Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | 10324 | ||
Part 2 3. Paul writes in the second chapter of Galatians that fourteen years after his first visit to Jerusalem to visit Simon Peter he went again to see him. The first journey was 40 A.D.; fourteen years later brings us to 54 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine. 4. Peter returns the visit and goes to Antioch where Paul is working. This occasioned the famous interview between the two recorded in Galatians 2:11-14. Peter is still in the Orient, not in Rome. 5. After 54 A.D., and after the Antioch visit, the Apostle Peter makes an extensive missionary journey or journeys throughout the Roman provinces of the East. On these missionary tours Peter takes his wife (1Cor. 9:5). They labor in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. So vast a work and so great a territory must have consumed several years. This would take us therefore, to at least 60 A.D., and Peter and his wife are still not in Rome but in the East. 6. In about 58 A.D. Paul wrote a letter to the church at Rome. In the last chapter of that epistle, Paul salutes twenty-seven persons, but he never mentions Simon Peter. If Peter were "governing" the church at Rome, it is most strange that Paul should never refer to him. Romans 1:13 shows that the church at Rome was a Gentile church. At the Jerusalem conference (Gal. 2:9), it was agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and Peter to the Gentiles. The gospel ministry of Paul was motivated by a great principle which he clearly repeats in Romans 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." A like avowal is made in 1Corinthians 10:15-16. Where no other apostle has been, there Paul wanted to go. Having written this plainly to the people at Rome, his desire to go to the Roman city would be inexplicable if Peter were already there, or had been there for years. 7. Paul's first Roman imprisonment took place about 60 A.D. to 64 A.D. From his prison the Apostle to the Gentiles wrote four letters --- Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. In these letters he mentions many of his fellow Christians who are in the city, but he never once refers to Simon Peter. 8. Paul's second Roman imprisonment brought him martyrdom. This occurred about 67 A.D. Just before he died Paul wrote a letter to Timothy, our "2Timothy". In that final letter the apostle mentions many people but plainly says that "only Luke is with me." There is never a reference to Peter. We have gone throughout those years of 42 A.D. to 67 A.D., the years Peter is suppose to have been the prince and bishop and ruler of the church at Rome. There is not a suggestion anywhere that such a thing was true. Rather the New Testament clearly and plainly denies the fiction. |
||||||
3 | What separates Evangelicals, Catholics? | Rom 3:28 | Makarios | 10326 | ||
Whoa, Nellie! whups, I mean "Norrie".. :) Thats all good stuff! But could you condense all that down to just one post in the future? Thanks.. Nolan |
||||||