Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
The Pope: A Discussion of the Roman Primacy |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234 6> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
||||||||||
MengTzu 
General 
Retired Moderator Joined: 11-Aug-2004 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 957 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: The Pope: A Discussion of the Roman PrimacyPosted: 24-Aug-2007 at 11:31 |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.) |
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
|
MengTzu
General
Retired Moderator Joined: 11-Aug-2004 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 957 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 12:10 |
||||||||||
The Catholics further understand John 16 and Acts 15 in light of Matthew 18. I'm sure you are already familiar with the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 18 and other passages supporting Petrine Primacy. The reasoning is that, even in the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, the apostles could not agree. Hence, the ultimate final decision-making is neither to be determined by a majority vote (which doesn't appear to be Biblical) nor a unanimous vote (which appears impossible even in the Bible). In the Catholic intepretation, the matters were at once settled once St. Peter spoke at the Jerusalem Council, and then St. James followed up with the same opinion.
Hence, in the Catholic view, the counciliary structure of the church is combined with a "seat of final judgment", and the two -- Council and Papacy -- are not in conflict, but in harmonious coordination. In the Orthodox view, the Papacy diminishes the power of Councils, but in the Catholic view, the papacy is necessary to complete the function of councils, for reasons noted above.
In the Catholic view, it is not "one or the other," as Jackal God said. The ultimate authority is vested in the Church, as the Spirit always protects the Church from completely falling into error. This final authority is manifested, theoretically, in the Church -- here, the Church as considered as an entity, and not the combination of individuals, as it has been shown in history that, at least in the Catholic and Orthodox views, that many individuals had fallen into errors before. In practice, however, there must be some form of seat of final judgment within the Church in order to enforce the theoretical infallibility of the Church. In the Catholic view, this final seat of authority is ultimately vested in the Papacy, even though infallibility applies to the entire Church.
Another way to put it is that whenever the Church teaches something infallibly, it is the Church that teaches it. When an Ecumenical Council teaches something infallibly, it is the teaching of the universal Church itself. The Papacy, in the Catholic view, is the Biblical as well as logically necessary element that resolves a practical issue (i.e., the impossibility of unanimity) in the enforcement of the infallibility of the Church through councils.
This brings us back to the earlier part of my post. The Catholics believe that their doctrinal reasoning is manifested in Acts 15. The apostles could not agree on the issues, and St. Peter stood up to speak, and that decision was not contradicted again. The Catholics believe that this is a significant case where Petrine Infallibility was exercised.
In sum, it appears that the ultimate question is whether the pope has a passive role -- that of a court of appeal -- or more of an active role in determining questions of faith and practice. In theory at least, the Catholics and Orthodox are in agreement regarding one of what appear to be your greatest concerns -- whether the Pope is a solitary, individual monarchy, and in the Catholic view, he certainly is not such a monarchy. He is the seat of final decision in the Church, which as a whole entity has infallibility. The only issue in practice is that the Catholics believe their pope can take an active role in enforcing the infallibility of the Church. Hence, from a Catholic view, Papal Infallibility is virtually the same as the Infallibility of the Church.
The only question left is whether St. Peter passed on this authority to the Bishops of Rome. I don't think this is the chief question of debate here, so I will just reiterate what you're probably already familiar with: the early Church fathers recorded that St. Peter ended his ministry and life at Rome; the Bishops are ordained by the Apostles and succeed them, as St. Paul mentioned in one or more of his letters, and the early Church fathers noted that the Bishop of Rome succeeded St. Peter.
Please note that I personally don't really believe in any form of Christianity, so the Catholic views that I explained above are not necessarily my personal views. I'm just explaining the Biblical interpretation and logical reasoning of Catholic theology as I undestand them. Also, if I have stated the Catholic views, the Orthodox views, or any Christian views incorrectly, I'm open to correction. Edited by MengTzu - 24-Aug-2007 at 12:24 |
|||||||||||
|
(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.) |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Menumorut
Chieftain 
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 03:53 |
||||||||||
|
The papal doctrine is grounded on the theory that apostle Peter went and died at Rome and that he is different to the other apostles. I am convinced, on the basis of historical and archaeological sources, that Peter never went to Rome, didn't died there and that the so called bones discovered at Rome do not belong to the apostle. I will bring all the explanation. Also, I will show that the New Testament verses on which is based the petrine doctrine (that Peter is different than other apostles) are wrong interpreted by Catholic church. But for now, only the first part of the arguments from the documentary sources. I'll give evidences that the Catholic theories are contradicted by historical evidences. A most important source is the New Testament. No where is mentioned that Peter was at Rome, on the contrary, there are elements which proofs he was not. I'll start with one which is not mentioned in the materials usually attacking the theory of Peter's presence at Rome (I mean I discovered it myself alone):  In the end of the Gospel of John, Jesus is making a prophecy about the way Peter will die. The Gospel says:
I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. (John 21, 18-19). As is known, the Gospel was writen sometime between 90-100 AD and Peter have died earlier, in the '60 of the century. John included this prophecy because he was thinked that it happened as Jesus sayed. John was knowing the way Peter died and he considered that it was in concordance with that prophecy. What we see in this prophecy is that when Peter will be martyrised, it will be lead from somewhere to somewhere else for that. This prophecy was seemingly at the origin of the myth about Peter going to Rome, together with the letter of Clement the Roman to the Corynthians, letter about I'll speak further. Now, lets look at this prophecy. It shows that Peter, when old, was lead against his will to a geographical place where he was martyrised. Could be that place Rome? Not, because there was not reason for bringing a Jew at Rome. Paul was a Roman citizen and this is how he could pretended to be judged at Rome. If, nevertheless, Peter would have been taken to Rome, John would expressed different. The association between the fact Peter is dressed and the fact he is driven somewhere leave the impression of a movement on a small distance, not a big distance as Rome. There is nor possible that John to be refering to a movement of Peter within the Italian territory (this woukld be a detail John would not mention without suplimentary explanation). Another aspect is that the fact that dressing and movement for execution are linked lead to the idea that there wasn't a long interval between the arest of Peter and his death. This alone destroys the myth about Peter contributing at the founding of the church in Rome. Now, I'll put the arguments commonly used against Peter's presence at Rome theory. First, the biblical arguments: The total lack of references in New Testament about Peter living and preaching at Rome. If such thing would have happened, is hard to believe it would not be mentioned somewhere. The only biblical proof Vatican historians bring is that the first Epistle of Peter is ending with
With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it. She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace to all of you who are in Christ. But the speacialists consider "There is no evidence that Rome was called Babylon by the Christians until the Book of Revelation was published, i.e. circa 90-96 AD," say the editors of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, who conclude, however, that Babylon on the Euphrates was intended. Also, this epistle is considered pseudoepigraphical by most of scholars, mean that it wasn't writen be Peter. The scholars believe it was writen betwen 70-90 or even later. The fact that in 58, when Paul writes the Epistle to Romans, he salutes 27 figures from the Roman church, among whom there is not mentioned Peter
The fact that in the epistles Paul has writen at Rome (2 Timothy, Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon) he mention many figures from the church in Rome, but no Peter. These epistles have been writen in 60-62 and (2 Timothy) 64.
Vatican historiographers are basing the support of their theory exclusively on some passages in the writings of Fathers of the Church from 1-4th century. Cronologicaly ordered, they are: Clement of Rome
A passage in the first Epistle to Corinthians of Clement the Roman. the passage is the 5th chapter. I put also the 4th chapter for understanding the context: CHAPTER 4 -- MANY EVILS HAVE ALREADY FLOWED FROM THIS SOURCE IN ANCIENT TIMES. For thus it is written: "And it came to pass after certain days, that Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice to God; and Abel also brought of the firstlings of his sheep, and of the fat thereof. And God had respect to Abel and to his offerings, but Cain and his sacrifices He did not regard. And Cain was deeply grieved, and his countenance fell. And God said to Cain, Why are you grieved, and why is your countenance fallen? If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, have you not sinned? Be at peace: your offering returns to yourself, and you shall again possess it. And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go into the field. And it came to pass, while they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and killed him." You see, brethren, how envy and jealousy led to the murder of a brother. Through envy, also, our father Jacob fled from the face of Esau his brother. Envy made Joseph be persecuted unto death, and to come into bondage. Envy compelled Moses to flee from the face of Pharaoh king of Egypt, when he heard these words from his fellow countryman, "Who made you a judge or a ruler over us? Will you kill me, as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?" On account of envy, Aaron and Miriam had to make their home outside of the camp. Envy brought down Dathan and Abiram alive to Hades, through the sedition which they excited against God's servant Moses. Through envy, David underwent the hatred not only of foreigners, but was also persecuted by Saul king of Israel. CHAPTER 5 -- NO LESS EVILS HAVE ARISEN FROM THE SAME SOURCE IN THE MOST RECENT TIMES. THE MARTYRDOM OF PETER AND PAUL. But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience. The epistle was writen sometime between 70-95. The subject is the damages of envy and the two apostles are mentioned as example of victims of others envy. We see that: -The mention of the two Apostles together is not a proof of their presence at Rome. It is about the two pillars of the church, which are gived as example after examples from the Olt Testament. The fact they are put together is because they were the most important apostles and both suffered martyrdom. -We see that Clement knows details about Paul which are not even in the New Testament books: that the apostle was seven times in captivity. Also is saying about his death that was "under prefects". This is in acordance with Paul's presence at Rome, from who Clement learned about imprisonment and he too learned details about his death, indiferently what "under prefects" means. The place where Paul died is disputed, it may be Rome but also Spain or even Britain. -We see that he knows about Peter what is in the Acts of Apostles, his troubles (the labours) when preaching in Jerusalem and Palestina. About the death of Peter he seems to know not much. This is not acceptable, as Clement would have learned if Peter would died at Rome. Ignatius of Antioch
The chronologicaly next document used in Vatican's argumentation is the Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans. He died as a martyr ~107 and then is when the Epistle was writen. The mention of the Apostles is in the 4th chapter: Chapter IV.-Allow Me to Fall a Prey to the Wild Beasts. I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me. I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freed-man of Jesus, and shall rise again emancipated in Him. And now, being a prisoner, I learn not to desire anything worldly or vain. There are two posibilities: 1. He refers to the presence of the two apostles at Rome. 2. He generaly refers to the teaching gived by apostles to the world. Be the fact that in context he speak about general things, is more reasonable to believe he generaly refers about the teaching of apostles to the world, not to the presence of the two apostles at Rome. Irenaeus of Lyon
The next text on which Vatican argue the theory of Peter being at Rome is from several decades later. The period between 70 and 170 is a period less known from the history of the church. At the end of this period, the profile of the church appears different, more complex. In ~170, Irenaeus of Lyon says in Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter III: Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. We see that at the time the theory about the authority of church in Rome appeared. The afirmations are fake because the church in Rome was not founded by the two apostles, the Christian community existed before Paul coming to Rome. Dyonisius of Corynth
is another author which Vatican historians bring for proving that, they say, Peter was at Rome. In a letter to the Romans writen arround 170, Dyonisius says: You also by this instruction have mingled together the Romans and Corinthians who are the planting of Peter and Paul. For they both came to our Corinth and planted us, and taught alike; and alike going to Italy and teaching there, were martyred at the same time. This surely is fake because in the Acts of Apostles is not mentioned the presence of Peter at Corinth and because Paul says about the community in Corinth: I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. (1 Corinthians 3:6). This passage from Dyonisius is the first time that says that Peter and Paul preached together and died together. Clement of Alexandria
says arround the year 200: "Marcus, my son, saluteth you." Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Caesar's equites, and adduced many testimonies to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark. As Luke also may be recognised by the style, both to have composed the Acts of the Apostles, and to have translated Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews. Is obvious that later texts are richer than the earlier ones and this is a proof of their lack in relating authentic events. ....................... I shall continuate later with Fathers of the Church from later periods and with the proofs that the so called tomb of Peter in Rome is a bluff. ____________________________________ Complete (or partial) textes of the Fathers of the Church quoted above Clement of Rome Ignatius Irenaeus Dyonisius Clement of Alexandria Edited by Menumorut - 29-Aug-2007 at 04:37 |
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
The_Jackal_God
Pretorian 
Joined: 13-Dec-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 157 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 00:13 |
||||||||||
|
good effort, but here's what i found weak:
1. you interpreted that prophecy according to your pre-conceived premise that Peter was never in Rome. that prophecy mentions no place about location, so to divine a location from it is invalid.
hence, for those who affirm Peter was in Rome, it fits. that prophecy neither validates nor invalidates either affirmation.
2. while you do venture into the early fathers, you still reveal a protestant flare for sola scriptura - a 'if it's not in the scriptures, then it didn't happen' attitude. on many levels, that approach is illogical and simplistic; here, moreso, since we know that the gospel writers didn't attempt to document Christ's every geographical footstep, and at least half the time, we can only guess where things happened.
3. so you turned to tradition, part of which is recorded in the writings of the church fathers. find one father that says Peter did not die at Rome, and you will have something. tradition has always maintained that Peter died at Rome, and your quotes do not disestablish that.
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Menumorut
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 06:23 |
||||||||||
I repet, expressed different: John was thinking at the way Petere have died when he was mentioned that prophecy, because he was knowing about the way Peter died he was thinking it coresponds with the prophecy. From the phrase someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go we see is not about a long distance movement, because the asociation between dressing and leading doesn't sugest a journey over sea. Actualy, saying that Peter will be leaded means he will executed or killed, not that he will be moved, as John himself explain. The sense of the passage is that due to the lack of physical condition, Peter was not able to evittae being catched and killed. Lets supose John was knowing that Peter was leaded to Rome.
I didn't have the protestant belief and I sayed If such thing would have happened, is hard to believe it would not be mentioned somewhere. . Peter moving to Rome would have been an important event and should have been recorded in the books of the New Testament writen after the date of his death.
And which is the source of traditon? The Ftahers contemporary with the Apostles says nothing about Peter being at Rom eat the later Fathers were saying what they have read in early Fathers or what they have heard from oral tradition. Or the oral tradition in early Church was full of legends and fake things. As I promised, I'll come further with explanation about the so called tomb of Peter and about the strange history of discovering what is suposed to be his bones. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
arch.buff
Colonel 
Joined: 18-Oct-2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 606 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 13:02 |
||||||||||
|
I didn't have the protestant belief and I sayed If such thing would have happened, is hard to believe it would not be mentioned somewhere. . Peter moving to Rome would have been an important event and should have been recorded in the books of the New Testament writen after the date of his death. [quote]
Who are you to say what should be included in the New Testament? Who is anybody to make such a claim? The simple fact is that this tradition of Peter dieing in Rome has always been believed by the early church, if it had not and some other city could make claim for Peters death dont you think they would have? It was an issue that was not under dispute in the church, a fact that if another city did infact have proof or a shread of evidence to calim Peters martyrdom they most certainly would. No other See took claim, which they definately would have had they the opportunity |
|||||||||||
|
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Menumorut
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 14:55 |
||||||||||
Only the generations contemporary with the Apostles could known directly what happened. The others just were basing on the writing or oral tradition of the anterior generations. In the conditions of Christian communities in Rome in the first century, the story that Peter the apostle died there would spread without checking and at the next generations it would became a strong belief, like we see totday, e.g., with the belief that bones of Peter have been discovered at Rome, which is in opostion with the opinions of scholars from the field of archaeology and not only. We see how distorted these traditions were perpetuating in the early Church period if we look at what Dyonisius of Corinth (and examples are much many), who says the community in Corinth was planted by apostles Peter and Paul, which we know sure is not true because in Acts of Apostles and in the epistles to the Corinthians of Paul there is not mentioned the presence of Peter at Corinth. The myth about the presence of Peter at Rome appeared, I think, at Corinth, the Christians from here often reading , among other apostolic and early Fathers letters, the epistle send to them by Clement, in which is that juxtaposing of Peter and Paul. Sometime, they started to believe Clement is refering to the death in Rome of the two Apostles, which is not true, the passage in Clement's letter proving on the oposite that he was having in mind that the two have died in different locations. From Corinth the legend arrived at Rome and was adopted by the communities in this city, which were numerous and having not a coordination of their activities and teaching sources (actualy, until 120 Rome haven't a bishop). The Vatican historians and contemporary apologets are defending the theory about Roman sojourn of Peter exclusively by the texts of Fathers of the church, which I demonstrated that were basing each one on the writings of anterior Fathers and that the story linking Peter and Rome appears not earlier than ~170 and that this story is enriched with details with getting farther to the initial, apostolic period. You can see which are the Vatican's explanations here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV Just an example of the 'exactitude' of that article: Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): "Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory". He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom "among us" (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chap. iv). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch. Wee se how the author of this text make connections without any ground. And like that are many. ..................... Now I'll show that the so called discoveries of the tomb and bones of Peter at Rome are not in acordance with scientifical opinions. First, some details about the real things we know about apostle Peter. Peter was the founder and spiritual patron of the Christian community in Antioch. The period he spend in this city is disputed. I present some versions I found on internet: 37-53 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch) Not at all  , from 30 to 67 he was at Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes)
37-67, says the Syrian church http://sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/PatriarchsChronList.html The fact is Peter surely was at Antioch (galatians 2: 11) and there is a church in this city which dates from the apostles' time and is sayed to be dug by the Apostle himself. This is the oldest church in the world: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_Kilisesi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8szY6dDOOc So, about Peter's sojourn in Antioch we have documentary mentionts in New Testament and also material profs. What about the so called discovery of Peter's tomb and bones in Rome? Let's see what sources which are not Catholic says: Encyclopedia Britannica: The excavation of this site, which lies far beneath the high altar of the present Church of St. Peter, was begun in 1939. The problems encountered in excavation and interpretation of what has been discovered are extremely complex. There are some scholars who are convinced that a box found in one of the fairly late sidewalls of the Aedicula contains fragments of the remains of the Apostle, fragments which at an earlier time may have rested in the earth beneath the Aedicula. Others are most definitely not convinced. If a grave of the Apostle did exist in the area of the base of the Aedicula, nothing identifiable of that grave remains today. Furthermore, the remains discovered in the box that until comparatively recently rested in the sidewall do not lead necessarily to a more positive conclusion. Archaeological investigation has not solved with any great degree of certainty the question of the location of the tomb of Peter. If it was not in the area of the Aedicula, perhaps the grave rested elsewhere in the immediate vicinity, or perhaps the body was never recovered for burial at all. A scholar from Alberta University: This is what Pope Pius XII said in his radio broadcast: The tomb of the Prince of the Apostles has been found. Such is the final conclusion after all the labour and study of these years. A second question, subordinate to the first, refers to the relics of Saint Peter. Have they been found? At the side of the tomb remains of human bones have been discovered. However, it is impossible to prove with certainty that they belong to the apostle. Little did he know what a bizarre episode in Christian archaeology lay ahead when he spoke these words. The whole subsequent story has been clearly set out by Dr. J. Curran in the journal Classics Ireland but I will summarize it here. Although the scant remains of bones found in the tomb were initially identified as those of a man in his late sixties, more extensive study later revealed that they actually belonged to an older man, a younger man, a woman, a pig, a chicken, and a horse. See also http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200310/mueller But what realy happened? Where did Peter died and where is buried, if his body realy was obtained by the Christians? This article can make some sugestions: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm Is more acceptable to think Peter died in Palestina and he was buried in Jerusalem than he was at Rome and died there. In 62 AD he was over 80. What should look for an old Jew at Rome? |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
The_Jackal_God
Pretorian
Joined: 13-Dec-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 157 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 01:13 |
||||||||||
|
the backseat driver, armchair general, and now, the internet historian...
first, menu, tradition never holds that Peter was taken to Rome like Paul was; as far as i know, Peter was simply arrested in Rome, and executed there - so your whole geographical insinuations of that prophecy go nowhere, as i said before. if Peter was arrested in Rome, he would not be lead very far, if distance is even a consideration - are you reading the original language of the prophecy, or are you reading a translation in your own language? you can infer too much if you're not using the original language. where does the bible expressly enumerate everything? where is the word Trinity in the bible? then you puzzle me with this logic: 1. if peter was in rome, that important information would've been provided in the bible. 2. hence, peter's place of death and burial are important. 3. yet, peter's place of death and burial are not provided in the bible. therefore, Peter must not have died, nor been buried, for such important information would've been mentioned in the Bible if they happened. and we can list many more important things that were not included in the bible. but how can i discuss with someone who has the audacity to say a historian living 1500+ years closer to the event was just making myths, as well as the contemporaries of the Peter and their posterity. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Menumorut
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 03:50 |
||||||||||
|
Yes, is true, I don't drive. if you are a driver, I maybe hire you. Send me a PM.
A. Writen tradition, as I sayed, begin from 170. Not any earlier mention of Peter at Rome. And from 170 on, in the texts there are also mentioned other 'historical' traditions which are surely false, I gived the example from Dyonisius. B. From where fo you know that? Another legend? C. If your explanation is correct, that the prophecy is refering to a movement of Peter inside Italy, than which is the sense of the prophecy? John was including only important things if his gospel. Why did he mentioned that prophecy? Anyway, you theory is against the Petrin doctrine, I mean: if the movement of Peter to Rome was insignifiant and Jesus mention a detail like moving on a small distance, not the movement from Palestine to Rome, it seems that linking Peter with Rome has not theological importance. D. The cult of martyrs and their bodies appeared later, not in 1st century. So, your temptative of logic demonstration is falling down. E. If Peter was at Rome, he may have been after 62, because is not mentioned in the epistles writen by Paul in his first sojourn at Rome, 60-62. In II Tim. 4:11 and 4: 16 he says: Only Luke is with me and No man stood with me, but all men forsook me. Is hard to believe Peter was then at Rome, as long as Peter express about Paul with "beloved brother Paul" (II Pet. 3:15). So, give me a reason that an over 80 Jew, non-Roman citizen go to Rome, leaving his territory of authority (the circumcised ones) and entering over the territory of authority of Paul (the Gentiles)? He was not knowing Latin or Greek, he was iliterate, not an educated man like Paul. F. Don't say the word historian. It sounds like that person has some scholar authority. And they were not chroniclers at all, but priests or bishops and they were writing what they have heard or read. And in the oldest records, Peter didn't appears at Rome, on the oposite, that first records sugest he was not dying in the same place as Paul and at considerable distance to Rome. Clement says about Paul that he died under the prefects and give something is not in NT: he was impridoned for seven times. This surely was a result of Clement speaking with Paul. Why Clement doesn't give details about Peter's death, as long as he should be more acute in his memory, because Peter could have been only after 62 at Rome? Edited by Menumorut - 01-Sep-2007 at 04:37 |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
MengTzu
General
Retired Moderator Joined: 11-Aug-2004 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 957 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 14:52 |
||||||||||
Even granted that the New Testament did not mention it, it is not follow that it did not happen.
58-64 AD is too small window of time to eliminate the possibility that Peter was in Rome. Rome was certainly not the only place that the Catholics have alleged Peter to have been (e.g., he was also said to have been in Antioch.) Your example here is not without merit, but it suffers from the defect of a negative proof -- showing that he was likely not there between 58-64 does not show that he was never there.
That's not a reasonable reading of the statement. Immediately after "I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you," he said, "They were apostles," "they" was said in the immediate context of "Peter and Paul." It makes little sense that he would introduce a narrower context and suddenly, without any indication, go back to the earlier, more general context. Moreover, in the earlier, more general context, there was no reference to the apostles in general. But there was a narrower reference to two particular apostles, Peter and Paul, hence "they were apostles" almost certainly refers to the two particular apostles.
There's a difference between 1) a collective of believers who have received the Gospel, and 2) establishment of the various levels of structures of church adminstration. The "founding" and "organizing" that Irenaus mentioned appear to reflect the latter, the more formal level of organization. Peter and Paul could well have been the first to establish ecclessial structures in Rome after some have already accepted the Gospel there.
"Planting" and "watering" are metaphors that can be defined differently and loosely when used by different authors. Where Paul meant the very initial beginning by "planting," Dionysius could use the phrase in a more general sense. If the "watering" by the apostles was done in the fundamental stages of the building-up of a congregation, there's no reason to forbid Dionysius from calling it "planting." There is no absolute definitions for these metaphorical terms. Mere differences between two usages of these terms do not show that one usage is fake, but that different authors use the same phrases differently. Edited by MengTzu - 12-Sep-2007 at 15:06 |
|||||||||||
|
(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.) |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Menumorut
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 23:09 |
||||||||||
You start by suposing that Peter was at Rome. This is just a legend, there are not historical proofs for it. Now, about this prophecy: in his gospel, John mention only the esential things and with a dramatic economy of words. John surely was knowing where Peter died, also some details about his death. Jesus' words in that prophecy are symbolic, is about Peter's constraint due to his elderness, not about a specific geographical movement: I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God This prophecy contradict the posibility that Peter died at Rome because if Peter would have died at Rome John would hear about the death and details from a letter which crossed the sea from Rome to Ephesus. And such thing he would not put in relation with a prophecy made by Jesus due to the solemnity of the gospel. He should have heard from some eye witnesses which arived at him (Ephesus) from Palestina.
Again, you speak having in mind that Peter was at Rome. What Catholics are saying, that Peter was at Rome, is grounded only on a tradition like many traditions which were spreading among early Christians, many of them being not true. Catholics doesn't have a clear statement about how much what they believe Peter was at Rome. Some are saying he lived 30 years at Rome: the most accepted among them is, I think, the theory that Peter lived for more than 10 years, which is surely impossbile because he is not mentioned in Paul's letters writen to Rome or from Rome.
The date at which the books of NT were writen is disputed and the paternity of them too. Many scholars believe that some letters, like those of Peter, were not writen by Apostles and actualy are writen in the second half of second century. If Peter went to Rome this would be reflected in the writings of Clement of Rome. Clement knows details about Paul (details which are not in any of the NT books) but don't know any details about Peter. About Paul, Clement says that the apostle died "under prefects" but about Peter's death he gives not any detail. And he was contemporary with the Apostles.
Again, you start by believing Peter was at Rome. And: Paul says in the Epistle to Romans: "...by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit (of God), so that from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum I have finished preaching the gospel of Christ. Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another's foundation,...".
So, Peter wasn't at Rome before 58 AD. That would be improbable also because Peter's jurisdiction was the Jews, as was established at the Council from Jerusalem, see Galatians chapter 2: "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles,and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, 8 who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised".
Peter was in 62 over 80 years old. He would not leave his jurisdiction, the near East. He was not knowing Latin.
Why would Peter went to Rome and not in another place?
Again, you start by thinking Peter was at Rome. Now, about Ignatius. He compares his addressement to Romans with Peter and Paul's adresement to Romans. The addressement of Peter and Paul to Romans that Ignatius mention could be by distance, from another place from where the two apostles sent epistles to Romans, or could be made directly, by their physical presence at Rome. Because his addressement to Romans is not by physical presence but writen (as himself says in the same passage at the beggining: "I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me"), appears logical that he refers not to a physical presence of the apostles at Rome but to their epistles. This epistle an the one of Clement of Rome are at the begining of the birth of the legend about Peter's presence at Rome, by the same confussion you make.
I repeat the passage: Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. From the bombastic language you should see how the legends were becaming reality at that time. And Irenaeus is speaking clearly about the foundation, in the proper sense. Else, he would sayed just "organized".
Dionysius was speaking about the "planting and watering" by both Paul and Peter. So, you believe Peter was at Corinth too? When was that? He organized rapidly the churches in Corinth and Rome at over 80, knowing not Latin? If he didn't this until that time, what reasons for starting moving inside the Latin speaking territories would have him after 62 AD? Anyway, suposing Peter was at Corinth, your interpretation is wrong. Dionysius clearly speak about the founding of the community. Another clear example of imaginary legend. You seem to miss a thing known by scholars: between the Latin speaking and Greek speaking emispheres of the Empire was a strong difference and scission. This would have been a strong impediment for an analphabet, not Latin-knowing old Jew. Edited by Menumorut - 12-Sep-2007 at 23:42 |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
The_Jackal_God
Pretorian
Joined: 13-Dec-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 157 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2007 at 00:47 |
||||||||||
|
peter didn't know latin or greek, wasn't educated, so he couldn't communicate in Rome...
uh, hello, Pentecost. i think your grasp of the scriptures is weak. you are unaware of your assumptions about the scriptures - like the scriptures hold everything, or everything that's important, and you try disproving tradition - with assumptions that Peter's contemporaries and the first generation of christians didn't know better, and that the scriptures are what remain of the oral stories that were written down, and we can't assume all the oral stories were transcribed, and that all the written records have survived up till today. see how many plays of sophocles have survived up to today compared to how many he wrote - and he was much more famous during his lifetime than peter. and if your gonna do exigesis, better know the original languages - you proficient in Aramaic or Greek? |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Menumorut
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Sep-2007 at 03:41 |
||||||||||
|
No. I explained what I sayed. I took Scripture as a historical document.
I remember for you what I sayed concerning the Scriptures: -John was knowing how Peter died and the prophecy in John 21, 18-19 shows that Peter didn't died at Rome because John wouldn't relate with a prophecy something he heard about from a messenger. -Paul address to 27 persons in Rome in the Epistle to Romans and didnt' mention Peter, also he says that he never built on a foundation other one have built out. -The epistles writen by Paul from Rome shows that at that time, 60-62 doesn't mention Peter but mention many figures of the Roman church. Ofcourse, the books of New Testament are presenting only few of the events, but in our case is hard to believe that he Peter was at Rome together with Paul in 60-62 and Paul didn't mention this. This about Scripture. From the books which are not in the canonic Bible, the epistle of Clement to Romans shows that Clement have met Paul but not Peter. Also, other arguments for what Peter would not went to Rome are: -his jurisdiction was the Jews. As John and Jacob haven't go into the Latin world, Peter also should not have go. -he was not a Roman citized as Paul and he was not cultivated or speaking Latin. So, these are logical reasons for which Peter wasn't at Rome. Should I know Aramaic or Greek for this? Let me asking something you, and I would like to receive a not joking answer: 1. On what is grounded the believe that Peter was at Rome? 2. Was Peter at Corinth too, as Dionysius of Corinth was believing? Edited by Menumorut - 13-Sep-2007 at 03:53 |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
MengTzu
General
Retired Moderator Joined: 11-Aug-2004 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 957 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Sep-2007 at 18:36 |
||||||||||
|
Dear Menumorut,
Disclaimer: I don't really believe in Catholicism or Christianity, and I don't personally insist that Peter was or was not in Rome. My point is not to prove that Peter was or was not in fact in Rome. Rather, I'm only pointing out the problems in your argument.
Allow me to dissect your argument a bit: basically what you're saying is that, based on circumstantial evidence, Peter could not possibly be in Rome. My point was not to show that Peter was in fact in Rome. My point was only to show that you have not sufficiently proved the impossibility, or even improbability, of Peter's presence in Rome.
My point is not at all based on whether Peter was in fact in Rome. In other words, whether Peter was in fact in Rome does not affect my point at all. Your argument regarding the prophecy is that Peter could not possibly have died in Rome because doing so would require him to travel a long distance. If Peter was not in Rome, then going to Rome would indeed be a long distance -- this is a fair point. But your argument made the conclusion its premise and the premise its conclusion: that is, you argued that since Peter had to travel in a long distance, he was therefore not in Rome -- this is a circular argument.
My point is a roundabout way of saying that it was really you who have started with the supposition that Peter was not in Rome to begin with. Having a supposition is fine, except that your supposition is also your conclusion. When your supposition is your conclusion, then you have a circular argument.
Again, my point is not at all based on the assumption that Peter was in fact in Rome. See above. My point was only to show that your argument regarding the prophecy is circular.
No. My starting point is not whether Peter was in Rome. My point was simply that Peter's absence between 58 - 64 AD was too short a time to show that he was never there. In other words: I am not saying that Peter was in Rome, I am saying that just because he was not there between 58 - 64 AD, it does not therefore follow that he was never there.
Duly noted. It remains to be said what happened after 64AD.
I am very interested to see where you find the information about Peter's age.
(Regarding my comment on your point about Ignatius, you said):
As I stated, none of the my points rests on the assumption that Peter was in fact in Rome. My point regarding Ignatius was about the immediate context of his statement "they were apostles," not the assumption of his whereabout.
This is a fair point, but I fail to see the relevancy. Just because they wrote to Rome, doesn't mean that they were not, at some point, in Rome. Again, you tend to read too much into my point: I'm not saying Peter was in Rome. I'm saying that your argument doesn't show that he could not be in Rome.
I don't think you understood my point regarding this. My point is that there's a different between a collective of believers and a formal church structure. The arrival of settlers is not the same as the foundation of a nation. Likewise, the arrival of the Gospel and/or of believers to Rome is not the same as the founding of a church -- at least, without more, we cannot be sure whether Irenaeus conflated the two.
You have also missed my point here. My point was not whether Dionysius is talking about both Paul and Peter. My point was whether Dionysius mean the same metaphor by "planting" as Paul did when using the same phrase. Your argument insists that they were using the term to mean the same thing, but there is no warrant at all that they did.
I can assure you that this has little to do with what I believe. Like I said, I don't really believe in Catholicism or Christianity. I personally don't have an opinion about whether Peter was in fact in Corinth, just as I don't really have an opinion whether Peter was in Rome. I don't think looking at Dionysius' writing alone is enough to make a compelling case for he was or was not in Corinth.
I am certainly aware of the fact that Latin and Greek posed a great obstacle between Western and Eastern Europe. After all, one speculated reason for the split of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy was precisely the language difference. it's quite presumptuous of you to assume that I had missed the difference between the Latin and Greek halves of the empire.
Your argument here is that Peter would not possibly go to Rome because he could not speak the language there. But this is refuted by the sheer number of missionaries in history who have travelled to places that do not speak the missionares' language. If Francis de Sales did not find it too difficult to go to Japan, I don't see why Peter would find it too difficult to go to Rome.
One thing to note is that all of your arguments are based on impossibility and improbability of Peter's presence in Rome. Improbability is much easier to prove, and your argument does a better job in that regard. But to prove impossibility means you need to prove that there is no other possibility, and that the possibility in question is also non-existent. You have not done that at all. While I admire your effort, I'm sorry to say that your argument does not prove what you wish to prove.
Let me make a few suggestions: it is ultimately difficult to prove a case from negative, circumstantial evidence. Your argument about the prophecy is, I'm sorry to say, entirely circular. Your arguments from silence are stronger, but still too focused on where Peter could not have been. You should instead focus on positive evidence of where Peter in fact was. This is because, if you can positively prove that Peter spent his last years in a specific location, you would have a stronger case. Edited by MengTzu - 15-Sep-2007 at 03:26 |
|||||||||||
|
(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.) |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Akolouthos
Sultan 
Joined: 24-Feb-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2091 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 02:08 |
||||||||||
|
This topic appears to be going wonderfully!
Still, I would be most grateful if we stopped stating that others possessed a weak grasp of the Scriptures. If it can be shown, then show it; there is no point in attacking others. While I do, unquestionably, hold the traditional position of the Church (that Peter was martyred in Rome). I think that the issue is a matter of Scriptural interpretation that will not be resolved by criticizing the ability of others to seek wisdom from the Holy Scriptures.
Meng Tzu:
You are doing a wonderful job of presenting information in a non-polemical fashion. Keep it up. While I tend to question the Roman interpretation of the Jerusalem Council (more on this later), I think you have outlined the Roman perspective well. God bless.
 -Akolouthos
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Menumorut
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 04:38 |
||||||||||
I repeat some of my ideas, trying to make them a little clear: 1. There is not any historical proof that Peter was at Rome. We heard so many times it was that we started to take this as true. We have to cure as of prejudices. 2. The passage from Clement of Rome (the earlier text refering to Peter and Paul's death): Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours [this refers to what is in Acts of the Apostles], and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects Why Clement doesn't say about Peter he travelled, as he says about Paul? Why Clement doesn't speak more about Peter, if he had met him? Why say about his death such a thing as "departed to the place of glory due to him", which denote not a particular knowledge about Peter's death, as he says about Paul's death? Why he is knowing about Paul details which are not in the Scriptures? 3. In the early Christian communities, the spreading of untrue legend was inevitable. A clear example is the epistle of Dionysius of Corinth to Romans: You also by this instruction have mingled together the Romans and Corinthians who are the planting of Peter and Paul. For they both came to our Corinth and planted us, and taught alike; and alike going to Italy and teaching there, were martyred at the same time. We know surely that the community in Corinth was planted by Paul: Acts of Apostles, Chapter 18: 1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; 2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. 3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers. 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. 5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. 6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. 7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. 8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. 9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: 10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city. 11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. 18:12 And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat, 13 Saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. 14 And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: 15 But if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters. 16 And he drave them from the judgment seat. 17 Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things. 18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow. Dionysius is also the first who says that Peter and Paul died together. If they died together, why Clement doesn't mention this?
Is hilarious to think Peter went to Rome before Paul because he was not a Roman citizen (like Paul), he was not literated, knowing not Latin and first of all, his jurisdiction was the Palestine and Near Orient. We may presume that Peter went to Rome after 63, but the same arguments are against this, and also I don't see the reason of such a visit.
Peter was the oldest from the apostles, this is why Jesus is sometimes addressing him as to a symbol of all the apostles (including Mattew 16, 18-19 which is interpreted by Catholics as being a statement of Peter's difference from the other apostles). Peter was arround 50 when Jesus called him, this is the opinion of the exegets of the New Testament. I found this on some web pages, for example this one: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm
No. Irenaeus lived in a period when the doctrine about the church as an institution was not yet developped. For him, there were only local communities of Christians, called churches (see how begin the fragment quoted by me). When he says "organized", he refers to the making of the structures of the community and when he says "founded" he refers to the apparition of the first Christians there.
Yes, he means the same thing.
We know surely that Paul founded the community in Corinth, that before him there were not Christians in Corinth. So, how could Dionysius says that Peter has founded something there?
Again: if Peter was at Rome (at Corinth even much), we may question what make him to change the decisions from the council in Jerusalem (Galatians chapter 2, see also Acts of Apostles chapter 15)?
How could be Peter at Rome? The only way is that he went after 63 (he is not mentioned in the epistles writen by Paul from Rome) and he died in a very obscure way (Clement doesn't seems to know something). At an advanced age, he suddenly broke the common establishment of the Apostles, abandoning his area of jurisdtiction. What called him at Rome so strong?
What you think about this: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm He should have remained in the Palestine and nearby parts and died with the Neronian persecution (in the time of the same persecution, apostle John was exiled at Patmos, where he wrote the Revelation book). Edited by Menumorut - 15-Sep-2007 at 05:27 |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
MengTzu
General
Retired Moderator Joined: 11-Aug-2004 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 957 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 06:03 |
||||||||||
I assure you that I already understood your points, because each time you repeat them, you reaffirm my understanding of them. The issue is with your not recognizing some of the problems in your argument. More on this later.
We've already dealt with this. My response was: the absence of Clemente's writings about Peter alone cannot be construed to mean that Clemente had never known or written about his knowledge of Peter. That we have little writings from him about Peter is a good circumstantial evidence undermining the probability of Peter's presence in Rome, but without more, it does not show the impossibility of Peter's presence in Rome.
I don't understand why you feel the need to repeat yourself. My point about Dionysius was regarding the usage of the word "planting." See my last response.
(Regarding what happened after 64AD, you wrote:)
I asked what happened after 64AD, not whether he went to Rome before Paul, so I'm not sure what you wish to address here. A note about Paul's statement that he was to evangelize the Gentiles, and Peter to the Jews: I don't think we have to insist that Paul meant this as an inflexible program. After all, the Christian community went through a series of changes, gradually shifting from Jerusalem to Antioch. There is no reason to insist that Peter also participated in evangelizing the Gentiles. He was the first to preach to the Gentiles, after all. (Act 10). Seeing that the Jews were much less receptive than the Gentiles to Christianity, it wouldn't surprise me that Peter decided to shift focus. Conversely, if there is a greater need to evangelize to the Gentiles, I don't see why the initial apostles would not assist in that regard. To construe Paul's statement as a strict, inflexible program would imply that none of the original apostles evangelized at all to the Gentiles, which I find difficult to believe, given that there were significantly more Gentiles than Jews. Finally, a minor, less compelling point: there were Jews in Rome.
We may presume that Peter went to Rome after 63, but the same arguments are against this, and also I don't see the reason of such a visit.
What makes you think that Peter's age was the reason that Jesus addressed him "as to all the apostles"? Age isn't the only explanation. The "favorite pupil" of a teacher is not always the oldest.
Can you point to me where the article offers evidence of Peter's age? I've only done a cursory word search of it. It seems to only say that all evidence points to Peter being 50 when called by Jesus, but no discussion of evidence was found in the article. It is a good place to start though, I suppose.
Your argument here is very speculative. The quote by Irenaeus that you quoted began with "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches...." Which part are you referring to that speaks of an "non-institutional" structure? But the structure of the church was apparent from the Acts of the Apostles, with the appointment of the seven servants, the overseers and elders, so it's strange to assume that Irenaeus was not aware of such social structures within the Church. A collective of believers without these ranks is certainly different from a church structure complete with these roles.
(Regarding whether Dionysius meant the same thing as Paul with the word "planting", you wrote:)
Evidence and/or proof? I'm not being rhetorical here. You need to make a good faith effort that involves more than making a blanket assertion that is not supported by any evidence, in order to make your case.
Already addressed. See above.
I think this is certainly an interesting counter argument to Peter's stay in Rome, but it isn't conclusive. On the "Peter was in Rome" side of the argument, there are likewise archeological findings in support of Peter's presence and martyrdom in Rome. See "The Bones of St. Peter", written by John Evangelist Walsh. (I haven't read this book, so you might want to ask somebody else about it, or read it yourself. May be you can tell me what it talks about.)
By the way, for future reference, there is no need to recapitulate your arguments. I only need to read them once. Edited by MengTzu - 15-Sep-2007 at 06:06 |
|||||||||||
|
(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.) |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Menumorut
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 10:01 |
||||||||||
Is not about the absence of reference of Clement about Peter. Is about how Clement speaks about Peter, in comparison with how he speaks about Paul. You say that I am uselessly repeating points but I see is necessary: Clement says about Paul that he travelled but doesn't say the same about Peter. CLement says that Paul died under prefects but about Peter speaks vaguely that he "departed to a place of glory". Clement gives non-Scriptural details about Paul but about Peter he knows only from the Acts of Apostles.
The Council at Jerusalem is in the 15th chapter of Acts and you speak about what is in the 10th chapter. It was a solemn decision. It is considered the first Council of the Church, even not a general (Ecumenic) council. The decisions of the Councils were and are the laws of the Church. Let's look one more time at Galatians chapter 2: 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, 8 for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, 9 and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, 8 who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. The One in the bolded selection is the Holy Ghost.
You are very right and the favorite disciple of Jesus was John, not Peter. But as you see in the gospels, Peter is always treated with a special atitude. Let's look just at Mattew 16: 13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." We see how Jesus ask all the apostles what people are saying, they answer together, but when Jesus ask what is the believe of the apostles, Peter answer in the name of them.
I can't find again that reference (maybe I have read on another website) but look a paragraph from this webpage: The Vatican and others have calculated through all existing evidence that Peter lived to be around 80 and 82 years, and that he died around the years of 62 or 64 A.D. Go to the third paragraph starting from the end of the webpage.
I didn't sayed that the Church hasn't structures but that the doctrine about Church-institution was not yet born in the conscience of the Christians. You sayed that "planted" and "organized" can both refer to the organizing, not to the apparition of the first believers in that town. Your assertion is wrong because is not logical that a structure can first be implemented and than organized. If is not organized, is not a structure. Also, Irenaeus speaking about two etaps of the proces of founding the eclesial system in Roma's church would necesitate an elaborate doctrine,about the Church as institution, which missed at the time.
The story of discovering what is presented as bones of Peter is nebulous and byzare: In 1942, the Administrator of St. Peter's, Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, found remains in a second tomb in the monument. Being concerned that these presumed relics of a saint would not be accorded the respect they deserved, and having little understanding of correct archeological procedures, he secretly ordered these remains stored elsewhere for safe-keeping. After Kaas' death, researcher Margherita Guarducci discovered these relics by chance. She informed Pope Paul VI of her belief that these remains were the those of St. Peter. Bone testing revealed that the remains belonged to a man in his sixties. On June 26th 1968 Paul VI announced that the relics of St. Peter had been discovered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter's_tomb The Catholic representants are not convinced that these bones are of Peter. Because these bones were discovered in the site of a pagan cemetery, were parts of a animal and other human (including female) skeletals have been discovered, the Vatican preserrves these animal and human skeletals together with the ones pretended of being of Peter, in the crypt of the altar of St. Peter's cathedral: Down in the basement of the Vatican, less than twenty feet beneath the high altar of St. Peters Basilica, there is an ugly, graffiti-covered brick-and-plaster wall. Inside the wall there is a rectangular cavity containing nineteen clear Plexiglass boxes filled with old bones, some of which are claimed to be the mortal remains of St. Peter himself. A small breach in the wall allows two of the boxes and their bony contents to be seen through the open bronze work of a gate set some distance in front of the wall. Ten of the bones thus carefully preserved at this most holy focal point in all of Christendom, however, are the remains of domestic animals goats, sheep, cows, swine, and a chicken. http://www.americanatheist.org/spr97/T2/bones.html Why don't the Vatican representants throw away these animal and pagan remains? Because doing this would lead to consider the bones pretended to be of Peter to be considered as authenticaly belonging to the apostle, and they are dpubting on this. Also, there is a skull of Peter at the John in Lateran church and remainings from another skull in St. Peter cathedral. See the same webpage above and this photo: 
Also, for fourtheen years, another bones were considered to be of Peter: In 1949, Vatican archaeologists discovered a different skeleton of the bony saint, several yards away from the wall in which the bones presently worshipped reside. The bones were reported to have been found in a hypogeum apparently a rough cavity hollowed out at the base of a wall coated with red plaster. They were reported to have been found in a sepulchral urn of plain terra cotta. The bones were kept for fourteen years by Pope Pius XII himself, in his private apartment. Although he later hedged somewhat concerning the authenticity of the bones, it is obvious that privately he felt they were genuine. But that bones were containing three fibulas, five tibias, see the article. This about the so-called bones. Now, concerning the historical realities, mentions of a cult of a place considered tomb of Peter exists. "Around AD 200, a Roman churchman called Gaius wrote to a correspondent: I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you would go to the Vatican, or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this church". Under the actual cathedral was discovered an aedicula, a small construction which is the monument mentioned by Gaius. 
This was built in ~150 AD in a pagan cemetery: 
A cult of this places existed in 3rd century and in 4th century Constantine has built the great basilica (which was replaced in the Renaissance period with the actual one). Look the plan of Constantine's basilica and amplacement of the pagan necropolis: 
I think the legend about Peter's presence at Rome appeared in the first decades of 2nd century AD and, as the Christians in Rome considered that the martyrdom should leave a body (even actualy would be hard that the body of a condemned to be recuperated), it was "identified" some unknown tomb with the one of the apostle. Is possbile too that such a confussion to be premeditately created, as in middle age when, for example, existed in Europe twelve skulls of Saint John the Baptist or in Germany 27 skeletons of Peter. See more links: http://www.romanguide.com/vaticancity/vatican-scavi-tour.html http://www.hissheep.org/catholic/the_bones_of_peter.html |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
The_Jackal_God
Pretorian
Joined: 13-Dec-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 157 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 12:48 |
||||||||||
|
menumorut, before you again say Peter didn't know Latin, plz reread the account of the Pentecost, in the beginning of Acts.
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Menumorut
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Jun-2006 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1423 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 13:00 |
||||||||||
This happened only with that ocasion. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234 6> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.
