Skip to comments.St. Peter and Rome
Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
click here to read article
The Catholic teaching is that men are judged solely on how much they resemble Christ in their works. They are also judged according to the light they are given. A man who is not Catholic because of a cultural bias but does not reject the essence of Catholic teaching, and who lives according tothe natural moral law can be saved. We are not to judge the futire salvation of individuals. I can, however, recommend conversion to the Catholic Church as the Church Christ founded as the surest way to reach heaven.
when Jesus said the Kingdom of God is within, He included human organizations
I showed you a few posts above that there is scirpturally, a social aspect to the Kingdom, as well as, of course, the individual aspect.
I try to address the foundation of that interpretation of scripture
This is moving from your personal belief system and using the scripture where it fits the personal beleif. The Catohlic way is to read the scripture and form the belief from the entirety of it, no matter how contradictory the pieces seem to be.
"When, however, they are confuted by the Scriptures, they turn around and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but by viva voce."
Firstly I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a practicing Christian who is slightly peeved that so many of my contemporaries seem to think that the Christian church somehow began in the mid 1500’s
Isn’t it strange that this ‘Peter never went to Rome’ story never surfaced until the reformation? Up until then, it was generally accepted that Peter had met his end in the Neronian Circus, crucified upside down and then buried across the road in the Vatican cemetery.
Any historian will point out that if Peter had never even visited Rome then reliable and credible sources would exist, way before the reformation yet they don’t... Now why might that be so?
Well, I think that by attacking the itinerary of St Peter, any would be propaganda artists strike to the heart of Catholicism so Peter is an easy target in that regard. after all, if he wasn’t even in Rome, how could he be the first pope etc...
There are many reasons why I personally do not belong to the Church of Rome but this lame attempt at protestant propaganda is not one. Peter ends one of his letters with greetings from the church in Babylon, Aside from actually spelling out ROME, this is just about the best evidence anyone could ask for as to his whereabouts. The persecuted church frequently referred to Rome as ‘Babylon’ and we see a better example in John’s book of Revelation and the ‘Harlot of Babylon’ who sits on seven hills etc... In fact this is what we call ‘Textural Critisism’. Its the ability to draw on different biblical references to fill in ‘gaps’. Biblical scholars have identified that the early persecuted church met in secret and developed a series of secret signs and phrases to communicate with each other and not ‘outsiders’ after all if Peter was in Rome he wouldn’t necessarily want to publicise it at the time would he?
In fact, it’s rather foolish to interpret Peter’s closing comments literaly, are we really to think that Peter went to Iraq around AD50-70? There’s no evidence of such an early Christian community in that area however in Rome, there’s plenty of evidence, most of which can still be seen by any avid tourist within an hour of stepping off the plane.
As far as I can tell. Peter probably did go to Rome, He was probably executed in the Neronian Persecution (along with St Paul) and his original Tomb was probably remembered by the Christian community before being enshrined and then built over by Constantine so get over it!
Stupid arguments like this just serve to make some protestants look foolish rather than faithful. something which can be very dangerous indeed, especially if we choose the let our emotions fly in the face of reason.
Yup....you're right. They were not Christian....they were Israelites, descendants of the Northern tribes taken captive 721 B.C. [II Kings 17:23] and also of the Southern tribes taken captive 125 years later [II Kings 25:11].
Josephus tells us during the first century that there were millions of Israelites still beyond the Euphrates, away from Roman control. You'll find that here: "Antiquities, Book XI, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2".
It says this: but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.
The two tribes subject to the Romans were Benjamin and Judah and their ancestors had returned from Babylon after 70 years captivity [Jeremiah 25:11-12]. The Northern Israelites never returned from Assyria and it was these folks "THE TWELVE" had been chosen to evangelize [Matthew 10:5-6]. Peter was among the "Twelve" and as such was instructed not to go among the Gentiles. Paul was later chosen [Acts 9:15] for this task....and he had many assistants.
This is the reason you do not find Peter mentioned as ever being in Rome. This is very difficult for many to accept as it has been Catholic dogma for 1700 years. An entire false Church has been built upon this tradition, but the fact remains.....Paul went to the Gentiles (uncircumcised) and Peter went to the Israelites (circumcised) [Galatians 2:7-9].
[Matthew 15:24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Why would Our Lord make that statement?
Welcome to FReeRepublic!
Meant to ping you to post #853.