was peter the apostle the auther of nesmas kol cha, and what is the source?
599348
If Nesmas Kol CHa is the book I think you're reffereing to it was not written by Saint Peter but is a book written by Agnostic writes, who would often use the name of various Chrsitian saints to try and create a set of canon for thier relgion is place of the Christian Gospels. the gospel of St. Judas and St. Thomas are similar cases.
1085941
it doesn't matter whether peter went to rome or not.  Jesus told peter that he would be the rock that the church would be built upon.  peter then became the leader of the church (which was started before his death;some say the moment that Christ told peter this, others say at pentecost).  according to the roman catholic church and the easter orthodox church, peter is the first pope.\n\nthis argument has been going on for a long time and has to do more with "apostolic succession" which holds that the church is the direct spiritual successor of the beliefs of the apostles.  even more, the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic, and some Independent Catholic Churches would say that apostolic succession is maintained through the consecration of their bishops in unbroken personal succession back to the apostles.  The problem arises when the great schism occured (when the Church split into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church each saying that they are the true "One Holy and Apostolic Church).  Each church claimed/claims that their leaders were the true direct spiritual descendant of Peter(wish i could go into detail but time doesn't permit).
723491
The original twekve are:\n\n Matthew, Peter, James (the Greater), John, Judas Iscariot, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James (the Lesser), Simon, and Thaddeus (Jude).\n\nMatthias was selected to replace Judas Iscariot after Jesus' death in Acts 1:16
824331
why on earth would you want to know this - this has me really intrigued......\n\nIt's Pete of course but everyone else beat me to it (apart from the person who thinks it's Boris!
844557
Has to be Peter, if the question is confined to the original 12. \n\nMatt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 2 places.\n\nhttp://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html\n\n.
1106025
Get a lexicon and read in context.  Here is what Peter says about Paul, his writings, and people who twist them:\n\n"...even as our BELOVED brother Paul also according to the WISDOM GIVEN UNTO HIM hath written unto you;\n\nAs also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which THEY THAT ARE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE TWIST, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction.\n\nYe therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the WICKED, fall from your own steadfastness."\n\nII Peter 3:15-17
187234
Nicolaus Copernik from Poland. It was known before, but nobody dared to say it. Everybody was horribly afraid of the priests of the Catholic church!!!
8302
the pope is the religious and administrative leader of the catholic. He is considered to be peter, the apostle, the first pope. Rent the movie,"shoes of the fisherman" and it will be clear.
501626
i think its Peter Paul and Mary
645634
According to Wikipedia (which is not the most authoratative of sources): The Prophecy of the Popes, attributed to Saint Malachy (1094-1148), is a list of 112 short phrases in Latin. They purport to describe each of the Roman Catholic popes (along with a few anti-popes), beginning with Pope Celestine II (elected in 1143) and concluding with a later added pope described in the prophecy as "Peter the Roman", whose pontificate will end in the destruction of the city of Rome and the Last Judgement.\n\nThe prophecy was first published in 1595 by Arnold de Wyon, a Benedictine historian, as part of his book Lignum Vitæ. Wyon attributed the list to Saint Malachy, the 12th century bishop of Armagh in Ireland. According to the traditional account, in 1139, Malachy was summoned to Rome by Pope Innocent II. While in Rome, Malachy purportedly experienced a vision of future popes, which he recorded as a sequence of cryptic phrases. This manuscript was then deposited in the Roman Archive, and thereafter forgotten about until its rediscovery in 1590.\n\nOn the other hand, Bernard of Clairvaux's biography of Malachy makes no mention of the prophecy, nor is it mentioned in any record prior to its 1595 publication. This has led to many, including the most recent editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia, suggesting that the prophecy is a late 16th century forgery. Some have suggested they were created by Nostradamus.\n\nI don’t think this so-called “prophecy” maybe from about 1100 or maybe from 1595 has any relevance then or today.
41382
No, by definition.\n\nNo, there is a lot of historical evidence that he existed, regardless wether you believe he is the son of god.\n\nYes, There is overwhelming evidence that both the old and new testaments were engineered by the catholic church and everyone else that touched it.
420965
I have read, and I hope that Jewish friends will share, that it was nigh-on impossible for a Rabbi to be taken seriously unless he was married. The role of Mary of Magdala has been viewd of late as the possible candidate for his partner, as many of us know, and recently-found texts at Nag Hammadi have described Peter questioning Jesus as to why he kissed Mary on the lips.\nWould it make him a lesser person in your eyes if it were to be found to be fact that Jesus had had sexual experience?\nIt has also been postulated that the wedding feast at Canaa was his own..after all, why would they ask HIM to sort out the wine shortage UNLESS it were his responsibility?
444902
Hi there,\n\nThe apostles are listed in Matthew 10:2 "These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him."\n\nJudas Iscariot is replaced by Matthias in Acts 1:23-26.\n\nMark is understood to be the sidekick or secretary of Peter. This is why his Gospel is included, as it contains information of an eyewitness (Peter), even though the author themselves may not have been one of the twelve. This however, does not mean they were not necessarily there.\n\nLuke makes it known that his account is compiled from an investigation of the events. (Luke 1:1-4)\n\nLuke is also the author of the book of Acts (or The Acts of the Apostles). Although written mainly in the third person, Luke makes it known that we was present at the events starting from Luke 16:10 by using the word "we" instead of "they".\n\nAs a bit of trivia, Luke appears to have written Luke and Acts as one volume, to the same audience, a person referred to as Theophilus (Luke 1:1, Acts 1:1).
688776
In 2004 he was Priest/Rector of St. Nicholas Orthodox Church in Juneau, Alaska, and author of several books on Eastern Orthodoxy:\n\nhttp://gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1108&type=6\n\n"Archpriest Michael J. Oleska, Alaskan Orthodox missionary for nearly three decades, completed his doctoral work in Church History and Patristics at the Orthodox Theological Faculty in Presov, Slovakia, in 1988. Upon completing a year of research and teaching at Moscow's St Patriarch Tikhon Theological Institute, he was elected Dean of St Herman's Seminary in Kodiak, Alaska, in 1996. He is also the editor of Alaskan Missionary Spirituality."\nhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0881410926/qid=1148878449/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1/103-4498771-8199035?n=283155
400845
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
943849
You're right. The original church of Christ fell into apostacy and disappeared from the earth, to be restored in the last days. The Catholic belief is that Peter (head of the church after Christ died) gave his Priesthood to a bishop, who became the first Pope. However, that can't be proven and some evidence shows that Peter died a few years before the bishop claimed he was given the Priesthood. Also, Peter was an apostle and would not have given apostolic power to bishop. The man who claimed the power became the first Pope and every Pope after that was voted upon by men - never chosen by God. Some Popes were extremely evil, some forced or bribed their way into the position, and none of them ever held the Priesthood power. Many are good men, true, but they are not God's chosen, and their church and teachings are very different from Christ's church as set forth in the Bible. (Baptism by immersion, not infant sprinkling; leaders will be a prophet and 12 apostles, not a Pope; no mention of nuns or priests or celibacy, no mention of granting sainthood to men; no mention of Mary being divine or accepting prayers; no mention of a trinity, they don't believe in revelation, and where are tithing and temples?)\n\nYou're right. Faith is based on truth. Seek and ye shall find.
657134
Regardless of whether Jesus was a real guy, I think that the meme we see today was started by Peter and Paul.  It seems unlikely that Jesus could have come up with all of that stuff about eternal salvation on his own.