Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
OH NOOOO!!!!! I just now saw voting was closed on it!
I personally don't care much about polls. I did make a few posts though. Polls generally are too limited in options for answersThanks for responding
So far only 9 members have voted out of the almost 40 members that have responded on this thread.....sigh
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)
You are clutching at straws, I suspect! All Catholics ,certainly traditional ones, would accept Peter's presence in Rome , the question would be for how long? It is in the Tradition of the Church. What Traditional Catholics query is Peter as first Pope, in my books Linus is the first! Also another even greater question would be how the mantle of Peter slipped around Linus's throat without receiving a mention in either scripture or tradition!
Linus was the second Pope?
I think there is no doubt that Peter was in Rome, or that he was the first Bishop of Rome. But that is far from saying that because of that fact the current Bishop of Rome should have the kind of authority that the Popes of today claim. Also, it is clear from the writings of Paul that Peter was married and that he took his wife on his missionary journeys. That sort of shoots holes in the belief in preistly celbacy.
my understanding is that it is a discipline rather than a belief. That is why we hear the popes announcing they will be sticking to that policy. If it was a belief then every new pope would not need to nake that announcement. The main problem being if they change the discipline and allow priests to get married then they would find it hard to change back.I think there is no doubt that Peter was in Rome, or that he was the first Bishop of Rome. But that is far from saying that because of that fact the current Bishop of Rome should have the kind of authority that the Popes of today claim. Also, it is clear from the writings of Paul that Peter was married and that he took his wife on his missionary journeys. That sort of shoots holes in the belief in preistly celbacy.
I think otherwise.....guess that is why I am a cynicI think there is no doubt that Peter was in Rome, or that he was the first Bishop of Rome. But that is far from saying that because of that fact the current Bishop of Rome should have the kind of authority that the Popes of today claim. Also, it is clear from the writings of Paul that Peter was married and that he took his wife on his missionary journeys. That sort of shoots holes in the belief in preistly celbacy.
Good post and thanks for your inputI don't see my answer listed. I think that whether or not Peter was in Rome is irrelevant to whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is the harlot of Babylon.
I do think that he went to Rome, though there is no scriptural proof of that. And while I do not think that he should not have been regarded as the first pope (as in, there should be no pope), I think that there is enough church tradition to surmise that he probably was in Rome at some point.
However, I do not think the CC is the WB as you put it. I think that the CC is as Christian as all denominations are. I think that each denomination has the Holy Spirit. Each of us are part of the Church. But, church is a human institution, and human institutions are subject to human corruptions, which is why we have schism.
What many people seem to disregard, or even know, is that the epistles of Peter was addressed to the Jewish believers, not the Gentiles. You will see this when reading. The other thing that people seem to not know, is that Babylon actually existed during the time of Christ to about 300 years later. The Catholics seem to believe that Babylon was in utter ruins. They seem to forget that Babylon was an Empire, rather than just a city. If you do study pertaining to Babylon, you will see that this is where the Babylonian Talmud was written, which is not the Babylon of utter destruction that the Catholics want you to believe in. There were lots of Jews in this Babylon during the time of Christ and beyond. As a matter of fact, there were more Jews in Babylon than those who returned to Israel after their captivity.
In addition, in the book of Galatians, it is clear that Peter was in charge of the Jewish community, whereas Paul was in charge of the Gentile community. Paul was destined for Rome from the get go of his Apostleship. And, why? Because he was a Roman Citizen.
When Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep, at that moment, his only sheep was Jewish, not Gentiles.
There is no way that Peter was in Rome to begin with. Paul refused to preach in Jerusalem, as that would be as stepping on other's toes, so to speak, or how he put it, to build upon another's foundation. Since this is how Paul considered it, it would beg to reason that Paul would be insulted if Peter built upon his foundation.
Paul was in Charge of Rome. Not Peter. There is so much in the Bible to refute the notion that Babylon was Code for Rome.
Only 9 votes in this poll so far?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?