Posted on 01/21/2010 1:03:26 AM PST by John Leland 1789
WAS PETER EVER AT IN ROME?
As to the question whether Peter was ever at Rome, the Roman claim is that he suffered martyrdom there with Paul, after a Pontificate of twenty-five years. This would be from A.D. 41 to 66. But note:----
1. In 44 he was imprisoned in Jerusalem (Acts 12). 2. In 52 he was at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). 3. In 53 Paul joined him at Antioch (Galatians 2). 4. In 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but does not mention Peter. In 1:11, he wants to impart special gifts; and in 1:15 he is ready to preach again there. He sends greetings to twenty-seven persons, but none to Peter. 5. In 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter. 6. At Rome he writes to the Galatians, and mentions Peter, but not as being there, or as having been pontiff there for twenty years. 7. The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, were all written for Rome; but while others are mentioned as sending messages, or as being associated with him, Peter is never once mentioned. 8. From Rome also Paul's last letter is written (the Second Epistle to Timothy), he says, "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me" (2 Timothy 4:16). So that if Peter were Bishop of Rome he enjoyed an immunity which was not accorded to Paul; and is guilty of having forsaken the Great Apostle. 9. And finally, in this very Epistle, written for Rome immediately before his martyrdom, he says, "Only Luke is with me" (2 Timothy 4:11). This is conclusive.
So that Paul had written to Rome; he had been in Rome; and at the end he writes from Rome; and not only never once mentions Peter, but emphatically, at the last moment, declares "only Luke is with me."
Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome.
Who is Pater?
I’m curious, is this post designed to bring followers of Christ together, or is it an exercise in “I know more than you” phariseeism?
Peter wasn’t mentioned because it was a death sentence to be outed as Bishop of Rome. But his is an old argument.
Holy Scripture does not deny that Peter was ever in Rome either, So nothing at all was gained by this charge.
But a simple examination of extra-Biblical writing can verify it.
St Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, 3,1,1, 180 A.D., J208
“...in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”
St Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, chapter III,
“...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.”
Eusebius, “History of the Church”, 2,14,6, 300 A.D., J651dd
In the same reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious providence which watches over all things guided Peter, the great and mighty one among the Apostles, who, because of his virtue, was the spokesman for all the others, to Rome.”
Tertullian, “The demurrer against the heretics”, chapter XXXII,1,
“...like the church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter.”
Sorry but this has been argued here 10 years ago.
ping
So is your contention that Paul was the first Pope? Or are you contendng that Peter wasn’t Pope because the Bible doesn’t say he was in Rome?
Does the Bible explicitly say Peter wasn’t in Rome?
“Who is Pater?”
Pitter’s brother?
How ‘bout we ask Peter when we get to Heaven? Until then, this argument- and all concerning same- are BS.
Pitter’s brother?
Maybe we should ask wigglebee? (if you weren't there, it would take too long to explain)
And your point is?
Feel the love.
This Elizabethan thread demonstrates a fundamental belief of our FRiends: history concluded with Acts 28:30 and did not resume until the time of Elizabeth I.
I just wonder when our good FRiend, the originator of government cheese, will post an article from this source citing the King James Version as the one true inspired version of the Scriptures...
Actually, it's not. Sorry.
"Peter was the first Pope" came from Matt 16:19 and Apostolic Succession was first documented in Acts 1:15-26.
Had Peter stayed in Antioch, he would have still been the recipient of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and there still would have been Apostolic Succession.
Having said that, it is, admittedly, likely that Latin would not have been the lingua franca of the Western Church. Likewise, the spread of Christianity would have likely happened in a different fashion, but those two elements of doctrine would have been the same, without a doubt.
Such behavior is necessary when a millenium and a half elapses between the time Christ founded his Church and the time one's own community of believers appeared on the scene. In order to justify one's own existence, it becomes necessary to "discover" some discrepancy or irregularity in the history of the true Church which gives a raison d'etre for one's own, when none, in fact, exist. The one fact which rankles some Protestants more than all others is the tradition and continuity of the Catholic Church and its ability to trace its history to the time of the apostles. This must be discredited for it strikes at the heart of their own claim to legitimacy.
Garbage like this ("Was Peter ever at Rome") was never an issue in the 16th century when Luther et al., were protesting wrongdoing in the Church. Zwingli, Calvin et al., had issues with the Catholic Church, but this was never one of them. This is latter day loony tunes dreamed up by 20th and 21st century liars and it would never have passed muster with the original Protestant reformers. Doctrinal issues are one thing, but historical revisionism is something else entirely. Unfortunately, Protestantism has become so fractured and the naysaying mentality so engrained that rewriting Catholic history has become a cottage industry in some parts of the Protestant profession.
Elizabeth had some fine clothes, but she rarely took a bath.
Oh. Wait. What's that? Oh! I think I left my pager in the next room. Oh darn, your majesty. Says here there are Catholics in Dover. And they brought their "See". I am your slave. Gotta go. See ya.
And the queen is like, "My Lord Essex, they never call. Why IS that? Does this crown make my butt look big or what? ..."
I knew James I & VI never bathed (and never washed his hands, just rubbed them lightly with a dampened cloth), but Elizabeth? Just the fact that James's habits were seen as bizarre leads me to think she did bathe reasonably often. I've heard that she bathed once a month, which was actually fairly frequent for that time and place.
I think Elizabeth just enjoyed playing them all off against each other so much that she got in the habit.
I don't subscribe to the theory that she suffered from congenital syphilis and thus was unable to marry (but there are some medico/historical forensic docs who hold to that theory. I think Logan Glendening MD - a doc and popular author in the 1920s - was one of the first to put it forward).
That was funny - made me sputter coffee on the keyboard!
“Fairly frequently for the time and place” translates to “rarely,” for me ;-).
If I weren't drenched in sweat from Georgia summers (and springs, and falls, and sometimes winters), I wouldn't have to bathe daily, or sometimes more than once in a day . . . .
On the other hand, I don't have to deal with English rain, or English food!
Thus Jesus words at Matt. 16:19 refer to himself a s the corner stone as the rest of the Scriptures make clear, 1 Peter 2:4-8 calling Christ the cornerstone.
LOL!
And let's face it, most of the people, men and women, of that time weren't big on bathing either. Somehow a supply of babies to populate the next generation managed to be produced.
“Lie back and think of England!”
And it was the Little Ice Age at the time. Still ...
All I’m saying’ is that would sure take the fun out of a hot date., that’s all I’m sayin’
Excuse me while I slip into something more comfortable. [rings bell, small horde of maids rushes in and escorts her Stinkiness into another room ...]
People who think royalty have fun don't appreciate the value of privacy! My father always says he wouldn't have even one live-in servant in the house "because they know all your business." Imagine having several hundred, and 10 Maids of the Bedchamber!
It is a scientific fact that your nose goes "dead" after 15-20 minutes of being exposed to a strong smell.
I never understood how our dogs were able to find ducks the day we were hunting a pond behind somebody's chicken houses. PHEEEWWWWWWWWEEEEEEEE!
There is one photo of her smiling as an old lady, but when she was a young queen she loved dancing and music and what she called "mirth" - she enjoyed silly jokes and romantic frolics as much as any other clever young thing.
And she did love her kids when they got older, she just didn't have much use for babies. (I thought mine were much more fun once they learned to talk.)
No source again? Are you typing this from an old book like the other anti-Catholic thread you posted?
Then please say so or provide the source.
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.