What brought this up was I reading Schaff last night, and he said that tradition has it that both Peter and Paul were tried together, and then executed separately. Pretty amazing story, if it's true.
Here's an article on the subject. It's certainly not pro-Catholic, and it says that the first pope was actually Simon the Sorcerer from Acts 8. I'd like your guy's thoughts on it.
http://www.hope-of-israel.org/petrome.htm
A very quick, off-the-cuff reply, because I'm pressed for time; I'll respond to your link later.
There is no evidence that Peter ever set foot in Rome. None. Nada. Zilch.
In my opinion (and this is my very personal interpretation of church history), the first Pope was the Emperor Constantine. I mean that he was the first de facto Pope.
(07-14-2010 12:19 PM)William Wrote: [ -> ]In my opinion (and this is my very personal interpretation of church history), the first Pope was the Emperor Constantine. I mean that he was the first de facto Pope.
He was surely one of them, but Schaff claims that Simon Magnus was the first to mix paganism with Christianity. He claims that S.M. went to Rome and became a big whig there, like he was previously in Samaria where everyone thought he was the power of God from the least of them to the greatest.
Shaff calls him the "psudo-apostle of falsehood, the father of all heresies..." and a few other wonderful titles. I thought it was great.
(07-14-2010 05:15 PM)Here Am I Wrote: [ -> ]And to this assertion, I reply with a query:
"book? chapter? verse?"
I'm not sure if you're talking to me, but here's the Simon I'm talking about just to avoid any confusion:
Acts 8:9-24, "But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
[10] To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
[11] And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.
[12] But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
[13] Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
[14] Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
[15] Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
[16] (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
[17] Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
[18] And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
[19] Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
[20] But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
[21] Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
[22] Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
[23] For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
[24] Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me."
The Bible doesn't say who was the first to mix paganism with Christianity, but we know someone did it because we have the end result in the RCC.
I was replying to the proposal that Simon went to Rome, etc.
If it's not in the Bible, then I discount it, and don't think it should be taught as fact.
(07-14-2010 05:42 PM)Here Am I Wrote: [ -> ]I was replying to the proposal that Simon went to Rome, etc.
If it's not in the Bible, then I discount it, and don't think it should be taught as fact.
I don't think there is any Scripture to support it, that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened though. Even if it did, it certainly doesn't mean that the married Peter who possibly even had a child was ever the bishop of Rome or a pope.
What cracks me up is that the Catholic "proof" text of Peter going to Rome is when Peter says he's going to Babylon. They say Babylon is "code" for Rome. The idea quickly falls apart in their minds when you take them to Revelation.
I think it's more tradition that truth. Foxes Book of Martyrs has the same accounts of the apostles. The problem I have with most of the accounts of the apostles is many of them die in India, Bulgaria, Rome, Spain, etc. I'm not too sure about the 12 getting that far away from their land. Because unlike Paul they weren't called to be apostles to the gentiles. Now, it's possible that after 70AD when Jerusalem was destroyed that all bets were off but I doubt it. Of course, we do know that Peter did make it as far as Babylon but there were still loads of Jews from the dispersion there. India and Spain though?
Another problem is in the accounts of many of their deaths. Peter sees Jesus; John is boiled in oil but doesn't die so he's exiled instead; James the lesser is supposed to have been thrown down from the pinnacle of the temple, then stoned and beaten with clubs and fuller's mallets, while praying for his attackers.
http://www.shrinesf.org/apostles.htm
As a former Catholic, these stories seem very familiar to many of the stories of other Catholic saints that I was taught in school. Miracles and sensational stories but they are a load of garbage. If you look up any of the miracles from Catholic saints they sound as phony as these do. So even though they had the apostolic signs, it doesn't seem that God would have used signs and wonders for all of these Gentiles after the signs had faded away.
Lastly, many of these traditions started around the time of Constantine when the Catholic church was starting to get moving. Also Alexandria was forging Bibles and making up all sorts of stuff. That is where I'd put most of this tradition it came either from Rome or Alexandrian.
Hey guys, I just wanted to bump this thread back up again. I always, to use a William line
, "presupposed" that Peter
never set foot in Rome. After reading this article, I'm reevaluating that position because of the number of historical sources he cites and the fact that he is anti-Catholic so his agenda is not to prop up the papacy.
I know we all live busy lives, but I thought I'd bump it again. I'd really appreciate anyone's thoughts on the article itself when/if you have the chance to read it.
(07-16-2010 01:22 PM)Rick Schworer Wrote: [ -> ]Hey guys, I just wanted to bump this thread back up again. I always, to use a William line , "presupposed" that Peter never set foot in Rome. After reading this article, I'm reevaluating that position because of the number of historical sources he cites and the fact that he is anti-Catholic so his agenda is not to prop up the papacy.
I know we all live busy lives, but I thought I'd bump it again. I'd really appreciate anyone's thoughts on the article itself when/if you have the chance to read it.
I'd probably believe Schaff before I'd believe the Yeshua, Yehovah, Hope of Israel crew.