- This topic is empty.
- Posts
The bones of the Vatican are said to be the bones of Peter. And Catholics say that the Pope is the successor of Peter.
Is this true? Is Peter really was in Rome according to the bible?
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 19 2007,13:20) No. As to being the successor of Peter?
yes, that's what i mean. look here:Pope John Paul II — 263rd successor of St. Peter
Pope Successor of PeterWas Peter the “rock” on which the church was built?
Matt. 16:18, JB: “I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it.”
(Notice in the context [vss. 13, 20] that the discussion centers on the identity of Jesus.)Whom did the apostles Peter and Paul understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?
Acts 4:8-11, JB: “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, ‘Rulers of the people, and elders! . . . it was by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, the one you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this name and by no other that this man is able to stand up perfectly healthy, here in your presence, today. This is the stone rejected by you the builders, but which has proved to be the keystone [“cornerstone,” NAB].’”
1 Pet. 2:4-8, JB: “Set yourselves close to him [the Lord Jesus Christ] so that you too . . . may be living stones making a spiritual house. As scripture says: See how I lay in Zion a precious cornerstone that I have chosen and the man who rests his trust on it will not be disappointed. That means that for you who are believers, it is precious; but for unbelievers, the stone rejected by the builders has proved to be the keystone, a stone to stumble over, a rock to bring men down.”
Eph. 2:20, JB: “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.”
What was the belief of Augustine (who was viewed as a saint by the Catholic Church)?
“In this same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus . . . In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”—The Fathers of the Church—Saint Augustine, the Retractations (Washington, D.C.; 1968), translated by Mary I. Bogan, Book I, p. 90.Did the other apostles view Peter as having primacy among them?
Luke 22:24-26, JB: “A dispute arose also between them [the apostles] about which should be reckoned the greatest, but he said to them, ‘Among pagans it is the kings who lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are given the title Benefactor. This must not happen with you.’”
(If Peter were the “rock,” would there have been any question as to which one of them “should be reckoned the greatest”?)Since Jesus Christ, the head of the congregation, is alive, does he need successors?
Heb. 7:23-25, JB: “Then there used to be a great number of those other priests [in Israel], because death put an end to each one of them; but this one [Jesus Christ], because he remains for ever, can never lose his priesthood. It follows, then, that his power to save is utterly certain, since he is living for ever to intercede for all who come to God through him.”Rom. 6:9, JB: “Christ, as we know, having been raised from the dead will never die again.”
Eph. 5:23, JB: “Christ is head of the Church.”
Has an unbroken line of successors been traced from Peter to modern-day popes?
Jesuit John McKenzie, when professor of theology at Notre Dame, wrote: “Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority.”—The Roman Catholic Church (New York, 1969), p. 4.The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “ . . . the scarcity of documents leaves much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate . . . ”—(1967), Vol. I, p. 696.
Quote (jhenTux @ Oct. 19 2007,14:02) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 19 2007,13:20) No. As to being the successor of Peter?
yes, that's what i mean. look here:Pope John Paul II — 263rd successor of St. Peter
Pope Successor of Peter
Sorry excuse the question mark.I mean, no, the Pope isn't the successor.
thanks for the good explanation. now on to my next question.
was Peter in Rome? because the relics in Vatican say that the bones are indeed the bones of Peter.
They could be Peter's bones.
I would imagine that someone somewhere may have wanted to preserve them.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 19 2007,15:14) They could be Peter's bones. I would imagine that someone somewhere may have wanted to preserve them.
is it recorded in the bible that Peter was really in Rome? the bones have faced serious controversies. some claims that some of the bones are from animals.Can't say that I know of a scripture that says Peter was in Rome.
But not all things are recorded in scripture either.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 19 2007,19:49) Can't say that I know of a scripture that says Peter was in Rome. But not all things are recorded in scripture either.
I think this is the closest scripture can come to saying Peter was in Rome.1 Peter 5
13She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.Peter sending a message from the church in “Babylon” where he was staying.
Is Babylon Rome? Most scholars think yes, but it isn't conclusive at all.
here according to wikipedia:
Babylon was a city of ancient Mesopotamia, the ruins of which can be found in present-day Al Hillah, Babil Province; Iraq about 80km south of Baghdad.
Yes that is the physical place of Babylon.
We also have reference to Mystery Babylon in Revelation. She is the mother of all harlots.
Quote (jhenTux @ Oct. 19 2007,20:12) here according to wikipedia: Babylon was a city of ancient Mesopotamia, the ruins of which can be found in present-day Al Hillah, Babil Province; Iraq about 80km south of Baghdad.
Well we know that Babylon was spoken in a spiritual sense not literal Babylon.Quote was Peter in Rome? because the relics in Vatican say that the bones are indeed the bones of Peter. Rome is referred to in nine verses of the Holy Scriptures.
None of these say that Peter was there.
1 Peter 5:13 shows that he was in Babylon.
Was this a cryptic reference to Rome?His being in Babylon was consistent with his assignment to preach to the Jews (as indicated at Galatians 2:9), since there was a large Jewish population in Babylon.
The Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 15, col. 755), when discussing production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism’s “great academies of Babylon” during the Common Era.Quote is it recorded in the bible that Peter was really in Rome?
Nowhere in the Bible does it say Peter was or wasn't in Rome.david
Hi all
Peter was an Apostle, not a pope. He was in Rome as a prisoner as was Paul, they were both executed in Rome. Bishops were overseers, they were also called Pope, papa, which means father. In 533 A.D. the Emperor Justinian decided that the title “Pope” should only be given to the bishop of Rome, and that the pope of Rome should be the head over all other religious leaders.
Babylon, as in Genesis, was the city of confusion. The Vatican in Rome today, is the mother of all Christian religious confusion.Quote (IM4Truth @ Oct. 25 2007,10:29) Hi all
Peter was an Apostle, not a pope. He was in Rome as a prisoner as was Paul, they were both executed in Rome. Bishops were overseers, they were also called Pope, papa, which means father. In 533 A.D. the Emperor Justinian decided that the title “Pope” should only be given to the bishop of Rome, and that the pope of Rome should be the head over all other religious leaders.
Babylon, as in Genesis, was the city of confusion. The Vatican in Rome today, is the mother of all Christian religious confusion.
Basically, the same thing I have read as well. Based off of the church history by Eusebius.Whether he is right or not. I don't know. But that is what the history books say.
At least Peter and James tried to hold on to their Jewish roots. Too bad Paul hated his own heritage and turned this heretical Jewish sect into a religion steeped in mythologies.
So….are we to presume you are jewish, towshab?
Do you mind if I ask how you determine what is true, especially in view of the fact that there are great differences of beliefs among Jewish people?
I am interested in God’s promise to Abraham that through his seed people of all nations will be blessed. (Gen. 22:18)
Perhaps we could speak of that.david
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
