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 | 10322 | ||
Part 4 MODERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES OF PETER'S RELICS/BONES The most recent story concerning the burial of Peter was given in the National Geographic (1971). This account, which we quote by permission, provides the CATHOLIC archeological and ecclesiastical conclusions regarding the burial place of Peter. This report is interesting not only because of its conclusions, but becasue it provides an authoritive description of the steps by which those conclusions were reached. "Tradition holds that he was crucified upside down in Nero's circus near Vatican Hill. His body was given to friends, and he was buried close by. ".... When Julius II pulled much of it down and began the church that is there today, the tomb of Peter was lost to view. Historians thought Peter's bones were gone, his tomb sacked long before by Saracens. ".... in 1939, while excavations were being made for Pius XI's tomb, Pius XII gave orders that the digging was to be extended in a search for the tomb of Peter. This 'village' was one of the great discoveries. The houses and simpler tombs under them dated fromt he first to the third centuries A.D. They proved beyond doubt that Constantine had built St. Peter's over a cemetery. "But an even more exciting discovery was involved. A Roman presbyter named Gaius, who lived in the second and third centuries, had seen a grave memorial to Peter, and had mentioned it in a letter, a fragment of which has come down to us. Right under the papal altar, early in the escavations, a small ruined monument was found. This could well be the memorial Gaius had seen. At it's foot was a slab like a gravestone let into the ground. The excavators raised it. They found a grave, but it was quite empty. Some bones were discovered nearby. For several years they were believed to be the bones of Peter, but anthropological study established that they were actually the bones of more than one person. INSCRIPTION LEADS TO A STARTLING FIND "That would have been that, except for one obstinate and learned woman, Margherita Guarducci. She is a professor at the University of Rome, and she deciphers ancient inscriptions. "She spent 6 years studying the scribblings made by Christian pilgrims on two old walls above the empty grave. One graffito on the older wall, when deciphered, delivered an electrifying message: 'Peter is within'. In th eother wall was a recess lined with marble. To her it was clearly an ossuary, a niche for someone's bones. Had any been found? "The professor got hold of a workman who seemed to remember that something had been found there years ago, but he thought it was a piece of wall with a graffito. Undaunted, she searched St. Peter's storage rooms. There in a box marked for graffito, she found bones. "The bones, she learned were indeed fromt he ossuary in the ancient wall. Ten years before, a monsignor, during his daily inspection of the excavations had put the bones in a plain wooden box and deposited it in storage. "Professor Guarducci had the bones examined by Professor Venerando Correnti, and anthropologist of the University of Rome, who as she puts it, "entirely bore out what could be expected for the bones found in the only niche built by Constantine in his monument to St. Peter. "It was plain to her what had happened. When Constantine had erected the first St. Peter, he had cautiously moved the bones of the saint from his grave to this hiding place, a few feet away, to protect them from deterioration and grave robbers. "The bones that were found are those of a man of 60 or 70 years old, and in abox witht hem were bits of earth and shreds of purple-and-gold cloth. The age tallies with Peter's traditional age at the time of his crucifixion. Tradition says that he was buried in plain earth. And when Constantine had the bones removed to the niche, it would have seemed only fitting to have had them wrapped in precious purple-and-gold cloth. "Scholars disputed these conclusions; some still do. The writer of the above was allowed to study and photograph the burial place of Peter, deep beneath the basilica of St. Peter's church. He says " Beyond any doubt this huge church was built upon a very extensive and well preserved 1st century Roman cemetery, and the photographs reveal the name of Peter clearly inscribed in ancient Latin in the place where the Apostle's bones were discovered." (Something to keep in mind. If we are to believe Mark's gospel, which was authenticated by church historians years ago... should we discard church historians when it comes to where Peter died and where he was buried? Were the church historians honest enough to give us "Mark" as a gospel, but still liars when it comes to what they knew of Peter's death and burial?) |
||||||