Omenuko:

Your father is a lier. . . .

no problem. Was Peter Bishop of Rome or not? My father isnt campaigning for the post.

Let me ask you a pointed question: how many bishops of Rome or any one place were there during the apostles' day?

Saint Peter and saint Paul both evangelized in Rome.  I agree the bible doesn't explicitly say "Peter was the bishop of Rome".  I'm ok with that because I don't practice 'sola scriptura'.  Does the bible say we should celebrate Jesus birthday on Dec 25., does it list what books are inspired.  Does it say we should go to church on sunday.  Get to your point already.

no problem.  Grin Was Peter Bishop of Rome or not? My father isnt campaigning for the post.

How many times do I have to answer you?  [size=16pt]YES![/size]  Peter was bishop of Rome.

Omenuko:

Saint Peter and saint Paul both evangelized in Rome.  I agree the bible doesn't explicitly say "Peter was the bishop of Rome".  I'm ok with that because I don't practice 'sola scriptura'.  Does the bible say we should celebrate Jesus birthday on Dec 25., does it list what books are inspired.  Does it say we should go to church on sunday.  Get to your point already.  

Ah the usual trump card when catholics get stuck with their "traditions".  
- As a christian, ransomed from the law of sin and death, you are a walking celebration of Christ's birth every second. Dec 25 is for those who wish to kill chickens and make noise.
- The bible doesnt list what books are inspired . . . but that in itself is a very weak argument, the thief on the cross didnt even have the chance to read anything. heck he's in heaven while you and me are here arguing on NL.
- The bible never says to go to church on sundays. it says not to forsake the assembling together of the saints, it doesnt even say assemble in a church. if u choose to assemble in the house of a brother on monday nights (Just like Paul and co sometimes did) it is acceptable of Him.

Omenuko, we've had enough of this pitiful whines about sola scriptura when you guys run into problem. Its either the bible is the sole authority on God or not. which is it or do we go read another bible?

Omenuko:

How many times do I have to answer you? [size=16pt]YES![/size] Peter was bishop of Rome.

how?

Omenuko:

Saint Peter and saint Paul both evangelized in Rome.  I agree the bible doesn't explicitly say "Peter was the bishop of Rome".  I'm ok with that because I don't practice 'sola scriptura'.  Does the bible say we should celebrate Jesus birthday on Dec 25., does it list what books are inspired.  Does it say we should go to church on sunday.  Get to your point already.  

This is scuttling the question I asked pointedly. When you find the answer, undoubtedly you will see how weak your arguments have been all along. My question had nothing to do with december 25th, so what's the panic all about?

Ah the usual trump card when catholics get stuck with their "traditions".  Grin
- As a christian, ransomed from the law of sin and death, you are a walking celebration of Christ's birth every second. Dec 25 is for those who wish to kill chickens and make noise.
- The bible doesnt list what books are inspired . . . but that in itself is a very weak argument, the thief on the cross didnt even have the chance to read anything. heck he's in heaven while you and me are here arguing on NL.
- The bible never says to go to church on sundays. it says not to forsake the assembling together of the saints, it doesnt even say assemble in a church. if u choose to assemble in the house of a brother on monday nights (Just like Paul and co sometimes did) it is acceptable of Him.

Omenuko, we've had enough of this pitiful whines about sola scriptura when you guys run into problem. Its either the bible is the sole authority on God or not. which is it or do we go read another bible?

And your explanations of why you celebrate Jesus's birthday during the pagan celebration of the winter solstice is quite pathetic.  Your reasons for calling a set of letters and books the word of God is quite pathetic.  You going to worship on the 'Day of the sun' with no justification is quite pathetic.  But when I show you passage from the bible that implies that Peter was in Rome and show you writings of early christians asserting that Peter was bishop of Rome you say I am wrong and need to agree with you.  Where in the bible does it say the bible is the sole authority on God.  Because in my bible it says:

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - I write this to you in the hope that I may be able to come to you soon; 15 but in case I should be delayed, I want you to know how people ought to behave in God's household -- that is, in the Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth. .

and Mathew 16:18-19

So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

how?

What do you mean 'how'? If, I say if, Peter was ever in Rome, would you agree that he contributed in spreading the gospel there?

Omenuko:

What do you mean 'how'? If, I say if, Peter was ever in Rome, would you agree that he contributed in spreading the gospel there?

how does that make him bishop of rome? circular arguments bore me.

What do you mean 'how'? If, I say if, Peter was ever in Rome, would you agree that he contributed in spreading the gospel there?

how does that make him bishop of rome? circular arguments bore me.

Is the above an acknowledgment from you that Peter may have been in Rome and preached the gosple?  Once we establish that there is a possibility of Peter being in Rome then we can move on to whether or not Peter was bishop of Rome.  Another thing, are you totaling dismissing the testimony of the list of early church christians who claim that Peter was bishop of Rome.

Omenuko, i made clear i dont take part in circular arguments.

Go back over my posts . . . NONE has said anything remote to refuting the possibility that Peter may have been to Rome before.

the question is one that is straightforward - was Peter BISHOP OF ROME? That has nothing to do with whether he ever visited Rome or not.

davidylan: many battles you're fighting tonight. This one, na roforofo fight o

Omenuko: bros, na wah o.

Now, davidylan: great post, this one below. And, great response to the distateful 'lier' thing.

- As a christian, ransomed from the law of sin and death, you are a walking celebration of Christ's birth every second. Dec 25 is for those who wish to kill chickens and make noise.
- The bible doesnt list what books are inspired . . . but that in itself is a very weak argument, the thief on the cross didnt even have the chance to read anything. heck he's in heaven while you and me are here arguing on NL.
- The bible never says to go to church on sundays. it says not to forsake the assembling together of the saints, it doesnt even say assemble in a church. if u choose to assemble in the house of a brother on monday nights (Just like Paul and co sometimes did) it is acceptable of Him.

But there's good reason for Paul not to have mentioned/acknowleged Peter as Bishop of Rome in his letters. Omenuko hasn't got to it yet, so I'll hold my peace while I follow this interesting discussion.
.

Nimshi:

But there's good reason for Paul not to have mentioned/acknowleged Peter as Bishop of Rome in his letters. Omenuko hasn't got to it yet, so I'll hold my peace while I follow this interesting discussion.

Nothing new Nimshi, its the default islamic propaganda that Paul corrupted the original gospel of salvation.
O boy go and sleep.

Italian Boy's Confession

Bless me Father, for I have sinned. I have been with a loose girl".

The priest asks, "Is that you, little Joey Parisi ?"

"Yes, Father, it is."

"And who was the girl you were with?"

"I can't tell you, Father, I don't want to ruin her reputation."

" Well, Joey, I'm sure to find out her name sooner or later, so you may as well tell me now. Was it Tina Minetti?"

"I cannot say."

"Was it Teresa Volpe?"

"I'll never tell."

"Was it Nina Capelli?"

"I'm sorry, but I cannot name her."

"Was it Cathy Piriano?"

"My lips are sealed."

"Was it Rosa Di Angelo, then?"


"Please, Father, I cannot tell you."

The priest sighs in frustration. "You're very tight lipped, Joey Parisi, and I admire that. But you've sinned and have to atone. You cannot be an altar boy now for 4 months. Now you go and behave yourself."

Joey walks back to his pew, and his friend Franco slides over and whispers, "What'd you get?"

"4 months vacation and five good leads."

Because of the recent developements regarding priests and their conduct, it made me wonder how many of them are in that booth spanking it while people tell their dirty little secrets.

Saying this, you're much better going directly to the Father in heaven if you need to confess something. He is faithful and just to forgive you from your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness.

Of course, if you're just interested in what the catholics do out of pure curiousity, then I understand, but just remember that no earthly person can forgive our sins. Only God can do that.

Isn't it funny the way we talk about God, bible and the interpretation of the bible.  From the foregoing, it simply shows that the people attacking the Catholic Church mode of confession are either ignorant of the bible or interprete the bible to suit themselves.  May I state here that priests are the representatives of God and God has already granted them right to forgive sins.

If you feel offended by this, I am sorry about it, but it doesn't change my believe.

ericok:

Isn't it funny the way we talk about God, bible and the interpretation of the bible. From the foregoing, it simply shows that the people attacking the Catholic Church mode of confession are either ignorant of the bible or interprete the bible to suit themselves. May I state here that priests are the representatives of God and God has already granted them right to forgive sins.

If you feel offended by this, I am sorry about it, but it doesn't change my believe.

Did he really?

Yes, He did.

ericok:

Yes, He did.

can u show me where?

you make the claim, i simply disproved it by virtue of the fact that it doesnt hold water. its up to you to prove it.
Just a simple question . . . when was Peter Bishop of Rome? I happen to remember that many of Paul's letters were from prison in Rome, how come "Bishop" Peter left him in prison?

One more question - You say the cathlic church has been around since the time of Christ? Where?

Oh one last one . . . remember Paul specifically describing his calling as to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews?

Actually you have to prove her wrong. If you've been making assertions, so now it is time for you to educate us. If you cannot do so then cease from spewing lies. Thanks.

You still haven't answered any of our questions.

Omenuko, that is no answer . . . i asked three pertinent questions . . . posting a list of popes (subjective because we have no proof that Peter was ever pope) doesnt help issues.

Now lets look at your pope list - If Peter was Bishop of Rome from 32AD - 67AD and Apostle Paul, whom even Peter acknowledged as a trusted chief missionary to the gentiles was jailed n Rome and killed by Nero around 64-67AD . . . where was Peter all this while?

First of all how did you know that Paul died in Rome and that he was killed by emperor Nero.
Yes that's right you got that info from the Church. If the Church is lying about everything else why would you believe us on Paul's death?

Second, Peter and Paul died on the same day.  Peter was crucified upside down and Paul was beheaded.

Third, you do realise that even though Peter was Bishop of Rome that he had no power over Roman matters. Don't be so carnal in your thinking to forget that all Christians, including the disciples were persecuted. If you feel that being Bishop means that yo have power, then shouldn't the disciples have been able to defend themselves? Like I said don't be so carnal in your thinking. Don't forget Paul too had authority yet he was arrested plenty of times and beheaded.

So think before you ask questions. God gave you a brain for a reason, learn to use it


Pastor David (419) who was the keys to the kingdom of heaven given to? and why?

I've seen this very poor and frankly baseless "explanation" so its no surprise that you had to ferret through the net to get it.
Lets read through the bible . . . Peter wasnt a novice . . . why did Peter use "babylon" as a code for Rome when ALL OTHER apostles including Paul clearly mentioned Rome?
Why is Peter the only person to use babylon as code for rome when even the acts of the apostles, the gospels and the epistles all clearly refer to Rome?

Hmm pastor you're funny, when you want to bash the Church you are happy to point out that babylon is rome and that the pope is the bishop of rome so he must be the anti-christ.

But here you're insinuating that babylon isn't rome, so which one is it? is it rome or not? (I would really like for you to answer questions, instead of dodging it, since we're the heathens, please educate us)

. . . was in reference to the church in Rome . . . would you then contend that the babylon in Rev 17:5 is also a reference to the church of Rome?

So the romans that paul wrote to, were they harlots?
peter wrote of the sister in rome as in church in rome, revelation does not even imply the sister in rome, it doesn't imply the church. try again.

Nice catholic assertion but when are you going to prove it?

Since to you we cannot prove it, why don't you educate us on who the bishop of rome is.
why don't you educate us on the church that peter was head of, he had to be head of one.

One thing you have to contend with is the fact that those men were catholics and it was to the interest of the church that the unproven claim of Peter's bishopric of Rome be upheld at all costs. How do we infact know that their "evidence" (not historical at all) is without bias?

how do you know that the bible is without bias?
it was the bishops that compiled the bible too. they were the ones to decide what was in and what was out. so is the bible bias or not. it was put together by the bishops.

Lol at you saying they were bias, the early church direct from the disciples who taught them were biased?
these people wrote those letters around 70 AD to 100somtheing AD, and they were Catholics too, hmm thank God you said it yourself. I guess the early church were catholics. News flash o, everyone was catholic, there were no protestants and such. If they were not heretics they were catholics.

Neither does it say he was.

He wrote from Rome. He died in Rome.

Reverse psychology wont help you here. Have you shown me in the bible that Peter was Bishop of Rome? Surely at least one of the early apostles would have secretly mentioned it no?

On the contrary sir, it is up to you now to prove your point. He has presented his points to you along with proof. You do not believe him, so now the burden on proof is on you.SImply stating that it is not true, does not make it not true. Proving that it is not true makes it not true. Now will you please prove that it is not true. If you are unable to, then it will be assumed that his proof stands to be true.
If you are unable to, then please stop spewing lies.

Seriously all this time that you have spent trying to disprove the Catholic Church with pure hatred could have been spent disproving the Church with pure truth.
Settle the matter once and for all and show proof that the Keys to the Kindom of heaven was not given to Peter and that he was not Bishop of Rome. Paul not stating 'Peter is the bishop of rome' is not proof that peter was not, Prove that babylon is not rome.
So either babylon is not rome, meaning that you will loose your argument point of the LovePeddler of babylon being the Catholic church, or it is rome. Which one is it?

I think it is clear that Peter did not equate "Babylon" to Rome in his epistle. If he did, please read the referneces in Revelation yourself and see that you're confirming that Rome is a despicable hold of demonic spirits. How do you weave out of that?!?

hmm you know you might be on to something there, but would you mind telling me what babylon is? which city was it?

What are you leading your readers to believe by that inference? The thing is that you're using fallacious arguments in support for your doctrine of equating the Roman Catholic Church with Rome. If that was not anything to make us think, I don't see how you could have been using that reference to argue for the origins of the Catholic Church. As long as you did, and the context in which it was presented, it only leads one to check those references in Revelation and see that your "Rome" (aka Babylon) is a system under divine suveillance. Please check it again.

Rome was a city meaning it wasn't just one spot. It had seven hills and the vatican is not one of them. Geography should tell you about that. Your point, baseless. We addressed this issue before.

Several pro-catholic websites make the claim that Peter used the term Babylon so the Roman government wouldnt come searching for him and kill him . . . well we know that is false . . . because Paul wrote to the church in Rome (Romans) and mentions the church in Rome several times with NO REFERENCE to the alleged Bishop of Rome! Why did Peter write not a single letter to his alleged church in Rome? Why did Paul have to write epistles and go to preach in a church that already had a bishop in the person of Peter?

Oga sir, you do know that Peter traveled around right? Even to corinth. but we know that there is a letter to the corinthians by paul. does that mean that peter didn't go to corinth. no.

Maybe you have forgotten that the books in the new testament were not the only books written, they wre chosen to be there. Got it.

then where does this strange but false assertion that Peter was Bishop of Rome come from?
Could Peter have been Bishop and none of his brethren acknowledged it?

You had a list of catholic leaders making reference to Peter being in Rome at a point . . . but virtually NONE of the early writers (Dynosius, Irreneaus) refers to Peter as Bishop of the church . . . we see references to church building by Paul (and Peter - expected as he was leader of the apostles in Jerusalem) and the martyrdom of both in Rome.
No reference to Bishopric . . . isnt this strange?

His brethren did acknowledge it. Christ gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven or did he not?
Prove to me that Christ did not give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

- The driving point is simple - a house built on lies cannot stand.

So when is it going to fall, because it has been standing for 2000 years. Many have come and gone, but it is still standing. So when is it going to fall?
Are your prayers for its failure working? How many years have you prayed for its failure? Why hasn't it fallen yet?

Ah the usual trump card when catholics get stuck with their "traditions".

Ah the usual trupm card, when asked questions you refuse to answer.
Since we got it wrong, why don't you tell us the right answer?
Wouldn't it be the Jesus thing to do?
Educate us o. We have questions.

Of course, if you're just interested in what the catholics do out of pure curiousity, then I understand, but just remember that no earthly person can forgive our sins. Only God can do that.

Yet he said to them "as my Father sent me so I send you"

can u show me where?

John 20:20-23

When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord
Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father sent me so I send you.
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit, Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained them."

Is that not where Jesus sends them to do as he is able to do? Is that not when he sends them to forgive sins or retain them?

Have you come up with a proper interpretation yet?

Note: quoting another passage in the Bible does not answer the question. Your interpretation is needed as we need to be sure that you are telling the truth. There are false preachers out there and we need to know that you have the holy Spirit o. So pastor abeg interpret and answer the questions, thank you.

@ericok,

ericok:

Isn't it funny the way we talk about God, bible and the interpretation of the bible.

It is funny.

ericok:

From the foregoing, it simply shows that the people attacking the Catholic Church mode of confession are either ignorant of the bible or interprete the bible to suit themselves.

The "ignorant" ones have been asking you guys to simply show the verses in the Bible where you read the bowing down to graven images, and sundry other stuff - you haven't shown that; and failing to do so, you interprete it as attacking the Catholic Church?

ericok:

May I state here that priests are the representatives of God and God has already granted them right to forgive sins.

The Bible says that all Christian believers are priests unto God - 1 Peter 2:5 and Rev. 1:5-6.

ericok:

If you feel offended by this, I am sorry about it, but it doesn't change my believe.

Believing in error hurts none other than he who holds them.

Shalom.

Oga sir, you do know that Peter traveled around right? Even to corinth. but we know that there is a letter to the corinthians by paul. does that mean that peter didn't go to corinth. no.

Maybe you have forgotten that the books in the new testament were not the only books written, they wre chosen to be there. Got it.

Tell them o. . . .The amount of early church testimony of Peter going to Rome and dieing there is too much.  All of the apostolic churches claim that Peter went to Rome, evangelized in Rome, eventually became bishop of Rome, and was martyred in Rome.  And you guys (pilgrim.1 and Davidylan) are saying I should prove it.  Go and read their testimonies again and you (Davidylan, pilgrim.1) come back and disprove it.  You claim that they are biased because they were catholic.  Knock knock knock, all of the early christians were catholic (well at least the orthodox ones).  Who would they be biased against?  These same bishops were the bishops the compiled your bible (by the grace of God and the Holy Spirit).  Yet you claim they were biased.  If thats the case, the bible that you are reading is a biased catholic book. 

St. Athanasius in his Festal Letter, § 39, in 367 AD, published a list of books suitable for reading during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a regional canon for the Eastern Church.  Then the Council of Hippo, a regional council for some of the bishops in the Diocese of Africa, in 393 AD reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus. . . .The Council of Carthage in 397 AD also reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus. Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification. Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate.

Ok, my friends (pilgrim.1 and Davidylan) if Peter wasn't the bishop of Rome, who was the bishop of Rome?  Just because Paul did not acknowledge Peter in the book of Romans does not mean Peter never became bishop of Rome.  Just because Paul evangelised in Rome does not mean Peter (leader of the apostles, given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, first to proclaim Jesus is lord, given a name change to Petros (aka Rock)) did not either.  The early christians called Rome the city were both Peter and Paul taught, and yet still call Peter the bishop of Rome.

Dionysius of Corinth

"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:.

@Omenuko,

I hope your Sunday has been cool.

Omenuko:

Tell them o. . . .The amount of early church testimony of Peter going to Rome and dieing there is too much. All of the apostolic churches claim that Peter went to Rome, evangelized in Rome, eventually became bishop of Rome, and was martyred in Rome.

How do claims that somebody going to Rome, evangelizing there, and dying there translate into that person becoming a Bishop of Rome? In other words, a "bishop" translates into "Pope"? I'm still amazed at this kind of circular reasoning that is still missing the point. I'm only interested in seeing how the Bible actually indicates that there was any Pope among the early Christians during the time of the apostles. Do you care to simply show us? I often hear Catholics boast that they are the only right interpreters of the Bible they put together. No wahala - all we need is for them to show us the verse referring to Peter as a pope.

It is for this reason I often ask simple questions requesting simple answers in this manner:

(a) give me the answers; and then -
(b) show us the verses.

Nothing could be simpler than that, abi? Where panic begins to creep in and no answers or verses to substantiate people's claims are forthcoming, I simply take it that the calim is a cosmetic fallacy and nothing to invite further discussions. If that is what the trend is, that is why I often log out and let the circular arguments continue for those who delight themselves so much with such roundabout arguments.

To this end, following the above (a) and (b) outline, I have asked and am still asking:

1. How many bishops were there during the time of the apostles?
2. Where do we read that Peter was infact a bishop of Rome?
3. Was Peter a "Pope" because of the title "Bishop"?

If you can be as simple and provide simple answers from the Bible, that would be very helpful. If otherwise, there would be no need to shlepp on the circular argument. To me, I appreciate someone telling me that although they cannot provide the answers, they refuse to change their beliefs. That is more helpful and respectable than the effort to keep dribbling around issues and end up accusing people of lying when there are no answers forthcoming from you guys. Just because one doesn't like to engage in protracted arguments that are retired does not mean you have provided anything sane enough to address the issues of this discussion.

Omenuko:

And you guys (pilgrim.1 and Davidylan) are saying I should prove it.

Yes sir - as simple as I stated in (a) and (b) above.

Omenuko:

Go and read their testimonies again and you (Davidylan, pilgrim.1) come back and disprove it.

I have been reading the Bible long before my conversion - the Bible hasn't changed its message. Not in one verse did I see ~~

(i) any one of the apostles bow down to graven images
(ii) or pray to Mary
(iii) or use the serpent bronze as an excuse to Mariolatry
(iv) or refer to Mary as the Saviour of the people of Rome.

These are simple samples of Catholic doctrine - like them or lump them. The point is as smple as well: please simple answer the questions in the same manner as below -

(a) give me the answers;
(b) show us the verses.

Simplicity will be highly apprecited, thank you.

Omenuko:

You claim that they are biased because they were catholic.

Nope, please re-read my statements. I did not at anytime make such a claim - a direct quote will be appreciated where you find I stated anything of such.

Omenuko:

Knock knock knock, all of the early christians were catholic (well at least the orthodox ones).

I agree - "catholic" with a small "c" is not the C[/b]atholic [b]C[/b]hurch with [b]R[/b]omish [b]P[/b]apacy. All the rites of the Catholic Church with the organized system of the Vatican is a completely strange phenomenon to the apostles who were used of God to found the New Testament churches. I have identified some of those rites - it's all up to you to show us where the apostles practised any one of them. Again, please be simple, thank you.

Omenuko:

Who would they be biased against? These same bishops were the bishops the compiled [b]your bible (by the grace of God and the Holy Spirit).

That is why I have been asking you to show us in the same Bible where they practised any such things as you have been weakly defending. Is that too hard to understand?

Omenuko:

Yet you claim they were biased.

Psst! Quote me where I made such a claim, thank you.

continued from previous page. . .

Omenuko:

If thats the case, the bible that you are reading is a biased catholic book.

Sorry, if that is what you think, the accusation is to your own account - and God will hold you responsible for that. When you discuss with me, there is one thing you will never see me do - accuse the Bible, God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit or any one of the Biblical characters with such illiterate remarks. It doesn't matter how heated the debate may be - I simply watch my words and not go there. If you want to keep up this accusation against the Bible, don't try to credit it to me: it's up to you to watch your tongue.

Omenuko:

Ok, my friends (pilgrim.1 and Davidylan) if Peter wasn't the bishop of Rome, who was the bishop of Rome?  Just because Paul did not acknowledge Peter in the book of Romans does not mean Peter never became bishop of Rome.  Just because Paul evangelised in Rome does not mean Peter (leader of the apostles, given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, first to proclaim Jesus is lord, given a name change to Petros (aka Rock)) did not either.  The early christians called Rome the city were both Peter and Paul taught, and yet still call Peter the bishop of Rome.

Circular arguments again, my dear. Just one thing, first: after the resurrection, it was not Peter who was first to proclaim Jesus as "Lord". Infact, Peter was not the first to find out about the resurrection -

   (a) Mary was the first to speak of Jesus as 'Lord' after the resurrection:
                "Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord,
                 and that he had spoken these things unto her" [John 20:18.]

   (b) John was the next to use the term 'Lord' after the resurrection:
                 "Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter,
                  It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord,
                  he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast
                  himself into the sea." [John 21:7]

In Acts 2, Peter and the apostles rose to speak to the crowd about the resurrection, and many believed (verses 14, 36, 41).

All the above are not from traditions of the early fathers - they can still be read from the Bible you boast so much about but cannot use. I apologise upfront if you're still struggling within yourself to find simple answers. But if you do have anything of substance to share with us, please save us the eyesore of circular arguments and share with us as simply where you find Peter was a POPE as well the Catholic rites you have been seeking to defend weakly.

Many blessings.

Again, let me identify some of the issues which Catholicism as a system is practising but which we find completely opposite to the message of the Bible:


   (1)     making of graven images of Mary or any of the apostles or saints

   (2)     bowing down to any graven images

   (3)     worshipping any graven images, serpent, cherubim, or man
                                         (whether latria, dulia, or hyperdulia)

   (4)     praying to Mary or any one of the apostles, angels, or saints

   (5)     referring to Mary as THE SAVIOUR of the people of Rome

   (6)     the idea of any bishop or apostle being referred to as POPE

   (7)     the rites of the Rosary

These are very few of the issues involved in our discussions so far. Because they have been well dicussed in other threads much earlier and shown clearly to be without foundation either in the Bible or among the early Christians in the days of the apostles, I often do not like to engage in protracted arguments where our friends have been unable to show them directly from Scripture.

Yeah, I know - you guys don't practise Scripture, so anything is permissible. That being so, it makes much sense to simply say you don't take your rites from God's Word and do as you please. That is more dignified than endlessly filling pages with roundabout arguments and yet not be able to simply identify where you find your foundation in the same Scripture you boast of putting together for us.

Blessings all the same.