Posted on 07/31/2007 4:19:37 PM PDT by NYer
If I were the magisterium, I would pull that sentence ---- it truly is one for the parsing sages: Peter was in Rome, but we just don't have any evidence of it.
No, they handed down their authority to others, since Jesus instituted His Church to last until the end of the World.
the posting is intended to address what happened after the Apostles.
You spin as well as they do. Why doesn't the posting mention that? That is not clear at all the way it is written in the lesson.
This is all you care to address on all the out of context verses in the lesson I comment on?
Becky
That is not what it says. Demonstrably, you have lied again.
So then what was Paul's Letter to the Romans? Didn't he have a code book too??? or maybe, just maybe Rome was a code word for Babylon. That's it. That must be it. The Epistle to the Romans was really sent to the Babylonians. And Paul was imprisoned in Babylon all the while Peter was in Rome just to fool those Roman soldiers chasing them all over the empire. Please --------------
Nonsense. It says exactly that. It's a straight-forward magisterial hedge, saying one thing in one sentence and the opposite in the next.
From Early christianwritings
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
It is generally agreed that “Babylon” in 1 Peter 5:13 is a cipher for the city of Rome. The great city in Mesopotamia was no longer such in the first century. Diodorus of Sicily (56-36 BCE) writes: “As for the palaces and the other buildings, time has either entirely effaced them or left them in ruins; and in fact of Babylon itself but a small part is inhabited at this time, and most of the area within its walls is given over to agriculture.” (2.9.9) Strabo, who died in 19 CE, writes: “The greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate to say . . . ‘The Great City is a great desert’.” (Geography 16.1.5) Also, no church other than Rome was claimed in ancient times to be the resting place of Peter. The Sibylline Oracles (5.143-168; 5.434), the Apocalypse of Baruch (10:1-3; 11:1; 67:7), 4 Ezra (3:1, 28, 31), and Revelation (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2-21) also refer to Rome as “Babylon.” There was a reason for connecting the Babylonian and Roman empires, as Norman Perrin writes, “Rome is called Babylon because her forces, like those of Babylon at an earlier time, destroyed the temple and Jerusalem” (Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, p. 58).
If you believe this is biased, also check out this information from a “Church of YEHOVAH” site. Here is some information compiled on the subject matter... this conclusion is clear - that Peter did die in Rome.
Peter had to die and be buried somewhere; and the OVERWHELMING CHRISTIAN TRADITION has been in agreement, from the EARLIEST TIMES, that it was actually in Rome that Peter died. F. J. Foakes-Jackson, in his book Peter: Prince of Apostles, states “that the tradition that the church [in Rome] had been founded by...Paul was well established by A.D. 178. From hence forth there is NO DOUBT whatever that, NOT ONLY AT ROME, but throughout the Christian church, Peter’s visit to the city was an ESTABLISHED FACT, as was his martyrdom together with that of Paul” (New York, 1927. P. 155.).
Historian Arthur Stapylton Barnes agrees:
The strong point in the evidence of the [church] fathers is their UNANIMITY. It is QUITE CLEAR that no other place was known to them as claiming to have been the scene of St. Peter’s death, and the repository of his relics. — St. Peter in Rome, London, 1900. P. 7.
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge corroborates this by saying:
Tradition seems to maintain that Peter went to Rome toward the end of his life and there suffered martyrdom UNDER NERO. NO SOURCE describes the place of Peter’s martyrdom as other than Rome. It seems most probable, on the whole, that Peter died a martyr’s death IN ROME TOWARD THE CLOSE OF NERO’S REIGN, sometime AFTER the cessation of the general persecution. — Article, “Peter.”
John Ignatius Dollinger claims that the evidence “St. Peter worked in Rome is a FACT SO ABUNDANTLY PROVED and so deeply imbedded in the earliest Christian history, that whoever treats it as a legend ought in consistency to treat the whole of the earliest church history as LEGENDARY, or, at least, QUITE UNCERTAIN” (The 1st Age of Christianity and the Church, London. 1867. P. 296).
As author James Hardy Ropes states:
The tradition, however, that Peter came to Rome, and suffered martyrdom under Nero (54-68 A.D.) either in the great persecution which followed the burning of the city or somewhat later, rests on a different and FIRMER basis....It is UNQUESTIONED that 150 years after Peter’s death it was the COMMON BELIEF at Rome that he had died there, as had Paul. The “trophies” of the two great apostles could be seen on the Vatican Hill and by the Ostian Way...a firm local tradition of the death at Rome of both apostles is attested for a time NOT TOO DISTANT FROM THE EVENT. — The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism. New York. 1908. Pp. 215-216.
The belief that Peter was martyred in Rome was NOT due to the vanity or ambition of the LOCAL Christians, but was ADMITTED, at an early date, THROUGHOUT THE CHURCH. No testimony later than the middle of the 3rd century really needs to be considered; by this time the Roman church claimed to have the body of the apostle and NO ONE DISPUTED THE FACT.
It is more than interesting to realize that there IS NOT ONE SINGLE PASSAGE or utterance to the contrary in ANY of the literary works dealing with the foundations of Christianity — until AFTER the Reformation. Don’t you think that’s odd? Don’t you think SOMEONE would have seized upon this claim of Rome, and used it as a point of contention if there were ANY doubt at all regarding its validity? Don’t you think the eastern churches would have gotten UNLIMITED PROPAGANDA MILEAGE out of this claim if it were not true? For centuries the eastern churches were in almost CONSTANT conflict with Rome over Easter, the Sabbath, and many other doctrinal issues. If they could have seized upon Rome’s claim that Peter had worked and died there, they SURELY would have used this against the Roman church! But they didn’t. WHY? Because there was ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER about Rome being the site of Peter’s death!
Adds William McBirnie:
We certainly do not even have the slightest reference that points to any other place besides Rome which could be considered as the scene of his death. And in favor of Rome, there are important traditions that he did actually die in Rome. In the second and third centuries when certain churches were in rivalry with those in Rome it never occurred to a single one of them to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. — The Search for the Twelve Apostles. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton, Illinois. 1973. P. 64.
Unger’s Bible Dictionary states unequivocally that “the evidence for his [Peter’s] martyrdom there [in Rome] is COMPLETE, while there is a TOTAL ABSENCE of any contrary statement in the writings of the early fathers” (3rd Edition, Chicago. 1960. P. 850).
George Edmundson, in his book The Church in Rome in the 1st Century, dogmatically repeats the same conclusion:
We do not have even the SLIGHTEST TRACE that points to any other place which could be considered as the scene of his [Peter’s] death....It is a further important point that in the second and third centuries, when certain churches were in rivalry with the one in Rome, IT NEVER OCCURRED TO A SINGLE ONE OF THEM to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. Indeed, even MORE can be said; precisely in the east, as is clear from the pseudo-Clementine writings and the Petrine legends, above all those that deal with Peter’s conflict with Simon the magician [Magus] THE TRADITION OF THE ROMAN RESIDENCE OF PETER HAD A PARTICULARLY STRONG HOLD. — London. 1913. Pp. 114-115.
Jerome writes as follows: “Simon Peter, prince of the apostles, after an episcopate of the church at Antioch and preaching to the dispersion of those of the circumcision, who had believed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, IN THE 2ND YEAR OF CLAUDIUS GOES TO ROME TO OPPOSE SIMON MAGUS and there for 25 years beheld the sacerdotal chair until the LAST YEAR OF NERO, that is the 14th.” Now here amidst a CERTAIN CONFUSION...a definite date is given for Peter’s FIRST ARRIVAL IN ROME, and, be it noted, it is the date of his escape from Herod Agrippa’s persecution and his disappearance from the narrative of the Acts. — London. 1913. Pp. 50-51. According to George Edmundson, in his work The Church in Rome in the 1st Century:
Jerome claims the 14th year of Nero’s reign was his last, and history records Nero died in June of 68, then, using the reckoning of Jerome, the 2nd year of Claudius must have been 43 A.D. This AGREES, as Mr. Edmundson noted, with the date of Peter’s imprisonment and escape under Herod, and agrees with the historical dates for the reign of Claudius.
Chronologers agree that Herod died in 44 A.D.; and the Book of Acts shows that after Peter’s escape, Herod went to Caesarea where he spent some time in negotiations with envoys from Tyre and other Phoenician cities before his death. This, coupled with the UNIVERSAL GREEK TRADITION that the apostles did not leave the Syro-Palestinian region UNTIL THE END OF 12 YEARS MINISTRY, fits in well with the dating of Eusebius and Jerome.
I think the evidence is quite clear, from those men who were there, that Peter did die in Rome. I see no reason to doubt the universal agreement of the first Christian writers who all say Peter was in Rome and eventually died in Rome. It is only after the Reformation that we begin to see any “doubt” of that.
Handed down .... - i.e. passed on (to future generations) ... how much clearer can it be?
This is all you care to address on all the out of context verses in the lesson I comment on?
Probably not. I just haven't gotten to them yet (f/t job + family + outside activities ... keep me busy :-).
A nice way to clip Uncle Chip’s hedge, Francis.
Becky .... this follows simple reasoning. Since Christ established His Church and gave it the authority to rule and teach. To disobey the Catholic Church (descended from Christ through His Apostles) is to disobey Jesus Christ Himself.
Did the people have to obey the Apostles?
Yes, because they spoke with the authority of Jesus, and therefore, to disobey them would be a sin."He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me." (Luke 10:16)
If I warn you of something and you do not heed that warning and are injured as a result, who is at fault?
And here is your theologian's response:
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
Sure the great city of Babylon was long gone, but the Mesopotamian area was still called "Babylon" and known as that by the Jews especially. And Josephus tells us that there was a significant Jewish population in the area of Babylon that numbered probably 800,000, and Peter was the Apostle to the Jews and went where the Jews were. And the area of Babylon was the center of learning for Jews during this time with schools at Pembeditha, etc where the Babylonian Talmud was composed. The city of Babylon may have been a camel stop, but it was a great place for a church with caravans going through the area constantly.
We do not have even the SLIGHTEST TRACE that points to any other place which could be considered as the scene of his [Peter’s] death...
Have you looked at the monastery at Dominus Flevit in Jerusalem where the bones of a 6'2" 85 year old fisherman are buried in an ossuary with the name "Simon Bar Jona" etched on the side.???
Jerome writes as follows: “Simon Peter, prince of the apostles, after an episcopate of the church at Antioch and preaching to the dispersion of those of the circumcision, who had believed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, IN THE 2ND YEAR OF CLAUDIUS GOES TO ROME TO OPPOSE SIMON MAGUS and there for 25 years beheld the sacerdotal chair until the LAST YEAR OF NERO, that is the 14th.”
Do you believe what Jerome writes here to be true and historically accurate????
You cite these other writers who are so sure Peter's Roman sojourn. Do they agree with Jerome's statement here???
Have you perused these men's writings to see if they "possess" any "precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn" that they could share with the Vatican??? Do they have copies of letters that Peter sent from Rome, names of people who saw him there, details of things that he said and did there, dates, eyewitnesses, testimonies, anything to back up their historically-challenged patronizing pontifications, or are they just sucking the same air and blowing the same smoke as the magisterium.
He was referring to Word of God, The Spirit, not Peter.
It is idiocy to think that Christ would base his church upon a man. More especially a man that that denied him three times.
No Light, No Spirit, no keys, no authority. And no place to hide.
Don’t even consider lookng at my homepage!!
Ok, but the church is directed by the Scripture and Holy Spirit.
It's not "Church" which directs.
You piqued my interest, so I took a few minutes this morning to look up a couple things.
I found the website for the monastery. They mention Ossuaries (and have a few pictures), but don't assert that any belongs to any particular person. I would think that if they seriously entertained that the bones MIGHT be St. Peter's, they would say something on the website.
More importantly, I found a couple of very recent writings (June 2007) from the University of the Holy Land. They seem to think that the inscription on the Ossuary is not "Simon Bar Jona" but rather "Simon Bar Zilla" (or Simon Barzillai). Their conclusion was such:
This new reading does, of course, exclude “Simon Bar Jonah” as a reading for this ossuary inscription, and returns the discussion of the potential location of Simon Peter’s bones back to their traditional place, Rome.
The writings (one paper, one blog posting) can be found here:
http://www.uhl.ac/Lost_Tomb/ShimonBarzillai/
http://www.uhl.ac/blog/?p=188
Ping to 155.
Recent findings on Domunus Flevit ossuaries.
As with this and the rest of your comments you're not even close to the point I was making. The bible is provable not because the Catholic Church has an authority to declare it, it is true because you can look at history, you can investigate the text itself, and prove the authenticy of it's authority...and true author.
What a sad lie.
Certainly, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. No argument there at all. But it is not directed by Scripture, in the sense that Scripture controls it. On the contrary, the Church predates by at least 10-15 years the first written word of the New Testament, and predates the official formulation of the canon of the New Testament by over 350 years. The Church is more the mother of the New Testament than its child. As such, the Church has responsibility for both “raising” Scripture (writing, vetting, compiling and canonizing it) and “educating” through it (officially interpreting what Scripture means - Scripture is not at all as “perspicuous” as non-Catholics want to make it out to be. Were it so, we need not be here arguing about it all the time!).
Help me understand the fundamental argument being put forward here:
Is the author saying that if the inscription was written in Aramaic script, then it would be "Simon Bar zilla", but if the inscription was written in Hebrew/Jewish script, then it would be "Simon Bar Jona". Is that the crux of the author's argument????
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.