To dumbdumb: carried over from cutepixie's thread
-
Peter is indeed an uneducated fool. But what is the catch? He is only a fool in the eyes of man.
-
"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" ( Matt. 16:18 ).
You may say Peter is indeed the Rock of the faith. But I don't see it in the bible. -
You can distort the interpretion of the bible, which most church teachers do for fear that their members will find out which is the original church. But there is no way to distort history.Originally posted by Icemoon:I have always thought the history linking Peter back to Rome is quite dubious. From reading the bible, we get the following impression:
1. Peter was never in Rome.
2. Paul was there before Peter.
Peter, to me, is like a hijacker. The first church was not the Vatican but the Jerusalem Church headed by James. In Acts and elsewhere, Peter did not assume any position other than the honorary 'chief disciple'. There were already bishops in Alexandria, Antioch before Peter became the bishop of Rome. Ok, the part about him becoming the bishop of Rome is quite dubious.
You may say Peter is indeed the Rock of the faith. But I don't see it in the bible. What I see is his pathetic authorship (also dubious, don't think this fisherman is so educated
) and his tendency to slide into unchristian practices.
IMHO, Paul is a better candidate to the Rock of the faith. Luckily he never started any church. He just pointed us back to God.
Who are we to say Paul is a better candidate than Peter when Jesus has already appointed Peter.
Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."
After the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17).
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-2
. On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is PeterÂ’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given ChristÂ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-4.
St Augustine said this: "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Apostolic Succession
The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).
Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).
I wonder if you can prove that you come from the original church like the way I did it.
Since you insist that St James was the first Head of the church, where in the bible says that? And show me/us the line of successors after St James and I will show you the name of Catholic's Popes after St Peter. -
How close can you get by receiving distorted interpretation of the bible, and lack of knowledge in the church history?Originally posted by Icemoon:Isn't this obvious? I hope I don't have to spell this out, but Protestants who kenna stumped by this 'classical' Catholic question should be ashamed.
During the early days, the epistles of Paul were already in circulation. This is not important, actually. What is important is how close we are today to the *original* form of christianity.
There is no way to be close to the original form of Christianity if you don't belong to the original church. -
Issit? Read Paul's sermon in the synagogue, which attracted multitudes of audience and many converted. This is the *original* form of christianity.Originally posted by FrustMom:There is no way to be close to the original form of Christianity if you don't belong to the original church.
One thing to note. Paul never belonged to the church of Peter. He never liked to work with them. In fact he even chided Peter for his lack of faith/understanding.
There is a reason why Paul's epistles constituted almost the whole NT. Why were the epistles of early church fathers not inside? -
To counter FrustMom:
http://www.isaiah58.com/clark/clark10_10_00.html
Is Peter Head of the Church?
Recently, a young lady in our meetings was told by Christians that Peter was the head of the Church (and therefore the first pope.) This is one example of an idea that sounds "honorable" (it lifts Peter up), but must be forsaken by those looking for the truth. I would like to discuss this so we might help our Catholic readers (the ones who are willing to forsake error when truth comes); and to help those who are in the various "Christian" denominations which sprang from Catholicism (if you are a Christian - you are have the same "roots" as the Catholics, and this will be discussed further later in this article.) The Spirit of God is telling the obedient to "come out of Christianity", and this wrong idea about Peter being the head of the Church is another of the many reasons why.
First, Peter was never the head of any Church. The Church only has one head, and that is Jesus (Eph.1:22, Eph 5:23,Col.1:18.)
But that may be too argumentative a point. So, let me start again and stick with simple things such as:
First, Peter, James, John, and the other disciples (as with Jesus--Mat. 15:24) were sent by God only to the Jews (Mat. 10:1-6), not to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7-. Paul was sent to the Gentiles. It would make much more sense for Catholics to claim Paul as the first Pope instead of Peter. Peter was never sent as a minister to the uncircumcised nations. Paul was.
Second, Catholics claim that Peter and Paul established the Church in Rome. That is nonsense. In Paul's letter to the Roman Church, the first chapter, he tells the Church in Rome that their faith has been heard of around the world--and this is long before Paul ever went there! And other than what Catholics claim, there is no proof anywhere that Peter was ever in Rome, and the Biblical evidence would lead us to believe Peter was NEVER in Rome.
Third, the word Pope means "father", and Jesus commanded his followers to "call no man your father on earth [this is in a religious sense], for one is your Father, who is in heaven" (Mat. 23:9). Catholics also call their priests "father." When Cornelius fell at Peter's feet (Acts 10), Peter did not receive reverence as the Pope does. He told Cornelius to get up, for he was a man just as Cornelius was. So Peter did not consider himself a "father."
Fourth, Catholics claim that the Pope is the "vicar" of Christ. This is a horrible error. A vicar is THE representative of a ruler. The holy Ghost is the vicar of Christ. It was sent "in Jesus name" to be here instead of him. It is blasphemous for any man to claim to be what the holy Ghost really is.
Fifth, Jesus never told Peter he was the rock that the Church would be built upon. When Jesus told Peter, "upon this rock I will build my Church" (Mat. 16:1, he did not mean he would build the Church on Peter, as Catholics teach. I mean, good grief - Peter died! Nor was Jesus referring to Peter's confession of Jesus as Christ, as Protestants teach. Jesus was referring to what Peter had experienced. In the verse just before Jesus mentioned the rock, he told Peter that God Himself had revealed truth to him (Peter). THAT is the rock that the Church is built upon. What God in His mercy does for men is what builds up the Church, not Peter, nor Peter's words.
Sixth, the idea that transfer of highest authority in the Church on earth was passed from an original apostle (Peter), and only from him does highest authority come is absurd. Peter held no preeminence over the other apostles. He did not rule over any man of God. By all appearances, James (if anyone) was considered the leader of the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13) while Peter was still alive. He announced the verdict of the earliest Church council (Acts 15) and alone is mentioned by name as an elder in Acts 21:1. Paul rebuked Peter in public one time (Gal. 2:11). The pillars of the Church in Jerusalem, according to Paul, were James, Peter and John (Gal. 2:9), not just Peter.
What is the point? Peter was not the head of the Church, nor was he the head of Catholicism. Catholicism is the beginning of the religion that started AFTER the time that we read about in the book of Acts. The Pope is Christianity's head. The denominations and sects of Christianity are those, who like their "mother" have gone astray. The underlying, uniting foundation of all Christian sects is that one may become a member of the church by his own choice instead of simply repenting and being baptized by Jesus into God's holy family. My friend, how did you become a member of the church to which you belong? If you became a member of your church by joining it, you are in the wrong one. If you have joined any of the churches of Christianity, then you have become it's member, and the Pope is your father--even if you hate him. And many of his children do. My brother, my dear sister, do you know what the Spirit is saying to the church RIGHT NOW? If not, get alone with God and seek Him and you will hear in the deepest recesses of your soul a still, small voice crying out in most earnest tones, "Come out of her, My people!" And when you hear it, obey. -
Zzz. the reason i stopped is because they won't even be able to see even if the truth slaps them in the face.
the truth about salvation is totally twisted by them too. I don't care. if cutepixie don't make it, its your fault, because you told her the wrong info. -
lol, the original church? are you willing to bet your life on this "original church"? bloody hell, i tell you something, if you only knew how the catholics came about, you'll be pretty worried. just compare what the church practice and what Jesus practice...Originally posted by FrustMom:How close can you get by receiving distorted interpretation of the bible, and lack of knowledge in the church history?
There is no way to be close to the original form of Christianity if you don't belong to the original church.
how many "gods" and "goddesses" have you catholics claim to hv seen, and gotten instructions from them, which are added into your tradition, that Jesus never commissioned to the 12 diciples?
i don't deny that you saw apparations, but i dare to say they weren't from God. Fancy seeing a 5 year old Jesus giving you instructions.. and you really thought that was really Jesus. -
ok, put it simply, do catholics believe in the mormon religion? they claim to be christians too. do you catholics recognise and approve their practices and faith?
-
In other words you couldn't be borthered to find out about both sides of the argument. You are content with your side of the story and don't want to listen to the other side the very same accusation you level at us.Originally posted by dumbdumb!:Zzz. the reason i stopped is because they won't even be able to see even if the truth slaps them in the face.
the truth about salvation is totally twisted by them too. I don't care. if cutepixie don't make it, its your fault, because you told her the wrong info. -
With regards to this how can any christain believe in the mormon religion when they believe in something else?Originally posted by dumbdumb!:ok, put it simply, do catholics believe in the mormon religion? they claim to be christians too. do you catholics recognise and approve their practices and faith?
Do you approve the mormon religion? -
If, you are going to come to this conclusion based on websites that call RCC the "whore of babylon"..
lol, the original church? are you willing to bet your life on this "original church"? bloody hell, i tell you something, if you only knew how the catholics came about, you'll be pretty worried. just compare what the church practice and what Jesus practice...
Regarding apparations no catholic in his right mind woukld claim there is any other God than God himself.
how many "gods" and "goddesses" have you catholics claim to hv seen, and gotten instructions from them, which are added into your tradition, that Jesus never commissioned to the 12 diciples?
Secondly, if you have done a liittle bit of research you will know that RCC only approves apparations as legimate after years of investigation. Not, every joker who claims to have a apparation is considered legimate by the church.
Lastly, the apparations have never added anything to church doctrine.
I really don't what is this five year old Jesus you keep harping about. There are very few church approved apparations. And even they are only approved after years of investigation.
i don't deny that you saw apparations, but i dare to say they weren't from God. Fancy seeing a 5 year old Jesus giving you instructions.. and you really thought that was really Jesus. -
And when did Jesus passed the church to Paul?Originally posted by Icemoon:Issit? Read Paul's sermon in the synagogue, which attracted multitudes of audience and many converted. This is the *original* form of christianity.
One thing to note. Paul never belonged to the church of Peter. He never liked to work with them. In fact he even chided Peter for his lack of faith/understanding.
There is a reason why Paul's epistles constituted almost the whole NT. Why were the epistles of early church fathers not inside?
If Paul never belonged to the church of Peter, then where did Paul die? The place that he died, where is it now and who does it belong to? Does it belong to and preserved by your "original Christianity" Church? Why is there no link between your church and that part of the history?
Nevermind how your teacher distorted the history and facts for fear that your church will lose the members. Go ask your teacher or pastor this : Are you a Protestant?
If the answer is No, it's because they are too ashamed to admit that name.
If the answer is Yes, congratulations. because I am going to tell you what Protestantism mean. If you open up a English-Chinese dictionary and look up for the word Protestism, you will see this :
Protestantism ['pr/o/ tist/&/ ntizm] –¼ �V‹³;�V‹³“k
The literal translation is : New Church. Why is it called new and not original?
Catholic Church is called Catholic because the word means universal. Hence you see the Catholics are very proud of this name while the Protestants tried so hard to hide this identity. They would use Christianity because it sounds better and it hides the historical facts of how their churches came about. -
To counter Icemoon :
The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:1. Whether or not Peter was the "Rock" or a "Stone" is just another old and dead discussion.
From the Bible :
Peter was the first Apostle selected by Christ.
Peter spoke for the Apostles (Acts 5:29).
Peter delivered the first Church sermon (Acts 2:14-16).
Peter made the first Apostolic visit to the churches (Acts 9:31).
Peter was first to receive the Gentiles (Acts 11:1-3).
Peter cast out the first heretic, Simon Magus (Acts 8:20).
Peter acted as judge in the case of Ananias and Saphira; when he inflicted the first ecclesiastical penalty (Acts 5:1-6).
Peter presided on the occasion when the vacancy among the Apostles was filled, caused by the death of Judas.
Peter presided at the first Church Council meeting (Jerusalem) (Acts 15).
Peter's word settled the dispute at the Church Council (Acts15).
Peter performed the first miracle (Acts 5:16) -
To counter Icemoon
part 2
From Protestant sources :
1)The Easton's bible dictionary (Protestant) tells us"Jesus at once recognized Simon, and declared that hereafter he would be called Cephas, an Aramaic name corresponding to the Greek Petros, which means 'a mass of rock' ....It is he who utters that notable profession of faith at Capernaum (John 6:66-69), and again at Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-20). This profession at Caesarea was one of supreme importance, and our Lord in response used these memorable words: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."
2)The Pocket Bible Dictionary ©1996 (Protestant) says "Pe'ter (Rock), Syriac,CEPHAS (Rock)... His original name was Simon or Simeon but when he was called to the apostleship the Lord gave him the name Peter (CEPHAS) Matthew.16:18, with a prophetic reference to what he should do and be for the church."
3)The Bible Encyclopedia ©1941(Protestant) tells us"Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is Cepha, which is what Jesus called him in every-day speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas" ). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was thus: "You are Cepha, and upon this Cepha I will build my Church."
4)The Bible Cyclopedia, 1914 (Protestant) says"Peter. Of Bethsaida on the sea of Galilee. The Gr. For Heb. Cephas, "rock."..... As "Simon" he was but a hearer; as Peter or Cephas he became an apostle and the foundation rock of the Church. (Matt. 16:18-19)"
5)The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible (Protestant), ©1962, Vol. II, p. 1815 says"The Aramaic word for ‘rock’ is Cepha, and this is without a doubt the word that Jesus used in reference to Peter. In the early Aramaic-speaking Church P. (Peter) was not doubt called ‘Cephas.’...Abundant evidence in the New Testament shows that Peter acted as the head of the apostles during the earthly life of Christ as well as after Christ’s ascension into Heaven;" ...He is the first to publicly profess his faith in Christ, and on this occasion, at Caesarea Philippi, Christ promises him the primacy in His Church (Mt 16:16-19), a promise fulfilled after Christ’s resurrection when Peter makes a threefold protestation of his undying love for Him (Jn 21,15ff), to atone for his three-fold denial of Him (Mt 26:69-75)."
6)Dictionary of Biblical Literacy, ©1986, p. 415 (Protestant) "Peter. Greek ‘Petra’, Aramaic ‘Cephas’, ‘Rock.’ the name Christ gave to Simon Bar-Johnah."
7)The Harper’s Bible Dictionary ©1996, p. 777 says "The name ‘Peter’is the Greek word for ‘rock’ (petra) and translates an Aramaic name (Cepha’) that also means ‘rock.’ ...Peter’s emergence as a leader among Christ’s disciples is reflected in the story found in Matt. 16:18-19 that Christ bestowed the name ‘rock’ on Simon as a sign of his future role as upholder and interpreter of the traditions established by Christ..... Peter is credited with being a leader among the disciples during Christ’s ministry...Christ elicits a threefold protestation of love, corresponding to the threefold denial, from Peter before commissioning him to feed Christ’s sheep. These passages suggests that Peter’s leadership among the disciples in the post-Easter church was based on his having been the first disciple to see the risen Lord (e.g., Luke 24:34; Mark 16:7?). ... The overall picture of Peter as one of the chief leaders responsible for an expanding Christian mission, first to Jews, then to interested Gentiles, is confirmed by the picture of Peter in Acts 1-15."
8 )The New World Dictionary-Concordance to the New American Bible p. 527 (Protestant) says "Peter. Simon or Simeon, which is the Greek form of the name, was son of Jonah.... From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock, translated into Greek by the word Petros (Gal. 2:7, 8 )...The power entrusted to Peter is further specified as the power to tie and loose, which, in accordance with the use of the expression in the Jewish tradition, comprises the power to declare something prohibited or licit, or to impose or dispense from, an obligation. This power must be in the context of the power that Peter received, namely authority in the service of the community as it tended towards its eschatological end as expressed in the previous metaphor."
9)A Dictionary of the Bible (Protestant) says ©1943 "Pe’ter,The Greek form of the Aramiac surname Cephas meaning a rock, which Christ bestowed upon Simon or more properly, Symeon ...Peter ardor, earnestness, courage, vigor, and impetuosity of disposition marked him from the first as the leader of the disciples of Jesus. He is always named first in the lists of the apostles (Matt. x 2; Mark iii 16; Luke vi 14; Acts i 13). In the more intimate circle of the most favored three disciples, he is likewise always named first...The period of leadership in the church, as exhibited in the earlier chapters of The Acts. During these years Peter justified his surname, and fulfilled the prophecy that on him should the edifice of the church be raised (Matt. 16:18 ). It was by his hold and strong hand that the church was lead in every step."
10)The Macmillan Concise Dictionary of World History, © 1986 tells us "Peter: d AD 64? Pe’ter,The Greek form of the Aramiac surname Cephas meaning a rock, Apostle, pope, and saint. According to the Bible Peter, a fisherman of Galilee was originally known as Simon. He was chosen by Jesus to be the first leader (pope) of his disciples. During Jesus' crucifixion, Peter denied knowing him, an act that Jesus had predicted and that Peter bitterly repented of. After word of Jesus' ascension to heaven, Peter actively sought converts, and is believed to have been crucified, head downward, in Rome by Nero. In the Roman Catholic Church, he is considered to be the first Pope."
to be continued... -
11)Nave’s Topical Bible (Protestant) Says ©1999 "Peter Also called SIMON BAR-JONA and CEPHAS 'Rock' Matthew 16:16-19; "
12)Hitchcock’s Bible Names (Protestant) ©1896 "Pe'ter or Cephas 'rock"
13)The Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Protestant) ©1901 "Pe’ter (rock). Jesus gave Peter the name Cephas, a Syriac word answering to the Greek Peter, and signifying a stone or rock (Matt 16:18 )....From this time there can be no doubt that Peter held the first place among the apostles, to whatever cause his precedence is to be attributed. He is named first in every list of the apostles; he is generally addressed by our Lord as their representative; and on the most solemn occasions he speaks in their name. The distinction which he received, and it may be his consciousness of ability, energy, zeal and absolute devotion to Christ’s person,
14)The Encarta Concise Encyclopedia ©1997"Peter in the Gospels it is known that the name he received at birth was Simon. Peter (from the Greek word for "rock"Aramiac surname "Cephas " ) is thus a metaphorical or symbolic name that became in time the name of the man in question. The name may have arisen because Christ called Simon was the foundation stone of the church (Matt. 16:18 )."
15)The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, Third Edition Copyright © 1994, says "Peter, Saint d. A.D. 64?, most prominent of the Twelve APOSTLES, traditionally the first bishop of Rome. His name was Simon, but Jesus called him Cephas [Aramaic, (= (rock], or, in Greek, Petros... Peter appears in the gospels as leader and spokesman of the disciples, and Jesus most often addressed him when speaking to them. When Peter confessed Jesus to be the Christ, he was told, Upon this rock I will build my church... After the Resurrection Jesus appeared and charged Peter to feed my sheep. The ACTS OF THE APOSTLES describes Peter's role as leader in the early apostolic period. According to 2d-cent. sources, he apparently left Antioch for Rome A.D. c.55 and there died as head of the local church-a martyr under NERO-traditionally crucified on the Vatican Hill. Over his supposed burial place stands ST. PETER'S CHURCH, the principal shrine of Europe. Peter is said to have helped St. MARK write his gospel, but the epistles of PETER are regarded as mistakenly attributed. His successors as bishop of Rome came to be leaders of the church (see PAPACY). "
16)The Pinfoplease Encyclopedia ©1995 says"Peter, Saint d. A.D. 64?, most prominent of the Twelve Disciples, listed first in the Gospels, and traditionally the first bishop of Rome. His original name was Simon, but Jesus gave him the name Cephas [Aramaic, = rock],...Peter appears throughout the Gospels as leader and spokesman of the disciples, and Jesus most often addressed him when speaking to them (Mat. 10.2; 14.28; 15.15; 17.24; 19.27; Luke 8.51; 12.41). His honored position comes out most clearly in two high points of Jesus' ministry—when Peter confessed Jesus to be the Christ and was told 'Upon this rock I will build my church';...After the Resurrection, Jesus appeared by the Sea of Galilee and charged Peter to “feed my sheep” (John 20.1–10; 21). The first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles describe Peter's role as leader of the Twelve in the election of a replacement for Judas and in the public declaration at Pentecost (Acts 1.15–26; 2.14–40). Much attention is given to Peter's miracles and to his defense of Christianity; his deliverance from prison by an angel is a celebrated incident (Acts 3; 4; 5.1–11, 29–32; 8.14–25; 9.32–43; 10; 11.1–18; 12.1–19). He was a leader at the council of Jerusalem that was called to discuss the integration of non-Jews into the Christian organization;...From earliest times Christians looked for leadership to the successors of Peter as the bishop of Rome...The biblical passages cited to support Petrine supremacy are Mat. 16.13–20 and John 21.15–25. From the first passage comes the familiar image of the keys, which are seen to represent papal power, as well as that of St. Peter as the gatekeeper of heaven."
17)The Oxford Concise Dictionary of the bible (Protestant) ©1943 says "Peter Saint, Christianity, one of the twelve Apostles His principal name, Peter, is the Greek translation of that given him (John 1:42) by Jesus; Cephas is the Grecian form of the Aramaic Kepha, "rock"(Matt. 16;18 )...Peter was The true leader of the Church after Pentecost Peter was noted for his miracles and his devotion to Christ."
18 )The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the King James Bible (Protestant) ©1919 says "Pe'ter, Saint d. A.D. 64, The leader of the Twelve APOSTLES, Believed to be the first bishop of Rome. His name was Simon, but Jesus called him Cephas [Aramaic, (= (rock], or, in Greek, Petros...clearly Simon was the foundation stone of the church (Matt. 16:18 )...The ACTS OF THE APOSTLES shows Peter's role as leader in the early apostolic period."
19)The Brundle Dictionary of the Sacred Bible (Protestant) ©1843 says "Pe'ter. Simon or Simeon, which is the Greek form of the name, was son of Jonah. "From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock,... Peter was the foundation Stone of the early Church (Matt.16;18 )... in book of Acts we see Peter's establishing h tois leadership and authority in the church."
20)The Dictionary of the Bible (Protestant) ©1967 says " Pe'ter (Rock), Syriac,CEPHAS (Rock).... Christ put Peter and a place of authority over the early church. Calling him the foundation stone Matt. 16:18-19 "
to be continued... -
21)National Almanac © 1996 says"St. Peter, of Bethsaida in Galilee,From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock. Prince of the Apostles, was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He lived first in Antioch and then in Rome for 25 years. In C.E. 64 or 67, he was martyred. St. Linus became the second pope."
22)Comptons Encyclopedia ©1995 says "He (Peter)was the first of the apostles to whom Christ appeared after his Resurrection, commanding the repentant Peter, "Feed my lambs, tend my sheep." Reassured by this that Jesus still trusted him, Peter became a great teacher in the early days of the church. He preached throughout Palestine. Many scholars believe that he also worked in Rome for a time. Roman Catholics count him as the first bishop of Rome and the first pope. His claim to the position of head of the church is based also on the words of Jesus to Peter in St. Matthew's gospel: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." (The Greek word petros means "rock."Syriac,CEPHAS "Rock" ) the Romans crucified Peter in about AD 64 during the reign of Nero. Declaring that he was not worthy to die in the same way that Jesus had, Peter asked that his executioners hang him on the cross head downward.
23)History of The Early Church ©1901 says "Simon was one of the twelve followers of Jesus designated as Apostles. He became the leader of the inner circle, which included James and John. Jesus confirmed Simon's leadership when he stated, 'Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah! No mere man has revealed this to you but my heavenly Father, I, for my part, declare to you are 'Cephas' (the Aramaic word meaning 'rock'.) and on this rock I will build my Church and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it.'The Aramaic 'Cephas' was translated into the Greek 'Petros', hence the anglicized name, 'Peter'."
24)Funk & Wagnall's Encyclopedia ©1995 says "Peter in the Gospels it is known that the name he received at birth and with which he grew up was Simon. The Greek word Petros ("rock" ) and its Aramaic equivalent, cephas, were not in use as personal names. "Peter" is thus a metaphorical or symbolic designation that came in time to function as the name of the man in question. The symbolic name in its Aramaic form may have arisen in connection with the affirmation that the resurrected Lord appeared first to Simon, that appearance and thus Simon himself serving as a sort of foundation stone of the church."
25)Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, copyright 2000, p. 228 says"Cephas (Kephas) nickname or surname given to the apostles Peter (from Aram. Kepa, ‘rock’)."
26)The New StrongÂ’s Guide to Bible Words, copyright 1996, p. 44 says"Cephas; 2786 Kephas (6), Rock"
27)Holman Bible Dictionary, copyright 1991 pgs. 1098-1099 says"Peter personal name meaning ‘rock.’... Cephas and Peter both mean rock... Peter is credited with being the leader of the 12 Disciples."
28 )The New StrongÂ’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, copyright 1990 says"2786 Kephas, kay-fas; of chald. Or [comp. 3710]; the rock; Cephas(i.e. kepha), a surname of Peter:-Cephas"
29)The SmithÂ’s Bible Dictionary, p. 241 says"PeÂ’ter. Originally Simeon, or Simon, heard. (... Peter, a rock)"
30)The Holman Concise Bible Dic-tion-ar-y, copyright 1997, p. 512 says"Peter (‘rock’) Leader of Jesus’s 12 apostles; preacher at Pentecost; took the gospel to God-fearing Gentiles"
31)The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, copyright 1972, p. 154 says"CeÂ’phas [from Aram. Kepha, rock]. An appellation given by Jesus to the apostles Simon...Peter is the Greek equivalent of Cephas"
32)NelsonÂ’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, copyright 1989 p. 254 says"Cephas [See fuhs] (rock) The Aramaic named for Simon the son of Jonah (John 1:42) given to him by Christ"
33)New International Version, copyright 1984, footnote to verse John 1:42 says"Both Cephas (Aramaic) and peter (Greek) mean rock"
34)World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia, copyright 1999 says"Peter, Saint (?-A.D. 64?), was a leading apostle of Jesus Christ. He was a leader of the early Christian community in Jerusalem and is a prominent figure in the New Testament. Peter's original name was Simon. Jesus gave him the name Peter, which means rock in Greek. Peter is sometimes called Simon Peter in the New Testament. In a passage from the New Testament, Jesus is portrayed as saying to Peter: ‘And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ (Matt. 16:18-19)."
35)The New StrongÂ’s Complete Dictionary of Words, copyright 1996, p. 646 says"2786 Kephas, kay-fas; of chald. Or [comp. 3710]; the rock; Cephas(i.e. kepha), a surname of Peter:-Cephas"
End of quotes from Protestant writings which supports the Catholics' claim. -
There has been archeological proof of the existence of St. Peters tomb under St. Peters basilica in Rome.Originally posted by Icemoon:this wrong idea about Peter being the head of the Church is another of the many reasons why.
First, Peter was never the head of any Church. The Church only has one head, and that is Jesus (Eph.1:22, Eph 5:23,Col.1:18.)
.
If Jesus, or the Holy Spirit is the only Head of the church, then why do you appoint pastors and reverends to be in charge? Why do we not let Jesus administer all the worship services? It doesn't need any bibical quotes. Just common sense to understand this.
Jesus has never said that he would not appoint anyone to be the lead the group. It is the bible christians who assume that. Instead, it was clearly written that He has already appointed Peter. -
Biblical EvidenceOriginally posted by Icemoon:And other than what Catholics claim, there is no proof anywhere that Peter was ever in Rome, and the Biblical evidence would lead us to believe Peter was NEVER in Rome.
.
We can begin by looking to Scripture. Peter wrote two books of Bible, 1st & 2nd Peter, and is featured prominently throughout Scripture. Does Scripture attest to Peter being in Rome?
As a matter of fact, it does:
1 Peter 5:13. The church here in Babylon, united with you by GodÂ’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark.
I can already her the cry “Wait, that doesn’t say Rome!” That is true, we’ll get there. But clearly, Peter is writing from a city he calls “Babylon” and is “sending” greetings from that church. Note that he is also writing instruction to another church.
So what about Babylon? Babylon was the capital of the Babylonian Empire, but it had been crushed and reduced to ruin over the years. In fact, it was the first city converted in the prophecy of Daniel I mentioned. Babylon was known in Old Testament days for persecuting the church (see 2 Kings 24) and now Rome was the persecutor of the church, as Daniel prophesied.
For the early Church, “Babylon” was the code word for Rome. I know you want proof, and only Biblical proof, so take a look at the other uses of the word Babylon in the New Testament. One example:
Revelation 14:8. A second angel followed, who cried out, Babylon, great Babylon is fallen; she who made all the nations drunk with the maddening wine of her fornication.
Other examples include Rev 16:19, Rev 17:5, Rev 18:2, Rev 18:10, and Rev 18:21. In these verses, Babylon is repeatedly referred to as a “great city,” which immediately removes ancient Babylon from the running. But why would the Apostles not simply use the word “Rome” when talking about Rome? Rome was the chief persecutor of the early Church and martyred more than its share of early Christians. I have personally stood in the catacombs in Rome where the bodies of martyred Christians are piled in small graves along the walls. They used the word Babylon to hide their presence, their location, from those looking to kill them. A simple study of Roman history will illuminate the wisdom of this choice.
What fascinates me about this is that the very people who suggest Peter was never in Rome will immediately refer to the verses in Revelation as pertaining to Rome, particularly to the Catholic Church. In other words, they agree the Apostles used “Babylon” to refer to Rome when it suits their purposes, and disagree when it doesn’t. There are numerous protestant scholars that also agree with this:
The key to the problem, in the view of most critics, lies in the fact that in the 1st century ‘Babylon’ was becoming in Jewish and Christian circles a symbolic title for Rome. For the prophets (e.g. Is 13; 43:14; Jer 50:29; 51:1-58 ) the name had denoted the proud, immoral, godless city that dominated their world, and it was natural for later Jews to see this as the type of the Rome they knew and which embodied these very characteristics. So we find Rome referred to as ‘Babylon’ in the rabbinical literature . . . ‘She who is at Babylon’ simply means ‘the church in Rome’ . . . So the church in Rome is in Babylon because Rome is its place of exile.
- - J.N.D. Anderson A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude
Several extra-Biblical sources (as Anderson alluded to above) also refer to Rome as “Babylon,” for example the Sibylline Oracles and the Apocalypse of Baruch do so. Virtually all serious protestant scholars in modern times agree with this (I’m not aware of any that don’t), mainly due to the vast evidence which has come out more recently through archeology (we’ll get there).
This is pretty clear Biblical evidence, but like all infallible books, without an infallible interpreter they can be misused. So there are those who argue that the “great city” of Babylon isn’t Rome. But, there’s more evidence. -
Historical EvidenceOriginally posted by Icemoon:And other than what Catholics claim, there is no proof anywhere that Peter was ever in Rome, and the Biblical evidence would lead us to believe Peter was NEVER in Rome.
There is also good evidence from non-Biblical writings that Peter was in Rome. To start, IÂ’ll refer to a writing from approximately 80 A.D., just about 4 years after PeterÂ’s martyrdom:
But, to leave the examples of antiquity, let us come to the athletes who are closest to our own time. Consider the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted, and they persevered even to death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles: Peter, who through unwarranted jealousy suffered not one or two buy many toils, and having thus given testimony went to the place of glory that was his due. Through jealousy and strife Paul showed the way to the prize for endurance . . . Thus he became our greatest example of perseverance. To these men who lived such holy lives there must be added a multitude of the elect, who suffered terrible indignities and tortures on account of jealousy, and who became shining examples in our midst.
- - St. Clement of Rome Letter to the Corinthians
St. Clement, who everyone agrees was writing from Rome, notes that Peter and Paul were “in their midst” – the way he uses the phrase indicates they were at Rome. Typically, in writings so close to the historical facts, authors don’t feel the need to point out the obvious. In other words, St. Clement puts Peter in Rome, but never imagines that 1,500 years later others would even suggest that Peter wasn’t there. Other texts are more explicit:
It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified during the reign [of Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphyrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the afore-mentioned Apostles were deposited: “I can point out the trophies of the Apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church.”
- - Fragment in Eusebius, History of the Church
Eusebius, however, was attempting to write an early history of the Church, so his information is more direct. He notes that Peter was crucified in Rome (which indicates he was there) and that he is buried there, but more on that later.
A little later on, around 200 A.D., we have more confirmation:
Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to the voice and recalling the faces of each. Achaia is near you, so you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi. If you can cross into Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives. How happy is that Church, on which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like JohnÂ’s, where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffering no hurt, was exiled to an island.
- - Tertullian The Demurrer Against the Heretics
Note first that the Bible wasn’t compiled in this time, so he points out that in some churches “their own authentic writings are read.” But also he puts Rome as the city where Peter “poured out [his] doctrine along with [his] blood.”
There are many more references like this, but these are just a few early ones. But there is also the “other side” of history. For example, who first suggested Peter was never at Rome? Was it someone from the early Church? Perhaps a priest in the Dark Ages? Suprisingly no, it was much, much later. In fact, there are exactly zero manuscripts from the early Church that suggest Peter was never at Rome. Zero. Even though there are numerous (and I do mean numerous) non-Christian and Christian writings about Peter, none place his martyrdom outside of Rome. Then where does this idea come from? Naturally it comes from those with an agenda in the Sixteenth century (again: Zero until the Sixteenth century).
But most of the push behind todayÂ’s amateur exegetes that push this theory rests on one book, Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner where he makes the claim that there is no evidence to suggest Peter was ever at Rome (I think you can read through the previous sections of this article and realize that many errors exist in BoettnerÂ’s book). This brings us to the Archeological evidence and an odd decision by Boettner. -
Archeological EvidenceOriginally posted by Icemoon:And other than what Catholics claim, there is no proof anywhere that Peter was ever in Rome, and the Biblical evidence would lead us to believe Peter was NEVER in Rome.
.
Above Eusebius quotes Gaius as putting PeterÂ’s tomb on the Ostian Way. This is important because tradition held that Peter was buried beneath an altar in specific place in Rome. In 324 A.D., still before the Bible was compiled, but well after the death of Peter, Constantine ordered a church be built on St. PeterÂ’s tomb. The church was called St. PeterÂ’s Basilica and was completed around 349 A.D.
Twelve centuries later, Pope Julius II began rebuilding St. PeterÂ’s Basilica. Michelangelo was famously hired to finish it in 1546 and included a beautiful dome over the central altar in the church. This dome, it was said, was directly above St. PeterÂ’s grave. But some still had their doubts.
In 1939, Pope Pius XII commissioned some addition excavations (called “scavi”) below St. Peter’s Cathedral when an odd wall was found. The excavations first found a large graveyard and eventually a red wall. The red wall featured Christian “graffiti” that included “Peter is [here]” as well as a secret compartment holding bones wrapped in a purple cloth. Once studied, the bones were of a man who died around 70 A.D., was around 60 to 70 years old, and was short and very stocky. Oddly enough, the set of bones included everything but the feet. Why? Peter was crucified upside down and it was believed that he was removed from the crucifix by simply chopping his feet off.
The archeologists themselves were surprised to find the bones of Peter almost directly under the main altar in St. Peter’s Basilica. The evidence surrounding the tomb of Peter continued to mount (for example, Gaius also described Peter’s “trophy” or tomb in detail, and it matched his description). For more information, read articles here by George Weigel and here by EWTN (I couldn’t find the final report by the archeologists online).
The Vatican still offers the “Scavi Tour” that takes you through the excavation step-by-step and points out the early pictures of Mary and the places where the early Church celebrated Mass. Here is more information on the tour. Personally, I’ve done the tour twice and have a good friend who leads it while studying to be a priest. It is a great tour.
By the way, the odd decision by Boettner? He has updated his less-than-scholarly work multiple times and continued to ignore all of the archeological evidence offered by these excavations. In my mind, this is a clear sign that truth is not something Boettner cares much about (this is also obvious by his outright errors of Catholicism that could be corrected in five minutes with the Catechism. Of course, Boettner probably wouldnÂ’t sell as many books if he did that). -
CONCLUSIONOriginally posted by Icemoon:And other than what Catholics claim, there is no proof anywhere that Peter was ever in Rome, and the Biblical evidence would lead us to believe Peter was NEVER in Rome.
.
In the end, the evidence that St. Peter was in Rome is overwhelming. The Biblical evidence, historical evidence, and archeological evidence are overwhelming. You can always tell how intelligent an attack on Catholicism is if it uses this argument; the evidence is so clear that only those who simply hate the Church and wouldnÂ’t convert even if it were True would use this argument.
This is the evidence I offer you: the suggestion that Peter was never in Rome is so far-fetched that you should be cautious about anything else said by someone making this point! Some highlights:
1 ) All of the historical and Biblical evidence agree Peter was in Rome
2 ) No one, not even a non-Catholic, makes this claim until the Reformation
3 ) The archeological evidence backs up the historical and Scriptural claims perfectly
This shows that people who attack the Church on this issue are not honest. -
Many Protestants claim that when Catholics address priests as "father," they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).Originally posted by Icemoon:Third, the word Pope means "father", and Jesus commanded his followers to "call no man your father on earth [this is in a religious sense], for one is your Father, who is in heaven" (Mat. 23:9). Catholics also call their priests "father." When Cornelius fell at Peter's feet (Acts 10), Peter did not receive reverence as the Pope does. He told Cornelius to get up, for he was a man just as Cornelius was. So Peter did not consider himself a "father."
.
This is just another rehashing of the old "call no man father" argument. When Catholics call the Pope "holy father", this is nothing more than a man-made title distinguishing the pope as our spiritual father. The concept of calling men are spiritual father is indeed founded scripture. St. Paul tells us that he is our spiritual father."For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many Father, For I became you Father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel"(1 Cor. 4-15) -
If you look up the dictionary, vicar means cleryman or reverend in charge of a chapel or parish. Doesn't your church appoint a reverend? Or your church lets the Holy Spirit run everything for the community?Originally posted by Icemoon:Fourth, Catholics claim that the Pope is the "vicar" of Christ. This is a horrible error. A vicar is THE representative of a ruler. The holy Ghost is the vicar of Christ. It was sent "in Jesus name" to be here instead of him. It is blasphemous for any man to claim to be what the holy Ghost really is.
.
To say that the Pope is looked upon as the Holy Ghost indicates the ignorance of Catholic teaching and the scripture. Catholics do not look upon the Pope as being the Holy Ghost, rather as being GUIDED by the Holy Ghost. The Pope as the apostolic successor to St. Peter has the divinely bestowed authority to bind an to louse doctoral teaching (Matt. 16:1 -
This brings us back to what I have posted on Peter the Rock, which has already been supported by so many Protestant writings. I'm not at all surprised that you don't agree. After all, it's nothing new that Protestants don't agree, since you have so many denominations, each gives a different interpretion of the teaching.Originally posted by Icemoon:Fifth, Jesus never told Peter he was the rock that the Church would be built upon. When Jesus told Peter, "upon this rock I will build my Church" (Mat. 16:1, he did not mean he would build the Church on Peter, as Catholics teach. I mean, good grief - Peter died! Nor was Jesus referring to Peter's confession of Jesus as Christ, as Protestants teach. Jesus was referring to what Peter had experienced. In the verse just before Jesus mentioned the rock, he told Peter that God Himself had revealed truth to him (Peter). THAT is the rock that the Church is built upon. What God in His mercy does for men is what builds up the Church, not Peter, nor Peter's words.
.