Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
St. Peter and Rome |
11/15/04 |
WHy don't you get off of the board, and go to your local major city library to the archeology section and look it up? I am not a freaking research librarian.
Oh, and more importantly, I can tell you as an attorney, as you are raising the charge, the burden of persuasion and production is in your hands, not mine.
A quote for all to ponder:
The saints must be honored as friends of Christ and children and heirs of God. Let us carefully observe the manner of life of all the apostles, martyrs, ascetics, and just men who announced the coming of the Lord. And let us emulate their faith, charity, hope, zeal, life, patience under suffering, and perseverance unto death so that we may also share their crowns of glory.
-- St. John Damascus
Now I understand your point, thanks for your patient answer.
"How can you assert, in the face of the mountain of evidence that Peter was in Rome, that he was not 2000 years later?"
_________________________
It's hard to have a discussion when things are misstated.
I have no reason to believe that Peter didn't visit Rome. I have ample evidence to disbelieve that Peter alone founded the church in Rome; that Peter was the Bishop in Rome for 27 years; that Peter was crucified upside down by Nero; and that Peter was a "super Apostle" and only those who followed through him are the one and only leaders of Christians.
How about the fact that his tomb is there?
Why would he, he had already shown that he was unworthy by denying Christ three times. And after denying Christ, we don't hear about him much.
You'd better blow the dust off your Bible, and read the closing chapter of the Gospel of John, then read Acts at least up to chapter 15, then read the two epistles written by someone about whom you say "we don't hear much".
See my post #57. As for dust on my Bible, I will thank you know that my Bible might be worn and tattered around the edges, but dusty ... never.
There are more historical records to show that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome until he was martyred about 67.
Here are just a few...
Lactantius, The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5, AD 318, "When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew."
Bishop Peter of Alexandria, Penance, Canon 9, AD 306, "Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome."
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, The Chronicle, AD 303, "[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [AD 42]: The Apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years."
The Poem Against the Marcionites, AD 267, "In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down."
St. Cyprian, Epistle 52, A. D. 251, described Rome as "The place of Peter."
Orien, Third Commentary on Genesis, AD 232, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History, "Peter
at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way."
The Little Labyrinth, AD 211, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 5:28:3, "Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter."
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4, 5:1, AD 210, "Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood."
Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 and 32:2, AD 200, "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]
[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans , which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter."
Clement of Alexandria, Sketches, AD 200, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 6, 14:1, "The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings; should write down what had been proclaimed."
Caius, Disputation with Proclus, AD 198, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 2:25:5, "It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Caius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. This Caius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church."
St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies 3:3:1, 3:3:2, and 3:3:3, AD 189, "Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us."
St. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Letter to Pope Soter, AD 170, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 2:25:8, "You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time."
St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, wrote Letter to the Romans 4:3, AD 110, "I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive."
Pope Clement (fourth Bishop of Rome), First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 5, AD 96, "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."
There are more historical records to show that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome until he was martyred about 67
Are there any other changes that I should make on our treatise thus far, and if so, please provide the citations so as to include them. If I have left out anything that can be remotely construed by the most rhetorical amongst as evidence, I will post it and I hope you will as well.
I will be down at the monastery later today in their inquisitional library where they torture all those writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to get them to cough up everything they said and even lot of things that they didn't say. We will use every inquisitional device to find all that we need to complete Part II of the treatise.
As you can see, we tortured the writings of Clement of Rome and Justin Martur, but we could not break them. They would not tell us what we wanted to hear. Pray that we are more successful with the latter.
We are doing this for poor Adiaireton8 to spring him from his purgatorial dungeon. Please don't be mean to him, he tried. But where he failed, Uncle Chip will prevail on his behalf. Please help me.
Hang in there, Adiaireton8. Help is on the way. Keep the faith. And I hope they let you read this.
THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO
Part I] Evidence From the Holy Scriptures: There is no evidence at all.
Part II] Evidence From the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: (a work in progress by Uncle Chip on Adiaireton8's behalf)
A. Clement of Rome --- No Evidence
B. Justin Martur --- No Evidence
C. Ignatius of Antioch --- (pending)
D. Irenaeus of Lyons --- (questionable)
E. Dionysius at Corinth --- (pending)
F. Tertullian --- (pending)
G. Hippolytus --- (pending)
H.
I.
J.
K.
I am kind of weird in that I never rely on anything after the Four Gospels until I really understand what went on while Jesus walked,so to speak. It's probably because I am somewhat disorganized so I am kind of fanatic about viewing things in the "order" of presentation.
The Roman religious group/church/denomination/sect.
I don't know how to put it any better.
Father sends His only son to die for a bunch of critters. Son comes and dies a horrid death. Son models what being a servant leader is all about. Son leaves to return to The Father. Sends Holy Spirit to continue to lead the individuals and groups of critters into all truth in humility and shared discernment, decision process etc. as outlined in I Cor 12-14.
After 200 or so years, a group arises with very successful political skills and takes deep powerful root in Rome. Additional political escapades acquire even more power. Tradition builds as calsification and fossilization on the growing plethora of monuments to various human critters--interestingly to human power mongers--instead of to God.
Seems to me if Biblical monuments to the glory of GOD were the objective, depictions of the text of Scripture would have done nicely . . . especially given God's aversion to graven images and all.
In any case, the growing power is UNsurprisingly matched by growing cycles of corruption, gross sin, hypocrisy and overweaning arrogance, haughtiness and abuse of the sheep.
To think that God would have left HIS ANOINTING on such a pile of horse processed hay OF ANY denominational flavor is to construe God as an idiot. To think that Almighty God is so stupid as to allow a collection of folks in His Son's name to acquire power and then use that power on a list of ways OPPOSITE to the model and directions of His Son's teachings . . . and imagining that God would then allow Holy Spirit's anointing to remain on that group???? That's nonsense. Sheer affrontery.
God is not into making sculptures out of horse biscuits.
He's not into gilding horse biscuits.
He leaves all that to Martha Stewart.
Now, certainly, when any individuals have arisin--perhaps again--within the Roman group or any other group who are diligent about following Christ's teachings and examples earnestly and diligently . . . I suspect evidence can be found for a return of the anointing of His Spirit so long as such a case were operant. But such things tend to ebb more than they flow, in my experience and observations.
I suspect a close examination of any denominational group would reveal great long periods of an absence of Holy Spirit's anointing on the leadership and the group with maybe brief interludes where He returned for short gigs, as it were.
What's straw man-ish about expecting, understanding and observing that Roman folks are just as human as other humans? Seems like a no-brainer, to me . . . unless maybe someone is contending that ALL the Roman believers and especially the hierarchy have always been ET's from Zeta Reticuli or some such. Failing that, I think it's quite reasonable to expect Roman believers and leaders to be just as human as the rest of us.
Now why they have appeared so often in history to work so heard demontrating that they are MORE FLAWED HUMAN EXAMPLES-on average in certain eras--than a lot of us--could be a mystery worth exploring. Though I suspect it merely has to do with the arrogance of power mongering and absolute power corrupting absolutely.
As Pastor says . . . God must regret that He didn't redeem monkies, instead.
Break's about over . . .
back to the future . . . no . . .
to
going to pot.
I have a question for you. Are you a Christian?
:-)
If the 'pope' was in Rome, wouldn't the chief Jews already have heard of Peter, and been preached the Kingdom of God??? Of course they would...
But the chiefs of the Jews knew nothing about the Kingdom of God other than the small talk and rumors they heard about another sect of religious nuts...And since the Jewish people were Peter's responsibility, that's a pretty good indication Peter was no where near the area...
The Jewish community in Rome in the 1st century was the largest Jewish community in the world outside of Jerusalem.
Some estimates claim as many as 50,000.
They were officially expelled from the city late in the century because of sectarian violence in the community, but by the beginning of the second century the Jewish population was very noticeable once again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.