[Poisoner]

Then how come he only wrote two books of the New Testament? Paul himself wrote thirteen books. Maybe the Holy Spirit favored him more.

[glorydaz]

Originally Posted by Poisoner

Then how come he only wrote two books of the New Testament? Paul himself wrote thirteen books. Maybe the Holy Spirit favored him more.

Peter was the first disciple chosen. The first stone of the foundation which was composed of the prophets and apostles. Jesus is the Rock upon which His church stands. So, Peter wasn't the first POPE.

[SilenceInMotion]

Originally Posted by Poisoner

Then how come he only wrote two books of the New Testament? Paul himself wrote thirteen books. Maybe the Holy Spirit favored him more.

The Spirit was equally in both Peter and Paul. God just used them in different ways. Where Paul wrote a lot of the NT, Peter brought on the Church. But he didn't just bring on the Church in the physical sense, he started the succession by which the Spirit moves through to this day. That is why the Church is authoritative.

I think a lot of people get confused with that. They think the Church is merely up it's own behind and whatnot, but Catholic belief is that the Spirit literally moves the Church. So for the Church to concede to another belief is to undermine it's entire establishment.

[OMEGA]

Off the Net.

PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him
from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.
PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been
chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus
Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering
up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul
had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates
in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the
Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."
PAUL Established the Only TRUE Church at Rome during the apostolic era.
PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter –who
was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I
may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established"
(Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED
officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us
believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of
Claudius. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor
Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to
illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way
associated with ANY Church at Rome.
PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome,
but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon
another man’s foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel,
not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S
FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten
years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This
statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this
time to "found" any church. Peter Not in Rome
PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer
than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans
16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or
56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn’t there!
PROOF SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a
prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian
community in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him.
"When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts
28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This
would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always
mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says
nothing of Peter’s meeting with Paul.
Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
PROOF SEVEN: When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was
to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he
"expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is
amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little
even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ‘‘as
concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse
22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on
the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn’t.
Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a
strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long
years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish
leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity?
This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. No
Mention of Peter in Paul’s Letters
PROOF EIGHT: After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in
his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to
the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the
Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that
period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to
the circumcision wasn’t there!
PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Paul’s two year’s imprisonment, he was
released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent
back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of
Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at
length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II
Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in
Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge."
This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they
tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter once
denied Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter
was in Rome during Paul’s trial, is untenable!
PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in
Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: "Only Luke
is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO
Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM
Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment
says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!

PROOF ELEVEN: Peter’s death is foretold by Christ himself (John 21:18-19.)
“. When you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will
dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to
indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Hmm, it
sounds like Christ himself said that Peter would die of old age. Why would
Peter’s death in old age glorify God? Peter was the one that ran from
Christ the night of his trial and crucifixion. This exchange is after
Christ rose from the tomb and Peter was forgiven three times, just as he
denied his master three times before the **** crowed that fateful night of
Christ’s trial.
Where was Peter the apostle of Christ? At the times the Catholics believe
Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows that he was elsewhere. The
evidence is abundant and conclusive. By paying attention to God’s own
words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts
12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the
Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got
into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles.
Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in
51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among
the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the
CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were
as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in
Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the
reason why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor,
the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to
their eastern dialect.
At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly
shows he was elsewhere. As previously mentioned there are many supposed
historical accounts of Peter in Rome but none of them are first hand
accounts and should not be put above the many accounts of The Bible.
We know from The Bible that the apostle Peter was not in Rome. There was
a Simon Peter in Rome after the death of Christ but it is not the apostle
Peter that was a fisherman from Jerusalem. Who is this Simon Peter that
was in Rome during the middle of the first century? This is how the great
false Church of Rome got its start; along with the first leader Simon
MAGUS not the apostle Peter.

[SilenceInMotion]

Look at Omega, trying to refute a history with Scripture simply because it isn't highly detailed in Scripture.

That in itself is a *facepalm* move.

I guess you are right- what were all those Christians doing for 1700 years thinking Peter was the first Pope? I guess it can be refuted by Scripture which they all knew front to back for 1700 years

[Bradley D]

I believe a lot of it has to do with the below scripture and the "Keys of the Kingdom."

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:16-19).

[chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Poisoner

Then how come he only wrote two books of the New Testament? Paul himself wrote thirteen books. Maybe the Holy Spirit favored him more.

good luck finding Paul's church

[This Charming Manc]

Nice to see your only arguments are;

silence
mockery

Omega raises string points with firm evidence, some one needs to give a serious answer, and I don't mean post some links.

I think the link between Peter and Rome as described by the RCC is weak in the extreme.

Originally Posted by SilenceInMotion

Look at Omega, trying to refute a history with Scripture simply because it isn't highly detailed in Scripture.

That in itself is a *facepalm* move.

I guess you are right- what were all those Christians doing for 1700 years thinking Peter was the first Pope? I guess it can be refuted by Scripture which they all knew front to back for 1700 years

[chrysostom]

Originally Posted by This Charming Manc

Nice to see your only arguments are;

silence
mockery

Omega raises string points with firm evidence, some one needs to give a serious answer, and I don't mean post some links.

I think the link between Peter and Rome as described by the RCC is weak in the extreme.

do you take omega seriously?

seriously

[This Charming Manc]

Not usually ........

But those were fair questions put in a fair way.

The simple facts that Neither acts. nor any letter, not any church history until 150 AD Place peter anywhere near Rome is rather significant.

Originally Posted by chrysostom

do you take omega seriously?

seriously

[chrysostom]

Originally Posted by This Charming Manc

Not usually ........

But those were fair questions put in a fair way.

The simple facts that Neither acts. nor any letter, not any church history until 150 AD Place peter anywhere near Rome is rather significant.

do you think Peter was in Babylon?

[Spitfire]

Originally Posted by Poisoner

Then how come he only wrote two books of the New Testament? Paul himself wrote thirteen books. Maybe the Holy Spirit favored him more.

Well, Paul identifies himself in his own writing as the least of the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:9), so evidently the volume of texts that would eventually go into the Bible produced was not necessarily indicative of one's standing.

Nevertheless, the holy apostles Peter and Paul tend to be mentioned together in the same breath in Catholic liturgy.

[OMEGA]

Torture, Burning people at the Stake, Perversion, Poisoning Rivals, Incest by Popes.

Can you Catholics DENY that the Catholic Church did all these EVILS ?

The Roman Catholic Inquisition was one of the greatest disasters ever to befall mankind. In the name of Jesus Christ, Catholic priests mounted an enormous effort to kill all "heretics" in Europe and Britain. Heretics is defined whichever way Rome wanted it defined; it ranged from people who disagreed with official policy, to Hermetic Philosophers , Jews, and Protestant reformers.

Slaughtering one's enemies is clearly rotten spiritual fruit.

[SeraphimsCherub]

Act 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

[This Charming Manc]

Where we laid down ?

Seriously its possible that scripture means Rome, but by no means certain, I would not want build my whole theological premise on that being the case.

Originally Posted by chrysostom

do you think Peter was in Babylon?