Peter's Successor

W Putnam:
By the way, I am neither Protestant, Catholic or Jew. Note. Acts 11:26, Isaiah 62:2. Opps, I forgot, you are above investigation of the divne evidence for yourself. No problem, I will quote it all for you. In Is. 62;2 the Bible says,And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.
In Isaiah 56: 5,6, the Bible says,Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
6  Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
In Acts 11:26, the Bible says, And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Note: the name is new, better and one God named. The only name that is referenced in the pages of holy writ as new is the name CHRISTIAN.

Therefore, I am neither Protestant, Catholic or Jew.

 

First, I want to address Frank:

Sir, I respect you as a Christian. And if you don't want to elaborate upon the particular denonimation you attend, that fine.

Curtis: Please concentrate on John 20:22-23 and see if my accessment is true or not. And if you don't mind, a little exegesis from you would be interesting.

Give it your best shot, sir!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Almighty and eternal God, you gather
the scattered sheep

and watch over those
you have gathered.

Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,
your Son.

You have marked them
with the seal of one baptism,
now make them one
in the fullness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.

We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

 

WPutnam, was it neccesary to smart off at me in such a way? We all know you are superior to lesser believers without your open disdain.

 

Did you see the that went with it, sir?

Sorry I hurt your feelings, noting we were all a little giddy there.

"Smart"?

Nah, a real dummy, actually.

At my age, the more I know, the more I find out I don't know...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

Did you see the that went with it, sir?</font>[/QUOTE]Most smiles of this nature have an implied extended finger next to them.

One of the things you may be interested to find out is that Babylon is a geographical place, not just a metaphorical one. As I said, there is just as much likelihood that peter was writing form the geographical place as the metaphorical one (which wasn't even entered into the canon as metaphor for Rome until the Book of the Revelation of St. John).

As I stated at the outset, I'm looking for evidence that Peter was ever in Rome to begin with, among other things. No one has offered as yet any real evidence that the bishop of Rome was of any real influence until several hundred years after the Council at Athenasia

 

You may be interested to note that commentators like Matthew Henry considered 1 Peter to be written from babylon in Assyria.

This from John Gill's commentary may be instructive:

From Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown:

 

tragicpizza, I believe WPutnam gave you a link on the subject.

 

W Putnam:
I am not a part of a denomination. I do not follow a man made authority. I follow the newtestament of Jeus Christ. It makes only Christians. Acts 4:12;11:26. If oe follows the new testament of Christ, he is neiher protestant, cathooiic or jew, according to the divine text of scripture. Sir, if you disagree, then prove I am not a Christian as per the Bible. Let me quote Acts 4: 12,Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.Acts 11:26 says,And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Isaiah 62;2, says, And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name. Isaiah 56:5 says,Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

Now, sir, were is the denimination in the Bible. Frankly, the divine evidence teaches us they were not of the prophetic plan of God, not sanctioned by God, and did not exist by divine sanction. LOGIC tells me if Go did not plan them prohesy about them and did not sanctiomn them,THEY CAME FROM A MAN OR MEN. Rationally,speaking of course. Therefore, pleae prove I am a part of any denomination.

Are you saying, a man cannot pick up the new testament of Christ and through his own priviate study learn the truth, follow it and be a Christian as per the divine sanction of God and his eternal word? I would like some evidence for that, too!!!

You do not have to elaborate on which denomination you belong to, as you have already admitted you are Catholic. Please, allow me the same freedom to be a Christian as per the new testament of Christ.

You have a good day!!

 

Given all the different beliefs that have arisen through such self study - how exactly is it that one would know for certain that what they believe is true?

How do you know that your particular interpretations of Scripture are correct?

Ron

 

Yup. And aside from a mention in one letter written around 110AD, no one who would have known anyone who even knew Peter has anything to write about the subject. And the argument given at first is precisely the one I used against the idea that Peter was referring to Rome.

So... that the best ya got?

 

The same way you know that the RCC's teachings are correct. Don't forget, you make a decision just like we do and are responsible for that decision just like we are. You may feel better that you made your "authority" the RCC, but nonetheless you have made a choice just as we have. So don't play that we are the only ones using our heads. You wouldn't be RCC if you disagreed with their teaching. You have chosen to believe their interpretations and to yield your interpretations to theirs. Ultimately we ALL make a choice of what to believe. You just chose something different. Good try at trying to make us look like a bunch of crazy rebels.

In the Grace of the Father,
Neal

 

tragicpizza, you said you wanted evidence showing that Peter was even ever in Rome. The article cited letters from the early Christians that give clear testimony that Peter was in Rome. There are some historical facts, you can accept or reject the facts.

You might want to check out Steven Ray's Upon this Rock. I actually haven't read it yet but I am ordering it. I understand that the book includes a detailed defense of Peter's historical prescence in Rome.

 

And you assumed that this was my implication?

You have a chip on your shoulders, sir...

I last said:

"Smart"?

Nah, a real dummy, actually.

At my age, the more I know, the more I find out I don't know...

Indeed, and when Peter wrote those words, the real Babylon was long dust in the sands of what is now Iraq.

So, what did he mean by "babylon"?

Most scholars think that "Babylon" was a code word for Rome. You see, in those days, had the Roman soldiers had intercepted that letter, they would not realize that Peter was in Rome!

Get it? (no "finger" implied here...)

Can you document the Christrian drive to evalgelization in what is not the Iraqi desert, when the "plumb to pick" in Christian evangelization was the very enemy of Christianity, the Roman Empire? Rome was it's head! Paul went there instead of the ancient ruins of the real Babylon, because the "pickings" were far better, don't you think?

If what you have seen here in this thread so far is not convincing, then there is little I can do to convince you. The early fathers testify to Peter being in Rome, and in fact, state the very successors of him as the Bishop of Rome.

Here is a good read for you:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rome.htm

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

Because you have Scriptural assurance?

Could you cite the verse that says that indiviual interpretations of Scripture by indiviual persons will be correct?

I can give you some that support my belief in the power of the Church to teach with authority.

No arguement there.

 

Because you have Scriptural assurance?

Could you cite the verse that says that indiviual interpretations of Scripture by indiviual persons will be correct?

I can give you some that support my belief in the power of the Church to teach with authority.</font>[/QUOTE]The promise of Scripture is given to the church of Jesus Christ. The RCC does not qualify for that. It gave that up many many centuries ago when it departed from orthodox theology. The Scriptures never identify the RCC as the authoritative church and there is no place for the RCC to claim that position inasmuch has it violates Scripture repeatedly in its doctrines and practices. The true Church does have teaching authority to be sure. But that authority is derived from the message it preaches, not from anything else.

In the bottom line, you have decided with your own mind that the RCC is the authoritative church. You have not proven that from Scripture or from history. You have not given any reasonable evidence for such a statement or position. You have simply made a decision. The mountian of theological errors and apostasy in the RCC give us undeniable proof that RCC is not the true church. True believers in search of living a proper Christian life should immediately and without hesitation separate themselves from the RCC. The authoritative words of Jesus Christ are the basis on which we say that the RCC is not the true church. You can make no such claim without twisting the words of the Savior that the RCC professes to believe in and worship. To approach Christ wrongly is to approach him not at all.

 

Hi Pastor Larry,

You should check out Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on 'Romanism' by 'Bible Christians' by Karl Keating.

 

WPutnam, did you read the commetnary excerpts I posted?

 

Did I say all individual interpretations are correct? Could you point me to where I said that?

Yes, I agree the church has authority. But I do not see that as the RCC. If you could point me to verse that says the RCC is THE church I would greatly appreciate it.

Bottom line, you make a choice and I make a choice. We will both give an answer for our choices one day. Say all you want against "individual interpretations," but you have done the exact same thing as I. You have chosen an interpretation that is different that what I have chosen. You are just as guilty of living by your personal interpretation. Try to paint it as you following the "church's" interpretation, but really all you are doing is choosing their interpretation, a personal choice of your own. So please stop acting so condemning towards others who admittedly make choices. You are in the same boat. We will each individually stand before God one day and we can't pass the blame for wrong interpretations on to the church or anyone else.

God Bless You,
Neal

P.S. An interpretation solely from an individual is most likely incorrect. God's Holy Spirit has a big part in leading folks to Truth. And not everyone who claims the Holy Spirit's leading is really lead by the Holy Spirit.