Peter's Successor

What commentary excerpts?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Frank says:

True God needs no help, but then please tell us why God chose these councils that you: (Frank,) condemn,- to officially provide for us a canon of what we recognize as scripture. Or to provide the extra-biblical explanation of the "Triune Godhead", Assuming you beleive in the Holy Trinity.
If the choice was good enough for God, why is it not for you? Or pray tell did you Frank, come up with the identical canon and teaching of the Holy Trinity on your own?!

 

What commentary excerpts?</font>[/QUOTE]These:

This from John Gill's commentary may be instructive:

From Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown:

 

What commentary excerpts?</font>[/QUOTE]These:

This from John Gill's commentary may be instructive:

From Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown:

</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you sir for providing that! I have seen some of this material before and it is an interesting opinion which I do not share out of pure logic. you see, in Peter's time, in the apostolic era, Babylon-on-Euphrates was a pile of dust, long destroyed and faded into history!

To whom is Peter going to preach to there, the goat tenders or desert nomads?

And by the way, did you read the link I provided that gives the writings of the early fathers that indicates that Peter was in Rome?

Or are they all lying through their teeth?

God bless,

PAX


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
[Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate]

 

Lying? Certainly not. If you'd read my reply at the top of the page, you'd know that I did read the link, and found that only one of the writers you cite was contemporary with any apostle, writing in or around 110AD. And that was a mere sentence of hyperbolic comment on another subject entirely. The rest of the writers were writing long after the fact, drawing, like everyone else, on tradition.

I need to see your archaeological/historical evidence of the state of the capitol of Chaldea at the time of Peter, by the way.

 

Babylon :

Babylon , ancient city of Mesopotamia. One of the most important cities of the ancient Middle East, it was on the Euphrates River and was north of the cities that flourished in S Mesopotamia in the 3d millennium B.C. It became important when Hammurabi made it the capital of his kingdom of Babylonia. The patron god of Babylon, Marduk (identical with Bel), became a leading deity in the Neo-Babylonian pantheon. The city was destroyed (c.689 B.C.) by the Assyrians under Sennacherib, and its real spendor belongs to the later period of Babylonia after the city was rebuilt. The brilliant color and luxury of Babylon became legendary from the days of Nebuchadnezzar (d. 562 B.C.). The Hanging Gardens were one of the Seven Wonders of the World. The walls of Babylon, its palace, and the processional way with the famous Ishtar Gate were decorated with colorfully glazed brick. Among the Hebrews (who suffered the Babylonian captivity under Nebuchadnezzar) and the later Greeks the city was famed for its sensual living. Under the rule of Nabonidus the city was captured (538 B.C.) by Cyrus the Great and was used as one of the administrative capitals of the Persian Empire. In 275 B.C. its inhabitants were removed to Seleucia , which replaced Babylon as a commercial center.


http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0805624.html


Babylon :

Under Nebuchadnezzar it became one of the most splendid cities of the ancient world. It was even the site of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.
After passing through various vicissitudes the city was occupied by Cyrus the Great, "king of Elam," 538 BC, who issued a decree permitting the Jews to return to their own land (Ezra 1). It then ceased to be the capital of an empire. It was again and again visited by hostile armies, till its inhabitants were all driven from their homes, and the city became a complete desolation.

http://artzia.com/History/Babylon/

God Bless

 

Thank you Kathryn, for that bit of historical back-up, Tragic_Pizsa insists on. There is another "Babylon" in Egypt, but in the time of Peter, I think it was also of such little significance, it would have been a waste of time for Peter to go there as well.

Never mind that they have excavated under St. Peter's bascilica and discovered ephtaphs at grave sites speaking of a desire to be buried near Peter, around the grave of what archelogists believe is Peter's tomb, Tragic_Pizza will continue to deny it.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

Larry, that would be merely according to your personal interpretation of Scripture, right?</font>[/QUOTE]No. My personal interpretation has nothign to do with it.

What you fail to understand is that there are some things so patently clear that interpretation becomes a non-issue. We do not have great interpretational discussions about whether or not the sky is blue. It is clear. That is the level of the things that the disagreements that the RCC has with Scripture are. These are explicity primary truths.

As for Carson's book, what would be the point of reading that book?? Does it show how the RCC has never really taught these things, even though all the historical documents and papal bulls, as well as the adherents of teh faith believe that they do???

 

Could you offer an example where the Church violates Scripture in a way that is so patently clear that interpretation becomes a non-issue?

 

Could you offer an example where the Church violates Scripture in a way that is so patently clear that interpretation becomes a non-issue? </font>[/QUOTE]Earlier, Pastor Larry said that there were multiple examples where issues are "patently clear," but indeed, I would love to see just the one example you request, let alone a multitude of them!

I will be watching....

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

The authority of Scripture vs. the authority of the church and her bishops. (There are several issues tied in with this that could be listed separately.)
THe doctrine of soteriology. (This alone makes up a sizable list.)
The doctrine of salvation with respect to one's relation to the church.
The teaching concerning the Lord's Supper and the sacraments.

These are all issues where the RCC catechism clearly and expressly contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. We have been down this road before. These are not new issues. They have been around for centuries and they have been talked about many times on this board.

At the heart of the issue is authority. You have chosen to follow the authority of men and a system devised by the predecessors of those men. As Baptists, we have chosen to follow Scripture alone. That is our authority. This issue will never be decided until the issue of authority is resolved.

 

You know this how?

Remember that the Lord's commandment was to spread the Gospel everywhere. It could be that this Babylon had a strong church, or that Peter was passing through to somewhere else. Who knows?

The point I am trying to make is that there is no reason whatsoever for Peter to have used "Babylon" as a code name for Rome. Thus, some other reason must be offered, or a reasonable proof that Peter, in a straightforward letter that in no other place used code words or prophetic parable, suddenly decided to, for one sentence, use them.

NOW who has a chip on their shoulder? Thanks for getting inside my head and deciding what my reaction will be before the fact.

I am denying nothing, WPutnam. I am insisiting on proof for what you are saying. You seem to dislike challenges, though. Perhaps I'd do better to take everything you say as Gospel, hmmm? By the way, what's the dating on those inscriptions? Pre-Constantine or post-Constantine?

 

These are all issues that are subject to Scriptural interpretation.

That you reject an interpretation alternative to yours does not preclude such an interpretation.

Right, you follow your own authority. You reserve to yourself the right to interpret Scripture as you see fit.

 

How about Roman persecution?

 

Just like you follow your own authority in deciding to follow RCC teachings and believing they are true. See? He used the same authority that you do to subscribe to a system of interpretations. Please, stop acting like we are selfish rebels. We do exactly the same thing you do. We just choose something different.

God Bless,
Neal

 

Not legitimate interpretation. The mass of evidence on these doctrines and the clarity with which they are communicated in the text render the discussion of interpretation illegitimate. These are issues of extreme clarity.

An issue of interpretation would be something along the lines of church polity, the character of the Kingdom of God, appropriate means of worship, etc.

No, I follow the authority of Scripture. I have not only said that, I have demonstrated it both in word and deed. It is on the authority of Scripture that I reject the erroneous teachings of the RCC. It has nothing to do with my authority whatsoever.

 

Many reputable historians and scholars recognize the evidence that Peter was in Rome:

According Baptist Minister and scholar, Rev. Michael A. Smith from Rochdale, Lancashire, England as recorded in Eerdmans’ Handbook to the History of Christianity :

"Peter may have worked in Asia Minor, perhaps visited Corinth, but ultimately settled in Rome. Two New Testament letters bear his name, and he was probably the main source of information for Mark’s Gospel. Peter is believed to have been martyred at Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians, around AD 64. Although he did not found the church at Rome, Peter’s martyrdom in Rome gave it great prestige. Recent Excavations have revealed a shrine in honour of Peter dating from the late second century."

According to David F. Wright Senior lecturer of Ecclsiastical History at University of Edinburgh, Scotland as recorded in Eerdmans’ Handbook to the History of Christianity:

“When Irenaeus 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.’ Because Christians from all parts were found there, it was a microcosm of the whole Christian world.”

“His statement hints at some of the reasons why Rome acquired a leading position among the churches. All roads led to Rome, the capital of the Empire, not the least of the roads on which Christians traveled. A remarkable number of prominent Christians made their way to Rome: Ignatius, Polycarp, Marcion, Valentinus, Tatian, Justin, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Praxeas, and other Monarchians and Origen__as well as Peter and Paul in the sixties.”

“Rome was the only Western church which received a letter from an apostle (and what a letter!) Luke’s long, miraculous account of Paul’s journey to Rome reflects the importance attached to his reaching the capital. Nothing boosted the prestige of Christian Rome so much as the fact that the two chief apostles were martyred there under Nero. By the mid-second century memorial shrines to Paul and Peter had been erected in Rome on the Appian Way and the Vatican Hill respectively. Remains of the latter have been uncovered in modern excavations.”

God Bless

 

How about Roman persecution? </font>[/QUOTE]How about it?

Again, there's no indication that anyone used "Babylon" as a code name for Rome until after the Revelation was written. Every letter Paul wrote from Rome was, for example, from Rome. Not "Babylon."