aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Meshak as soon as you repent of your heresy, I will consider your opinion about Christian doctrine
Was Peter ever in Rome? What saith the Scriptures?
- Thread starter Axehead
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
what heresy?aspen2 said:
You are in the corrupt organization, you have no credibility to call anyone heretical.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
No.
But how can false doctrine be avoided, if its definition is kept secret from those who believe it?
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Whoever it was who said we are 'all' brethren.... That only works if 'we' 'all' have the same (one) Father through new birth by the Holy Spirit.
Exactly it said avoid them not debate with them. Do I agree with all the doctrines running around claiming to be "Christian" no but in deceny and order do we who are born of the Spirit handle these things with discernment and wisdom. Our words can not change them but the Holy Spirit and the cutting revelation of the word of God can. Hebrews 12:14 "Follow PEACE with all men and live holy!.."dragonfly said:No.
But how can false doctrine be avoided, if its definition is kept secret from those who believe it?
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Whoever it was who said we are 'all' brethren.... That only works if 'we' 'all' have the same (one) Father through new birth by the Holy Spirit.
Selene
New Member
My Lord and God always remains with me. That is why you see in my posts how cool-headed I am. As you can see, I haven't even said any put-downs on your denominations. I think the question you need to ask yourself is.... Is a Christian supposed to put down another Christian?? How is a Christian supposed to act in these kinds of discussions? Right now, all you've been doing is name-calling and put-downs under this thread. Perhaps, you should try to understand why you only resort to name-calling and put-downs by meditating on your actions.Rex said:
How is our doctrines kept secret when it is written down in the Catechism? Anyone can get the Catechism and read it. As for the Jesuit oath.....I believe that has already been debunked. There is no Jesuit oath. The only oath the Jesuits have taken are vows of poverty, celibacy, and a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. And that is information you can look up in any secular information such as an encyclopedia.dragonfly said:No.
But how can false doctrine be avoided, if its definition is kept secret from those who believe it?
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Whoever it was who said we are 'all' brethren.... That only works if 'we' 'all' have the same (one) Father through new birth by the Holy Spirit.
And by the way, I still consider Rex my brother in Christ despite the fact that he is a Christian and I am a Catholic. Catholics are called to love everyone and not just "Catholics." :)
Hi Selene,
What is secret from many Catholics is that far too many of your doctrines are not in the Bible.
We have been all over the catholic faith Selene, If you like you can dust yourself off put on some make-up and new dress, smile and pretend you are virtuous, that's what prostitutes do. But it's still the same old church exulting one man over everyone, and all the Johns follow her where ever she goes.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
I do do I, How many bible verses do you suppose I can find that refer to those that follow after other gods and teachings are prostitutes?aspen2 said:
If you what to make it a personal issue go right ahead thats what I wouls expect from someone that doesn't understand things of the Spirit or the terminology ether.
I had way to many conversations with Selene to buy this, shes dressing her self up
Selene
New Member
Actually, there are in the Holy Bible. For example, in just this OP, the Catholics under this thread DID point out that Peter wrote his letter in Rome. The word "Babylon" in the New Testament refers to Rome (See 1 Peter 5:13). In the Bible, it says , "the Church in Babylon saluteth you." But did anyone from our Protestant brothers listen??dragonfly said:
Brother Rex, I am a Christian....simple as that. :)Rex said:
Hi Selene,
The word 'Babylon' refers to corrupt religious systems which include every kind of idolatry and abomination to God - but not worship of Him exclusively.
The word 'Babylon' refers to corrupt religious systems which include every kind of idolatry and abomination to God - but not worship of Him exclusively.
Selene
New Member
Dragonfly, in the Old Testament, Babylon was referred to as the country that is now Iraq. BUT in the New Testament, Babylon refers to Rome because it was pagan Rome who conquered Israel. Strong's biblical translation from the King james Bible also says that Babylon was referring to pagan Rome. (See the weblink below). According to Strong's biblical translation in the weblink, it stated:dragonfly said:
3) allegorically, of Rome as the most corrupt seat of idolatry and the enemy of Christianity
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G897&t=KJV
When the Apostle Peter wrote the following, he was referring to a Christian Church in Rome.
1 Peter 5:13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.
This Christian Church in Babylon (Rome) was established by Christ through the Apostle Peter. Today, that Church is now called the Roman Catholic Church rather than the Roman Church as it was called before. So, yes, Peter was in Rome when he wrote that letter addressing all the Christian Churches in Asia Minor.
I already dealt with this in Post #3 and Selene, you told us "Babylon" was a code word for Rome. How did you come by this knowledge? Where is the precedence in Scripture for using "code words" and where is the pattern of then using this precedence?Selene said:
Again, I think the RCC is taking great license with one whole verse and building a dogma on it. There are no eyewitnesses in Scripture that ever saw Peter in Rome and there are many people that were mentioned in Rome.
By the way, if Peter was using Babylon as a code word for Rome, and people were supposed to know that (somehow), then what cities or regions did Paul REALLY mean when he was using the following code words:
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
And, wouldn't other Apostles writing to the Roman Christians also use a code word? Here Paul simply writes, "Rome".
Rom_1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
It just doesn't make sense, Selene.
The New Testament contains no trace whatsoever of Peter living in Rome. Throughout the Acts of the Apostles there is nothing but silence. We are told that Luke wrote the book of Acts and that Luke was in Rome with Paul. So, Luke would have known about Peter being in Rome. Peter is never mentioned in any salutations and many consider this as decisive proof that he was never in the city.
Also, Paul labored independently of the other Apostles and was sure to mention that he never built upon the foundation of others. This would mean that Paul would never have written his Epistle to the Romans if he knew that Peter had founded the church in Rome and was building it up in Christ.
The silence of Luke and Paul about Peter being in Rome makes it extremely doubtful if not impossible that Peter was ever in Rome. Luke's presence in Rome with the Apostle Paul near the end of Paul's life was confirmed by 2 Timothy 4:11: "Only Luke is with me". Only Luke, no one else. Where was Peter?
Why would Peter make a friendly salutation to the Roman Christians in "code" and call Rome Babylon? Why didn't Paul salute the Roman Believers in code? It is highly unlikely that salutations would be in "code" since there is no precedent in scripture or any other examples following Peter's salutation.
Rom 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at ROME also.
Peter was called to the Jews and Paul was called to the Gentiles. Josephus tells us in his volume (Antiquities) that Babylon contained many Jews whereas they were few in number (comparatively) in Rome. Philo also mentions the Asiatic dispersion of the Jews in Babylon (by the Euphrates) in his work "Embassy to Gaius".
Act 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, The Jewish Parthians were dwellers in Mesopotamia (Mesopotamian Babylonian "masters" were the Parthians). Check Josephus' Antiquities 15 and 17.
A very interesting and glaring thing is that Josephus lived from 37 A.D. to 100 A.D or so and that he became a Roman citizen. What is glaringly obvious is that Josephus who was the historian of his day, never ever, ever mentioned Peter in Rome let alone 25 years there or anything about him being the Pope. Well, if he never mentions him being in Rome, why would he know anything about Peter being the Pope?
We have no eyewitnesses from Scripture of Peter being in Rome and the Jewish secular Historian of the day, has nothing to say about such a thing!
"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me (Paul), as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Galatians 2:7-9).
Nero was accused of burning Rome in 64 A.D. and he had banished Jews from Rome. So, Peter who was called to the "circumcision" was obviously ministering to the Jews in Babylon (in Asia) not Europe (Italy) since they were banished from Rome.
Peter himself said that Paul and Barnabas should go to the heathen and he and James and John to the Jews.
Conclusion: The Babylon that Peter was speaking of was the Babylon in Asia by the Euphrates.
From Post #4.
65 A.D.(ca) Peter writes from "Babylon" on the Euphrates river - as indicated by the statement: "She that is in Babylon saluteth you." (I Peter 5:13).
1. There was a strong Jewish colony in Babylon at that time and Peter "had been entrusted with the gospel of the circumcision." (Gal 2:7)
2. Since Claudius had commanded "All Jews to depart from Rome" (Acts 18:3), it would be difficult to understand why Peter would go there to carry out his assignment to the Jews.
3. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that Peter is speaking symbolically of Rome when he says "Babylon," for there is no such symbolic usage until John's Revelation letter.
4. After 96 A.D., when Revelation was composed, the Imperial City of Rome was symbolically and classically called "Babylon" by both Christian and secular writers.
5. Catholic writers universally say that "Babylon" of I Peter 5:13 is Rome (which it isn't), and then generally deny that "Babylon" of Revelation 17:5 is Rome (which it is).
67 A.D. Paul's second imprisonment in Rome.
1. II Timothy was written during Paul's final incarceration in Rome.
a. He wants Timothy to "come shortly to me" (II Tim 4:9)
b. He named some: "Demas forsook me...and went to Thessalonica" (II Tim 4:10)
c. "Crescens" went to "Galatia" (vs 10).
d. "Titus" went to "Dalmatia" (vs. 10).
e. "Only Luke is with me" (vs.11).
f. "Erastus remained at Corinth" (vs. 20).
g. "Trophimus I left at Miletus sick" (vs. 20).
2. He sends some salutations:
a. "Eubulus saluteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia" (vs. 21).
b. No salutation from Peter -- and no mention of him being in Rome.
3. If Peter was there he must have abandoned Paul, for "This thou knowest, that all that are in Asia turned away from me, of which are Phygelus and Hermogenes." (II Tim 1:15)
4. "Only Luke is with me" - He stayed with Paul, and so did "Onesiphorus, for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but when he was in Rome, he sough me diligently and found me" (II Tim 1:16-17).
67 A.D. Peter writes the second epistle -- II Peter and it has the same tone as the first epistle, it must have been written to the same Jewish Christians "of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" (I Peter 1:1)
1. The geography of the brethren to whom Peter wrote places them in the region of Asia and Asia Minor - close to national Babylon!
2. Paul was in Europe and wrote to European churches.
3. John was in Asia and wrote the "letters to the seven churches in Asia." (Rev 2-3)
5. Catholic writers universally say that "Babylon" of I Peter 5:13 is Rome (which it isn't), and then generally deny that "Babylon" of Revelation 17:5 is Rome (which it is).
There is nothing so close to the look of the original as it's exact opposite. Like a negative of a picture. The church system is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ...exactly the opposite and not just a major deviation..
There is nothing so close to the look of the original as it's exact opposite. Like a negative of a picture. The church system is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ...exactly the opposite and not just a major deviation..
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
If you haven't read the entire Catholic catechism Episk - your critique of RCC doctrine is uneducated.
I was born and raised a cat
lic. So this is from one that was on the inside but I came out of Her. Yes I did all the catholic thing, baptism, confirmation, etc, than the Lord called me out. I still remember sitting in a totally latin mass where not one knew what the priest was babbling on about. I remember that by the time I was 7 or 8 being able to recite the whole mass from beginning to end because it never changed, than they changed the Our Father, still havnt figured out why. In all those 11 or 12 years in church I never knew God, even after sitting though all those station of the cross episodes. No they never taught me anything but there traditions, The catechsim is simply mens doctrines making rules outside the law of love for men to abide by, like so many denomination, they have added a great burden on the shoulders of men that they themselves will not carry. Always having to add to , to justify the lie , and so many willing to believe it for it is all about the flesh and the flesh is so easy to please.
Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Luk 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
If you want to stay in there fine, but any you cause to stumble and lead away from God you will have to answer for one day.
In all His Love
lic. So this is from one that was on the inside but I came out of Her. Yes I did all the catholic thing, baptism, confirmation, etc, than the Lord called me out. I still remember sitting in a totally latin mass where not one knew what the priest was babbling on about. I remember that by the time I was 7 or 8 being able to recite the whole mass from beginning to end because it never changed, than they changed the Our Father, still havnt figured out why. In all those 11 or 12 years in church I never knew God, even after sitting though all those station of the cross episodes. No they never taught me anything but there traditions, The catechsim is simply mens doctrines making rules outside the law of love for men to abide by, like so many denomination, they have added a great burden on the shoulders of men that they themselves will not carry. Always having to add to , to justify the lie , and so many willing to believe it for it is all about the flesh and the flesh is so easy to please.Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Luk 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
If you want to stay in there fine, but any you cause to stumble and lead away from God you will have to answer for one day.
In all His Love
Selene
New Member
Axehead, I cited the King James Bible as stating that the word "Babylon" is referred to as Rome. This is coming from the King James Bible, which is a Protestant Bible. Therefore, even the Protestant scholars believed that the word "Babylon" in the New Testament is referring to Rome. So, before you accuse the RCC of making up this whole interpretation, you need to deal with your own Protestant Bible and figure out why they AGREE with the Catholic scholars.Axehead said:
Similar threads
