Omenuko:

@Davidylan,

Have you herd of St. Peter's Basilica?

What is its relevance to ANY of the questions i asked? Here is the conundrum . . . if Paul was imprisoned and killed by the same Rome were Peter was Bishop . . . what was Peter doing and why did Paul NOT ONCE mention his name in his epistles?

- Look at the quote you made . . . catholic tradition is not the same as history.

Omenuko:

I will come back later to address:
[list]
[li]Peter apostle to the Jews?[/li]
[li]Is the Bible silent about Peter being in Rome?[/li]
[/list]

Pls my questions are listed in other posts . . . why are you trying so hard not to address them?

Omenuko:

Question: When I come back and address these issues what will it prove? You still won't believe the Catholic church is 2000 years old. You still won't believe in apostolic succession. You don't even trust that the list I posted of popes is authentic. Lets start from ground zero: Do you believe Peter was the leader of the early Church?

That was not my question . . . here it is again - was Peter ever Bishop of Rome?

1 Pet. 5:13 - 2 I write these few words to you through Silvanus, who is a trustworthy brother, to encourage you and attest that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it!  13 Your sister in Babylon, who is with you among the chosen, sends you greetings; so does my son, Mark.  14 Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace to you all who are in Christ.

In the greeting at the end of Peters first letter (see above) he states or implies that he is writing from Babylon.  Where is Babylon?  Well if we use the Bible and the testimony of the early church fathers (see below) it becomes clear.   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.  This code name for Rome can also be found in Rev. 14:8; 17:5; and 18:2.

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?

Look, the authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered unlawful. They (Romans) considered the worship of any other gods other than the Roman ones as atheism and atheism was against the law.  You ask where was Peter in all this, I don't know, but I do know that Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital.  Letters were routinely read by Roman officials.  Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. 

Let me post some of the early Christian testimony (take note of the dates):

Ignatius of Antioch

"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

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:.

Irenaeus

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ,  To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).

Gaius

"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).

Clement of Alexandria


"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: 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 a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).

Tertullian


"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (ibid., 32:2).

"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood" (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D. 210]).

The Little Labyrinth

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Omenuko:

In the greeting at the end of Peters first letter (see above) he states or implies that he is writing from Babylon.  Where is Babylon? Well if we use the Bible and the testimony of the early church fathers (see below) it becomes clear.   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.  This code name for Rome can also be found in Rev. 14:8; 17:5; and 18:2.

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?

Ok back to the old testament . . . is it possible that a Jewish nation that spent 70yrs in exile in Babylon did not know the difference between Rome and Babylon? Was Nebuchadnezzar a king of Rome?

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?

Omenuko:

Look, the authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered unlawful. They (Romans) considered the worship of any other gods other than the Roman ones as atheism and atheism was against the law.  You ask where was Peter in all this, I don't know, but I do know that Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital.  Letters were routinely read by Roman officials.  Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. 

Paul wrote the book of Romans and had this to say - Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
Let me post some of the early Christian testimony (take note of the dates):

Was Peter just being a coward or was Peter ever Bishop of Rome at all? I would consider it  slight for Paul to be writing to a church with a Bishop and never acknowledge him even once!

Omenuko please read Romans 16 . . . Paul greets 27 members of the church of Rome. Did he forget to greet their very bishop? That must be the very height of disdain . . .

Omenuko, here is one more problem you have to deal with . . . if indeed Peter's statement here: 1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

. . . 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?

Rev 17:3So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Over to you mr. Omenuko. The bible does not lie, you cant accept one thing and denounce the other.

Was Peter just being a coward or was Peter ever Bishop of Rome at all? I would consider it  slight for Paul to be writing to a church with a Bishop and never acknowledge him even once!

No, Peter was not a coward, he was the first Pope and Bishop of Rome.  Peter was the leader of the Apostles. . . .Paul wrote many more letters to the faithful other than the ones in the New Testament.  So, what do you think of the early christian testimony I posted asserting that Peter was in Rome?  These same people (early christians) had access to the same epistles of Paul that you are quoting from and still acknowledged that Peter at one point was in Rome.  Their letters attesting to Peter's presence in Rome should be viewed as historical evidence or should be considered.  The bible does not say that Peter was not in Rome.  Show me in the Bible were it says Peter was not in Rome.  The most you can do is infer from the omission of Peters name in any one verse of the New Testament that explicitly states that he was in Rome.  So, stating that the Bible is silent of Peter being in Rome does not prove that he was not in Rome or that he never went to Rome.

Omenuko:

No, Peter was not a coward, he was the first Pope and Bishop of Rome.

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

Omenuko:

Peter was the leader of the Apostles. . . .

True, that's why i wonder why Paul greets 27 important brethren in the Roman church and ignores his leader.

Omenuko:

Paul wrote many more letters to the faithful other than the ones in the New Testament.

It doesnt invalidate Paul's failure to mention the "bishop" of Rome in 16 solid chapters to he church of Rome. If they already had a bishop why was Paul eager to go preach there in Romans 1?

Omenuko:

So, what do you think of the early christian testimony I posted asserting that Peter was in Rome?

that is all they are . . . "assertions" not proof.

Omenuko:

These same people (early christians) had access to the same epistles of Paul that you are quoting from and still acknowledged that Peter at one point was in Rome.

Did not the pharisees have access to the books of Isaiah? How then did they miss the Messiah?

Omenuko:

Their letters attesting to Peter's presence in Rome should be viewed as historical evidence or should be considered.

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?

Omenuko:

The bible does not say that Peter was not in Rome.

Neither does it say he was.

Omenuko:

Show me in the Bible were it says Peter was not 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?

Omenuko:

The most you can do is infer from the omission of Peters name in any one verse of the New Testament that explicitly states that he was in Rome.

You've even done worse. Try to force babylon as code for Rome when it is not. You have defended an assertion that is nowhere supported in the bible.
Where in the bible was Peter Bishop of Rome or ever heard of the Roman church?

Omenuko:

So, stating that the Bible is silent of Peter being in Rome does not prove that he was not in Rome or that he never went to Rome.

The issue is not whether Peter was ever in Rome. The issue is this, was Peter ever BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF ROME?

Dear Omenuko,

There is something that your interpreters may not have handled properly in reference to Babylon. let's quote you again:

Omenuko:

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.  This code name for Rome can also be found in Rev. 14:8; 17:5; and 18:2.

Hmmm, this is terrifying, to say the least. I very much doubt that those who hold this interpretation that Babylon is the code name for Rome actually have not carefully weighed the import of what they were stating. Now, let's simply quote the references again:

[list][list]Revelation 14:8
        'And there followed another angel, saying,
         Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city,
         because she made all nations drink of the wine
         of the wrath of her fornication[/list][/list]

[list][list]Revelation 17:5
        'And upon her forehead was a name written,
        MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
        AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.'[/list][/list]

[list][list]Revelation 18:2
        'And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying,
        Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become
        the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit,
        and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.'[/list][/list]

Now, if by implication you're saying that Babylon is Rome, hmmm. . . this is something that should make us shudder. Does this not clearly show that your interpreters are saying in no uncertain terms that Rome is the mother of harlots and the stronghold of demonic spirits? Was that what Peter the apostle was commending in his epistle?  This is serious!!

True, that's why i wonder why Paul greets 27 important brethren in the Roman church and ignores his lea

This argument is kind of weak.  Did the author of Hebrews greet the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. In any case, Peter may not have been there at the time.

  So, what do you think of the early christian testimony I posted asserting that Peter was in Rome?

that is all they are . . . "assertions" not proof.

Yours nko?  It no be assertion?

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?

Finally you have acknowledged it. . . .they indeed were Catholics.  What is your evidence to the contrary?

The bible does not say that Peter was not in Rome.

Neither does it say he was.

So, you acknowledge that Peter could have been in Rome because the Bible is silent in either case?

You've even done worse. Try to force babylon as code for Rome when it is not. You have defended an assertion that is nowhere supported in the bible.
Where in the bible was Peter Bishop of Rome or ever heard of the Roman church?

Are you telling me that of all the references of Babylon in the New Testament, none of them are referring to Rome?

The issue is not whether Peter was ever in Rome. The issue is this, was Peter ever BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF ROME?

Now I understand, will you at least acknowledge that Peter may have been in Rome.  I will acknowledge that the Bible does not say Peter was Bishop of Rome.

Hmmm, this is terrifying, to say the least. I very much doubt that those who hold this interpretation that Babylon is the code name for Rome actually have not carefully weighed the import of what they were stating. Now, let's simply quote the references again:

            Revelation 14:8
                     'And there followed another angel, saying,
                      Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city,
                      because she made all nations drink of the wine
                      of the wrath of her fornication


            Revelation 17:5
                     'And upon her forehead was a name written,
                     MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
                     AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.'


            Revelation 18:2
                     'And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying,
                     Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become
                     the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit,
                     and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.'


Now, if by implication you're saying that Babylon is Rome, hmmm. . . this is something that should make us shudder. Does this not clearly show that your interpreters are saying in no uncertain terms that Rome is the mother of harlots and the stronghold of demonic spirits? Was that what Peter the apostle was commending in his epistle? Undecided  This is serious!!

Did not the Romans persecute the early christians?  Where are you going?

Omenuko:

Are you telling me that of all the references of Babylon in the New Testament, none of them are referring to Rome?

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?!?

Omenuko:

Did not the Romans persecute the early christians? Where are you going?

I am asking you to check your references again and think issues through for yourself instead of swallowing what your interpreters have spoon-fed people with.

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?!? Undecided

Yes, those passages from Rev. are referring to ancient Rome. The capital of the pagan Roman Empire. My sister, I don't need to weave anything. Get to your point already.

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?!? Undecided

You do well to think. . . .and I think that it is clear that he is referring to Rome in his epistle.

@Omenuko,

Look at it again:

Omenuko:

Babylon is a code-word for Rome.  .  .  This code name for Rome can also be found in Rev. 14:8; 17:5; and 18:2.

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.

Omenuko:

You do well to think. . . .and I think that it is clear that he is referring to Rome in his epistle.

You may well think it so; and if Rome here is the same as ancient Rome, and therefore your argument for the origins of the RCC, I wonder what you're failing to see.

Cheers.

Omenuko:

This argument is kind of weak.  Did the author of Hebrews greet the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. In any case, Peter may not have been there at the time.

Actually it strengthens my argument. Galatians 2:7-8 clearly identifies Peter as the appointed leader of the Jewish christians (the circumcision) and Paul the leader to the Gentiles. It is therefore no surprise that Paul writes to every other person BUT the Jews. We never see him write an epistle to the jews, we don't see him talk of going to preach to the church in Jerusalem . . . because it is possible he didnt do so because they already had leaders there.
Even Acts 11 mentions this quite clearly.

When Paul first got converted, Peter was one of the chief brethren at the Jerusalem church.

Omenuko:

Finally you have acknowledged it. . . .they indeed were Catholics.  What is your evidence to the contrary?

I refer to your popes and catholic bishops not to the early disciples please. don't get me wrong.

Omenuko:

So, you acknowledge that Peter could have been in Rome because the Bible is silent in either case?

That was never the issue, in case you have muddled it up here it is again - was Peter BISHOP OF THE CHURCH IN ROME?

Omenuko:

Are you telling me that of all the references of Babylon in the New Testament, none of them are referring to Rome?

See the references to Rome in Revelations . . . so your church is the hold of demonic spirits and blasphemy? Thanks Omenuko.

Omenuko:

Now I understand, will you at least acknowledge that Peter may have been in Rome.  I will acknowledge that the Bible does not say Peter was Bishop of Rome.

That again is an attempt to muddy the waters because my assertion has never been that Peter did not go to Rome at some point. The issue is WAS PETER BISHOP OF THE CHURCH IN ROME?

davidylan*:

See the references to Rome in Revelations . . . so your church is the hold of demonic spirits and blasphemy? Thanks Omenuko.

>sigh!<

Omenuko just cannot see what he's saying! I thought I was the only one seeing how weak his argument for Babylon is.


Meanwhile, please take style modify the "girl 2:7-8" in your first paragraph, lol. I know it happens - you write G'al as a word and fiam - it turns to "girl". Maybe if you write it out in full - Galatians?

@pilgrim.1

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 divinde suveillance. Please check it again.

[list]
[li]The official name of my church is the Catholic Church (not the roman catholic church)[/li]
[li]The Latin Church (one of many churches within the Catholic Church - Greek, Russian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Assyrian, Chaldean, etc.) is where I worship[/li]
[li]Babylon does not refer to the Catholic Church but to the ancient roman empire[/li]
[li]You go and check it again[/li]
[/list]

Omenuko:

I will acknowledge that the Bible does not say Peter was Bishop of Rome.

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?

That again is an attempt to muddy the waters because my assertion has never been that Peter did not go to Rome at some point. The issue is WAS PETER BISHOP OF THE CHURCH IN ROME?

YES! Peter was Bishop of Rome

Omenuko:

@pilgrim.1

[list][li]Babylon does not refer to the Catholic Church but to the ancient roman empire[/li][/list]

@Omenuko,

That is the very thing you had implied for 1 Peter 5:13, incase you didn't know. You cannot be forcing that inference every single time you see babylon in the Bible and assume it was referring to Rome. If you make that inference, it categorically is saying that the Catholic Church is as described for babylon in Revelation - a very aweful implication in your argument. You should try to be consistent. Your argument immediately suffers an inward collapse if you make such an inference, and then later come back disengaging yourself from the same thing after you see the implication.

before you make arguments next time, carefully check issues by yourself - don't just cut and paste arguments from theologians just because it sounds sweet to the ears.

Cheers.

Omenuko:

YES! Peter was Bishop of Rome

How do you know this? I'm curious.

pilgrim.1:

Meanwhile, please take style modify the "girl 2:7-8" in your first paragraph, lol. I know it happens - you write G'al as a word and fiam - it turns to "girl". Maybe if you write it out in full - Galatians?

thanks, i kept wondering why "girl" kept appearing.  

Omenuko:

Babylon does not refer to the Catholic Church but to the ancient roman empire

I think that is a little stretching of the facts.   Revelations was describing events of the future not events happening at that time. It would thus be wrong for you to equate babylon with a pagan roman empire that long ceased to exist. If you want to debate that i'll be more than happy but first oblige me how Peter ended up Bishop of Rome first. thanks

See bold below:

Irenaeus

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], [b]having founded and built up the church[/b] [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth


"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).


Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ,  ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).


Epiphanius of Salamis


"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Omenuko that is the problem, all those are "assertions" by men who definitely had a catholic agenda. Where is the biblical proof? Paul certainly would have known better than Irreneaus and co who was Bishop of Rome. Its absurd that he wrote to the Romans, regularly preached to them and completely ignored the man he supposedly built the church along with.

Omenuko that is the problem, all those are "assertions" by men who definitely had a catholic agenda. Where is the biblical proof? Paul certainly would have known better than Irreneaus and co who was Bishop of Rome. Its absurd that he wrote to the Romans, regularly preached to them and completely ignored the man he supposedly built the church along with.

I'll believe the testimony of the early church christian over yours. You yourself, showed no proof that Peter did not got to Rome or was not Bishop of Rome. Lets agree to disagree. If ever you manage to prove that Peter was not Bishop of Rome what is your driving point?

Lol. . . @Omenuko,

If I were you, I would not be so keen to be cutting and pasting the arguments of early church fathers. I do respect their opnions; but in many cases, we have to understand that not everything that they said on record is actually what happened or what Scripture teaches.

I give you an example: have you read the early church father who said that he was the Word of God? Not many people see this, but I often like to start by asking that question to people who use such arguments to see what they really now about the early fathers.

Anyhow, Irenaeus is attributed with so many quotes that we no longer know what his original thoughts are. Against Heresies 3:3:3 does not have [of Rome] in the original - that is a false and forced interpolation by whoever translated it into English. Meanwhile, we see again that Biblically speaking, apostolic office is not transferred or handed down from person to person - God Himself calls and equips people, and leaders in Church were appointed by the apostles to several capable leaders and not just one individual!!

Thirdly, the episcopate is not something that the RCC has mis-defined today. Quoting church fathers in disregard of what is read in Scripture is not the same thing as establishing one's proper understanding of the Word.

Omenuko:

I'll believe the testimony of the early church christian over yours. You yourself, showed no proof that Peter did not got to Rome or was not Bishop of Rome. Lets agree to disagree. If ever you manage to prove that Peter was not Bishop of Rome what is your driving point?

- It is Paul's testimony not mine. I will believe him over your "early church catholics".
- Nowhere did i insinuate that Peter never went to Rome at any point in his life (another way of muddying the waters).
- You havent a shred of proof that Peter was Bishop of Rome, you cant try to pan off your own claim by asking me to prove it isnt true.
- The driving point is simple - a house built on lies cannot stand.

If I were you, I would not be so keen to be cutting and pasting the arguments of early church fathers. I do respect their opnions; but in many cases, we have to understand that not everything that they said on record is actually what happened or what Scripture teaches.

I give you an example: have you read the early church father who said that he was the Word of God? Not many people see this, but I often like to start by asking that question to people who use such arguments to see what they really now about the early fathers.

Anyhow, Irenaeus is attributed with so many quotes that we no longer know what his original thoughts are. Against Heresies 3:3:3 does not have [of Rome] in the original - that is a false and forced interpolation by whoever translated it into English. Meanwhile, we see again that Biblically speaking, apostolic office is not transferred or handed down from person to person - God Himself calls and equips people, and leaders in Church were appointed by the apostles to several capable leaders and not just one individual!!

Thirdly, the episcopate is not something that the RCC has mis-defined today. Quoting church fathers in disregard of what is read in Scripture is not the same thing as establishing one's proper understanding of the Word.

O jare, get to your point already. . . .If you say that Peter was not Bishop of Rome and I say he was the Bishop of Rome, what then?  You did not prove anything.  Bottom line, the early christians, all of the apostolic churches (russian, greek, ethiopian, indian, chaldean, assyrian, coptic, etc.) unanimously agree that Peter was bishop of Rome.  The above churches that I mentioned are not part of the Catholic Church (Latin tradition) and claim that Peter was Bishop of Rome.   And you want me to go with what you guys are saying (posting arguments from anti-catholic websites) as gospel truth, lol (too funny).  I have my own eyes and I'm reading the same things you guys are reading and I disagree.  Thats ok, my salvation is not based on the fact of Peter being bishop of Rome.

Romans 15:20Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

Paul must be a very selfish man, no room to include Peter the man he allegedly built the roman church with and who eventually became bishop?

- It is Paul's testimony not mine. I will believe him over your "early church catholics".
- Nowhere did i insinuate that Peter never went to Rome at any point in his life (another way of muddying the waters).
- You havent a shred of proof that Peter was Bishop of Rome, you can't try to pan off your own claim by asking me to prove it isnt true.
- The driving point is simple - a house built on lies cannot stand.

Your father is a lier. . . .

Omenuko:

Your father is a lier. . . .

Lol. . . easy now. When it begins to descend down this path, I auto-log out.

Omenuko:

O jare, get to your point already. . . .If you say that Peter was not Bishop of Rome and I say he was the Bishop of Rome, what then? You did not prove anything. Bottom line, the early christians, all of the apostolic churches (russian, greek, ethiopian, indian, chaldean, assyrian, coptic, etc.) unanimously agree that Peter was bishop of Rome. The above churches that I mentioned are not part of the Catholic Church (Latin tradition) and claim that Peter was Bishop of Rome. And you want me to go with what you guys are saying (posting arguments from anti-catholic websites) as gospel truth, lol (too funny). I have my own eyes and I'm reading the same things you guys are reading and I disagree. Thats ok, my salvation is not based on the fact of Peter being bishop of Rome.

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