According to the Scriptures the Apostles didn't have any successors; when they died out that was it. In the book of Revelation the Lord Jesus Christ commended one of the churches who tested those who claimed to be Apostles and they were not and they were proven to be liars. It's a shame that you have people who try to connect themselves directly to Jesus Christ or one of His Apostles in order for people to follow them.
"...yet they perpetuate it anyway as it serves their agenda; which tells us all just how seriously they take the commandment not to lie." No serious seeker of truth speaks/writes like this. Sad.
An interesting take on history alright, so if peter did not go to Rome and become the first bishop there, where was he all this time, did he just go back to fishing in the sea of Galilee.
Peter has very strong ties to the church in Antioch. Antioch was one of the leading Sees, with Rome and Alexandria, before being eclipsed by Constantinople and then converted in the Muslim conquests.
@@SylvesterReport if that is the case, which it very well could be, then the church in Antioch was not very good in spreading the word with a apostle like Peter in there midst, is there any writing anywhere that says Peter was preaching the teaching's of Jesus anywhere else, other than Rome
@@michaelmcist I believe in Paul's letters he mentions Peter being in Antioch but I don't have the references handy. You could try a keyword search for Antioch on his letters on Biblegateway.com
So I'm no Biblical scholar, but you're saying this advantage of succession began in 366 AD. Naturally, since Christianity was now legal in Rome. Well a quick Wikipedia search on St. Peter references from multiple texts written way before 366, which mention Peter's death IN ROME, and Peter's own epistle welcoming the citizens of "Babylon", and "Babylon" was code for Rome back then. Sooooooo I'm not convinced by this "Peter was never in Rome" position.
All the stories of Peter in Rome are apocryphal, as Demacopoulos points out in his book. And just for reference, Demacopolous teaches at a Catholic university. Peter's 'own epistle' is also apocryphal and Peter would have been an illiterate Galilean fisherman, what makes you think he could write? (Acts 4:13 - ‘Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled.’) Wikipedia articles are not usually written by scholars or experts in that field, but by the general public. I would also surmise the Wiki page on Peter has likely been contributed to by Catholics and others who believe the Sunday school narrative. I am currently reading a book on Constantine written by a history prof and expert on Constantine, but he makes the same mistake of repeating the Peter legends as his field is a different subset of history. And what makes you think you should trust Wikipedia more than the scholars? Start by reading the books highlighted in the video instead.
@@SylvesterReport Not saying Wikipedia isn’t corruptible with disinformation, just that sometimes they have the little numbers above certain quotes and statements that are links to credible sources. The Peter page has many of these. You’re Wikipedia defence is also based on the relativity of truth from sources that could just have been from random people on the internet, when to me, you are a random person of the internet, collecting their information from another random person who wrote a book about their opinion. The defence leaves us at an impasse. On a final note: even if we equate Peter must have been illiterate, any of the apostles could have hired someone to dictate speeches or letters for them. It was a common trade back then.
I am gobsmacked that you would characterize the numerous highly regarded Christian scholars I cited as 'random people on the internet.' I honestly don't know what to say to such a perspective other than you need to broaden your reading beyond Wikipedia.
@@SylvesterReport Other than the direct citations to the writings of people who lived in the 2nd and 3rd century that Wikipedia provides links to, yes?
This discussion is clearly futile as you class 6 books by 5 Christian scholars as 'random people on the internet' and seek refuge in the propaganda of apologists centuries after Jesus died instead.
Isaiah "WITH his stripes we are healed " The stripes that man gave him out of sin become his own (he who had no sin became sin for us) BY which he redeems man unto the Biblical words "I HURT & I HEAL " (Job) the words that underscore the Communion, The Body & Blood of the STRIPED Christ received through FAITH - The GRACE So the stripes that man gave him he uses to redeem is the reason why " it pleased God to Bruise him " Not for the bruises itself but for its Fruit For which he had to Resurrect that he did, cause Our sins could not hold him down in hell (where Sin rules) cause he was found stronger than Sin itself, unto his words "I have overcome the world" (its sins) to say there is no sin that he cannot remove Thus is basically a "Conversion act " instead of a "Substitution (magical) act as generally believed by Protestants , the Error has its origins through Protestantism's theologically leavening of the Faith by "Faith Only " that James specifically says is not, unto mis interpretation Paul (the reason why Martin Luther rejected James cause it was a hinderance to his erranous view of redemption) & the philosophies that arise out of the leavens becomes to another Christ another Gospel So it is not surprising that the Ez communication of QE 1 (head of Protestantism) by Pope St Pius V was the Ex communication of Protestantism itself, in spirit , Give unto God what is to God - FAITH, surely not a Leavened/Corrupted Faith,
I have not watched this video. Your immature replies tell me that I do not want to waste my time with you, regardless of if the content is true or not. I'm sure I can find another source.
Peter never went to Rome. He did however go to Babylon. Visa Vatican international sales association. Looks alot in common with Babylon. Paul went to Rome to preach to the gentiles. For the new covenant from Christ to present day this dispensation known as the Church age.,we see Jesus instruct us to follow Paul as Peters message was more for the Jews at that time
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 86 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs ชาติพยัคฆ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m3q_dRYDuU8/mqdefault.jpg)
According to the Scriptures the Apostles didn't have any successors; when they died out that was it. In the book of Revelation the Lord Jesus Christ commended one of the churches who tested those who claimed to be Apostles and they were not and they were proven to be liars. It's a shame that you have people who try to connect themselves directly to Jesus Christ or one of His Apostles in order for people to follow them.
"...yet they perpetuate it anyway as it serves their agenda; which tells us all just how seriously they take the commandment not to lie." No serious seeker of truth speaks/writes like this. Sad.
You've clearly never read or heard anything Hitch wrote or said.
Peter lived and died in a cave outside of JeruSalem. He died when he was about 66 years old.
I'm glad you cleared that up forever. lol
Exactly! Scripture proves this also.
An interesting take on history alright, so if peter did not go to Rome and become the first bishop there, where was he all this time, did he just go back to fishing in the sea of Galilee.
Peter has very strong ties to the church in Antioch. Antioch was one of the leading Sees, with Rome and Alexandria, before being eclipsed by Constantinople and then converted in the Muslim conquests.
@@SylvesterReport if that is the case, which it very well could be, then the church in Antioch was not very good in spreading the word with a apostle like Peter in there midst, is there any writing anywhere that says Peter was preaching the teaching's of Jesus anywhere else, other than Rome
@@michaelmcist I believe in Paul's letters he mentions Peter being in Antioch but I don't have the references handy. You could try a keyword search for Antioch on his letters on Biblegateway.com
So I'm no Biblical scholar, but you're saying this advantage of succession began in 366 AD. Naturally, since Christianity was now legal in Rome. Well a quick Wikipedia search on St. Peter references from multiple texts written way before 366, which mention Peter's death IN ROME, and Peter's own epistle welcoming the citizens of "Babylon", and "Babylon" was code for Rome back then. Sooooooo I'm not convinced by this "Peter was never in Rome" position.
All the stories of Peter in Rome are apocryphal, as Demacopoulos points out in his book. And just for reference, Demacopolous teaches at a Catholic university. Peter's 'own epistle' is also apocryphal and Peter would have been an illiterate Galilean fisherman, what makes you think he could write? (Acts 4:13 - ‘Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled.’)
Wikipedia articles are not usually written by scholars or experts in that field, but by the general public. I would also surmise the Wiki page on Peter has likely been contributed to by Catholics and others who believe the Sunday school narrative. I am currently reading a book on Constantine written by a history prof and expert on Constantine, but he makes the same mistake of repeating the Peter legends as his field is a different subset of history. And what makes you think you should trust Wikipedia more than the scholars? Start by reading the books highlighted in the video instead.
@@SylvesterReport Not saying Wikipedia isn’t corruptible with disinformation, just that sometimes they have the little numbers above certain quotes and statements that are links to credible sources. The Peter page has many of these.
You’re Wikipedia defence is also based on the relativity of truth from sources that could just have been from random people on the internet, when to me, you are a random person of the internet, collecting their information from another random person who wrote a book about their opinion. The defence leaves us at an impasse.
On a final note: even if we equate Peter must have been illiterate, any of the apostles could have hired someone to dictate speeches or letters for them. It was a common trade back then.
I am gobsmacked that you would characterize the numerous highly regarded Christian scholars I cited as 'random people on the internet.' I honestly don't know what to say to such a perspective other than you need to broaden your reading beyond Wikipedia.
@@SylvesterReport Other than the direct citations to the writings of people who lived in the 2nd and 3rd century that Wikipedia provides links to, yes?
This discussion is clearly futile as you class 6 books by 5 Christian scholars as 'random people on the internet' and seek refuge in the propaganda of apologists centuries after Jesus died instead.
Isaiah "WITH his stripes we are healed " The stripes that man gave him out of sin become his own (he who had no sin became sin for us) BY which he redeems man unto the Biblical words "I HURT & I HEAL " (Job) the words that underscore the Communion, The Body & Blood of the STRIPED Christ received through FAITH -
The GRACE
So the stripes that man gave him he uses to redeem is the reason why " it pleased God to Bruise him " Not for the bruises itself but for its Fruit For which he had to Resurrect that he did, cause Our sins could not hold him down in hell (where Sin rules) cause he was found stronger than Sin itself, unto his words "I have overcome the world" (its sins) to say there is no sin that he cannot remove
Thus is basically a "Conversion act " instead of a "Substitution (magical) act as generally believed by Protestants , the Error has its origins through Protestantism's theologically leavening of the Faith by "Faith Only " that James specifically says is not, unto mis interpretation Paul (the reason why Martin Luther rejected James cause it was a hinderance to his erranous view of redemption) & the philosophies that arise out of the leavens becomes to another Christ another Gospel
So it is not surprising that the Ez communication of QE 1 (head of Protestantism) by Pope St Pius V was the Ex communication of Protestantism itself, in spirit ,
Give unto God what is to God - FAITH, surely not a Leavened/Corrupted Faith,
I have not watched this video. Your immature replies tell me that I do not want to waste my time with you, regardless of if the content is true or not. I'm sure I can find another source.
Good luck.
No comment in your propaganda video?
You label historical facts from a multitude of highly respected Christian scholars as propaganda? Let me guess, Fox "news" viewer?
Christianity is a sore to some, so they try to destroy it or criticize it with untrue statements.
It’s refreshing to see that good ol’ anti-Catholic bigotry is still alive and well….
Facts about the lies they made up is bigotry? Good to see Catholics burying their heads in the sand and enabling centuries more of being duped.
Such ignorance and stupidity.
You cannot wipe out what you hate, because you are biased.
Peter never went to Rome. He did however go to Babylon.
Visa Vatican international sales association. Looks alot in common with Babylon.
Paul went to Rome to preach to the gentiles. For the new covenant from Christ to present day this dispensation known as the Church age.,we see Jesus instruct us to follow Paul as Peters message was more for the Jews at that time
AMEN😇🙏😜‼️