Was Peter "prime Minister" In Rome?

[Guest Shadyrest]

[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][size="2"][size="4"][size="4"]Someone on this thread has recently written:[/size][/size][size="4"]"Peter was clearly in Rome (aka Babylon), the Bible, the written word of God, says so, thus I believe it. I would encourge you to also fully submit to its Teachings."[/size][/size][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"][color="#595959"] [/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"][color="#595959"] [/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][size="2"] [size="4"][size="4"]Response: I already [i]am [/i] fully in submission to the word of God---but am not under the umbrella of popery, nor do I need to be. Anyway, it appears you're basing your entire argument on Peter using a code word (Babylon) to make the case that he was a reigning sovereign entity at that time. As I told you on the thread:[/size][/size][/size][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="3"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="3"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][size="2"] [size="4"][size="4"][size="2"]While Peter may have been in Rome, it is completely gratuitous to say the Lord wanted to establish His church there because it was the center of the world. On the contrary, the Lord has repeatedly shown He does not use the wildly popular extravagant things of the world in numerous places, not the least of which is His ordaining that the hotels at the time of His birth, would filled to capacity, so the next best option had to be employed. Then, when we recall that Jesus told the disciples that the kings of the world exercise their authority over others, [i]"but it shall not be so with you", [/i]then the gargantuan "Vatican" spectacle in Rome, Italy, surely could not be what He had intended.<br style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">In addition, you are reading too much into 1 Pet 5:13. The word "Rome" is mentioned around 10 times, and no where is Peter's name mentioned in connection with establishing a "See". As usual, Catholics have to desperately scrounge around and find "code word" evidence to support her doctrines, and I am not impressed.[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][size="2"] [size="4"]You ask: "Why would God not want to convert Rome to His Sacred Heart?"[/size][/size][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"][color="#595959"][size=2]
[/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"][color="#595959"][size=2]
[/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][size="2"] [size="4"][size="4"]Answer: There is nothing in Scripture that bids us to believe in the "Sacred Heart". This is a vain tradition that I highly advise you give up.[/size][/size][/size][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"][color="#595959"][size=2]
[/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"][color="#595959"][size=2]
[/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][size="2"][size="4"] [/size][size="4"]You say: Rome was the center of the known world, from there the early Christians could easily go forth into all nations baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Convert Rome and the entire empire would be converted,[/size][/size][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"][color="#595959"][size=2]
[/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"][color="#595959"][size=2]
[/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][size="2"] [size="4"][size="4"]Answer: Of course there is nothing unbelievable about the gospel being preached there. It is what you say afterwards that is problematic:[/size][/size][size="4"] "Peter, by the will of God, established the Primatial See in Rome" I do not understand non-Catholic Christians need to attack and deny this miracle of God and historical fact."[/size][/size][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"][color="#595959"][size=2]
[/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"][color="#595959"][size=2]
[/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][size="2"] [size="4"][size="4"]Answer: Protestants attack your belief system because we "Protest" [i] it is anything [u]but[/u] an historical fact. [/i][/size][/size][/size][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"][color="#595959"][size="2"][i]
[/i][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"][color="#595959"][size="2"][i]
[/i][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][size="2"][size="4"][size="4"][i] [/i][/size][/size][size="4"][size="4"]1) The first thing that a student of the Bible recoils at in response to the Catholic claim, is that when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, [i]he did not address Peter or refer to him as their pastor![/i][/size][/size][/size][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][size="2"] [size="4"][size="4"]2) In the last chapter, he extended greetings to 28 (!) friends, but makes no mention of Peter! [/size][/size][/size][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][size="2"] [size="4"][size="4"]3) Later, when Paul was in prison [i]in Rome, [/i]from where he wrote--[i]"welcoming all who came to him" [/i](Acts 28:30), and his last letter where he extended greetings to 10 specific people in Rome----[i]again he makes no mention of the former fisherman. [/i]The beginning period from which Paul was both a correspondent and then later, a resident, spans 7 years (57-64), and not a word suggests that Peter was in Rome.[/size][/size][/size][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][size="2"] [size="4"][size="4"]4) Paul told the Philippians, [i]"I have no one else [/i][besides Timothy] [i]of kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare" [/i](2:20-21). And when he wrote to Tim later, he said, [i]"Only Luke is with me...at my first defense, no one supported me, but all deserted me" [/i](2 Tim 4:11, 16). Where was Peter?[/size][/size][/size][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="5"] [/size][/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][size="2"] [size="4"][size="4"]5) Peter's ministry was primarily to the Jewish nation (Gal 2:7-8). While Jews may have lived in Rome, it certainly was not the center of Judaism. Around 50 AD, we read that, "Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome" (Acts 18:2). So even if Peter did reach Rome at some point, his purpose was not much more than a casual visit, as all the evidence suggests, and would have arrived there shortly before his death.[/size][/size][/size][/size][/font][/color]

[size="3"]6) As recorded by Boettner in, "Roman Catholicism", In the publication, "The Soul of a Priest" by L.H. Lehmann (educated at the University for the Propagation of the Faith) tells of an archaeologist, Di Rossi[/size][size="3"], who labored for [/size][b][size="3"]40 years[/size][/b][size="3"] to unearth in Rome some inscription which would verify the papal claim that Peter was actually in Rome, but he was forced to admit that he had given up hope of success. Instantly we see from the get-go that the man would never have spent 40 years to search for evidence---- if the evidence was as strong as you think! When all is said and done, Peter's ministry was to the Jews, and thus it is impossible to believe he was bishop of Gentile [/size][b][size="3"]Rome[/size][/b][size="3"] for 25 years as so many allege.[/size]
[/size][/font]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287875688' post='2181921']
[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"][size="2"][size="4"] [/size][/size][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"]You ask: "Why would God not want to convert Rome to His Sacred Heart?"[/font][/color][/size][/font] [font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"]
Answer: There is nothing in Scripture that bids us to believe in the "Sacred Heart". This is a vain tradition that I highly advise you give up.[/font][/color][/size][/font][font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"]
[/size][/font][/quote]

Are you saying Christ has no heart? Are you saying Christ is not Sacred?

The Bible most certainly bids us to believe that God is Sacred, and has a Heart, and bids us to have a devotion to God's heart. Christ most certainly is God.

"And I will give you pastors according to my own heart, and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine."

"I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man according to my own heart, who shall do all my wills."

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287877228' post='2181924']
Are you saying Christ has no heart? Are you saying Christ is not Sacred?

The Bible most certainly bids us to believe that God is Sacred, and has a Heart, and bids us to have a devotion to God's heart. Christ most certainly is God.

"And I will give you pastors according to my own heart, and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine."

"I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man according to my own heart, who shall do all my wills."
[/quote]



I am not saying that Christ has no "heart" (as if to convey He is not merciful or loves us), nor am I saying that He is not sacred. But this devotion to the S.H. came a thousand years after He left this earth, and is fraught with difficulties and can easily lead to idolatry. For example, an article on line tells us




[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]"What deserves special mention is the vision of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06534a.htm"]St. Gertrude[/url] on the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06021b.htm"]feast[/url] of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm"]St. John the Evangelist[/url], as it forms an epoch in the history of the devotion. Allowed to rest her head near the wound in the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm"]Saviour's[/url] she heard the beating of the Divine Heart and asked [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm"]John[/url] if, on the night of the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14341a.htm"]Last Supper[/url], he too had felt these delightful pulsations, why he had never spoken of the fact. [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm"]John[/url] replied that this [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm"]revelation[/url] had been reserved for subsequent ages when the world, having grown cold, would have need of it to rekindle its [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm"]love[/url] ("Legatus divinae pietatis", IV, 305; "Revelationes Gertrudianae", ed. Poitiers and Paris, 1877)."[/size][/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]You see, in this example, the attributes of love and mercy are extinguished, and the foolish notions of concentrating on the [i]physical heart [/i]of Jesus is then emphasized. Thus, non-Catholics find this devotion alien and objectionable not only because of that, but because it then reinvents itself in the further delusion of the "Immaculate Heart of [b][u]Mary[/u][/b]". To the children at Fatima, this false entity parading as Mary told them, "[i]You saw Hell where the souls of poor sinners go. In order to save them, God wishes to establish in the world, [u]devotion to my immaculate heart."[/u][/i][/size][/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"][u][i]
[/i][/u][/size][/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]No one on earth is saved by a devotion to either the heart of J or M. It breeds confusion and should be abandoned at once. [/size][/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]Since you were the one who originally posed the question about Peter, I noticed you had nothing further to say about the biblical and outside info that answers your question as to, [i]"I just can't understand why non-Catholics don't believe Peter was in Rome". [/i][/size][/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]I trust you now understand.[/size][/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"][i]
[/i][/size][/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"][i] [/i][/size][/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]

[Micah]

[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=2][quote]Protestants attack your belief system because we "Protest" [i]it is anything [u]but[/u] an historical fact.[/i][/quote][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=2]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=2]Actually you're wrong. I'm a third year history student, and we -- historians -- unanimously agree that Peter [i]did[/i] go to Rome and established one of the five founding Christian diocese. Circa 2nd century, Christians living in Jerusalem were already referring to it as the seat of orthodox Christianity. By the 5th century, it was referred to as the "Apostolic See" and has been by the vast majority of the Christian population on earth for the past 1800 years. [/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=2]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=2]If you feel you need to protest these historical facts, you can contact the SFU history department and ask for the head of university faculty. He teaches the history of Christianity. [/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=2]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=2]Any Biblical assertions you make are based on lack of evidence, which doesn't pose a rational argument. The Bible does not refer to any Bible save scripture, also translated as the Torah. By your logic, we could discount that there even is a Bible. I'm doing some serious mental finger wagging at you right now lol[/size][/font][/color]

[CatherineM]

Again one of my favorite quotes to deal with such stuff, "We concede—as we must—that so much of what the Catholic Church says is true: that the Papacy has God’s word and the office of the Apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?" by Martin Luther.

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='Micah' timestamp='1287881018' post='2181936']
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"] [/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"] [/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"]Actually you're wrong. I'm a third year history student, and we -- historians -- unanimously agree that Peter [i]did[/i] go to Rome and established one of the five founding Christian diocese. Circa 2nd century, Christians living in Jerusalem were already referring to it as the seat of orthodox Christianity. By the 5th century, it was referred to as the "Apostolic See" and has been by the vast majority of the Christian population on earth for the past 1800 years. [/size][/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"] [/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"]If you feel you need to protest these historical facts, you can contact the SFU history department and ask for the head of university faculty. He teaches the history of Christianity. [/size][/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"] [/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"]Any Biblical assertions you make are based on lack of evidence, which doesn't pose a rational argument. The Bible does not refer to any Bible save scripture, also translated as the Torah. By your logic, we could discount that there even is a Bible. I'm doing some serious mental finger wagging at you right now lol[/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]


Your post was void of any reliable documentation, and thus must be rejected despite the unanimity of a bunch of historian students. I will remind you that the entire non-Catholic community disagrees with you, if for none other reasons than the plain and simple facts I presented above---to which you (not surprisingly) had no reply. To say that the biblical evidence I mentioned is based on "a lack of evidence", shows just how little you esteem its contents. Tell that one to Jesus Christ, who said we should, "[i]Search the Scriptures".[/i]
[i]
[/i]
In addition, your sentence that, "The Bible does not refer to any Bible save Scripture" is nonsensical to the max! The Bible [i]is [/i]Scripture.....and now we are to suppose that just because the exact word "Bible" is not used, that we ought to render its contents suspect??? In any case, you're grossly mistaken, for Jesus said, "[i]Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me..." [/i](Heb 10:7). Try that one on your history professor.

[Micah]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287884946' post='2181951']
Your post was void of any reliable documentation, and thus must be rejected despite the unanimity of a bunch of historian students. I will remind you that the entire non-Catholic community disagrees with you, if for none other reasons than the plain and simple facts I presented above---to which you (not surprisingly) had no reply. To say that the biblical evidence I mentioned is based on "a lack of evidence", shows just how little you esteem its contents. Tell that one to Jesus Christ, who said we should, "[i]Search the Scriptures".[/i]
[i]
[/i]
In addition, your sentence that, "The Bible does not refer to any Bible save Scripture" is nonsensical to the max! The Bible [i]is [/i]Scripture.....and now we are to suppose that just because the exact word "Bible" is not used, that we ought to render its contents suspect??? In any case, you're grossly mistaken, for Jesus said, "[i]Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me..." [/i](Heb 10:7). Try that one on your history professor.



[/quote]


Scripture refers to Torah. If you don't have any encyclopedia on hand, google will suffice. The New Testament is composed of letters penned before the formation of the canon which didn't take place until a few hundred years later in no less than four different schools: Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, and Caesarean. The [i]Textus Receptus, [/i]from which we derive our New Testament, came from the Byzantine tradition, which was not canonized until 367. (See the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_letter"]Easter letter[/url]).

I'll also remind you, what I posted is not the unanimity of a bunch of history students, but historical knowledge, peer reviewed, taught in a non-Catholic, accredited university. If you are looking for sources, I suggest you refer to the history of Christianity as posed by the Oxford Encyclopedia. For primary documentation I'll cite the book I have here in front of me:

Caroline White, trans. and ed. [i]Lives of Roman Christian Women[/i]. London: penguin, 2010.

Pertinent essays, indicating the importance of Rome as early as 203 A.D., (before we had even the vestiges of the Bible) can be found on Pp. 5 - 230.

Enjoy your reading. Remember, to study Christian history is to study Catholicism.

[Micah]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287884946' post='2181951']
Your post was void of any reliable documentation, and thus must be rejected despite the unanimity of a bunch of historian students. I will remind you that the entire non-Catholic community disagrees with you, if for none other reasons than the plain and simple facts I presented above---to which you (not surprisingly) had no reply. To say that the biblical evidence I mentioned is based on "a lack of evidence", shows just how little you esteem its contents. Tell that one to Jesus Christ, who said we should, "[i]Search the Scriptures".[/i]
[i]
[/i]
In addition, your sentence that, "The Bible does not refer to any Bible save Scripture" is nonsensical to the max! The Bible [i]is [/i]Scripture.....and now we are to suppose that just because the exact word "Bible" is not used, that we ought to render its contents suspect??? In any case, you're grossly mistaken, for Jesus said, "[i]Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me..." [/i](Heb 10:7). Try that one on your history professor.



[/quote]


Scripture refers to Torah. If you don't have any encyclopedia on hand, google will suffice. The New Testament is composed of letters penned before the formation of the canon which didn't take place until a few hundred years later in no less than four different schools: Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, and Caesarean. The [i]Textus Receptus, [/i]from which we derive our New Testament, came from the Byzantine tradition, which was not canonized until 367. (See the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_letter"]Easter letter[/url]).

I'll also remind you, what I posted is not the unanimity of a bunch of history students, but historical knowledge, peer reviewed, taught in a non-Catholic, accredited university. If you are looking for sources, I suggest you refer to the history of Christianity as posed by the Oxford Encyclopedia. For primary documentation I'll cite the book I have here in front of me:

Caroline White, trans. and ed. [i]Lives of Roman Christian Women[/i]. London: penguin, 2010.

Pertinent essays, indicating the importance of Rome as early as 203 A.D., (before we had even the vestiges of the Bible) can be found on Pp. 5 - 230.

Enjoy your reading. Remember, to study Christian history is to study Catholicism.

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1287884095' post='2181945']
Again one of my favorite quotes to deal with such stuff, "We concede—as we must—that so much of what the Catholic Church says is true: that the Papacy has God's word and the office of the Apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?" by Martin Luther.
[/quote]


Since you designate yourself as a "scholar", one would think you would have the courtesy to cite your source.

Anyway, to simply blitz this poor audience with that statement all by itself, gives a wildly inaccurate depiction of the man, almost as if he regretted his decision to leave.



[color=#333333][font=Georgia, serif][size=2]In entry 375, from, "What Luther says",

[color=#663333][font=arial][size=2][b]"Thus, we, too, nowadays call the Roman Church holy and all the bishoprics holy, although their faith has been undermined and all the bishops and their servants are godless. For God rules in the midst of His enemies (Ps. 110:2); again, Antichrist sits in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4), and Satan is present in the midst of the children of God (Job 1:6). Therefore, even though the church is 'in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation,' as Paul says in his Epistle to the Philippians (2:15), even though it is in the midst of wolves and robbers, that is, spiritual tyrants, it nevertheless is the church. Although the city of Rome is worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, yet Baptism, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the reading (vox) and text of the Gospel, Holy Scriptures, the ministry, the name of Christ, and the name of God remain in her."[/b][/size][/font][/color]
[/size][/font][/color]
[font="arial, serif"][size="3"][color="#663333"][size=2][b]
[/b][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, serif"][size="3"][color="#663333"][size=2][b][color=#333333][font=Georgia, serif][size=2]The point is, Protestants don't have to agree with [i]everything [/i]Luther says, in the exact same way you do not believe everything a pope says!!! Hence, your submission is not only worthless, it is hypocritical. How about picking up a copy of "All the Bad Popes".....or read a tidy little summary of the inquisition where innumerable innocent lives were snuffed out because they refused to believe they were to eat the body parts of the Lord Jesus Christ in the form of a piece of bread. To think that the above Luther quote is "one of your favorite pieces of ammunition" to use when objections arise---all to the [u]exclusion[/u] of mentioning the horrors the Roman Catholic hierarchy has inflicted on numberless people down through history, is the worst sort of scholarship....... "[i]Mr. Scholar."[/i][/size][/font][/color][/b][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, serif"][size="3"][color="#663333"][size=2][b]
[/b][/size][/color][/size][/font]




[color=#333333][font=Georgia, serif][size=2][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="3"][color="#000000"][size=3][font="arial, serif"][size="3"][color="#CC0000"][size=2][b]
[/b][/size][/color][/size][/font][/size][/color][/size][/font][/size][/font][/color]

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1287884095' post='2181945']
Again one of my favorite quotes to deal with such stuff, "We concede—as we must—that so much of what the Catholic Church says is true: that the Papacy has God's word and the office of the Apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?" by Martin Luther.
[/quote]


Since you designate yourself as a "scholar", one would think you would have the courtesy to cite your source.

Anyway, to simply blitz this poor audience with that statement all by itself, gives a wildly inaccurate depiction of the man, almost as if he regretted his decision to leave.



[color=#333333][font=Georgia, serif][size=2]In entry 375, from, "What Luther says",

[color=#663333][font=arial][size=2][b]"Thus, we, too, nowadays call the Roman Church holy and all the bishoprics holy, although their faith has been undermined and all the bishops and their servants are godless. For God rules in the midst of His enemies (Ps. 110:2); again, Antichrist sits in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4), and Satan is present in the midst of the children of God (Job 1:6). Therefore, even though the church is 'in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation,' as Paul says in his Epistle to the Philippians (2:15), even though it is in the midst of wolves and robbers, that is, spiritual tyrants, it nevertheless is the church. Although the city of Rome is worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, yet Baptism, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the reading (vox) and text of the Gospel, Holy Scriptures, the ministry, the name of Christ, and the name of God remain in her."[/b][/size][/font][/color]
[/size][/font][/color]
[font="arial, serif"][size="3"][color="#663333"][size=2][size=2][b]
[/b][/size][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, serif"][size="3"][color="#663333"][size=2][size=2][b][color=#333333][font=Georgia, serif][size=2]The point is, Protestants don't have to agree with [i]everything [/i]Luther says, in the exact same way you do not believe everything a pope says!!! Hence, your submission is not only worthless, it is hypocritical. How about picking up a copy of "All the Bad Popes".....or "The Dark Side of the Papacy"....or read a tidy little summary of the inquisition where innumerable innocent lives were snuffed out because they refused to believe they were to eat the body parts of the Lord Jesus Christ in the form of a piece of bread. To think that the above Luther quote is "one of your favorite pieces of ammunition" to use when objections arise---all to the [u]exclusion[/u] of mentioning the horrors the Roman Catholic hierarchy has inflicted on numberless people down through history, is the worst sort of scholarship....... "[i]Mr. Scholar."[/i][/size][/font][/color][/b][/size][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="Georgia, serif"][size="3"][color="#333333"][size=2][i]
[/i][/size][/color][/size][/font]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287880922' post='2181935']
[size="1"]I am not saying that Christ has no "heart" (as if to convey He is not merciful or loves us), nor am I saying that He is not sacred. But this devotion to the S.H. came a thousand years after He left this earth, and is fraught with difficulties and can easily lead to idolatry. For example, an article on line tells us

[/size][font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="1"]"What deserves special mention is the vision of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06534a.htm"]St. Gertrude[/url] on the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06021b.htm"]feast[/url] of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm"]St. John the Evangelist[/url], as it forms an epoch in the history of the devotion. Allowed to rest her head near the wound in the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm"]Saviour's[/url] she heard the beating of the Divine Heart and asked [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm"]John[/url] if, on the night of the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14341a.htm"]Last Supper[/url], he too had felt these delightful pulsations, why he had never spoken of the fact. [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm"]John[/url] replied that this [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm"]revelation[/url] had been reserved for subsequent ages when the world, having grown cold, would have need of it to rekindle its [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm"]love[/url] ("Legatus divinae pietatis", IV, 305; "Revelationes Gertrudianae", ed. Poitiers and Paris, 1877)."[/size][/font][/quote]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]A vision, not an actual event where Christ's heart is actually separated from His body. The Sacred Heart of Christ, is Christ. The two are inseparable. A devotion to the Sacred Heart of Christ is a devotion to Christ. It is not idolatry to worship and devote oneself to the Heart of Christ. And biblical proof has been given that there certainly has been a devotion to the heart of the Lord, long before the private vision of St. Gertrude.

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287880922' post='2181935'][font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="1"]You see, in this example, the attributes of love and mercy are extinguished, and the foolish notions of concentrating on the [i]physical heart [/i]of Jesus is then emphasized. Thus, non-Catholics find this devotion alien and objectionable not only because of that, but because it then reinvents itself in the further delusion of the "Immaculate Heart of [b][u]Mary[/u][/b]". To the children at Fatima, this false entity parading as Mary told them, "[i]You saw Hell where the souls of poor sinners go. In order to save them, God wishes to establish in the world, [u]devotion to my immaculate heart."[/u][/i][/size][/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"][u][i]
[/i][/u][/size][/font][font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="1"]No one on earth is saved by a devotion to either the heart of J or M. It breeds confusion and should be abandoned at once. [/size][/font][/quote]

Christ assended into heaven Body and Soul. He still has His physical body, His Christ is sacred, and He is worshiped because of this, worship Christ physical or spiritual heart is worship of Christ since Christ is both God and Man.

What the Bible Says about salvation.

To be saved, you must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31), but the Sacred Scriptures show other things you must also do to be saved.

* You must endure to the end. Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13.
* You must accept the Cross (suffering). Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27.
* You must be baptized with water. Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5 Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21.
* You must be a member in God's true church. Acts 2:47.
* You must confess your sins. James 5:16, I John 1:9
* You must keep the Commandments of God. Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 7:21
* You must heed the words of St. Peter, the first Pope. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 15:7.
* You must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. John 6:51-58, I Corinthians 10:16, I Corinthians 11:23-29

[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font] [quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287880922' post='2181935'][font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="1"]Since you were the one who originally posed the question about Peter, I noticed you had nothing further to say about the biblical and outside info that answers your question as to, [i]"I just can't understand why non-Catholics don't believe Peter was in Rome". [/i][/size][/font] [font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="1"]I trust you now understand.[/size][/font][font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="1"] [/size][/font][/quote]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"][i]
[/i][/size][/font]I understand you reject the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ, and thus attack the Church, and thus attack God. You should note that from [i]Matthew to Revelations, Saint Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).[/i] ([url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_I"]source[/url])
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"][i] [/i][/size][/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287887369' post='2181966']
Since you designate yourself as a "scholar", one would think you would have the courtesy to cite your source.

Anyway, to simply blitz this poor audience with that statement all by itself, gives a wildly inaccurate depiction of the man, almost as if he regretted his decision to leave.



[color=#333333][font=Georgia, serif][size=2]In entry 375, from, "What Luther says",

[color=#663333][font=arial][size=2][b]"Thus, we, too, nowadays call the Roman Church holy and all the bishoprics holy, although their faith has been undermined and all the bishops and their servants are godless. For God rules in the midst of His enemies (Ps. 110:2); again, Antichrist sits in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4), and Satan is present in the midst of the children of God (Job 1:6). Therefore, even though the church is 'in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation,' as Paul says in his Epistle to the Philippians (2:15), even though it is in the midst of wolves and robbers, that is, spiritual tyrants, it nevertheless is the church. Although the city of Rome is worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, yet Baptism, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the reading (vox) and text of the Gospel, Holy Scriptures, the ministry, the name of Christ, and the name of God remain in her."[/b][/size][/font][/color]
[/size][/font][/color]
[font="arial, serif"][size="3"][color="#663333"][size=2][size=2][b]
[/b][/size][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, serif"][size="3"][color="#663333"][size=2][size=2][b][color=#333333][font=Georgia, serif][size=2]The point is, Protestants don't have to agree with [i]everything [/i]Luther says, in the exact same way you do not believe everything a pope says!!! Hence, your submission is not only worthless, it is hypocritical. How about picking up a copy of "All the Bad Popes".....or "The Dark Side of the Papacy"....or read a tidy little summary of the inquisition where innumerable innocent lives were snuffed out because they refused to believe they were to eat the body parts of the Lord Jesus Christ in the form of a piece of bread. To think that the above Luther quote is "one of your favorite pieces of ammunition" to use when objections arise---all to the [u]exclusion[/u] of mentioning the horrors the Roman Catholic hierarchy has inflicted on numberless people down through history, is the worst sort of scholarship....... "[i]Mr. Scholar."[/i][/size][/font][/color][/b][/size][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[font="Georgia, serif"][size="3"][color="#333333"][size=2][i]
[/i][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]
First of all, my mother would not have named me Catherine had I been a Mr. At least I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have. Secondly, I do believe in everything the Pope says. There have been a few Popes who weren't up to the most difficult job in the world, but there have also been bad to incompetent Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings, Queens, etc. That's what happens when human beings are involved.

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='Micah' timestamp='1287887160' post='2181962']
Scripture refers to Torah. If you don't have any encyclopedia on hand, google will suffice. The New Testament is composed of letters penned before the formation of the canon which didn't take place until a few hundred years later in no less than four different schools: Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, and Caesarean. The [i]Textus Receptus, [/i]from which we derive our New Testament, came from the Byzantine tradition, which was not canonized until 367. (See the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_letter"]Easter letter[/url]).

I'll also remind you, what I posted is not the unanimity of a bunch of history students, but historical knowledge, peer reviewed, taught in a non-Catholic, accredited university. If you are looking for sources, I suggest you refer to the history of Christianity as posed by the Oxford Encyclopedia. For primary documentation I'll cite the book I have here in front of me:

Caroline White, trans. and ed. [i]Lives of Roman Christian Women[/i]. London: penguin, 2010.

Pertinent essays, indicating the importance of Rome as early as 203 A.D., (before we had even the vestiges of the Bible) can be found on Pp. 5 - 230.

Enjoy your reading. Remember, to study Christian history is to study Catholicism.

[/quote]





[color="#333333"]Why naturally, to study Christianity, one would be hard pressed to avoid reading of Catholicism. True Christians know that there is such a thing as, "another jesus and another gospel", according to 2 Cor 11:4, and realize that Catholicism falls into this category. Now as for the importance of Rome, I don't deny that either. [/color][font="Arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#333333"] The Roman church was merely one apostolic church among others. Its importance is not due to a divinely appointed papacy, but to practical factors. It was without rival as the undisputed capital of the world. It was seen as the location of the persecution of the martyrdom of Peter, Paul and John. It was the place of resort for visitors from every land, the centre of commerce[/color][color="#333333"] and one of the wealthiest cities. Many social and political factors converged in the development of the papacy. Yes, the Roman church was prominent---but they grievoulsly departed and jettisoned from early church protocol.[/color][/size][/font]
[font="Arial, sans-serif"][size="3"][size="2"] [/size][/size][/font]
[font="Arial, sans-serif"][size="3"][size="2"] [/size][/size][/font]
[font="Arial, sans-serif"][size="3"][size="2"][font="arial, sans-serif"]


[color="#333333"]"[/color][color="#333333"]Word Meanings[/color][color="#333333"] in the [/color][color="#333333"]New Testament[/color][color="#333333"]" by Ralph Earle: [/color][color="#333333"] Under the word "Bishop" used in 1 Tim 3:1, we read

"It literally means 'overseer'. Turning to the N.T., we discover one fact immediately; there is no mention of any single [/color][color="#333333"]diocesan bishop[/color][color="#333333"]. In the one church at Philipi there was "episcopoi" (bishops, [i]plural[/i]) ...Phil 1:1. The bishop was a local official, and there were several of these in each congregation. [NOTE: exactly as in MY congregation....not yours]. Furthermore, the "elders" (presbyteroi) and "bishops" (episcopoi) WERE THE SAME., and thus the Roman Catholic practice of elevating a bishop to a higher rank, is point blank, [i]unbiblical.[/i] This is shown clearly in Acts 20. In verse 17, it says that Paul called for the elders (presbyteroi) of the church at [/color][color="#333333"]Ephesus[/color][color="#333333"]. In verse 28, he refers to them as episcopoi --overseers (KJV)---"guardians" (RSV). The same people are designated by both titles. We'll find this same phenonenom clearly indicated in the epistle to Titus. In the N.T. church, each local congregation was supervised by a group of elders or bishops, and a group of deacons. When we come to [/color][b][u][color="#333333"]Ignatius[/color][/u][/b][color="#333333"] early in the second century about 115, we find a very [/color][u][color="#333333"]different[/color][/u][color="#333333"] picture. Mr. Earle says, "[/color][b][color="#333333"]Now[/color][/b][color="#333333"] there is one bishop over each [/color][color="#333333"]local church[/color][color="#333333"], together with several elders and deacons. Here we see the beginnings of the episcopal hierarchy that flowered during the second century. But in the beginning, it was [/color][u][b][color="#333333"]not[/color][/b][/u] [u][b][color="#333333"]so[/color][/b][/u][color="#333333"]."
,
A quick glance at [/color][color="#333333"]Wikipedia[/color][color="#333333"] on-line under "[/color][color="#333333"]apostolic succession[/color][color="#333333"]" reveals that even one of your so-called "first popes", Clement,
"defended the authority and prerogatives of a group of "elders" OR "[/color][u][color="#333333"]bishops[/color][/u][color="#333333"]" in the Corinthian Church which had, apparently, been deposed and replaced by the congregation on its own initiative."[/color]
[/font][/size][/size][/font]
[font="Arial, sans-serif"][size="3"] [/size][/font]
[color="#888888"][font="Arial, sans-serif"][size="2"]
[color="#000000"]So I need not read the book by Ms. White, because to read the [u]Bible[/u] is to study [i]true [/i]Christian history. [font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="3"][img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/like.gif[/img][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/color]

Edited October 24, 2010 by Shadyrest

[Micah]

Now concerning your refusing to read Ms. White's book, you asked for the source and you got it. Likewise, you must see how admitting that the church at Rome was the preeminent Church, we have simply taken different interpretations of that history. Whereas Catholics understand that as divine providence guiding the Church, you attribute it to temporal factors.

I need to do my homework, but I very much look forward to discussing the development of Church hierarchy, which, was an organic and natural growth of the Church, which Jesus, St. Luke and St. Paul all point to in scripture.

And then, I'd like to address your use of Scripture as a sole authority.

So this is my syllabus for tmr's post. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/pope3.gif[/img]

[-L-]

People denying that Peter was in Rome are nonsensical as those that deny Christ died on the Cross.


It is a historical fact that Peter was martyred in Rome under Nero being Crucified upside down. This is a fact. The historians in the early years of the Church attest to this, and it is only anti catholics who try and disprove this when it cannot be disproved.

Eusebius' famous work "History of the Christian Church" is littered with details about Peter being in Rome and his activities there. Eusebius' Church history is not some secret document in the Vatican vaults, it is available for anyone willing to read it by a simple google search, Historians often look to Eusebius for incite into early Christianity as he delivers a chronological account from Christ until the time in which he completed his work which was in the 320s.

I will quote some of the passages here:

[b][i]1. It is also said that [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/12023a.htm"]Philo[/url] in the reign of Claudius became acquainted at [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/13164a.htm"]Rome[/url] with Peter, who was then preaching there. Nor is this indeed improbable, for the work of which we have spoken, and which was composed by him some years later, clearly contains those rules of the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url] which are even to this day observed among us.


[/i][/b][b][i]1. When the government of [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/10752c.htm"]Nero[/url] was now firmly established, he began to plunge into unholy pursuits, and armed himself even against the religion of the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/06608a.htm"]God[/url] of the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/15183a.htm"]universe[/url].[/i][/b]

[b][i]2. To describe the greatness of his depravity does not lie within the plan of the present work. As there are many indeed that have recorded his history in most accurate narratives, every one may at his pleasure learn from them the coarseness of the man's extraordinary [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/08041a.htm"]madness[/url], under the influence of which, after he had accomplished the destruction of so many myriads without any reason, he ran into such blood-guiltiness that he did not spare even his nearest [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/05782a.htm"]relatives[/url] and dearest friends, but destroyed his [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/11478c.htm"]mother[/url] and his brothers and his wife, with very many others of his own [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/05782a.htm"]family[/url] as he would private and public enemies, with various kinds of deaths.[/i][/b]

[b][i]3. But with all these things this particular in the catalogue of his crimes was still wanting, that he was the first of the emperors who showed himself an enemy of the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/03712a.htm"]divine religion[/url].[/i][/b]

[b][i]4. The Roman [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/14520c.htm"]Tertullian[/url] is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows: Examine your records. There you will find that [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/10752c.htm"]Nero[/url] was the first that [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/11703a.htm"]persecuted[/url] this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/13164a.htm"]Rome[/url]. We [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/06585a.htm"]glory[/url] in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/08673a.htm"]knows[/url] him can understand that nothing was condemned by [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/10752c.htm"]Nero[/url] unless it was something of great excellence.[/i][/b]

[b][i]5.[color="#ff0000"] Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/06608a.htm"]God's[/url] chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/01626c.htm"]apostles[/url]. It is, therefore, recorded that [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/11567b.htm"]Paul[/url] was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/10752c.htm"]Nero[/url]. This account of Peter and [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/11567b.htm"]Paul[/url] is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/03510a.htm"]cemeteries of that place[/url] even to the present day.[/color][/i][/b]

[b][i]6. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url], who arose under [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/15756c.htm"]Zephyrinus[/url], [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/12260a.htm"]bishop of Rome[/url]. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/10521a.htm"]Phrygian heresy[/url], speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/01626c.htm"]apostles[/url] are laid:[/i][/b]

[b][i][color="#ff0000"]7. But I can show the trophies of the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/01626c.htm"]apostles[/url]. For if you will go to the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/15276b.htm"]Vatican[/url] or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/03744a.htm"]church[/url].[/color][/i][/b]

[b][i][color="#ff0000"]8. And that they both suffered [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/09736b.htm"]martyrdom[/url] at the same time is stated by [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/05010a.htm"]Dionysius[/url], [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/02581b.htm"]bishop[/url] of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/11567b.htm"]Paul[/url] at [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/13164a.htm"]Rome[/url] and [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/04363b.htm"]Corinth[/url]. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/04363b.htm"]Corinth[/url]. And they taught together in like manner in [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/08208a.htm"]Italy[/url], and suffered [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/09736b.htm"]martyrdom[/url] at the same time. I have quoted these things in order that the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/15073a.htm"]truth[/url] of the history might be still more confirmed.[/color][/i][/b]




So, the fact that Peter was in Rome and was martyred there is attested to by Eusebius, and in this work he references Caius, and Dionysius who also confirm that Peter was in Rome and was martyred there. Historians believe this, the intellectually honest believe this, anti Catholic protestants do not because it is a slippery slope for them to just admit this historical fact.


Eusebius does not stop at referencing Caius and Dionysius, he goes on to reference Origen in the next volume of his history:

[b]2. Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/01782a.htm"]Asia[/url] to the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/08399a.htm"]Jews[/url] of the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/04775c.htm"]dispersion[/url]. [/b][color="#ff0000"][b]And at last, having come to [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/13164a.htm"]Rome[/url], he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way. What do we need to say concerning [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/11567b.htm"]Paul[/url], who preached the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/06655b.htm"]Gospel[/url] of [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/08374c.htm"]Christ[/url] from Jerusalem to [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/07663a.htm"]Illyricum[/url], and afterwards suffered [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/09736b.htm"]martyrdom[/url] in [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/13164a.htm"]Rome[/url] under [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/10752c.htm"]Nero[/url]?[u] These facts are related by [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/11306b.htm"]Origen[/url] in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis. [/u][/b][/color]

So now we have Eusebius, Origen, Caius, and Dyonisius attesting to this fact, and isn't it odd how no one at this time is challenging these claims? No one is challenging them because they are true statements!

Later on Eusebius talks about Peter's successor in Rome after his Martyrdom..

[b]9. As to the rest of his followers, [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/11567b.htm"]Paul[/url] testifies that [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/04484b.htm"]Crescens[/url] was sent to [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/06395b.htm"]Gaul[/url]; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/bible/2ti004.htm#verse21"]2 Timothy 4:21[/url] as his companion at [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/13164a.htm"]Rome[/url], was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/03744a.htm"]church[/url] there, as has already been shown. [/b]



And Eusebius also addresses the issue of whether Peter used Babylon as a code word for Rome..

[b]And Peter makes mention of [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/09672c.htm"]Mark[/url] in his [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/bible/1pe000.htm"]first epistle[/url] which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/02179b.htm"]Babylon[/url], as he does in the following words: The [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/03744a.htm"]church[/url] that is at [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/02179b.htm"]Babylon[/url], elected together with you, salutes you; and so does [url="http://ww.newadvent.com/cathen/09672c.htm"]Marcus[/url] my son.[/b]

So here we have a famous and renowned Christian historian attesting to these facts, not from merely his own perspective, but incorporating references to other peoples' work who have also born witness to the fact that Peter was in Rome and died in Rome crucified upside down. The archealogical evidence also points to Peter being entombed in Rome on the very hill where the Vatican is standing today. In fact, that was the name of the actual hill.. Vaticanus. Scholars also agree that Peter was in Rome and died there. and most of all, the Early Christians believed this. The Bible doesn't mention it, and it doesn't mention how the other apostles died either, so does that mean we can know nothing about their deaths? Absolutely not! Look to history for these answers, we know Peter died crucified upside down in Rome, we know paul was beheaded in Rome, we know James the greater was thrown off the pinnacle of the temple, stoned and then clubbed to death, we know these things from renowned historians like Josephus and Eusebius and to trust the word of 20th and 21st century biased authors over theres is not wise by any means in terms of learning true history.