The Papacy: The ultimate insult to the Apostle Peter?

[Open Heart]

You mentioned: deacons presbyters, and bishops but failed to mention priests

Priests are the same thing as presbyters.

 

[jerry kelso]

But E.L. Martin is NOT an original source document. E.L. Martin is a commentator on history. If he is a good historian he will base his opinions on original source documents, footnoting his sources.

BTW, Earnest L. Martin was a supporter of Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God, which is a cult.

open heart,

1. I understand you say this because you think you have original document connected to Peter which cannot be backed up the original source called the Bible.
I also understand about the cult of the Armstrong and didn't realize he was connected even though I should have recognized the C.O. G. at the top.
Even though this is true and I don't agree with all their teachings they have not done as half the damage that the rcc has done and not for as long of time.

2. He does give the history according to scriptures about samaritans of which simon the magi was and how they thought of him as a God. Acts 8:9-24

3. The history he gives of the name of Peter's through the ages in false gods and the history of babylonians of which the cc received many of their false doctrines and rites. In Revelation 2:13 is the church at Pergamos where Satan's seat was. The babylonian priesthood had moved from babylon to Rome and was with the caesars in Rome. Eventually christianity was made a state religion by Constantine and the rcc was more of a force politically. The early church fathers like justin I don't think espoused Peter as the first pope of the roman church but as much as rcc has cooked the books and rewrote things who knows. Politically speaking it seems this was more prevalent in the days of constantine. In any case there is much suspect in the validity of the rcc church history that is not trustworthy. Dake's Revelation Expounded gives plenty of credible evidence for the move from babylon to rome of the transfer of the babylonian cult. This would make the rcc a cult just as much as armstrong's cog.

I am gonna stop here and I will post 10 reasons that E.L. Martin showed for proof of Peter not being in Rome according to scripture of which I have already said before to you and before I ever read this article. Jerry kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

Priests are the same thing as presbyters.

open heart,
This is arguable compared to some denominations. The whole point was about the priests and confession which is a misunderstanding of remitting sins belief. Jerry kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

suuuure. That's why both Peter's epistles are to Gentile churches.

open heart,
Peter's epistles were to scattered jews and not gentiles for he was the minister of the circumcision. I wouldn't say that there couldn't be any gentile in the congregation anymore than no jews in Paul's gentile churches.
Jesus ministry of the KOH was only to the jewish nation and not to gentiles but it didn't mean that Jesus didn't speak to any gentiles for he did with the canaanite woman and before he started preaching the KOH message in Matthew 4:15 galilee of the gentiles as was prophesied by Esaias that the people that sat in darkness saw great light; verse 16.
The reason you misunderstand much is because of context and just want to use a statement in generalizations. Jerry Kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

suuuure. That's why both Peter's epistles are to Gentile churches.

open heart,

The primacy of the rcc depends upon Peter as founder of the church and AS.

1. Peter was the given the gospel of the circumcision Galatians 2:7-9.

2. Paul's ministry to the gentiles Galatians 2:9; 2 Timothy 1:11

3. The roman church not established in A.D. 55 or 56 A.D. This was ten years before Peter supposedly was supposed to be the apostle at Rome according to the rcc. Peter wrote as an apostle wanting to impart and minister to them but no mention of Peter and Gaius was said to be the host of Tertius and the whole church by Tertius the scribe who wrote the epistle Romans 16:22-23. No mention of Peter.

4. Paul wouldn't build on another's foundation

5. Paul never mentioned Peter in his greetings to the Roman church converts in Romans 16.

6. Acts 28:15 no mention of Peter despite after 4 years of writing to the roman church.

7. Paul at Rome summoned the chief jews Acts 28:17 and in verse 23 expounded the Kingdom of God to them of which they knew little about. If Peter was constantly preaching the Kingdom of God to the Romans why would they be so ignorant.

8. After jewish rejection of Paul Peter was never mentioned by Paul in his epistles.

9. 2 Timothy 4:16; after Paul's second imprisonment and appeal to Caesar no man stood with Paul which would include Peter.

10. 2 Timothy 4:11 Paul said only Luke was with him so Peter wasn't even in rome in 65 A.D.
Paul wrote 6 epistles in Rome and never mentioned Peter and said only Luke was with him.

A). Acts 12:4 Peter was in prison near 45 A.D. and in 49 A.D. was still in Jerusalem at the Jerusalem council.
51 A.D. was the incident with respect of persons and Paul's rebuke. It would seem unlikely that the supposed bishop of Rome as Peter would have nothing to do with gentiles.

B). 66 A.D. was in babylon among the jews 1 Peter 5:13. History backs up christians in babylon and jews which the bible backs up in this scripture. Babylon as literal region and Peter's ministry to the circumcision which was to the jews.

C). The whole crux of the history of Simon the Magi is connected to the history of the samaritans which is biblical concerning they acted like they were jews and were not and they made Simon a God because he wanted the gift of the Holy Ghost and it would not be a stretch historically wanted to be an apostle.
It is said justin said they built a statue of simon which could only be sanctioned by the caesar and the senate and justin wanted them to tear it down which means that it was still there in justin's time.

D). Keller who is said to be a catholic historian says Peter was buried in the Pagan burial ground on the via cornelia. This pagan cemetery lays on a knoll called vaticanus; latin word meaning a prophet or soothsayer.
Jews were to be buried with their own and not with pagans.

E). The biblical evidence shows no peter as the apostle to the roman church and that false teaching of the samaritans and the fact of simon the magi being a god and because they are mentioned in the book of Revelation of those who said they were jews and were not covers alot of ground of history and the future. The implications of these truths are much stronger than what the rcc church has that they call truth and original sources. Samaritans are the ones who believe they were jews and some considered them as half breeds. They were neither.

F). The funny thing is that the christians were being persecuted in Constantine's day and because his mother was a christian and he supposedly got a vision he made christianity the national religion and it is said he started the catholic church in it's more progressive modern state that was more visual. If the catholic church was before this where was the persecution of the cc before constantine and how would they be intertwined into the political system? They killed christians afterwards in the 1500's because they didn't agree with them thinking they were pleasing God. Paul did the same thing and kept the law better than most any jew and he was still a sinner and had to convert to the truth.
I have made the major point and once again you cannot prove anything about Peter and AS and the rcc biblically or even historically to the bible. Jerry Kelso

 

[Open Heart]

I am gonna stop here and I will post 10 reasons that E.L. Martin showed for proof of Peter not being in Rome according to scripture of which I have already said before to you and before I ever read this article.

Don't bother mentioning E L Martin anymore. I don't consider him a credible historian. I don't trust folks from the Worldwide Church of God.

The only thing the scripture says in regard to Peter being in Rome is in 1 Peter is when Peter makes the remark of writing from Babylon, and Babylon is the Christian nickname for Rome. At any rate, there is nothing in Scripture that PRECLUDES Peter from going to Rome after Antioch.

 

[Open Heart]

open heart,
This is arguable compared to some denominations. The whole point was about the priests and confession which is a misunderstanding of remitting sins belief. Jerry kelso

There is no argument. In Latin, the official language of the Church, they are called Presbyters.

Christ said, whose sins you forgive they are forgiven and whose sins you retain they are retained.

 

[Open Heart]

open heart,
Peter's epistles were to scattered jews and not gentiles for he was the minister of the circumcision. I wouldn't say that there couldn't be any gentile in the congregation anymore than no jews in Paul's gentile churches.
Jesus ministry of the KOH was only to the jewish nation and not to gentiles but it didn't mean that Jesus didn't speak to any gentiles for he did with the canaanite woman and before he started preaching the KOH message in Matthew 4:15 galilee of the gentiles as was prophesied by Esaias that the people that sat in darkness saw great light; verse 16.
The reason you misunderstand much is because of context and just want to use a statement in generalizations. Jerry Kelso

The only church that was primarily Jewish was Jerusalem.

 

[Open Heart]

1. Peter was the given the gospel of the circumcision Galatians 2:7-9.

Peter WAS originally missionizing Jews. But that changed with Cornelius, and Peter became more universal in his evangelization, going back and forth between the Gentile churches and the Jewish church in Jerusalem.

 

[Open Heart]

The roman church not established in A.D. 55 or 56 A.D

It's irrelevant. We know that Peter did not establish the Church at Rome. He was the Bishop of Antioch for many years before leaving and becoming Bishop of Rome.

 

[Open Heart]

66 A.D. was in babylon among the jews 1 Peter 5:13. History backs up christians in babylon and jews which the bible backs up in this scripture.

Babylon is the Christian nickname for Rome.

 

[Open Heart]

D). Keller who is said to be a catholic historian says Peter was buried in the Pagan burial ground on the via cornelia. This pagan cemetery lays on a knoll called vaticanus; latin word meaning a prophet or soothsayer.
Jews were to be buried with their own and not with pagans.

You keep coming up with stuff like this. I'm not even going to bother asking you where you're getting it from this time, since you have proven yourself to be indiscriminate in your history sources.

 

[Open Heart]

F). The funny thing is that the christians were being persecuted in Constantine's day and because his mother was a christian and he supposedly got a vision he made christianity the national religion and it is said he started the catholic church in it's more progressive modern state that was more visual.

Constantine did not persecute Christians. He made Christianity legal. He did NOT make it the national religion. He did not start the Catholic Church--it was the same church after Constantine as before.

 

[jerry kelso]

Don't bother mentioning E L Martin anymore. I don't consider him a credible historian. I don't trust folks from the Worldwide Church of God.

The only thing the scripture says in regard to Peter being in Rome is in 1 Peter is when Peter makes the remark of writing from Babylon, and Babylon is the Christian nickname for Rome. At any rate, there is nothing in Scripture that PRECLUDES Peter from going to Rome after Antioch.

open heart,

The point is that there is no proof that babylon is the christian nickname for rome. Nothing in scripture that precludes Peter from going to Rome after Antioch is true but it is no proof that he did. It is not concrete proof and there is not an implication that he did. And you want me to think catholic history is credible. Are you kidding me? That is downright ridiculous and illogical. Jerry Kelso

 

[Rick Otto]

suuuure. That's why both Peter's epistles are to Gentile churches.

Well, he wasn't having all that much luck with the circumcision.
Which one of those epistles were written from or to Rome?

 

[Rick Otto]

Constantine did not persecute Christians. He made Christianity legal. He did NOT make it the national religion. He did not start the Catholic Church--it was the same church after Constantine as before.

Ipso facto. Be the emperor, profess a new faith, watch how many sudden conversions occur within your followers.

His conversion dream was a tactical military manoeuvre.
He waited until on his deathbed to get baptised so he would face judgement "clean".
Yeah, he was Christian (lol).

 

[jerry kelso]

There is no argument. In Latin, the official language of the Church, they are called Presbyters.

Christ said, whose sins you forgive they are forgiven and whose sins you retain they are retained.

open heart,

1. Jesus message to the jews was the physical KOH reign. Peter had the revelation about the divine nature of which Christ responded to binding and loosing in Matthew 16. John 20:23 talks about remitting and retaining sins. When this happens this will fulfill the prophecy of Malachi 3:18; Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.
This will happen for Israel in the KOH reign and this proves that the KOH reign was not the same as the church.
As far as John 20:23 being after the resurrection is about those born again given the discerning of spirits to know whether or not a person really gets saved or not and this was shown with simon the magi. Only Christ can forgive sins and save from sins. Jerry kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

The only church that was primarily Jewish was Jerusalem.

open heart,
I didn't say that it wasn't and there was the regions of Judaea and Samaria who could have had gentiles to convert to Judaism but it was talking about those scattered which were basically jews. In any case that was before Peter got the vision of the clean and the unclean and Paul went to the gentiles and the ministry of the circumcision of Peter and uncircumcision of Paul.
Once again you are not paying attention to the correct time and using generalizations. Jerry Kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

You keep coming up with stuff like this. I'm not even going to bother asking you where you're getting it from this time, since you have proven yourself to be indiscriminate in your history sources.

open heart,
Don't matter to me because your history is proven not to be completely perfect and what he said is more logical to the scriptures than yours. Jerry kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

Constantine did not persecute Christians. He made Christianity legal. He did NOT make it the national religion. He did not start the Catholic Church--it was the same church after Constantine as before.

open heart,

1. The truth is that constantine freed the christians from persecution.

2. He adopted some christian concepts but Constantine had an ulterior motive because he saw that religion could help bring the factions together of the empire.

3. Constantine was the one to help if not ordering the council of Nicea which had to do with the catholic church.

4. You can argue the Edict of Milan all you want. The making of christianity the national religion and starting the catholic church are about the mixing of christianity and paganism which the catholic church was about stemming from the babylonian priesthood that was eventually moved to Pergamos Revelation 2. Christianity in the church has never been mixed into the secular governments of the world like the catholic church.

5. Being the same catholic church after constantine is right; a mixture of christianity and paganism. Christianity from much of jewish history if not all. Paganism from the Babylonian priesthood. Jerry kelso