CriticMaestro:

show me in the bible were it was written that during there time they referred themselves as the way

OK let me ask u a question, those who followed kept Moses law to the full and died before the birth of Jesus what will happen to them

oladoja1:

OK let me ask u a question, those who followed kept Moses law to the full and died before the birth of Jesus what will happen to them

They had to wait till Christ came to meet them when He died, preach to them the Gospel (as the way) 1Pet.4:6, that they may have eternal Life Jn.5:25.

What do you say, they went to meet God in heaven before Christ came?

Ubenedictus:
there is no comma in d original hebrew or greek.

Ok thanks for brininging it out.
I believe orignal greak/hebrew contains a conjuction "And", "This rock" instead of replacing this rock with peter?

martooski:



For your mind you just explain the scripture. I thought you have got a better sermon..... Msche

We have two bible ref where Christ made two statements that got pharisees/people of this age confused.

Destroy this house in 3days I will build it up-Jews trapped but not all jews.

You peter,upon this rock I will build my church - gentiles trapped but not all gentiles.

Both statement he was not talking about what people think but by devine revelation He was speaking something else using what he was speaking about (what people can see) as a symbolic reference.

luckyCO:


We have two bible ref where Christ made two statements that got pharisees/people of this age confused.

Destroy this house in 3days I will build it up-Jews trapped but not all jews.

You peter,upon this rock I will build my church - gentiles trapped but not all gentiles.

Both statement he was not talking about what people think but by devine revelation He was speaking something else using what he was speaking about (what people can see) as a symbolic reference.

really? So when Jesus said that to the apostle, his name was peter (rock) abi. What then is the import of calling him "Rock", only to probably be distracted into talking about a physical rock elsewhere.

Syncan:


really? So when Jesus said that to the apostle, his name was peter (rock) abi. What then is the import of calling him "Rock", only to probably be distracted into talking about a physical rock elsewhere.

As Jesus talked about temple, remember he was before the temple. But Christ body is the temple. You may ask, why did he not make this statement elsewhere until he wait till He got to that temple that is speaking about Him?
Same in the case of peter.

He called him peter meaning little stone.
He was referring to the knowledge(Matt 16:16-17) God has given peter about Him(Christ who is the Rock, 1 cor 10:4), it was that incident that necessitated that name peter. He has seen that peter has such a heart that can handle the keys and can open it freely without hindrance and God revealed it to the son by allowing the knowledge of whom he is. Not the type that will not go and will not leave the road.

luckyCO:


As Jesus talked about temple, remember he was before the temple. But Christ body is the temple. You may ask, why did he not make this statement elsewhere until he wait till He got to that temple that is speaking about Him?
Same in the case of peter.

He called him peter meaning little stone.
He was referring to the knowledge(Matt 16:16-17) God has given peter about Him(Christ who is the Rock, 1 cor 10:4), it was that incident that necessitated that name peter. He has seen that peter has such a heart that can handle the keys and can open it freely without hindrance and God revealed it to the son by allowing the knowledge of whom he is. Not the type that will not go and will not leave the road.

hahahah, see how desperate you are in trying to twist facts by using "little stone" for aramaic kephas, which language translation is that? You used Rock for 1cor.10:4, yet that verse used petros in greek, which is where Peter is derived from as well. Note, both Matt.16:18 and 1cor10:4 are talking of rock, both in aramaic and greek. Don't try to diminish Peter by using "little stone", if Jesus wants to call him little stone, he would have used "evna".

When Jesus talked about his temple, did scripture not tell you what it meant? "but he spoke of the temple of his body" Jn.2:21. Where did it explain to you that he wasn't talking about Peter here? His whole speech is just one line of speech addressed to same person he started with, Simon he called Rock, on the rock Simon He will build his church, to Simon he will give the keys. This same Simon in Jn.21:17 he told "Feed my sheep". It isn't your business to speculate why He chose Simon, what you need to accept is that He chose Simon, and said those things to him. Shikena.

Syncan:


hahahah, see how desperate you are in trying to twist facts by using "little stone" for aramaic kephas, which language translation is that? You used Rock for 1cor.10:4, yet that verse used petros in greek, which is where Peter is derived from as well. Note, both Matt.16:18 and 1cor10:4 are talking of rock, both in aramaic and greek. Don't try to diminish Peter by using "little stone", if Jesus wants to call him little stone, he would have used "evna".

When Jesus talked about his temple, did scripture not tell you what it meant? "but he spoke of the temple of his body" Jn.2:21. Where did it explain to you that he wasn't talking about Peter here? His whole speech is just one line of speech addressed to same person he started with, Simon he called Rock, on the rock Simon He will build his church, to Simon he will give the keys. This same Simon in Jn.21:27 he told "Feed my sheep". It isn't your business to speculate why He chose Simon, what you need to accept is that He chose Simon, and said those things to him. Shikena.

I leave you to magnify Peter beyond his place in the body of Christ.
Only know that Peter is magnified in the Roman Catholic Church to make it look as if Pope is peter's succession as to that whatever pope said God has said, that is what we are disputing.

luckyCO:


I leave you to magnify Peter beyond his place in the body of Christ.
Only know that Peter is magnified in the Roman Catholic Church to make it look as if Pope is peter's succession as to that whatever pope said God has said, that is what we are disputing.

Now he diverts attention. Did you, or whoever you're listening to, misrepresent scripture or not, as pointed out by me? You build your claim on false premise and hope it becomes true. Just see the way you conveniently used "little stone" for Peter in Matt.16:18, and used Rock for Christ in 1 Cor.10:4 . Yet both are same in Greek. Only the truth can set you free, know the truth, speak it always. I have shown you your error, now you've heard His words harden not your heart as at meribah.

If you agree that you were wrong in thinking that Peter means "little stone", then we can start to disabuse your mind from the false teachings that prevents you from knowing the whole truth with regards to succession.

luckyCO:

Ok thanks for brininging it out.
I believe orignal greak/hebrew contains a conjuction "And", "This rock" instead of replacing this rock with peter?

Let us look at the greek, [the brackets are
around the word "you" & "Rock/Peter"]
Mt 16:18 καγὼ δέ [σοι] λέγω ὅτι [σὺ] εἶ [ Πέτρος ] καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.
[σοι] = you, 2nd person singular, as in I Jesus (1st person singular) give you Peter, (2nd person singular)
[σὺ] = you, 2nd person singular [Πέτρος ]= Peter/Rock
[ ἐκκλησίαν ] = Church,
THE CONJUNTION IS;
καὶ=and, even, also, namely.

So it can literally be translated as
...YOU are peter ALSO this rock upon it build my church.

there is no way in d greek text to escape it.

luckyCO:


We have two bible ref where Christ made two statements that got pharisees/people of this age confused.

Destroy this house in 3days I will build it up-Jews trapped but not all jews.

You peter,upon this rock I will build my church - gentiles trapped but not all gentiles.

Both statement he was not talking about what people think but by devine revelation He was speaking something else using what he was speaking about (what people can see) as a symbolic reference.

So who was Jesus talking to when he said 'i'll give u d keys of the kingdom'?

Ubenedictus:
So who was Jesus talking to when he said 'i'll give u d keys of the kingdom'?

Jesus was talking to Apostle Peter.
But the rock there is symbolic. He know something that is why he was given keys.
It is that he know made him qualified to have the key.
They is door of salvation.
Peter has used the key to open the door waiting for the time Christ will stand up from mercy seat.
So it is not about peter and head of christianity,it is about salvation Christ gave us.

luckyCO:


I leave you to magnify Peter beyond his place in the body of Christ.
Only know that Peter is magnified in the Roman Catholic Church to make it look as if Pope is peter's succession as to that whatever pope said God has said, that is what we are disputing.

We don't magnify Peter above his Place in the Catholic Church, the Bible clearly gives him a primacy among the apostles... it's anti-Catholic people who bring him down in order to make the Catholic Church look bad...
THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TO SAY
Matthew 16:19
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.
Mark 16:7
Angel sent to announce the Resurrection to
Peter.
Luke 22:32
Peter's faith will strengthen his brethren.
Note: The word you [I have prayed for
you.]
The Greek is in the personal tense, not
the plural like:
All you Apostles .
Luke 24:34
Risen Jesus first appeared to Peter.
John 21:17
Given Christ's flock as chief shepherd.
Acts 1:13-26
Peter headed meeting which elected Matthias to
replace Judas.
Acts 2:14
Peter received the first converts.
Acts 3:6-7
Peter performed the first miracle after
Pentecost.
Acts 5:1-11
Peter's words inflict deadly punishment on
Ananias and Saphira.
Acts 8:21
Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon
Magnus.
Acts 10:44-46
Peter received a revelation to admit the Gentles
into the Church.
Acts 15
Peter Lead the first Catholic council in
Jerusalem.
Acts 15:7-12
Peter spoke saying: "My brothers, he said, ....
But we believe that we are saved in the same
way as they are: through the grace of the Lord
Jesus." The entire assembly fell silent, and they
listened to Barnabas and Paul describing all the
signs and wonders God had worked through them
among the gentiles."
Peter pronounces the first dogmatic decision.
Galatians 1:18
After his conversion, Paul visits the chief
Apostle.
Matthew 10:1-4 , Mark 3:16-19 , Luke 6:14-16 ,
Acts 1:13
Peter's name always heads the list of Apostles.
Matthew 18:21 , Mark 8:29 , Luke 12:41 , John 6:69
Peter spoke for the Apostles.
Luke 9:32 , Mark 16:7
Peter and his companions.
Peter is mentioned 191 times in the New
Testament. All the other Apostles names
combined are mentioned only 130 times. And the
most commonly referenced apostle apart from
Peter is John, whose name appears 48 times.

Remember what the Bible says
1 Tim 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;

SO DON'T BRING DOWN WHOM THE LORD HAS HONOURED...

Concerning the Rock argument...
It is clear that Peter is the Rock on which Christ would build his Church according to Mathew 16.. because Christ would not praised his answer, put him down by calling him small stone and then give him authority... it follows that Christ praised his answer, Exalted him and then gave him authority... Besides if Christ was putting him down, the Change of name from "SIMON" To "PETER" would not be necessary instead, according to scriptures change of name normally shows a rise to importance or greatness, ABRAM to ABRAHAM and SARAI to SARAH was for increase them from just been "FATHER " to being "FATHER OF MANY NATIONS" see gen 17:5-15... Same goes for the name change from Simon to Peter...

we know that Christ is the Rock but Christ also calls Peter the Rock... 1 cor 10:4 doesn't take away from Christ because Paul who made that statement also calls the apostles of which Peter is the head " THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH WITH CHRIST AS THE CORNER STONE and so does John who called them the foundation of the new Jerusalem see
Ephesians 2:19bbut you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the HOUSEHOLD OF GOD, 20 BUILT UPON the FOUNDATION of the APOSTLES and PROPHETS, CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF being the CORNERSTONE,

Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had TWELVE FOUNDATIONS, and on them the twelve names of the TWELVE APOSTLES of the LAMB.

luckyCO:

Jesus was talking to Apostle Peter.
But the rock there is symbolic. He know something that is why he was given keys.
It is that he know made him qualified to have the key.
They is door of salvation.
Peter has used the key to open the door waiting for the time Christ will stand up from mercy seat.
So it is not about peter and head of christianity,it is about salvation Christ gave us.

Jesus calling Peter the Rock is not symbolic, he meant for Peter to be the Head of his Church, Besides like I said earlier, if it was merely a symbol the name change would not have been necessary, Just like all other name change in scriptures are not symbolic but actually mean something and are fulfilled especially in the case of Abraham...

and Jesus himself showed Peter to be a leader when he said to Peter
Luke 22:31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

John 21: 15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.

by doing this Jesus kept Peter as both SHEPHERD (John 21:15- 17) and STEWARD (Luke 22:31) over the other apostles

He did this because leaders are necessary not just among the apostles but also in the whole church... that is why Paul also said in Ephesians 4: 11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 
WHY
12 for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

luckyCO:

Jesus was talking to Apostle Peter.
But the rock there is symbolic. He know something that is why he was given keys.
It is that he know made him qualified to have the key.
They is door of salvation.
Peter has used the key to open the door waiting for the time Christ will stand up from mercy seat.
So it is not about peter and head of christianity,it is about salvation Christ gave us.

So jesus said you are peter to peter also on this rock i will build my church... to himself also will give u d keys... to peter

Does that sound coherent to you, how can some jump from talk to somebody then change it to himself and then go back to the other person while linking the statement with 'kai' meaning also, and... Without indicating the change in speech, infact all thru Jesus used the 2nd person singular 'you' not d 1st person, is dat coherent to u?

No. It's still there in Rome. So, there's nothing fake or false about it. It's a Rock bringing forth new Revolutions in new order.

Ubenedictus:
So jesus said you are peter to peter also on this rock i will build my church... to himself also will give u d keys... to peter

Does that sound coherent to you, how can some jump from talk to somebody then change it to himself and then go back to the other person while linking the statement with 'kai' meaning also, and... Without indicating the change in speech, infact all thru Jesus used the 2nd person singular 'you' not d 1st person, is dat coherent to u?

Wht are you peddling lies?

1 Cor. 10:4; Rom. 9:33; Isa. 28:16 all identify the Rock Christ was talking about.

Even Peter himself knew that he was not the Rock which Christ was talking about(1 Pet. 2:6).

Now, we all know that Peter was not the Rock which Christ was talking about. But then, even if he was, was Peter a Pope? Was Peter the Bishop of Rome?

The answer is "NO!" Therefore, Roman Catholicism is built on lies.

1 Peter 5:1-4 ...'The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.'

A rebuke to Roman Catholicism from the very man they believe to be their leader and first pope!

DoctorAlien:
1 Peter 5:1-4 ...'The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.'

A rebuke to Roman Catholicism from the very man they believe to be their leader and first pope!

That verse doesn't rebuke Roman Catholicism but rebukes anyone who as a Shepherd, Lord it over his flock, which a lot of protestant, pentecostal and evangelical leaders as well as some popes are guilty of....

Maybe you don't know this
one of the title of the Pope is :SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD

easymancfc:


That verse doesn't rebuke Roman Catholicism but rebukes anyone who as a Shepherd, Lord it over his flock, which a lot of protestant, pentecostal and evangelical leaders as well as some popes are guilty of....

Maybe you don't know this
one of the title of the Pope is :SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD

What does it mean to lord it over the people if it's not claim that you have power to forgive sins, or to impersonate the chief Shepherd, or to ask them to bring indulgences for them to gain salvation?

DoctorAlien:


What does it mean to lord it over the people if it's not claim that you have power to forgive sins, or to impersonate the chief Shepherd, or to ask them to bring indulgences for them to gain salvation?

That's not Lording it over because Jesus Christ gave all 11 apostles not just Peter (john 20:20-23) the Power to forgive sin, in Catholicism, all ordained ministers (presbyters and bishops) have that power not just the Pope,
on the issue of indulgences, granted the Church itself accepts the fact that it was abused as for impersonating the chief shepherd, historical that can be proven and scripturally too (John 21:15-17)...

DoctorAlien:


Wht are you peddling lies?

1 Cor. 10:4; Rom. 9:33; Isa. 28:16 all identify the Rock Christ was talking about.

Even Peter himself knew that he was not the Rock which Christ was talking about(1 Pet. 2:6).

Now, we all know that Peter was not the Rock which Christ was talking about. But then, even if he was, was Peter a Pope? Was Peter the Bishop of Rome?

The answer is "NO!" Therefore, Roman Catholicism is built on lies.

Answer:
Which proves....what? Christ is referred to as a "stumbling-stone" and a "rock of scandal" sometimes, as we all know. So what? Why does that supposedly show that Peter cannot be the rock on which Christ built His Church? Besides, there is an unmistakable Greek word for "small stone," and that is lithos. If St. Matthew had intended to convey to his readers that St. Peter was only a small stone in contrast to "the rock," he certainly had an unmistakable word available to him. If we're going to emphasize the Greek over the Aramaic, then let's do it, but let's do it all the way! Christ would then have said, "You are Lithos ("stone", and upon this petra ("rock" I will build my Church." Why didn't He?

Catholicism doesn't deny that Jesus is the Rock according to 1 cor 10, we know Jesus is the ROCK OF AGES... according to other passages you listed, those don't seem to tall about the Rock of the Church but a stone to make men stumble which Jesus is...
We know Jesus is the cornerstone, but Jesus himself calls Peter a rock, the Rock on which he would Build his Church.

on whether Peter was in Rome,
the Bible never says Peter never went to Rome...


There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:. “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
We say it is Rome because of the great Persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:.

easymancfc:


That's not Lording it over because Jesus Christ gave all 11 apostles not just Peter (john 20:20-23) the Power to forgive sin, in Catholicism, all ordained ministers (presbyters and bishops) have that power not just the Pope,
on the issue of indulgences, granted the Church itself accepts the fact that it was abused as for impersonating the chief shepherd, historical that can be proven and scripturally too (John 21:15-17)...

Peter was never the chief Shepherd, neither was he in any way the overall leader of the church. It was not even recorded that Peter went to Rome, not to talk of being the Bishop there. In Jn. 21:15-17, Jesus simply reversed the denial by Peter. Peter denied Jesus thrice, and thrice did Jesus elicit the confession of faith in Himself from Peter.

Jesus did not give the apostles power to forgive sins(which belongs to GOD alone). He simply told them that they could declare people forgiven of GOD based on how they respond to the message

easymancfc,

Peter's name in Greek is Petros(masculine noun), meaning a small, detached stone. But the Greek word which is translated rock in Matt. 16:18 is petra(feminine noun). In other words, Jesus said, "you are Petros, and on this petra will I build my church..."

Paul stated emphatically that Peter walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel in Antioch(Gal. 2:14). He even rebuked Peter. So, if Peter was the rock on which the church was built: does it mean that the foundation of the church walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel? How can the foundation of the church be a man susceptible to falling into error? Is such a foundation sure?

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light" (1 Peter 2:9)

Peter emphatically states that every Christian is a royal priest to GOD. Why does Roman Catholicism "ordain priests" who blaspheme by claiming to have power to forgive sins?

DoctorAlien:


Peter was never the chief Shepherd, neither was he in any way the overall leader of the church. It was not even recorded that Peter went to Rome, not to talk of being the Bishop there. In Jn. 21:15-17, Jesus simply reversed the denial by Peter. Peter denied Jesus thrice, and thrice did Jesus elicit the confession of faith in Himself from Peter.

Jesus did not give the apostles power to forgive sins(which belongs to GOD alone). He simply told them that they could declare people forgiven of GOD based on how they respond to the message

with all due respect to you... you misrepresent the Bible, Jesus did not just reverse Peter's denial he also Added. "FEED MY SHEEP " WHO FEEDS SHEEP BUT A SHEPHERD....

John 20:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “FEED MY LAMBS.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “TEND MY SHEEP.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “FEED MY SHEEP.

there's also a similar passage where Jesus puts Peter in charge of the others

Luke 22:31 “SIMON, SIMON, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for YOU that YOUR faith may not fail; and when YOU have turned again, STRENGTHEN YOUR BRETHREN.”

On sin, Again you say what scriptures don't say... Jesus didn't say if you "DECLARE PEOPLE FORGIVEN" he said " if "YOU FORGIVE PEOPLE'S SINS"
Jesus also talks about RETAINING SINS WHICH YOU FAIL TO MENTION.

John 20:23 If YOU FORGIVE the SINS of any, THEY ARE FORGIVEN; if you RETAIN the SINS of any, THEY ARE RETAINED.”

JESUS IS CLEARLY SAYING IF THEY FORGIVE ANYONE THEN THAT PERSON'S SINS ARE FORGIVEN...
drawing also from their power to bind and loose according to mat 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

As for Peter being in Rome, the Bible never said Peter never went to Rome, and as I have shown in earlier reply, their is biblical evidence that he was there... not to mention the Mountain of historical and archaeological evidence that support it...
AND THE TESTIMONIES OF MANY EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WHICH I WILL GLADLY PROVIDE

easymancfc,

The Book of Acts is the history of the early Church up until a few years before Peter's death. It says nothing about Peter being in authority over the whole Church. It shows no connection between Peter and Rome.

Acts 28:14-15 tells how Paul met with the "brethren" in Rome, but it makes no mention of Peter. As we shall see, when Paul met with Peter in Jerusalem, Peter was identified by name.

Acts 2:14 and Acts 8:14 say that Peter was in Jerusalem. Acts 9:36-43 says that Peter went to Joppa, which is near Jerusalem. In chapter 10 of the Book of Acts, Peter is still in Joppa. Acts 11:2 says that Peter returned to Jerusalem.

Joppa is about thirty miles from Jerusalem. If the Book of Acts records this much detail about Peter's visit to a nearby town, wouldn't it tell us if Peter went all the way to Rome? Particularly since it does tell us that Paul went to Rome.

The Book of Romans was written by the Apostle Paul "to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints". (Romans 1:7) In Romans 16:1-15, Paul greets 26 people by name. He never mentions Peter. If Peter was the leader of the Church in Rome, then why didn't Paul mention him?

Paul wrote five letters from a Roman prison (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon). He never mentions Peter. The man who stuck with Paul to help him and encourage him in Rome was Luke -- not Peter. (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11)

DoctorAlien:
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light" (1 Peter 2:9)

Peter emphatically states that every Christian is a royal priest to GOD. Why does Roman Catholicism "ordain priests" who blaspheme by claiming to have power to forgive sins?

Indeed we are a kingdom of priests like Peter rightly says... In the CATHOLIC CHURCH we call that "THE UNIVERSAL PRIESTHOOD of all believers. Peter here was QUOTING THE OLD TESTAMENT if you don't know, he was quoting exodus 19:6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”
but just like all of Israel are priests... but yet God told Moses to establish a Priesthood from Aaron's sons and Levi (see deut 18:1-
so Also we have the MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD, of which Paul seems to allude to in Romans 15:15 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16 to be a MINISTER of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the PRIESTLY SERVICE of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

easymancfc,

Gal. 2:7-8 states that the gospel of the circumcision(i.e. to the Jews) was committed by GOD to Peter, while the gospel to the uncircumcision(i.e. to the gentiles, which included the Romans) was committed to Paul.

Why would Peter leave his ministry in Judea to go and dwell in Rome, a gentile area?

CriticMaestro:
u call them name of mohammed more than five times wen ur praying, wat does that mean, and Y is it that mohammed solely sai that jesus is not the son of G0d?

This your assertion shows that you don`t even know a man called Muhammad,there is nothing to benefit from arguing why i won`t argue with you about this.We are in enlightened world now,please read and make research about topics and things by yourself and be free from hearsay,with this you will be more enlighten,knowledgeable and argue less.....Salam.

Mosh1:

This your assertion shows that you don`t even know a man called Muhammad,there is nothing to benefit from arguing why i won`t argue with you about this.We are in enlightened world now,please read and make research about topics and things by yourself and be free from hearsay,with this you will be more enlighten,knowledgeable and argue less.....Salam.

gbam...three qestions

---

1. is it true that mohammed said donkeys fly in the moon?

---

2. IS it also true that mohammed married his son's wife and also a 9 year old girl called aisha?

---

3. is it also true that mohammed never prophesied about any thing even though he called himself prophet?

---