Protestant Poll: Peter in Rome?

[TheDag]

why is it important?

I think it is important to have support for what you believe. I have seen way too many problems caused by the church because people come up with some belief (or are told one) and they just accept it as fact. This is one of the main reasons for scorn from unbelievers. God does not ask us to forgo the use of our brain. He gave us a brain and the ability to think and reason. We should use that.
False teaching is going to have dire consequences according to the bible. Therefore one should be sure of any statement made as being true. If you happen to be wrong and that causes someone to doubt their faith the bible tells us that it will be more bearable for sodom and gomorrah than that person.
The bible also instructs us to be open to correction.
So for those three reasons above I think it is important to know why you believe what you do and also to back up statements one makes.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think it is important to have support for what you believe. I have seen way too many problems caused by the church because people come up with some belief (or are told one) and they just accept it as fact. This is one of the main reasons for scorn from unbelievers. God does not ask us to forgo the use of our brain. He gave us a brain and the ability to think and reason. We should use that.
False teaching is going to have dire consequences according to the bible. Therefore one should be sure of any statement made as being true. If you happen to be wrong and that causes someone to doubt their faith the bible tells us that it will be more bearable for sodom and gomorrah than that person.
The bible also instructs us to be open to correction.
So for those three reasons above I think it is important to know why you believe what you do and also to back up statements one makes.

I only back up what is in the Bible. If the Bible itself is silent on Peter being in Rome, then I will be also.
If you want to convince atheists by the ECFs and early writings of the chuch, go right ahead.

 

[TheDag]

I only back up what is in the Bible. If the Bible itself is silent on Peter being in Rome, then I will be also.

If this statement is true then please provide your evidence from the bible. You have several times stated with absoluter certainty that Peter was never in Rome. So seem as you have not stayed silent on this then that must mean there is evidence in the bible to prove Peter was never in Rome.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I said you dance around questions. Despite being asked for evidence you continue to make claims without backing them up. I see nothing in the bible that supports your claim. If i am wrong please correct me by instructing me. Please note that simply because the bible does not say one way or the other is not proof.

 

[MamaZ]

If this statement is true then please provide your evidence from the bible. You have several times stated with absoluter certainty that Peter was never in Rome. So seem as you have not stayed silent on this then that must mean there is evidence in the bible to prove Peter was never in Rome.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I said you dance around questions. Despite being asked for evidence you continue to make claims without backing them up. I see nothing in the bible that supports your claim. If i am wrong please correct me by instructing me. Please note that simply because the bible does not say one way or the other is not proof.

Well if Peter were in fact the first pope and had to be in Rome to be so then I would say it would be written in the scriptures that this is infact truth. But since it is not written in the scriptures as truth we can therefore say that scriptually Peter never was in Rome.

 

[Jig]

Who started the church in Rome traditionally?

 

[calluna]

Who started the church in Rome traditionally?

Tradition = Hearsay = Heresy.




...

 

[lionroar0]

Tradition = Hearsay = Heresy.




...

In that case the NT =Tradition=hearsay=heresy.

You are obviously ignorant of cultures that are largely oral.


Peace

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

In that case the NT =Tradition=hearsay=heresy.

You are obviously ignorant of cultures that are largely oral.


Peace

Thats pretty much right. The first five books of the OT were centuries old oral traditions before they were put in writing.

And how about Lukes Godpel? Luke wasn't around for any of that stuff he wrote about. It was all orally told to him

 

[calluna]

In that case the NT =Tradition=hearsay=heresy.

But why is Tradition not canonised? The very evidence proffered to establish 'who started the church in Rome' is not recognised as canonical by the very people who claim to have decided the canon!

That is why the whole enterprise is farcical.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, I can say that I believe that John the Baptist had five heads and it is true because the Bible never says how many heads he had. To back up my point I can easily show anyone the five reliquaries containing each individual skull of John the Baptist and which have been certified as being absolutely authentic by the Church.

Does anyone here believe that John the Baptist actually had five heads?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well, I can say that I believe that John the Baptist had five heads and it is true because the Bible never says how many heads he had. To back up my point I can easily show anyone the five reliquaries containing each individual skull of John the Baptist and which have been certified as being absolutely authentic by the Church.

Does anyone here believe that John the Baptist actually had five heads?

Funniest post yet

 

[TheDag]

Well if Peter were in fact the first pope and had to be in Rome to be so then I would say it would be written in the scriptures that this is infact truth. But since it is not written in the scriptures as truth we can therefore say that scriptually Peter never was in Rome.

That could be debated however little lamb said with absolute certainty that Peter was never in Rome. To make such a statement then there should be some evidence. Little lamb later claimed that if the bible is silent on an issue then so is he. Litle lamb was anything but silent on the issue therefore according to little lamb there must be evidence in the bible that Peter was never in Rome.

peter didn't have to be in Rome to be the first pope. Peter started of elsewhere as bishop and catholics claim when he moved to Rome the authority moved with him rather than staying with the office he had elsewhere. The proof given for Peter being pope is has nothing to do with locaion. I disagree with their interpretation of the passages they use.

 

[TheDag]

Funniest post yet

and yet another non-response to the request for evidence which you claim is in the bible. yet another argument has been produced which shows the problem with your line of thinking on this subject (you have explained your thinking which is how I know) instead of actually giving an answer. is it really that hard a thing to provide an answer or say you don't actually have evidence?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

and yet another non-response to the request for evidence which you claim is in the bible. yet another argument has been produced which shows the problem with your line of thinking on this subject (you have explained your thinking which is how I know) instead of actually giving an answer. is it really that hard a thing to provide an answer or say you don't actually have evidence?

I have giving an answer already as have others.

I personally am saying THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PETER WAS EVER IN ROME. I don't belong to a denomination, so I can only speak of my view not others.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand. Do you want me to put it in Latin for you?

 

[billwald]

>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.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Babylon was a real city at that time, the center of Jewish scholarship. Could have been a church there.

 

[Trento]

I think People ought to let God decide exactly what should or should not be included in the Bible, and then go out and buy a good history book.

 

[TheDag]

I have giving an answer already as have others.

I personally am saying THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PETER WAS EVER IN ROME. I don't belong to a denomination, so I can only speak of my view not others.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand. Do you want me to put it in Latin for you?

Let me list statements of belief you have made as fact.
1) Peter was never in Rome
2) If the bible is silent on an issue so are you

So the logical conclusion is that seem as you have not remained silent then there must be evidence peter was not in Rome. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I am using your exact statements here. I am not putting words into your mouth or anything. Lack of evidence does not prove that something did not happen. Not every detail is in the bible. Examples have been given by several people to show that but you respond by saying it is not the topic of this discussion. Remember there was a time in history where you were killed as a heretic for saying the earth is not flat. There was no proof that it wasn't flat and innocent people died stating the truth. The bible was where they got the belief that the earth was flat. Simple misunderstanding of a passage. So once again I ask do you have evidence Peter was not in Rome or will you admit it is only an opinion not fact as you have previously made it out to be.

 

[MamaZ]

That could be debated however little lamb said with absolute certainty that Peter was never in Rome. To make such a statement then there should be some evidence. Little lamb later claimed that if the bible is silent on an issue then so is he. Litle lamb was anything but silent on the issue therefore according to little lamb there must be evidence in the bible that Peter was never in Rome.

peter didn't have to be in Rome to be the first pope. Peter started of elsewhere as bishop and catholics claim when he moved to Rome the authority moved with him rather than staying with the office he had elsewhere. The proof given for Peter being pope is has nothing to do with locaion. I disagree with their interpretation of the passages they use.

Can you show me according to scripture where Peter was in Rome?

 

[Trento]

Can you show me according to scripture where Peter was in Rome?

As soon as you tell me
where in the New Testament do we learn of there being a list of inspired
books and letters that together form a definitive literary body of work to be obeyed by all
Christians.


If all scripture is inspired, then we need to find out what books and letters
constitute inspired scripture. Does the New Testament tell us that?

 

[LJSGM]

Rome is babylon, that it right. Babylon then took over the church in 300AD (in name only), which eventually become known as the roman catholic church.