Peter in Rome?

That is such an ignorant statement, especially when many examples of the historical documentation has been presented here by folks on this topic. Most protestant scholars (including James White and John MacArthur) ackowledge that Peter died in Rome. Why can't you?

 

Actually that is not true at all. In Acts 15 it is James who passes judgment and the council is settled once James speaks.

Hardly a case for Peter.

Here James gives "the answer" in the form of passing official “judgment” (seems like James may have been "in charge" at this time).

</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

I am sticking with this one.

</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

Actually that is not true at all. In Acts 15 it is James who passes judgment and the council is settled once James speaks.

Hardly a case for Peter.

</font>[/QUOTE]Good point, Bob. Peter did indeed exercise a primacy of sorts among the apostles at times, but James certainly presided over this Jerusalem Council.

I don't agree with many of the beliefs surrounding the Roman papacy, particulary in it's current "infallible" mutation. However, I think it's somewhat foolish for non-Catholics to deny the fact of Peter being in Rome simply because they disagree with questionable RC dogma regarding the bishop of Rome.

 

You are right about that. As a non-Catholic I don't think it strengthens my argument to "deny everything" just because I don't like something about RC doctrine.

We have to give credit where credit is due and admit that just because some claims by the RCC are doubtful - that does not mean every fact of history they speak of - is in error.

I think Calvin was simply going overboard on this point.

In the encyclopedia quote - I think this reference is the most compelling

In Christ,

Bob

 

I know Living4Him has already referenced the writings of the church fathers but for those interested in reading translations of those works for themselves here is a link. I know some folks consider these documents to be "corrupted" by Catholics.


Christian Classics Ethereal Library - Church History by Eusebius
The pdf is large (5.5 Mb) and the sections about Peter being in Rome begin in Chapter XIV (pg 144)

The corruptor mentioned here is Simon Magnus, mentioned in Acts 8:9-24 and the previous section in Eusebius' Church History.

 

Let's ASSUME that there is a physical leader of today's church. Who then is the clear leader?

The Pope?
Jerry Falwell?
Jim Baker?
Hank Hannagraf?
Billy Graham?
Me (in jest)?

How do we determine who is the next leader of Christianity. The Bible gives us not indication of how to elect a new leader. He also never says that he will continue to bring new leaders into "power". This is absurd.

Of course there will be some people within Christian churches that will have a certain amount of authority over those God has placed over them, but there is never anyone who presides over Christ's body. HE IS THE HEAD!! What is so hard about that?

 

Bob,

You need to back up a little in Acts 15:7

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

15:8
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

15:9
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

15:10
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

15:11
But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

15:12
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.


Peter settled it. James merely reiterated what Peter had decided.

 

The answer to the leader of Christ's Church is the Pope.

The Holy Spirit leads the Church in truth.

If the Holy Spirit is leading the above Churches, then why don't they all hold to the same faith and morals?

 

The answer to the leader of Christ's Church is the Pope.

The Holy Spirit leads the Church in truth.

If the Holy Spirit is leading the above Churches, then why don't they all hold to the same faith and morals? </font>[/QUOTE]No man can serve two masters. Don't even try and tell me that the Pope and the Spirit of God are working together to lead the church as a whole. I have watched how people idolize the catholic pope and I have watched him accept that worship.

The pope is not my leader. There is nothing he can provide for me that Christ, His Word, and His Spirit hasn't already provided.

 

Who chose a replacement for Judas and why?

 

Acts 1 - they chose Matthias. (Acts 1:26)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Technically, God chose Matthias by his own providence to be an apostle. The Bible says in that context that he was numbered with the twelve.

Violet, what is the point to your question?

 

Peter's statement is NOT of the form "I have heard all the evidence and now I give my decision" -- RATHER Peter's statements are given as personnal testimony NOT as "a judgment after all evidence has been presented".

James on the other hand waits until ALL have spoken and ALL are finally silent (including Peter). Then James says "MY JUDGMENT is" --

In fact in Acts it says that AFTER ALL (including Peter) had spoken "James ANSWERED and said"...

It is clearly a contrast between the GROUP speakers and the clear leader who answers the GROUP and passes judgment.

After James has spoken and passed HIS judgment - there is no further debate - no discussion - topic "closed". At that point there is only the task of reporting the decision - the "judgment" stated by James and agreed to by the group.

This is impossible to miss.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Actually, Peter as the first Pope settled the matter and spoke for the whole Church.

James spoke after Peter but he did not have the final word. The final word had already been spoken. But James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and a man of tremendous prestige among the Jews. Herod himself had feared to lay a hand on him.

He added his personal prestige by pointing out to the Jews the decision of Peter was fortold in the prophets. James, therefore, was anxious to show the Jewish converts his perfect agreement with Peter, his leader.

In vs. 21 & 22 James went beyond Peter's decision, but he was not decreeing or deciding as Peter had done. He states, to begin with, that it is his judgment or sentence. Peter didn't speak for himself; he spoke for the whole Church.

James added had nothing to do with the doctrinal decision which had been settled.

 

Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians made reference to Peter Martyrdom but never said where.

In”The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans” Ignatius “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles” Never states that they where in Rome. But, only that he did not have the same authority.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), talked of Peter 3 time but never said he was in Rome.

Not till the 3rd century do you see that people start to say that peter was in Rome.
This would be like we now know that Gorge Washington was born in Texas because we have a letter that Mr. Soandso with PHD in 1999 said so.

this would fall into the area of an Urban legends


Peter was in Babylon 3 years
before his death.
I PETER 5:13

 

Tertullian (145-220A.D.) who was around before the third century stated, "[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter"

 

Was Peter an earthly authority over Paul?

 

So are you going to keep parrotting what you wrote yesterday without reading the other posts which contain evidence to the contrary? For example, here's a point made by Living4Him which directly debunks what you wrote (twice now) about Irenaeus:

I, too, have read these statements of Irenaeus previously and both indicate that Peter was in Rome at some point.

It might be a good idea to read the responses before repeating the exact same post you made yesterday.

 

Their interactions with each other in Acts seems to suggest that Paul submitted to the authority of the council of Jerusalem of which Peter and James were the primary members. Peter does commend the teachings of Paul as being wise in his letters.

However, the two men also appeared to have enough respect for each other to avoid major conflict so we don't have biblical or historical evidence to a clear answer to this question.