Which Peter?

Since this place is crawling with Catholics, let me ask you all a question!

What makes the difference if Peter was buried in Rome or some place else? He was just a man and a married one at that. Used of God, yes, but Peter needed salvation just like anyone esle.

Also, what he preached, Acts 2:38, (water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, which was changed by the RCC from the original to titles)as well as other things, the Catholic Church would consider him a "HERETIC" in this day and age.

As far as Mary goes, she was chosen to carry the Christ. It was a previledge I'm sure, but she had to obtain salvation just like everyone else in this NT Church. As a matter of fact, she was with the Apostles and other women on the Day of Pentecost when the NT Church was born. (Acts 1:14)

She also would be considered a "HERETIC" today, if she was still alive. I might add that she had other children after Jesus was born. She was just a woman!

I'm sure I'll get "blasted" for this, but it's the "truth."

MEE

 

Sure, you'll get blasted for writing your whole post about Peter needing salvation and Mary needing salvation, as if Catholics believed contrary.

 

The originating post to this thread was an arguement that Peter was never in Rome and that the "Peter" who was in Rome was a pagan.

Please, go back and at least read the begining of the thread.

BTW, why has no one (other than Brian ) remarked on the evidence that I presented, which is based on Scripture, that Peter was in deed in Rome with Paul?

Ron

 

Stephen K. Ray, a former Baptist himself, deals with these issues in a professional and scholarly fashion in his text Upon This Rock, which sells for only $11.87 on Amazon.com. I read this text three years ago back when I was caught between S. Ray and W. Webster with my intellect shaken up, ordered as it is towards truth. Upon This Rock put my mind to rest with its incessant quotations of both Protestant and Catholic historian scholars.



Visit http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0898707234/qid%3D1032226062/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-1057214-0107915

"As an Evangelical Protestant, Stephen Ray realized that the real issue dividing Catholics and Protestants was authority. Everything else was secondary to the issue of authority. Protestants accept the authority of the Bible alone, whereas Catholics understand the authority to be residing in the Magisterium, the Scriptures and the Sacred Tradition. Ray goes through the Scriptures and writings from the first five centuries of the early Church to demonstrate that the early Christians had a clear understanding of the primacy of Peter in the See of Rome. He tackles the tough issues in an attempt to expose how the opposition is misunderstanding the Scriptures and history. He uses many Evangelical Protestant scholars and historians to support the Catholic position. This book contains the most complete compilation of Scriptural and Patristic quotations on the primacy of Peter and the Papal office of any book currently available."

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Carson Weber

 

Trying2understand, I suppose I had what Kathryn S. had posted, about where Peter had supposedly died in Rome, on my mind.

I know what the subject is about. Did I hit a nerve?

MEE

[ September 17, 2002, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: MEE ]

 

Hi MEE,

You asked, "What makes the difference if Peter was buried in Rome or some place else? He was just a man and a married one at that. Used of God, yes, but Peter needed salvation just like anyone esle."

Catholics agree with you on all four points.

The question is one of authority. As Catholics, faithful to Scripture, we understand that God the Father gave his eternally begotten Son all authority on heaven and on Earth. We also understand that this self-same God-man entrusted his divine authority to sinful men both married and unmarried.

Cf. Mt 9:8; 16:18; 18:18; Jn 20:21-23

Non-Catholic Christians rely upon this authority whenever they speak of the Trinity, whenever they defend the deity of Christ, whenever they open the pages of the Bible, and whenever they proclaim the Hypostatic Union in Jesus Christ.

The admittance of this reliance is another matter altogether, which requires two needed virtues: (1) humility and (2) honesty.

May God bless you,

Carson

 

Peter was apostle to the Circumcision (Galatians 2:7-8) and the people whom Paul salutes as Christians in Rome (60 A.D.) are all of Gentile name (Romans 16:3-15). At about this same time, Peter wrote his first epistle from Babylon. "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son." (1 Peter 5:13)

In 52 A.D., 9 years after he was supposed to go to Rome, Peter is in Jerusalem, telling of his experience with the Gentile Cornelius, but not breathing a word about any Gentile ministry in Rome. In Romans 16, Paul greeted 26 Christians in Rome. If Peter were Bishop of Rome, why was he left out? (Romans 16:3-15).

During Paul's imprisonment in Rome he wrote five Epistles: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon and II Timothy. In these writings, he mentions the names of many persons, but never alludes to the presence of Peter in that city. In Philemon, he enumerates his fellow workers - Ephaphras, Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas and Lucas, but does not mention the name of Peter. Is it possible that Paul would mention lesser stars in the constellation of the Christian laborers, and disregard a greater planet, Peter, whom the Church of Rome calls "The Prince of the Apostles?"
If Peter's being in Rome is so important, why does the scripture point away from any connection of Peter and Rome? Even if there were, there is no scriptural link between Peter in Rome and a Papacy in Rome.

Roman Catholic scholars make use of the Church Fathers in trying to prove the presence of Peter in Rome. God never promised to preserve the writings of the Church fathers and historians. The Catholic Encyclopedia (Volume VI, page 136) admits, "Substituting of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages."

Saint John

 

Well-------- It seems as if my idea of someone who knows more then me taking on the verses on the other side is not going to really happen. I guess in this case we have two offenses who are just willing to settle for the proof being in what they say rather then finding a way to refute the other position. Sometimes it just goes like that and there is not always clear cut ways to prove everything.

On Peter, I have always thought it funny that Peter is considered the "first Pope" of the Catholic church and in scripture he is known for his blunders. He denied Jesus, he sank in the water, he told Jesus that he would not let him be crucified and Jesus told him to "get behind me Satan". There are others that could be listed. If any person in the Bible fits the bill of ordinary saved sinner it would be Peter. No doubt he was used in a great way by God, as were all the apostles. I just can't get past all the floundering around he did. He is known for his lacking of faith and his being afraid to stand up for Jesus, yet the CC has made him father of the Popes and and the initiater of the church (after Jesus that is). Just some thoughts.

Carson, Ed said you were taking a break and you poped up anyway Take care and good luck with your studies. Remember, Scripture study is about forming doctrine even more then it is about proving doctrine. Pray that you will never try to put Banana peals over Watermelons.

Ed, seems like you took a deep breath before your last post, good for you I'll be watching your posts closely to monitor your attitude so beware

In Christ,
Brian

 

Isn't that a wonderful thing about God?

He chooses the least likely and calls them to His service.

Ron

 

trying2understand, why did you rebuke me "for being off the subject" and Briguy posts a little off the subject and nothing is said?

Briguy, no comlpaint here. Just curious as to why you can do it and I can't.

Were my questions too close to home Ron?

MEE

[ September 17, 2002, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: MEE ]

 

No, not at all. I was just reacting to my prior experiences. When the original anti-Catholic charge is being answered, a typical tactic is to switch to a new charge.

I was simply impatient. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Ron

 

No, not at all. I was just reacting to my prior experiences. When the original anti-Catholic charge is being answered, a typical tactic is to switch to a new charge.

I was simply impatient. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]Apology accepted, but not one person bothered to answer the rest of my questions.

BTW Ron, I wasn't trying to "switch to a new charge."

MEE

 

No, not at all. I was just reacting to my prior experiences. When the original anti-Catholic charge is being answered, a typical tactic is to switch to a new charge.

I was simply impatient. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]Apology accepted, but not one person bothered to answer the rest of my questions.

BTW Ron, I wasn't trying to "switch to a new charge."

MEE</font>[/QUOTE]I've already addressed your question, MEE. You acted as if we shouldn't care about Peter or Mary because they, like all of us, needed salvation. There wasn't a point or question beyond that. What exactly was I supposed to address that has been avoided?

 

I'll take a stab it it. Though, I admit up front that my ability to argue using solely scripture is not that strong...alas...it is not a gift I was given. I rely upon logicall deductions from scripture.

vs.

Quick question...are John and John the Baptist the same person? Then what makes you think that Babylon and Babylon the great are naturally the same place? Though this seems inconsequential, it really is not. If Peter really were in Rome, using a code word like 'Babylon' for rome, it seems logical to deduce that scripture would be consistent and use 'Babylon the great' or 'great Babylon' in all references to Rome. Since it does not, it is actually more likely that Peter was in Babylon, or what was left of it, and not Babylon the great(Rome).

Why would I think this?
1. Scripture is internally consistent (it doesn't contradict itself).
2. The additions of 'the great' or 'great' is actually what gives the clue that the place, Babylon, is in fact Rome. If this is left off, it seems silly to assume that it is not in fact the actual babylon (which still existed at this time).

It seems obvious to me that Babylon simply means Babylon, regardless if it was nothing more than a waste city at this point. While the cognomen 'Babylon the great' or variations does indeed speak of Rome. The distinction is in the qualifier.

I also don't feel this is a stretch at all. Babylon and Babylon the great (great Babylon) mean completely different things. Why would:

1. Peter not say Babylon the great when Babylon the not-so-great-anymore still existed and was reachable? This would be confusing.
2. John say Babylon the great if Babylon was universally understood to mean Babylon without qualifying the statement?

Seems to me there was no universal distinction, hence the need to do so with 'the great' or 'great' to signify Rome instead of the waste city of Babylon.

 

I have to agree the first link was great.

[ September 17, 2002, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: SixKids ]

 

I've already addressed your question, MEE. You acted as if we shouldn't care about Peter or Mary because they, like all of us, needed salvation. There wasn't a point or question beyond that. What exactly was I supposed to address that has been avoided?[/QB][/QUOTE]

..I was willing to let the subject drop, but since you brought it up again..let me say that you took what I said the wrong way!

I didn't say that Catholics shouldn't care about Peter and Mary needing salvation. I was pointing out that they were no more or less "humanity" and needed salvation just as anyone. No big "I's" and little "U's."

Also, there were more questions, but I didn't expect to really get an answer anyway.

MEE

[ September 17, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: MEE ]

 

MEE,

To avoid confusion, please repost your questions here (as clear as possible, so I don't address tangential issues), and I'll do my best to respond.

 

Originally posted by MEE

"trying2understand, why did you rebuke me "for being off the subject" and Briguy posts a little off the subject and nothing is said?

Briguy, no comlpaint here. Just curious as to why you can do it and I can't.

Were my questions too close to home Ron?

MEE""

MEE, I guess I am just special . You are right though I did drift off subject. I think I do that when I am not enough informed on the subject on hand.

Jason, Good post. I like the use of "logic" in dealing with scripture. I use logic arguements quite often.

Well hope there is more information to come on this!

Ron, God is great for using the least for great things. He is great for simply saving the likes of me (oops, sorry MEE, went off topic again

In Christian Love,
Brian

 

I thought they were clear the first time. Go back to page 2, if you want, and try again! If you don't want to respond, then just drop it.

MEE

 

I thought they were clear the first time. Go back to page 2, if you want, and try again! If you don't want to respond, then just drop it.

MEE</font>[/QUOTE]They are not clear to me, and I just said that. It looks like you don't want me to answer them so that you can boast "No Catholic could/would answer my questions!" which is what you're doing right now. I don't know what questions we haven't answered, so for my sake, please, repost the question(s).