41-54 AD, so I'd say that Peter arrived in Rome somewhere in that time frame. (By the way, the Acts of Peter and Paul corroborates the relative time frame). Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies, Book VI, Chapter 15, also provides corroboration.
So by all indications, it appears that Peter first arrived there and then was joined by Paul. As we all know, Paul arrived during the reign of Nero.
One small correction to your statement.....I will use a reference when it supports scripture. my (Diego1618) opinion.
Fixed it. No charge.
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.