-->
@Shila
Peter is said to have founded the Church in Rome with Paul,
Both were executed in Rome by Romans.
Matthew 27:52-53
Posts
Total:
74
-->
@Stephen
Peter is said to have founded the Church in Rome with Paul,
Both were executed in Rome by Romans.
That was after they founded the Church in Rome.
Which disciples went to Rome?
Connection to Rome
In a tradition of the early Church, Peter is said to have founded the Church in Rome with Paul, served as its bishop, authored two epistles, and then met martyrdom there along with Paul.
St. Clement of Rome identifies Peter and Paul as the outstanding heroes of the faith.
-->
@Shila
Peter is said to have founded the Church in Rome with Paul,Both were executed in Rome by Romans.That was after they founded the Church in Rome.
You are being disingenuous.
Stop trying to make out that these two so called saints had established a full fledged established "church" with a congregation made up off the masses in Rome, they didn't.
They may well have founded a underground 'movement' which went against Rome. The persecution of Christians was rife at the time these two lived and Rome was still at war with the Jews. Jerusalem hadn't even fell at the time c 63-64 bc. Rome had it own gods and no way were they ready to add another "god" to their own established pantheon , especially a Jew god .
-->
@Stephen
You are being disingenuous.Stop trying to make out that these two so called saints had established a full fledged established "church" with a congregation made up off the masses in Rome, they didn't.They may well have founded a underground 'movement' which went against Rome. The persecution of Christians was rife at the time these two lived and Rome was still at war with the Jews. Jerusalem hadn't even fell at the time c 63-64 bc. Rome had it own gods and no way were they ready to add another "god" to their own established pantheon , especially a Jew god .
According to Irenaeus, a 2nd-century Church Father, the church at Rome was founded directly by the apostles Peter and Paul.
The book of Romans is scriptural evidence of Paul addressing Christians in Rome.
Letter of Paul to the Romans, also called Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans, abbreviation Romans, sixth book of the New Testament and the longest and doctrinally most significant of St. Paul the Apostle’s writings. It was probably composed at Corinth in about 57 CE. The epistle was addressed to the Christian church at Rome, whose congregation Paul hoped to visit for the first time on his way to Spain. The letter has been intensely studied since early Christian times and was the basis of Martin Luther’s teaching on justification by faith alone.
-->
@Shila
I hope you’re sitting down. Maybe grab a stress ball or cuddle with your therapy dog.
Ready? Ok. Here goes.
The New Testament is filled with epistles that were not written by Paul or Peter. These are called “Pseudepigrapha” because, like other fake scriptures circulated in the late second and third centuries, they were not authored by the Apostle whose name appears on it.
The textbook definition of Pseudepigrapha is:
“Spurious or pseudonymous writings ascribed to various biblical patriarchs and prophets but composed within approximately 200 years of the birth of Jesus Christ.”
In other words, the New Testament you’re holding contains “scriptures” that are about as reliable as The Gospel of Thomas, The Epistle of Barnabus, or The Book of Enoch [which the New Testament book of Jude quotes, by the way].
Sorry to break it to you like this, but there was no other way.
You need to know the truth.
Ready? Ok. Here goes.
The New Testament is filled with epistles that were not written by Paul or Peter. These are called “Pseudepigrapha” because, like other fake scriptures circulated in the late second and third centuries, they were not authored by the Apostle whose name appears on it.
The textbook definition of Pseudepigrapha is:
“Spurious or pseudonymous writings ascribed to various biblical patriarchs and prophets but composed within approximately 200 years of the birth of Jesus Christ.”
In other words, the New Testament you’re holding contains “scriptures” that are about as reliable as The Gospel of Thomas, The Epistle of Barnabus, or The Book of Enoch [which the New Testament book of Jude quotes, by the way].
Sorry to break it to you like this, but there was no other way.
You need to know the truth.
(the above is by Keith Giles in 2019)
-->
@FLRW
I hope you’re sitting down. Maybe grab a stress ball or cuddle with your therapy dog.Ready? Ok. Here goes.The New Testament is filled with epistles that were not written by Paul or Peter. These are called “Pseudepigrapha” because, like other fake scriptures circulated in the late second and third centuries, they were not authored by the Apostle whose name appears on it.The textbook definition of Pseudepigrapha is:“Spurious or pseudonymous writings ascribed to various biblical patriarchs and prophets but composed within approximately 200 years of the birth of Jesus Christ.”In other words, the New Testament you’re holding contains “scriptures” that are about as reliable as The Gospel of Thomas, The Epistle of Barnabus, or The Book of Enoch [which the New Testament book of Jude quotes, by the way].Sorry to break it to you like this, but there was no other way.You need to know the truth.(the above is by Keith Giles in 2019)
More biblical scholars and Christians have read Paul’s Epistles than the Epistles of Keith Giles (2019)
-->
@Shila
You are being disingenuous.Stop trying to make out that these two so called saints had established a full fledged established "church" with a congregation made up off the masses in Rome, they didn't.They may well have founded a underground 'movement' which went against Rome. The persecution of Christians was rife at the time these two lived and Rome was still at war with the Jews. Jerusalem hadn't even fell at the time c 63-64 bc. Rome had it own gods and no way were they ready to add another "god" to their own established pantheon , especially a Jew god .According to Irenaeus, a 2nd-century Church Father, the church at Rome was founded directly by the apostles Peter and Paul.
So an apologist writing about 150 years after these two had been executed means exactly what? Like I have already said, these two may well have "founded" an underground early Christian movement in Rome and they, or others later, called it a "church. But it was not the established organisation that you are attempting to make it out to have been ..... Christians /Christianity wasn't accepted by Rome until the Battle of the Milvian Bridge c312. Which to my mind makes 248 years AFTER Paul & Peter were executed for crimes against Rome.
-->
@Stephen
You are being disingenuous.Stop trying to make out that these two so called saints had established a full fledged established "church" with a congregation made up off the masses in Rome, they didn't.They may well have founded a underground 'movement' which went against Rome. The persecution of Christians was rife at the time these two lived and Rome was still at war with the Jews. Jerusalem hadn't even fell at the time c 63-64 bc. Rome had it own gods and no way were they ready to add another "god" to their own established pantheon , especially a Jew god .
According to Irenaeus, a 2nd-century Church Father, the church at Rome was founded directly by the apostles Peter and Paul.
So an apologist writing about 150 years after these two had been executed means exactly what? Like I have already said, these two may well have "founded" an underground early Christian movement in Rome and they, or others later, called it a "church. But it was not the established organisation that you are attempting to make it out to have been ..... Christians /Christianity wasn't accepted by Rome until the Battle of the Milvian Bridge c312. Which to my mind makes 248 years AFTER Paul & Peter were executed for crimes against Rome.
The church was established in Rome. the church at Rome was founded directly by the apostles Peter and Paul.
Over time, the Christian church and faith grew more organized. In 313 AD, the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which accepted Christianity: 10 years later, it had become the official religion of the Roman Empire.
-->
@Stephen
Well stated.
-->
@FLRW
Well stated.
You draw a blank when listing what was well stated. Should we take this as a not so subtle insult.
-->
@Shila
I think Stephen will get it.
-->
@FLRW
Well stated.
You draw a blank when listing what was well stated. Should we take this as a not so subtle insult.
I think Stephen will get it.
Are you saying Stephen is good at picking up on your insults?
-->
@Shila
I can see that you are not related to Einstein.
-->
@FLRW
I can see that you are not related to Einstein.
That is how Einstein’s Theory of Relativity explored every related association.