DHK, please give Bible evidence or outside the bible documentation that Peter only went to Rome to be martyred. Of course you are correct, yes, Peter was martyred in Rome but Peter was also the one apostle with the most authority, most of all No other apostle is given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. In Matthew 18:18, we read that all the Apostles are given the power to bind and to loose; but Peter alone is promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 16:19. This shows us that the power which is given to all the Apostles to bind and to loose in Matthew 18:18, must be exercised under the keys which are given alone to Peter. Peter has a unique position of authority in the Church.
Here’s what’s really interesting. Most people don’t know that this reference to the keys of the Kingdom in Matthew 16:19 (and to Peter’s binding and loosing with them) comes from Isaias chapter 22. Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16 are a reference to the function of the prime minister of the Kingdom in the Old Testament
Why The RCC Is A Cult
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by The American Dream, Feb 14, 2015.
Page 7 of 15
-
You also have failed to address why James was calling the shots if Peter was in charge. -
-
I posted earlier the following:
-
Matthew 7:13-15
13. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. -
McCree, in your post # 122, you said I also failed to address why St.James was calling the shots if St. Peter was in charge.
First of all in Acts 15 is that we see St.Peter is the one who rules definitively on the question of doctrine, and all kept silent. His bishops then spoke in favor of his teaching, acknowledging that Peter was indeed the authority in the Church. No one questions Peter's judgment. Then we have James who speaks in favor of Peter's teaching by giving an opinion on a pastoral issue. Hardly a challenge to the authority of Peter. Also while you are reading Acts 15 we can see where it disproves the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If Peter would have relied upon the Scriptures, he would have concluded that Gentiles had to be circumcised, since all the Patriarchs and prophets were, the apostles were, and even Jesus was. But St.Peter, by virtue of his authority, decides the issue as the chief shepherd of the Church (and the decision was not based on the Scriptures).
McCree, regarding any epistle where Peter was leading people away from the true faith, there is no such epistle. Would you produce chapter and verse, if you can find it. -
In fact Vatican 1 affirmed the Canons of Trent and much more! Consider first, from Vatican I, the infallibility of the pope:
So don't preach to me Walter about -
1. Lateran IV condones the "extermination" of heretics and Jews.
2. "Doctrine of Discovery" for the murder of indigenous populations that don't convert.
3. Clement XIV abolishes forever the Jesuit order in the 1700's. around 1773. -
-
FYI
-
-
Amen Zenas.
-
-
Galatians 2:11, 12
11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Looks like Paul was the boss-man rather than Peter! -
-
Jesus lived for about 33 1/2 years. He may have died in 29-30 A.D. with Pentecost following shortly after. After that there was a great persecution. During this persecution (Acts 8) the disciples were scattered, but the Apostles remained in Jerusalem. Peter was still in Jerusalem.
In Acts 10 Peter is in Joppa but after preaching to Cornelius in Caesarea, he returns to Jerusalem. There Herod tries to kill him, but God kills Herod instead. Finally in chapter 15 the Jerusalem Council is held. We know that this date is about 50 A.D. Ten years have now elapsed from Pentecost until this time. In Galatians 2:11 it says:
Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
--This took place after the Council. Peter knew better and thus the sharp rebuke from Paul.
Nevertheless, Peter had a ministry in Antioch sometime between 50 A.D. and the time of his writing of his First Epistle which he wrote ca. 62-63 from Babylon. You probably will object and say that this is a secret code name for Rome, but we normally take the Bible literally and have no evidence that he wrote from Rome.
1Pe 5:13 She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son.
--Some time after that he was taken to Rome and killed.
His first epistle is written:
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
--an unlikely address had he been in Rome. He was writing to the dispersed Christian Jews who were under great persecution. The areas mentioned are in Asia, or which also is Babylon. He writes to comfort them.
There is good authority that Peter suffered martyrdom in 68 A.D.
His second epistle likely was written just before his death.
When Paul wrote to the Romans 8-10 years earlier there is no mention of Peter. If he were the leader of any existing church in Rome Paul would have mentioned him. Consider all the names mentioned in chapter sixteen and all the people he did greet, Peter is not one of them.
Secondly, why would the epistle to Rome even be necessary if Peter had been there. That would have been totally redundant. Did Peter really need Paul's teaching? Was he that far down the ladder?
Paul is said to have died in ca. 67; Peter, 68 A.D.
Paul makes no mention of Peter.
Paul rebukes Peter while he is in Antioch just a few years previous to his death.
James, not Peter, is the pastor of the church in Jerusalem, and it is James that announces the judgment of the council which was in 50 A.D.
Peter was in Babylon in 62-63 A.D. suffering death in 68 just five years later.
How, as some Catholics claim, was he a pope for 25 years?
"It must be a miracle!" :laugh: -
There is no Biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. The RCCult would have better evidence if they claimed the Apostle Paul as their first pope specially since he had to spank Peter a little. Frankly I doubt that any born-again Christian with any knowledge of Scripture and Jesus Christ would allow himself to be worshiped as the RCC worship the pope or that ring, whichever?
Of course if you are brainwashed from childhood anything is possible; I guess! -
More from Vatican I, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
It would be interesting to see which Scripture the RCCult uses to justify these seven sacraments. I am sure some of the Converts to RCCult can provide those Scripture. Course I haven't figured out what #6, "order", is, or means, whatever.
Notice they confer Grace. I thought Grace was unmerited favor but looks like RCCult folks have to work to get Grace!
Peter was married but he wasn't the pope. Paul was not married and he was not the first pope. Schaff sort of implies that the first pope was Constantine but who knows. I suspect he puts his pants on like every one else! -
-
Page 7 of 15