Christian Forums

Quote from: banished on Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 12:27:09

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open." Isaiah 22:22

A better section of that passage is as follows, so you can take it in context better.

Quote
20 "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat [a] of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.

This could not be Peter in Rome.. no way, no how.

This is referring to the Messiah

Quote from: banished on Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 12:27:09
Jesus said, "The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open ......" Revelation 3:7

Jesus as referring to himself.

A better look at that verse is.

Quote
7"To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
     These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 8I know your deeds.

Where Jesus is dedicating what to write to the 7 churches.

And as we have instructed you before.. the correct reading of the passage in Matthew.. the 'this' refers to Peters proclamation of who Jesus was.. and it's this proclamation that Jesus is the Christ that Jesus is going to build his church on.  This also follows along with the great commision to the ekklesia.. to go into the world and proclaim the Gospel.. that proclamation should be the corner stone of every christian.


I only pray that the Holy Spirit open your eyes to the pagan traditions of your church.. and it's insatiable lust for power.

Quote from: banished on Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 12:27:09

Quote from: Jimmy on Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 10:56:26

Quote from: banished on Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 10:20:36

Quote from: banished on Thu Oct 15, 2009 - 10:27:03
b

Quote from: mclees8 on Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 09:55:37

Quote from: Corbley on Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 08:33:06
Our authority is from God and the word.

What you are talking about is confussion and that is from Satan.

Look how confussed the Catholic church is  :)

Yes he is confusion and the master of it. Look at How the church is so divided today and i am talking about Christianity as a whole. See what he has done to it. I left the valley of confusion some time back. Don't get me wrong I am not an island and still need fellowship but first of all I need fellowship with my Lord through the Hole Spirit.

Perception is every thing!

Good morning mclees8,

Lets face it, the Bible gives us plenty of opportunity to get confused, especially when the Apostle Peter has been given two nicknames, the Greek name Cephas and Aramaic name Kepha. Paul uses the Aramaic name rather than the Greek name for Simon Peter when he writes to the churchs in Galatia and Corinth. Why didn't Paul use the Greek nickname Cephas when I believe Greek was the native language in Galata and Corinth?

Also, according to some Church Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, there were two people named Cephas: one was Apostle Simon Peter, and the other was one of Jesus' Seventy Apostles. Clement goes further to say it was Cephas of the Seventy who was condemned by Paul in Galatians 2 for not eating with the Gentiles.

It's amazing what we can find at The Free Internet Encyclopedia Wikipedia.

The bottom line:  Christ spoke Aramaic and nicknamed Simon "Kepha".  Christ did not speak Greek.  Peter IS "the rock", the earthly head of Christ's Church as Christ Himself states in Matthew 16.

You would think that if Peter is the "rock" that you seem to think he is, then Paul in all of his writings to the various churches would have acknowledge that.  But in fact Paul never even alludes to such a situation in any of his letters.  He does speak about the foundation of the cdhurch.  Peter is not even mentioned there except by inclusion as one of the "apostles and prophets".  He does point out it is Christ who is the cornerstone.

No, Matthew 16 gives us a pretty clear picture of just what the church is really built upon.  It is built upon the truth of Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God, as Peter proclaimed.

Jimmy-

In Matthew 18:18 Jesus gave the key to Simon Peter the Rock of the Christian Church.

And Peter used those keys on the day of Pentecost for the Jews (Acts 2) and again for the Gentiles (Acts 10).  The door was opened never to be shut, and no other keys have ever been required.

Quote from: banished on Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 12:27:09
Now backing up Scripture with Scripture:

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open." Isaiah 22:22

Jesus said, "The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open ......" Revelation 3:7

Rev 3:7 is speaking of Jesus Himself. And I couldn't be positive, but I believe that Isaiah 22:22, if prophetic, is speaking of Jesus as well.

Tantor sir:

If you came over here to the Catholic section to instruct, like you just said you did, then you are wasting your time. There isn't a Catholic in this World who would let you instruct them in spiritual matters. Remember, 1 John: 27 clearly states that we need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you all things...  That was out of your Protestant Bible.  Anyway, you really jumped the gun, because I didn't say that Isaiah 22 and Revelation 3 was talking about Peter.  I was drawing correlation between the events to show that holding the Key was a Jewish tradition that went along well with Jesus giving the Key to Peter.  At least Jimmy was able to match up the Key that Jesus gave to Peter with Pentecost (Acts 2) and for the Gentiles (Acts 10).

Tantor, let me tell you a little about myself.  I am excommunicated because after being widowed from my first wife I married my second wife in a Born Again Church.  I broke the canon law, so I don't have anyone to blame but myself.  However, during my Internet adventures I have bumped into quite a few divorced Catholic who really have a grudge against the Church for excommunicating them.  Well, to make a long story short, that is the path the the Lord is leading down.  I guess the Protestants call it a, "Calling"? Maybe I am just a troll for divorced Catholics?  What ever it is, I'm having a lot of fun.



We need not that anyone should teach us.

Quote from: zoonance on Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 12:20:58
Though I may not have any proof, it is a bit ... odd to think that Jesus couldn't speak any language he wanted to.  Never thought of that before.  Perhaps he did not, could not speak greek, english, spanish, arabic, swahili, etc.

Hello zoonance,

A lot of things don't add up, but that's where faith comes in, I guess?  In fact, the Protestants have a little to much faith, if you ask me.  One of the reasons the Catholics stuck with the Pope for 2,000 years is because from the very beginning there was diversity of theology,  Everyone wanted to do it their own way, so the Church needed a Pope.  Kind of like General Motors or any large corporation trying to operate without a CEO.  The Catholics have the advantage of having everyone speak Latin, but large multinational companies not only have language problems, but also cultural problems.  Different gestures mean different things in different parts of the World. Especially when it comes to women, and at the dinner table.

For what it's all worth,
                                     I had a similar experience to what was first mentioned in this thread. I went to alot of "Bible Only" churches initially. And may I firstly say I met and still know alot of beautiful and faith filled Christians. However each church read the same scriptures differently.  I began to wonder in regards to Our Lord's promise about leading His Church in the ways of all truth.

Either God has alot and different truths,.........or THE truth, was somewhere else.

The oldest known picture of the Blessed Virgin is in the catacombs in Rome. 2nd century!!!

We are talking within 100 yrs of Our Lord.

These I realised were the first Christians. These I realised had a greater hold on THE truth, than any self enterpreted, 2009 "Non Denominational" "Bible Only" Christians.

They venerated the Blessed Virgin ( see above ), they believed in the Holy Eucharist ( St Ignatius approx 97AD ) , the Bible itself shows us they were led by Apostles, the head of whom was clearly Peter ( One President leading a gov't of 12 )

Look as I may, there was only one church that fit that description. It was the oldest, it traced a direct line straight back to Peter, and it was the Church that decided upon, and laid down was in the very Bible that Protestant Christians now hold.

The more I learned, the more I studied, the more I prayed, I became convinced the Holy Catholic Church, complete with the Blessed Virgin, Popes, Masses, confession, the Eucharist etc etc, was indeed The Church, and taught THE TRUTH.

Peace through Our Lord

Quote from: banished on Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 17:38:43

Quote from: zoonance on Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 12:20:58
Though I may not have any proof, it is a bit ... odd to think that Jesus couldn't speak any language he wanted to.  Never thought of that before.  Perhaps he did not, could not speak greek, english, spanish, arabic, swahili, etc.

Hello zoonance,

A lot of things don't add up, but that's where faith comes in, I guess?  In fact, the Protestants have a little to much faith, if you ask me.  One of the reasons the Catholics stuck with the Pope for 2,000 years is because from the very beginning there was diversity of theology,  Everyone wanted to do it their own way, so the Church needed a Pope.  Kind of like General Motors or any large corporation trying to operate without a CEO.  The Catholics have the advantage of having everyone speak Latin, but large multinational companies not only have language problems, but also cultural problems.  Different gestures mean different things in different parts of the World. Especially when it comes to women, and at the dinner table.

So let me ask you who keeps the pope straight. Don't tell me all the popes were alike or even taught the same way. Popes are men also. So in the end what will we be judged by ultimately. I don't think God has many truths but man does.  What kept jsus straight when he was tempted in the wilderness.  Did he not say every time it is written. Was he not the word of God in the flesh.

For the word oof God is quick and powerful,and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing   even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and the marrow,and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart
God bless

In the end it will be the word of God that will be our indictment.

Quote from: Fallen Knight on Fri Oct 16, 2009 - 21:23:41
For what it's all worth,
                                    I had a similar experience to what was first mentioned in this thread. I went to alot of "Bible Only" churches initially. And may I firstly say I met and still know alot of beautiful and faith filled Christians. However each church read the same scriptures differently.  I began to wonder in regards to Our Lord's promise about leading His Church in the ways of all truth.

Either God has alot and different truths,.........or THE truth, was somewhere else.

The oldest known picture of the Blessed Virgin is in the catacombs in Rome. 2nd century!!!

We are talking within 100 yrs of Our Lord.

These I realised were the first Christians. These I realised had a greater hold on THE truth, than any self enterpreted, 2009 "Non Denominational" "Bible Only" Christians.

They venerated the Blessed Virgin ( see above ), they believed in the Holy Eucharist ( St Ignatius approx 97AD ) , the Bible itself shows us they were led by Apostles, the head of whom was clearly Peter ( One President leading a gov't of 12 )

Look as I may, there was only one church that fit that description. It was the oldest, it traced a direct line straight back to Peter, and it was the Church that decided upon, and laid down was in the very Bible that Protestant Christians now hold.

The more I learned, the more I studied, the more I prayed, I became convinced the Holy Catholic Church, complete with the Blessed Virgin, Popes, Masses, confession, the Eucharist etc etc, was indeed The Church, and taught THE TRUTH.

Peace through Our Lord

You do realize that the Apostles were fighting heresy from day one... so I would not believe anything said by anyone other then the original 12.

So if they found a picture of Mary in dated to the 1st century.. I would see that as part of the heresy movement... same with writings about the Eucharist beyond what was written by the 12.  Maybe the church you joined was the problem and not the solution?... that's the way I look at the RCC.. it was a heretical sect that pirated and piggy backed onto the teachings of the apostles, but twisted them they way they wanted.

What bothers me the most about the RCC is that Peter himself never wrote anything about how his successors would be picked or where the church should be founded.. instead, we have word of mouth by people who coveted what they saw as his debatable role as lead apostle and massaged history so they could take this power.

So their entire premise is based on hearsay... which would never hold up against any logical rule of evidence.

But then again, the RCC and other churches are 100% structured off of pagan traditions and are not in step with the concept of 'ekklesia' which is the term mistranslated into the word 'church' in western bibles.

Tantor,

It would be a lot easier if you would let the facts govern.  We are talking about a Church that has stood for 2,000 years, and at present has 1.2 Billion members.  It's estimated that the Mass is celebrated 200,000 times each day.  Remember, the Catholic Mass is celebrated every day 365 days a year  keeping the largest organization that has ever existed on this planet strictly disciplined is an enormous task.  Even pagans, heathens, and World governments, respect the Pope.  Only a Protestant in protest would question whether the Holy Spirit is guiding the Popes in this enormous task.  And of course, if a Catholic is married in Church and receives the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and divorces his wife without just cause for another woman, he is excommunicated.  The rules are the rules, and divorced Catholics have no one to blame but themselves. The present 1.2 Billion members of the Catholic Church all have one thing in common, they did not dump their wife for a younger woman.  Isn't that the real problem, both during the start of the reformation and on the present day internet fourms?  Lets face it!  That is the real problem here, isn't it? It always was the problem, and until the Holy Spirit tell the Pope to change Canon Law, it will remain Canon Law.  Somethings are left up to God.   

Quote from: banished on Tue Oct 20, 2009 - 10:45:27
Tantor,

It would be a lot easier if you would let the facts govern.  We are talking about a Church that has stood for 2,000 years, and at present has 1.2 Billion members.  It's estimated that the Mass is celebrated 200,000 times each day.  Remember, the Catholic Mass is celebrated every day 365 days a year  keeping the largest organization that has ever existed on this planet strictly disciplined is an enormous task.  Even pagans, heathens, and World governments, respect the Pope.  Only a Protestant in protest would question whether the Holy Spirit is guiding the Popes in this enormous task.  And of course, if a Catholic is married in Church and receives the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and divorces his wife without just cause for another woman, he is excommunicated.  The rules are the rules, and divorced Catholics have no one to blame but themselves. The present 1.2 Billion members of the Catholic Church all have one thing in common, they did not dump their wife for a younger woman.  Isn't that the real problem, both during the start of the reformation and on the present day internet fourms?  Lets face it!  That is the real problem here, isn't it? It always was the problem, and until the Holy Spirit tell the Pope to change Canon Law, it will remain Canon Law.  Somethings are left up to God.   

Sorry but he RCC was not the church for 2000 years. the papacy did not become the head of Christianity until after 500 AD and then was illegitimately obtained.  They ruled religiously and Politically the whole Empire and conquest of South America and Mexico added to the church. The population was raised up Catholic so it is little wonder that he RCC is the worlds largest church, not because it was the Lord but religious political conquest. Today the church still holds captive many because the RCC is all they have ever known and Have also more than likely been intimidated by the church when that are led to believe the there is no salvation outside the RCC. So there are many reasons why the RCC remains the largest church.   Salvation never comes by power and conquest but by personal confession of faith in Christ. That is not to say that Catholics are not saved,

You should reason things out instead of blindly being told things that only sound right.
God bless.

Quote from: banished on Tue Oct 20, 2009 - 10:45:27
Tantor,

It would be a lot easier if you would let the facts govern.  We are talking about a Church that has stood for 2,000 years, and at present has 1.2 Billion members.  It's estimated that the Mass is celebrated 200,000 times each day.  Remember, the Catholic Mass is celebrated every day 365 days a year  keeping the largest organization that has ever existed on this planet strictly disciplined is an enormous task.  Even pagans, heathens, and World governments, respect the Pope.  Only a Protestant in protest would question whether the Holy Spirit is guiding the Popes in this enormous task.  And of course, if a Catholic is married in Church and receives the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and divorces his wife without just cause for another woman, he is excommunicated.  The rules are the rules, and divorced Catholics have no one to blame but themselves. The present 1.2 Billion members of the Catholic Church all have one thing in common, they did not dump their wife for a younger woman.  Isn't that the real problem, both during the start of the reformation and on the present day internet fourms?  Lets face it!  That is the real problem here, isn't it? It always was the problem, and until the Holy Spirit tell the Pope to change Canon Law, it will remain Canon Law.  Somethings are left up to God.  

You keep stating things as 'facts' when we have demonstrated that they arent... time and time again... but like the borg you keep coming back and stating them again as facts.

The RCC has NOT stood for 2000 years.. that is an undeniable fact.. all common sense says it started in 1054 when it unilaterally pulled a coop d'etat and excommunicated it's eastern orthodox brothers.

If anything, the Eastern Orthodox churches have a much richer apostolic tradition and better claim to be the 'one church' if that is so important to you.

As far as comparing protestants to 'divorcing' the church... even God divorced Israel after much suffering for many years.. and maybe the protestant reformation was God doing the exact same thing to your catholic church.. the Holy Spirit moved on.

Besides, there is no mention of a single 'church' in all of scriptures... there is a mention of a single ekklesia (a loose assembly called out by God).. but the church as we know it is found no where in the bible.  The entire concept of church is a pagan overlay on scripture.

Basically, you have no logical or historical basis to state any of what you said as fact... unless you believe the RCC's sanitized for their protection version of history.

Quote from: Tantor on Tue Oct 20, 2009 - 15:27:45

Quote from: banished on Tue Oct 20, 2009 - 10:45:27
Tantor,

It would be a lot easier if you would let the facts govern.  We are talking about a Church that has stood for 2,000 years, and at present has 1.2 Billion members.  It's estimated that the Mass is celebrated 200,000 times each day.  Remember, the Catholic Mass is celebrated every day 365 days a year  keeping the largest organization that has ever existed on this planet strictly disciplined is an enormous task.  Even pagans, heathens, and World governments, respect the Pope.  Only a Protestant in protest would question whether the Holy Spirit is guiding the Popes in this enormous task.  And of course, if a Catholic is married in Church and receives the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and divorces his wife without just cause for another woman, he is excommunicated.  The rules are the rules, and divorced Catholics have no one to blame but themselves. The present 1.2 Billion members of the Catholic Church all have one thing in common, they did not dump their wife for a younger woman.  Isn't that the real problem, both during the start of the reformation and on the present day internet fourms?  Lets face it!  That is the real problem here, isn't it? It always was the problem, and until the Holy Spirit tell the Pope to change Canon Law, it will remain Canon Law.  Somethings are left up to God.  

The RCC has NOT stood for 2000 years.. that is an undeniable fact.. all common sense says it started in 1054 when it unilaterally pulled a coop d'etat and excommunicated it's eastern orthodox brothers.

Tantor,

your own words prove that the Catholic Church has always been there for 2,000 years.  How could the Catholic Church excommunicate their Eastern Orthodox brothers if they weren't there to excommunicate them? Think about what you are saying.  I would like to remind you that I don't keep coming back like you claim.  This is the Catholic Section of the forum and I am a Catholic, so I am where I belong.  You are the one who keeps coming back, and I think it would be interesting to hear why. Something must be bothering you.  I can tell.       

Dear Mclees,
 
                      In ref to your : "Sorry but he RCC was not the church for 2000 years. the papacy did not become the head of Christianity until after 500 AD and then was illegitimately obtained.  They ruled religiously and Politically the whole Empire and conquest of South America and Mexico added to the church."

One thing I hate more than any other is an uneducated, fool of a Protestant who posts absolute lies and falsims under the name of Christian Truth.
Beware my friend because spreading such lies under Christ's name will lead you to Hell

May I suggest you first go away and actually study some truth before claiming you speak it.
It is rare that I read such dribble as what you have posted above!

I'll give you your chance however. Please provide us with all your "spectacular proofs" of this statement.

I so look forward to ripping your claims apart on this spread. Not because I am a bad person. Simply because people like you who spread this sort of trash need to be shut down.

No peace to liar

Quote from: Fallen Knight on Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 01:17:40
Dear Mclees,
 
                      In ref to your : "Sorry but he RCC was not the church for 2000 years. the papacy did not become the head of Christianity until after 500 AD and then was illegitimately obtained.  They ruled religiously and Politically the whole Empire and conquest of South America and Mexico added to the church."

One thing I hate more than any other is an uneducated, fool of a Protestant who posts absolute lies and falsims under the name of Christian Truth.
Beware my friend because spreading such lies under Christ's name will lead you to Hell

May I suggest you first go away and actually study some truth before claiming you speak it.
It is rare that I read such dribble as what you have posted above!

I'll give you your chance however. Please provide us with all your "spectacular proofs" of this statement.

I so look forward to ripping your claims apart on this spread. Not because I am a bad person. Simply because people like you who spread this sort of trash need to be shut down.

No peace to liar

did not Spain and Portugal go into South America and Mexico. Why do the countries predominately speak Spanish.  I will get back to you

Quote from: mclees8 on Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 08:11:23

Quote from: Fallen Knight on Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 01:17:40
Dear Mclees,
 
                      In ref to your : "Sorry but he RCC was not the church for 2000 years. the papacy did not become the head of Christianity until after 500 AD and then was illegitimately obtained.  They ruled religiously and Politically the whole Empire and conquest of South America and Mexico added to the church."

One thing I hate more than any other is an uneducated, fool of a Protestant who posts absolute lies and falsims under the name of Christian Truth.
Beware my friend because spreading such lies under Christ's name will lead you to Hell

May I suggest you first go away and actually study some truth before claiming you speak it.
It is rare that I read such dribble as what you have posted above!

I'll give you your chance however. Please provide us with all your "spectacular proofs" of this statement.

I so look forward to ripping your claims apart on this spread. Not because I am a bad person. Simply because people like you who spread this sort of trash need to be shut down.

No peace to liar

did not Spain and Portugal go into South America and Mexico. Why do the countries predominately speak Spanish.  I will get back to you

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Spanish colonization of the Americas was the settlement and political rule over much of the western hemisphere which was initiated by the Spanish conquistadors and fought mostly by their native allies. Beginning with the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492, over three centuries the Spanish Empire expanded from early small settlements in the Caribbean to include Central America, most of South America, Mexico, what today is Southwestern United States, the Pacific and Caribbean coasts of North America, reaching Alaska[1]. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Spanish possessions in America began a series of independence movements, which culminated in Spain's loss of all of its colonies on the mainland of North, Central and South America by 1825. The remaining Spanish colonies of Cuba and Puerto Rico were occupied by the United States following the Spanish-American War (1898), ending Spanish rule in the Americas. The Spanish settled in many different places all over America.

Quote from: banished on Tue Oct 20, 2009 - 23:12:50

Tantor,

your own words prove that the Catholic Church has always been there for 2,000 years.  How could the Catholic Church excommunicate their Eastern Orthodox brothers if they weren't there to excommunicate them? Think about what you are saying.  I would like to remind you that I don't keep coming back like you claim.  This is the Catholic Section of the forum and I am a Catholic, so I am where I belong.  You are the one who keeps coming back, and I think it would be interesting to hear why. Something must be bothering you.  I can tell.       

Much the same way that a state cannot leave the USA and claim sole ownership of the name USA..  That is exactly what the RCC did.. it left its brothers yet claimed to keep the family name.  It does not compute.

Quote from: Fallen Knight on Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 01:17:40
Dear Mclees,
 
                      In ref to your : "Sorry but he RCC was not the church for 2000 years. the papacy did not become the head of Christianity until after 500 AD and then was illegitimately obtained.  They ruled religiously and Politically the whole Empire and conquest of South America and Mexico added to the church."

One thing I hate more than any other is an uneducated, fool of a Protestant who posts absolute lies and falsims under the name of Christian Truth.
Beware my friend because spreading such lies under Christ's name will lead you to Hell

May I suggest you first go away and actually study some truth before claiming you speak it.
It is rare that I read such dribble as what you have posted above!

I'll give you your chance however. Please provide us with all your "spectacular proofs" of this statement.

I so look forward to ripping your claims apart on this spread. Not because I am a bad person. Simply because people like you who spread this sort of trash need to be shut down.

No peace to liar

Thanks Fallen Knight, that was well said.  I already have had 2 warnings from the moderators for nailing these guys, so I must go easy.  They come into this Section to nail the Holy Catholic Church, and when I call them the "Gates of Hell" they run to the moderators and complain.

The case of Napoleon is instructive.

"Drunk with power, Napoleon seized Rome in 1808, declaring himself the "successor of Charlemagne". He banished Cardinals and bishops, and carrying off Pope Pius VII, held him prisoner in Savona. Enemies of the Church exulted: "The Papacy is ended! The Emperor has devoured the Pope!" They forgot the divine promise to Peter: "The gates of hell shall not prevail!"; on that promise was based the ancient saying: "Who eats of the Pope dies like a beast." On the same day that Napoleon died in exile at St. Helena, Pope Pius VII was celebrating his own feast day in Rome."

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31).

Quote from: banished on Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 09:06:58

Quote from: Fallen Knight on Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 01:17:40
Dear Mclees,
 
                      In ref to your : "Sorry but he RCC was not the church for 2000 years. the papacy did not become the head of Christianity until after 500 AD and then was illegitimately obtained.  They ruled religiously and Politically the whole Empire and conquest of South America and Mexico added to the church."

One thing I hate more than any other is an uneducated, fool of a Protestant who posts absolute lies and falsims under the name of Christian Truth.
Beware my friend because spreading such lies under Christ's name will lead you to Hell

May I suggest you first go away and actually study some truth before claiming you speak it.
It is rare that I read such dribble as what you have posted above!

I'll give you your chance however. Please provide us with all your "spectacular proofs" of this statement.

I so look forward to ripping your claims apart on this spread. Not because I am a bad person. Simply because people like you who spread this sort of trash need to be shut down.

No peace to liar

Thanks Fallen Knight, that was well said.  I already have had 2 warnings from the moderators for nailing these guys, so I must go easy.  They come into this Section to nail the Holy Catholic Church, and when I call them the "Gates of Hell" they run to the moderators and complain.

The case of Napoleon is instructive.

"Drunk with power, Napoleon seized Rome in 1808, declaring himself the "successor of Charlemagne". He banished Cardinals and bishops, and carrying off Pope Pius VII, held him prisoner in Savona. Enemies of the Church exulted: "The Papacy is ended! The Emperor has devoured the Pope!" They forgot the divine promise to Peter: "The gates of hell shall not prevail!"; on that promise was based the ancient saying: "Who eats of the Pope dies like a beast." On the same day that Napoleon died in exile at St. Helena, Pope Pius VII was celebrating his own feast day in Rome."

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31).

I beleive Knight was making a baseless statement that was not backed up about how the Americas were colonized by Spain and so the people were converted to Roman Catholism because of the age old papacy claim that Salvation was only through being  Roman Catholic. A play on ignorance.  We could do a little more research here if you like. but we we know the king and Queen of Spain were up to their eyeballs with the pope. If you don't think so just remember the Spanish inquisition. Yes that is why  Mexico and South America became predominately Roman Catholic and still are today.

God bless

Quote from: mclees8 on Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 09:45:18

Quote from: banished on Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 09:06:58

Quote from: Fallen Knight on Wed Oct 21, 2009 - 01:17:40
Dear Mclees,
 
                      In ref to your : "Sorry but he RCC was not the church for 2000 years. the papacy did not become the head of Christianity until after 500 AD and then was illegitimately obtained.  They ruled religiously and Politically the whole Empire and conquest of South America and Mexico added to the church."

One thing I hate more than any other is an uneducated, fool of a Protestant who posts absolute lies and falsims under the name of Christian Truth.
Beware my friend because spreading such lies under Christ's name will lead you to Hell

May I suggest you first go away and actually study some truth before claiming you speak it.
It is rare that I read such dribble as what you have posted above!

I'll give you your chance however. Please provide us with all your "spectacular proofs" of this statement.

I so look forward to ripping your claims apart on this spread. Not because I am a bad person. Simply because people like you who spread this sort of trash need to be shut down.

No peace to liar

Thanks Fallen Knight, that was well said.  I already have had 2 warnings from the moderators for nailing these guys, so I must go easy.  They come into this Section to nail the Holy Catholic Church, and when I call them the "Gates of Hell" they run to the moderators and complain.

The case of Napoleon is instructive.

"Drunk with power, Napoleon seized Rome in 1808, declaring himself the "successor of Charlemagne". He banished Cardinals and bishops, and carrying off Pope Pius VII, held him prisoner in Savona. Enemies of the Church exulted: "The Papacy is ended! The Emperor has devoured the Pope!" They forgot the divine promise to Peter: "The gates of hell shall not prevail!"; on that promise was based the ancient saying: "Who eats of the Pope dies like a beast." On the same day that Napoleon died in exile at St. Helena, Pope Pius VII was celebrating his own feast day in Rome."

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31).

I believe Knight was making a baseless statement that was not backed up about how the Americas were colonized by Spain and so the people were converted to Roman Catholism because of the age old papacy claim that Salvation was only through being  Roman Catholic. A play on ignorance.  We could do a little more research here if you like. but we we know the king and Queen of Spain were up to their eyeballs with the pope. If you don't think so just remember the Spanish inquisition. Yes that is why  Mexico and South America became predominately Roman Catholic and still are today.

God bless

Yes Napolion was drunk with power but the Papacy was drunk with it long before him.

Jesus nor his Gospel is about religious political power and never ever was. Face it they lost from the onset. The Holy Spirit is a gentlemen not forced religion that plays on ignorance.   when will you guys ever wake up.
God bless

My Dear Mclees,
                          I have walked away for a few days to give you a fair chance at supporting your claims with "truth".

As I read back to see your reply what do I find? A "Wikapedia" paste about Spain, and more uneducated, unsupported dribble about Napoleon. 

Once again, I as a Christian, I sincerely pray to Our Lord that you will see what you are doing. You are hammering in the nail. You are the one scouging Our Lord. You WILL answer for this before GOD unless you repent.

If you think I am some Catholic Fundamentalist, you are wrong. There are many fine "Christian" Protestants I admire and respect. And when we stand before GOD I'll let HIM tell me who was right and who was wrong.

We have our disagreements and our different interpretations, sure, but what I would never do is attack the Protestant  beliefs with half truths and outright lies.

This is sinfull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me help you to go away and study further

Between 96 and 107AD ( That's only 70 years after Our Lord walked the earth ) Saint Ignatius wrote to his fellow Christians on his way to Rome to be thrown to the lions: " They do not come to our prayers or Eucharist for they do not believe the bread we eat is the flesh of our Lord"

Does your church still teach this??  Mine does, and it happens to be that same Catholic Church you reckon didn't start for another 400 years.

Go away and google Saint Ignatius if you only rely on the web for your search for Our Lord. It is not great, but I think even you could still learn something

No peace to Liars

PS: Saint Ignatius just happened to be a disciple of the APOSTLE JOHN. So where do you think he got his interpretation of "This is MY BODY"

QuotePS: Saint Ignatius just happened to be a disciple of the APOSTLE JOHN. So where do you think he got his interpretation of "This is MY BODY"

II Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Acts 20:29-30 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

The following are some excerpts from the writings of Ignatius. They show the fulfillment  of the Apostle Pauls warning that after his departure wolves would come into the flock, seeking followers of themselves. The exaltaion of the Bishops, was a first step in this direction. It eventually lead to the establishment of the Church of Rome, in which, one man is exalted above all others. The beginning of these things may be seen in the following from Ignatius.

The more, therefore, you see the bishop silent, the more do you reverence
him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house
sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is
manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we
would look upon the Lord Himself, standing, as he does, before the Lord.
For "it behooves the man who looks carefully about him, and is active in
his business, to stand before kings, and not to stand before slothful men."
And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God,
that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place
among you. Nor indeed do ye hearken to any one rather than to
Jesus Christ, the true Shepherd and Teacher. And ye are, as Paul wrote to
you, "one body and one spirit, because ye have also been called in one
hope of the faith. Since also "there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one
God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all." Such,
then, are ye,having been taught by such instructors, Paul the Christ-bearer, and Timothy the most faithful. ( the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Chap. 6 )

As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, "I can
of mine own self do nothing," so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor
layman, do anything without the bishop. Nor let anything appear
commendable to you which is destitute of his approval. For every such
thing is sinful, and opposed [to the will of] God. Do ye all come together
into the same place for prayer. Let there be one common supplication, one
mind, one hope, with faith unblameable in Christ Jesus, than which
nothing is more excellent. Do ye all, as one man, run together into the
temple of God, as unto one altar, to one Jesus Christ, the High Priest of
the unbegotten God.( The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians Chap. 7 )

Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for "he watches for your souls,
as one that shall give account to God." Wherefore also, ye appear to me to
live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died
for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may by baptism be made
partakers of His resurrection. It is therefore necessary, whatsoever things
ye do, to do nothing without the bishop. And be ye subject also to the
presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom,
if we live, we shall be found in Him. It behooves you also, in every way,
to please the deacons, who are [ministers] of the mysteries of Christ Jesus;
for they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of
God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against
them], as they would a burning fire. Let them, then, prove themselves to
be such. ( The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chap, 2 )

Matt 23:8-12 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Well my dear Amo,
                                 You and Mclees better get together and decide who's right here. He claims the Catholic Church didn't start for another 400 yrs after you. I take it you are acknowldeging that St Ignatius descibes the Eucharist only 70yrs after Our Lord.

But then again that's what separates you Protestants isn't it. You can't actually agree with one another on what the truth is.......but you all have the same Bible. Hmmm??

In ref to your quote about calling no man Father. If you will actually go away and study, you'll find it says call no man Teacher as well.

Ever called a person "Teacher"   You are aware the the word Doctor is actually Latin for teacher??

Ever called a person "Doctor"  If so you are breaking the very same spiritual laws as you claim the Catholics Do.

Unless of course like so many Protestants with their "democratic" Christianity, ( What ever I decide is right is right )
you have interpreted this scripture incorrectly. Which is indeed the case with you.

Think I am wrong??

If so, please continue on and give me your explanation why Paul, not to mention Our Lord Jesus both call men "teacher" and Paul describes himself as a "Father" to his spiritual children.

PS:  I'm still waiting for our friend McLees to back up his earlier claims about the Catholic Church and it's start date.

Come on Macca, show us how smart and educated you really are. Give us something more that wikopedia and Napoleon.

Back up your claims with intelligent, "mature" references to historical documents.

Or admit here before all you are making baseless and fraudulant claims which amounts to outright lying before Our Lord Jesus and Almighty GOD and reprent for your sin

Quote from: Fallen Knight on Sun Oct 25, 2009 - 23:53:51
PS:  I'm still waiting for our friend McLees to back up his earlier claims about the Catholic Church and it's start date.

Come on Macca, show us how smart and educated you really are. Give us something more that wikopedia and Napoleon.

Back up your claims with intelligent, "mature" references to historical documents.

Or admit here before all you are making baseless and fraudulant claims which amounts to outright lying before Our Lord Jesus and Almighty GOD and reprent for your sin

If I comited a sin here then i would repent of it. Talking about real history is not a sin.
Wickapedea is only stating real history. It is not prejudice. Are they lieing ? If you want real historical documents then you produce them. Im sure they will back up what you say i cannot back up.  Talk about you baseless accusations just look at your own comment here. You can always say everything is a lie which is what you do if it does not support your idea.

I have already addressed the things you say I do not back up with common sense. From the deception that surrounds the word Catholic to when the papacy came to power. Just go back through the threads and Im sure you will find them but i think you already have.

You like to play the denial game a lot. It is not my fault you like the things i post that tell the real truth. 

 

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Oct 26, 2009 - 08:23:41

Quote from: Fallen Knight on Sun Oct 25, 2009 - 23:53:51
PS:  I'm still waiting for our friend McLees to back up his earlier claims about the Catholic Church and it's start date.

Come on Macca, show us how smart and educated you really are. Give us something more that wikopedia and Napoleon.

Back up your claims with intelligent, "mature" references to historical documents.

Or admit here before all you are making baseless and fraudulant claims which amounts to outright lying before Our Lord Jesus and Almighty GOD and reprent for your sin

If I comited a sin here then i would repent of it. Talking about real history is not a sin.
Wickapedea is only stating real history. It is not prejudice. Are they lieing ? If you want real historical documents then you produce them. Im sure they will back up what you say i cannot back up.  Talk about you baseless accusations just look at your own comment here. You can always say everything is a lie which is what you do if it does not support your idea.

I have already addressed the things you say I do not back up with common sense. From the deception that surrounds the word Catholic to when the papacy came to power. Just go back through the threads and Im sure you will find them but i think you already have.

You like to play the denial game a lot. It is not my fault you like the things i post that tell the real truth. 

mclees8,

Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.

My Dear Macca,
                           So let me see if I understand your approach to making statements about someone else's 2000 yr old faith. ( That's opposed to your 450 yr old one....please don't claim you've always been around because not even Wikopedia makes that claim LOL  )

You believe you have the right to make lying outlandish historical claims about the Catholic Church, and yet don't have to support any of your claims with actual facts

I suppose you walk around the streets claiming the Holocaust didn't really happen as well.

You reckon Wikopedia tells the "truth"??

" The Catholic Church traces its foundation to the gathering of the twelve Apostles by Jesus and the selection of Peter as their head "

Well that's an example of Wikopedia Macca, ( Catholic Church - Origins and History )

I guess even Wiki reckons your grasp on historical truth and religious truth concerning the Church Our Lord Jesus established is incorrect.

But please, you keep going. You are providing all with much amusement. You claimed The Catholic Church was not created until after Constantine approx 400AD

Please explain Saint Igntatius writing about the Eucharist 300 before this Macca.

Actually, I think your buddy TradCath does deny the Holocaust.  It sure did seem like it from one of his posts in the history thread about Hitler anyway.

Quote from: Fallen Knight on Mon Oct 26, 2009 - 22:47:18
My Dear Macca,
                           So let me see if I understand your approach to making statements about someone else's 2000 yr old faith. ( That's opposed to your 450 yr old one....please don't claim you've always been around because not even Wikopedia makes that claim LOL  )

You believe you have the right to make lying outlandish historical claims about the Catholic Church, and yet don't have to support any of your claims with actual facts

I suppose you walk around the streets claiming the Holocaust didn't really happen as well.

You reckon Wikopedia tells the "truth"??

" The Catholic Church traces its foundation to the gathering of the twelve Apostles by Jesus and the selection of Peter as their head "

Well that's an example of Wikopedia Macca, ( Catholic Church - Origins and History )

I guess even Wiki reckons your grasp on historical truth and religious truth concerning the Church Our Lord Jesus established is incorrect.

But please, you keep going. You are providing all with much amusement. You claimed The Catholic Church was not created until after Constantine approx 400AD

Please explain Saint Igntatius writing about the Eucharist 300 before this Macca.

Night why don't you drop that old line about the word catholic. There was no Roman catholic Papacy that was a political religious system with popes on thrones big hats and  religious vestments in 110 AD. There was no Vatican capital authority that ruled the Empire,andt took a nose dive into corruption.
The church could be called catholic then but it is not a real legal term for it. this fact is true that they were not Roman Catholics or any other divisions.    The Roman catholic papal church is not 2000 years old and is not any church Christ founded or was ever ordained of Him.

This line of yours is old stuff and does not fool anyone but yourself and many uniformed RC's   There's never any so blind as those who refuse to see. 
God bless

Quote from: mclees8 on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 10:07:41

Quote from: Fallen Knight on Mon Oct 26, 2009 - 22:47:18
My Dear Macca,
                           So let me see if I understand your approach to making statements about someone else's 2000 yr old faith. ( That's opposed to your 450 yr old one....please don't claim you've always been around because not even Wikopedia makes that claim LOL  )

You believe you have the right to make lying outlandish historical claims about the Catholic Church, and yet don't have to support any of your claims with actual facts

I suppose you walk around the streets claiming the Holocaust didn't really happen as well.

You reckon Wikopedia tells the "truth"??

" The Catholic Church traces its foundation to the gathering of the twelve Apostles by Jesus and the selection of Peter as their head "

Well that's an example of Wikopedia Macca, ( Catholic Church - Origins and History )

I guess even Wiki reckons your grasp on historical truth and religious truth concerning the Church Our Lord Jesus established is incorrect.

But please, you keep going. You are providing all with much amusement. You claimed The Catholic Church was not created until after Constantine approx 400AD

Please explain Saint Igntatius writing about the Eucharist 300 before this Macca.

Night why don't you drop that old line about the word catholic. There was no Roman catholic Papacy that was a political religious system with popes on thrones big hats and  religious vestments in 110 AD. There was no Vatican capital authority that ruled the Empire,andt took a nose dive into corruption.
The church could be called catholic then but it is not a real legal term for it. this fact is true that they were not Roman Catholics or any other divisions.    The Roman catholic papal church is not 2000 years old and is not any church Christ founded or was ever ordained of Him.

This line of yours is old stuff and does not fool anyone but yourself and many uniformed RC's   There's never any so blind as those who refuse to see. 
God bless

The Catholic Church

Jesus founded a Church (Mt 16:18); he founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20) and it is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)

Jesus made promises to this Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)

Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 18:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20)

He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)

He prayed that it would be one Church (Jn 18:20-23)

He prayed that the Father would consecrate the Apostles in the truth (Jn 18:17), and the Father always hears Jesus (Jn 11:41-42). We are therefore guaranteed by Jesus that what his Church teaches is the truth.

That Church is headed by Christ (Col 1:18), but he appointed Peter to be the visible head on earth (Mt 16:18-19), to be the universal shepherd (Jn 21:15-17) of Christ's one fold (Jn 10:16).

This is the Catholic Church

Quote from: winsome on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 13:13:10

Jesus founded a Church (Mt 16:18); he founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20) and it is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)

Jesus made promises to this Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)

Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 18:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20)

He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)

He prayed that it would be one Church (Jn 18:20-23)

He prayed that the Father would consecrate the Apostles in the truth (Jn 18:17), and the Father always hears Jesus (Jn 11:41-42). We are therefore guaranteed by Jesus that what his Church teaches is the truth.


That Church is headed by Christ (Col 1:18), but he appointed Peter to be the visible head on earth (Mt 16:18-19), to be the universal shepherd (Jn 21:15-17) of Christ's one fold (Jn 10:16).

To say this is the RCC is to take a humongous leap of faith... because it doesn't pass the test of even the most basic logic.

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 13:18:02

Quote from: winsome on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 13:13:10

Jesus founded a Church (Mt 16:18); he founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20) and it is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)

Jesus made promises to this Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)

Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 18:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20)

He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)

He prayed that it would be one Church (Jn 18:20-23)

He prayed that the Father would consecrate the Apostles in the truth (Jn 18:17), and the Father always hears Jesus (Jn 11:41-42). We are therefore guaranteed by Jesus that what his Church teaches is the truth.


That Church is headed by Christ (Col 1:18), but he appointed Peter to be the visible head on earth (Mt 16:18-19), to be the universal shepherd (Jn 21:15-17) of Christ's one fold (Jn 10:16).

To say this is the RCC is to take a humongous leap of faith... because it doesn't pass the test of even the most basic logic.

If that is so then you will be able to demonstrate it very easily.

1.) It's not provable that Peter was ever in Rome... if you take biblical events and timelines to be correct, Peter could never have been in Rome.  Even if it can be proven that Peters bones are in the Vatican it proves nothing because like most Roman relics, they get moved around.

2.) To add to that, we do have one Apostle that spent a ton of time in Rome.. Paul.  And not once in any of Paul's writings from Rome did he mention Peter being there.. not even once.

3.) The office of Pope didn't start until September 3, 590 when Gregory first coined it.

In my humble opinion... Peter started the church in Jerusalem and never intended it to move to Rome.. there is amble evidence of this.  There is also no written record of Peter setting up a Papal see in Rome or that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over all christendom.  It also seems quite strange to me that Peter.. a devout Jew who loved his countrymen.. would purposefully set up his church in the gentile capital of the Jews sworn enemy... it does not compute.  Besides, Peter was sent to the Jews first, while Paul was sent to the Gentiles... why would Peter disobey Jesus and set up his church in Rome?


4.) When you read the verse calling Peter 'Rock'.. it is very problematic to read the greek or aramaic equivalent of that verse to mean that Peter was the Rock... the Rock is actually referring to the fact that Peter confessed Jesus to be the Christ.. and the church was to be anchored on the rock of confession.

The bottom line is that if Peter intended to set up the Bishop of Rome as the head of his church, then we would have is writings to that effect... instead we have evidence that the Bishop or Rome rose to primacy due to political reasons..

For me.. the RCC started either at Gregory the 1st.. when he claimed himself pope and primacy over the other bishops... or at 1054 when the then Pope finally used that authority to excommunicate his eastern brothers...   if anything the Eastern brothers still retain the only legitimate apostolic line back to the original disciples due to their numbers.

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 13:32:48
1.) It's not provable that Peter was ever in Rome... if you take biblical events and timelines to be correct, Peter could never have been in Rome.  Even if it can be proven that Peters bones are in the Vatican it proves nothing because like most Roman relics, they get moved around.

Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome:
"The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.

Quote from: winsome on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 14:28:28

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 13:32:48
1.) It's not provable that Peter was ever in Rome... if you take biblical events and timelines to be correct, Peter could never have been in Rome.  Even if it can be proven that Peters bones are in the Vatican it proves nothing because like most Roman relics, they get moved around.

Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome:
"The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.