Which Came First...Bible or the Church
- Thread starter Voxxkowalski
- 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.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2Pe 1:20
The apostles are not in the place of the Holy Ghost.
The word apostle simply means "sent one" with no other meaning attached. It has no religious connection. It can be used of sending a child to buy groceries.
Although every Christian without discrimination do have the treasure of His authority in these bodies of death, it is not of us. How could be of God and of sinners also?
2Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
All prophets are sent by God to declare the will of God. The Catholic that serve necromancy simply add their own meaning to the word apostle. Moses was considered an apostle..In that way all Christians are apostles sent with the existing word of God called prophecy. God is no longer adding to prophecy.
We therefore venerate God not sinful men.
Christ the anointing Holy Spirit of God certainly did not command those sent (apostle) to offer their own private interpretation as personal commentary of what they thought he might say. There is no guess work .Its the law of faith not a theory of faith.
The apostles are not in the place of the Holy Ghost.
The word apostle simply means "sent one" with no other meaning attached. It has no religious connection. It can be used of sending a child to buy groceries.
Although every Christian without discrimination do have the treasure of His authority in these bodies of death, it is not of us. How could be of God and of sinners also?
2Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
All prophets are sent by God to declare the will of God. The Catholic that serve necromancy simply add their own meaning to the word apostle. Moses was considered an apostle..In that way all Christians are apostles sent with the existing word of God called prophecy. God is no longer adding to prophecy.
We therefore venerate God not sinful men.
Christ the anointing Holy Spirit of God certainly did not command those sent (apostle) to offer their own private interpretation as personal commentary of what they thought he might say. There is no guess work .Its the law of faith not a theory of faith.
People are misunderstanding John 1:1 in this thread.
In today's world, we hold up our Bible and call it "the Word" or "the Word of God" or "God's Word".
People read John 1:1 and seem to think "the Word" is referring to Scripture.
When we see "the Word" in John 1:1 it is referring to Jesus Christ.
In the beginning was Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was with God, and Jesus Christ was God.
The 66 books of the Bible are not God. They are our source of authority in understanding God. From 66 books of Scripture, we learn about the divinity, character, nature, will, etc of God.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it. -John 1:1-5
I'm in the habit of not using "the Word" or "God's Word" when I refer to the Christian Bible because I'm alarmed and concerned with how many people think verses like John 1:1 are referring to the printed text rather than Jesus Christ. Instead, I used "Christian Bible" or "Scripture" or "O.T./N.T" to refer to the printed text.
In today's world, we hold up our Bible and call it "the Word" or "the Word of God" or "God's Word".
People read John 1:1 and seem to think "the Word" is referring to Scripture.
When we see "the Word" in John 1:1 it is referring to Jesus Christ.
In the beginning was Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was with God, and Jesus Christ was God.
The 66 books of the Bible are not God. They are our source of authority in understanding God. From 66 books of Scripture, we learn about the divinity, character, nature, will, etc of God.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it. -John 1:1-5
I'm in the habit of not using "the Word" or "God's Word" when I refer to the Christian Bible because I'm alarmed and concerned with how many people think verses like John 1:1 are referring to the printed text rather than Jesus Christ. Instead, I used "Christian Bible" or "Scripture" or "O.T./N.T" to refer to the printed text.
as i understand it, Earnest's post is not entirely correct. as he is open to clarification, i assume you are too, Fran. maybe you just didn't catch it, but since this thread happens to be very much about catholicism, it stood out brightly to me; it's the bit that i quoted.
there is no evidence that Peter ever traveled to Rome at all, and strong circumstantial evidence that Paul was the founder of the church in Rome, not Peter. i'll try to be brief & just mention the key points -
- Peter was the apostle to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. the Roman church was largely gentile. (Galatians 2:8) Peter probably preached in Israel and may have traveled to the diaspora in Babylon, but Paul went the other direction, to Greece & toward Rome, with Barnabas.
- Paul stated that he did not want to build on another man's foundation - meaning that he did not 'establish' or otherwise build up a church founded by someone else, but instead preached where the gospel had not been previously made known. (Romans 15:20)
- . . but Paul wrote that epistle to the Romans laying out in full detail the gospel itself. in this he expressed a desire to go to them and further teach and build them up, and to "establish" them (Romans 1:8-15).
- if Peter had founded and 'established' the church in Rome, there is difficulty in reconciling what he wrote here in chapter 1 with what he said in chapter 15 - that his desire was only to preach where the gospel had not been made known, and not where another apostle had begun the work.
the common (protestant) explanation that i've heard, and that i believe is most likely true, of how the church in Rome was probably founded is that people whose home was in Rome - merchants perhaps travelling on business - were converted by Paul in another city where he was teaching and spreading the good news. once back home in Rome, they spread the word they had received and a small core church formed. this explains why Paul would have been writing to them, not Peter, and why Paul would have been explaining as fully as he could the gospel in his letter, and longing to come see them personally, to "establish" them and impart some spiritual gifts. so you could say that Paul founded the Roman church by proxy, or that an unknown believer, the recipient of the epistle to the Romans perhaps, founded the church in Rome, but it is unlikely that it was Peter, as these were not Jews, but Gentiles ((Romans 9-10 give the unmistakable sense that he is not writing to people who are Jews by birth)), and Paul would have been contradicting himself to desire to go there & establish them.
i hope that makes some sense. i don't believe Peter founded the Roman church.
the RCC often makes the claim that it was founded by Peter, and that he is the first pope, and that this is the source of their legitimacy, based on Matthew 16:13-20 -- mostly on verse 18, "on this rock..." to the exclusion of the surrounding context.
but i am sure that this is a wrong interpretation of the verse -- in the Greek these are two different words, one meaning a large rock suitable for a foundation ((on this "rock")) and one meaning a small rock that would fit in the palm of your hand or at least that you could pick up and carry with the hands ((thou art "Peter")). the "foundation-sized rock" that Jesus builds His church on is the supernaturally-given understanding that He is the Christ Son of God, not on the "small stone" of a man He named "Peter."
the church has only one foundation -- no one can lay another, and that is Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God (re: 1 Corinthians 3:11).
beside this, when the first council of the church was held, at Jerusalem, did Peter preside? nope - James did. and Paul withstood Peter to his face to rebuke him in another place. so Peter -- though certainly a "pillar" -- was not the unquestioned "leader" and "foundation" of the church -- he was by no means a "pope."
God love the man, we are blessed to call him brother in the Lord, but he's not our mediator. only Jesus.
okay -- that's how i understand this, and i hope both that most or many of you already know this, and that any of you who didn't know, have received understanding & knowledge, and are now better prepared in some way to answer & enlighten a catholic when you talk with them.
just like Earnest said -- this is how i understand it, and if i am wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me and explain to me what i am wrong about; i really want to know. but i believe this is the truth.
Last edited:
Catholic faith, compared to the faith of Christ which alone comes from the scriptures? The Bible cannot command a Catholic do anything. They must at all costs measure their faith by the fathers, making the scriptures to no effect .They need their approval , Christ’s nemesis .
Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets
Prophets are those who declare the existing word of God, His tradition and not the oral tradition of the fathers. The same paradigm was used in the first century reformation as that of the fifteenth reformation, killing prophets, as in out of sight out of mind.Get rid of the outward perceived competition
Its the pattern of those who walk by sight. and not by the exclusive faith that comes from hearing God through the scriptures ,alone.
Fill ye up then the "measure of your fathers".Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Mat 23:32
It is why we are commanded to call no man father on earth. One is our Father in heaven
We should say the bible contains the Word of God, I would say
The word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the Lord was there upon him.Ezekiel 1:3 ...a bible didn't land in Ezekiel's lap lol
The word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the Lord was there upon him.Ezekiel 1:3 ...a bible didn't land in Ezekiel's lap lol
Last edited:
Hi Posthuman,
I respect you and will post a link down below.
I was never aware that Peter's being in Rome could be a Catholic or a Protestant idea. To me it seems to be history.
I have visited the prison in Rome where Peter was jailed and where He died (I mean in Rome). There is a church nearby the prison called Le Catene which means chains - the chains that held Peter. It was very emotional, BTW, and his story beautifully presented.
There are other places where he has been - one near Naples - the name escapes me at the moment. It's Pozzuoli. (the brain is like a computer!)
It seems to me that Peter's being in Rome is a historical fact. I've visited his tomb under the Basilica of Rome which is called St. Peter's Church, in St. Peter's Square.
Could this conspiracy be so extensive??
Everything else you've stated I agree with.
The following is from: biblicalstudies.com
The third and most probable choice is Rome. Three reasons support this choice. The first is found in 1 Peter 5:13 itself; Peter speaks of his associate, Marcus — no one could ask for a more Roman name. Although this in itself in not necessarily determinative, it does give the impression that Peter is in a Roman area. Next, it is common in ancient Jewish writings to find Rome designated Babylon. This is what John does in Revelation chapter seventeen, and possiblye chapter eighteen. Rome had been the source of great grief to the Jewish people, and the term Babylon was most fitting. The figure was so common to them that it would have been easily understood to be Rome. The last reason for identifying Peter's Babylon with Rome is the overwhelming amount of ancient tradition which states that he died in Rome. Clement of Rome (d A.D. 97) wrote that Peter and Paul were martyred together at Rome. (Lest the critics object that this tradition was begun by the Roman church to bolster their position, notice that this statement came from a man who died probably before the apostle John – long before "Roman Catholicism.") Tertullian, writing about A.D. 200 said the same. Eusebius, the fourth century church historian, said the same as well, adding that Peter's grave was in the Vatican "whether or not this is true may be debated, but he could not have been motivated by any "catholic" sentiment, for the Vatican was nothing then). Eusebius cites as his authority Caius, a Roman writer of the early third century, who said that Peter was buried in a shaft grave in Rome.
The question which rises at this point is whether or not this is an invention of the Roman Catholic Church to justify their own claims. Probably not, for two reasons: 1) The statement of Clement is much too early, and 2) by at least A.D. 170 all Christian burials were in the catacombs, not individual graves. If Caius, or anyone else of his time, had invented the story, he would have said that Peter was buried in the catacombs, for people of his era knew virtually nothing of earlier burial customs. To make the story believable, he (if he had invented it) would undoubtedly have said Peter was in the catacombs. To say that he was in an individual grave, he must have had ample reason.
Fran
I respect you and will post a link down below.
I was never aware that Peter's being in Rome could be a Catholic or a Protestant idea. To me it seems to be history.
I have visited the prison in Rome where Peter was jailed and where He died (I mean in Rome). There is a church nearby the prison called Le Catene which means chains - the chains that held Peter. It was very emotional, BTW, and his story beautifully presented.
There are other places where he has been - one near Naples - the name escapes me at the moment. It's Pozzuoli. (the brain is like a computer!)
It seems to me that Peter's being in Rome is a historical fact. I've visited his tomb under the Basilica of Rome which is called St. Peter's Church, in St. Peter's Square.
Could this conspiracy be so extensive??
Everything else you've stated I agree with.
The following is from: biblicalstudies.com
The third and most probable choice is Rome. Three reasons support this choice. The first is found in 1 Peter 5:13 itself; Peter speaks of his associate, Marcus — no one could ask for a more Roman name. Although this in itself in not necessarily determinative, it does give the impression that Peter is in a Roman area. Next, it is common in ancient Jewish writings to find Rome designated Babylon. This is what John does in Revelation chapter seventeen, and possiblye chapter eighteen. Rome had been the source of great grief to the Jewish people, and the term Babylon was most fitting. The figure was so common to them that it would have been easily understood to be Rome. The last reason for identifying Peter's Babylon with Rome is the overwhelming amount of ancient tradition which states that he died in Rome. Clement of Rome (d A.D. 97) wrote that Peter and Paul were martyred together at Rome. (Lest the critics object that this tradition was begun by the Roman church to bolster their position, notice that this statement came from a man who died probably before the apostle John – long before "Roman Catholicism.") Tertullian, writing about A.D. 200 said the same. Eusebius, the fourth century church historian, said the same as well, adding that Peter's grave was in the Vatican "whether or not this is true may be debated, but he could not have been motivated by any "catholic" sentiment, for the Vatican was nothing then). Eusebius cites as his authority Caius, a Roman writer of the early third century, who said that Peter was buried in a shaft grave in Rome.
The question which rises at this point is whether or not this is an invention of the Roman Catholic Church to justify their own claims. Probably not, for two reasons: 1) The statement of Clement is much too early, and 2) by at least A.D. 170 all Christian burials were in the catacombs, not individual graves. If Caius, or anyone else of his time, had invented the story, he would have said that Peter was buried in the catacombs, for people of his era knew virtually nothing of earlier burial customs. To make the story believable, he (if he had invented it) would undoubtedly have said Peter was in the catacombs. To say that he was in an individual grave, he must have had ample reason.
Fran
Jesus is the Word of God.
What do you mean, 'the bible contains the Word of God'?
Being born again...by the Word of God,
which lives and abides forever.
I read that in the Word of God the bible.
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called the Word of God.
I read that in the Word of God the bible.
The bible is the written Word of God.
Jesus is the Living Word of God.
What do you mean, 'the bible contains the Word of God'?
Being born again...by the Word of God,
which lives and abides forever.
I read that in the Word of God the bible.
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called the Word of God.
I read that in the Word of God the bible.
The bible is the written Word of God.
Jesus is the Living Word of God.
Hi Test,
It's pretty shocking to find out some believe The Word of John 1:1 to be the book. The Bible!
But, yes, we keep referring to it as The Word, so I could understand this but only for a new Christian - I hope.
We call it The Word because it CONTAINS the word of God, which would be what God spoke through the prophets.
John the Baptist was the last O.T. prophet, and, as you must know, Jesus was also a prophet (and a King and a priest).
I'm learning new things here at CC - many are surprising!
Fran
It's pretty shocking to find out some believe The Word of John 1:1 to be the book. The Bible!
But, yes, we keep referring to it as The Word, so I could understand this but only for a new Christian - I hope.
We call it The Word because it CONTAINS the word of God, which would be what God spoke through the prophets.
John the Baptist was the last O.T. prophet, and, as you must know, Jesus was also a prophet (and a King and a priest).
I'm learning new things here at CC - many are surprising!
Fran
Test,
What's right is right.
The Catholic church IS the reason we have the N.T. !
That's the church that was around when the N.T. was put together.
It also kept many heresies from infecting the original church by making declarations at councils.
Let's give credit where credit is due.
Fran
P.S. Some catholics will tell you that the bible was written BY, FOR and ABOUT Catholics. This is nonsense and if this is what you're speaking to in this post, then I'd have to say that THIS belief is wrong, but it does not change the fact the the CC assembled the N.T. into a book.
What's right is right.
The Catholic church IS the reason we have the N.T. !
That's the church that was around when the N.T. was put together.
It also kept many heresies from infecting the original church by making declarations at councils.
Let's give credit where credit is due.
Fran
P.S. Some catholics will tell you that the bible was written BY, FOR and ABOUT Catholics. This is nonsense and if this is what you're speaking to in this post, then I'd have to say that THIS belief is wrong, but it does not change the fact the the CC assembled the N.T. into a book.
So you are saying that the Church came before Moses and the OT Prophets, Jesus, John and the other gospel writers.
The Bible tell us that the OT Scrolls and The gospels came before the Church was formed on the day of Pentecost. Then Paul and the other writers on the epistles wrote to the Churches.
Heb 8: 10-- happened when Church was formed, As the people were born again and God living inside them, and God will continue to be inside the Christians.
The Bible tell us that the OT Scrolls and The gospels came before the Church was formed on the day of Pentecost. Then Paul and the other writers on the epistles wrote to the Churches.
Heb 8: 10-- happened when Church was formed, As the people were born again and God living inside them, and God will continue to be inside the Christians.
aw, thanks!
i don't have any reason not to believe that Peter was martyred in Rome; what i meant was that he didn't go there to evangelize and to found the 'church of Rome' - so it was wrong of me to say that there's no evidence that he traveled there at all.
i'm sorry, and thank you.
the source you quoted works from the assumption that the idea he was the 'first pope' or had established the church in Rome to be an error -- but while the name 'Marcus' really doesn't have much to do with figuring out where 1 Peter was written from ((he had some well-known dealings with a man named Cornelius - also very Roman a name - in Caesaria, in Israel)), the name Babylon does. the article & the argument is compelling, but however i'm not completely sold on the idea that he is writing from Rome.
early Christian & Jewish writing does refer to Rome as Babylon, but if Peter is doing the same thing, wouldn't it be the only place other than Revelation - where John is prophesying in spirit and symbol throughout the whole text - that any location is given a 'code name' instead of called by its proper name? that's odd, especially for one whose character was so bold as his.
he might have gone to Babylon in Mesopotamia, or rather to Selucia, where the population had mostly removed to, and referred to it as Babylon. maybe not likely but not completely out of the question. there was a Jewish population there.
but from Acts, it seems that he was a central figure specifically at the church in Jerusalem, and didn't travel outside of Israel much. it also seems clear that he primarily brought the gospel to Jews. that makes the mention of "Marcus" important - but it's possible and maybe very likely that he meant Mark, the author of the gospel of Mark -- who traditionally received the information he used to write this gospel from Peter. Mark was the 'patriarch' of Egypt, traditionally the evangelist that brought the gospel to that area, and was martyred there ~ AD 68 in Alexandria, not far from the Egyptian city of Babylon.
Coptic Christians believe that this Egyptian city called Babylon is the place where Joseph & Mary took the baby Jesus when they fled Herod, at least for a time.
the article you linked me to dismisses the Egyptian city out of hand saying that there is no reason to believe Peter went there -- but there is; Mark was at least near there, and Peter and Mark were close. tradition among the oldest group of Christians in Egypt says that this is a place associated with Christ. i'm not sure it's so easy to dismiss.
Egypt was under Roman rule, and the church there was oppressed and underground. the traditional date for Peter's martyrdom is around the same time as Mark's - it's possible that Peter had visited Mark when he wrote his epistle, and not too long after was imprisoned and sent to Rome to be tried alongside Paul. some dates given for his epistles are around AD 60's but it doesn't seem to be especially clear when they were written.
another thing that raises questions about Peter being in Rome, is Paul writing in 2 Timothy 4:9-11 that he is mostly deserted there in prison. this epistle is believed to be the last one we have that he wrote before he was killed. here in this letter, he asks Timothy to get Mark and send him to him. could Mark have been killed at this time, and Peter, being close to Mark, come instead? and then in turn been imprisoned alongside Paul?
we're just making speculation about all this.
but thanks again for correcting me -- whether Peter founded the Roman church or not, i don't think is really a question, but a false claim made to legitimize the papal authority. but whether he was ever in Rome at all is another question, and i misspoke. so i'm sorry again, and indebted to you for speaking up about it to me
Last edited:
The hand of the Lord is the will of the Lord. Spirits do not have literal hands. God is not a man as us as if he was created.
The Bible is the word of God. It is the one source of faith by which we can identify who He is so that we can have his understanding needed to seek after Him who has no form to behold...
All prophecy of scripture is the word of God .Not one jot or tittle is accredited to the prophet. It did not drop on Ezekiel's lap.neither is it a private interpretation of him. The anointing Holy Spirit of God, Christ, put his words in Ezekiel's mouth . Just as he put his words in the mouth of Balaam's ass to restrain the madness of that false prophet. Therefore we can understand he is not served by human hands in any way shape or form.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.2Pe 1:20
Respectfully Wincam, the idea of "cut your own throat" is not the kind of thing "I" would expect Jesus to say to someone who was sincere but mistaken. In general, "I" expect it to come from someone who is less likely to be correct because it is not a "spiritually mature" attitude.
I am not accusing you of being "wrong" in this post. I am trying to bring to your attention that when one is "standing for the truth in Jesus Christ", one "almost always" reflects the character of Jesus Christ.
Standing for "the truth of God" without demonstrating an equal amount of the "love of God" does not, IMHO, bring about the works, kingdom, understanding, and "wisdom" of God.
One may be correct in their factual assertion, but if one is not correct in their spiritual attitude, one is much less likely to be able to communicate in the manner that will best serve the listener.
When standing for the truth, one needs to be very sensitive to what the Lord God really wants to communicate in any given situation. It is not always facts. And "most of the time" it is not shallow criticism and/or condemnation.
God is not a God of facts alone. Truth without love is arrogance, and probably not "God's truth" in the first place.
God's truth always leads to redemption of the hearer. God's truth (God's "word") always leads to a better relationship with His one and only Son, Messiah Jesus.
No matter how "correct" one is in their facts, if one is not demonstrating God's love for the hearer, one really needs to reevaluate ones own attitude and relationship with Christ.
I mention this because I have been (and am) very guilty of these same short comings far too many times throughout my life.
FWIW.
I am not accusing you of being "wrong" in this post. I am trying to bring to your attention that when one is "standing for the truth in Jesus Christ", one "almost always" reflects the character of Jesus Christ.
Standing for "the truth of God" without demonstrating an equal amount of the "love of God" does not, IMHO, bring about the works, kingdom, understanding, and "wisdom" of God.
One may be correct in their factual assertion, but if one is not correct in their spiritual attitude, one is much less likely to be able to communicate in the manner that will best serve the listener.
When standing for the truth, one needs to be very sensitive to what the Lord God really wants to communicate in any given situation. It is not always facts. And "most of the time" it is not shallow criticism and/or condemnation.
God is not a God of facts alone. Truth without love is arrogance, and probably not "God's truth" in the first place.
God's truth always leads to redemption of the hearer. God's truth (God's "word") always leads to a better relationship with His one and only Son, Messiah Jesus.
No matter how "correct" one is in their facts, if one is not demonstrating God's love for the hearer, one really needs to reevaluate ones own attitude and relationship with Christ.
I mention this because I have been (and am) very guilty of these same short comings far too many times throughout my life.
FWIW.
aw, thanks!
i don't have any reason not to believe that Peter was martyred in Rome; what i meant was that he didn't go there to evangelize and to found the 'church of Rome' - so it was wrong of me to say that there's no evidence that he traveled there at all.
i'm sorry, and thank you.
the source you quoted works from the assumption that the idea he was the 'first pope' or had established the church in Rome to be an error -- but while the name 'Marcus' really doesn't have much to do with figuring out where 1 Peter was written from ((he had some well-known dealings with a man named Cornelius - also very Roman a name - in Caesaria, in Israel)), the name Babylon does. the article & the argument is compelling, but however i'm not completely sold on the idea that he is writing from Rome.
early Christian & Jewish writing does refer to Rome as Babylon, but if Peter is doing the same thing, wouldn't it be the only place other than Revelation - where John is prophesying in spirit and symbol throughout the whole text - that any location is given a 'code name' instead of called by its proper name? that's odd, especially for one whose character was so bold as his.
he might have gone to Babylon in Mesopotamia, or rather to Selucia, where the population had mostly removed to, and referred to it as Babylon. maybe not likely but not completely out of the question. there was a Jewish population there.
but from Acts, it seems that he was a central figure specifically at the church in Jerusalem, and didn't travel outside of Israel much. it also seems clear that he primarily brought the gospel to Jews. that makes the mention of "Marcus" important - but it's possible and maybe very likely that he meant Mark, the author of the gospel of Mark -- who traditionally received the information he used to write this gospel from Peter. Mark was the 'patriarch' of Egypt, traditionally the evangelist that brought the gospel to that area, and was martyred there ~ AD 68 in Alexandria, not far from the Egyptian city of Babylon.
Coptic Christians believe that this Egyptian city called Babylon is the place where Joseph & Mary took the baby Jesus when they fled Herod, at least for a time.
the article you linked me to dismisses the Egyptian city out of hand saying that there is no reason to believe Peter went there -- but there is; Mark was at least near there, and Peter and Mark were close. tradition among the oldest group of Christians in Egypt says that this is a place associated with Christ. i'm not sure it's so easy to dismiss.
Egypt was under Roman rule, and the church there was oppressed and underground. the traditional date for Peter's martyrdom is around the same time as Mark's - it's possible that Peter had visited Mark when he wrote his epistle, and not too long after was imprisoned and sent to Rome to be tried alongside Paul. some dates given for his epistles are around AD 60's but it doesn't seem to be especially clear when they were written.
another thing that raises questions about Peter being in Rome, is Paul writing in 2 Timothy 4:9-11 that he is mostly deserted there in prison. this epistle is believed to be the last one we have that he wrote before he was killed. here in this letter, he asks Timothy to get Mark and send him to him. could Mark have been killed at this time, and Peter, being close to Mark, come instead? and then in turn been imprisoned alongside Paul?
we're just making speculation about all this.
but thanks again for correcting me -- whether Peter founded the Roman church or not, i don't think is really a question, but a false claim made to legitimize the papal authority. but whether he was ever in Rome at all is another question, and i misspoke. so i'm sorry again, and indebted to you for speaking up about it to me
Regarding Peter being the first Pope, I'd like to say this.
If anything Peter was a Bishop, which was the highest rank until the first Pope who was named Heraclas in 232 AD.
So how does Peter get to be a Pope?
It's kind of like the first ............(pick a title) of the U.S. was elected in 1776. For a hundred years he was given the title............ After 100 years the U.S. decides to give the special person the title of President. So they go back and call ALL that had the title.........., President. It's the same story for the Super Bowl. It wasn't always called the Super Bowl, but now all the championship games going back to the beginning are called "Super Bowl."
I find this explanation interesting although it does change history and I don't care for that.
I don't know if this has ever been explained - just thought I would share.
Fran
It's nice to have a nice, mature discussion.
On another thread I made clear that I'm not Catholic but know the doctrine and corrected something very wrong. Wow. I got taken for a Catholic and was treated rather badly. Why should this be?
If Catholics say something wrong about Protestantism, I correct them too. We so misunderstand each other.
Fran
On another thread I made clear that I'm not Catholic but know the doctrine and corrected something very wrong. Wow. I got taken for a Catholic and was treated rather badly. Why should this be?
If Catholics say something wrong about Protestantism, I correct them too. We so misunderstand each other.
Fran
I apologize before hand if this post is considered "divisive". I offer it more as a tongue in cheek factoid, and something I thought was curious but completely unprovable.
If I have my facts straight, I was told my a seminary student at my alma mater that some have suggested that Simon the magician of Acts Ch 8 traveled to Rome and became the first "pope" of the "Roman Catholic" church.
This is a very vague memory on my part. I mention it just in case someone wants to look into it honestly.
Lord, please forgive me if this statement is out of place at this point.
If I have my facts straight, I was told my a seminary student at my alma mater that some have suggested that Simon the magician of Acts Ch 8 traveled to Rome and became the first "pope" of the "Roman Catholic" church.
This is a very vague memory on my part. I mention it just in case someone wants to look into it honestly.
Lord, please forgive me if this statement is out of place at this point.