There is literally no proof that Peter was even in Rome
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
There is literally no proof that Peter was even in Rome
There is literally no proof that Peter was even in Rome
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Paul was the head honcho in Rome, as well.
He was not
If Peter was the first pope, why did he remain silent when he was rebuked by Paul? Can you imagine a Cardinal rebuking and instructing the Pope?
The simple explanation is that the Papacy as it has been known since late antiquity or the early middle ages is a later development. The Papal formula was already getting close by the third century, and really the proto-Papacy appeared to start working in the 4th century, but it was still not quite as developed in its authority as by Gregory's time. The office of the Bishop of Rome got more and more formal and wealthy as time went on from the first to the 4th century, and then to the sixth century, one really witnesses more of what seems familiar today in conventions, but the Papacy would continue to develop in more familiar terms throughout the middle ages, and it is really post-Council of Trent that the Papacy is more fully-realized as modern, of course, during the modern age itself.
I think this makes sense, but then how can one say Peter was the first Pope when he wasn't even fulfilling the role of Pope? The role of the Pope being a more modern invention.
Thats moronic. The primacy of Rone was a recognized thing that only came into question because of the seething patriach in constaninople. When other bishops came into conflict they went to the pope to resolve it. In many cases bishops wouse refuse to go their local head honcho like Carthage or Alexandria and make the trek to Rome
While the title is retroactively applied to St. Peter, he would not have thought of himself in such terms as Father (Papa/Pope) as the Bishop of Rome's office later incorporated. The most reliable title for him is as one Bishop of Rome, and there are those who suggest he did not actually occupy that office, or at least not as supreme over other bishops in that city, if presbyters/priests and bishops/overseers were considered the same. Ultimately, St. Peter was an Apostle, which gave him more authority than a more recent convert bishop/presbyter operating in Rome, even if before him.
Ahh ok I see. I guess that makes sense.
Yeah, he was basically Apostle, first and foremost, and was known as such during his own lifetime. Then, he would have been a bishop/oversee/presbyter, or at least the first two, unless presbyter was still synonymous with the other terms at the time, though later on, it most certainly was different, being made a lower order clerical role than bishop. He was certainly an Apostle, very likely a Bishop (Of Rome? Jerusalem? Elsewhere? A roving missionary bishop, perhaps?), but he was not referred to as Father/Papias/Papa/Pope during his lifetime, as far as evidence could tell. The earliest usage of a term like Pope would date to the third century, and it was generically applied to all bishops, of which the Bishop of Rome was one, though of an important city, indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_(title)
There are only conjectures, though educated the guesses are. Even Catholic historians necessarily admit there is no concrete proof.
>Peter was the first pope but we have no proof. Just trust us bro
It’s kind of like one of those shows like pimp my ride where you win to send your car in to a show but what they do to each car is extreme and you would rather have your car back.
Like yea, they imagine Peter looked like that ? Did they forget that Peter was actually naked on the fish boat when Jesus was dead, because he had reverted back to his survival instincts that Jesus had taught him. But he was forgetting Jesus said he would be in the earth for three whole days and be risen again?
He literally throws on next to nothing and jumps in the ocean to run to see Jesus (still mostly naked). Peter isn’t one to sit on a throne, and pretend like he is going to do what Jesus didn’t wanna do.
It’s like drawing Jesus not on the cross but sitting on the throne in Jerusalem with b***hes / prostitutes and a leash about their necks with a whip.
Mmm! Spicy!
There is literally no proof that OP wasn't sucking 10 dicks when he made this thread
What about the bomes
1. There is zero zip nada evidence of *anyone* in the early Church claiming that Peter was NOT in Rome.
2. On the other hand, there is a great deal of testimony from the Fathers as to Peter being in Rome.
Here are just a few examples (see https://www.catholic.com/tract/was-peter-in-rome for more).
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.
Tertullian, : Demurrer Against the Heretics, chap. 36 (A.D. 200): "Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's!"
3. There is a great deal of archaeological evidence for anyone who might be interested. See discussion here:
http://shamelesspopery.com/was-peter-ever-in-rome/
You should start a post like this with a "yes, but"
I will take that under advisement.
you're alright
>Ignatius
Did Ignatius say that both Peter and Paul were in Rome ? No, he simply stated that, as apostles, Paul and Peter issued commandments. Be it remembered that commandments can be issued by means of letters, through messengers or even verbally when one is visited by people from other places. There is no need for the one commanding to be personally present in a particular city.
>Irenaeus
the original Greek writings of Irenaeus are LOST ! These words attributed to him are translated from a poor Latin version found some hundreds of years later. A Latin scribe could have easily added the points about Peter.
That there were similar forgeries is admitted by Louis Ellies Dupin, Roman Catholic church historian. He says:
“The Catholics invented false histories, false miracles, and false lives of the saints to nourish and keep up the piety of the faithful.”
The strongest evidence against the statements claimed to be made by Irenaeus is their disagreement with the Bible. As evident from the letter to the Romans, there were Christians in Rome before the apostle Paul ever came to that city. This is acknowledged in the introduction to the book of Romans in the Catholic New American Bible:
“Since neither early Christian tradition nor Paul’s letter to the Romans mentions a founder of the Christian community in Rome, it may be concluded that the Christian faith came to that city through members of the israeli community of Jerusalem who were Christian converts.”
Neither Peter nor Paul, by laboring in Rome, founded the Christian church there. However, on the day of Pentecost 33 C.E., Peter spoke to “sojourners from Rome, both israelites and proselytes,” at Jerusalem. (Acts 2:10) This may be the basis for the traditions that credit Peter with the founding of the church at Rome. But, as the facts show, it is not a sound basis on which to build one’s faith.
This thread went from
>There is no historical proof...
Straight to
>All of history is forgery!
Kek.
there is no proof Peter even existed.