Why Rome and Not Antioch?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Why is the bishop of Rome considered the successor of St. Peter and not the bishop of Antioch or another place where Peter preached?
Search the Archive: atp.holycrossk...
ATP Book Series: tinyurl.com/7y...
Support ATP: tinyurl.com/ya...
I'd add that Peter and Paul were buried in Rome made a difference as well. Recent discoveries indicate Peter's bones may have been under the current St. Peter's Basilica all along, and they were buried with what seems like indications of royalty. Early Christians cared a whole lot about this sort of thing. Masses were said over the tombs of saints.
There is no solid evidence for that.
Do you think Peter in Rome, fits the biblical narrative? 😊
@@soteriology400Yes. Why don't you?
@@williamavitt8264 Peter was an apostle to the Jews, not Gentiles (Galatians 2:7)
Peter was one of the 12 to judge the 12 tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28-30) (Why would he abandon them and take off to Rome?)
Peter spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, not the languages of Rome, which was Greek and Latin (Acts 4:13)
Peter was assigned to feed the sheep of Israel, to the day he died (John 21) (Why would he abandon them and take off to Rome?)
Peter was a fisherman, who had a boat, which was instrumental for their gathering in their final days (John 21:3).
Peter was in Babylon, Egypt, and Mark was in Alexandria, Egypt, (1 Peter 5:13)
Peter was writing from or near Jerusalem at the time he wrote 1 Peter 1:1, for the temple was in Jerusalem, not Rome. If Peter was in Rome at the time he wrote 1 Peter 1:1, then this would make him a part of the “scattered”. He was writing to Jewish Christians in those 5 churches, who were scattered from Jerusalem, who had to leave for their gathering.
They would have left to greet Mark for their gathering (1 Peter 5:13) then continued by boat to Peter, who was 100 miles south. Do you see the water channels leading/funnels to Babylon, Egypt? The logistics were already taken care of by God. If “Babylon” was referring to Rome, that would be a logistical nightmare, and they would have been heading towards a slaughterhouse, Nero was murdering Christians there at the time Peter wrote 1 Peter.
Peter would then escort them for their gathering, to Petra. Petra has a history of flooding, and we see the earth split south west of Petra, which indicates revelation 12 has been fulfilled. The 1260 days was from April 11, AD70 to September 22, AD73.
If you are going to make this about a pope being in Rome, ask yourself, does this fit the biblical narrative? Where do you see the earth split near Rome indicating where their gathering took place (this place also has to have a history of flooding)?
I have studied enough history, to conclude there was actually a rewrite of history, from the time shortly after the apostles, to early 4th century. Which was not difficult to do no printing presses, no internet, no assembly lines etc. Paper was just invented in the early 2nd century, to replace papyrus. Today, this would be impossible.
@@soteriology400 Peter literally wrote his epistles from Rome, and even Pastor Sullivan agrees to that in this video. So I'm sorry you like ignoring what's in the Bible, but I don't know what to tell you
@@soteriology400 "I've studied enough history to know that what I want to be true is." Clown
Pope St. Gregory the Great writes that there is a threefold Petrine succession in the sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria (via St. Mark the Evangelist, one of St. Peter's disciples).
Yes, this was helpful. It confirms a theory I have had in my mind about the claim to papal supremacy; namely, that it derives from the Bishop of Rome being in Rome and Rome is the capitol city. I suspect also that in later centuries the Bishop of Rome wanted to wield more political power to solve some sort of problem and searched around for a justification for it. And like many other times in Church history, found scripture that sounded plausible, twisted it into shape to make it work, and then threatened anyone who disagreed with eternal damnation. I know that sounds harsh, but it was generally no understood by the Apostles, Early Church fathers or even Peter himself that he held this sort of supreme - infallible authority that is later claimed by the Bishop of Rome.
1 Peter 1:1 suggests Peter wrote either in or near Jerusalem. Peter was an apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:7), and was writing to the Jewish Christian’s in those 5 churches. These were Jews who had been scattered since the Babylonian captivity. This was Peter’s way of subtly telling them it was time for their gathering. This was written in AD66, immediately after the lawless one in Jerusalem was revealed on August 14,AD66. Peter mentioned Mark, in 1 Peter 5:13. Mark was in Alexandria, Egypt at the time. This is where they were to go. There were two “Babylons” on the map at this time. Babylon, Iraq and Babylon, Egypt. The Jews in those 5 churches knew immediately which Babylon Peter was referring too. Egypt spoke Aramaic, Peter also spoke Aramaic. Rome spoke Greek and Latin, Peter did not speak those languages (Acts 4:13). Babylon was about 100 miles south of Mark. Peter would then have escorted them to Petra, for their gathering.
Eusebius is the one who made it up, about Babylon referring to Rome. Nero was Emperor at the time Peter wrote 1 Peter. Nero was murdering Christians big time during this time. This would have been a slaughter house if they went to Rome, instead of Babylon, Egypt. If we look at Egypt, it has multiple water channels for their boats leading to Babylon. Also, we see in revelation 12, it mentions the flood and earth split. Petra has a history of flooding, and we see the split south west of it. We don’t see that in or near Rome.
Eusebius rewrote history, to define an orthodox view of the relationship between church and state for Constantine. He has fooled billions of people.
I always find it interesting when I read Revelations Chapters 17 - 19 in the context of Daniel 2:34 “While you watched, a stone was hewn from a mountain without a hand being put to it, and it struck its iron and clay feet, breaking them in pieces.” The stone struck the iron and clay feet, which represent the Roman Empire/rule. Revelation Chapters 17 -19 are about the destruction/punishment of Babylon, which is understood to represent Rome. Then after the destruction of Rome, we have the victory song and the acknowledgement of the establishment of the reign of God. Rev. 19:6 “Then I heard something like the sound of a great multitude or the sound of rushing water or mighty peals of thunder, as they said: Alleluie! The Lord has established his reign, our God, The Almighty.” The relationship of the Church as the bride of Christ also follows after that.
It is just interesting that what you are describing in historical terms can also be explained in Biblical terms.
Matt 10:2...The names of the apostles are these, first Simon who is called Peter...
This is a great channel for the laity.
I hope your Lent was fruitful and with joyous memories..that was more than a history lesson.that had to be so busy for the church,battling foes of Christian life and the growing world ,sounds very much as today's times..be safe God Bless,,watch out the storms are coming .again !