You do realize by calling into question whether Peter was in Rome you're questioning the authenticity of 1 Peter, right?
Catholicism vs Protestantism
- Thread starter Roughsoul1991
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You do realize by calling into question whether Peter was in Rome you're questioning the authenticity of 1 Peter, right?
Like I say history may lie. Base on the Bible act 28 I don't believe Peter ever in Rome.
Read entire act you will see the culture, every time apostle went out of town, if there was Christian in that town they always give shelter to the apostle
Act 28 say Paul rent a house.
And if Peter there why Paul call Jews, I don't think it is violates manner
His boss is a pastor there, and he going to open church there.
Why act 28 didn't mention Peter come to give warm welcome party?
To me it mean Peter not there and the history is lie
The tradition
If Peter was never in Rome, he couldn't have been the author of the book of 1 Peter. By denying the tradition that Peter lived and was martyred in Rome at some point you discount apostolic authorship of one of the books of the Bible. This is separate from the Catholic reframing of that history which I agree overstates the case in order to defend a doctrine we can demonstrate originates with Leo 1.
The heart of the issue is the reformation created a distrust of history and historical doctrine, and the casualties of that distrust are numerous. The current atheism that is taking hold in the west is the fruit of the reformation opening the door for the "enlightenment" by denying history.
Peter can write a letter from what ever he want, why , you think Peter only able to write letter if he ever in Rome
And I don't believe Peter martyr at Rome, not in the Bible and I don't believe catholic history because un reseanable compare with bible and catholic has history of lie
Tradition is a habit, the story of tradition some time honest, like the book of act some time lie like Mary elevated to heaven
Sure, but 1 Peter 5:13 seems to indicate the one who wrote 1 Peter was in Rome. It seems to me in your anti-catholic fervor you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
1 Peter 5:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
It doesn't say Peter in rome
Babylon is an ancient metaphor for Rome, owing to the fact that it succeeded Babylon in power.
To my knowledge Babylon metaphor for Rome after AD 70 after Rome destroy Jerusalem like Babylon
Did
Catholic say Peter die ad 67
Also you have to answere my question, why when Paul come to Rome At AD 60 Jews know nothing about Christianity while catholic say Peter was there since AD 32
I'm not sure I've heard those exact dates used by anyone, or really any dating that that's specific, for any of the events you describe besides 70 AD for the destruction of the temple. Most dating is tenative but the tradition is that at some point Peter came and became the first official bishop of Rome and was later martyred there. Peter's absence in Acts and the greetings in Romans is not evidence that he was never there, though it does suggest he wasn't there in the initial stages.
As for Babylon being the metaphor for Rome, its documented before the temple's destruction though it certainly helped its reputation after the fact. But where else would someone be refering to as Babylon besides Rome? The actual Babylon doesn't make sense for a variety of reasons, so where else? Jerusalem has been floated in later scholarship, but it seems unlikely since this was an ancient metaphor and all of the ancient writing on the matter links it with Rome. All signs point to Rome, and it's in agreement with what those who wrote about it closest to the writing of the epistles have said.
Like I say, I don't believe that history, every body can write what ever they want, the church that have a lot of member can make le history or lie doctrine and every body believe
A lot of Jew in Babylon
Quote
On the basis of the New Testament account, it would have been very possible for Peter to write his epistle from the city or province of Babylon itself. His ministry was to the Jews, and, as writings from subsequent centuries establish, Babylon was a center of Judaism both before and long after Peter.
End quote
Act 15
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Catholic believe Rome is the capital city of Christian that time like Washington for USA
So all conference most likely in the capital city where the boss of apostle reside
But these verse say they make conference in Jerusalem.
So I dont believe catholic claim
A lot more indication about catholic lie history
A lot of Jew in Babylon
Quote
On the basis of the New Testament account, it would have been very possible for Peter to write his epistle from the city or province of Babylon itself. His ministry was to the Jews, and, as writings from subsequent centuries establish, Babylon was a center of Judaism both before and long after Peter.
End quote
Act 15
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Catholic believe Rome is the capital city of Christian that time like Washington for USA
So all conference most likely in the capital city where the boss of apostle reside
But these verse say they make conference in Jerusalem.
So I dont believe catholic claim
A lot more indication about catholic lie history
So...did God hand you the Bible Himself and tell you to read? I assume someone told you that's where the word of God was found. How do you know they didn't lie to you? And how do you know that the person who told them didn't lie to them? And the person who told them? How far back do you go in trusting history before the liars appear?
At least I am not find any indication of lie in the Bible but a lot of lie indication in catholic history
Example mary elevated to heaven, why not in the Bible
When Elijah elevated to heaven, its record in the Bible, you believe mary more then Elijah, why not recorded in the Bible.
I remember when Obama bought dog for his daughter, reporter put it in the news.
I buy elephant for my son not in the news, why, because Obama was president and I am ordinary citizen
The higher your social status the more publication you get
Elijah elevated to heaven, get publication on the Bible
Mary that you believe has higher status than Elijah not
My conclusion
It is lie
That doesn't answer my question, at what point in the chain do you stop trusting the people conveying history? Is it after the third generation we can't trust history? How far back do you trust? Only within your lifetime? Your parents generation? Your parents parents? At what point does history become untrustworthy?
It is not about how long, but I believe in the Bible so if history not consistent with the Bible I don't believe that
Also about mary elevated to heaven, why not in the Bible while Elijah is
Do Elijah has higher status than Mary or
Catholic lie?
So let's back up. Our Old Testament was already fully established as Scripture by Christ, but as found in the Hebrew Tanakh. That had three divisions: (1) Torah (the Law of Moses), (2) Neviim (the Prophets), and (3) Ketuvim (the Psalms or Writings). All the apostles were familiar with these Scriptures. And copies of copies of copies were made faithfully by the early Christians.
Then the Gospels and Acts were circulated among the churches, and again copies of copies were made and handed down. Then the epistles of Paul were circulated among the churches, and Peter, speaking by divine inspiration, classified all of them among the OT Scriptures. Again copies of copies of copies were made.
And thus all the original inspired writings were copied and circulated among the early churches. As a result between the 1st and 2nd century, a Syriac translation of all the Scriptures (OT & NT) came into existence and these were then copied and circulated among all the Aramaic and Syriac speaking churches. The Peshitta has the same NT books as we have.
As you can see, this did not allow anyone to manufacture their own Scriptures, and they dared not do so, since the early Christians had tremendous reverence for the Word of God. The majority of the earliest Christians were Jews, who had a deep respect for the Tanakh and the Torah.
At the same time Gnostic heretics began corrupting the Scriptures, but faithful Christians rejected them. As a result many survived through lack of use.
That is incorrect. Palestinian Jews did not use or need the LXX, which had been translated for Alexandrian and Babylonian Jews outside of Palestine. The claim that the LXX is largely quoted in the New Testament is false. There is some resemblance in about 10% of the quotations, but there are also major issues with corruption in the LXX. So do you think the Holy Spirit would approve a corrupt bible?
The question absolutely is about how long. As we discussed earlier, even what the Bible is requires looking at history. Someone, at some point, decided that the books of the Bible belong there. If we can't trust history, how do we know that there weren't people lying in the formation of the Bible? How do we know that in the process of copying the Bible people didn't slip their own words into the copies and pass them off? Or remove bits that they didn't like? All of these questions require us to be able to have some ability to trust our history. And the question is how far back we can trust, because according to protestants that trust only goes back 500 years or so. At some point in the history someone in the chain of people who passed the Bible onto you likely were members of the Catholic church. And if not, they were members of the Great Church that came before the Latin/Greek schism. So at what point does history become untrustworthy?
The Tanakh's canon wasn't decided until the council of Jamnia in about 100. At the time of Jesus the "official" Hebrew scripture only contained the law and the prophets, and some of the books that we consider prophets weren't considered among the prophets(like Daniel).
The rest of your claim goes against the decisions of canon as well. The reason an official canon was originally sought was in response to a heretic, Marcion declared the OT wasn't canonical. Up to that point people were comfortable with a loose canon, but there was a distinct number of books that were recognized in the regular readings. What is true of your post is cherry-picked recasting of history to fit with what you decided is canon.
Read your Bible instead of other books. As I already said read and study Luke 24. Had you done so you would not have made this incorrect statement. Christ Himself established the canonicity of the Tanakh, and there is no higher authority. And Paul called the Tanakh "the holy Scriptures" while Peter called it "all the other Scriptures".
Furthermore, the Apocrypha was never regarded by Palestinian Jews as Scripture. It was the Alexandrian Jews who had a loose view of divine inspiration who incorporated those non-canonical books into their LXX.
