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.

Finally, you guys are acknowledging that Peter went to Rome and died in Rome. . . .Your second question, how does this translate into being the bishop of Rome?  Well, did you read the testimony of some of the bishops of the early church about Peter being the bishop of Rome.  Like I said before the bible is silent on whether or not Peter was bishop of Rome.  In other words you (as the case with me) cannot prove from the bible that Peter was not the bishop of Rome.  I acknowledeged that earlier.  But, like I said before. . . .[size=14pt]YES! Peter was bishop of Rome.[/size]  Another thing, it be like say you people keep changing topic of this thread.

Confession good or bad -----> are catholics saint/Mary worshippers ------> Peter did not go to Rome ------> Babylon doesn't mean Rome ------>
Peter was not bishop of Rome -------->  Testimony of early christians are biased catholic talk ------> Peter was not the Pope

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).

The above is good. . . .you get no argument from me. . . .Mary was the first christian. . . .lol

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?

The word Pope came from the latin word for 'father'.  In the early church to term Pope or Popa was used to refer to ones bishop.  In other words most bishops were referred to as 'pope'.  Over time it became to be solely used in referring to the successors of Peter (although the coptic church. . . .the church of alexandria, still refer to their bishop as Pope).  The word Pope is not in the bible, but all over the New Testament the apostles refer to themselves as spiritual fathers to the early christians.  That's just what the pope is, he is our spiritual father.

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"?

Answer 1.  Lets see, John was the last apostle to die (i'm not sure when that was), but I believe he lived through the first three bishops of Rome (Peter, Linus, Anecletus).  You will not find this in the bible, you will have to read through church history.

1 St. Peter (32-67)
2 St. Linus (67-76)
3 St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)

Answer 2.  The bible is silent on whether or not Peter was bishop of Rome.  Again, you will have to rely on the testimony of the early church christians.

Answer 3.  I think you are misunderstanding us catholics. . . .Peter could have been bishop of anywhere (Alexandria, Corinth, Jerusalem, etc.).  Where he was bishop doesn't really matter he still would have been the first pope and the head of the apostles.  Not because of his own authority or of him being a bishop.  He is the pope (our spiritual father) because of the authority given to him by Jesus Christ in Mathew 16:18.

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.
19 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.'

(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

Madam pilgrim.1 we have thoroughly explained to you and Davidylan what we catholics practice and the misconceptions (maybe even lies) you guys are throwing at us.  Posting things from anti-catholic websites and such.  Oh, you think we don't know.  Well sha, nah that be between you and God.  People should read through this thread and view it for themselves who is twisting what.

Glory to Jesus!

@Omenuko,

Omenuko:

Finally, you guys are acknowledging that Peter went to Rome and died in Rome.

That's quite disingenous, Omenuko. Asking questions does not mean one is admitting to your fallacy. So far we have only waited to see simple answers from Scripture; you can't wave circular reasoning in our faces and adduce from such that we are finnaly admitting - "admitting" what?

Omenuko:

. . .Your second question, how does this translate into being the bishop of Rome?  Well, did you read the testimony of some of the bishops of the early church about Peter being the bishop of Rome.  Like I said before the bible is silent on whether or not Peter was bishop of Rome.  In other words you (as the case with me) cannot prove from the bible that Peter was not the bishop of Rome.  I acknowledeged that earlier.

>sigh!< >still waiting for simple answers!<

Omenuko:

But, like I said before. . . .[size=14pt]YES! Peter was bishop of Rome.[/size]  Another thing, it be like say you people keep changing topic of this thread.

Okay, you don't have to shout. "Peter was bishop of Rome", I hear. Can I see you establish it in Scripture now?

Omenuko:

Confession good or bad -----> are catholics saint/Mary worshippers ------> Peter did not go to Rome ------> Babylon doesn't mean Rome ------>
Peter was not bishop of Rome -------->  Testimony of early christians are biased catholic talk ------> Peter was not the Pope

When I started it simply, Catholic answers were like words flying all around the place. An example, I don't remember asking to be reminded about December 25 before you spooled off on that one. That is why after my penultimate response to yours, I simply outlined what the real issues were, so that you will not predictably come back with the same complaints.

Omenuko:

The above is good. . . .you get no argument from me. . . .Mary was the first christian. . . .lol

Na your mouth I hear am! No be you talk say na Peter first proclaim that Jesus is Lord?

Omenuko:

The word Pope came from the latin word for 'father'.  In the early church to term Pope or Popa was used to refer to ones bishop.  In other words most bishops were referred to as 'pope'.  Over time it became to be solely used in referring to the successors of Peter (although the coptic church. . . .the church of alexandria, still refer to their bishop as Pope).  The word Pope is not in the bible, but all over the New Testament the apostles refer to themselves as spiritual fathers to the early christians.  That's just what the pope is, he is our spiritual father.

Thank you for the lesson.

Now, please show us where Peter occupied the office of the Papacy in Scripture. Granted: you said the Pope is not in the Bible, no wahala. That one which you have tried to enunciate, can you show me from where it is in the Bible, even though the term is not used there?

Also, since you made the inference that the word Pope is from the latin for 'father', em. . . can you reconcile that with what Jesus said in Matthew 23:9?

Omenuko:

Answer 1.  Lets see, John was the last apostle to die (i'm not sure when that was), but I believe he lived through the first three bishops of Rome (Peter, Linus, Anecletus).  You find this in the bible, you will have to read through church history.

Hmmm, you scored 2/20. . . which translates to about 10%. You owe me 90%!
Okay, on a serious note, I asked how many bishops there were during the apostles' time; not how many apostles lived through 3 bishops! Kai! You read the question or you just make up your own exam?

Omenuko:

Answer 2.  The bible is silent on whether or not Peter was bishop of Rome.  Again, you will have to rely on the testimony of the early church christians.

Okay, I hear. Good attempt. Results next time, be patient.

Omenuko:

Answer 3.  I think you are misunderstanding us catholics. . . .Peter could have been bishop of anywhere (Alexandria, Corinth, Jerusalem, etc.).  Where he was bishop doesn't really matter he still would have been the first pope and the head of the apostles.  Not because of his own authority or of him being a bishop.  He is the pope (our spiritual father) because of the authority given to him by Jesus Christ in Mathew 16:18.

Hahaha!! I anticipated this answer actually!!

Don't mind me - I have often caught a lot of Catholics making this same mistake; not because I deliberately wanted to trip them - just simply to help them see how difficult their arguments are for themselves.

Anyway, the question was: "3. Was Peter a "Pope" because of the title "Bishop"?
I didn't ask if Peter was was Bishop because of Rome; so the idea of Alexandria, Corinth or Jerusalem does not arise. All I have seen is an assertion that seriously lacks facts. Any attempt as a second go will be welcome.

Cheers.

Omenuko:

Madam pilgrim.1 we have thoroughly explained to you and Davidylan what we catholics practice and the misconceptions (maybe even lies) you guys are throwing at us.  Posting things from anti-catholic websites and such.  Oh, you think we don't know.  Well sha, nah that be between you and God.  People should read through this thread and view it for themselves who is twisting what.

Hmmm, na wah O! I quoted from Catholic websites, and in your efforts to throw in a frisby you came back claiming that they are anti-Catholic websites? Even the Catholic website where Pope John Paul's words were quoted is now an anti-Catholic website too?

Wow! There is only one thing I have for you: if you are asserting that your Catholic websites are now "anti"-Catholic, then let's dance to it!

Omenuko:

Glory to Jesus!

Amen bro, amen!

But, like I said before. . . .YES! Peter was bishop of Rome.  Another thing, it be like say you people keep changing topic of this thread.

Okay, you don't have to shout. "Peter was bishop of Rome", I hear. Can I see you establish it in Scripture now?

How many times do I have to say it. . . .the scripture is silent on whether or not Peter was Bishop of Rome.  We have to rely on the testimony of the early christians to prove it or disprove it.  So that means, you will have to find writings from the early church, historians, etc. to disprove (or prove) the fact of Peter being the bishop of Rome.  Its like saying Shaka Zulu wasn't the leader of the Zulus because its nowhere in the bible.  Is your head correct?

When I started it simply, Catholic answers were like words flying all around the place. An example, I don't remember asking to be reminded about December 25 before you spooled off on that one. That is why after my penultimate response to yours, I simply outlined what the real issues were, so that you will not predictably come back with the same complaints.

Again, the bible doesn't say anything about celebrating christmas.  So, you are still celebrating a non-biblical holiday.

Na your mouth I hear am! Grin No be you talk say na Peter first proclaim that Jesus is Lord?

Ok, you are right. . . .Mary knew (since she is the Mother of God), Elizabeth knew, and John the Baptiste knew and maybe others.

Now, please show us where Peter occupied the office of the Papacy in Scripture. Granted: you said the Pope is not in the Bible, no wahala. That one which you have tried to enunciate, can you show me from where it is in the Bible, even though the term is not used there?

Also, since you made the inference that the word Pope is from the latin for 'father', em. . . can you reconcile that with what Jesus said in Matthew 23:9?

Peter is the first among the apostles. . . .The papacy is just a group of people (i believe of mostly bishops) that help the pope in governing the church (spreading the gospel, correcting false doctrines, helping those who are less fortunate, etc.).  The word 'papacy' is nowhere in scripture.  Just like the word 'trinity' or 'easter'.

Hmmm, you scored 2/20. . . which translates to about 10%. You owe me 90%! Grin
Okay, on a serious note, I asked how many bishops there were during the apostles' time; not how many apostles lived through 3 bishops! Kai! You read the question or you just make up your own exam? Kiss

I believe Peter was the first bishop of Rome and during the course of his bishopric (not sure if thats a word) there was no other bishop of Rome.  I hope that answers your question.

Anyway, the question was: "3. Was Peter a "Pope" because of the title "Bishop"?
I didn't ask if Peter was was Bishop because of Rome; so the idea of Alexandria, Corinth or Jerusalem does not arise. All I have seen is an assertion that seriously lacks facts. Any attempt as a second go will be welcome.

The term 'Pope' just means spiritual father.  Peter was given the authority to lead the church by Jesus.  Let me answer plainly, Peter was not "Pope" because of the title "Bishop". 

Now, please show us where Peter occupied the office of the Papacy in Scripture. Granted: you said the Pope is not in the Bible, no wahala. That one which you have tried to enunciate, can you show me from where it is in the Bible, even though the term is not used there?

Also, since you made the inference that the word Pope is from the latin for 'father', em. . . can you reconcile that with what Jesus said in Matthew 23:9?

Madam, more anti-catholic website stuff. . . .I know you have to be smarter than this.  Oya, post Mathew 23:9 and lets talk about it.  Since you want to go there.

@Omenuko,

Omenuko:

How many times do I have to say it. . . .the scripture is silent on whether or not Peter was Bishop of Rome. We have to rely on the testimony of the early christians to prove it or disprove it. So that means, you will have to find writings from the early church, historians, etc. to disprove (or prove) the fact of Peter being the bishop of Rome. Its like saying Shaka Zulu wasn't the leader of the Zulus because its nowhere in the bible. Is your head correct?

Thank you, my head is correct.

The one thing I asked, you haven't given me - that's why I asked in another form. If you still cannot give any substance to your claim, no worries. However, that many people make Peter the first Pope of the Catholic Church without foundation from God's Word is the reason why Catholics continue to fail to substantiate these assertions thereto. This is the reason why I was trying to make the question easier for you by asking that you carefully examine what the connection between Bishop and Pope might have been from Scripture. Since you don't have that one as well, no worries.

Omenuko:

Again, the bible doesn't say anything about celebrating christmas. So, you are still celebrating a non-biblical holiday.

I never asked you anything thereto. Please remained focused and let's deal with one issue after another.

Omenuko:

Ok, you are right. . . .Mary knew (since she is the Mother of God), Elizabeth knew, and John the Baptiste knew and maybe others.

What are you talking about? How did Mary, Elizabet and John the Baptiste know that Peter was the first to prclaim Jesus as Lord?

Omenuko:

Peter is the first among the apostles. . . .The papacy is just a group of people (i believe of mostly bishops) that help the pope in governing the church (spreading the gospel, correcting false doctrines, helping those who are less fortunate, etc.). The word 'papacy' is nowhere in scripture. Just like the word 'trinity' or 'easter'.

Peter being called first by Christ among the apostles does not establish him as a Pope of anyone. I asked you a direct question about Matthew 23:9 - I didn't see you answer that one.

Omenuko:

I believe Peter was the first bishop of Rome and during the course of his bishopric (not sure if thats a word) there was no other bishop of Rome. I hope that answers your question.

Hmm, if I were you I would not be so assertive. You mentioned that it does not matter where the place is, and one could be a bishop, right? That's why I asked you to find out how many others were Bishops besides Peter. I am convinced that when you calmly search out the answer, then you will find what you have been misinterpreting.

Omenuko:

The term 'Pope' just means spiritual father. Peter was given the authority to lead the church by Jesus. Let me answer plainly, Peter was not "Pope" because of the title "Bishop".

Okay, thank you for that plain answer. Now my concerns: what is it that made Peter the POPE and how do you reconcile that with Jesus' warning in Matthew 23:9?

Omenuko:

Madam, more anti-catholic website stuff. . . .I know you have to be smarter than this.

I haven't even gone there, so what's the worry? Or is Matthew 23:9 not in your Bible again?

Omenuko:

Oya, post Mathew 23:9 and lets talk about it. Since you want to go there.

See am:

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. "

The one thing I asked, you haven't given me - that's why I asked in another form. If you still cannot give any substance to your claim, no worries. However, that many people make Peter the first Pope of the Catholic Church without foundation from God's Word is the reason why Catholics continue to fail to substantiate these assertions thereto. This is the reason why I was trying to make the question easier for you by asking that you carefully examine what the connection between Bishop and Pope might have been from Scripture. Since you don't have that one as well, no worries.

Your opinion is dully noted. . . .during the selection of the next pope I'll ask them (cardinals) to come to you and get your take on the whole thing.  You who do not study the writings of the early church (who were catholic) and want to come and preach bible to catholics from your shortened protestant version. . . .lol

Again, the bible doesn't say anything about celebrating christmas.  So, you are still celebrating a non-biblical holiday.

I never asked you anything thereto. Please remained focused and let's deal with one issue after another.

Do you celebrate Christmas?  Do you know how it came about?  Do you know what institution established the celebration of christmas (I'll help you: the Papacy).

What are you talking about? Cheesy How did Mary, Elizabet and John the Baptiste know that Peter was the first to prclaim Jesus as Lord?

Lol. . . .what I meant was, Mary et al. knew that Jesus was the Lord before Peter.

Oya, post Mathew 23:9 and lets talk about it.  Since you want to go there.

See am:

         "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. "

lol. . . .Ok, let me post the full context:

Mathew 23:8-10

'You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers.  9 You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.  10 Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ.

What about these other commandments of Jesus? When you say “call no man father,” they must also argue that we cannot call any man teacher or rabbi, either.

Let me post other scripture to put these verses into perspective.  No, better yet, before I do that pilgrim.1 tell me what this passage means to you.  Give me your personal interpretation of the it.

@Omenuko,

Omenuko:

Your opinion is dully noted. . . .during the selection of the next pope I'll ask them (cardinals) to come to you and get your take on the whole thing. You who do not study the writings of the early church (who were catholic) and want to come and preach bible to catholics from your shortened protestant version. . . .lol

I study the writings of the early church, although they were not Catholics. Even so, I do not use them as Scripture; and I'm sure the cardinals in Catholicism do not need to wait upon me.

Omenuko:

Do you celebrate Christmas? Do you know how it came about? Do you know what institution established the celebration of christmas (I'll help you: the Papacy).

Okay, I hear. I just stated that I never asked you a question about December 25, so I don't see the relevance to the simple questions I already asked.

Omenuko:

Lol. . . .what I meant was, Mary et al. knew that Jesus was the Lord before Peter.

Ok.

Omenuko:

lol. . . .Ok, let me post the full context:

Mathew 23:8-10

What about these other commandments of Jesus? When you say “call no man father,” they must also argue that we cannot call any man teacher or rabbi, either.

The apostles did not refer to any Christian as Rabbi - the meaning of Rabbi is MASTER -

'Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them,
What seek ye?
They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,)
where dwellest thou? [John 1:38]

As can be seen in your direct quote of Matthew 23:8, Jesus did not mean for any one of them to refer to the other as Rabbi - (ie., MASTER); and none of the apostles used that term for anyone among themselves.

Omenuko:

Let me post other scripture to put these verses into perspective. No, better yet, before I do that pilgrim.1 tell me what this passage means to you. Give me your personal interpretation of the it.

As above, using the example of Matthew 23:8 which you interpreted Rabbi for teacher, the context is clear that Jesus meant for them not to use that title or term in addressing one another.

Let me post Mathew 23:8-10 again:

'You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers.  9 You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.  10 Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ.

then you wrote:

The apostles did not refer to any Christian as Rabbi - the meaning of Rabbi is MASTER -

        'Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them,
        What seek ye?
        They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,)
        where dwellest thou? [John 1:38]

As can be seen in your direct quote of Matthew 23:8, Jesus did not mean for any one of them to refer to the other as Rabbi - (ie., MASTER); and none of the apostles used that term for anyone among themselves.

Lol. . . .you are stretching this too much.  So, you mean to tell me that rabbi only means 'master'.  What about in verse 10 where is says "Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teacher.  Please read those verses again with some of the below passages to gain a better understanding of what Mathew 23:9 is saying and why catholics call priest fathers.

Acts 7:1-3

1 The high priest asked, 'Is this true?'  2 He replied, 'My brothers, [b]my fathers, [/b]listen to what I have to say. The God of glory appeared to our ancestor Abraham, while he was in Mesopotamia before settling in Haran, 3 and said to him, "Leave your country, your kindred and your father's house for this country which I shall show you."

1 John 2:12-14

12 I am writing to you, children, because your sins have been forgiven through his name.  13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you have come to know the One who has existed since the beginning. I am writing to you, young people, because you have overcome the Evil One.  14 I have written to you, children, because you have come to know the Father. I have written to you, parents, because you have come to know the One who has existed since the beginning. I have written to you, young people, because you are strong, and God's wo

1 John 2:18

Children, this is the final hour; you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and now many Antichrists have already come; from this we know that it is the final hour.

1 Corinthians 4:14

14 I am writing all this not to make you ashamed but simply to remind you, as my dear children;  15 for even though you might have ten thousand slaves to look after you in Christ, you still have no more than one father, and it was I who fathered you in Christ Jesus, by the gospel.

pilgrim you try, kudos to you. Yesteday i took one look at this thread and decided it wasnt worth it. The problem is omenuko and his ilk surprisingly behave very similar to the muslims. They never answer questions directly, circular reasoning is the order of the day and when they feel cornered resort to emotional hot air and insults to dig themselves out of a hole.

This is the simple question - was Peter BIBLICALLY the Bishop of Rome?

Dont expect an answer. I'm out. I'd rather argue with nimshi. Anyone who wants to perish on the altar of catholic lies is free to do so.

davidylan*:

Yesteday i took one look at this thread and decided it wasnt worth it. The problem is omenuko and his ilk surprisingly behave very similar to the muslims.

Not fair, David. Not fair.

I'm out. I'D rather argue with nimshi. Anyone who wants to perish on the altar of catholic lies is free to do so.

Look, I've liked you some, even before reading this. You could be playful; your response to a personal slur showed that; that's a sign of intelligence; pls, no condescension. Yet, your blind angst at Islam is surprising; plus, you paint all Muslims with a wide brush, and form opinions about Muslims going by what you read by certain people on this board. Not fair, David; not fair. Heck, it's not even right.
.

@Davidylan,

This is the simple question - was Peter BIBLICALLY the Bishop of Rome?

don't expect an answer. I'm out. I'D rather argue with nimshi.

I have answered all of your questions.  What question did I not answer.  Let me state it again. . . .the scriptures do not prove or disprove the fact of Peter being the Bishop of Rome.  What other questions did I not answer. 

. . . .Anyone who wants to perish on the altar of catholic lies is free to do so.

And your father is a lier.

Omenuko:

@Davidylan,

I have answered all of your questions. What question did I not answer. Let me state it again. . . .the scriptures do not prove or disprove the fact of Peter being the Bishop of Rome. What other questions did I not answer.

On what basis then does the catholic claim of Peter being bishop of Rome stand?
The bible actually disproves the fallacy that Peter was bishop of Rome.

On what basis then does the catholic claim of Peter being bishop of Rome stand?
The bible actually disproves the fallacy that Peter was bishop of Rome.

The testimony of the early church (what I posted a while back, what you criticized as biased catholic bishops). Ok, prove from the scriptures that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome. . . .

Omenuko:

The testimony of the early church (what I posted a while back, what you criticized as biased catholic bishops). Ok, prove from the scriptures that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome. . . .

Read all through the book of Romans. Its inconcievable that Paul could have preached and greeted every member of the church but the Bishop. Galatians 2 clearly tells us Peter was sent to the circumcised.
Acts has nothing to say about Peter being in Rome but plenty about Peter being in Jerusalem and Paul being in Rome.
Peter wrote 2 books, neither was to his alleged Roman church.

I think we also need to clarify something - when you talk of the "early church" i'm sure its not the church in Acts you mean to say. They had no such testimony as u falsely claim.

Read all through the book of Romans. Its inconcievable that Paul could have preached and greeted every member of the church but the Bishop. Galatians 2 clearly tells us Peter was sent to the circumcised.
Acts has nothing to say about Peter being in Rome but plenty about Peter being in Jerusalem and Paul being in Rome.
Peter wrote 2 books, neither was to his alleged Roman church.

I think we also need to clarify something - when you talk of the "early church" i'm sure its not the church in Acts you mean to say. They had no such testimony as u falsely claim.

Do you know anything about debate.  Proving something is A, means that you would have to show proof that that something is A, positive evidence.  What you just did was post scripture and hypothesize that Peter could not have been in Rome because Paul didn't greet him.  As far as his letters, I believe that Peter was writing '1 Peter' in Babylon (aka Rome).  My friend, the most you can do is say the bible is silent on the issue of Peter being the Bishop of Rome.

@pilgrim.1

The apostles did not refer to any Christian as Rabbi - the meaning of Rabbi is MASTER -

        'Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them,
        What seek ye?
        They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,)
        where dwellest thou? [John 1:38]

As can be seen in your direct quote of Matthew 23:8, Jesus did not mean for any one of them to refer to the other as Rabbi - (ie., MASTER); and none of the apostles used that term for anyone among themselves.

In my bible John 1:38 says:

Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them, "What are you looking for?"  The said to him, "Rabbi" (which translated means teacher), where are you staying?

Does your translation have master instead of teacher?

Omenuko:

Do you know anything about debate.  Proving something is A, means that you would have to show proof that that something is A, positive evidence.  What you just did was post scripture and hypothesize that Peter could not have been in Rome because Paul didn't greet him.  As far as his letters, I believe that Peter was writing '1 Peter' in Babylon (aka Rome).  My friend, the most you can do is say the bible is silent on the issue of Peter being the Bishop of Rome.

Neither do i believe you do, see below:

You: Proving something is A, means that you would have to show proof that that something is A, positive evidence.

However, you have claimed that Peter was Bishop of Rome with NO shred of biblical evidence.
You have claimed that the bible is silent on whether Peter was or was not Bishop of Rome with NO evidence.

You: What you just did was post scripture and hypothesize that Peter could not have been in Rome because Paul didn't greet him.

However you didnt even quote any scripture to defend your hypothesis.
You deliberately pretend not to grasp the glaring silent witness that the book of Romans is - the fact that Paul greets 27 brethren in the church of Romans while glaringly omitting to acknowledge the work of the alleged founding Bishop is not something you can sweep under the carpet.

You: As far as his letters, I believe that Peter was writing '1 Peter' in Babylon (aka Rome).

Again . . . another baseless claim that you dont even try to prove.

You:My friend, the most you can do is say the bible is silent on the issue of Peter being the Bishop of Rome

Again the bible is a silent witness to a fact that Peter was no Bishop of Rome.

And you ask me if i know the rudiments of debate? Dont talk about things you severely lack too, throwing stones from  glass house isnt wise.

Neither do i believe you do, see below:

You: Proving something is A, means that you would have to show proof that that something is A, positive evidence.

However, you have claimed that Peter was Bishop of Rome with NO shred of biblical evidence.
You have claimed that the bible is silent on whether Peter was or was not Bishop of Rome with NO evidence.

You: What you just did was post scripture and hypothesize that Peter could not have been in Rome because Paul didn't greet him.

However you didnt even quote any scripture to defend your hypothesis.
You deliberately pretend not to grasp the glaring silent witness that the book of Romans is - the fact that Paul greets 27 brethren in the church of Romans while glaringly omitting to acknowledge the work of the alleged founding Bishop is not something you can sweep under the carpet.

You: As far as his letters, I believe that Peter was writing '1 Peter' in Babylon (aka Rome).

Again . . . another baseless claim that you don't even try to prove (in our case, eyes. . . .lol).

You:My friend, the most you can do is say the bible is silent on the issue of Peter being the Bishop of Rome

Again the bible is a silent witness to a fact that Peter was no Bishop of Rome.

And you ask me if i know the rudiments of debate? don't talk about things you severely lack too, throwing stones from  glass house isnt wise.

Lol. . . .an angry man opens up his mouth and shuts his ears. 

This is what I have been saying.

1.  The bible is silent as to whether Peter was or was not Bishop of Rome (this means that either statement cannot be proven from the bible)
2.  Peter was bishop of Rome because the early church christians attested to it
3.  I believe '1 Peter' was written in Rome because Peter makes reference to Babylon (code name for Rome)

Are there any other questions I did not answer?

Where is your proof that Peter was never bishop of Rome.  I have already acknowledged that the bible does not explicitly say that Peter was Bishop of Rome.  What else do you want from me.

However you didnt even quote any scripture to defend your hypothesis.
You deliberately pretend not to grasp the glaring silent witness that the book of Romans is - the fact that Paul greets 27 brethren in the church of Romans while glaringly omitting to acknowledge the work of the alleged founding Bishop is not something you can sweep under the carpet.

Have you ever thought about when the book of Romans was written. Peter may have arrived in Rome after Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. How is that proof?

Omenuko:

Have you ever thought about when the book of Romans was written. Peter may have arrived in Rome after Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. How is that proof?

It is generally accepted tht Paul wrote his letter to the Romans betwee 54-58 AD. According to Catholic tradition, Peter was Bishop of Rome from 32-67AD. Meaning Paul was writing his letters to a people who had been under Peter's leadership for over 20yrs.

Now that would not be consistent with Paul's writings here - 2 Corinthians 10:15 Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men's labours; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly,

16 To preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand.

Clearly Paul wasnt a man who preached in a church that had already been founded by another. Where then was Peter all this while?

Omenuko:

Lol. . . .an angry man opens up his mouth and shuts his ears.

Even though i'm not angry, we can say the exact same for you.

Omenuko:

This is what I have been saying.

1. The bible is silent as to whether Peter was or was not Bishop of Rome (this means that either statement cannot be proven from the bible)

the bible isnt silent, rather it is a silent witness to the fact that Peter was never bishop of Rome.

Omenuko:

2. Peter was bishop of Rome because the early church christians attested to it

Point of correction - early catholic leaders you meant to say there.
The early church christians in acts attest to no such thing.

Omenuko:

3. I believe '1 Peter' was written in Rome because Peter makes reference to Babylon (code name for Rome)

I'm not sure you'd let me get away with stating "beliefs" that have no basis in the bible.

Omenuko:

Where is your proof that Peter was never bishop of Rome. I have already acknowledged that the bible does not explicitly say that Peter was Bishop of Rome. What else do you want from me.

I've been giving them, try and read my posts before replying.

Its true the bible does not explicitly say peter was bishop of Rome but the bible also states (not explicitly) that Peter could never have been bishop of Rome.

Its true the bible does not explicitly say peter was bishop of Rome but the bible also states (not explicitly) that Peter could never have been bishop of Rome.

Finally, we agree although the 'never' part is not true. You are basing your assumption on the fact that Paul did not greet Peter when he was writing to Romans. The most you can say about that fact is that Peter was not in Rome when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. You can't just categorically say. . . .oh, that's proof that Peter was never bishop of Rome. Davidylan, that is not proof of Peter never being the bishop of Rome. You can't prove something from silence.

Omenuko:

Finally, we agree although the 'never' part is not true. You are basing your assumption on the fact that Paul did not greet Peter when he was writing to Romans. The most you can say about that fact is that Peter was not in Rome when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. You can't just categorically say. . . .oh, that's proof that Peter was never bishop of Rome. Davidylan, that is not proof of Peter never being the bishop of Rome. You can't prove something from silence.

you seem to be running in circles. Pls see above where i speak about the time Romans was written, Paul's policy of not preaching where others had already laboured and the incomprehensible possibility that Paul could have written 16 chapters to a church that already had Peter leading them for 20yrs and didnt even mention him once.

You have skipped all that to rush back to your dogmatic viewpoint with no regard for new information.

You keep saying i cant prove something from silence when that is EXACTLY what you are guilty of doing. The bible doesnt say Peter was not bishop of Rome but from the writings of the early apostles we know quite clearly that NONE of them recognised any authority from Rome. At least Paul didnt and we know (not from silence but from his own writings) the Roman church was his own labour not Peter's.

Perhaps before laying accusations you shld take the time to read like i have done. If i wasnt 100% sure of my claim based on evidence i wouldnt be arguing this issue. Its about time you laid aside church dogma and did some digging yourself. I notice that you dont even look at the bible at all . . . it seems to be a chronic issue with catholics who claim own the bible.

It is generally accepted that Paul wrote his letter to the Romans betwee 54-58 AD. According to Catholic tradition, Peter was Bishop of Rome from 32-67AD. Meaning Paul was writing his letters to a people who had been under Peter's leadership for over 20yrs.

This is not true. . . .Peter was Pope (not bishop of Rome) from the time of the death of Christ (around 32) to his death in 67.  So check this out. . . .

Peter becomes the head of the apostles aka Pope (32  -67 AD) -----> Paul writes the letter to the Romans (54 -58 AD) ----> Peter becomes bishop of Rome (60 - 67 AD)

Is the above not a possibility?

Perhaps before laying accusations you shld take the time to read like i have done. If i wasnt 100% sure of my claim based on evidence i wouldnt be arguing this issue. Its about time you laid aside church dogma and did some digging yourself. I notice that you don't even look at the bible at all . . . it seems to be a chronic issue with catholics who claim own the bible.

Oh o, so you are 100% sure that Peter was never bishop of Rome. And you come to this conclusion from reading the book of Romans or did the Holy Spirit come down and give you this information? I just showed you a possible chronological sequence of one possibility regarding Peter being the bishop of Rome. And yet you are saying you are 100% sure. Well, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Omenuko:

This is not true. . . .Peter was Pope (not bishop of Rome) from the time of the death of Christ (around 32) to his death in 67.  So check this out. . . .

Peter becomes the head of the apostles aka Pope (32  -67 AD) -----> Paul writes the letter to the Romans (54 -58 AD) ----> Peter becomes bishop of Rome (60 - 67 AD)

Is the above not a possibility?

shifting the goal posts . . . circular reasoning, round about arguments saying nothing . . . classical hallmark of the confused.
Paul wasnt martyred until AD 67, how then did Peter come from nowhere to take over a church that Paul had set up within 2 yrs of the writing of Romans? Makes no sense.

I give up arguing with you . . . i have better things to do. Have a great sunday.

Dear Omenuko. . . broderly. . wait small!

Omenuko:

@pilgrim.1

In my bible John 1:38 says:

Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them, "What are you looking for?"  The said to him, "Rabbi" (which translated means teacher), where are you staying?

Does your translation have master instead of teacher?

Yes, my translation says MASTER and not teacher. The word teacher is not what was meant by the Greek term Rabbi. Can I then take it that your explanation is wrong?

shifting the goal posts . . . circular reasoning, round about arguments saying nothing . . . classical hallmark of the confused.
Paul wasnt martyred until AD 67, how then did Peter come from nowhere to take over a church that Paul had set up within 2 years of the writing of Romans? Makes no sense.

That's why Rome is called the city that is 'twice blessed 'by the early christians because Peter and Paul were martyred there in 67 AD.

Yes, my translation says MASTER and not teacher. The word teacher is not what was meant by the Greek term Rabbi. Can I then take it that your explanation is wrong?

My translation says teacher and not master.  And if you didn't now 'rabbi' means teacher or see below definitions:

Rabbi:

1. the chief religious official of a synagogue, trained usually in a theological seminary and duly ordained, who delivers the sermon at a religious service and performs ritualistic, pastoral, educational, and other functions in and related to his or her capacity as a spiritual leader of Judaism and the Jewish community. Compare cantor (def. 2).
2. a title of respect for a Jewish scholar or teacher.
3. a Jewish scholar qualified to rule on questions of Jewish law.
4. any of the Jewish scholars of the 1st to 6th centuries a.d. who contributed to the writing, editing, or compiling of the Talmud.

Omenuko,

Please check again. You're wrong.

Please check again. You're wrong.

lol. . . .I just posted the definition of rabbi and you are telling me I'm wrong. So, the word 'rabbi' only means master? Is that what you are telling me. If that's the case. . . .prove it.