Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What separates Evangelicals, Catholics? | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 10319 | ||
I have several articles for you to read, they are quite long so will have to be in parts, sorry! PETER AND ROME The common tradition that Peter founded the church in Rome is unverifiable. Paul could hardly have named so many Roman Christians in the last chapter of Romans if there had not been churches there long before any possible bisit of Peter. Danielour observes however: "Was Paul's the only mission to the West? The Acts tells us that in 43, after the death of James, Peter left Jerusalem 'for another place' (Acts 12:17). He is lost from sight until 49, when we find him at the Council of Jerusalem. No canonical text has anything to say about his missionary activity during this time. But Eusebius writes taht he came to Rome about 44, at the beginning of Claudius's reign (HE II, 14, 61). It seems certain taht Rome was evangelized during the period from 43 to 49. Suetonius says that Claudius expelled the Jews in 50, because they were growing agitated 'at the prompting of Chrestos.' This shows that discussions between Jews and Jedaeo-Christians were taking place, leading to conflicts which came to the ear of the emperor. In fact at Corinth in 51 Paul met some converted Jews driven from Rome by Claudius: Aquilla and Priscilla. In 57 Paul addressed the community of Rome, already considered important. In 60 he found communities established in Puteoli andin Rome." (The Christian Centuries, Jean Danielou, p. 28) However, as we have pointed out, St. Peter was probably in Babylon from A.D. 44 to 49 rather than in Rome. We cannot imagine the silence of the Acts if Peter had been in Rome during that time. In any case this period (A.D. 44-49) seems to be the only time which Peter could have been in Babylon (See Peter's letter from Babylon - 1Peter 5:13), which was located on the great Roman highway as the next great city to the east of Antioch. (Peter was bishop of Antioch for 7 years before leaving for Rome, but preaching for a while at Corinth and Jerusalem on his way.) There is no serious attempt by any reputable scholar to find the presence of Peter in Rome before Paul wrote the Book of Romans to the band of Christians that had already grown to some size in that capital city of the first century world. On the other hand Peter had to die and be buried somewhere and Christian tradition haas been in agreement from the earliest of times that it was actually in Rome that Peter died. No less a Protestant theologian and historian than Adolph Harnack wrote that, "to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice." The Protestant theologian H. Lietzmann, has come to the conclusion that the testimony fromt he year 170 A.D. concerning the graves of the two Apostles at Rome must be correct. That is, that the two Apostles (Peter and Paul) were actually buried in two places in Rome. Perhaps the lastest authoritative word which has been written is by Oscar Cullmann. In his book "Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr", he presents an argument based upon First Clement 5:24, in which he inferred from this text that the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul took place in Rome. |
||||||
2 | What separates Evangelicals, Catholics? | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 10321 | ||
HISTORICAL RECORDS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS "Thus Nero publicly announcing himself as the chief enemy of God, was led on in his fury to slaughter the Apostles. Paul is therefore said to have been beheaded in Rome, and Peter to have been crucified under him. And this account is confirmed byt he fact that the names of Peter and Paul still remain in the cemeteries of that city even to this day. But likewise, a certain ecclesiastical writer, Caius by name, who was born about the time of Zephyrinus bishop of Rome, disputing with Proclus the leader of the Phrygian sect, gives the following statement respecting the places where the earthly tabernacles of the aforesaid Apostles are laid. 'But I can show,' says he, 'the trophies of those who have laid the foundation of this church. And that both suffered martyrdom about the same time, Dionysius bisho of Corinth bears the following testimony, in his discourse addressed to the Romans. "Thus, likewise you, by means of this admonition, have mingled the flourishing seed that thad been planted by Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of these having planted us at Corinth, likewise instructed us; and having in like manner taught in Italy, they suffered martyrdom about the same time."' Historical records show that Peter chose Mark as his secretary or amanuensis. Papias of Hierapolis recorded the fact that "Mark, the interpreter of Peter, wrote down carefully what he remembered, both the sayings and the deeds of Christ, but not in chronological order, for he did not hear the Lord and he did not accompany him. At a later time, however, he did accompany Peter, who adapted his instruction to the needs (of his hearers), but not with the object of making a connected series of discourses of our Lord. So Mark made no mistakes in writing the individual discourses in the order in which he recalled them." (Keep this in mind later.) "Peter was led to the top of the Vatican Mount near the TYBER and crucified with his head downwards. His body was embalmed by Marcellinus the Presbyter after the Jewish manner, then buried in the Vatican near the Triumphal Way. Over his body a small church was erected. It was destroyed by Heliogalachis." (Dorman Newman) "His (Peter's) body was removed to the cemetery in the Appian Way, 2 miles from Rome where it rested obscurely until the Reign of Constantine (who) rebuilt and enlarged the Vatican to the honor of St. Peter. "The appearance of Peter was a follows; His body was slender of a middle size inclining to tallness. His complexion pail (sic) and almost white. His beard curled and thick but short. His eyes black but flecked with red due to frequent weeping. Eye brows thin or none." The Roman history, Augustus to Constantine, contains an interesting insight regarding controversies about the propriety of the early Christians' veneration of Apostolic burial places. "The Montanist Proclus argued that the tombs of the four daughters of Philip, all prophetesses in New Testament times, were still to be seen at Hierapolis in Asia. Gaius replied that he could point out the "trophies" of the Apostles (Peter and Paul) who founded the Roman church; they were on the Vatican Hill and by the Ostian Way. This interest in tombs was fairly widespread among Asian Christians and was certainly present at Rome as early as the middle of the second century. It did not spring into existence at that time, for in the New Testament itself we read of the burial of John the Baptist andof the martyr of Stephen. Ignatius of Antioch expected wild beasts to be his tomb, but this was a special case. Polycarp of Smyrna was carefully buried, even though a reference to an annual commemoration in the late second century may be an interpolation in the story of his martyrdom. |
||||||