Pope Francis gives church hundreds of new saints...

[Thomas Helwys]

Even if he tells you, there is no way to verify it anyway. Having been in academia for many years, I've learned to easily recognize this type of character. Unless you are in an academic setting where credentials are in public domain, anyone can claim to be anything they want. It is meaningless really.

Something smells...

WM

Yeah, your upper lip. Try washing it.

Your discernment is as good as your knowledge of scriptural and historical truth.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Those are harsh accusations, and unfounded.
My mother and father are both devout Catholics. Do I hate them? No, I love them very much, as I do the rest of my family. Your accusations are totally baseless and without any foundation. They are false accusations.

It is the doctrine of the RCC that I detest, not the people. I don't hate any person. But I do hate false doctrine, heretical teaching, damnable heresy that sends people on their way to hell. That I do hate. Not the people ensnared by it.

What some here can't seem to grasp is that it is possible to hate a belief without hating the person who holds that belief.

Some of my best friends here are those with whom I disagree the most. I even got off to a rough start with a couple of them, but we ironed things out.

Heck, even you and I have gone at each other like two roosters at a cockfight. But I respect when someone stands for and posts scriptural and historical facts, whoever does it and whenever he/she does it.

No two people will agree on everything, but I think we can all agree that "Jesus is Lord", which many scholars say was the first Christian "creed".

 

[WestminsterMan]

Yeah, your upper lip. Try washing it.

Your discernment is as good as your knowledge of scriptural and historical truth.

Anyone who employs the personal attack has nothing else to offer and as I said before, displays behavior indicative of intellectual cowardace.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

It is not hate, it is righteous anger. What do you expect a Christian to do? Let the poison of catholicism infect every area of the Lord's work? The church was founded on principles of evil, and has opposed the work of the Lord for almost 2000 years. The pillars of the church are torture, murder, false doctrine, and a false Gospel. The Crusades were not a Holy War for Christ, but a campaign of murder and extermination of innocent people. You see, to be fighting for the cause of Christ, one must know Christ. It was nothing but another political maneuver by the Roman Catholic Cult. Their side was no better or worse than the Muslim side. The RCC persecuted the very church they claim to have preserved, the true NT church Christ promised to preserve. The local autonomous churches were preserving the church.

Evil from day one.................Even if Peter were the first pope, which he was not as proven quite well by DHK, why is that important to you? Catholics are more worried about genealogy and links than they are to a spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. It is an exact duplicate of the Pharisees being related to Abraham. The RCC became a facilitator of power consolidation of evil, worldly regimes all over Europe. It was a total meld, a marriage in hell, of an evil church and state, almost a Satanic theocracy.

There was a brief period of even Protestants persecuting Anabaptists, but nothing like the Catholics. Baptists and their ancestors bothered no one, but were only interested in the preservation of the church.

There has got to be a special place in hell for al the former Popes. Aside from not being Christians, all these Popes, they have to be buring for crimes against humanity. What is worse, the fifty million the Catholic Church had put to death, or the six million Hitler did?

Brother, [personal attack edited] Just sayin...

WM

 

[Zenas]

Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans ca. 57 A.D. (Note: no mention of Peter)
In his epistle he expresses his desire to visit Rome. Four years later he ended up in Rome. His voyage to Rome is described in the last few chapters of Acts. He lived in his own hired house for two years. Then, (62-63 A.D.) he wrote a number of his epistles. He was then freed for a period of time, at which time it is reasonable to believe that he may have traveled to Spain. He is imprisoned again between 66-68 A.D.
His last letter is 2Timothy, in which he writes to Timothy:

2 Timothy 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
--My departure is my death. "To be offered" is to be sacrificed, to be martyred.

2 Timothy 4:16 in my first defence no one stood with me, but all forsook me, (may it not be reckoned to them!) [Young's]
--He was set free the first time he appeared before Nero's court.

Now it is ca. 68 A.D., and he stands once again before Nero. He is ready to die, and he will. He is found guilty and is beheaded. This we know about Paul.

What do we know about Peter?
First we know that James was the pastor of the church at Jerusalem, not Peter.
Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
--James was the pastor of the church at Jerusalem. It was him that was giving his sentence (judgment). It was his final decision that mattered.
This council was held ca. 52 A.D.
However, that being said, we do know that Peter was present there.

Most agree that Peter died about the same time that Paul did, 68 A.D.
Again, Paul makes no mention of Peter in his epistle, though Peter mentions Paul in his second epistle. It would be a serious omission on Paul's part not to mention Peter, such an important figure if he was in Rome. Paul even mentions Aquilla and Priscilla where the church met.

The two epistles of Peter were written close together in time (62-63 A.D.).
The first one says that it was written from Babylon.
1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
--Peter is writing from Babylon. Look in chapter one. He is writing to the Jewish Christians that have been dispersed abroad. His theme is suffering--those believers that are undergoing persecution, and they were. They were undergoing intense persecution at the hands of Nero.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
--It is natural to take Babylon as a literal place considering who he is writing to. He also was one of the ones scattered by this persecution. Eventually, in just a few short years he also would be taken to Rome and martyred for his faith, just as Paul was.
He spent no time there as a pastor or bishop of any church.

Good analysis, and you are right about everything EXCEPT that everyone knows, fundamentalists excepted, Peter was using the term "Babylon" as a code word for Rome. So we know that Peter wrote his epistles from Rome.

 

[DHK]

Good analysis, and you are right about everything EXCEPT that everyone knows, fundamentalists excepted, Peter was using the term "Babylon" as a code word for Rome. So we know that Peter wrote his epistles from Rome.

No, not "everyone" knows that. There is a controversy over it. That much I will admit. There is a typical split. The Catholics and liberal theologians naturally side with the "Rome" is the meaning of it, also taking their typical "allegorical" stance, as Augustine promoted.
More conservative scholars who tend to take the Bible literally, believe what it says is what it says approach, believe it to be Babylon. That is my belief. But I backed up my belief with Scripture. I gave reason for my belief. What reasons can you give for your stance other than the lame excuse "except that everyone knows."

 

[Zenas]

No, not "everyone" knows that. There is a controversy over it. That much I will admit. There is a typical split. The Catholics and liberal theologians naturally side with the "Rome" is the meaning of it, also taking their typical "allegorical" stance, as Augustine promoted.
More conservative scholars who tend to take the Bible literally, believe what it says is what it says approach, believe it to be Babylon. That is my belief. But I backed up my belief with Scripture. I gave reason for my belief. What reasons can you give for your stance other than the lame excuse "except that everyone knows."

1. The term “Babylon” is also used in Revelation and almost no one thinks it means that ancient city on the Euphrates River. Some scholars think it means Jerusalem. A few think it is referring to a modern city or nation not in existence in the 1st Century A.D. However, the majority of scholars believe it refers to Rome and if “Babylon” means Rome in Revelation it would mean Rome in 1 Peter.

2. In the 1st Century Babylon was a backwater village, where people would pass through, not where they would go to stay. The context of 1 Peter 5 suggests he was living in a place he called “Babylon” and not just passing through. There would have been no reason for him to be there for any period of time.

3. There is no extra-biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Babylon on the Euphrates. There is an abundance of extra-biblical that he spent his last years in Rome.

 

[saturneptune]

Brother, Just sayin...

WM

You are entitled to your opinion except on one point, I stand by every word in the post as true. [Personal attacks edited]

 

[DHK]

1. The term “Babylon” is also used in Revelation and almost no one thinks it means that ancient city on the Euphrates River. Some scholars think it means Jerusalem. A few think it is referring to a modern city or nation not in existence in the 1st Century A.D. However, the majority of scholars believe it refers to Rome and if “Babylon” means Rome in Revelation it would mean Rome in 1 Peter.

2. In the 1st Century Babylon was a backwater village, where people would pass through, not where they would go to stay. The context of 1 Peter 5 suggests he was living in a place he called “Babylon” and not just passing through. There would have been no reason for him to be there for any period of time.

3. There is no extra-biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Babylon on the Euphrates. There is an abundance of extra-biblical that he spent his last years in Rome.

Actually there is plenty of evidence as set forth by Jamieson, Faucett and Brown:

Babylon--The Chaldean Babylon on the Euphrates. See Introduction, ON THE PLACE OF WRITING this Epistle, in proof that Rome is not meant as Papists assert; compare LIGHTFOOT sermon. How unlikely that in a friendly salutation the enigmatical title of Rome given in prophecy (John, Re 17:5), should be used! Babylon was the center from which the Asiatic dispersion whom Peter addresses was derived. PHILO [The Embassy to Gaius, 36] and JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 15.2.2; 23.12] inform us that Babylon contained a great many Jews in the apostolic age (whereas those at Rome were comparatively few, about eight thousand [JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 17.11]); so it would naturally be visited by the apostle of the circumcision. It was the headquarters of those whom he had so successfully addressed on Pentecost, Ac 2:9, Jewish "Parthians . . . dwellers in Mesopotamia" (the Parthians were then masters of Mesopotamian Babylon); these he ministered to in person. His other hearers, the Jewish "dwellers in Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia," he now ministers to by letter. The earliest distinct authority for Peter's martyrdom at Rome is DIONYSIUS, bishop of Corinth, in the latter half of the second century. The desirableness of representing Peter and Paul, the two leading apostles, as together founding the Church of the metropolis, seems to have originated the tradition. CLEMENT OF ROME [First Epistle to the Corinthians, 4.5], often quoted for, is really against it. He mentions Paul and Peter together, but makes it as a distinguishing circumstance of Paul, that he preached both in the East and West, implying that Peter never was in the West. In 2Pe 1:14, he says, "I must shortly put off this tabernacle," implying his martyrdom was near, yet he makes no allusion to Rome, or any intention of his visiting it.

 

[WestminsterMan]

You can doubt my educational credentials just like you deny scripture. It still does not change the facts or existence of either.

I apologize for doubting your education. It's just that you always respond in such a sophomoric fashion... So what is one to think? "Think" being the operative word.

As I said, I use the word "Romanist" because "Catholicism" is not confined to them. I find the use of the word "Catholic" as confined to the Roman Church insulting, and so would the EOC, Old Catholics, and Anglo-Catholic Anglicans. snip...

Oh - I see; and only now you trying to walk it back. You use the term "Romanist" to deride Catholics here. You know very well that you are conversing with a limited audience including all of about four Catholics. This is total pap.

I am not concerned with what the KKK did. snip...

Selective history. It figures.

BTW, I haven't done any name calling yet. Would you like me to start?

No. But I do have something else that I would very much like you to start...

I have had a good relationship with Roman Catholics here, including TS and Walter, and I expect that to continue despite being sidetracked by the likes of you.

Probably because TS and Walter have a much higher tolerance for BS than I. I'm just too old to put up with idiocy.

WM

 

[saturneptune]

IProbably because TS and Walter have a much higher tolerance for BS than I. I'm just too old to put up with idiocy.

WM

[Please post to the OP]

 

[WestminsterMan]

edited

[personal insult edited] I say this because of the tone of your posts AND because of a barrage of harassing personal messages that you have sent me.

Just for the record, I am demanding that you cease and desist with the harassing personal messages. I will do what I can to block your comments from my account.

WM

 

[saturneptune]

[edited] I say this because of the tone of your posts AND because of a barrage of harassing personal messages that you have sent me.

Just for the record, I am demanding that you cease and desist with the harassing personal messages. I will do what I can to block your comments from my account.

WM

You sent the first lob. The two messages I sent, I mean every word of it. As I said, you started it, and I finished it.[edited]

 

[WestminsterMan]

You sent the first lob. The two messages I sent, I mean every word of it. As I said, you started it, and I finished it. .

I did not send you a personal message and as I told you before, I do NOT respond well to threats! Now I am asking the adminstrators to step in and put a stop
WM

Doing my best.

 

[saturneptune]

I did not send you a personal message and as I told you before, I do NOT respond well to threats! Now I am asking the adminstrators to step in and put a stop
WM

You sent two PMs to be truthful, which you never are. Yes, get them involved

Please post to the OP.
Attack the position; not the person.

 

[Zenas]

Actually there is plenty of evidence as set forth by Jamieson, Faucett and Brown:

That is not extra-bilical evidence. It is the opinion of a 20th Century commentator who gives no citation whatsoever to any ancient writing that says Peter was in Babylon on the Euphrates. It is also clear that the writer is anti-Catholic by his use of the pejorative term "papist."

Most commentators believe Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome. For example, the evangelical scholar Ray Stedman writes thusly:

Now it was during this time of the outbreak of the persecution of Christians in Rome that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. And he wrote it, most scholars believe, in Rome to "the exiles," he says, or "the strangers in dispersion:"

Babylon on the Euphrates River, but most scholars seem quite agreed that he was using the term that was common in the Christians of that century to refer to Rome, because all of the licentiousness and idolatry and evil of Babylon had now been transferred to the capital of the Roman Empire. So it is very likely that the Apostle Peter wrote this letter from the city of Rome in about 67 A.D. And he wrote it to Christians, mostly Gentile Christians, who were scattered about in cities in the northeast province of what we now call Asia Minor, or Turkey, and to them this letter came.

 

[WestminsterMan]

You sent two PMs to be truthful, which you never are. You sent two PMs to be truthful, which you never are.
Yes, get them involved and we will let the chips fall where they may.

I will pray for you,
It would proabably be wise for you to give it a break now.

WM

 

[saturneptune]

I will pray for you,
It would proabably be wise for you to give it a break now.

WM

Why would it be wise?

My mind is quite clear,

I will take a break when I so choose.

Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

 

[Walter]

Why would it be wise?

My mind is quite clear,
I will take a break when I so choose.

And I'm sick and tired of you saying we are not saved in violation of the Baptist Board rules. They should apply to you as anyone else.

That is true.

 

[saturneptune]

And I'm sick and tired of you saying we are not saved in violation of the Baptist Board rules. They should apply to you as anyone else.

I never said you were not saved. Produce a quote, which you cannot. I have only opposed the Catholic Church and doctrine. Never one word said about you personally.