Posted on 03/23/2007 5:54:47 PM PDT by NYer
In 2 Timothy, Paul writes from prison in Rome, to Timothy. Timothy is somewhere in "Asia" (what we would call Asia Minor, modern-day Turkey). In 1 Timothy, it's clear he's in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3). 2 Timothy doesn't specify his location, but Ephesus is a fine starting point.
What do we read in 2 Tim 4:11 ...
2 Tim 4:11 Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry.
Got it? Paul commands Timothy to bring Mark to Rome.
Now look at 1 Pt 5:13 ...
1 Pt 5:13 13 She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son.
Mark is in Rome. Paul called him there. Mark is also with Peter. Where is Peter? Peter's in Rome, exactly where his bones remain to this day.
Then where is it? Point it out, show us the way. You can't. Who came after Timothy and Titus? If you invent history, at least have something to trace to today. You can't. History is not on your side. Funny, Ireneaus and Polycarp followed Peter and Linus, and they were disciples of John. Guess that puts John in the Peter camp by your logic of course.
I was just making an imagine response to your great comment. Sorry for the confusion.
Linus and Clement were Catholics who followed Paul and Timothy (Paul mentions both of them in his letters), but don't let that stop you from inventing silly strawmen all over the place.
There you go...And there's your Catholic church...
You forgot to mention that a significant number of Christians did NOT treat Clement's epistles as Holy Scripture...Ever...And these became the 'heretics' your church brazenly writes about...
You and Campion are putting up a great fight. Great stuff.
Well, if you want to claim Pelagians as True Christians, go right ahead. If you want to claim Gnostics, go right ahead. If you want to claim Arians, go right ahead. You can have them.
Get a clue, friend. You're now well down the road toward inventing imaginary history to slander us. Stick to the truth if you want to persuade.
You'll note that Catholic Bibles don't include Clement's epistle any more than Protestant Bibles do.
Nobody was ever called a heretic for failing to treat Clement's letter as Scripture, or for doing so.
And it was the Catholic church, at councils in the late 4th and early 5th century, which ultimately determined that Clement's epistle should be excluded from the canon, not because there was anything wrong with it, but because Clement was not an apostle. (The title of "apostle" being restricted to those who had seen the risen Jesus and had been personally commissioned by him.)
Well....Mark is mentioned in scripture 5 times; [Acts 12:12;12:25;15:37; and 15:39] and additionally in [2 Timothy 4:11-13]. In Timothy Paul says Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
The verses in Timothy are the only verses in the New Testament speaking of Mark in the sense that he would be going to Rome. Paul is in prison for the second time, writing Timothy, asking that he go and get the scrolls and parchments he left at Troas. These were evidently left there when Paul was arrested the second time and now he knows his time is short and is asking Timothy to go and get Mark also because he knows that Mark is in possession of Peter's letters, as well as Mark's (Peter's) gospel. Paul was evidently attempting to gather all letters, epistles and gospels for posterity, knowing that Timothy and Mark would see to it they found their way to John. Paul does not say this, but there is a good likelihood that Peter has already passed at this juncture. Paul remembers Timothy's tears in verse 1:3-4, perhaps as Paul is being dragged away by Roman soldiers.
So.....what you are saying is that Timothy goes and gets the parchments and the scrolls to bring to Paul in Rome. He sidetracks to get Mark because Paul mentions that Mark had been helpful to him....and it is your conclusion that Peter also comes along secretly..... because no one mentions his name with regard to this endeavor. Paul by this time is in possession of the Book of Matthew, Jude and would have the Book of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.....because, as he says in verse 4:11....only Luke is with me! That he had all of the writings of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms goes without question. Strange that we hear no mention of the name of Peter.
There is no prior mention of Mark being anywhere close to.... or in and about Rome. There is also no mention of Peter being anywhere in or about Rome. Your clue is Balderdash!
Sorry Camp, I don't mess with those Catholic edited bibles...I stick with the one that's not part of that group...
and then the rest of the known world at the time relied on the catholic church and her adherents, i.e. monks, etc, to painstakenly hand copy the manuscripts for future generations...
Obviously that's not at all an accurate statement...Since the majority of the available manuscripts are not your Catholic manuscripts...Other than Catholics painstakingly hand copied their manuscripts as well...
And it was the Catholic church, at councils in the late 4th and early 5th century, which ultimately determined that Clement's epistle should be excluded from the canon, not because there was anything wrong with it, but because Clement was not an apostle.
It took them 300 years to figure that out??? But by then your church fathers had established a religion based on Clement's writings as well as their own that mimicked Clement's stuff...
Our Lord Himself tells the Twelve not to go among the Gentiles [Matthew 10:5]. Was Rome a Gentile city? Of course it was. The Twelve were told to go to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel (the circumcised) instead. (verse 6). Paul was chosen as the Apostles to the Gentiles [Acts 9:15] and he clarifies it further in [Galatians 2:7] by stipulating that he, not Peter, was selected to evangelize the Gentiles.
You can spin it anyway you want....but you cannot deny the plain words of scripture.
I suppose you didn't hear about the crucified skeleton found beneath the Altar of St. Peter's? Or was that a vile forgery of the Roman Church?
It was a Simon alright....but not the one you wish it to be.
btt
LOL, I see. So, how do you deal with ACTS where Peter does go amongst Gentiles. Or was that a mistake?
And yes, it's the right Peter, keep dreaming.
Arguing history with someone intent on inventing it has become pointless. You have invented a history that no scholar, no text, no evidence supports. That's pretty sad. Then, as Cardinal Newman, "Those who become steeped in History, cease to be Protestant."
Still looking forward to your take on John 6.
In 2 Timothy, Paul writes from prison in Rome, to Timothy. Timothy is somewhere in "Asia" (what we would call Asia Minor, modern-day Turkey). In 1 Timothy, it's clear he's in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3). 2 Timothy doesn't specify his location, but Ephesus is a fine starting point.
So....Paul asks Timothy to go and get the scrolls and the parchments at Troas in the northwestern section of Asia minor. He may be writing to Timothy at Ephesus...Timothy may be somewhere else. Paul asks him to greet Priscilla and Aquila (verse 4:19) who had been companions of Paul in one of his journeys. Aquila was from Pontus [Acts 18:2]. Peter's ministry included Pontus [1 Peter 1:1-2] to folks with the foreknowledge of God. In other words....non Gentiles....Israelites, (circumcised folk)[Galatians 2:7]. Pontus was in the north of Asia Minor along the southern shores of the Black Sea. Timothy may have been here. If he was it would be no problem to pick up Mark as he had been there with Peter....evangelizing the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel [Matthew 10:5].
The estimate for the date of the 1 Epistle of Peter is around 64 A.D. and the estimate for the book of Timothy is around 67 A.D. while Paul is languishing in prison. But you say that Mark is already in your (coded word Babylon) "Rome" with Peter while Paul is asking for him to come to Rome 3 or 4 years later.
It doesn't wash! The scriptures disagree with your theory. Peter was told to evangelize the Israelites...the circumcised. Paul was chosen to go to Rome [Acts 23:11] And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. No such command was ever given to Peter!
The bones in Rome belong to Simon "Pator" Magus.
Can you be specific?
Reading the Church Fathers you will see that Simon Magus is spoken of being in Rome much more than they mention Simon Peter. When Justin Martyr wrote [152 A.D.] his Apology, the sect of the Simonians appears to have been formidable, for he speaks four times of their founder, Simon; and we need not doubt that he identified him with the Simon of the Acts. He states that he was a Samaritan, adding that his birthplace was a village called Gitta; he describes him as a formidable magician, and tells that he came to ROME in the days of Claudius Caesar (45 A.D.), and made such an impression by his magical powers, THAT HE WAS HONORED AS A GOD, a statue being erected to him on the Tiber, between the two bridges, bearing the inscription ‘Simoni deo Sancto’ (i.e., the holy god Simon)" (Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. 4, p. 682)
Those are your bones!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.