Protestant Poll: Peter in Rome?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thekla there were Jewish people of course in Rome.

Was there any place where there were not Jews?

1 Peter 1:1 Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ to chosen expatriates of dispora/diasporaV <1290> of Pontus of Galatia of Cappadocia of Asia and Bithynea

Textus Rec.) 1 Peter 1:1 petroV apostoloV ihsou cristou eklektoiV parepidhmoiV diasporaV pontou galatiaV kappadokiaV asiaV kai biquniaV

1290. diaspora dispersion, i.e. (specially and concretely) the (converted) Israelite resident in Gentile countries:--(which are) scattered (abroad)..
1223. dia dee-ah' a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal, or occasional):--
4701. spora spor-ah' from 4687; a sowing, i.e. (by implication) parentage:--seed.

 

[TheDag]

How so?

It is the message that is important not the messenger. There is very little that is a salvation issue really. When I look through the nicene creed I see non-salvation topics in it. Sure I agree with them but if I did disagree then it would not affect if I go to heaven or not. For example the virgin birth. it is simply evidence that jesus was not born of a earthly father. So as long as I believe jesus is the son of God then so what if I believe in the virgin birth or not.

 

[katholikos]

Howdy Doody
Im dipping my toe in the water

 

[simonthezealot]

Who really cares if peter was in Rome honestly?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Who really cares if peter was in Rome honestly?

Exactly

 

[Zoness]

Who really cares if peter was in Rome honestly?

Quoted for Truth.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Who really cares if peter was in Rome honestly?

My sister was in Rome.
She liked it.





.

 

[bbbbbbb]

My sister was in Rome.
She liked it..

Was that Rome, Georgia?

Which reminds me of an anecdote. I once knew a fellow who was in his final year as an undergraduate at a major university. Following spring break I asked him what he had done and he very enthusiastically related to me his trip to Florence, Italy to visit his girlfriend who was doing foreign studies there. At the end of his story he told me that he had never known that it even existed prior to his trip. I assumed that he meant Florence, but he corrected me and told me that he had known nothing of the existence of Italy.

The moral of the story is that there are ignorant folks everywhere, not just here on GT. We don't have a monopoly - yet.

 

[MamaZ]

I have to agree.. Who really cares.. LOL

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Wow.....only about 9 votes so far on this thread.....would like to bump it in order to get more votes

ooops......just realized the poll is closed.....my bad ehehe

 

[Hentenza]

Mod Hat On
​

Thread moved to Denomination specific from GT.​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Mod Hat On​

Thread moved to Denomination specific from GT.​

Ahhhh.....this is why I couldn't find it on the GT board !!!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7336954/#post54161711

 

[Hentenza]

Mmm....I was hiding it from you.

 

[Trento]

This Is Horrible. Do Not Be Fooled By The Lie That Peter Was The First Pope.

Protestant Scholars agree with the historical Fact.
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Eerdmans, 1910
"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)



Schaff then proceeds to list the Bishops of Rome , along with the corresponding Roman Emperors. St. Irenaeus gives this exact list of successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome up to his time (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3 c. 180-199 AD), as does St. Hegesippus up to his time (about 20 years earlier, c. 160 AD) cited in the first History of the Church by Eusebius

• St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
• St. Linus (67-76)
• St. Anacletus (76-88)
• St. Clement I (88-97)
• St. Evaristus (97-105)
• St. Alexander I (105-115)
• St. Sixtus I (115-125)
• St. Telesphorus (125-136)
• St. Hyginus (136-140)
• St. Pius I (140-155)
• St. Anicetus (155-166)
• St. Soter (166-175)
• St. Eleutherius (175-189)
• St. Victor I (189-199)

 

[TheDag]

Protestant Scholars agree with the historical Fact.
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Eerdmans, 1910
"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)



Schaff then proceeds to list the Bishops of Rome , along with the corresponding Roman Emperors. St. Irenaeus gives this exact list of successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome up to his time (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3 c. 180-199 AD), as does St. Hegesippus up to his time (about 20 years earlier, c. 160 AD) cited in the first History of the Church by Eusebius

• St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
• St. Linus (67-76)
• St. Anacletus (76-88)
• St. Clement I (88-97)
• St. Evaristus (97-105)
• St. Alexander I (105-115)
• St. Sixtus I (115-125)
• St. Telesphorus (125-136)
• St. Hyginus (136-140)
• St. Pius I (140-155)
• St. Anicetus (155-166)
• St. Soter (166-175)
• St. Eleutherius (175-189)
• St. Victor I (189-199)

me wonders what the point is here?

what is point of this post. it does not refute what it was quoted as refuting and what is point of bringing back such old thread

 

[Sargent_Pepper]

There is a verse at the end of St Peter's first letter which says:

13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.-1Pt5
​

During those times Babylon was a code name for Rome because it was the romans who were hostile to Christians just as the Babylonians had done to the jews in centuries past. They knew that the original Babylon was in ruins so they didnt worry about people confusing it when it was mentioned later in early Christian writings as a code name for Rome.

Now many protestants would also claim that the CC is the &quot;harlot of Babylon&quot; mentioned in the book of Revelation, but for some reason wont accept that the &quot;Babylon&quot; in St Peter's letteris also Rome.

This thread is about deciding one or the other, either Peter was in Rome and the CC is the WB or he wasnt in Rome and the CC is not the WB.

Please vote.

There is no convincing proof that Peter was ever in Rome.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There is no convincing proof that Peter was ever in Rome.

Thanks for responding

So far only 9 members have voted out of the almost 40 members that have responded on this thread.....sigh

 

[Cain Spencer]

I can't vote!?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I can't vote!?

OH NOOOO!!!!! I just now saw voting was closed on it!
Look at the date!!

This poll will close on 11th April 2006 at 03:01 AM

 

[psalms 91]

Oh well, so much for the poll