-
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.
S
Do you have a Scripture that says Peter was not bishop of Rome? Why the skepticism? The whole Christian worlds acknowledges that Peter was at Antioch and at Rome, too. And that he died in Rome under Nero in either 67 AD or 68 AD, the same year St. Paul died. Do you doubt that St. Paul died. Scripture doesn't say St. Paul died in Rome. So, do you disbelieve Paul died, just because Scripture doesn't say it. Do you expect nothing can be true if it isn't written in Scripture. Do you think Jesus only did the things the New Testament says; Or are there other things He did not written in the NT? (See John 21:25). If there are things Jesus did that are not written down, can there not be things St. Peter did that are not recorded in writing? But only in spoken traditions (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15). Take care. Scott
S
St. Peter writes from Babylon in one of his epistles. In Revelation, Babylon is the code name for the city of Rome. Therefore, St. Peter, writing from "Babylon", wrote from the city of Rome, and thus, as the Blessed Apostle of Christ Jesus, was the bishop of Rome. Along with the other Apostles of Christ, St. Peter was given the Keys of the Kingdom of God. St. Peter, along with the 12 apostles, and St. Paul, had the power of binding and loosing, of forgiving sins, and so on. All the powers (gifts) which Christ gave to His apostles are mentioned somewhere in the NT. He gave them the Holy Spirit, and they preached the Gospel and worked miracles in His Name. Some of the Apostles, if not all of them, may have been in Rome. In Erie PA Scott Harrington
I
Speaking only for myself, not for my denomination, this best describes my eschatology... although I would not say I ignore prophecy. I read it as much as the rest of the Bible, and heed it to be best of my admittedly limited understanding. However, I do not find any of the standard interpretations fully convincing, leaving me with no practical option other than the approach described in #22.
Last edited:
S
Well first things first. If you're expecting some kind of Pagan Roman historian like Tacitus to have documented Peter in Rome then you're going to be disappointed because the historians at that time were not concerned with what they considered a fledgling cult that was of no importance. Really the only history that exists is the oral traditions of those two churches which you disdain. So with that said here is an article I found especially pertinent to the situation at hand.
What the Bible Says
Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”
Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).
These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).
In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.
Early Christian Testimony
William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal—and very early—position (one hesitates to use the word “tradition,” since some people read that as “legend”) was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Empire.
A Very Early Reference
Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.
In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.
In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.
Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”
Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”
These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens’ books or to the Catholic Answers tract Peter’s Roman Residency.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight.
What Archaeology Proved
There is much archaeological evidence that Peter was at Rome, but Boettner, like other Fundamentalist apologists, must dismiss it, claiming that “exhaustive research by archaeologists has been made down through the centuries to find some inscription in the catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Rome that would indicate Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things found which gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin” (118).
Boettner saw Roman Catholicism through the presses in 1962. His original book and the revisions to it since then have failed to mention the results of the excavations under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, excavations that had been underway for decades, but which were undertaken in earnest after World War II. What Boettner casually dismissed as “some bones of uncertain origin” were the contents of a tomb on Vatican Hill that was covered with early inscriptions attesting to the fact that Peter’s remains were inside.
After the original release of Boettner’s book, evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.
Taken from Was Peter in Rome?
What the Bible Says
Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”
Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).
These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).
In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.
Early Christian Testimony
William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal—and very early—position (one hesitates to use the word “tradition,” since some people read that as “legend”) was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Empire.
A Very Early Reference
Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.
In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.
In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.
Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”
Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”
These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens’ books or to the Catholic Answers tract Peter’s Roman Residency.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight.
What Archaeology Proved
There is much archaeological evidence that Peter was at Rome, but Boettner, like other Fundamentalist apologists, must dismiss it, claiming that “exhaustive research by archaeologists has been made down through the centuries to find some inscription in the catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Rome that would indicate Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things found which gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin” (118).
Boettner saw Roman Catholicism through the presses in 1962. His original book and the revisions to it since then have failed to mention the results of the excavations under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, excavations that had been underway for decades, but which were undertaken in earnest after World War II. What Boettner casually dismissed as “some bones of uncertain origin” were the contents of a tomb on Vatican Hill that was covered with early inscriptions attesting to the fact that Peter’s remains were inside.
After the original release of Boettner’s book, evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.
Taken from Was Peter in Rome?
E
The thing that has helped me is how we look at prophesy.
What separates a true prophet of God from false prophets? God is always right.
if we look at a modern day prophet like Nostradamus, if we take his prophesies and make an allegory, or symbolise them. then many of his prophesies appear to come true, and example is he prophesied a man named hisler would start a world war. So allegorically speaking, he appears to be right. But literally speaking he was dead wrong, he just got lucky to even come close.
God however, proves he is God by making literal prophesies. If he says such and such will happen in 100 years, it will happen just the way he said it would. If he says so and so will do this in 1000 years, It will happen literally as he said it does.
This is what separates God from all false Gods and prophets. When says says A will happen, it will happen exactly has and when he said it. Others can not do this.
The problem with today is people want to allegorize or spiritualize Gods prophesies to make his prophesies match their beliefs, because a literal translation of Gods prophesies do not line up with their beliefs. If we allegorize Gods prophesies. we can make him say anything, and all we have is confusion, differing opinions and beliefs, and God looks no better than a false God or prophet.
What separates a true prophet of God from false prophets? God is always right.
if we look at a modern day prophet like Nostradamus, if we take his prophesies and make an allegory, or symbolise them. then many of his prophesies appear to come true, and example is he prophesied a man named hisler would start a world war. So allegorically speaking, he appears to be right. But literally speaking he was dead wrong, he just got lucky to even come close.
God however, proves he is God by making literal prophesies. If he says such and such will happen in 100 years, it will happen just the way he said it would. If he says so and so will do this in 1000 years, It will happen literally as he said it does.
This is what separates God from all false Gods and prophets. When says says A will happen, it will happen exactly has and when he said it. Others can not do this.
The problem with today is people want to allegorize or spiritualize Gods prophesies to make his prophesies match their beliefs, because a literal translation of Gods prophesies do not line up with their beliefs. If we allegorize Gods prophesies. we can make him say anything, and all we have is confusion, differing opinions and beliefs, and God looks no better than a false God or prophet.
I
Sure, but not all prophecies are so clear. Revelation is largely written in terms of dream-like symbolism, so being able to take it literally would first depend on understanding what the symbols mean. That Christians are trying hard to understand what they mean and arrive at different conclusions, is why there are so many schools of thought on eschatology, and why none of them are completely convincing. None of this has to do with whether I want to take it literally: I want to, when it's possible. I'm not trying to allegorize it or spiritualize it. But I lack Joseph's and Daniel's gift of dream interpretation.
S
It is a teaching of the Church, very strictly followed in the early days, that there can be only one Bishop in a city at one time. St. Peter became the Bishop of Antioch and served there from 45 to 53. Then in 53 the second Bishop of Antioch was Eudoius. St. Peter did not die until 65 as a martyr in Rome. And it was also in 65 that Linus became Bishop of Rome. Now if Peter remained the Bishop of Antioch after 53 there would be two bishops in Antioch. St. Peter didn't die in 53 but 12 years later he died in Rome. So, the only way I can see that it's possible that Saint Peter could be relieved of his episcopacy in Antioch in 53 is by his being transferred to another see. So it is only logical, as I see it, that Saint Peter had to be the Bishop of Rome from 53 to 65; a 12 year term in Rome, which incidentally is the same number of years that Saint Linus and Saint Cletus served in Rome.
But if that isn't convincing enough for you Saint Cyprian who died in 258 says this "The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly." Also here are some more quotes for you to ponder.
Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32
The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bade Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).
Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).
Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen's claim to the "succession of Peter" and to the "Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Cyprian).
Eusebius (314) says that Peter was "the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years" (Chron an 44), and calls Linus "first after Peter to obtain the episcopate" (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was "the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter" (HE III, 4).
The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).
Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, "in which chair sat Peter himself." He also says how "Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair," which "is the first of the marks of the Church." (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).
Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the "Apostolic chair" in which "the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church" (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how "The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church" and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, "Thou art Peter..." (Decree of Damasus 382).
Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as "Peter's chair" and the Roman church where "Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat" (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).
Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).
Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of "the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat" (Contra Lit Petil).
Prudentius (405) writes how in Rome there were "the two princes of the Apostles, one the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other holding the First Chair" (Hymn II in honor of St Laurent, V).
Bachiarius (420) speaks of Rome as "the chair of Peter, the seat of faith" (De Fide 2).
Prosper of Aquitaine (429) calls Rome "the Apostolic See" and the "Chair of the Apostle Peter" (Carm de Ingratis).
The Roman legates at the Council of Ephesus (431) declare how "it is a matter doubtful to none that Peter lived and exercised judgement in his successors" and how "the holy and most blessed [Pope] Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place" (Acta Councilia, session 3, tom III, col 621).
Pope Leo the Great (440) says how "the whole Church acknowledges Peter in the See of Peter (Rome)" (Serm II, 2).
At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the assembled bishops respond to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great by crying out, "Peter has spoken through Leo." The sentence of the council is pronounced by the legates "in the name of Leo, the Council, and St. Peter" (Canons of Chalcedon).
The Synodical Letter to Pope Leo from Chalcedon calls the Pope "the interpreter of Peter's voice."
Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of "the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops" (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI, col 637).
But in my mind what really cements the case that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome is the fact that you can not find a single ancient source that denies Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. That Peter was the first Bishop of Rome was a indisputable fact until the birth of the fundamentalist movement.
But if that isn't convincing enough for you Saint Cyprian who died in 258 says this "The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly." Also here are some more quotes for you to ponder.
Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32
The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bade Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).
Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).
Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen's claim to the "succession of Peter" and to the "Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Cyprian).
Eusebius (314) says that Peter was "the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years" (Chron an 44), and calls Linus "first after Peter to obtain the episcopate" (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was "the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter" (HE III, 4).
The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).
Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, "in which chair sat Peter himself." He also says how "Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair," which "is the first of the marks of the Church." (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).
Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the "Apostolic chair" in which "the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church" (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how "The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church" and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, "Thou art Peter..." (Decree of Damasus 382).
Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as "Peter's chair" and the Roman church where "Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat" (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).
Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).
Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of "the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat" (Contra Lit Petil).
Prudentius (405) writes how in Rome there were "the two princes of the Apostles, one the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other holding the First Chair" (Hymn II in honor of St Laurent, V).
Bachiarius (420) speaks of Rome as "the chair of Peter, the seat of faith" (De Fide 2).
Prosper of Aquitaine (429) calls Rome "the Apostolic See" and the "Chair of the Apostle Peter" (Carm de Ingratis).
The Roman legates at the Council of Ephesus (431) declare how "it is a matter doubtful to none that Peter lived and exercised judgement in his successors" and how "the holy and most blessed [Pope] Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place" (Acta Councilia, session 3, tom III, col 621).
Pope Leo the Great (440) says how "the whole Church acknowledges Peter in the See of Peter (Rome)" (Serm II, 2).
At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the assembled bishops respond to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great by crying out, "Peter has spoken through Leo." The sentence of the council is pronounced by the legates "in the name of Leo, the Council, and St. Peter" (Canons of Chalcedon).
The Synodical Letter to Pope Leo from Chalcedon calls the Pope "the interpreter of Peter's voice."
Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of "the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops" (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI, col 637).
But in my mind what really cements the case that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome is the fact that you can not find a single ancient source that denies Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. That Peter was the first Bishop of Rome was a indisputable fact until the birth of the fundamentalist movement.
S
[quote=trust_in_the_name;424134]Tell that to the countless multitudes He killed with
the Flood! The whole world.
Dear trust in the name,
No! Not the whole world! Noah and his family of eight souls were saved by God. Remember that! Always remember that! God is merciful!
Amen. In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington
7 So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth,
both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made
them." (Genesis 6:7)
4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights,
and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made." (Genesis
7:4)
21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every
creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the
breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living
things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird
of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in
the ark remained alive. (Genesis 7:21-23)
Or, how about all the people in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? 24 Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of
the heavens. 25 So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities,
and what grew on the ground. 26 But his wife looked back behind him, and she became a
pillar of salt. (Genesis 19:24-26)
I guess He didn't kill Er and Onan, either? 7 But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him. 8
And Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and marry her, and raise up an heir
to your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass,
when he went in to his brother's wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give
an heir to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He
killed him also. (Genesis 38:7-10)
3 The sons of Judah were Er, Onan, and Shelah. These three were born to him by the
daughter of Shua, the Canaanitess. Er, the firstborn of Judah, was wicked in the sight of
the Lord; so He killed him. (1 Chronicles 2:3)
How about the firstborn of Egypt? 29 And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord struck all the firstborn in the land of
Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive
who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of livestock. (Exodus 12:29)
This is just a small sampling. I can give a lot more examples where God kills people if you
like.
What does Jesus have to say about this? 4 "And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that
have no more that they can do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who,
after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him! (Luke 12:4-5)
28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him
who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)
As I said, this is a good example. You say that God "doesn't do that." Scripture says, 6 "The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and brings up. (1 Samuel
2:6)
Dear trust in the name,
True.
Of course the LORD can do what He wants. He is Sovereign. He is the LORD. If He kills,
that does not make Him a killer. Do you not understand that God will be vindicated, and
there is no wrong that God can do? So to call God a killer is wrong, even if God does kill.
God is sovereign. Everything He does is right. In Erie Scott
39 'Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I
wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand. (Deuteronomy 32:29)
So, to sum up, you say, "God doesn't [kill]." Scripture says, "The Lord kills." This is exactly
why we have so many interpretations of the Bible. Some people believe it, and some
(most) do not (Matthew 7:13-14).
Dear trust in the name,
The wages of sin is death. That is how God can kill. He can let sin take its course, and let
people who don't repent die in their sins. But He doesn't keep any one from repenting.
He calls all people everywhere and with everyone to repent. His mercy endureth forever.
Not temporarily. Forever. That is the Psalm. So the people who love the LORD, the LORD
loves. A wicked man who repents will be forgiven. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do
all these things.' (Isaiah 45:7)
36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
(Romans 11:36)
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created
through Him and for Him. (Colossians 1:16)
Wisdom is Solomon is false doctrine that contradicts real scripture
Dear trust in the name, Can you prove that for us?
Why do you assume that Wisdom of Solomon is false doctrine, and not real Scripture?
Who told you that? In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
. For example,
Wisdom 3:16-19 says,
But children of adulterers will not come to maturity, and the offspring of an unlawful union
will perish. Even if they live long they will be held of no account, and finally their old age
will be without honor. If they die young, they will have no hope and no consolation on the
day of judgment. For the end of an unrighteous generation is grievous.
So, in other words, if you are born out of wedlock, you're going to hell and there's nothing you can do about it. This is against Romans 10:13, John 3:16, and Isaiah 55:6.
Wisdom 6:17 says, "The beginning of wisdom is the most sincere desire for instruction."
This is a lie. Proverbs 9:10 says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Just
because someone has a sincere desire for wisdom means nothing (in and of itself). Note
Proverbs 1:28, 28 "Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they
will not find me. (Proverbs 1:28)
Here is someone who has a "sincere desire for wisdom," but wisdom does not come.
Wisdom 6:24 says, "The multitude of the wise is the salvation of the world." This is a lie.
Jesus is the salvation of the world (for any who might be saved). Note 1 Timothy 4:10.
Wisdom 8:19 says, "As a child I was naturally gifted, and a good soul fell to my lot; or
rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body." This speaks against the truth found in
Psalm 51:5; 53:1, and Romans 7:18.
Chapter 9 has a long prayer that is suppose to be Solomon's prayer asking for wisdom. 1
Kings 3:6-9 gives his "prayer", and it's not what is given in Wisdom 9.
Wisdom 13:1 says,
For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature; and they were unable
from the good things that are seen to know the one who exists, nor did they recognize the
artisan while paying heed to his works; but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift
air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven were the
gods that rule the world.
This is contrary to Romans 1:18-23.
Similarly, Wisdom 13:6 says,
Yet these people are little to be blamed, for perhaps they go astray while seeking God and
desiring to find him.
"These people are little to be blamed"? This is a lie. Romans 1:20 says they are without
excuse. Also, it says they "go astray while seeking God". This also is a lie. Please see
Romans 3:11 and 1:28.
Dear trust in the name,
Here is Wisdom 13:6 in the OSB (page 908). "Nevertheless there is little reason for
complaint against them, For perhaps they go astray while seeking God and wish to find
Him." Okay. What is Romans talking about? People who do not wish to find God. So your
point is mistaken. These people who go astray really were seeking God. That is what
Wisdom 13:6 says. Do you presuppose without proof that this verse is not in the inspired
canon of Scripture? According to whose standard of truth?
Here is what the note of Wisdom 13:6 is in the OSB (page 908):
"On Mars Hill, St. Paul preached to those who while seeking God had gone astray (see
Acts 17:26-27). We find Him in the Holy Church, in the Scriptures, and in our prayers to
Him." In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
4 The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. (Proverbs
16:4)
Dear trust in the name,
Is this Proverbs 16:4? Really?
Here is what the Bible I read says,
"He who seeks the Lord will find knowledge with righteousness, And those who seek Him
rightly will find peace." Proverbs 16:4 OSB Orthodox Study Bible page 847.
What version of the Bible did you quote Proverbs 16:4 from? Is that the KJV? You tell
me, please -- thank you! What are you saying? If you got this wrong, why should we
believe, why should I believe what you are saying about the book of Wisdom? What
version of the Bible are you using for Wisdom? In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our
father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the
purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to
her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau
I have hated." 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly
not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will
have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who
wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to
Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you,
and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom
He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find
fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against
God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel
for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to
make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared
for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of
mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, (Romans 9:10-23)
the Flood! The whole world.
Dear trust in the name,
No! Not the whole world! Noah and his family of eight souls were saved by God. Remember that! Always remember that! God is merciful!
Amen. In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington
7 So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth,
both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made
them." (Genesis 6:7)
4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights,
and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made." (Genesis
7:4)
21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every
creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the
breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living
things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird
of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in
the ark remained alive. (Genesis 7:21-23)
Or, how about all the people in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? 24 Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of
the heavens. 25 So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities,
and what grew on the ground. 26 But his wife looked back behind him, and she became a
pillar of salt. (Genesis 19:24-26)
I guess He didn't kill Er and Onan, either? 7 But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him. 8
And Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and marry her, and raise up an heir
to your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass,
when he went in to his brother's wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give
an heir to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He
killed him also. (Genesis 38:7-10)
3 The sons of Judah were Er, Onan, and Shelah. These three were born to him by the
daughter of Shua, the Canaanitess. Er, the firstborn of Judah, was wicked in the sight of
the Lord; so He killed him. (1 Chronicles 2:3)
How about the firstborn of Egypt? 29 And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord struck all the firstborn in the land of
Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive
who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of livestock. (Exodus 12:29)
This is just a small sampling. I can give a lot more examples where God kills people if you
like.
What does Jesus have to say about this? 4 "And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that
have no more that they can do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who,
after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him! (Luke 12:4-5)
28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him
who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)
As I said, this is a good example. You say that God "doesn't do that." Scripture says, 6 "The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and brings up. (1 Samuel
2:6)
Dear trust in the name,
True.
Of course the LORD can do what He wants. He is Sovereign. He is the LORD. If He kills,
that does not make Him a killer. Do you not understand that God will be vindicated, and
there is no wrong that God can do? So to call God a killer is wrong, even if God does kill.
God is sovereign. Everything He does is right. In Erie Scott
39 'Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I
wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand. (Deuteronomy 32:29)
So, to sum up, you say, "God doesn't [kill]." Scripture says, "The Lord kills." This is exactly
why we have so many interpretations of the Bible. Some people believe it, and some
(most) do not (Matthew 7:13-14).
Dear trust in the name,
The wages of sin is death. That is how God can kill. He can let sin take its course, and let
people who don't repent die in their sins. But He doesn't keep any one from repenting.
He calls all people everywhere and with everyone to repent. His mercy endureth forever.
Not temporarily. Forever. That is the Psalm. So the people who love the LORD, the LORD
loves. A wicked man who repents will be forgiven. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do
all these things.' (Isaiah 45:7)
36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
(Romans 11:36)
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created
through Him and for Him. (Colossians 1:16)
Wisdom is Solomon is false doctrine that contradicts real scripture
Dear trust in the name, Can you prove that for us?
Why do you assume that Wisdom of Solomon is false doctrine, and not real Scripture?
Who told you that? In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
. For example,
Wisdom 3:16-19 says,
But children of adulterers will not come to maturity, and the offspring of an unlawful union
will perish. Even if they live long they will be held of no account, and finally their old age
will be without honor. If they die young, they will have no hope and no consolation on the
day of judgment. For the end of an unrighteous generation is grievous.
So, in other words, if you are born out of wedlock, you're going to hell and there's nothing you can do about it. This is against Romans 10:13, John 3:16, and Isaiah 55:6.
Wisdom 6:17 says, "The beginning of wisdom is the most sincere desire for instruction."
This is a lie. Proverbs 9:10 says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Just
because someone has a sincere desire for wisdom means nothing (in and of itself). Note
Proverbs 1:28, 28 "Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they
will not find me. (Proverbs 1:28)
Here is someone who has a "sincere desire for wisdom," but wisdom does not come.
Wisdom 6:24 says, "The multitude of the wise is the salvation of the world." This is a lie.
Jesus is the salvation of the world (for any who might be saved). Note 1 Timothy 4:10.
Wisdom 8:19 says, "As a child I was naturally gifted, and a good soul fell to my lot; or
rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body." This speaks against the truth found in
Psalm 51:5; 53:1, and Romans 7:18.
Chapter 9 has a long prayer that is suppose to be Solomon's prayer asking for wisdom. 1
Kings 3:6-9 gives his "prayer", and it's not what is given in Wisdom 9.
Wisdom 13:1 says,
For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature; and they were unable
from the good things that are seen to know the one who exists, nor did they recognize the
artisan while paying heed to his works; but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift
air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven were the
gods that rule the world.
This is contrary to Romans 1:18-23.
Similarly, Wisdom 13:6 says,
Yet these people are little to be blamed, for perhaps they go astray while seeking God and
desiring to find him.
"These people are little to be blamed"? This is a lie. Romans 1:20 says they are without
excuse. Also, it says they "go astray while seeking God". This also is a lie. Please see
Romans 3:11 and 1:28.
Dear trust in the name,
Here is Wisdom 13:6 in the OSB (page 908). "Nevertheless there is little reason for
complaint against them, For perhaps they go astray while seeking God and wish to find
Him." Okay. What is Romans talking about? People who do not wish to find God. So your
point is mistaken. These people who go astray really were seeking God. That is what
Wisdom 13:6 says. Do you presuppose without proof that this verse is not in the inspired
canon of Scripture? According to whose standard of truth?
Here is what the note of Wisdom 13:6 is in the OSB (page 908):
"On Mars Hill, St. Paul preached to those who while seeking God had gone astray (see
Acts 17:26-27). We find Him in the Holy Church, in the Scriptures, and in our prayers to
Him." In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
4 The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. (Proverbs
16:4)
Dear trust in the name,
Is this Proverbs 16:4? Really?
Here is what the Bible I read says,
"He who seeks the Lord will find knowledge with righteousness, And those who seek Him
rightly will find peace." Proverbs 16:4 OSB Orthodox Study Bible page 847.
What version of the Bible did you quote Proverbs 16:4 from? Is that the KJV? You tell
me, please -- thank you! What are you saying? If you got this wrong, why should we
believe, why should I believe what you are saying about the book of Wisdom? What
version of the Bible are you using for Wisdom? In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our
father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the
purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to
her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau
I have hated." 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly
not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will
have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who
wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to
Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you,
and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom
He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find
fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against
God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel
for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to
make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared
for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of
mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, (Romans 9:10-23)
Last edited by a moderator:
'Babylon' in Revelation refers to Jerusalem.
Peter was Apostle to the jews.
so Peter was either writing from Jerusalem (jews), or was actually in Babylonia (jews)
could you look this over and comment (if possible).
Was Peter Ever In Rome?
thank you
Peter was Apostle to the jews.
so Peter was either writing from Jerusalem (jews), or was actually in Babylonia (jews)
could you look this over and comment (if possible).
Was Peter Ever In Rome?
thank you
shouldn't we be more precise in our approach to this issue?
to say this repeatedly shows your conundrum:
allegorize or spiritualize Gods prophesies
who allergorizes or spiritualizes PROPHECIES? - the prophets who are shown the visions!
naturally they COME TO PASS....all the prophecies do.
the issue is symbolism, or allegory in LANGUAGE.
i ask the 'literalist'.....what do we do with these images/illustrations in scripture? take them literally?
~
John 10:9
I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.
John 15:5
I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Revelation 5:6
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
Revelation 12:1-3
And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems.
and so on....surely we can agree that the Holy Scriptures use symbology and allegory and illustrative language that is not intended to be understood "literally"?
everything has a literal fulfillment: but is everything to be understood literally?
if we can't agree on that, we got nada
to say this repeatedly shows your conundrum:
allegorize or spiritualize Gods prophesies
who allergorizes or spiritualizes PROPHECIES? - the prophets who are shown the visions!
naturally they COME TO PASS....all the prophecies do.
the issue is symbolism, or allegory in LANGUAGE.
i ask the 'literalist'.....what do we do with these images/illustrations in scripture? take them literally?
~
John 10:9
I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.
John 15:5
I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Revelation 5:6
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
Revelation 12:1-3
And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems.
and so on....surely we can agree that the Holy Scriptures use symbology and allegory and illustrative language that is not intended to be understood "literally"?
everything has a literal fulfillment: but is everything to be understood literally?
if we can't agree on that, we got nada
hi EG:
this is why i'm stumped that you say Daniel 9 isn't fulfilled:
God however, proves he is God by making literal prophesies. If he says such and such will happen in 100 years, it will happen just the way he said it would.
Daniel 9 is TO THE DAY! and the passage in question is extremely precise and does not use figurative language (unlike Revelation 20 which uses figurative language, including the "times" involved)
this is why i'm stumped that you say Daniel 9 isn't fulfilled:
God however, proves he is God by making literal prophesies. If he says such and such will happen in 100 years, it will happen just the way he said it would.
Daniel 9 is TO THE DAY! and the passage in question is extremely precise and does not use figurative language (unlike Revelation 20 which uses figurative language, including the "times" involved)
E
Hi Izdaari,
I agree some things were limited. John had to write down what he saw by terms he knew. An example is rev 9 when John saw flying locusts with face like men sounding like horses and shooting flaming arrows from their mouths. This sounds like a modern day military helicopter (I am guessing). But John would have no clue what a helicopter was. so he wrote what he saw, and explained it as he knew how. This is not what I am talking about though. I am talking about time frames. Should we allegorise time frames and make then not literally be the time God said they would be? Why would God say such and such will be for 1000 years and not literally mean 1000 years? but instead, as some want to say, mean well over 2000 years now (Amillinialists view). This makes no sense, and to me makes God out to be a liar..
I agree some things were limited. John had to write down what he saw by terms he knew. An example is rev 9 when John saw flying locusts with face like men sounding like horses and shooting flaming arrows from their mouths. This sounds like a modern day military helicopter (I am guessing). But John would have no clue what a helicopter was. so he wrote what he saw, and explained it as he knew how. This is not what I am talking about though. I am talking about time frames. Should we allegorise time frames and make then not literally be the time God said they would be? Why would God say such and such will be for 1000 years and not literally mean 1000 years? but instead, as some want to say, mean well over 2000 years now (Amillinialists view). This makes no sense, and to me makes God out to be a liar..
E
shouldn't we be more precise in our approach to this issue?
to say this repeatedly shows your conundrum:
allegorize or spiritualize Gods prophesies
who allergorizes or spiritualizes PROPHECIES? - the prophets who are shown the visions!
naturally they COME TO PASS....all the prophecies do.
the issue is symbolism, or allegory in LANGUAGE.
i ask the 'literalist'.....what do we do with these http://christianchat.com/images/illustrations in scripture? take them literally?
~
John 10:9
I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.
John 15:5
I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Revelation 5:6
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
Revelation 12:1-3
And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems.
and so on....surely we can agree that the Holy Scriptures use symbology and allegory and illustrative language that is not intended to be understood "literally"?
everything has a literal fulfillment: but is everything to be understood literally?
if we can't agree on that, we got nada
to say this repeatedly shows your conundrum:
allegorize or spiritualize Gods prophesies
who allergorizes or spiritualizes PROPHECIES? - the prophets who are shown the visions!
naturally they COME TO PASS....all the prophecies do.
the issue is symbolism, or allegory in LANGUAGE.
i ask the 'literalist'.....what do we do with these http://christianchat.com/images/illustrations in scripture? take them literally?
~
John 10:9
I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.
John 15:5
I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Revelation 5:6
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
Revelation 12:1-3
And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems.
and so on....surely we can agree that the Holy Scriptures use symbology and allegory and illustrative language that is not intended to be understood "literally"?
everything has a literal fulfillment: but is everything to be understood literally?
if we can't agree on that, we got nada
I never said we should not use symbology where CONTEXT demands that we do this. I am not a complete literalist. My problem is with using symbology to declare literal time frame of anything given by God and turn it into something other than the actual years given.
As in my example given above. We do not know what these "locusts" are. But we know they will happen literally as God told John they would
Last edited by a moderator: