Can the Catholic Church prove Peter w...

Can the Catholic Church prove Peter was 1st Pope?

Posted in the Top Stories Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#1 Dec 3, 2013
?????
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#2 Dec 5, 2013
And I'll bet he didn't wear red shoes, a fish hat, or a yarmulke.
Cisco Kid

Clements, CA

#3 Dec 5, 2013
yon wrote:
?????
Of Course The Catholic Church can prove St.Peter was the first Pope.

We have an encyclopedic listing of all popes, from St.Peter to Pope Francis;
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Do you have a list that proves differently?
Cisco Kid

Clements, CA

#4 Dec 5, 2013
yon wrote:
And I'll bet he didn't wear red shoes, a fish hat, or a yarmulke.
Yeah, and they didn't have zippers, buttons or socks in the first century either.

Does your IQ exceed room temperature?
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#5 Dec 5, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Of Course The Catholic Church can prove St.Peter was the first Pope.
We have an encyclopedic listing of all popes,
That is not proof - it's only a claim - no supporting evidence
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#6 Dec 5, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
Does your IQ exceed room temperature?
Interesting how sincere questions bring about this type of idiocy.
Cisco Kid

Columbia, CA

#7 Dec 6, 2013
yon wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not proof - it's only a claim - no supporting evidence
Okay,....then prove me wrong.
Cisco Kid

Columbia, CA

#8 Dec 6, 2013
yon wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting how sincere questions bring about this type of idiocy.
How sincere can your questions be when you make subjective allegations with no foundation?

Do you even understand the subject matter you brought up?

Does your IQ exceed room temperature?
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#9 Dec 7, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
How sincere can your questions be when you make subjective allegations with no foundation?
Ecclesiastes 6:11
The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?
socci

Cameron, MO

#10 Dec 7, 2013
Rome is the house of forgeries.

Peter was not the first pope and never went to Rome. This is the tip of the theological iceberg that is the Roman Church.

www.youtube.com/playlist...

Most Catholics simply do not care. They follow family not the Bible. Is it the mark of the beast?
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#11 Dec 9, 2013
I guess that answers that question.
Cisco Kid

Columbia, CA

#12 Dec 9, 2013
socci wrote:
Rome is the house of forgeries.
Peter was not the first pope and never went to Rome...
Most Catholics simply do not care.
Don't be foolish, educate yourself.

It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom.

The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome:
this constitutes the 'historical' foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.

1) St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads:
"The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (5:13).
Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).

2) From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, Church History II.15, 3.40, 6.14); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1).
In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.

3) Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (chapter 5):
"Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports of the Church have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory".
He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom "among us" (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chapter 4). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.

4) Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says:
"You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom" (in Eusebius, Church History II.25).

5) Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as "the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul"
(Against Heresies).

There is more proof of St.Peter at Rome if you need it.
Cisco Kid

Columbia, CA

#13 Dec 9, 2013
socci wrote:
Rome is the house of forgeries.
Peter was not the first pope and never went to Rome...
Most Catholics simply do not care.
Don't be foolish, educate yourself.

It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom.

The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome:
this constitutes the 'historical' foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.

1) St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads:
"The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (5:13).
Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).

2) From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, Church History II.15, 3.40, 6.14); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1).
In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.

3) Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (chapter 5):
"Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports of the Church have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory".
He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom "among us" (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chapter 4). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.

4) Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says:
"You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom" (in Eusebius, Church History II.25).

5) Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as "the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul"
(Against Heresies).
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#14 Dec 10, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be foolish, educate yourself.
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom.
The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome:
Which proves nothing about being the 1st pope - or Paul
Cisco Kid

Columbia, CA

#15 Dec 11, 2013
yon wrote:
<quoted text>
Which proves nothing about being the 1st pope - or Paul
How confused can you be?
Nobody has ever claimed St.Peter was Paul, while there are volumes of historical evidence supporting St.Peter as first head bishop of The Catholic Church.

You should understand that history is not a subjective ideal from your mind.
History is actual documented fact.
socci

Osceola, MO

#16 Dec 11, 2013
>"St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads:
"The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (5:13).
Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins"

-

Yea, Babylon here in this passage is not allegorical or symbolic but looks like it is referring to the literal city of Babylon in Assyria.

Babylon

1) a very large and famous city, the residence of the Babylonian
kings, situated on both banks of the Euphrates. Cyrus had formerly
captured it, but Darius Hystaspis threw down its gates and walls,
and Xerxes destroyed the temple of Belis. At length the city was
reduced to almost solitude, the population having been drawn off
by the neighbouring Seleucia, built on the Tigris by Seleucus
Nicanor.
2) of the territory of Babylonia
www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/1_pe...


Paul went to Rome and does not mention Peter being there. Paul says nobody else had been there.


Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle ... To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints ... Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come to you.... So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.


Eleven Facts About Peter the Apostle

ONE: We should consider Christ’s commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles.(Gal.2:7-8)

TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter.(Rom.15:16)

THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he - not Peter - who was going to found a church at Rome.(Rom.1:11)

FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish a church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was not to build upon another foundation.(Rom.15:20)

FIVE: At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 - read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter?- Peter simply wasn’t there!

continues:
www.remnantofgod.org/pope1.htm#11


Peter's Jerusalem tomb and remains found there.
http://biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.h...
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#17 Dec 20, 2013
"What do the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, and the Church of Christ denomination all have in common? They each claim to have THE Way; THE Truth; and THE Life, and that no one gets to heaven without being a part of their organization! Certainly they can't all be right since their individual doctrinal beliefs are diametrically opposed to one another........"

http://www.chocd.org/
Cisco Kid

United States

#18 Dec 20, 2013
socci wrote:
>"St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads:
"The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (5:13).
Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins"
-
Yea, Babylon here in this passage is not allegorical or symbolic but looks like it is referring to the literal city of Babylon in Assyria.
Babylon
1) a very large and famous city, the residence of the Babylonian
kings, situated on both banks of the Euphrates. Cyrus had formerly
captured it, but Darius Hystaspis threw down its gates and walls,
and Xerxes destroyed the temple of Belis. At length the city was
reduced to almost solitude, the population having been drawn off
by the neighbouring Seleucia, built on the Tigris by Seleucus
Nicanor.
2) of the territory of Babylonia
www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/1_pe...
Paul went to Rome and does not mention Peter being there. Paul says nobody else had been there.
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle ... To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints ... Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come to you.... So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
Eleven Facts About Peter the Apostle
ONE: We should consider Christ’s commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles.(Gal.2:7-8)
TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter.(Rom.15:16)
THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he - not Peter - who was going to found a church at Rome.(Rom.1:11)
FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish a church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was not to build upon another foundation.(Rom.15:20)
FIVE: At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 - read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter?- Peter simply wasn’t there!
continues:
www.remnantofgod.org/pope1.htm#11
Peter's Jerusalem tomb and remains found there.
http://biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.h...
Of Course Paul does not mention Peter visiting at Rome.
People living undercover due to persecution don't roll on their friends.

You forget that the Gospel of Mark is St.Peter relating his life with Jesus, written by John Mark during St.Peter's primacy leading The Church at Rome.

Although the Gospel of Mark is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading “According to Mark” in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother’s house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled (Acts 12:12).

This Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10) and accompanied Barnabas and Paul on a missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:3; 15:36–39).
He appears in Pauline letters (2 Tm 4:11; Phlm 24) and with Peter (1 Pt 5:13).

Papias (ca. A.D. 135) described Mark as Peter’s “interpreter,” a view found in other patristic writers.
Petrine influence on this gospel is evident.

Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. Its audience seems to have been Gentile, in particular Roman citizens, unfamiliar with Jewish customs (hence Mk 7:3–4, 11).
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#19 Dec 25, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
<quoted text>

Don't be foolish, educate yourself.

It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom.

The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome:

this constitutes the 'historical' foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.

1) St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads:

There is more proof of St.Peter at Rome if you need it.
What proof? Links,etc? Not just cult language like "undoubtedly", "established", etc
Sybian Princess

Portland, OR

#20 Dec 25, 2013
That whole issue is in the dust, in the rearview mirror of history, it doesn't matter who was "the first pope" so – why would anyone care? Be concerned with the future,not the long distance past!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What is the most forbidden sex you have had ? (Nov '16) 2 hr StefH 10
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 hr Maria 26,450
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr PadMark 685,771
Truth About The Term: "White Nationalists" 5 hr Johnny 12
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 hr Test 985,711
Why it's time for Donald Trump to RESIGN...in d... 5 hr Johnny 31
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 5 hr Jake999 6,449
David Duke: "We're going to take our country ba... 5 hr Johnny 70
More from around the web