Which Peter?

Helen --

I am beyond amazed that you would fall for this kind of mixed up garbage. This writing ( as if I should dignify such nonsense with the name "writing") is not only mixed up, the man goes from one extreme to another in his mouth-foaming hatred of the Catholic Faith. But more than that

DID YOU ACTUALLY READ THIS?

The next god was that of Hamath: ASHIMA. Jones shows us that he was the great pagan god of propitiation, i.e., the god who bore the guilt of his worshippers (p. 42). This god was the pagan REDEEMER -- the OSIRIS of Egyptian fame or the dying NIMROD.

Do you understand what is being said here? God coming to earth to bear the guilt of his worshippers. Does this mean that you will now chuck the propitiation of Christ for us, His people, since this idea was a PAGAN WORSHIP idea some 4,000+ years before Christ?

The fifth Babylonian tribe worshiped pre-eminently two gods. ADRAM-MELECH and ANAM-MELECH. The first was the "god of fire," the Sun or the Phoenician Baal (Jones, p. 14); the second was "the god of the flocks" or the Greek HERMES, the Good Shepherd (p. 32).

Why would Jesus then take to Himself a pagan understanding of His mission on earth? Do you think that He, the God/man, was somehow UNAWARE of the existence of Hermes, the "Good Shepherd?" Are you going to forsake this pagan name which Jesus borrowed from Babylonian worship?


It is self-evident that these gods and goddesses were the major Babylonian deities, and at the same time, the very gods and goddesses which the Roman Catholic Church deifies today as Christ, Mary, etc.)

DID YOU SEE THIS!! This man DENIES that Christ is truly God. He is a hell bound heretic of the worst sort!!! He is also a LIAR!! Orthodox and Catholic faithful DO NOT deify the Blessed Virgin.

History comes alive with the startling story of how Simon Magus -- branded a FALSE PROPHET by the book of Acts -- established HIS OWN UNIVERSAL church! SIMON MAGUS was a Babylonian priest

WHERE is his proof from the "Bible alone" of this? This is what you "sola scripturalists" DEMAND of us Catholics, yet you will accept THIS GARBAGE upon face value just because it trashes the Church.

We further find in Schaff’s History of the Church a reference to this Simon Magus. He says: "The author, or first representative of this baptized HEATHENISM, according to the uniform testimony of Christian antiquity, is Simon Magus, who unquestionably adulterated Christianity with pagan ideas and practices, and gave himself out, in a pantheistic style for an emanation of God" (Apostolic Christianity), Vol. 2, p. 566).

Schaff, eh? You DO KNOW that he is also a very BIASED reporter of history, especially Church history.

When Justin Martyr wrote [152 A.D.] his Apology, the sect of the Simonians appears to have been formidable, for he speaks four times of their founder, Simon; and we need not doubt that he identified him with the Simon of the Acts. He states that he was a Samaritan, adding that his birthplace was a village called Gitta; he describes him as a formidable magician, and tells that he came to ROME in the days of Claudius Caesar (45 A.D.), and made such an impression by his magical powers, THAT HE WAS HONORED AS A GOD, a statue being erected to him on the Tiber, between the two bridges, bearing the inscription ‘Simoni deo Sancto’ (i.e., the holy god Simon)" (Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. 4, p. 682).

Here is the ususal anti-Catholic bigotry in FULL FORCE. He has no problem using those particular writings which seem to support his false ideas and warped views, but would not even consider that the Early Fathers EN MASSE were Catholic in their doctrines and teachings. You can find baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist clearly taught by these men, but our author, as does ALL BIGOTS AND IRRATIONAL HATERS OF THE CHURCH, conveniently ignores this. Of course, this is for the purpose of keeping HIS FLOCK in line with HIS TEACHINGS. I believe this falls under the heading of "bearing false witness."

And under the same heading, why is it that this mans IDEAS, having NO BIBLICAL PROOF, are accepted as the REAL TRUTH of the Catholic Church, but when we quote the Early Fathers, y'all start screamin' "THAT ISN'T IN THE BIBLE!!" Double standard, dear. Not cricket at all!!

Later, about the fourth century, a flood of works came out about Peter encountering Simon Magus in Rome and overthrowing him. But these works are clearly fiction. Almost all scholars realize the absurdity of maintaining such a thing. In the first place, it can be Biblically shown that Peter The Apostle was NEVER in Rome when these fictitious writings say he should be.

No, it CANNOT. It cannot be shown by Scripture that Peter was either in or out of Rome. Remember, y'all Baptists and others here keep demanding that we Catholics play by "sola scriptura" rules. Would you mind making the bigots like this play by the same rules?

The PETER-god JANUS was to the ancient Romans the "KEEPER OF THE GATES OF HEAVEN AND EARTH." "HE IS REPRESENTED WITH A KEY IN ONE HAND . . . as emblematic of his presiding over GATES and highways."
How shocking! The pagan Romans were calling their JANUS a PETER hundreds of years before the birth of the Apostle Peter. It was this JANUS who was in charge of the "pearly gates"! The very word JANUS means "gates," that is, the one in charge of the GATES.

Well, if this is true, then how equally shocking that Jesus would even USE the language of paganism to describe one of His trusted followers!! Have you even THOUGHT THIS THROUGH??? Tell me, Helen, what was Jesus thinking when He consistently used pagan language and allowed Himself to be described by common pagan terms?

The Dict. of Religion and Ethics had this to say about this cardinal doctrine of SIMON PATER. "Simon taught that the precepts of the law and the prophets were inspired by angels [lesser beings] in the desire to reduce men to slavery, but those who believed in him and Helen, since they were delivered from the sinister tyranny of the law, were free to act as they would. For men are saved by grace and not by good works. The antinomianism of the Simonians issued in LIBERTINE conduct and A COMPROMISE WITH HEATHENISM" (vol. 11, p. 518).

HOLY SMOKES!!! The teaching of "grace alone" produces antinomianism!! What an admission!!

Helen, I would LOVE to rip this nonsense to shreds, but I simply do not have the time this morning. Work demands that I get busy pronto.

What you and all the others here do not understand regarding the Faith is that bits and pieces of the truth, held by people who were in pagan darkness, were around for millenia before God incarnated Himself in Jesus the Christ. Because of the Protoevangelium of Genesis, mankind developed with some limited ideas of God. These ideas did not find their fullness or completion until the coming of Christ. We find, as shown above, redeemer/gods, crucified "savior/gods", triadic gods, and a number of other pagan ideas which are later revealed in the Christian faith as being TRUTH.
Now, are you going to toss out these truths simply because pagans, in their groping for God in the darkness found a bit of these truths and incorporated them into their pagan religions?

Honestly, you really shouldn't read this junk. It is warping your mind, which I have a feeling is smarter and brighter than to be insulted by the rantings of an idiot like this guy.

BTW -- I think he is a British Israelist if I found his site. They are kinda whacky folks too!!

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

PS....Hey, Helen, just for grins and giggles, how about read my little piece I wrote on the many people on the Internet who have found the "truth". It is written as humor.

Gwaaaan....try it!!!

PRIVATE INTERPRETATION AND FRUITCAKE

 

The first link was excellent, and proved beyond any doubt from the Bible that the RCC is wrong. The second link was a lot of speculation based on the book by Woodbridge or others like him and was much less compelling.

It was interesting that our Catholic friend chose to completely ignore the positive proof from the bible that Peter was not in Rome when the RCC claims he was Pope but rather attack the second article. I wonder why he ignored the first article? Well, acually, no I don't wonder, I know.

 

Doc --

What you "know" could be put in a thimble and have room for a Mack truck to park in.

Jesus said that He would build HIS CHURCH
upon St. Peter. That really is ALL I have to know.

I find it amazing to watch your leaps of logic, or should I say, illogic. It is obvious that this guy is a big time heretic, since he denies the Trinity among other things, but you treat his words as if they were jewels of gold, even if they are only speculations at best and have no proof from the Bible. His Biblical arguements are specious at best and prove nothing, unlike the statement which Jesus made in Matthew 16: 18 -19 which are crystal clear and unambiguous.

Of course, when WE quote the Early Fathers, we get the usual round of whinning that we can't do this, their writings prove nothing, they come from heretics, they are not on a par with Scripture, yada, yada, yada.

Get a grip, okay? Either set one standard for everyone or go play with your brain somewhere else. This trash link OUGHT to be beneath your dignity to even quote.

 

Thanks Helen!

It was very good!

And seem to done with Love!

 

Who denies the Trinity? The first site defends the Trinity, it does not deny it so you might want to take back your comment to DocCas.

 

One more little detail.

Where is the reply to my questions? I asked some very pointed questions about the fact that this trash site brings up the proof that many of the orthodox doctrines of the faith were believed by pagan LONG BEFORE the Church or you Baptists believed them.

Why no answer? Y'all git a brain cramp? Or don't you want to respond to the obvious?

You can't have it both ways. Either stop pounding us Catholics and Orthodox for the doctrines YOU DON'T LIKE which happened to be held by pagans long before the Christian Era, or stop believing in the Trinity, the propitiation of the God/man, the incarnation, and the Crucifixion, for they were all pagan beliefs long before Christ showed them to be truth in Himself.

Now what's it gonna be?

Oh, I know....more brainless Catholic bashing without any answers to our questions, exegesis, responses, or challenges, right?

Right.

Dual -- READ the post, man. I responded to the SECOND SITE, which is a piece of G*A*R*B*A*G*E.!!!! Helen felt warm fuzzies to post it, so I felt equally warm fuzzies to call it what it is.

Did YOU read it? I quoted it verbatim. He denies the Trinity? Y'all wanna git in bed with this guy? Sheeeeesh!!!!

[ September 16, 2002, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

Did you read DocCas's post?

You're still ignoring the first link.

 

Okay -- As far as the first link, which my dopey puter finally managed to bring up, yes, the guy is Trinitarian.

Now here's what Doc wrote:

It was interesting that our Catholic friend chose to completely ignore the positive proof from the bible that Peter was not in Rome when the RCC claims he was Pope but rather attack the second article. I wonder why he ignored the first article? Well, acually, no I don't wonder, I know.

He DOESN'T know. I read both of the sites and the so-called "proof" which is there is extremely WANTING. For instance, it is stated that St. Peter was the Apostle to the Gentiles, therefore he couldn't have been in Rome. That is PURE SPECULATION. Are you saying there were no Jews in Rome? Does his being the Apostle to the Gentiles somehow negate his leadership over the Church? You are reading WAAAAY to much into that title.

You should know just from this site alone that a person can make the Bible say anything you wish it to say. That is the reason that there are literally HUNDREDS of denominations, cults, isms, and sects who all use the Bible ALONE to prove their belief systems. This is just one more example and it has no more proof of being true than any other speculative ideas found on the Internet. These people are just giving their own particular version of "the truth". If you or Helen or anyone wish to buy into it -- fine. But it lacks in any kind of substantive arguementation. In fact, it is rather typical in that rather than exegeting the Bible as a whole, we get the usual single or double verses tossed at us to make us somehow believe they have the authority of the Bible behind them.

All these so-called "proofs" have been long ago ripped to shreds by the numerous convert/apologeticists who have written against this pap. Of all the systems of arguementation, I find that of Fundamentalism the weakest and silliest.

I know.....I used to be a Fundamentalist for 12 years. Bought into the whole pack of lies, even to the point of pickin' my favorite Fundamentalist preachers and siding with them against other Fundamentalist preachers who weren't "real, TRUE, Fundamentalists." Their exegesis is strained, their understanding of the Greek is atrocious at best, they have no problem with even changing the words in the Bible when it suits their theological tastes (Jerry Falwell did this in the 1980's) with his great big family Bible -- I can tell you the exact verse he changed if you wish).

C'mon....I don't mind a good rousing debate, but these insults to our intelligence and persons as Catholic believers in Christ really ought to stop!!

Brother Ed

BTW -- In the interest of fairness, do you folks EVER read any of the works being done by converts? Steve Ray, Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi, Dave Armstrong....all these have tremendous works out there. Why not read some of their stuff and then discuss why you feel this stuff is wrong....point by point...instead of throwing up the ususal stuff at us?

 

The first article gives plenty of evidence based on scripture and history, that strongly suggests that Peter was not ruling the church in Rome. Perhaps you should read it again.

 

Ad hominem argumentation is the last resort of the incompetent and is a tacit admission of your inability to formulate an intelligent response.

The only problem with what you know is that it is wrong! The genders don't match, unless you think Jesus Christ is feminine! The only match in case, number, and gender is the "answered" in the immediate preceeding context when Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ. The Church of Christ is founded on the rock of Peter's confession, not on the "little pebble" Peter.

More ad hominem, and tacit admission of defeat.

Once again you have failed to read what I wrote. My references were to the first article which is a exposition of the bible timeline for Peter's travels proving beyond a doubt that Peter was not in Rome when you claim he was Pope.

The biblical arguments are the only ones that count and they prove Peter was not in Rome when you claim he was. Not to mention that you don't understand what Matthew 16 is even saying. You really should learn to read the original Greek. It would clear up a lot of your confusion. Just like it did for Martin Luther!

Nobody is talking about the Patristics, we are talking about what the bible says.

More ad hominem and tacit admission of defeat.

Except, of course, we are not talking about the second link, but the first one. I already said the second link was speculative and quite inconclusive.

 

It seems to me you don't know what you are saying. Are you saying that these tribes didn't worship these gods? Are you saying they never really existed? Of course, you can't make this assumption, because these tribes did infact worship these gods.

What are you trying to say?

Also, remember that the CC DID take in many pagan customs of the time (RE: wedding rings, christmas tree's, dec 25th type of things). Be careful which box you open.

This man, with this quote, does no such thing. He claims (whether rightly or wrongly) that the CC does not worship the Christ of the bible, the true God. What you have claimed he said if false...that is plainly obvious.

'Sola scriputuralists' use the bible for final authority on matters of faith and spirituality, not history. Given this, many 'sola scripturalists' even look to the early church fathers for guidance...but when the writings don't match history or the bible, they are chucked. Seems quite logical.

*COUGH* *COUGH* First link *COUGH* oh...I'm sorry...did that just slip out?

I think I have a hair ball because I just might *COUGH* again.....read the first link please

Your tone is demeaning, your language is abusive and your couth is, well, shall we just say lacking. I would suggest that you become a little more civil if you wish to discuss anything. Your attacks below on DocCas and the above on Helen (both of whom have been nothing but nice to you so far) show your complete lack of respect for anyone issuing even a bit of a challenge to your beliefs. This is not the sign of an intelligent person, nor one well grounded in their faith.

Also, your ad hominem attack on the author does little to bolster your position. In fact, it weakens it.

In Christ,
jason

 

Here is competing evidence from Scripture that Peter was in Rome.

"All credible Scripture scholars believe that St. Peter wrote 1 Peter between 62 and 64 AD. This is due to the fact that St. Peter seems to have known St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (written during St. Paul’s first Roman captivity which ended in 62 AD) and the absence of any reference to an official Roman persecution of Christians which began in August 64 AD. St. Peter outlines the same duties for slaves, wives and husbands as in Ephesians 5, 22-33 and 6, 5-8. To have such precise knowledge of this letter so soon after its composition, as well as being certain of its authenticity, St. Peter must have been in close proximity to St. Paul, that is, in Rome with him, not in far-away Babylon.



Further, in the final farewell of 1 Peter St. Peter mentions Silvanus and St. Mark. Silvanus, the bearer of 1 Peter, was a constant companion of St. Paul (Acts 15, 22; 32, 40; 2 Cor. 1, 19; 1 Thes. 1, 1; 2 Thes. 1, 1) while St. Mark was with St. Paul in Rome during his first captivity (Col. 4, 10). Why would Silvanus be in Babylon with St. Peter if he normally traveled with St. Paul; and how could St. Mark so easily team up with St. Peter and be in Babylon so soon after being mentioned in Colossians 4, 10 with St. Paul in Rome? The more likely answer is that they were with St. Paul and St. Peter who were both in Rome at the same time."

Here is the link to the complete article.

http://www.lumenverum.com/apologetics/rome.htm

 

David F. Wright (Senior lecturer in Ecclesiastical History, University of Edinburgh, Scotland) writes that when Ireneus presented his succession-list for the church of Rome, he described it as: "the very great, very ancient and universally known church, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul."

In the same book, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, Baptist pastor Michael A. Smith (Rochdale, Lancashire, England author of many historical books, Josephus, Eusebius, Peter; Paul; Novatianists; Ignatius of Antioch; Clement of Rome; Ambrose of Milan; Leo the Great; Christian Ascetics and Monks, Spreading the Good News) says that Peter is believed to have been martyred in Rome.
He shows evidence that recent excavations (1970’s) have revealed a shrine in honor of Peter dating from the late second century. He also presents several apocryphal works, including Acts of Peter, which describe Peter's martyrdom in Rome, date from the later part of the second century. Although not considered scripture this is a historical letter.

God Bless

 

Ron, What you posted makes some sense. The first link earlier provides many examples from scripture that also make some sense, now what??

Perhaps someone from one side or the other could now refute the evidence from the other side so we can see what we really have here.

Brother Ed, Whats up my friend! I have seen you somewhat steamed before but you sound like it's "blowing a gasket" time. Is it righteous anger or do I need to put you on my prayer board Hope all is well

In Christ,
Brian

[ September 16, 2002, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

Ad hominem argumentation is the last resort of the incompetent and is a tacit admission of your inability to formulate an intelligent response.</font>[/QUOTE]So, DocCas, is Jesus the one who told you the best way to handle an ad hominem....IS TO FOLLOW WITH ONE?

Give me a break. Practice what you preach, or stop preaching to the choir.

 

What is with you guys attacking us with ad hominems and improper language, and then beating us to death saying it's all we do? DocCas was NOT nice, and followed his accusation with his own ad hominem.

This thread should just close. No one wants to listen or learn here, and I hardly doubt anyone is getting anything Spiritual out of it.

Just a suggestion...

 

Brother Brian --

Yeah, yer right. I probably had one to many "Whore of Babylon" sandwiches this AM. After a while, it becomes a diet which makes one sick at the stomach.

So if I understand my detractors correctly, the stuff we find on the links is NOT ad hominums, right? Okay. Just so I know the rules.

I raised what I thought were some though provoking questions regarding the fact that the ancient pagans had many of the same doctrines which we love and revere together as Baptists and Catholics. Anti-Catholics constantly bring up the Seramis/Tamuz - Mother/son connection to ancient Babylonian worship and yet have NOTHING to say regarding these other teachings which are a very important part of our theology.

WHY is that? Are you afraid to admit that if the pagans had trinitarian concepts which turned out to be the truth, that maybe the idea of the Blessed Virgin being honored as our Mother in the Christian Faith MAY ALSO BE CORRECT?

The typical publications used by anti-Catholics, such as Lorraine Boettner's ROMAN CATHOLICISM, Hislop's THE TWO BABYLONS, and Jack Chicks panopoly of publications, have serious problems with accuracy and honesty. So bad was the work on THE TWO BABYLONS that the man who was publishing and distributing it QUIT doing so. It is the same genre of work as those Landmark Baptists who keep insisting that they have unbroken lineage to the first century, yet have absolutely no proof of their assertations.

I have seen Carson do absolutely beautiful exegesis of Scripture passages and have it just blown off as nothing rather than discussed. (BTW -- Carson will be taking leave of this board. He has studies to attend to and this takes too much time. He told me in a private Email).

So yeah, we do git tired and it does git under the skin. I guess though that for some people, if you are a Catholic, it means you have a big sign on your back which says "Insult me. I'm not human and don't deserve to be treated like one."

Brother Ed

 

Catholic Bashing is the one last prejudice you can openly practice in the US it seems, with little concern of repraisals.

If Catholics went around posting about (insert any non-Catholic Church) the way Catholics are talked about then we wouldn't be able to leave our house.

Yes, in this country it is still acceptable to bash Catholics, afterall we are going to hell anway right?

LaRae