Where was Peter buried?

[ralphy]

As previously suggested, why not ask The Holy Spirit, who leads in truth, to lead you into The Church founded by Jesus. Jesus founded one Church which is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

There are in excess of 30,000 ‘churches’ in the world. Who founded them, and where is their Scriptural Authority? Mother Church’s Scriptural Authority is not in doubt. St Peter’s successor, and Christ’s Vicar on earth, is Pope Benedict XV1. Glory be to God.

God bless.

Why don’t you stop beating this to death. Jesus founded one church, it is the Cathloic Church (universal) that I belong to, as well as every born again believer does. IT IS NOT THE RCC. It is the universal church that He founded, He DID NOT start the RCC , the RC’s started their own church themselves. Catholic by the way means universal, however I am sure that you are aware of that. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

Romans 5:12 does not discuss original sin, it explains how death entered the world. Adam’s sin opened the door to death. That text does not say that we inherit Adams sin. Original sin is a Catholic doctrine but it cannot be proven by Sola Scriptura. The same is true of the Trinity. The Bible suggests the Trinity but can be used to argue both for and against the Trinity. Protestantism got both of these doctrines from the Catholic Church, not from the Bible.

My bible says, in Romans 5:12, "wherefore, as by one man sin was into the world , and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. This is very clear to me, the frist sin tainted us all. Ralph

 

[paul_c]

Why don’t you stop beating this to death. Jesus founded one church, it is the Cathloic Church (universal) that I belong to, as well as every born again believer does. IT IS NOT THE RCC. It is the universal church that He founded, He DID NOT start the RCC , the RC’s started their own church themselves. Catholic by the way means universal, however I am sure that you are aware of that. Ralph

Ralph,
History is against you on this one. The Roman Catholic Church is undeniably the Apostolic Church. You and everyone else can trace the lineage of the Popes back to St. Peter. If you get Eusebius’ History of the Church, written in 320 AD, you can follow this in detail.

Further, although you must believe that your version of Christianity is valid, you have no means to prove it is. Sure, there are substantial elements of truth in it, but there are also errors that result from men intepretating scripture themselves according to their own biases. Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church when he put Peter in charge of his sheep and gave him the keys to his kingdom. Jesus’ church was founded to teach the truth about salvation and it has carried out that mission faithfully for 2000 years. You or your predecessors at some point decided that this was not the truth and proclaimed your own version of the truth. But this is a misnomer. There is only one truth. Wherever you deviate from the truth as proclaimed by the Authority of Christ in the Catholic Church, you are in error.

By being on these pages, Ralph, you have the opportunity to learn the truth. This is an advantage if you take it but if you continually disregard the truth and don’t live a sacramental life of love and charity, you will have no excuse when you face judgement.

 

[brb2]

Jesus founded one church, it is the Cathloic Church (universal) that I belong to, as well as every born again believer does.

It is the universal church that He founded, He DID NOT start the RCC , the RC’s started their own church themselves.

Ralphy …

You are half-way home. We are the Universal Church, started in Jerusalem, and with headquarters in Rome … for obvious reasons

Paul and Peter died in Rome for the Christian Churches. And both are buried there.

Why do you have a problem if some use the RCC term … given the glorious history of Christianity in that city, and the FACT that Peter’s successors have generally lived in that city ?

 

[PaulF2]

RALPHY: WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING ME?

This is starting to disturb me. I’ve asked the same simple question three times now with no response whatsoever. Is what I’m saying so difficult to understand, or perhaps so stupid, that it deserves no response whatsoever?

So, once again, in response to your assertion that Peter was not in Rome because you can’t find that in your Bible:

Obviously, Scripture’s revelations ENDED at a specific point.

Also, quite obviously, Scripture itself tell us that it is NOT a “be all end all manual for the faith”. Have you read it?

John tells us that there were many things that Christ said and did that were NOT written down.

Paul told his disciples to obey the ORAL teachings of the apostles. Are you familiar with any?

Scripture tells us that it is the CHURCH that is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

In the writings of the early Fathers there are over 300 references to Peter (and Paul) teaching and being martyred in Rome.

The Church came first, and THEN the Bible. The Church produced the Bible - which did not exist until almost 400 years after Christ. Christians were dying for Christ for decades before even the first (real) gospel was written!

And the Catholic Church gave you this Bible. You trust that the Church produced a correct Bible from the hundreds of non-inspired documents out there - you trust that the Church was infallible at that time. If you do NOT trust that the Church was infallible then then there is no way you could trust the Bible. Why was the Church infallible then but not now? You can see that the base of your position, the doctrine of sola scriptura, is completely nonsensical. Nobody who knows the history of Christianity and thinks carefully would be able to honestly believe it.

So, you can see that to assert that Peter was not in Rome because you do not see that written in Scripture makes no sense.

God bless you, Ralphy.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

My bible says, in Romans 5:12, "wherefore, as by one man sin was into the world , and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. This is very clear to me, the frist sin tainted us all. Ralph

You change the meaning of the words to your own purposes. This is why all of your personal interpretation of Scripture is open to question.

 

[brb2]

You change the meaning of the words to your own purposes.

.

Protestants are allowed to do so. They believe in ‘evolution’.

 

[zach_dunn]

You change the meaning of the words to your own purposes. This is why all of your personal interpretation of Scripture is open to question.

Hi Marsha Adams,

I’m honestly not trying to say you’re wrong about Protestants using personal interpretations, but the council of Trent identified Romans 5:12 as a verse that absolutely has to be interpreted only one way and that way is to prove original sin. Romans 5:12 is one among seven verses that have to be interpreted a certain way.

This may not be “proving” original sin from the Bible, considering there are many people that do not believe in original sin using the same Bible, but that verse is what we Catholics base our belief in original sin on.

Zach

P.S. I’m not trying to offend you so if I did I’m sorry!
P.P.S. Zooey, are you really a Methodist?
P.P.P.S. ralphy, please answer my question.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Hi Marsha Adams,

I’m honestly not trying to say you’re wrong about Protestants using personal interpretations, but the council of Trent identified Romans 5:12 as a verse that absolutely has to be interpreted only one way and that way is to prove original sin. Romans 5:12 is one among seven verses that have to be interpreted a certain way.

This may not be “proving” original sin from the Bible, considering there are many people that do not believe in original sin using the same Bible, but that verse is what we Catholics base our belief in original sin on.

Zach

Zach:

You are correct about the council of Trent. The Church interpretted that text and the others you mentioned in conjunction with Tradition to prove original sin. Those texts without Tradition cannot conclusively prove the doctrine of original sin. Romans 5:12 without Tradition doesn’t say anything more than Adam’s sin introduced death to this world. You must add Tradition in order to say that the text is proof of original sin.

The irony here is that Protestants want it both ways and my point is they can’t have it both ways.

 

[mchale]

Why don’t you stop beating this to death. Jesus founded one church, it is the Cathloic Church (universal) that I belong to, as well as every born again believer does. IT IS NOT THE RCC. It is the universal church that He founded, He DID NOT start the RCC , the RC’s started their own church themselves. Catholic by the way means universal, however I am sure that you are aware of that. Ralph

So when exactly did the Roman Catholic Church start their own church?

BTW, I hope you realize that the Roman Catholic Church is actually only one rite of the Catholic Church that include a number of other rites that are all unified in doctrine and leadership.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

RALPHY: WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING ME?

He might be trying to find an answer to your question. I notice that he also never answered my post about a Church without heirarchy being non-biblical.

–
Bill

 

[ralphy]

You change the meaning of the words to your own purposes. This is why all of your personal interpretation of Scripture is open to question.

How can you say that, “I changed the meaning of the words”,that is a ridiculous thing to say, this is a direct quote from scripture. Just accept it as it is. Ralph

 

[Marsha_Adams]

How can you say that, “I changed the meaning of the words”,that is a ridiculous thing to say, this is a direct quote from scripture. Just accept it as it is. Ralph

No, that is the problem. You do not “just accept it as it is.” Look at the text again:

Rom. 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin:
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned;

The text says that because all have sinned, so all die, and Adams’s sin was doorway through which death entered the world.

The text does not say that all sin because Adam sinned, only that all die because Adam sinned. Many die without ever committing sin. The minute you make this text say something it does not, you are not accepting it just as it is.

Now the Church uses this text to support the doctrine of original sin because the Church combines it with Tradition. Since you cannot appeal to Tradition to prove doctrine, you cannot base original sin on this text, because this text does not prove original sin.

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach:

You are correct about the council of Trent. The Church interpretted that text and the others you mentioned in conjunction with Tradition to prove original sin. Those texts without Tradition cannot conclusively prove the doctrine of original sin. Romans 5:12 without Tradition doesn’t say anything more than Adam’s sin introduced death to this world. You must add Tradition in order to say that the text is proof of original sin.

The irony here is that Protestants want it both ways and my point is they can’t have it both ways.

You’re very right about this!

Zach

 

[ralphy]

No, that is the problem. You do not “just accept it as it is.” Look at the text again:

Rom. 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin:
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned;

The text says that because all have sinned, so all die, and Adams’s sin was doorway through which death entered the world.

The text does not say that all sin because Adam sinned, only that all die because Adam sinned. Many die without ever committing sin. The minute you make this text say something it does not, you are not accepting it just as it is.

Now the Church uses this text to support the doctrine of original sin because the Church combines it with Tradition. Since you cannot appeal to Tradition to prove doctrine, you cannot base original sin on this text, because this text does not prove original sin.

To me its quite simple, Adam was the first to sin, right, as original means “first”, therefore this IS the original sin. The bible says that we were all “concieved in sin”. Believe me, God came to die for all of us, because since Adam we are all sinners, that is why He died for all. People don’t have to commit sin, they are all ready sinners. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

You’re very right about this!

Zach

The end of that verse says “for all have sinned”. This is because of Adams “original sin”, he represented “mankind”. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

He might be trying to find an answer to your question. I notice that he also never answered my post about a Church without heirarchy being non-biblical.

–
Bill

Would you please quote your question again. Maybe also the other question about “without heirarchy being non-biblical”. Thank you. Ralph

 

[Randy_Carson]

The end of that verse says “for all have sinned”. This is because of Adams “original sin”, he represented “mankind”. Ralph

Ralph-

Go and ask your pastor these questions:

Can a child below the age of reason sin?
Can someone who is mentally deficient sin?

The answer I hope he gives you is “no”.

Therefore, not ALL have sinned.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

But…what does this have to do with the burial place of Peter?

 

[Thing]

The end of that verse says “for all have sinned”. This is because of Adams “original sin”, he represented “mankind”. Ralph

Ralphy, I’m a bit confused about the protestant ideas around this. If you don’t have any sin, are you sanctified? And/or, can a sanctified person sin?
Thanks

 

[zach_dunn]

To me its quite simple, Adam was the first to sin, right, as original means “first”, therefore this IS the original sin. The bible says that we were all “concieved in sin”. Believe me, God came to die for all of us, because since Adam we are all sinners, that is why He died for all. People don’t have to commit sin, they are all ready sinners. Ralph

First, ralphy, Marsha is not saying that the verse doesn’t demonstrate original sin. It does, and Catholics believe in original sin. Marsha is just saying that this one verse cannot beyond a shadow of a doubt prove original sin. This fact is proven by the various denominations that reject original sin while using the same Bible. The only way to come to an authoritative conclusion is to read the Bible with Apostolic Tradition while submitting to the interpretation of the infallible Church. This is what Marsha was demonstrating, not that original sin doesn’t exist or anything.

Zach