Peter in Rome?

[epostle1]

As I said Babylon was a code for Rome in Revelation. According to apologist Karl Keatingt Babylon was also used as a code for Rome in the Sibylline Oracles, the Apocalype of Baruch and 4 Esdras. Also he says "Eusebius Pamphilius, writing about 303, noted that 'it is said that Peter's first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed in Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon'"

So now you know a bit more.

The attempt to prove Peter was never in Rome is done for one reason: To discredit Peter's primacy. What makes this argument fail is that it doesn't matter. Peter's office is not determined by his location, but by the words of Christ. For what it matters, if Peter established the primary church in Paris, we would be called Parisian Catholics. The prefix is irrelevant.

The Bible contains history, but it is not the sole rule of history, it gives no mention of the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal—and very early—position (one hesitates to use the word “tradition,” since some people read that as “legend”) was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Empire.

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200),...

Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his...

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century... Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome.

...something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively...

...The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome.
To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome

http://catholicexchange.com/found-bones-st-peter

 

[H. Richard]

The attempt to prove Peter was never in Rome is done for one reason: To discredit Peter's primacy. What makes this argument fail is that it doesn't matter. Peter's office is not determined by his location, but by the words of Christ. For what it matters, if Peter established the primary church in Paris, we would be called Parisian Catholics. The prefix is irrelevant.

The Bible contains history, but it is not the sole rule of history, it gives no mention of the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep, the Jews. According to what is written in the scriptures, Paul is the one that started the gospel of grace, not Peter. Or did the Holy Spirit get it wrong?

There is no scripture after the Jewish Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. What is recorded in scripture was written before 70 AD.

Rom 2:16
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
NKJV

Rom 16:25-26
25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began
NKJV

According to what Jesus said to the Jews in a parable; the 12 had a period of time to get the Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah and King. That period seems to be about 40 years (the same time that the Jews wondered in the wilderness.

The Barren Fig Tree:

Luke 13:6-9
6 He also spoke this parable: "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.
7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, 'Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?'
8 But he answered and said to him, 'Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.
9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.'" NKJV

Jesus spent 3 years in His ministry to the nation of Israel (the fig tree) and they did not accept Him as their king. After His crucifixion His apostles had about 40 years (to dig around it). But it never happened so God concluded that all had sinned and therefore He could offer salvation by grace to all. Up until this time the only way a Gentile could be saved was through a saved Jew. Now everyone is on a level playing field.

Added; That includes the Pope and all those people with the pointed hats.

 

[epostle1]

Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep, the Jews. According to what is written in the scriptures, Paul is the one that started the gospel of grace, not Peter. Or did the Holy Spirit get it wrong?

No, you do. Paul was not even a Christian when Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep, and "His sheep" are not the Jews that rejected the gospel message. Furthermore, Paul was always subject to the Church and attempts to make Paul independent from the institutional Church is unbiblical.

There is no scripture after the Jewish Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. What is recorded in scripture was written before 70 AD.

I agree, but that does not mean the scriptures are freeze dried with no further doctrinal development, otherwise there would be no way of refuting the numerous "Bible-alone" heretics down through the centuries. (Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism etc., etc. )

Rom 2:16
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
NKJV

Rom 16:25-26
25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began
NKJV

Peter and Paul were fellow workers, not competitors, and these verses do not negate Peter's primacy and have nothing to do with Peter in Rome.

According to what Jesus said to the Jews in a parable; the 12 had a period of time to get the Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah and King. That period seems to be about 40 years (the same time that the Jews wondered in the wilderness.The Barren Fig Tree:

Luke 13:6-9

6 He also spoke this parable: "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.
7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, 'Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?'
8 But he answered and said to him, 'Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.
9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.'" NKJV



These verses have nothing to do with Peter's primacy or his presence in Rome.

Ver. 5. Unless you do penance, &c. The Jews did not do penance; and therefore, forty years after our Lord's Passion, the Romans came, and beginning with Galilee, destroyed this impious nation to its roots, and polluted not only the court of the temple, whither the sacrifices were carried, but the inner sanctuary, with human blood. (Ven. Bede)
(It got cut down)
Ver. 6. A certain man, &c. Each one, inasmuch as he holds a place in life, if he produce not the fruit of good works, like a barren tree encumbers the ground; because the place he holds, were it occupied by others, might be a place of fertility. (St. Gregory) (Haydock's Commentary)

Added; That includes the Pope and all those people with the pointed hats.

Added: Undoubtedly, your church has no legitimate bishops, contrary to scripture. All those people with pointed hats have a pedigree going back to the Apostles; the evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it. You exclude yourself from seeing much of anything based on prejudice and ignorance of church history.
Your whole post is a red herring because the facts presented (i.e. post #41) demolishes the ridiculous assertion that Peter was never in Rome. I'll repost the last bit:
It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome.
To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.

 

[heretoeternity]

The question arises..why do the old Roman church cathedrals have a room ahead of the altar with large metal sculptures of the sun on the wall? And why do they have kneeling benches in this room facing the sun sculptures? Guess they can go there to worship the sungod, from which their roots have come..ancient Babylon....These cathedrals are in the Philippines...

 

[epostle1]

The question arises..why do the old Roman church cathedrals have a room ahead of the altar with large metal sculptures of the sun on the wall? An

They don't, you assert without proof. It's another lie invented by bible hate cults.


d why do they have kneeling benches in this room facing the sun sculptures?

There are no sun sculptures. Rays are often artistic depictions of the Transfiguration in the foreground, they are not sun sculptures.

Guess they can go there to worship the sungod, from which their roots have come..ancient Babylon....

No one has been able to prove that. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/is-catholicism-pagan Bearing false witness violates the 8th commandment.

These cathedrals are in the Philippines...

24 cathedrals in the Philippines, none of them match your description.


WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE TOPIC? NOTHING.
The accumulative evidence of Peter being in Rome is overwhelming, which may explain why you are so desperate to change the subject, which you have a reputation of doing.

​If I believed half the lies you do about the Catholic Church, I would hate her twice as much. To put it another way, the Church you despise doesn't exist, your view is a caricature, a cartoon, a perfect example of prejudice overriding reason. If and when the Holy Spirit heals you of your irrational hostility you will have to remain shackled by ignorance.

Back on ignore you go, I won't waste my time with "Bible Christians" who persecute Catholics with lies 'in the name of Jesus'.

 

[H. Richard]

Since the scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit it would seem to me that it would have more in it about Peter's work in the Gentile world.

But Jesus saw fit to give that task to a man named Saul (Paul). Since Jesus specifically gave the gospel of grace to Paul to preach to the Gentiles it would only be natural that the church in Rome have the gospel of grace. What we have in the RCC is a gospel built on the Jewish religious model.

Gal 2:9
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
NKJV

 

[heretoeternity]

WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE TOPIC? NOTHING.
The accumulative evidence of Peter being in Rome is overwhelming, which may explain why you are so desperate to change the subject, which you have a reputation of doing.

​If I believed half the lies you do about the Catholic Church, I would hate her twice as much. To put it another way, the Church you despise doesn't exist, your view is a caricature, a cartoon, a perfect example of prejudice overriding reason. If and when the Holy Spirit heals you of your irrational hostility you will have to remain shackled by ignorance.

Back on ignore you go, I won't waste my time with "Bible Christians" who persecute Catholics with lies 'in the name of Jesus'.

Read Revelation 17 and 18.......does this not describe the Roman religious system very accurately?

 

[epostle1]

Since the scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit it would seem to me that it would have more in it about Peter's work in the Gentile world.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).


But Jesus saw fit to give that task to a man named Saul (Paul). Since Jesus specifically gave the gospel of grace to Paul to preach to the Gentiles it would only be natural that the church in Rome have the gospel of grace. What we have in the RCC is a gospel built on the Jewish religious model.


Jesus certainly did not plan for the inflated and corrupt popes of the popular imagination. He intended to found a church, but the church was not democratic in structure. It was established with clear individual leadership. In Matthew 16.18-19 Jesus says to Simon Peter, “You are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it.” So, Jesus established his church not on a congregational model, but on the model of personal leadership.

Was this a monarchical papacy? In a way it was. In Matthew 16 Jesus goes on to say to Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” This is a direct reference back to Isaiah 22.22, where the prophet recognizes Eliakim as the steward of the royal House of David. The steward was the Prime Minister of the Kingdom. The keys of the kingdom were the sign of his personal authority delegated by the king himself.
The church leadership Jesus intended was ‘monarchical’ in the sense that it was based on his authority as King of Kings.

Gal 2:9
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
NKJV

Paul goes to James, Cephas, and John to verify that his gospel is the same as theirs "...lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain." Gal. 2:2. Paul consulted the authority of the Church.



It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

• In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17).
• He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).
• He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4),
• which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
• Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
• Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
• The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
• Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and
• Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . .
• delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.
Paul was always subject to the Church



SATIRE ON THE PROTESTANT REVOLT

 

[H. Richard]

It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

• In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17).
• He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).
• He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4),
• which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
• Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
• Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
• The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
• Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and
• Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . .
• delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.
Paul was always subject to the Church

This is obviously what you believe. But it is not what I believe. I have in many writings of this forum been saying what I believe. I believe the RCC is teaching a doctrine that is made up of religious zealots who want people to be enslaved by them.

You quoted some scriptures. Let me quote some too.

Gal 1:11-12
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
NKJV

If Peter taught Paul his gospel then Paul lied. You make him a liar when you said Peter taught Paul his gospel.

Gal 1:16-17
16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
NKJV

Gal 1:18-21 - Contacts at Jerusalem (cf. Acts 9:26-31)
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.
20 (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)
21 Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
NKJV

Paul went to Arabia for three years where Jesus (the Holy Spirit Taught Paul the grace gospel.

Gal 2:1-6
2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),
5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6 But from those who seemed to be something — whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man — for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.
NKJV

I believe Paul was talking about the 12 when he said "who seemed to be something."

For those that would go to the Bible and check this out a further reading would be, Acts 21 where it is seen that the 12 were still teaching the Jews to keep the Law, and Gal. 2:1-16.

 

[epostle1]

This is obviously what you believe. But it is not what I believe. I have in many writings of this forum been saying what I believe. I believe the RCC is teaching a doctrine that is made up of religious zealots who want people to be enslaved by them.

I never even hinted at such an absurd notion. I quoted Gal. 2 TWICE where Paul consulted James, Cephas and John to make sure his gospel was the same as theirs. You should read your own bible quotes more carefully because it seems you aren't aware of what you are quoting. . It turns out Paul's gospel was the same, meaning the gospel of James, Cephas and John was based on the same divine revelation as Paul. The difference is Jesus was alive on this earth when revealed truth was given to the Apostles. I never said Peter taught Paul his gospel.

Gal 1:16-17 6 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,

So what. I did not immediately confer does not mean I never conferred at all.

Gal 1:18-21 - Contacts at Jerusalem (cf. Acts 9:26-31)
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.
20 (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)
21 Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
NKJV

Paul went to Arabia for three years where Jesus (the Holy Spirit Taught Paul the grace gospel.

Gal 2:1-6
2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),
5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6 But from those who seemed to be something — whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man — for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.
NKJV

I believe Paul was talking about the 12 when he said "who seemed to be something."

Wrong. Paul is talking about "false brethren" starting with verse 4. Are the Apostles false brethren, Richard? You need to read your own quotes more carefully.
How do any of your verses prove that Paul was separate from the institutional Church (Peter, James, John)???

Again: In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16, a representative of the Church). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit Paul's divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

I gave several passages showing that Paul was under Church authority, in various ways, which is which is what can't accept. It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.
We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.
We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.
Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.
We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.
The whole thing is a far more complex matter than Protestants usually comprehend, because they have been taught only one way of looking at things: sola Scriptura and anti-institutionalism, and anti-Catholicism (either subtle or more pernicious opposition).
What is straying from God’s word is the very notion of denominationalism, which is always considered an outrage in the NT; the rejection of apostolic succession, and of, e.g., bishops (plainly present in the NT), or belief in a non-literal Eucharist, or a baptism that doesn’t regenerate, or sola Scriptura or faith alone (separation of justification and sanctification): all the host of unbiblical teachings that are in Protestantism. That’s why I left the system; wanting to follow biblical teachings more closely, traditional moral teachings, and the historic Christian Church.

If so, you should consider that Paul writes “if we or an angel from heaven… If anyone is preaching a gospel other than what you accepted.” Note that Paul is putting himself in the same class as “an angel from heaven” or “anyone” in terms of his condemnation if he strays from God’s word. As Alan rightly noted, Galatians is written specifically to convince the Galatians to reject the false gospel of the judaizers which was under God’s curse. Paul is calling for a real rejection of real false teachers and then includes himself in the list. He says that all teachers and all people claiming authority are subject to God’s words. So the command here cannot possible be purely hypothetical. It is real and it is a command to all Christians.

Galatians 1:8-9 is very real; thus, we reject Protestantism where it departs from God’s word. The Bible teaches that the true Church is infallible and indefectible. That is a promise of God. One either accepts it in faith or not. That is the task: does one accept all of what the Bible teaches, or just selectively, with man-made traditions added to it?

There is such a thing as a false church and false gospel, that must be rejected, and there is also the one true Church that cannot fail doctrinally, based on God’s protection. You assert the first thing but reject the second, which is your difficulty (accepting one part of the Bible but not another). We accept both things and have no difficulty.
The Jerusalem Council was a greater authority than Paul since it sent him off (Acts 15:22-25), and he proclaimed “for observance” the “decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). Thus the Council, representing the infallible and binding authority of the Church (binding and loosing), had greater authority than he did.
Calvinists have the bizarre position of holding that a person who was truly a follower of Jesus Christ couldn’t possibly fall away (perseverance of the saints; irresistible grace); therefore Paul couldn’t possibly do so, and all this is a moot point, from that perspective. Yet the Church that God set up could fall away from the true gospel.
Classic individualist and unbiblical nonsense . . .

 

[epostle1]

This is obviously what you believe. But it is not what I believe. I have in many writings of this forum been saying what I believe. I believe the RCC is teaching a doctrine that is made up of religious zealots who want people to be enslaved by them.

Can you name at least one enslaving religious zealot? With some kind of proof instead of an insulting anti-Catholic one liner?



You quoted some scriptures. Let me quote some too.

Gal 1:11-12
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
NKJV

If Peter taught Paul his gospel then Paul lied. You make him a liar when you said Peter taught Paul his gospel.

I said no such thing. I said Paul was always subject to the Church, Gal. 2:2 has come up at least three times. You think I am undermining Paul's divine call by asserting the authority of the Church, but that idea is a false man made Protestant tradition.

Gal 1:16-17
16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
NKJV

This does not cancel Gal. 2:2. I did not immediately confer does not mean I did not confer at all.


Gal 1:18-21 - Contacts at Jerusalem (cf. Acts 9:26-31)
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.
20 (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)
21 Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
NKJV

Paul went to Arabia for three years where Jesus (the Holy Spirit Taught Paul the grace gospel.

Gal 2:1-6
2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),
5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6 But from those who seemed to be something — whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man — for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.
NKJV

I believe Paul was talking about the 12 when he said "who seemed to be something."


Wrong. Paul is talking about false brethren and spies in verse 4. Is that the 12, Richard?
Is that why the Jews beat on Paul?
For those that would go to the Bible and check this out a further reading would be, Acts 21 where it is seen that the 12 were still teaching the Jews to keep the Law, and Gal. 2:1-16.

And where in all your verses is Paul's divine revelation pitted against Church authority? NOWHERE. It's a Protestant man made tradition. That's why you are so resistant to the truth that the Jerusalem Council had more authority than Paul, because they sent him, Paul didn't send himself. You also seen resistant to the truth that Paul consulted the Apostles in Gal. 2:2
What makes you think this undermines Paul's divine call is anybody's guess.

The whole thing is a far more complex matter than Protestants usually comprehend, because they have been taught only one way of looking at things: sola Scriptura and anti-institutionalism, and anti-Catholicism (either subtle or more pernicious opposition).
What is straying from God’s word is the very notion of denominationalism, which is always considered an outrage in the NT;

• the rejection of apostolic succession,
• and no bishops (plainly present in the NT),
• or belief in a non-literal Eucharist,
• or a baptism that doesn’t regenerate,
• or sola Scriptura
• or faith alone (separation of justification and sanctification):

all the host of unbiblical teachings that are in Protestantism. That’s why I left the system; wanting to follow biblical teachings more closely, traditional moral teachings, and the historic Christian Church.

Dialogue with a Calvinist Paul a “Lone Ranger”?

 

[FHII]

The false brethren were men sent by James.

Paul didn't ask for or need Peter's approval. Neither did he need approval from the council at Jerusalem.

Peter did defend Paul at the council.... That is to his credit.

Even so, Paul was not concerned or overly impressed with John, Peter or James. One simple reason: hid commission superceded their authority.

Lastly.... Paul stating that the leaders at the council seemed to be something and that they added nothing to him was not a compliment!

 

[FHII]

Getting back on track of the topic, I do believe there is a strong possibility that Peter was in Rome...for a few years. Maybe circa AD 56 or 57. But he was not the one who founded the Church at Rome. It was evangelized by (for lack of a better term) minor evangelists who brought much truth and also some error which Paul addressed.

 

[epostle1]

The false brethren were men sent by James.

Chapter and verse, please.
Paul didn't ask for or need Peter's approval. Neither did he need approval from the council at Jerusalem.

I never said anything about Paul needing Peter's approval. Verification is not the same as approval. The Council of Jerusalem had nothing to with approval. The truth is the Council commissioned Paul, a truth you don't like.
Paul verified his gospel in Gal. 2:2 with James, Cephas, and John. How many times do I have to repeat myself? You don't like that verse so you ignore it?
2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.
Who are those of repute, Richard? The fact that Paul went to Jerusalem should give you a clue.

• Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
• The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
• Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and
• Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . .

"were appointed", "being sent" "commissioned by the council" has NOTHING to do with approval, it has to do with Paul being subject the Church, a truth you don't like, and cannot disprove with scripture so you resort to red herrings like "approval".

Even so, Paul was not concerned or overly impressed with John, Peter or James. One simple reason: hid commission superceded their authority. their status meant nothing to Paul.

Wrong. Paul was not impressed with the status of Jewish leaders; you think he is writing against the Apostles, which is absurd. Read it again. You are violating a long list of proof texts that says otherwise.

You just can't read scriptures. Your comment is totally ultra-unbiblical. In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/Acts 22.12-16, a representative of the Church). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit Paul's divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

Lastly.... Paul stating that the leaders at the council seemed to be something and that they added nothing to him was not a compliment!

Where? Acts 15. verse please. Lastly, prove to me your mind is not enslaved by anti-Catholic lies and name one approved CC teacher who is an enslaving religious zealot. Provide quotes. I suggest you start here. Hurling reckless insults is not very smart.

 

[epostle1]

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.

Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people's names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.

...time travel to...

“Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...'”
Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail...”
Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.”
Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

Imagine that: " by this Spirit", a bumbling coward speaks divine words. God is full of surprises.

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him."
Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).


Philippians 4:3

and I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
Could Clement of Rome, the 4th Pope, be the same "fellow worker" with Paul in Phil. 4:3? He must have known John the Apostle because he was still alive when Clement wrote his first epistle in 96 A.D. John wrote Revelation roughly in the same time period. Which begs the question: why wasn't John the Pope?

 

[H. Richard]

So what. I did not immediately confer does not mean I never conferred at all.

Wrong. Paul is talking about "false brethren" starting with verse 4. Are the Apostles false brethren, Richard? You need to read your own quotes more carefully.
How do any of your verses prove that Paul was separate from the institutional Church (Peter, James, John)???

This is what the scriptures tell me.
Gal 1:11-12
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
NKJV

These words state that Paul did not receive his gospel from man (the 12). If he received his gospel from Peter then his statement is a lie. But it is your words that are not true.

If Peter taught Paul his gospel then Paul lied. You make him a liar when you said Peter taught Paul his gospel.

But I know my writing this is in vain. You go ahead and trust in the men who run the RCC. As for me there is no way that I will entrust my eternal life in the RCC run by men that have the blood of those it had killed on their hands.

Since this has become a senseless argument and since I started the thread, I ask to moderator to lock it before the weight of all these words sink the forum.

 

[FHII]

This is what the scriptures tell me.
Gal 1:11-12
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
NKJV

These words state that Paul did not receive his gospel from man (the 12). If he received his gospel from Peter then his statement is a lie. But it is your words that are not true.

If Peter taught Paul his gospel then Paul lied. You make him a liar when you said Peter taught Paul his gospel.

I don't think anyone is saying Peter taught Paul his Gospel. But what I do see people trying to say (especially catholics) is that Paul needed Peter's confirmation or approval. That is absolutely false. Neither did Paul need the councils confirmation or commission. Paul was going to preach what he did with or without anyone (other than Jesus') approval.

It's quite obvious what some of these catholics are trying to do. They are trying to put Paul under subjection to Peter as well as James. That just isn't so.

 

[epostle1]

I don't think anyone is saying Peter taught Paul his Gospel. But what I do see people trying to say (especially catholics) is that Paul needed Peter's confirmation or approval. That is absolutely false.

See Gal. 2:2. I have repeated it 7 or 8 times. Select the proof texts in post #49 that are absolutely false. In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/Acts 22.12-16, a representative of the Church). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit Paul's divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

Neither did Paul need the councils confirmation or commission. Paul was going to preach what he did with or without anyone (other than Jesus') approval.

This blind opinion is in direct contradiction to Acts 15:22-27. Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council. This verse has also been repeated in this thread, you just don't like it or choose to ignore it.

It's quite obvious what some of these catholics are trying to do. They are trying to put Paul under subjection to Peter as well as James. That just isn't so.

It just is so. What you further don't understand is what being "subject to the Church" means. You are just incapable of understanding the differences and similarities of authority and jurisdiction. You are trying to view the early church through Protestant lenses and it won't work. Peter James and John accepted Paul's authority, (Gal. 2:9) they didn't give it to him. Jesus did, but Paul still had to go to the Apostles for verification. If you don't like Gal. 2:2 or Acts 15: 22-27 it's your problem, not mine.



I have repeated numerous scriptures in a number of posts indicating Paul's subjection to Church authority. All you have is private opinions that contradict scripture. For the 5th or 6th time, Gal. 2:2, and many others, destroys your private unbiblical opinion that Paul did not consult the Apostles. Yes, Paul had authority as an apostle, and later worked with Peter in building the Church from Rome. What you need to do is write your own bible where Jesus gives the Keys of the Kingdom to Martin Luther, inventor of sola scriptura, the real issue in the Protestant's feeble attempt to undermine papal authority.

a satire on the absurdity of sola scriptura

See post #49. A list of proof texts is there showing the opposite of your unbiblical assertions.
See post #49. A list of proof texts is there showing the opposite of your unbiblical assertions.

 

[FHII]

I have repeated numerous scriptures in a number of posts indicating Paul's subjection to Church authority. All you have is private opinions that contradict scripture. For the second time, I never said Peter taught Paul his gospel, and for the 5th or 6th time, Gal. 2:2, and many others, destroys your private unbiblical opinion that Paul did not consult the Apostles. Yes, Paul had authority as an apostle, and later worked with Peter in building the Church from Rome. What you need to do is write your own bible where Jesus gives the Keys of the Kingdom to Martin Luther, inventor of sola scriptura, the real underling issue in Protestant's feeble attempt to undermine papal authority.

a satire on the absurdity of sola scriptura

Kepha,

What you have done on numerous occasions is put boxes around a verse which you think supports your cause. Yet when you read in context, it doesn't support what you say. Galatians is the best example to show Paul was not under Church subjection.

You want to say my opinion is private and unbiblical, then turn around and say Paul worked with Peter to build the Church at Rome? You have one small verse which only suggests Peter might have been in Rome at some point! None that say Paul and Peter worked together to build the Church in Rome.

Bottom line: Galatians makes it perfrctly clear that Paul was not in subjection to anyone or anything other than Christ.

 

[epostle1]

Kepha,

What you have done on numerous occasions is put boxes around a verse which you think supports your cause. Yet when you read in context, it doesn't support what you say. Galatians is the best example to show Paul was not under Church subjection.

No, you ignore the plain meaning of the text.

Galatians 2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. 3
Who were those of repute???

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible. (NOT Catholic)
but privately to them which were of reputation;
or "who seemed to be", i.e. somewhat, very considerable persons; not in their own opinion, or appearance only, but in reality, they seemed to be, and were pillars in the house of God; particularly he means James, Cephas, and John, then in great esteem with the saints, and deservedly honoured and respected by them, they being faithful labourers in the word and doctrine; so the Jewish doctors [SIZE=7.5px]F1[/SIZE] call men of great esteem, (Mybwvx) , who "seem to be", or "are accounted of", a word to which the phrase here used answers: these were spiritual men, capable of judging of all spiritual things; men of full age, whose senses were exercised to discern between truth and error; and were very proper persons for the apostle to lay the scheme of his ministry before, and the various truths he insisted on in it: these he met "privately", or "separately", and "singly", as it may be rendered; he either conversed with the apostles alone, and all together, in some private house; or separately, one by one, in their own houses, and there freely and familiarly discoursed with them about the several doctrines of the Gospel; and particularly this, of freedom from the law: his end in it was, as he says,
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/galatians-2-2.html

Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17). Did Jesus appear the second time or was Paul told what to do by Ananias, bishop of the Church? You have to deny Acts 9:6; 9:17

He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling. You have to deny Galatians 1:18.

Fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John. You have to deny Galatians 1:18 Galatians 2:1-2,9

Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.” This you flatly deny. It doesn't say Paul appointed himself, which is what you want it to say.

The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
Acts 15:3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoeni′cia and Samar′ia, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren.
You don't like that verse either.

Acts 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical.

ou want to say my opinion is private and unbiblical, then turn around and say Paul worked with Peter to build the Church at Rome?

You don't understand structure of authority and the meaning of collegiality. The Church is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom, not cold war communist Russia, which is how many Protestant Americans see the Church. Ecclesiology is a whole field of study and breaking it down into sound bytes to fit in a forum is not easy. You rebel against the authority that God established so until you get rid of that hostility you won't learn much.

There is no biblical or historical evidence to show that Paul had jurisdiction over the universal Church. The Pauline Corpus was generally accepted by 130, yet quotations are rarely introduced as scriptural. Awareness of a Canon begins towards the end of the 2nd century. My point is, Paul did not direct his letters to be in a Bible that did not yet exist, they were put there by the Church, an authority you deny, which is illogical and self defeating.

You have one small verse which only suggests Peter might have been in Rome at some point! None that say Paul and Peter worked together to build the Church in Rome.[/QUOTE]See post #55. I have not just 1 Peter 5:13, but the testimony of learned Christians, men in the first and second century. You don't like the Early Church Fathers because you have nothing to do with them.

Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse, 1 Peter 5:13, demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome.

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you."
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth."
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out."
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'"
Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

Bottom line: Galatians makes it perfrctly clear that Paul was not in subjection to anyone or anything other than Christ.

The Church is subject to Christ. Pitting Paul's divine call against the Church is a man made Protestant tradition.