Why do they hate being called Christians

[BreadOfLife]

I am only going to respond to one thing you said Bread of Life, to so the sheer idiocy of you response and that of kelpha.

You said:
"Finally - as to your hysterical fallacy that Peter and Paul weren't in Rome together that would come as a complete surprise to the Early Church.
But, I'm sure YOU know more than they did . . ."

Listen... Never once did I ever state that peter and paul weren't in Rome together. The fact is that I know Paul was in Rome and I believe Peter was too. Together? Never stated an opinion (and by the way, my opinions are based on facts, evidence and reasoning) that they weren't. In fact, i suspect they were.

There you have it! I say peter and paul both were in Rome! At the same time? Yes. Possible! Even probable! What I did say is that there is

SCANT
BIBLICAL
EVIDENCE

that Peter was in Rome. "Scant" does not mean "none". That's news to one of you Catholic geniuses who accused me of saying there was no evidence... And its news to what you are inferring.

1 peter 5:13... Peter refers to Babylon. He doesn't say he was there but i accept that it infers he was. Never denied that!

I have stated that I don't believe Peter was bishop in Rome for 25 years... I gave sound reasoning for that. What did I get? "Well it doesn't mean 25 consecutive years!" when I proved that wrong too I got, "well... He didn't have to be in Rome to betheir Bishop"

Yea.. He did! Ignatius agrees with me! Wherw the bishop is, the people should assemble.

Damn! I don't know how long I have been on this board, but never do I ever remember saying peter and Paul weren't in Rome!

And thats just one of your quotes. Everything else is just as stupid and misleading.

Maybe one day a catholic will come around and increase my opinion in the Catholic Church... But so far I think less of them based on the testimonials here.

And you have yet to realize that all of your doubts about the Church and Peter and Paul in Rome together are based in the man made Protestant fallacy of Sola Scriptura: Unless the Bible says it explicitly - it ain't so. This is a n extremely ignorant and immature view of Scripture. Tor you to even take this position, you must first prove the doctrine - FROM Scripture. Happy hunting . . .

Finally - stop presenting you opinions and start producing evidence.
Christianity is an evidence-based religion.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No.... I just can't let all this be:

You said,
The impotence of your response can be summed up in the following phrase: "My opinion: "I don't agree".

Yea... Typical. You once again take a partial quote of what I said.you don't discuss what I don't agree with. You simply pull this out of context.

What is it I don't agree with? You don't say! Maybe you might have a point! But you don't even adress the full quote! You just nite that I don't agree.

I will debate any Catholic with respect on doctrine or history if it is done hinestly and amicably. But I don't see that happening here.

You will "honestly" debate any Catholic on history and doctrine?? That is an unmitigated crock. We have carpet bombed you with historical evidence and so far, your only response has been denial. Your constant charges of "hijacked" this and "hijacked" that have been met with Scriptural, linguistic and historical fact - and all YOU can come up with is "Babylonian Church" and other nonsense.

You wanna have an honest debate?? Then start by being honest . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your megachurch. Is in Rome.

Thus.... I'm only calling your church what Peter would've called it.

Wrong.
The Catholic Church is all over the world.

Oh, and Peter wouldn't have called it the "Babylonian" Church or the "Roman" Church - just as there was no "Corinthian" Church or "Thessalonian" Church or "Colossian" Church
He would have called it the Church IN Rome because there is only ONE Church built by Christ.

Ever since the FIRST century - the Church has had the same name, "The Catholic Church" . . .

 

[FHII]

And you have yet to realize that all of your doubts about the Church and Peter and Paul in Rome together are based in the man made Protestant fallacy of Sola Scriptura: Unless the Bible says it explicitly - it ain't so. This is a n extremely ignorant and immature view of Scripture. Tor you to even take this position, you must first prove the doctrine - FROM Scripture. Happy hunting . . .

Finally - stop presenting you opinions and start producing evidence.
Christianity is an evidence-based religion.

BoL,

This is part of a big problem I have with you folks... Why do you believe I believe in sola scrptura? Furthermore, do you even know what my thoughts are on peter and paul in rome? You should because I've presented it plenty of times! Yet, there are 2-3 participants that make the same wrong assumptions.

I have absolutely no problem with other historical references. None whatsoever and i don't mind people referencing them. BUT when they butt heads with the Bible I will always go with what the Bible says.

Likewise with traditions and practices in worship. For example... You guys eat fish on Friday... Or is it no meat on Friday? Doesn't matter, but I don't have a problem with it even though its not Biblical. It doesn't seem to be borrowed from paganism either. So I don't have a problem with it even though its not in the Bible.

Now once again... I absolutely believe peter was in Rome! I have said there is scant Biblical evidence he was and I am 100% correct on that. One verse suggests - it doesn't say he was - but suggests he was in Rome.

Now why would I have that belief if I didn't consider other sources? That belief being that peter was in rome. You kbow I could help you guys explain why peter's time in Rome isn't detailed in the Bible... But I'm not feeling that charitable to you folks at this time!

What I don't believe is thay he started a Church there nor was he ever a bishop there for any amount of time. One of you guys and I had a conversation about it (Mungo or Tom). It was suggested he was there for 25 years. I refuted that based on simple Biblical timelines. Then it became "not 25 consecutive years"... Then it became he wasn't there for that time but he was bishop there anyway.

Thats all rubbish Bread! And it goes against the Bible simply by studying the timeline.

Furthermore I have a verse where Jesus himself said Paul was to go testify to the Romans. I also have verses that state he (paul) was sent to the gentiles and peter to the jews. Is there crossovers? Sure... Peter baptized Cornelius an Paul spent time with priscilia and aquila. But overall... Whose going to be the one semt to the gentiles in Rome?

Not to mention Paul never mentioned Peter in his salutations at the end of Romans or any of the prision epistles. Thsts pretty telling!

Now what of other sources? Well I read Ignatius's letters to Smyrna and Rome. Nothing there convinces me that Peter was in Rome at all! Nothing there suggests he started a Church in Rome and nothing there suggest any kind of special authority the Church of Rome had. Now there is one tiny point that could be made to suggest Peter was in Rome from those two letters, but its a reach and only can be looked at as a weak possibility. But again... You can figure it out for yourselves.

I challenge you to reread those letters and prove me wrong!

As for other sources... I admit (not that I ever denied it) that I haven't read them in full recently and some I probably haven't read at all.

Maybe one day I will... But they probably won't change my mind when I have such strong Biblical evidence that notes Peter wasn't the first Pope of Rome!

So you tell me:

Is it a fact or an opinion that Paul was sent by Christ to testify in Rome?

Is it fact or opinion that Paul was sent to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews?

Is it fact or opinion that Peter isn't in the ending salutations of Romans or the prision epistles?

Here's where you have a little wiggle room... Can you within a biblical timeline shoe me where peter was in Rome for 25 years? Consecutive or otherwise?

There you have it. No calling you ignorant... No referring to Rome as Babylon... No calling the Catholic Church the Babylonian Catholic Church. Just straight up truth on my beliefs about what you are assyming and challenges to prove what I say is wrong.

 

[BreadOfLife]

BoL,

This is part of a big problem I have with you folks... Why do you believe I believe in sola scrptura? Furthermore, do you even know what my thoughts are on peter and paul in rome? You should because I've presented it plenty of times! Yet, there are 2-3 participants that make the same wrong assumptions.

I have absolutely no problem with other historical references. None whatsoever and i don't mind people referencing them. BUT when they butt heads with the Bible I will always go with what the Bible says.

Likewise with traditions and practices in worship. For example... You guys eat fish on Friday... Or is it no meat on Friday? Doesn't matter, but I don't have a problem with it even though its not Biblical. It doesn't seem to be borrowed from paganism either. So I don't have a problem with it even though its not in the Bible.

Now once again... I absolutely believe peter was in Rome! I have said there is scant Biblical evidence he was and I am 100% correct on that. One verse suggests - it doesn't say he was - but suggests he was in Rome.

Now why would I have that belief if I didn't consider other sources? That belief being that peter was in rome. You kbow I could help you guys explain why peter's time in Rome isn't detailed in the Bible... But I'm not feeling that charitable to you folks at this time!

What I don't believe is thay he started a Church there nor was he ever a bishop there for any amount of time. One of you guys and I had a conversation about it (Mungo or Tom). It was suggested he was there for 25 years. I refuted that based on simple Biblical timelines. Then it became "not 25 consecutive years"... Then it became he wasn't there for that time but he was bishop there anyway.

Thats all rubbish Bread! And it goes against the Bible simply by studying the timeline.

Furthermore I have a verse where Jesus himself said Paul was to go testify to the Romans. I also have verses that state he (paul) was sent to the gentiles and peter to the jews. Is there crossovers? Sure... Peter baptized Cornelius an Paul spent time with priscilia and aquila. But overall... Whose going to be the one semt to the gentiles in Rome?

Not to mention Paul never mentioned Peter in his salutations at the end of Romans or any of the prision epistles. Thsts pretty telling!

Now what of other sources? Well I read Ignatius's letters to Smyrna and Rome. Nothing there convinces me that Peter was in Rome at all! Nothing there suggests he started a Church in Rome and nothing there suggest any kind of special authority the Church of Rome had. Now there is one tiny point that could be made to suggest Peter was in Rome from those two letters, but its a reach and only can be looked at as a weak possibility. But again... You can figure it out for yourselves.

I challenge you to reread those letters and prove me wrong!

As for other sources... I admit (not that I ever denied it) that I haven't read them in full recently and some I probably haven't read at all.

Maybe one day I will... But they probably won't change my mind when I have such strong Biblical evidence that notes Peter wasn't the first Pope of Rome!

So you tell me:

Is it a fact or an opinion that Paul was sent by Christ to testify in Rome?

Is it fact or opinion that Paul was sent to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews?

Is it fact or opinion that Peter isn't in the ending salutations of Romans or the prision epistles?

Here's where you have a little wiggle room... Can you within a biblical timeline shoe me where peter was in Rome for 25 years? Consecutive or otherwise?

There you have it. No calling you ignorant... No referring to Rome as Babylon... No calling the Catholic Church the Babylonian Catholic Church. Just straight up truth on my beliefs about what you are assyming and challenges to prove what I say is wrong.

Okay - the reason I have discerned that you are a Sola Scripturist is because:
A. You only believe that Peter "might' have been in Rome because of the "scant" Scriptural evidence like 1 Pet. 5:13.
B. You reject the testimonies of the Early Church Fathers, who have absolutely nothing to gain by writing about Peter AND Paul in Rome - as well as the fact that Peter' Bishopric had primacy over the others.

NOWHERE in Scripture is Peter told that he will ONLY evangelize Gentiles. Besides - WHY would you assume that there were no Jews in Rome?? The Jews were dispersed (diaspora) all over.

Tell me, WHAT did the Early Church Fathers - who unanimously testified to the fact that Peter was in Rome with Paul and his Bishopric had Primacy - have to gain by writing about this? Why would they have made this up??

 

[FHII]

Okay - the reason I have discerned that you are a Sola Scripturist is because:
A. You only believe that Peter "might' have been in Rome because of the "scant" Scriptural evidence like 1 Pet. 5:13.
B. You reject the testimonies of the Early Church Fathers, who have absolutely nothing to gain by writing about Peter AND Paul in Rome - as well as the fact that Peter' Bishopric had primacy over the others.

NOWHERE in Scripture is Peter told that he will ONLY evangelize Gentiles. Besides - WHY would you assume that there were no Jews in Rome?? The Jews were dispersed (diaspora) all over.

Tell me, WHAT did the Early Church Fathers - who unanimously testified to the fact that Peter was in Rome with Paul and his Bishopric had Primacy - have to gain by writing about this? Why would they have made this up??

Point A: not true! I believe Peter may have been in Rome NOT because of 1 pete5:13, but because of other testimonies. If I was going by the Bible alone I -- as well as any other reasinable person -- would never conclude Peter was in Rome.

Point B: give me a list of any Church father's testimonies I have rejected. Did I reject Ignatius's? No! I read it and it was nothing you folks make it out to be!

If I reject any testimony it'll be because it doesn't line up with the Bible. So now I turn the table and ask if you teject the Bible over their testimony?

And if you are going to claim that anyone said Peter did this and did that and had supremacy over all... It better be a prime source or line up with the Bible. Because no... I am not going to believe someone who testifies 100, 200 or 300 years after Peter's death if it counters the Bible.

People believe that Lincoln wrote the Ghettysburg address on an envelope a mere 150 years after the incident. But guess what? Its a fairy tale. So I am not going to be so quick to believe someone telling about Peter when they are 200 years removed from the event, or even 50 years.

If it don't cobtradict the Bible... I will consider it.

 

[epostle1]

BoL,

This is part of a big problem I have with you folks... Why do you believe I believe in sola scrptura? Furthermore, do you even know what my thoughts are on peter and paul in rome? You should because I've presented it plenty of times! Yet, there are 2-3 participants that make the same wrong assumptions.

I have absolutely no problem with other historical references. None whatsoever and i don't mind people referencing them. BUT when they butt heads with the Bible I will always go with what the Bible says.

That's called the sole rule of faith, sola scriptura. "Every detail. belief, doctrine, practice or devotion that is not explicitly found in the Bible cannot be accepted" IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. It's a man made tradition. The Bible contains history, but it is not a history book.

Likewise with traditions and practices in worship. For example... You guys eat fish on Friday... Or is it no meat on Friday? Doesn't matter, but I don't have a problem with it even though its not Biblical. It doesn't seem to be borrowed from paganism either. So I don't have a problem with it even though its not in the Bible.

Abstaining from meat is a form of fasting, done only during Lent. By abstaining from this festive food on Fridays, we symbolize our sorrow for our sins on the day on which the Lord Jesus died because of our sins. A biblical basis for abstaining from meat as a sign of penance for our sins is found in the book of Daniel, where the prophet mourns over the sins of Israel:
"In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia . . . 'I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over.'" (Daniel 10:1-3)

Now once again... I absolutely believe peter was in Rome! I have said there is scant Biblical evidence he was and I am 100% correct on that. One verse suggests - it doesn't say he was - but suggests he was in Rome.

Now why would I have that belief if I didn't consider other sources? That belief being that peter was in rome. You kbow I could help you guys explain why peter's time in Rome isn't detailed in the Bible... But I'm not feeling that charitable to you folks at this time!

Each and every detail is not spelled out in the Bible, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE BIBLE IS FOR. You have to accept external evidence, the same as you would have to accept external evidence for the canon of the Bible.

What I don't believe is thay he started a Church there nor was he ever a bishop there for any amount of time. One of you guys and I had a conversation about it (Mungo or Tom). It was suggested he was there for 25 years. I refuted that based on simple Biblical timelines. Then it became "not 25 consecutive years"... Then it became he wasn't there for that time but he was bishop there anyway.
Thats all rubbish Bread! And it goes against the Bible simply by studying the timeline.

It's irrelevant to Peter's primacy. A full blown development of the papacy was not there at this time, but it existed in seedling form, like all biblical doctrines.

Furthermore I have a verse where Jesus himself said Paul was to go testify to the Romans. I also have verses that state he (paul) was sent to the gentiles and peter to the jews. Is there crossovers? Sure... Peter baptized Cornelius an Paul spent time with priscilia and aquila. But overall... Whose going to be the one semt to the gentiles in Rome?

Jesus sending Paul to Rome does not make Peter inferior. The one who is sent is usually subject to the ones doing the sending. Since Peter has full authority, he can send himself. There were probably a handful of Christians already in Rome, but it is impossible to establish a church without an Apostle or bishop. Peter and Paul were not competitors, they preached the same gospel and worked in harmony. Who got there first and when and for how long has no bearing on Peter's primacy.

not to mention Paul never mentioned Peter in his salutations at the end of Romans or any of the prision epistles. Thsts pretty telling!

Because he doesn't have to. Where in the Bible does Paul know the whereabouts of Peter at all times? Has it occurred to you that Peter wasn't there when he wrote those letters? How does that take away Peter's primacy? (which is what you are really getting at) Do you think the Prince of the Apostles is going to park himself in one place? Did Paul forget to pay the phone bill?

Now what of other sources? Well I read Ignatius's letters to Smyrna and Rome. Nothing there convinces me that Peter was in Rome at all! Nothing there suggests he started a Church in Rome and nothing there suggest any kind of special authority the Church of Rome had. Now there is one tiny point that could be made to suggest Peter was in Rome from those two letters, but its a reach and only can be looked at as a weak possibility. But again... You can figure it out for yourselves.

William A. Jurgens, (Protestant patristic scholar) 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 was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Empire.

I challenge you to reread those letters and prove me wrong!

I challenge you to find a verse that says Peter was never in Rome! In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.

As for other sources... I admit (not that I ever denied it) that I haven't read them in full recently and some I probably haven't read at all.

The Early Church Fathers are the best historical record we have of the beliefs and practices of the early church BEFORE THERE WAS A BIBLE.

Maybe one day I will... But they probably won't change my mind when I have such strong Biblical evidence that notes Peter wasn't the first Pope of Rome!

Blind prejudice is not your friend.

So you tell me:

Is it a fact or an opinion that Paul was sent by Christ to testify in Rome?

Fact. It still doesn't subtract form Peter's primacy, which is what you are trying to prove. Paul's timeline

Is it fact or opinion that Paul was sent to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews? Peter's timeline

Fact. Paul did not have the same universal jurisdiction as Peter.

Is it fact or opinion that Peter isn't in the ending salutations of Romans or the prision epistles?
Paul wrote to the Romans. He didn't need to because they knew they were Romans.

Here's where you have a little wiggle room... Can you within a biblical timeline shoe me where peter was in Rome for 25 years? Consecutive or otherwise?

Can you within a biblical timeline show me where any biblical character was for 25 years? Consecutive or otherwise? Not counting the timelines above. Wiggle your way out of that one.

There you have it. No calling you ignorant... No referring to Rome as Babylon... No calling the Catholic Church the Babylonian Catholic Church. Just straight up truth on my beliefs about what you are assyming and challenges to prove what I say is wrong.

You are trying to disprove Peter's leadership and spokeman for all the Apostles. This has been going on for 500 years and it has failed miserably.

Is 70+ verses enough?

Primacy of Peter

 

[epostle1]

Saint Peter's tomb is a site under St. Peter's Basilica that includes several graves and a structure said by Vatican authorities to have been built to memorialize the location of St. Peter's grave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter's_tomb

Vatican displays Saint Peter's bones for the first time

Amazon paperback

No pope has ever definitively said the bones are the remains of St. Peter, but in 1968 Pope Paul VI said the bones found underneath St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican had been "identified in a way that we can consider convincing."

1 Peter 5:13 - 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 demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. If Peter were to write "from Rome", it would be a death sentence if anyone were caught with such a letter. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the only "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Point A: not true! I believe Peter may have been in Rome NOT because of 1 pete5:13, but because of other testimonies. If I was going by the Bible alone I -- as well as any other reasinable person -- would never conclude Peter was in Rome.

Point B: give me a list of any Church father's testimonies I have rejected. Did I reject Ignatius's? No! I read it and it was nothing you folks make it out to be!

If I reject any testimony it'll be because it doesn't line up with the Bible. So now I turn the table and ask if you teject the Bible over their testimony?

And if you are going to claim that anyone said Peter did this and did that and had supremacy over all... It better be a prime source or line up with the Bible. Because no... I am not going to believe someone who testifies 100, 200 or 300 years after Peter's death if it counters the Bible.

People believe that Lincoln wrote the Ghettysburg address on an envelope a mere 150 years after the incident. But guess what? Its a fairy tale. So I am not going to be so quick to believe someone telling about Peter when they are 200 years removed from the event, or even 50 years.

If it don't cobtradict the Bible... I will consider it.

I produce the following proof several posts back but here it is again.
No - tell me WHICH ones don't "line up" with the Bible . . .

Dionysius of Corinth
You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).

Irenaeus
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

Eusebius
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
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. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).

Peter of Alexandria
Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).

Lactantius
When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [inter A.D. 316-320]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).

Damasus
The first See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at [SIZE=10pt]Alexandria[/SIZE], consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people (The Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

As for the doubting the veracity of the Gettysburg Address - you really have some serious issues . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

Blind prejudice is not your friend.

Amen, feel sorry for the poor Protestants who seem top cop a mouth full from there brothers and sisters the catholics.

which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it

Maybe they have something that removes blood really well, that is so funny that its not.

 

[FHII]

I produce the following proof several posts back but here it is again.
No - tell me WHICH ones don't "line up" with the Bible . . .

Dionysius of Corinth​

You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).

Irenaeus​

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian​

Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

Eusebius​

The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
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. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).

Peter of Alexandria​

Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).

Lactantius​

When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [inter A.D. 316-320]).

Cyril of Jerusalem​

[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).

Damasus
The first See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people (The Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

As for the doubting the veracity of the Gettysburg Address - you really have some serious issues . . .

I have to admit an error... Small one. I asked for "prime" sources. The proper term is "primary sources". I apologize.

Nonetheless, none of these are primary sources. And I hesitate to comment too much on them because I haven't read enough of their writings to justly form an assessment of them.

However, from the quotes you provide, yes I can show where they contradict the Bible. Not only that... They contradict each other! And some offer very little support to tour arguement. Some simply state they were in Rome... Ive alrady agreed to that!

Tertullian for example... He was simply stating that both Peter and Paul "left" the gospel with the Romans (in Rome) and died there to "seal it".

But he also says Paul was in Corinth yet he leaves out Peter's name...what!?!? Ain't he the first Pope? Not important enough? Well... One of the others thought it was important enough to state Peter was in Corinth too.

Yea... I know you will spin that and how you will. Fine... But consider that one said peter preached the gospel in rome for 25 years while another says he didn't arrive in Rome until after Nero became emporer and another says it was after he established the church at antioch.

This is a chronological impossibility. Nero became emporer in 54 AD. Peter martyred in 64 AD. Do the math. Paul would have had to arrive in 39 AD and stayed there until his death. And THAT does go against the Bible.

No. You can't even say it didn't have to be 25 consecutive years because we can't even get 25 years out of that either. He wouldn't have been in Rome between 49 and 54 AD.

There are other things that I am not sure about because I haven't read the ful context or style of writing of the authors. See... I believe you can't pull a quote out of a writing without reading the whole letter. But one first glance...

Mark was a disciple of Peter? Really? Well, if its the Apostle Mark.... THATS A LIE! Mark was an Apostle and by Jesus"s words, his equal.

Another... Peter was the first chosen of the Apostles? No! By what Johnoted he was clearly third. Read John 1. But see... I am a fair man. I am going on what you provided me. I don't know what he was getting at. Word for word, he's clearly wrong.

Was he the first chosen? No. But did the author mean he was chosen to be the leader of the Apostles?

I don't know. And even the latter is debatable, but i will not go there yet.

Now... If YOU BoL have read all these men extensively. I salute you! But i still won't trust your opinion. Its clouded by Catholicism. Saying mine is clouded by doubt is fair game. We can throw down staves and see were almonds bud.

But BoL.... If you think that listing of pull quotes was brilliant...well... It wasn't.

 

[epostle1]

I have to admit an error... Small one. I asked for "prime" sources. The proper term is "primary sources". I apologize.

Nonetheless, none of these are primary sources. And I hesitate to comment too much on them because I haven't read enough of their writings to justly form an assessment of them.

Those ARE primary sources.
In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions can be used in library science, and other areas of scholarship, although different fields have somewhat different definitions. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

However, from the quotes you provide, yes I can show where they contradict the Bible. Not only that... They contradict each other! And some offer very little support to tour arguement. Some simply state they were in Rome... Ive alrady agreed to that!

The only one who states the number of years Peter preached the gospel is Eusebius. He is counting from 42 using Roman chronology, not biblical measurement that often uses the Gregorian calender that was not introduced untill 1582 AD.

"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).

42 AD is an estimate of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad. An Olympiad is not 365 days. It is an event by which every 4 years were measured. I could find no fixed date.The 699th Olympiad begins this summer. The cut the confusion, 42 (if that us accurate) and add 25, you get 67. Note Peter was sent from Antioch in the second year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad, making his execution in close proximity to 64 AD. Eusebius is correct.

Tertullian for example... He was simply stating that both Peter and Paul "left" the gospel with the Romans (in Rome) and died there to "seal it".

Tertullian: "...to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).
Do you really need a word by word breakdown of what this means???

But he also says Paul was in Corinth yet he leaves out Peter's name...what!?!? Ain't he the first Pope? Not important enough? Well... One of the others thought it was important enough to state Peter was in Corinth too

He is writing 115 years after John wrote Revelation. Naming Peter in every line is not going to make any difference.

Mark was a disciple of Peter? Really? Well, if its the Apostle Mark.... THATS A LIE! Mark was an Apostle and by Jesus"s words, his equal.

Apostle and disciple are interchangeable terms in the Bible, you should know better. Peter is first among equals. The structure of the Church (ecclesiology) is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom, not Karl Marx.

Another... Peter was the first chosen of the Apostles? No! By what Johnoted he was clearly third. Read John 1. But see... I am a fair man. I am going on what you provided me. I don't know what he was getting at. Word for word, he's clearly wrong.

What difference does it make? The Father first revealed to Peter who Jesus was. Does that mean anything to you?
Was he the first chosen? No. But did the author mean he was chosen to be the leader of the Apostles?

I don't know. And even the latter is debatable, but i will not go there yet.

Now... If YOU BoL have read all these men extensively. I salute you! But i still won't trust your opinion. Its clouded by Catholicism. Saying mine is clouded by doubt is fair game. We can throw down staves and see were almonds bud.

But BoL.... If you think that listing of pull quotes was brilliant...well... It wasn't.

Augustine
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?"
(Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

 

[epostle1]

PRIMACY OF PETER​

can't find any Bible verses?

​

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).
Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.
Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.
Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.
Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.
Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.
Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.
Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.
Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.
Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.
Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."
Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.
Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.
Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.
Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.
Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.
Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.
Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.
John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.
John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.
John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.
John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.
John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.
John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.
John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.
Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.
Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.
Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.
Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.
Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.
Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.
Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.
Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.
Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.
Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.
Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.
Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.
Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).
Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.
Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.
Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."
Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.
1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.
1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”
Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.
1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.
1 Peter 5:13 - 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 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. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.
2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.
2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.
Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

 

[mjrhealth]

So much rebellion against God

Mar 9:33 And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?
Mar 9:34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.
Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.
Mar 9:36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,
Mar 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

But teh catholics say Peter was....

and

Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

But teh catholics say we must make Peter our Head to rule over us,... Is that not the role of Jesus???

This bit

1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

And peter has to watch all these shaninigangs from up above and cant do anything but ask "why".

Antichrist

The word "antichrist" combines two roots: αντί (anti) + Χριστός (Khristos). "Αντί" can mean not only "against" and "opposite of", but also "in place of".[5] "Χριστός", translated "Christ", is Greek for the Hebrew "Messiah". Both "Christ" and "Messiah" literally mean "Anointed One", and refer to Jesus of Nazareth[6] in Christian, Islamic and Messianic Jewish theology.

Look someone replaced Jesus...

 

[FHII]

Thwy are not primary sources. Otherwise they would've been written by someone who was around when Peyer and Paul were around. God calls those things which are not as though they were. That doesn't mean you get to.

But they funniest thing is Kelpha quoting me saying nothing so he could go on one of his typical rants! Funny!

Thanks for making me look good, Kelpha! You never fail to make it easy for me to prove my point!

 

[BreadOfLife]

So much rebellion against God

Mar 9:33 And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?
Mar 9:34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.
Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.
Mar 9:36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,
Mar 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

But teh catholics say Peter was....

and

Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

But teh catholics say we must make Peter our Head to rule over us,... Is that not the role of Jesus???

This bit

1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

And peter has to watch all these shaninigangs from up above and cant do anything but ask "why".

Antichrist

The word "antichrist" combines two roots: αντί (anti) + Χριστός (Khristos). "Αντί" can mean not only "against" and "opposite of", but also "in place of".[5] "Χριστός", translated "Christ", is Greek for the Hebrew "Messiah". Both "Christ" and "Messiah" literally mean "Anointed One", and refer to Jesus of Nazareth[6] in Christian, Islamic and Messianic Jewish theology.

Look someone replaced Jesus...

And the official title of the Pope is, "The Servant of the servants of God."

NOBODY in the Church gave Peter primacy.
GOD did.

You need to study your Bible and LEARN what it means.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thwy are not primary sources. Otherwise they would've been written by someone who was around when Peyer and Paul were around. God calls those things which are not as though they were. That doesn't mean you get to.

But they funniest thing is Kelpha quoting me saying nothing so he could go on one of his typical rants! Funny!

Thanks for making me look good, Kelpha! You never fail to make it easy for me to prove my point!

Scripture is NOT a primary source for proving things that are found in Scripture??
Talk about backwards thinking.

Face it - the Scriptural proof Kepha31 provided is overwhelming regarding the Primacy of Peter - NOT to mention the testimonies of the Early Church . . .

 

[epostle1]

Thwy are not primary sources. Otherwise they would've been written by someone who was around when Peyer and Paul were around. God calls those things which are not as though they were. That doesn't mean you get to.

You discredit yourself by writing your own dictionary .

But they funniest thing is Kelpha quoting me saying nothing so he could go on one of his typical rants! Funny!

Because post #133 is addressed to you. You may as well say nothing. A rant is several topics in one post, also know as shot gunning or cluster bombing. 113 is a single topic addressing your unbiblical anti-Peter myth making. Some scripture citations are more forceful than others but you haven't dealt with any of them. I don't expect you to address all of them, but running from such a huge volume of biblical evidence of Peter's primacy is dishonest.

You've done a pathetic job of critiquing BoL ECF quotes, which has also been dismantled. ECF are not scripture, and are not read as scripture. That mindset is imposed. Non-Catholics will hack them up and take snippets out of context to "prove" something because that's how they read the Bible, with tweezers and a microscope.. James White and William Webster are notorious for this. The general consensus of the ECF does not contradict scripture, that's just stupid. The general consensus of the ECF played a role in discerning what books belong in the Bible in the first place. There were no Protestants in the 4th century.

Thanks for making me look good, Kelpha! You never fail to make it easy for me to prove my point!

Your real "point" is that Peter was not leader and spokesman for all the Apostles. That underlies all of your arguments. The overwhelming list of scriptures in post #133 demolishes your premise so you ignore it and make cheap shots.

Many Protestants take a dim view towards Christian history in general, esp. the years from 313 (Constantine's conversion) to 1517 (Luther's arrival). This ignorance and hostility to Catholic Tradition leads to theological relativism, anti-Catholicism, and a constant, unnecessary process of "reinventing the wheel."

The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a "Bible, Holy Spirit and me" mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed "infallible" statements about the nature of Christianity.

Now THAT is a rant.

 

[FHII]

Scripture is NOT a primary source for proving things that are found in Scripture??
Talk about backwards thinking.

Face it - the Scriptural proof Kepha31 provided is overwhelming regarding the Primacy of Peter - NOT to mention the testimonies of the Early Church . . .

What are you talking about? I was stating all those quotes you provided weren't primary sources!

 

[FHII]

Your real "point" is that Peter was not leader and spokesman for all the Apostles. That underlies all of your arguments. The overwhelming list of scriptures in post #133 demolishes your premise so you ignore it and make cheap shots.

No... Thats not my point. I haven't addressed that at all. That's what YOU are trying to make my point.

I was discussing BoL's list of quotes from people who wrote 100+ years after Peter died as not being primary sources (and I am 100% correct) and how they contradict each other (and again i am 100% correct). I am not even concerned about your desire to prove or disprove any notion you have about whether Peter had primacy over the other apostles.

Once again you are making me look good!