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 | 10325 | ||
Part 3 BABYLON AND ROME In 1Peter 5:13, Peter says, "The church that is at Babylon saluteth you." Some suppose "Babylon" is a cryptic word for Rome. There is no evidence that Rome was ever called "Babylon" until after the Book of the Revelation was written. The Revelation was written about 95 A.D., many years after the death of Simon Peter. If 1Peter 5:13 refers to Rome, then Simon Peter did not write the letter and we have a forgery in the Bible. Peter's method and manner of writing are in no sense apocalyptic. He is direct and matter-of-fact. That this man Peter, plain of speech almost to bluntness, should interject into the midst of his personal explanations and final salutations such a mystical epithet, with no hint of what he means by it, is beyond credulity. Peter says the elect in Babylon send greetings to the Jews of the Dispersion in Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. "Babylon" is no more cryptic than "Pontus", "Asia", or the rest. He means what he says. His "Babylon" is the Babylon on the Euphrates. It is a part of the eastern world where Peter lived his life and did his work. Babylon in the time of Simon Peter was no longer a great world capital, but it was still inhabited by a colony of people, mostly Jews. Among those Hebrew friends he won many to Christ, and those Jewish Christians sent greetings to their fellow - Jewish Christians in Asia Minor where Peter had previously done a blessed missionary work. Unbiased historians and the Scriptural records indicate that Peter died and was buried either in Mesopotamia or Asia Minor. The Pope of Rome will be able to find plenty of bones beneath the Vatican hills, where Christians by the thousands were murdered and buried by pagan and papal persecutors back when Rome ruled the world. But these bones prove nothing except that the Roman hierarchy is frantic in its efforts to find something that will give a semblance of justification to their false claims that Peter was connected with the papal system. Peter was never in Rome. Nor was he ruler over any church. Nor did he have any keys to give anybody else to hand down to others. He was a stone, one out of many with which God is building His spiritual house in earth and in heaven. |
||||||