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.
And, btw, there is evidence which supports that Peter was in Rome. He and Paul were there. I don't understand the argument that apparently some people make saying Peter wasn't there.
Well, I just think it's ridiculous to assert that he wasn't there when evidence supports that he was.I'll tell you why: Because some people think that the basis for the papacy is that Peter was in Rome. Therefore, they think that if they can prove he wasn't there that somehow this disproves the papacy.
Of course, that is NOT what the papacy is based on, so they are wasting their time. But, it is a great example of people who begin with a conclusion first, then work backward and try to mold the facts to fit their conclusion
Well, I just think it's ridiculous to assert that he wasn't there when evidence supports that he was.
I'll tell you why: Because some people think that the basis for the papacy is that Peter was in Rome. Therefore, they think that if they can prove he wasn't there that somehow this disproves the papacy.
Of course, that is NOT what the papacy is based on, so they are wasting their time. But, it is a great example of people who begin with a conclusion first, then work backward and try to mold the facts to fit their conclusion
I could hardly agree more. Whether Peter went to Rome or not has never been any more of an issue to me than whether Christopher Columbus found a new route to India and landed there.
The papacy does not depend upon Peter's presence in Rome, although it does pose somewhat of an inconvenience if he wasn't there and some other poor chap ended up in a chapel in the crypt under the altar of St. Peter's Basilica.
The great tragedy just begins when St. Peter's Basilica has to be renamed and the lovely Latin quotation around the interior base of the drum of the dome has to be chiselled out and a new one carved probably to the effect that Paul was the first Pope. Could the world accept St. Paul's Basilica? What would the Church of England do with St. Paul's Cathedral in London? Imagine all the Catholic theologians and historians busily at work reinventing Catholic theology and history. Imagine Mr. Ratzinger giving an ex cathedra statement to the effect that it was really Paul, after all, and not Rocky Peter. And that, my friend, is just the beginning of the tragedy.
What evidence is that?Well, I just think it's ridiculous to assert that he wasn't there when evidence supports that he was.
with all due respect if you are going to ask people for evidence should you not provide evidence that you have been asked for previously? Only good manners to do what you expect others to do.What evidence is that?
with all due respect if you are going to ask people for evidence should you not provide evidence that you have been asked for previously? Only good manners to do what you expect others to do.
Is the Babylon mentioned in 1 Peter 5 the same Babylon that is mentioned in Revelation?with all due respect if you are going to ask people for evidence should you not provide evidence that you have been asked for previously? Only good manners to do what you expect others to do.
Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”Is the Babylon mentioned in 1 Peter 5 the same Babylon that is mentioned in Revelation?....
From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
and not answering the question. Looks like I'll never get the evidence I and others asked for. He seems to keep going off on tangents or dancing around things that don't match his beliefsOh, he's seen the evidence a million times. He just likes asking the same question over and over again
What do you know about my beliefs? And I would suggest you stop making this personal....and not answering the question. Looks like I'll never get the evidence I and others asked for. He seems to keep going off on tangents or dancing around things that don't match his beliefs
your "non biased source" spoke pretty much exclusively to Catholics.
I didn't state otherwise. I just stated that their sources are indeed Catholic.
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?