D
danharte
Guest
Hi all. I’ve been discussing authority with some protestant folk on a message board.
Generally the tone has been quite respectful & this is why I’m happy to keep up the effort.
I’m looking for some help with a reply I received from one of my non Catholic opponent if that’s the right word to use. She wrote this
"You should consider Christ’s commission to Peter, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles.
“The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
” (Gal. 2:7-8).
Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles
It was Paul who wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS, not Peter! Gal. 2:9 “And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace * that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision” . Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in
2 Timothy 1:11: “Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.”
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome tobecome the head of a Gentile community.
Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, greets 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! Read all of Romans! Paul’s greetings to the brethren in Rome were in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter?
Four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was taken as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian’s in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him. Acts 28:15- “When THE brethren of Rome heard of us, they came to meet us” . Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. If Peter had been in Rome, Luke would have mentioned him by name since Luke always named important Apostles in his narration of Acts.
While being housed in Rome for two years, Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter!
The Apostle Paul tells us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. – even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: 2 Tim. 4:11 “Only Luke is with me”.
At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows that he was elsewhere. The evidence is clear. By studying God’s own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!
I grew up catholic. I now know the truth! The Papacy removed the 2nd commandment from their bibles, worships images and idols! Praying to dead Saints, infant baptism, purgatory, Mary as co-mediator with Christ are all contrary to the clear teachings of scriptures!!
I pray your eyes will be opened as well! "
I know theres a great deal going on here but any thoughts insights or links would be highly appreciated*
Generally the tone has been quite respectful & this is why I’m happy to keep up the effort.
I’m looking for some help with a reply I received from one of my non Catholic opponent if that’s the right word to use. She wrote this
"You should consider Christ’s commission to Peter, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles.
“The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
” (Gal. 2:7-8).Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles
It was Paul who wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS, not Peter! Gal. 2:9 “And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace * that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision” . Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in
2 Timothy 1:11: “Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.”
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome tobecome the head of a Gentile community.
Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, greets 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! Read all of Romans! Paul’s greetings to the brethren in Rome were in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter?
Four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was taken as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian’s in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him. Acts 28:15- “When THE brethren of Rome heard of us, they came to meet us” . Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. If Peter had been in Rome, Luke would have mentioned him by name since Luke always named important Apostles in his narration of Acts.
While being housed in Rome for two years, Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter!
The Apostle Paul tells us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. – even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: 2 Tim. 4:11 “Only Luke is with me”.
At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows that he was elsewhere. The evidence is clear. By studying God’s own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!
I grew up catholic. I now know the truth! The Papacy removed the 2nd commandment from their bibles, worships images and idols! Praying to dead Saints, infant baptism, purgatory, Mary as co-mediator with Christ are all contrary to the clear teachings of scriptures!!
I pray your eyes will be opened as well! "
I know theres a great deal going on here but any thoughts insights or links would be highly appreciated*