Was Peter "prime Minister" In Rome?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287959196' post='2182163']
I started the thread to get you to THINK THROUGH YOUR BELIEFS. I might remind you that Jesus came into this world to "shake people up" to say the least. Anyway, this is a debate forum, so why do I have to give my innermost ulterior motives? The mere fact that a debate table exists presupposes that there are disagreements that must be dealt with. As a matter of fact, God has allowed heresies to arise so that the better argument may be made manifest (1 Cor 11:19). It seems to me that you're not interested in doing any research at all, but will leave everything to everyone else. Will that be your reason on Judgment Day when you are asked why you followed the Pope? Will you just say, "I thought following the crowd was the thing to do".

These matters are of eternal consequence. For example, your church teaches at Vatican 1 that everyone must be in subjection to the Pope to be SAVED. I am highly insulted and violently disagree, as do all non-Catholic Christians who find their satisfaction in [i]Christ alone[/i], and are not intimidated by the threats of, "or else it's curtains for you" from the Catholic hierarchy. My words are meant to be a catalyst to get you to do further research and to discover that salvation does not consist in trusting in a MAN sitting on a throne way off on the other side of the world, but in the Redeemer [i]alone. B[/i]ecause you're my spiritual enemy, I am nevertheless spending time here out of concern for your souls, whether you believe it or not. Jesus had quite a few enemies, so I'm not surprised to make them here. We're told that "Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you". He's saying that if everyone is your friend, there MUST be something wrong with your theology because the true gospel will indeed be offensive to the unregenerate soul.
[/quote]


do you honestly think people will see what your write and suddenly leave the catholic church? your attidue is not christian. when given sources on facts that discredit you, you ignore them. when you misstate so many things it borders on.... i mean do you really think you will suddenly have everyone leave the catholic church? do you really think your martin luther 2.0?

[Vincent Vega]

We like TYPING IN CAPITAL LETTERS and using [i]italics to type things[/i] after first calmly discussing things.

I had a [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showuser=9579&tab=aboutme"]friend[/url] like [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showuser=9579&tab=aboutme"]you[/url] before and [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showuser=9579&tab=aboutme"]he[/url] too was a man poorly founded in history...but at least [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showuser=9579&tab=aboutme"]you[/url] understand how to use the quote function.

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='-L-' timestamp='1287902788' post='2182012']
That isn't evidence, that is forming unfounded conclusions about passages from scripture which do not even have the intention of addressing the question you are attempting to answer.


What am I sweeping under the rug? The only thing I am sweeping under the rug are fallacies that try to form conclusions from passages that don't provide the necessary information to support these conclusions.

[color="#9ACD32"][b]
[/b][/color]

[/quote]

[color=#9ACD32][b][color="#006400"]Answer: You're sweeping under the rug that the topic of this post poses, "was Peter prime minister in Rome?", (not wondering if he was not ever there at all). God has given you a brain and expects you to logically conclude certian things. Paul wrote the letter to the Romans and greets over 25 people and fails to mention Peter. We logically deduce that he could not have been prime minister---and that is not an "unfounded conclusion", but sane and rational. Not to mention the fact that the Bible is completely silent on Peter's jurisdiction over all the entire Christian church militant, [mod]Negative Criticism of Other Religions - MIKolbe[/mod]

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1287972446' post='2182211']
I truly believe that most people here are very aware that these matters are of eternal consequence. I am glad you have good intentions I suppose we are both concerned for each other. The purpose of my previous post was just to get you to realize that if you really have good intentions here, there is a better way to go about discussing you opinions than being openly hostile. The first thing I think of from the CCC in response to previous post is this:

[b]838[/b] "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."[sup]322[/sup] [u]Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church[/u]."[sup]323[/sup] [i]With the Orthodox Churches[/i], this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."[sup]324[/sup]

...and so it is unfortunate that you regard us as spiritual enemies; I do not think we regard you as such! (until you begin blatantly attacking our faith, rather than having an honest open discussion...then you will get people in defense mode, or just not taking seriously what you say (maybe not reading it all).



[/quote]



I don't think I'm crossing any lines of etiquette as it regards to the rules of this board (altho I must admit I haven't read them yet, but do see a few posts at the beginning of the debate list which I will click on later). The quote you submit above is a perfect example of why "tension" to say the least, is unavoidable. The Catholic Church has the gall to subsume all validly baptized persons into unity with her, and [color="#FF0000"]"puts" [/color][i]us into a certain, although imperfect alignment with the Catholic Church.....which we did not even ask her to do. [/i] It would be like me asking you to fill out a certificate and state that I am related to you. Now wouldn't that be ridiculous?[i] [/i]Equally so is the gratuitous claim that Catholicism has "put" me (and all other non-Catholics who reject her) into her "family" without our permission and merely asserts it to be a fact. Then, after having "adopted" us against our will, she relegates us into the backyard to sleep in the dog house.
Is it any wonder then that we must so strongly object? This reminds me of some years ago when the Mormons were making news after admitting that they were now on a mission to baptize Jews who had died. Ha! The Jewish community threw a fit and told them to cease and desist as they were not interested in having their relatives baptized by proxy.

Anyway, I can be polite, but you must remember that false doctrine must be "rebuked sharply" (Titus 1:13), and we are to "preach the word, in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and [u]doctrine[/u] ...for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine...(2 Tim 4:3). This isn't going to make anybody popular. Jesus knew it, and it was why all the prophets, apostles, and martyrs were killed.

[sixpence]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287979360' post='2182248']
I don't think I'm crossing any lines of etiquette as it regards to the rules of this board (altho I must admit I haven't read them yet, but do see a few posts at the beginning of the debate list which I will click on later). The quote you submit above is a perfect example of why "tension" to say the least, is unavoidable. The Catholic Church has the gall to subsume all validly baptized persons into unity with her, and [color="#ff0000"]"puts" [/color][i]us into a certain, although imperfect alignment with the Catholic Church.....which we did not even ask her to do. [/i] It would be like me asking you to fill out a certificate and state that I am related to you. Now wouldn't that be ridiculous?[i] [/i]Equally so is the gratuitous claim that Catholicism has "put" me (and all other non-Catholics who reject her) into her "family" without our permission and merely asserts it to be a fact. Then, after having "adopted" us against our will, she relegates us into the backyard to sleep in the dog house.
Is it any wonder then that we must so strongly object? This reminds me of some years ago when the Mormons were making news after admitting that they were now on a mission to baptize Jews who had died. Ha! The Jewish community threw a fit and told them to cease and desist as they were not interested in having their relatives baptized by proxy.

Anyway, I can be polite, but you must remember that false doctrine must be "rebuked sharply" (Titus 1:13), and we are to "preach the word, in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and [u]doctrine[/u] ...for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine...(2 Tim 4:3). This isn't going to make anybody popular. Jesus knew it, and it was why all the prophets, apostles, and martyrs were killed.
[/quote]

cool cool

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287950150' post='2182123']
[size="3"]From the get-go, one would wonder that if God gave the gift of infallibility to the church, why has it been used so infrequently? It has, for all intents and purposes, been useless. If the Mother & Mistress of all churches says she has a direct hotline to heaven anyway, what need is there for infallibility? It's already in your documents at V-2 that you're supposed to believe the Pope "even when he[u] doesn't[/u] speak ex-cathedra". [/size] [/quote]
Non sequiter. That infallibility has not been used often does not mean it is not truly a gift from God to the Church.

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287950150' post='2182123']
[size="3"]If the Book of Wisdom is from God, it only stands to reason that He would NOT have allowed the Catholic Church to come to such UNscientific conclusions and condemn the innocent---because if He was in the habit of giving the writer of Wisdom knowledge of the "sun's course", why then certainly He would be [/size][u][size="3"]sure[/size][/u][size="3"] to enlighten the hierarchy of His "chosen church!" But this He did not do----which once again proves the illogic of Catholic claims.[/size]
[/quote]
The Bible is not concerned with the hows of science. After all, Ecclesiastes tells us that the sun rises and sets (which we often speak of today, as well), but this doesn't mean it is the sun that is moving instead of the earth. Actually, the writer of Wisdom speaking of the "sun's course" sounds like he also believed in geocentrism, though not seeing the whole passage I can't be certain.

Galileo was asked by the Pope to present arguments for and against heliocentrism, with proof - as far as I know, Galileo didn't do that, though I could be wrong. Was the affair with Galileo handled well? I'm not sure, but then, no one is perfect.

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287959196' post='2182163']
I started the thread to get you to THINK THROUGH YOUR BELIEFS. I might remind you that Jesus came into this world to "shake people up" to say the least. Anyway, this is a debate forum, so why do I have to give my innermost ulterior motives? The mere fact that a debate table exists presupposes that there are disagreements that must be dealt with. As a matter of fact, God has allowed heresies to arise so that the better argument may be made manifest (1 Cor 11:19). It seems to me that you're not interested in doing any research at all, but will leave everything to everyone else. Will that be your reason on Judgment Day when you are asked why you followed the Pope? Will you just say, "I thought following the crowd was the thing to do".

These matters are of eternal consequence. For example, your church teaches at Vatican 1 that everyone must be in subjection to the Pope to be SAVED. I am highly insulted and violently disagree, as do all non-Catholic Christians who find their satisfaction in [i]Christ alone[/i], and are not intimidated by the threats of, "or else it's curtains for you" from the Catholic hierarchy. My words are meant to be a catalyst to get you to do further research and to discover that salvation does not consist in trusting in a MAN sitting on a throne way off on the other side of the world, but in the Redeemer [i]alone. B[/i]ecause you're my spiritual enemy, I am nevertheless spending time here out of concern for your souls, whether you believe it or not. Jesus had quite a few enemies, so I'm not surprised to make them here. We're told that "Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you". He's saying that if everyone is your friend, there MUST be something wrong with your theology because the true gospel will indeed be offensive to the unregenerate soul.
[/quote]
As you are new here, you may be unaware that many of us here, myself included, are converts to Catholicism and have studied and thought through our beliefs prior to converting, and continue to do so. I appreciate your concern for us, and I don't expect everyone to be my friend or agree with me. I also agree that these are important matters. However, hostility often has the effect of causing the other to stop listening, because love is not apparent. I'm fine with debating, but attacks are unnecessary. I know I can lose my temper all too easily, too, but I do strive to speak with charity. I would appreciate it if you, and everyone else involved in the discussion, would do the same.

God bless.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Archaeology cat

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287979360' post='2182248']
I don't think I'm crossing any lines of etiquette as it regards to the rules of this board (altho I must admit I haven't read them yet, but do see a few posts at the beginning of the debate list which I will click on later). The quote you submit above is a perfect example of why "tension" to say the least, is unavoidable. The Catholic Church has the gall to subsume all validly baptized persons into unity with her, and [color="#FF0000"]"puts" [/color][i]us into a certain, although imperfect alignment with the Catholic Church.....which we did not even ask her to do. [/i] It would be like me asking you to fill out a certificate and state that I am related to you. Now wouldn't that be ridiculous?[i] [/i]Equally so is the gratuitous claim that Catholicism has "put" me (and all other non-Catholics who reject her) into her "family" without our permission and merely asserts it to be a fact. Then, after having "adopted" us against our will, she relegates us into the backyard to sleep in the dog house.
Is it any wonder then that we must so strongly object? This reminds me of some years ago when the Mormons were making news after admitting that they were now on a mission to baptize Jews who had died. Ha! The Jewish community threw a fit and told them to cease and desist as they were not interested in having their relatives baptized by proxy.

Anyway, I can be polite, but you must remember that false doctrine must be "rebuked sharply" (Titus 1:13), and we are to "preach the word, in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and [u]doctrine[/u] ...for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine...(2 Tim 4:3). This isn't going to make anybody popular. Jesus knew it, and it was why all the prophets, apostles, and martyrs were killed.
[/quote]
This is a spin NPR would be proud of.

I do appreciate the use of 'she,' though. That's pretty cool.

[sixpence]

Ok, now that we've all decided to be civil....

Here is what I, honestly, do not understand about you viewpoint SR...

For what reason do you consider the thoughts and writings of Paul and the evangelists (imperfect human beings, guided by the Holy Spirit), so different from the thoughts and writings of today's Church leaders (imperfect human beings, guided by the Holy Spirit)? I completely and honestly cannot understand this.

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1287973058' post='2182214']
do you honestly think people will see what your write and suddenly leave the catholic church? your attidue is not christian. when given sources on facts that discredit you, you ignore them. when you misstate so many things it borders on.... i mean do you really think you will suddenly have everyone leave the catholic church? do you really think your martin luther 2.0?
[/quote]


First of all "Catholic/Christian", the Bible says that they were first called "Christians" and [i]Christians only, [/i]in Acts 11:26. So the title which you attach to yourself, is unbiblical.

Second, I don't imagine for a minute that anyone will leave the Catholic Church based on my say so alone. It is the Holy Spirit who opens the eyes of the person, and it is up to Him to open the hearts of those who rightly divide the word of truth (Acts 16:14).

Third, my attitude is entirely Christian. Am I getting paid for doing this? I'm giving you the facts, and it is up to you to check them out.

Fourth, no sources have been cited that discredit me, so that was a lie.

Fifth, I have not ignored anything.

Sixth, you say I misstate many things, but give no examples!

Seventh, I am not even "Lutheran", so your simply [i]assuming [/i]this was quite out of order.

Eighth, your case against me should be thrown out of court for lack of evidence.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288023545' post='2182342']
First of all "Catholic/Christian", the Bible says that they were first called "Christians" and [i]Christians only, [/i]in Acts 11:26. So the title which you attach to yourself, is unbiblical.

Second, I don't imagine for a minute that anyone will leave the Catholic Church based on my say so alone. It is the Holy Spirit who opens the eyes of the person, and it is up to Him to open the hearts of those who rightly divide the word of truth (Acts 16:14).

Third, my attitude is entirely Christian. Am I getting paid for doing this? I'm giving you the facts, and it is up to you to check them out.

Fourth, no sources have been cited that discredit me, so that was a lie.

Fifth, I have not ignored anything.

Sixth, you say I misstate many things, but give no examples!

Seventh, I am not even "Lutheran", so your simply [i]assuming [/i]this was quite out of order.

Eighth, your case against me should be thrown out of court for lack of evidence.
[/quote]
Ninth, the Bible fell from the sky. There were only the books accepted and magically bound, with verses already numbered.

[Socrates]

The fact that Peter went to Rome, had special authority over the other apostles, and was succeeded by the bishop of Rome, who had primacy in the Church is attested to unanimously by the Early Church Fathers in the early centuries of the Church.

Here's some great links which include evidence from the writings of the Early Church Fathers, as well as the Bible.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp"]Peter's Roman Residency[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp"]Was Peter in Rome?[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp"]Apostolic Succession[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp"]The Authority of the Pope: Part I[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp"]Origins of Peter as Pope[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp"]Peter and the Papacy[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp"]Peter the Rock[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp"]Peter's Primacy[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp"]Peter's Successors[/url]

[Winchester]

Socrates. Only his proof-texting is admissible.

Here's the pattern:

[s]Budge[/s] [s]Stormstopper[/s] Shadyrest posts proof-texting and editorials about Catholicism (which is what he means to discuss in spite of limiting himself only to the Roman Rite).

A. Proof-texting is responded to with various arguments and other biblical quotations.

II.Text-formatting, personal attack, proof-texting of other verses. There will be no refutations, just some other quotes and perhaps a mutilated version of the arguments which will present no obstruction since they are actually altered in order to be easily knocked down.


Stage 3: Profit!!!!!

[sixpence]

Stop distracting Shady from answering my question!!

[Winchester]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1288030858' post='2182404']
Stop distracting Shady from answering my question!!



[/quote]
Quiet.

I'm probably already on ignore. Either way, he's not in the habit of addressing my posts. He stops early in the game because when he responds, he gets teh raeg and the teh b&.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Winchester