|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2020 17:11:07 GMT -5
How did Peter become the first pope if the Romans didn't like him? It's so interesting to see how people ignore things that just don't match with what they want to believe. If they just took some courses or read some research books on the subject that would view the history of their religion in a whole different light. Especially the trinity doctrine. Peter's evidence appears in Catholic "memorabilia" from the very beginning. The first remaining Catholic relic of Paul did not appear until something like the fourth century when a statue of him was placed with another one of Peter in a church building in Rome -- I'd have to look up the name of the church again if I needed to.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2020 17:14:10 GMT -5
Why waste time writing it over and over again, especially for people who don't really want to know anyway. So I just copy and paste. *** Hey! Did you copy and paste from me? bob. No, I didn't copy and paste anything from you. I don't copy and paste from anyone. I "quote and document".
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2020 17:18:02 GMT -5
Everything I’ve read says there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. He wrote about being in Babylon which is where a number of the scattered tribes of Israel were. The Israelis are who Peter sought to administer to. I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 17:23:43 GMT -5
No Christians were liked in the first century and even down into the 2nd century. Christians were persecuted very much. I know. That's why Paul's followers were killed and Peter's weren't. Peter was not considered a "Christian" and Paul was. Peter’s followers were Jews, they were still much under the thumb of Rome/Greeks. Nero didn’t seem to care though, but it was actually his mother who drove that campaign. It all apparently got to be more then Nero could handle for he committed suicide after inly 14 year reign!
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jan 20, 2020 17:24:10 GMT -5
*** Hey! Did you copy and paste from me? bob. No, I didn't copy and paste anything from you. I don't copy and paste from anyone. I "quote and document". ** I didn't say it was from me. I say copy and paste like me... Sorry, for the confusion.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2020 17:30:34 GMT -5
I know. That's why Paul's followers were killed and Peter's weren't. Peter was not considered a "Christian" and Paul was. Peter’s followers were Jews, they were still much under the thumb of Rome/Greeks. Nero didn’t seem to care though, but it was actually his mother who drove that campaign. It all apparently got to be more then Nero could handle for he committed suicide after inly 14 year reign! Yes, Peter's followers were Jews. There were Jews in Rome. No, Nero didn't care -- the elite in Rome were quite intrigued by JEWS at the time. But the JEWS weren't all that pleased with Paul -- that's why they (or their Roman admirers) kept Paul's Christian (and gentile convert) followers in the catacombs and persecuted them. Peter didn't go to Babylon. Babylon was long gone by then.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 17:31:20 GMT -5
It's so interesting to see how people ignore things that just don't match with what they want to believe. If they just took some courses or read some research books on the subject that would view the history of their religion in a whole different light. Especially the trinity doctrine. Peter's evidence appears in Catholic "memorabilia" from the very beginning. The first remaining Catholic relic of Paul did not appear until something like the fourth century when a statue of him was placed with another one of Peter in a church building in Rome -- I'd have to look up the name of the church again if I needed to. There was two churches in Rome who claimed Peter, that says he was buried in both churches. It was until the 1900’s that a pope said bones found “might be Peter’s.” MIGHT BE. But there is NO EVIDENCE REALLY that Peter was ever in Rome. HE administered to the Christian Jews. All the hoopla about him being in Rome is because Peoplw misinterpret the verse Jesus said about building his church on this rock. He used two different words for Peter and “this rock”. But they want to claim Peter found the RCC church, which he did not! He’s probably spinning in his grave over such claims. He was a Hewush Christian who held to the Mosaic law in spite of his experience with God telling him not to call any one unclean that God had cleansed. Just like the Apostle didn’t go out and do what Jesus told them to do and preach the gospel to all the world. No! They formed an enclave of believers in Jerusalem until the persecution over Stephen and then the temple was destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 17:33:22 GMT -5
Snow, Paul taught the same Christ follower beliefs that the 11 and 70 taught. He did NOT TELL THE JEWS NOT TO CIRCUMSIZE but the Gentile converts which the 11 and James the elder supported in Jerusalem. The 11 and James sent a letter to the Gentile converts saying so. Paul was not the one who gave the name “Christians” to the believers. It was the society at Antioch that gave them that name. As to giving “Christ” name to Jesus, he did it himself; but of course he used the Armaic term Messiah. But our Bible translated it to Christ. Well that doesn't jive with what I have learned by reading something other than the bible. But it really doesn't matter what I know, it's what you believe that matters. It’s what I’ve read from multiple other sources besides the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 17:34:55 GMT -5
How did Peter become the first pope if the Romans didn't like him? It's so interesting to see how people ignore things that just don't match with what they want to believe. If they just took some courses or read some research books on the subject that would view the history of their religion in a whole different light. Especially the trinity doctrine. You’re judging something that’s apparent you don’t know what you’re talking about.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2020 17:38:07 GMT -5
But there is NO EVIDENCE REALLY that Peter was ever in Rome. HE administered to the Christian Jews. No, no. Peter administered to "Jewish believers". Paul was the "Christian". Really!?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 17:42:33 GMT -5
Everything I’ve read says there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. He wrote about being in Babylon which is where a number of the scattered tribes of Israel were. The Israelis are who Peter sought to administer to. I don't think so. It’s evident Peter’s time was spent in Babylon, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bethune because of the scattered 12 tribes of Israel. His letter is addressed to them as is James with James’ saying to the “twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad.” These two Apostles were into taking care of the Asia ir Eastern country children of Israel that were Christ believers. How in the world would Peter ever have had time to spend in Rome to form a church? It’s not really sensible. It’s just a claim by the RCC just like the 2x2s who say they went all the way back to the shores of Gallillee.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2020 17:45:38 GMT -5
It’s evident Peter’s time was spent in Babylon, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bethune because of the scattered 12 tribes of Israel. His letter is addressed to them as is James with James’ saying to the “twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad.” These two Apostles were into taking care of the Asia ir Eastern country children of Israel that were Christ believers. How in the world would Peter ever have had time to spend in Rome to form a church? It’s not really sensible. It’s just a claim by the RCC just like the 2x2s who say they went all the way back to the shores of Gallillee. You do realize that in those days "Asia" really meant what we call "Turkey" today.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 17:45:40 GMT -5
But there is NO EVIDENCE REALLY that Peter was ever in Rome. HE administered to the Christian Jews. No, no. Peter administered to "Jewish believers". Paul was the "Christian". Really!? Really, that’s the book of Acts of the Apostles. The Apostles and other Jewish Christians thought Jesus was returning soon, so they sold all their possessions and piled in together into an enclave or commune. So they were just going to sit and wait TIL he did. God had to give them reasons to get out of Jerusalem.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 17:46:07 GMT -5
It’s evident Peter’s time was spent in Babylon, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bethune because of the scattered 12 tribes of Israel. His letter is addressed to them as is James with James’ saying to the “twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad.” These two Apostles were into taking care of the Asia ir Eastern country children of Israel that were Christ believers. How in the world would Peter ever have had time to spend in Rome to form a church? It’s not really sensible. It’s just a claim by the RCC just like the 2x2s who say they went all the way back to the shores of Gallillee. You do realize that in those days "Asia" really meant what we call "Turkey" today. Persia.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2020 17:47:19 GMT -5
It’s evident Peter’s time was spent in Babylon, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bethune because of the scattered 12 tribes of Israel. His letter is addressed to them as is James with James’ saying to the “twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad.” These two Apostles were into taking care of the Asia ir Eastern country children of Israel that were Christ believers. How in the world would Peter ever have had time to spend in Rome to form a church? It’s not really sensible. It’s just a claim by the RCC just like the 2x2s who say they went all the way back to the shores of Gallillee. The RCC doesn't claim they went all the way back to the shores of Galilee. They have "church fathers".
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2020 17:48:11 GMT -5
You do realize that in those days "Asia" really meant what we call "Turkey" today. Persia. That was Persia, not Asia.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 17:57:06 GMT -5
That was Persia, not Asia. I was thinking wrong name, sorry. I meant Syria. Btw, I noticed that in the film about the evidence about the Exodus that it mentioned the Children of Israel as from Asia themselves.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 18:00:58 GMT -5
It’s evident Peter’s time was spent in Babylon, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bethune because of the scattered 12 tribes of Israel. His letter is addressed to them as is James with James’ saying to the “twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad.” These two Apostles were into taking care of the Asia ir Eastern country children of Israel that were Christ believers. How in the world would Peter ever have had time to spend in Rome to form a church? It’s not really sensible. It’s just a claim by the RCC just like the 2x2s who say they went all the way back to the shores of Gallillee. The RCC doesn't claim they went all the way back to the shores of Galilee. They have "church fathers". But Peter wasn’t the first church Father. He was a Jew, wholeheartedly so! I doubt he’d approve of the RCC then or now!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2020 18:21:43 GMT -5
That was Persia, not Asia. I was thinking wrong name, sorry. I meant Syria. Btw, I noticed that in the film about the evidence about the Exodus that it mentioned the Children of Israel as from Asia themselves. Today both Asia and Africa are continents. But in Bible times Asia was what is not Turkey, and Africa was what is now called Libya.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 18:24:34 GMT -5
I was thinking wrong name, sorry. I meant Syria. Btw, I noticed that in the film about the evidence about the Exodus that it mentioned the Children of Israel as from Asia themselves. Today both Asia and Africa are continents. But in Bible times Asia was what is not Turkey, and Africa was what is now called Libya. Is that where Minor Asia came in?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2020 18:43:01 GMT -5
The RCC doesn't claim they went all the way back to the shores of Galilee. They have "church fathers". But Peter wasn’t the first church Father. He was a Jew, wholeheartedly so! I doubt he’d approve of the RCC then or now! That's what I meant. Actually there was no RCC church in Peter's day. The term "catholic" came about a couple of centuries later. The title "Roman" was even centuries later -- when the church split from the Orthodox eastern church. In Peter's day the Jewish followers of Jesus were just one of the many religious groups throughout the Roman Empire. Pagans didn't/don't disapprove of anyone's god(s). It takes far more than a few Internet posts back and forth to do justice to a couple of proper Bible History courses. And it's further complicated by the general ignorance of the history and the concerted efforts of modern fundamentalists to reinvent the history for political reasons.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 20, 2020 18:43:57 GMT -5
Today both Asia and Africa are continents. But in Bible times Asia was what is not Turkey, and Africa was what is now called Libya. Is that where Minor Asia came in? Well, yes, the old Asia is certainly a lot "minor" to the continent Asia.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 18:54:15 GMT -5
Is that where Minor Asia came in? Well, yes, the old Asia is certainly a lot "minor" to the continent Asia. I just remembered studying Asia and Asia Minor but can’t remember specifics.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 20, 2020 19:01:35 GMT -5
It's so interesting to see how people ignore things that just don't match with what they want to believe. If they just took some courses or read some research books on the subject that would view the history of their religion in a whole different light. Especially the trinity doctrine. You’re judging something that’s apparent you don’t know what you’re talking about. Are you saying that a majority of the people here have read thoroughly about their religion's history and have read extensively about how doctrine was formed in some place other than the bible? I don't think many have done a lot of investigation into their own religion and some don't even know what's in their own bible for that matters. I know for sure my birth family hasn't read much from their bible and that I will quote verses that they had no idea were in the bible. They definitely have never read any outside material on the subject. So I don't think you are right when you state that "you don't know what you're talking about'. How many books have you read that were written by actual biblical scholars? I have literally read hundreds of different books on the subject when I was doing research for writing my book. I think if people would read something other than the bible it would be an eye opener in many cases.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 20, 2020 19:03:37 GMT -5
No, no. Peter administered to "Jewish believers". Paul was the "Christian". Really!? Really, that’s the book of Acts of the Apostles. The Apostles and other Jewish Christians thought Jesus was returning soon, so they sold all their possessions and piled in together into an enclave or commune. So they were just going to sit and wait TIL he did. God had to give them reasons to get out of Jerusalem. So they interpreted what Jesus said the same as me then? That he would be back soon and before some of them died. Thanks for confirming that.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jan 20, 2020 19:14:49 GMT -5
This flies in the face of what you just said. Nothing unbelievable you can claim about this act also. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” - John 8:3-11 www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:3-11&version=NIVThe sermon on the mount also disagrees with you. Jesus was more rigid than the rest in many ways. He also brought in the teachings of other religions, primarily Buddhism. I agree that he was more lenient when it came to women than the Mosaic law states he should have been, but in many ways he was far more rigid. He disagreed with the priests of his time and what they were doing. He felt the law had been corrupted and he was very upset about that. But there is really no point in getting into this deeper because you are unwilling to study what really happened or believe it. That's fine. That's what believing with faith is all about. But if you read some books regarding indepth research of the bible and the times, you'd find a very different story than the one Christians today are taught. Interesting. You know how a while ago I was saying my image of a God is different to yours well here it is. To me God could be called Buddha ect to some. So Jesus isn't introducing anything new to him if he is God. I wish people would get this "powerful dude sitting on a cloud wielding a big stick that if you cant get or make something happen you just pray to this dude and it will happen" image out of there head. To me that is not god. So why do you believe the deeper studies over the scriptures, are they any more credible than the scriptures, I am not in any way dismissing your deeper studies, but would you agree that they agree with me in the scriptures do not promote a guy sitting in the clouds?. Remember I do not believe the scriptures are promoting the image of the guy I stated above, thats man making that image. So we have gone from Jesus would be appaled at those not upholding the law to You agree he was lenient to this women. Remembered his 2 great commandments.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 19:24:42 GMT -5
You’re judging something that’s apparent you don’t know what you’re talking about. Are you saying that a majority of the people here have read thoroughly about their religion's history and have read extensively about how doctrine was formed in some place other than the bible? I don't think many have done a lot of investigation into their own religion and some don't even know what's in their own bible for that matters. I know for sure my birth family hasn't read much from their bible and that I will quote verses that they had no idea were in the bible. They definitely have never read any outside material on the subject. So I don't think you are right when you state that "you don't know what you're talking about'. How many books have you read that were written by actual biblical scholars? I have literally read hundreds of different books on the subject when I was doing research for writing my book. I think if people would read something other than the bible it would be an eye opener in many cases. I have read many things/books/articles about Christianity/Jews or Children of Israel. I’ve listened to people from other countries express their thoughts, results of their own researches, etc. I know there are several on TMB that’s read more then their bible about their faith. I also know there’s a lot of 2x2s that open up their bibles and quickly scan for an interesting verse to give testimony on and end up saying they want to do better or they’re thankful for the workers which gives them a pass as being hearty members of their church. But don’t understand diddly-squat about the Bible. When we had friends or workers get deep into the Bible , a majority of the workers and friends’ eyes roll back in their head and they hear nothing because they aren’t listening. They learn little. Evan Jones’ preaching here in the states was one very evident example. Very few understood what he said and furthermore weren’t interested in finding out about what he was preaching about! He’s the very reason I begin to realize the most of the F& W’s are Bible illiterate. They’re stunted or just don’t know! I’m not saying all of them, but it became the conventions were a repeat of previous meetings and conventions. Basically the 2x2 church should have a great potential of having very goid bible students what with the small personal sized meetings but it’s not that way in every place.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 20, 2020 19:32:15 GMT -5
Really, that’s the book of Acts of the Apostles. The Apostles and other Jewish Christians thought Jesus was returning soon, so they sold all their possessions and piled in together into an enclave or commune. So they were just going to sit and wait TIL he did. God had to give them reasons to get out of Jerusalem. So they interpreted what Jesus said the same as me then? That he would be back soon and before some of them died. Thanks for confirming that. No they didn’t get that from the verse you keep saying Jesus was “returning soon”. He did not say that. Peter knew what he said because he spoke about it in II Peter 1:16. A lot of their idea was wishing. Grief. They’d didn’t know what to do but wait, in spite of Jesus having told them in Matthew 28 what to do, in their grief and desire just to be with Jesus they forgot those things. All they wanted to do was to devote their time to meditation and prayer as they said when they appointed the men to look out to the administration of the goods/finances especially to the widows and orphans. I can understand that grief, that desire to totally be centered on him whom they wanted to be with.
|
|