Biblical evidence that Peter the Apostle has never been in Rome nor the first bishop of Rome

[Carry_Your_Name]

Peter the first pope is a misinterpretation of Jesus's words to him: "you are Peter, and on this rock I'll build my church, the gate of hell shall not prevail over it." Just because "Peter" means rock doesn't mean Jesus was referring to him, it was just a word play. In fact, when Jesus made this declaration, they were literally on a huge rock facing mount Hermon, that was believed to be Satan's dwelling place in Jewish culture, and the place they were at were literally called "gate of hell". The bible contains a lot of cultural references like this that are not self-explanatory, it's foolish to take the text on face value.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I know this is controversial and Catholicism teaches that Peter the Apostle was the first bishop of Rome and the founder of the Roman Church. The teaching of Catholic historians tells us that Simon Peter went to Rome at the same time as Simon Magus in order to thwart his evils. This was during the reign of Claudius and is about 41 AD to 54 AD. After successfully combating the Magus, they tell us, Peter assumed the Roman bishopric and ruled it until the Neronian persecutions of 68 A.D., during which Peter was supposed to have been crucified upside down on Vatican hill. Looking at the bible though this claim is nowhere to be found. That is:

1. Christ was commissioned by Peter to be apostle to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. If anything, Paul should have been the first bishop of Rome. From Galatians 2:7 "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised..."

2. We are told by Paul in Romans 1:11 "For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to strengthen you." Paul wrote this around 57AD to 59 AD yet we told by Catholic historians that Peter had done this imparting of spiritual gifts a while ago during the reign of Claudius Caesar.

3. Paul states in Romans 15:20 "and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else's foundation. Well, if Peter had already been in Rome then Paul had to have a confrontation with Peter about this which makes no sense.

4. At the end of Romans epistle, Paul greets a lot of individuals, yet the name of Peter is not mentioned even once. That is very odd!

5. When Paul was sent to Rome after 60 AD we have from Acts 28:15 "And the brothers there, when they heard about us, came as far as the forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage. Again, no mention of Peter. Very odd!

6. When Paul arrived in Rome he gathered the local leaders of the Jews from Acts 28:17. From Acts 28:22-23 it is obvious that the Jews had not heard of Christ until then which is odd since if Peter the Apostle to the Jews had been in Rome he would have done that.

7. After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. Again very odd!

8. With the expiration of Paul’s two year’s imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in 2 Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in 2 Timothy 4:16 "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Very odd!

9. In 2 Timothy 4:11 it is stated "Luke along is with me..." Where on earth is Peter?

Conclusion is obvious: Peter the Apostle to the circumcised has never been in Rome. Therefore, the foundation of Catholic Church is non-existent. Talk about building a house on sand.

Great post. Although a tangent, I question the apocryphal story of Peter being crucified upside down. The Romans wouldn't accommodate a "request" by the condemned and the story has all the elements of being a legend. Moreover, it glorifies Peter, not Christ.

It is alleged Peter delivered a lengthy discourse explaining the reasons for his crucifixion and offering theological reflections on the nature of Jesus' sacrifice, the meaning of the cross, and the importance of repentance and faith.

That's absurd.

I'm surprised how many uncritically accept it as true, or at least do so publicly.

But Peter's crucifixion is not material to the OP. Great collection of facts proving your conclusion. I doubt Peter was in Rome also.

Catholics lack any real evidence and that goes far to explain why they choose to believe obvious myth about Peter.

 

[Enlightenedtruth]

Therefore, the foundation of Catholic Church is non-existent. Talk about building a house on sand.

The Roman Church was not built on sand; it was built on blood. And the Roman Legions marched across the known world behind their Roman priest forcing everyone to accept their version of Christianity.

 

[Vinny37]

I know this is controversial and Catholicism teaches that Peter the Apostle was the first bishop of Rome and the founder of the Roman Church. The teaching of Catholic historians tells us that Simon Peter went to Rome at the same time as Simon Magus in order to thwart his evils. This was during the reign of Claudius and is about 41 AD to 54 AD. After successfully combating the Magus, they tell us, Peter assumed the Roman bishopric and ruled it until the Neronian persecutions of 68 A.D., during which Peter was supposed to have been crucified upside down on Vatican hill. Looking at the bible though this claim is nowhere to be found. That is:

1. Christ was commissioned by Peter to be apostle to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. If anything, Paul should have been the first bishop of Rome. From Galatians 2:7 "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised..."

2. We are told by Paul in Romans 1:11 "For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to strengthen you." Paul wrote this around 57AD to 59 AD yet we told by Catholic historians that Peter had done this imparting of spiritual gifts a while ago during the reign of Claudius Caesar.

3. Paul states in Romans 15:20 "and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else's foundation. Well, if Peter had already been in Rome then Paul had to have a confrontation with Peter about this which makes no sense.

4. At the end of Romans epistle, Paul greets a lot of individuals, yet the name of Peter is not mentioned even once. That is very odd!

5. When Paul was sent to Rome after 60 AD we have from Acts 28:15 "And the brothers there, when they heard about us, came as far as the forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage. Again, no mention of Peter. Very odd!

6. When Paul arrived in Rome he gathered the local leaders of the Jews from Acts 28:17. From Acts 28:22-23 it is obvious that the Jews had not heard of Christ until then which is odd since if Peter the Apostle to the Jews had been in Rome he would have done that.

7. After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. Again very odd!

8. With the expiration of Paul’s two year’s imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in 2 Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in 2 Timothy 4:16 "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Very odd!

9. In 2 Timothy 4:11 it is stated "Luke along is with me..." Where on earth is Peter?

Conclusion is obvious: Peter the Apostle to the circumcised has never been in Rome. Therefore, the foundation of Catholic Church is non-existent. Talk about building a house on sand.

While I accept Roman Catholicism’s ‘history’ of Peter as a flight of fantasy, and indeed would not go so far as to speak of it as either the or a church (Mt.16:18), I disagree that your argument disproves that Peter ever visited Rome, and I claim agnosticism. If he visited, since in his days probably every local church had multiple bishops, and he would have visited as a visiting bishop (1 Pt.5:1) but of apostolic status. To your numbers…

1# does not exclude Peter from ethno-Gentiles (Ac.10; 1 Pt.1:1; etc), nor Paul from ethno-Jews, but spoke of focus areas. Even so, Rome was probably started by ethno-Jews (Ac.2:10), and Paul often bee-lined to ethno-Jews.

2# this idea of gifting pans out as blessing, which comes in many shapes and sizes. Peter could have face to face blessed them before or after Paul’s visit.

3# Paul went to a pre-existing church (Rm.1:8-10) as a guest of Rome, not to begin a church.

4,5,7# Peter was not on Paul’s ministry team, nor vice versa. Not odd. Should we assume that Matthias never visited, simply because not mentioned by Paul?

6# Ac.28:15 speaks of pre-existing Roman Christians. Ethno-Jewish Christians had been expelled under Claudius, and Romans, written before Paul went, is about their reintegration into church life. Ethno-Jewish non-Christians also lived in Rome, and Paul bee-lined for them with mixed results (v25). That neither precludes Peter from having visited, nor later visiting. As a pharisee, ethno-Jewish leaders would have assembled to hear insider Paul, but not to hear Peter.

8,9# 2 Tm.4:16 could be odd if Peter were pope. But to deny that he was a pope is different from denying that he ever visited Rome. We lack evidence either way. However, assuming as I do, that the Pastorals were by Paul, his meaning might focus on his own team who could act as witnesses to his deeds. Calling on Roman Christians would have been pointless, since Christianity was not officially recognised as an official religion. That no fellow apostles visited Peter in prison, does not deny that any resided in Jerusalem at that time (Ac.12; 15:4).

The church at Roman was founded on the rock (Rm.9:33), but Catholicism’s claim to be founded on Peter is an argument of sand. I accept Roman Catholicism to be a Christian denomination, with many Churchians, some of whom are genuine Christians in good churches. Christianity is catholic.

 

[Follower Of Christ]

The church at Roman was founded on the rock (Rm.9:33), but Catholicism’s claim to be founded on Peter is an argument of sand. I accept Roman Catholicism to be a Christian denomination, with many Churchians, some of whom are genuine Christians in good churches. Christianity is catholic.

Can you please rephrase your sentences here? I am not quite getting the line of reasoning in this paragraph. Thank you!

 

[Vinny37]

Can you please rephrase your sentences here? I am not quite getting the line of reasoning in this paragraph. Thank you!

[The church at Roman was founded on the rock (Rm.9:33)]. Oops, editing residue. Please read [The church at Rome…]. The church at Rome, that is the C1 local Roman church, was based on Christ the rock.

[Catholicism’s claim to be founded on Peter is an argument of sand.] It was centuries later when the idea of bishops/overseers, had fundamentally changed, that the then bishop of the church at Rome raised the idea of being called the global, the catholic, bishop. His claim had been based on the flimsy ideas that the global church was founded on Peter, and that Peter had been the first bishop of Rome. It was an argument of sand—like some currents ideologies doing the politically correct rounds today.

[I accept Roman Catholicism to be a Christian denomination]. That acceptance I base on its C1 life, on its broad allegiance to the Early Church creeds, and its inner though mixed witness/fruit.

[with many Churchians, some of whom are genuine Christians in good churches.] With Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, 1994), I hold that some of RC’s local churches are Christian, and some (in spite of nominal creeds and deeds) are not: I’d say the same of failing Anglicanism. Both denominations have many mere church goers—Churchians who are not Christians. Both denominations have many who are not mere Churchians, but true Christians who are also church goers. Ideally we should not be either/or, but both/and.

I have heard and read a number of RCs who I happily affirm as spiritual family. Like Anglicanism, I’d say that the Roman Catholic denomination has become contaminated with antibiblicalism and ungodliness. But which Church denomination is flawless? At what point in the slide do we ditch the title, Christian?

[Christianity is catholic.] This is biblical and creedal: I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic, Church (Mt.16:18; Nicene). Catholic means global; Christianity is global.

 

[Follower Of Christ]

I have heard and read a number of RCs who I happily affirm as spiritual family. Like Anglicanism, I’d say that the Roman Catholic denomination has become contaminated with antibiblicalism and ungodliness. But which Church denomination is flawless? At what point in the slide do we ditch the title, Christian?

Christians are the group of people across time and space that have the following common characteristics:
1. Have repented.
2. Believed the gospel of Jesus Christ.
3. Have the Holy Spirit indwell in them.

According to Ephesians 1:22-23 "And he put all things under his feet and gave him (Jesus) as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all". Hence, if one satisfies 1-3 one also admits and understands that Christ is the head of the church by the influence of the Holy Spirit in them guiding them to truth.

Anyway, the true church is the collection of all Christians defined as above in 1-3 who by consequence accept Christ as the head. Personally, I suggest to people that consider themselves Christians to leave the actual denomination they are in and worship on their own. In time they shall find fellowship with other Christians and worship together in someone's home, nature or forum like this.

1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ." Hence, no pastor or priest who have worked zero days in their live can intercede in front of the Father for your salvation. Follow Christ as the head and you gain access to the holy of holies by the blood of Christ shed for all our sins.

 

[Vinny37]

Christians are the group of people across time and space that have the following common characteristics:
1. Have repented.
2. Believed the gospel of Jesus Christ.
3. Have the Holy Spirit indwell in them.

According to Ephesians 1:22-23 "And he put all things under his feet and gave him (Jesus) as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all". Hence, if one satisfies 1-3 one also admits and understands that Christ is the head of the church by the influence of the Holy Spirit in them guiding them to truth.

Anyway, the true church is the collection of all Christians defined as above in 1-3 who by consequence accept Christ as the head. Personally, I suggest to people that consider themselves Christians to leave the actual denomination they are in and worship on their own. In time they shall find fellowship with other Christians and worship together in someone's home, nature or forum like this.

1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ." Hence, no pastor or priest who have worked zero days in their live can intercede in front of the Father for your salvation. Follow Christ as the head and you gain access to the holy of holies by the blood of Christ shed for all our sins.

I’m not wishing to dive into the contentious term κεφαλη (as David Garland has said, it’s complicated (1 Cor. (BECNT), 2013)). But in simple I’d suggest that while in marriage a husband might as under the Roman Empire be more socially prominent (κεφαλη) than his wife (whose position she should respect)—even as a husband should respect Christ as Christ respects his father—nevertheless spiritually Christ is likewise directly the κεφαλη of the wife.

There is an authority structure for the church (eg Heb.13:17). This allows for local authority, eg elders, but also perhaps for network leaders (eg peripatetic apostles). If so, in my books if a network has evolved with a pope, a general superintendent, well that’s its internal business. As C S Lewis put it, the corridor is mere Christianity, but the rooms (denominations) are subsets.

You: [Personally, I suggest to people that consider themselves Christians to leave the actual denomination they are in and worship on their own.] Surely this needs qualification? I doubt that you meant that whatever denomination (Orthodox, RC, Baptist, Salvationist, etc) one becomes a Christian in, they should leave it and float a while. Wasn’t Hebrews written to dissuade some folk from such hiving off? Are all Christians automatically better for a while not being Churchians, having a Sabbatical, better living in the wilderness? That infirmity can rightly recommend such a float, I do not doubt, but as an exception to the rule.

To your three characteristics, I’d suggest that repent is effectively a decisive turn to God through Christ, effectively believing (Jhn.1:12), meaning welcoming, him, at which point God’s spirit indwells believers. In short, two-sides of a believe/receive coin.

I believe that RCs can rise from the ranks of mere Churchians into the rank of Christian (the Christian coin), the rank of those indwelt by the spirit, and enjoy Christian life within RCism, whether affirming all its beliefs or not. If mere Churchians, I’d suggest that they are analogous to non-Christian children/spouses holy by proximity via Catholicism (1 Cor.7:14). As to affirming all denominational beliefs, when I was in Anglicanism, I didn’t hold to infant ‘baptism’, and if I move to Catholicism I’m likely to take Nestorius with me and not sit well with ex cathedra.

 

[Follower Of Christ]

I’m not wishing to dive into the contentious term κεφαλη (as David Garland has said, it’s complicated (1 Cor. (BECNT), 2013)). But in simple I’d suggest that while in marriage a husband might as under the Roman Empire be more socially prominent (κεφαλη) than his wife (whose position she should respect)—even as a husband should respect Christ as Christ respects his father—nevertheless spiritually Christ is likewise directly the κεφαλη of the wife.

There is an authority structure for the church (eg Heb.13:17). This allows for local authority, eg elders, but also perhaps for network leaders (eg peripatetic apostles). If so, in my books if a network has evolved with a pope, a general superintendent, well that’s its internal business. As C S Lewis put it, the corridor is mere Christianity, but the rooms (denominations) are subsets.

You: [Personally, I suggest to people that consider themselves Christians to leave the actual denomination they are in and worship on their own.] Surely this needs qualification? I doubt that you meant that whatever denomination (Orthodox, RC, Baptist, Salvationist, etc) one becomes a Christian in, they should leave it and float a while. Wasn’t Hebrews written to dissuade some folk from such hiving off? Are all Christians automatically better for a while not being Churchians, having a Sabbatical, better living in the wilderness? That infirmity can rightly recommend such a float, I do not doubt, but as an exception to the rule.

To your three characteristics, I’d suggest that repent is effectively a decisive turn to God through Christ, effectively believing (Jhn.1:12), meaning welcoming, him, at which point God’s spirit indwells believers. In short, two-sides of a believe/receive coin.

I believe that RCs can rise from the ranks of mere Churchians into the rank of Christian (the Christian coin), the rank of those indwelt by the spirit, and enjoy Christian life within RCism, whether affirming all its beliefs or not. If mere Churchians, I’d suggest that they are analogous to non-Christian children/spouses holy by proximity via Catholicism (1 Cor.7:14). As to affirming all denominational beliefs, when I was in Anglicanism, I didn’t hold to infant ‘baptism’, and if I move to Catholicism I’m likely to take Nestorius with me and not sit well with ex cathedra.

Thank you for your reasoned answer. We all have our own paths to follow. Personally, for a while I follow only scripture and not man's interpretation of it but if others do differently, I am at no point to judge.

Blessings!
Follower Of Christ

 

[Follower Of Christ]

I’m not wishing to dive into the contentious term κεφαλη (as David Garland has said, it’s complicated (1 Cor. (BECNT), 2013)). But in simple I’d suggest that while in marriage a husband might as under the Roman Empire be more socially prominent (κεφαλη) than his wife (whose position she should respect)—even as a husband should respect Christ as Christ respects his father—nevertheless spiritually Christ is likewise directly the κεφαλη of the wife.

There is an authority structure for the church (eg Heb.13:17). This allows for local authority, eg elders, but also perhaps for network leaders (eg peripatetic apostles). If so, in my books if a network has evolved with a pope, a general superintendent, well that’s its internal business. As C S Lewis put it, the corridor is mere Christianity, but the rooms (denominations) are subsets.

You: [Personally, I suggest to people that consider themselves Christians to leave the actual denomination they are in and worship on their own.] Surely this needs qualification? I doubt that you meant that whatever denomination (Orthodox, RC, Baptist, Salvationist, etc) one becomes a Christian in, they should leave it and float a while. Wasn’t Hebrews written to dissuade some folk from such hiving off? Are all Christians automatically better for a while not being Churchians, having a Sabbatical, better living in the wilderness? That infirmity can rightly recommend such a float, I do not doubt, but as an exception to the rule.

To your three characteristics, I’d suggest that repent is effectively a decisive turn to God through Christ, effectively believing (Jhn.1:12), meaning welcoming, him, at which point God’s spirit indwells believers. In short, two-sides of a believe/receive coin.

I believe that RCs can rise from the ranks of mere Churchians into the rank of Christian (the Christian coin), the rank of those indwelt by the spirit, and enjoy Christian life within RCism, whether affirming all its beliefs or not. If mere Churchians, I’d suggest that they are analogous to non-Christian children/spouses holy by proximity via Catholicism (1 Cor.7:14). As to affirming all denominational beliefs, when I was in Anglicanism, I didn’t hold to infant ‘baptism’, and if I move to Catholicism I’m likely to take Nestorius with me and not sit well with ex cathedra.

Let me rephrase my position like this: Suppose you are on a path following C (Christ) and P appears (Priest/Pastor/etc) telling you that you should follow him for he follows C. I have no guarantees following P shall lead me to following C, for then I am not focused on C anymore. While on the other hand following C is a sure thing to salvation. From 1 Corinthians 11:3 "...the head of every man is Christ...". I let no priest or pastor get between me and Christ, but I am in no position to judge others who do otherwise.

I do respect your reasoned answers though. Thank you again and God bless!
Follower Of Christ

 

[Vinny37]

Thank you for your reasoned answer. We all have our own paths to follow. Personally, for a while I follow only scripture and not man's interpretation of it but if others do differently, I am at no point to judge.

Blessings!
Follower Of Christ

Does [I follow only Scripture and not man’s interpretation of it], mean that you follow your interpretation of it on the presumption that you obviously must interpret better than others? If you are on the money then I do wish that my interpretation was always correct.

 

[Follower Of Christ]

Does [I follow only Scripture and not man’s interpretation of it], mean that you follow your interpretation of it on the presumption that you obviously must interpret better than others? If you are on the money then I do wish that my interpretation was always correct.

All I said is that I take amongst other verses John 14:26 very seriously "But the Helper, The Holy Spirit, whom the Father shall send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." I read what other men have to say and I check it out against scripture. On my own, without the Holy Spirit I am nothing.

 

[Vinny37]

All I said is that I take amongst other verses John 14:26 very seriously "But the Helper, The Holy Spirit, whom the Father shall send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." I read what other men have to say and I check it out against scripture. On my own, without the Holy Spirit I am nothing.

This wording is a little more hopeful, IMO. I presume you see that other men—and perhaps you allow women & children—have the same helper sent by the same father, when it comes to seeking to interpreting Scripture. At least you indicate that you will listen to them. And I for one would not proscribe checking back to Scripture, important advice from the humanists (eg Erasmus) which Catholicism as a benign dictator has shied away from, fearing a scattering of sheep: nowadays it is more active in getting Bibles to believers. Even Scripture relies, for most of us, on human translators, who in turn are taught by skills for digging back to their source. So self, scripture, and spirit, are not enough for full understanding, one reason why Christ created a community.

Simply do not rely on you & the spirit too much, since the spirit works [also] through church appointed teachers. 1 Jhn.2:27 was written by a teacher to teach, and teaching is part of shepherding lest we be wandering sheep. And getting back to the C1 texts can require background knowledge which the average lay person with the spirit, lacks. Translators are teachers. And curiously the spirit seems to say opposing things to different folk, which is to say that sometimes we are taught by our own spirit, mistaking it to be the Holy Spirit. Others thus potentially act as correctors.

Catholicism has to some extent been justified in its fears, as the scattered sheep of denominations testifies to. But it has never been the perfect shepherd. The good news is that denominations can all be right in core beliefs, even if not in all particulars. It is beholden on all believers to weigh up what they hear and, judging wheat from weeds, establish their own framework, which as John Wesley (and Paul) noted, should be open to correction, since they might get things wrong.

 

[Vinny37]

The Roman Church was not built on sand; it was built on blood. And the Roman Legions marched across the known world behind their Roman priest forcing everyone to accept their version of Christianity.

Wow, only a little history seems to me to be missing. I assume by [Roman Church] you mean Roman Catholicism, not simply the church at Rome.

 

[Vinny37]

Great post. Although a tangent, I question the apocryphal story of Peter being crucified upside down. The Romans wouldn't accommodate a "request" by the condemned and the story has all the elements of being a legend. Moreover, it glorifies Peter, not Christ.

It is alleged Peter delivered a lengthy discourse explaining the reasons for his crucifixion and offering theological reflections on the nature of Jesus' sacrifice, the meaning of the cross, and the importance of repentance and faith.

That's absurd.

I'm surprised how many uncritically accept it as true, or at least do so publicly.

But Peter's crucifixion is not material to the OP. Great collection of facts proving your conclusion. I doubt Peter was in Rome also.

Catholics lack any real evidence and that goes far to explain why they choose to believe obvious myth about Peter.

Apropos Peter’s death, Rome varied its techniques, sometimes crucifying upside down. Sure, Rome would not have heeded Peter’s request, which I deem apocryphal. But what if it elected to crucify him upside down, and the apocrypha followed the act? Perhaps he did visit Rome? A balanced agnosticism is perhaps justified.

 

[Follower Of Christ]

This wording is a little more hopeful, IMO. I presume you see that other men—and perhaps you allow women & children—have the same helper sent by the same father, when it comes to seeking to interpreting Scripture. At least you indicate that you will listen to them. And I for one would not proscribe checking back to Scripture, important advice from the humanists (eg Erasmus) which Catholicism as a benign dictator has shied away from, fearing a scattering of sheep: nowadays it is more active in getting Bibles to believers. Even Scripture relies, for most of us, on human translators, who in turn are taught by skills for digging back to their source. So self, scripture, and spirit, are not enough for full understanding, one reason why Christ created a community.

Simply do not rely on you & the spirit too much, since the spirit works [also] through church appointed teachers. 1 Jhn.2:27 was written by a teacher to teach, and teaching is part of shepherding lest we be wandering sheep. And getting back to the C1 texts can require background knowledge which the average lay person with the spirit, lacks. Translators are teachers. And curiously the spirit seems to say opposing things to different folk, which is to say that sometimes we are taught by our own spirit, mistaking it to be the Holy Spirit. Others thus potentially act as correctors.

Catholicism has to some extent been justified in its fears, as the scattered sheep of denominations testifies to. But it has never been the perfect shepherd. The good news is that denominations can all be right in core beliefs, even if not in all particulars. It is beholden on all believers to weigh up what they hear and, judging wheat from weeds, establish their own framework, which as John Wesley (and Paul) noted, should be open to correction, since they might get things wrong.

Romans 8:18-19 "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God."

1 Corinthians 3:13-15 "each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

My point with these verses above is to say that long treatises by so called wise men in Christ, shall be judged on that Day also and we shall see whether they survive fire. Personally, I am very skeptical of long treatises about Christianity or implying defense of Christianity for in many words there is vanity and I trust the simplicity that is in Christ. And anyway, all that has been produced so far of worth up to our lifetimes, pales in comparison to what shall be done in the Millennium and thereafter for eternity. And those who shall rule with Christ in Millennium and thereafter have followed Christ in his simplicity.

 

[Follower Of Christ]

This wording is a little more hopeful, IMO. I presume you see that other men—and perhaps you allow women & children—have the same helper sent by the same father, when it comes to seeking to interpreting Scripture. At least you indicate that you will listen to them. And I for one would not proscribe checking back to Scripture, important advice from the humanists (eg Erasmus) which Catholicism as a benign dictator has shied away from, fearing a scattering of sheep: nowadays it is more active in getting Bibles to believers. Even Scripture relies, for most of us, on human translators, who in turn are taught by skills for digging back to their source. So self, scripture, and spirit, are not enough for full understanding, one reason why Christ created a community.

Simply do not rely on you & the spirit too much, since the spirit works [also] through church appointed teachers. 1 Jhn.2:27 was written by a teacher to teach, and teaching is part of shepherding lest we be wandering sheep. And getting back to the C1 texts can require background knowledge which the average lay person with the spirit, lacks. Translators are teachers. And curiously the spirit seems to say opposing things to different folk, which is to say that sometimes we are taught by our own spirit, mistaking it to be the Holy Spirit. Others thus potentially act as correctors.

Catholicism has to some extent been justified in its fears, as the scattered sheep of denominations testifies to. But it has never been the perfect shepherd. The good news is that denominations can all be right in core beliefs, even if not in all particulars. It is beholden on all believers to weigh up what they hear and, judging wheat from weeds, establish their own framework, which as John Wesley (and Paul) noted, should be open to correction, since they might get things wrong.

We shall see also on that Day whether Tolkien's work and all the influence it has had on countless people shall survive fire. FYI, in my past life I was an avid Tolkien fan, but it has been many years since I picked up any of his books for once I truly converted, I let go all of my past life except my wife and children. Personally, I do not regret it. Recall Luke 9:62 "Jesus said to him, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.""

My dear friend, I have said what needs to be said. Feel free to interact with others in this thread if you wish.

 

[Enlightenedtruth]

Wow, only a little history seems to me to be missing. I assume by [Roman Church] you mean Roman Catholicism, not simply the church at Rome.

What eventually became Roman Catholicism; the "root" of that belief in being the only "true faith". It was a Roman Church, supported by the Roman Legionnaire's; spreading "their version" of the "one true God".

 

[Vinny37]

What eventually became Roman Catholicism; the "root" of that belief in being the only "true faith". It was a Roman Church, supported by the Roman Legionnaire's; spreading "their version" of the "one true God".

Of course philosophically interpreted, there is no true god or any other kind (contra Hinduism), though we can have different 'versions' concepts, of God. But while I am familiar with the caricature you have asserted, I am unfamiliar with the historians you possibly have drawn your picture from. Its initial spread was as a nonlegit religion within the Empire. Nor has Catholicism ever been a Church, merely a denomination mislabeling itself.

 

[Enlightenedtruth]

Of course philosophically interpreted, there is no true god or any other kind (contra Hinduism), though we can have different 'versions' concepts, of God. But while I am familiar with the caricature you have asserted, I am unfamiliar with the historians you possibly have drawn your picture from. Its initial spread was as a nonlegit religion within the Empire. Nor has Catholicism ever been a Church, merely a denomination mislabeling itself.

Catholicism evolved from the Roman Church. A group of Roman Senator's who wanted to conquer the known world, and control the "common people" as the pharisees did control the Tribes of Israel; with the one true God.

For the "historian"; God does record everything. And those who serve God in commanding the Heavenly Host; are given whatever information God deems appropriate for their task.