|
Author
|
Topic: Peter Peter Peter
|
epouraniois
unregistered
|
posted
Additionally, Peter himself, in his old age states his location:
1Pe 5:13
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.
Some state that he is speaking mystically. To that I say, tradions of man.
Paul states he would not build upon any other man's teachings, showing again that God needed Paul to goto Rome and speak to the chief Jews in Rome:
Rom 15:20
Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
IP: Logged | 
|
|
GaMinister
New Member
Member # 5130
|
posted
Very well done. And you are absolutely correct, as are your sources, in stating that there is NO evidence, neither Biblical nor secular, that Peter was in Rome at any point in his life. Yes, Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Why would Peter be in a Gentile land if he were the apostle to the Jews ? Very good and in-depth post.
Posts: 4 | From: Georgia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Chaplain Bob
Advanced Member
Member # 5019
|
posted
Sorry Brother but your afinity for looooooooong posts is going to keep me from clicking on any subject that has your name on it. 'Bye.
--------------------
In His Service,
Bob Allen
Posts: 209 | From: Checotah, Oklahoma | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
epouraniois
unregistered
|
posted
Lets start with The Lord's words to Peter in John 21: 18-19
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou was young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
Gird: to encircle or attach with a belt or band…
Oxford Dictionary
Another shall gird thee and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
Where did Peter not go?
Who claims he was there?
Keep that in mind, and lets look at the Name Peter
Genesis 41:8 KJV
And it came to pass in the morning that his spirit was troubled; and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt, and all the wise men thereof: and Pharaoh told them his dream and there were none that could interpret them unto the Pharaoh.
The Keyword in that passage is Interpret
In the Hebrew Lexicon Genesis 41:8, it is the word p-t-r.
Egyptian Priests were known as PTR, or petr, hence the word “interpret” derives from this.
Now, lets take a look at this quote that I came across..
Notice what Bryant, in his work "Ancient Mythology" says: "Not only the gods, but the Hierophantae [special priests], in most temples; and those priests in particular, who were occupied in the celebration of mysteries, were styled PATRES" (vol. 1, p. 354).
From Merriam Webster online:
Hierophant: 1 : a priest in ancient Greece; specifically : the chief priest of the Eleusinian mysteries 2 a : EXPOSITOR b : ADVOCATE
From what I have gathered other names for Pagan Priests have been Pators, Pator, Pater, Patora, Peter, Peters as well as the ptr, petr, and the patres, which I have shown above. There are several more variations.
I also noticed that the meaning started to mean “father”
Father…papa…papa…pope…
Gets even better….
I come across this statement:
We have clear evidence showing that the ancient Romans called their chief gods PETERS -- the divine interpreters. The early Roman writer Lucilius, mentions Neptune, Liber, Saturn, Mars, Janus and Quirnus -- all were PATERS. (See the Lucilii Fragments.)
Lucilius doesn’t exhaust the list. In fact, he leaves out JUPITER, the "Father" of the Roman gods. But it was unnecessary to mention him as a "PETER-god." Due to his high rank, the title PETER was actually incorporated as a part of his name. He was called JU-PETER.
I have looked all over for the writings of Lucilius to read myself, but have not had any luck, except if I want to actually buy the volumes of books that are out there. So Personally I really don’t know if that is true or not, however, I decided to do research on the Roman Gods….
JUPITER m
Usage: Roman Mythology
Pronounced: JOO-pi-tur
From Latin Iupiter, which was from dyeu-pater, composed of the elements dyeus (see ZEUS) and pater "father". Jupiter was the supreme god in Roman mythology. He presided over the heavens and light, and was responsible for the protection and laws of the Roman state. This is also the name of the fifth and largest planet in the solar system.
Here it also states pater is father.
Isn’t there a statue in Rome of Jupiter worshipped as Peter????
I also came across this information:
The Romans were not the only ones who called their gods PETERS, the Classical Manual reveals that the Greeks used the term PETER (or its variants) as often as did the Romans. For example, Apollo was called PATRIUS and his followers APOLLO PATRIUS (p. 23). Pausanius tells us that Artemis and Bacchus were called PATORA, that is PETER-gods (Books 1, 2). Pindar speaks of Poseidon Petraios. He says the Thessalonians worshipped Neptune under this title (Pyth. Ode 4).
I looked up Patrius on the Merriam Webster online and it gave me this:
Main Entry: 1ex·pa·tri·ate 
Pronunciation: ek-'spA-trE-"At
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin expatriatus, past participle of expatriare to leave one's own country, from Latin ex- + patria native country, from feminine of patrius of a father, from patr-, pater father -- more at FATHER
transitive senses
1 : to withdraw (oneself) from residence in or allegiance to one's native country
2 : BANISH, EXILE
intransitive senses : to leave one's native country to live elsewhere; also : to renounce allegiance to one's native country
Please see following quote:
In Egypt, the Ammonian priests -- who headed one of the chief pagan oracles of ancient Egypt -- were called Petors, as Bryant also says: "The chief instrument (idol) in their hands was styled PIETAURUM" (Ibid., p. 356).
This idol on many occasions took the form of a pole or upright stake (Ibid., p. 358). The pagan god Artemis is often pictured standing by a stone pillar which is called PATROA or PETER (Pausanius, Bk. 1). These pillars, and all the phallic symbols like them, came to be known as PETRAS -- the sacred PETERS. (It is still common among the vulgar to refer to the male member by its original religious name -- PETER.) These phallic Peter-stones can be found all over the ancient world. In fact, there is not a mention of an ancient pagan oracle temple without some notice being given to a PETER emblem -- the sacred stone.
At the temple of Delphi in Greece, the chief object in the ritual was the PETRA (Pausanius, Bk. 10). At the Acropolis in Athens, Euripides tells us, the niches which held the idols were called the PETRAE (verse 935). It is well-known that even the sacred book which was used in the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries, was entitled "Book PETROMA," PETER-ROMA -- PETER’S BOOK (see Potter’s Antiquities, vol. 1, p. 356).
Remember that the pagan temples were also called after the PETERS. The temple at Elis in Greece was called PETRON (Lycophron, verse 159). Pytho at Delphi was called PETRAessa (Olymp. Ode 6). The oracle temple dedicated to Apollo in Asia Minor was called the PATARA and the oracle there was called PATAReus ("Eus" means "person who, one") -- (Lempriere’s Classical Dictionary, p. 438).
Also PATRAE -- an ancient town where DIANA had a temple (p. 438), and the oracle in Achaia was called PATRA (Jones, Proper Names of the Old Testament, p. 296).
As pator soon lost its meaning and became father, petro also took on another form and became stone.
So Im sure somebody is saying what does any of this have to do with Peter and the Pope?
Well, lets look at the Bible….
2 Thess 2:10,11): "Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved...For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
The Keys of Peter…..(the keys of who?)
From MSN Encarta:
Janus (mythology), in Roman mythology, the god of doors and gateways, and also of beginnings, which the Romans believed ensured good endings. His principal temple in the Forum had doors facing east and west for the beginning and ending of the day, and between them stood his statue with two faces, gazing in opposite directions. In every home the morning prayer was addressed to him, and in every domestic undertaking his assistance was sought. As the god of beginnings, he was publicly invoked on the first day of January, the month that was named for him because it began the new year. He was invoked too at the beginning of wars, during which the doors of his temple in the Forum always stood open; when Rome was at peace, the doors were closed. Janus has no counterpart in Greek mythology.
From The Two Babylons Alexander Hislop Chapter VI Section I The Sovereign Pontiff:
The Pope now pretends to supremacy in the Church as the successor of Peter, to whom it is alleged that our Lord exclusively committed the keys of the kingdom of heaven. But here is the important fact that, till the Pope was invested with the title, which for a thousand years had had attached to it the power of the keys of Janus and Cybele,
* no such claim to pre-eminence, or anything approaching to it, was ever publicly made on his part, on the ground of his being the possessor of the keys bestowed on Peter.
That new ground was found, when, about 378, the Pope fell heir to the keys that were the symbols of two well-known Pagan divinities at Rome. Janus bore a key, and Cybele bore a key; and these are the two keys that the Pope emblazons on his arms as the ensigns of his spiritual authority.
* It was only in the second century before the Christian era that the worship of Cybele, under that name, was introduced into Rome; but the same goddess, under the name of Cardea, with the "power of the key," was worshipped in Rome, along with Janus, ages before. OVID's Fasti
In 432, and not before, did he publicly lay claim to the possession of Peter's keys.
So before the Pope claimed the Keys of Peter, they were already belonging to Janas and Cybele. Paganism at its finest.
And honestly it gets so much deeper in meaning with the authority of the pope and what everything really does mean, but there is just so much, im really trying to be brief…
Look at all the “key” words (haha) Jesus speaks to Peter about… Can you see it yet? All the predictions of what was to come or what was beginning to arise…
just my personal thoughts on the scripture…..
Peters Throne…..dundadundunnnnn daaaaaaaa
Quote from The Two Babylons Alexander Hislop Chapter VI Section I The Sovereign Pontiff:
Peter's keys have now been restored to their rightful owner. Peter's chair must also go along with them. That far-famed chair came from the very same quarter as the cross-keys. The very same reason that led the Pope to assume the Chaldean keys naturally led him also to take possession of the vacant chair of the Pagan Pontifex Maximus.
As the Pontifex, by virtue of his office, had been the Hierophant, or Interpreter of the Mysteries, his chair of office was as well entitled to be called "Peter's" chair as the Pagan keys to be called "the keys of Peter"; and so it was called accordingly. The real pedigree of the far-famed chair of Peter will appear from the following fact: "The Romans had," says Bower, "as they thought, till the year 1662, a pregnant proof, not only of Peter's erecting their chair, but of his sitting in it himself; for, till that year, the very chair on which they believed, or would make others believe, he had sat, was shown and exposed to public adoration on the 18th of January, the festival of the said chair. But while it was cleaning, in order to set it up in some conspicuous place of the Vatican, the twelve labours of Hercules unluckily appeared on it!" and so it had to be laid aside.
The partisans of the Papacy were not a little disconcerted by this discovery; but they tried to put the best face on the matter they could. "Our worship," said Giacomo Bartolini, in his Sacred Antiquities of Rome, while relating the circumstances of the discovery, "Our worship, however, was not misplaced, since it was not to the wood we paid it, but to the prince of the apostles, St. Peter," that had been supposed to sit in it.
Whatever the reader may think of this apology for chair-worship, he will surely at least perceive, taking this in connection with what we have already seen, that the hoary fable of Peter's chair is fairly exploded. In modern times, Rome seems to have been rather unfortunate in regard to Peter's chair; for, even after that which bore the twelve labours of Hercules had been condemned and cast aside, as unfit to bear the light that the Reformation had poured upon the darkness of the Holy See, that which was chosen to replace it was destined to reveal still more ludicrously the barefaced impostures of the Papacy. The former chair was borrowed from the Pagans; the next appears to have been purloined from the Mussulmans; for when the French soldiers under General Bonaparte took possession of Rome in 1795, they found on the back of it, in Arabic, this well known sentence of the Koran, "There is no God but God, and Mahomet is His Prophet."
Did you just read that? What? What? First they decided to have a party for the chair and it is discoved while cleaning it that the twelve labours of Hercules show up, and the RCC tries to cover it up and claim it to be the apostles… then when the French come in much later the chair now seems to be from the Muslims with writing from the Koran, stating there is no god but god and mohamed is his prophet….
also found an article about the burial place of Peter, here are just a few parts to a very long and good read…
Peter’s Tomb Recently Discovered In Jerusalem by F. PAUL PETERSON Chapter 1 Saint Peter's Tomb
The Discovery of Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem 1953
The first show an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".
I talked to a Yale professor, who is an archaeologist, and was director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. He told me that it would be very improbable that a name with three words, and one so complete, could refer to any other than St. Peter.
Then I asked, "Does Father Bagatti (co-writer of the book in Italian on the subject, and archaeologist) really believe that those are the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes, he does," was the reply. Then I asked, "But what does the Pope think of all this?" That was a thousand dollar question and he gave me a million dollar answer. "Well," he confidentially answered in a hushed voice, "Father Bagatti told me personally that three years ago he went to the Pope (Pius XII) in Rome and showed him the evidence and the Pope said to him, ‘Well, we will have to make some changes, but for the time being, keep this thing quiet’." In awe I asked also in a subdued voice, "So the Pope really believes that those are the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes," was his answer. "The documentary evidence is there, he could not help but believe."
The Catholic Church says that Peter was Pope in Rome from 41 to 66 A.D., a period of twenty-five years, but the Bible shows a different story. The book of the Acts of the Apostles (in either the Catholic or Protestant Bible) records the following: Peter was preaching the Gospel to the circumcision (the Jews) in Caesarea and Joppa in Palestine, ministering unto the household of Cornelius, which is a distance of 1,800 miles from Rome (Acts 10:23, 24). Soon after, about the year 44 A.D. (Acts 12), Peter was cast into prison in Jerusalem by Herod, but he was released by an angel. From 46 to 52 A.D., we read in the 13th chapter that he was in Jerusalem preaching the difference between Law and Grace. Saul was converted in 34 A.D. and became Paul the Apostle (Acts 9). Paul tells us that three years after his conversion in 37 A.D., he "went up to Jerusalem to see Peter" (Galatians 1:18), and in 51 A.D., fourteen years later, he again went up to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1, 8), Peter being mentioned. Soon after that he met Peter in Antioch, and as Paul says, "Withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed," Gal. 2:11. The evidence is abundant, the truth is clear from the Scriptures which have never failed. It would be breathtaking to read of the boldness of Paul in dealing with Peter. Very few, if any, have withstood a Pope and lived (except in these days when everybody seems to withstand him). If Peter were Pope it would have been no different. Paul does not only withstand Peter but rebukes him and blames him of being at fault.
In 1950, just a few years prior to the discovery of the Christian burial ground in Jerusalem, the Pope made the strange declaration that the bones of St. Peter were found under St. Peter’s in Rome. Strange it was, for since beginning to build the church in 1450 (finished in 1626) they erected, St. Peter’s Tomb (?) under the large dome and Bernini's serpentine columns. Since then multiplied millions were thereby deceived into believing that the remains of St. Peter were there, which the hierarchy had all along known was not true, as is proven by the late Pope’s declaration. The following was published in the Newsweek of July 1, 1957:
"It was in 1950 that Pope Pius XII in his Christmas message announced that the tomb of St. Peter had indeed been found, as tradition held, beneath the immense dome of the Cathedral (there was, however, no evidence that the bones uncovered there belonged to the body of the martyr)." The parentheses are Newsweek’s.
To make an announcement of such importance when there is absolutely "no evidence" is rather ridiculous as is also brought out in the Time Magazine of October 28, 1957 (as in above, we quote the article word for word).
"A thorough account in English of the discoveries beneath St. Peter’s is now available ... by British archaeologists Jocelyn Toynbee and John Ward Perkins. The authors were not members of the excavating team, but scholars Toynbee (a Roman Catholic) and Perkins (an Anglican) poured over the official Vatican reports painstakingly examined the diggings. Their careful independent conclusions fall short of the Pope’s flat statement." (The Pope’s statement that the remains of St. Peter were found under St. Peter’s in Rome). The excavation under St. Peter’s for the remains of St. Peter is still going on secretly, in spite of the Pope’s declaration of 1950.
This ancient Christian burial ground shows that Peter died and was buried in Jerusalem, which is easily understandable since neither history nor the Bible tells of Peter’s having been in Rome. To make matters more clear, the Bible tells us that Peter was the Apostle to the Jews. It was Paul who was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and both history and the Bible tells of his being in Rome. No wonder that the Roman Catholic Bishop, Strossmayer, in his great speech against papal infallibility before the Pope and the Council of 1870 said, "Scaliger, one of the most learned men, has not hesitated to say that St. Peter’s episcopate and residence in Rome ought to be classed with ridiculous legends."
So much more to read on this subject, has pictures as well…
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm
Just a reminder, it is Satan that wants to sift Peter...and what does Peter stand for?
Lu 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat
And I post all this to show really, how that like everything and everywhere else Christ would be held up, whether in Hebrew festivals, feasts, apostles, kingdom, name, title, every thing that points to Christ, Satan has found a way to usurp before Christ even made known His purpose. It is the same today with the church of the one body being different than any coming before it.
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
