Posted on 01/15/2019 9:01:47 AM PST by Salvation
Which one or two of those links do you trust as unimpeachable. There were only Catholic links at your link. (I suspect the Wikipedia entries are either priest or Jesuit in origin, too.) Elsie’s Humpty-Dumpty gif comes to mind ...
|
To: aMorePerfectUnion ...or the (often found here), “Uh; I don’t quite understand that.” |
When you guys get YOUR 'unity' straightened out; get back with us Prots.
You might be old and collecting social security by then. 😁👍
I’m already old and ineligible for SS.
Saying you have not seen the results of web page with at least (I stopped my cursory review) 70 results does not help your credibility, while the top hit "proves too much," for its claim is "How St. Peter first became a bishop in Antioch, not Rome!" And which claim is based on the dubious source of tradition.
Yet if tradition is a sure source of the word of God, and the EOs enlisted as being an authoritative source on what it teaches, then you must deal with its substantial disagreement on what tradition teaches vs. Rome .
Meanwhile, the top hit of a site that actually enlists Scripture for support (and which I had recently looked at) simply cannot establish your tradition thereby, but Taylor Marshall must resort to the extrapolation Catholics rely on to read into Scripture that which simply is not there.
Marshall's proof text and wishful assertion is
But he, beckoning to them with his hand to hold their peace, told how the Lord had brought him out of prison. And he said: Tell these things to James and to the brethren. And going out, he went into another place.” (Acts 12:17, D-R) Here, Peter departure to “another place,” is his departure from Jerusalem to Rome.
Just like that. “Another place" must mean Rome? Rather, "place" means place, and can mean room or seat or quarters, etc., while the Holy Spirit characteristically name major cities that its characters go to, and which would surely be expected when Peter is the character and Rome is the city! Not mentioning this actually militates against the RC claim of Peter and Rome.
Further error is that of the assertion that "After the imprisonment and attempted murder of Peter, the Apostle’s location throughout the New Testament is kept secret and hidden, which is plainly contradicted by Acts 15 which states that the apostles were in Jerusalem. And the idea that Paul would endanger souls by providing the names over 30 persons in Rm. 16, which list would be useful to persecutors looking for disciples to interogate, including the whereabouts of Peter, is ludicrous illogic!
Yet the eisegesis of reading Rome into "another place" is necessary for the next eisegetical recourse of Marshall which is that of reading into historical accounts that the cause of Roman Jews fighting in Rome over a Jew named “Chrestus” was due to Peter being the "mighty preacher (Pope) to lead to all that infighting within the synagogues!"
Which is not what the careful record of Luke says or infers, and what the Holy Spirit clearly teaches as regards amy apostle being in Rome of is that of Paul, in which the presence of Peter or his pastorate over them is nowhere even intimated. And tradition as in supplemental words in the epistles, have Paul' letter being written from Rome 7 times. (Acts 19:21 Acts 23:11 Acts 28:14 Acts 28:16 Romans 1:7 Romans 1:15 Galatians 6:18 Ephesians 6:24 Philippians 4:23 Colossians 4:18 2 Timothy 1:17 2 Timothy 4:22 Philemon 25) And rather than a disruptive apostle, which Marshall reads into history, as in Acts 8:4, all the church overall was evangelizing. "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." (Romans 1:8. KJV)
How does Anitoch fit in here? Because without any actual support from Scripture, but only wishful conjecture, Marshall asserts, "From AD 49 till AD 54 (during the Jewish expulsion from Rome), we find Saint Peter reigning temporarily in Antioch. This is why Peter is known also as the first bishop of Antioch."
So in answer to your question, "if you have better sources, please let me know," the answer is yes indeed I have a better and infallible source, which is the Holy Spirit- inspired words of Scripture, which - if so important as RCs make them - would hardly fail to record Peter being the bishop of Antioch or Rome considering the mention of these cities and other chief ones,
This took me 2 hours to write with my arthritic fingers, and a different keyboard, so I'm done for now. But thank God for His grace.
That's why I asked for your evidence. I always find evidence to be of interest.
Second: there's a whole lot of history that Scripture doesn't mention, including the post-Resurrection missionary travels of the Eleven, plus their immediate successors like Matthias, Titus, Timothy, Mark and many others. None of this is given in Scripture. Our knowledge comes from normal evidence and written testimony, the ordinary kinds of materials from which all histories are sourced.
I repeat that this is not doctrine or dogma, it is not Sacred Tradition: it's just "stuff that happened," --- or didn't, according to your reading of the evidence.
Keep in mind, when we're discussing Antioch, that it was a major Roman city, and as such, its most important men show up in various chronicles. Eusebius possessed a list of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch which he got from Julius Africanus (221 AD). In Jerome's translation of Eusebius' Chronicles, we find these three entries:
Plus, Origen calls Ignatius the second bishop after Peter (Hom. IV, in Luc., III, 938A).
Notice that this information has a chain of sources: first Julius Africanus, then Eusebius, then Jerome (his translation); later, Origen.
I am not a scholar. I plucked this years ago from encyclopedia entries.
It's not doctrine. Nor is it proved beyond doubt by the fact that it's found in standard reference books. But it can't be disproven just by disqualifying all historical sources other than the Bible.
The notion that, because Peter's travels and activities in Antioch and Rome are not mentioned in Scripture, they didn't happen, surprises me.
That would pretty much confine 'history' to what is in the pages of Scripture, and stop 'history' at the death of the last Apostle. You can't mean that. I don't think you mean that.
That's why I asked for your evidence. I always find evidence to be of interest.
Second: there's a whole lot of history that Scripture doesn't mention, including the post-Resurrection missionary travels of the Eleven, plus their immediate successors like Matthias, Titus, Timothy, Mark and many others. None of this is given in Scripture. Our knowledge comes from normal evidence and written testimony, the ordinary kinds of materials from which all histories are sourced.
I repeat that this is not doctrine or dogma, it is not Sacred Tradition: it's just "stuff that happened," --- or didn't, according to your reading of the evidence.
Keep in mind, when we're discussing Antioch, that it was a major Roman city, and as such, its most important men show up in various chronicles. Eusebius possessed a list of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch which he got from Julius Africanus (221 AD). In Jerome's translation of Eusebius' Chronicles, we find these three entries:
Plus, Origen calls Ignatius the second bishop after Peter (Hom. IV, in Luc., III, 938A).
Notice that this information has a chain of sources: first Julius Africanus, then Eusebius, then Jerome (his translation); later, Origen.
I am not a scholar. I plucked this years ago from encyclopedia entries.
It's not doctrine. Nor is it proved beyond doubt by the fact that it's found in standard reference books. But it can't be disproven just by disqualifying all historical sources other than the Bible.
The notion that, because Peter's travels and activities in Antioch and Rome are not mentioned in Scripture, they didn't happen, surprises me.
That would pretty much confine 'history' to what is in the pages of Scripture, and stop 'history' at the death of the last Apostle. You can't mean that. I don't think you mean that.
Your straw is spilling all over the thread!
But it is contend for as if it were doctrine because as you did, it is important for the premise "that the structural development of the Church proceeded in a manner entirely foreseen by those who did, in fact, develop in. It manifestly did not advance on a track developed in advance by human planning: for instance, Peter, as first Bishop of Antioch, would scarcely have known he would go on to be bishop of Rome, nor that he would be the source of 263 bishops of Rome tracing their succession from his own." For Caths, just the fact that their church says this progression is fact is sppsd to be enough to warrant assent, but faced with the desperate need for support of tradition to present to evangelical types (or for RCs who do not have enough faith in Rome to just take her word for it) Caths argue such things as Peter "went to another place" simply must mean Peter went to Rome, as the 2nd top search result in the page you provided for substantiation argues. And which i thus will critically examine, by the grace of God.
Second: there's a whole lot of history that Scripture doesn't mention, including the post-Resurrection missionary travels of the Eleven, plus their immediate successors like Matthias, Titus, Timothy, Mark and many others. None of this is given in Scripture
Which are either after Acts was written and historical data in the epistles, or were not important to be known. Whereas the supposed vacuum that Catholics presume to fill takes place within the time that we have much information in Scripture. In which the Holy Spirit faithfully informs us about the whereabouts of Paul, and mentions a number of believers in Antioch who sent forth Paul, but never mentions Peter being there.
Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. (Act 13:1-3) But what the Holy Spirit tell us is of Peter being imprisoned in Jerusalem, and of how the angel led him from prison (Act 12:10) and how he went from the house of Mary "to another place" that day, which most obviously denotes a different place in Jerusalem, not a city, whereas when Peter does the latter the Spirit tells us it is after Herod searches for him the next day, and that Peter "went down from Judaea (Jerusalem is situated in the very middle) to Caesarea and there abode ."
Now as soon as it was day, there was no small stir among the soldiers, what was become of Peter. And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not, he examined the keepers, and commanded that they should be put to death. And he went down from Judaea to Caesarea, and there abode. (Act 12:18-19)
Thus we have Peter's abode being in Caesarea, which is about 60-70 miles from Jerusalem, while the miles-based distance from Jerusalem to Rome is approximately 1,450 miles, and if by sea it takes about 50 days, while the distance from Antioch to Rome has been recorded as 1,827 modern miles (and Antioch is about 300 miles north of Jerusalem .)
Thus if "another place" is that Peter going to Rome from Jerusalem, then you have Peter traveling approx 1,450 miles/50 days and then back again to be in Judea in Acts 12:19 to then go to Caesarea (and which apparently is about 350 miles from Antioch)! And if the Spirit tells us of Peter being in Caesarea then why not in Antioch, and where He names those who sent forth Peter. And the "witness protection program" polemic also falls on its face.
Thus "another place" is not that Peter going to Rome from Jerusalem, yet faced with the absurd zigzag that the Catholic "another place" argument results in, then (relying on another Catholic recourse) Catholics may claim God could do this after the manner of Phillip, (Acts 8:39,40) but which - if we were even to take this seriously - itself testifiers to the Spirit characteristically telling us of exceptions to the norm among notable Biblical characters, as well as the whereabouts of ministers where they ministered within the time period Acts and the epistles cover.
Keep in mind, when we're discussing Antioch, that it was a major Roman city, and as such, its most important men show up in various chronicles.
Indeed, and thus we would see Peter being described by the Spirit as being in both Antioch and Rome just as we are informed by Him of Peter being in Jerusalem and Caesarea. We know what is important to know by the Holy Spirit's diligence in providing it in Scripture, and thus we read of Antioch and Rome and of Paul being in the latter, and of the apostles being in Jerusalem. But as the Holy Spirit Peter nowhere describes Peter being bishop in Antioch and Rome then Catholics must go fishing.
Eusebius possessed a list of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch which he got from Julius Africanus (221 AD).
Eusebius can be dubious , as (among other things) in reporting "The Legend of Abgar" as actual fact, and such papal lists are also dubious. .
Catholic historian Paul Johnson reports,
Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.
Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius...
Orthodoxy was not established [In Egypt] until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus...
Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list...When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria. (“A History of Christianity,” pgs 53ff;
More here under Falsified history .
But it can't be disproven just by disqualifying all historical sources other than the Bible.
What can be disproven is the Cath attempt to read it into Scripture, thus relegating its basis to dubious uninspired stories of tradition. I do not disallow that the Peter of Scripture could not have been in Antioch or even Rome after the time period Caths try to insert him in the Biblical record, but that is not in Scripture, which it would be if it was anywhere as important as RCs make it to be. No one even needs to know about the Reformation tp be sound in the faith.
I am assuming that both you and I are members of this Church, in this sense.
In summation, Acts 12:19 simply cannot mean Peter was the 1st bishop of Antioch OR Rome, due to the mileage factor, as the Holy Spirit says that after Peter was found missing the next day then Herod went searching for him to put him to death, “And [so] he went down from Judæa to Cæsarea, and there abode.” (Acts 12:19. KJV)
And which means Peter would not have been the first bishop if Antioch unless one wants to argue it had none for years, but which Barnabas is indicated to be, being sent there by the apostles and under whom much people were added unto the Lord, and who then went and brought Paul to them, and so for “a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people.” (Acts 11:22-26)
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.