Saint Peter - Much European talk relies on tradition

[CoreIssue]

https://www.churchathome.org/pdf/chronology-new-testament.pdf

 

[BreadOfLife]

catholics

Thank you for admitting that the Early Church was indeed Catholic.
Now - here is some earlier - 1st century evidence . . .

In the Epistle of Clement to James, we see James being informed of Peter’s death in Rome. There is an abundance of material to show that Peter ordained Clement to replace Linus as Bishop of the Roman Church after the Linus’s martyrdom in 67 A.D. The list of bishops of Rome in the Ante-Nicene Fathers show that Clement was a Bishop from 68-71 A.D.

The first order of business as Bishop was to let James know of Peter's death:

Clement to James, who rules [oversees] Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently founded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always....He himself [Peter], by reason of his immense love towards men, HAVING COME AS FAR AS ROME, clearly and publicly testifying, in opposition to the wicked one who withstood him, that there is to be a good King over all the world, while saving men by his God-inspired doctrine, HIMSELF, BY VIOLENCE, EXCHANGED THIS PRESENT EXISTENCE FOR LIFE. (Epistle of Clement to James, "Ante-Nicene Fathers." Translated by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. Vol. VIII. New York. 1926. P. 218.)

Here is some Protestant scholarship on the matter . . .

James Hardy Ropes writes:
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 Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism. New York. 1908. Pp. 215-216.

William McBirnie adds:
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 emphatically:
"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, concurs:
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.

 

[CoreIssue]

Thank you for admitting that the Early Church was indeed Catholic.
Now - here is some earlier - 1st century evidence . . .

In the Epistle of Clement to James, we see James being informed of Peter’s death in Rome. There is an abundance of material to show that Peter ordained Clement to replace Linus as Bishop of the Roman Church after the Linus’s martyrdom in 67 A.D. The list of bishops of Rome in the Ante-Nicene Fathers show that Clement was a Bishop from 68-71 A.D.

The first order of business as Bishop was to let James know of Peter's death:

Clement to James, who rules [oversees] Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently founded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always....He himself [Peter], by reason of his immense love towards men, HAVING COME AS FAR AS ROME, clearly and publicly testifying, in opposition to the wicked one who withstood him, that there is to be a good King over all the world, while saving men by his God-inspired doctrine, HIMSELF, BY VIOLENCE, EXCHANGED THIS PRESENT EXISTENCE FOR LIFE. (Epistle of Clement to James, "Ante-Nicene Fathers." Translated by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. Vol. VIII. New York. 1926. P. 218.)

Here is some Protestant scholarship on the matter . . .

James Hardy Ropes writes:
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 Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism. New York. 1908. Pp. 215-216.

William McBirnie adds:
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 emphatically:
"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, concurs:
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.

I never said the early church was catholic.

 

[BreadOfLife]

https://www.churchathome.org/pdf/chronology-new-testament.pdf

Yes - I've read this "Peter's Tomb on the Mount of Olives" nonsense before.

How interesting that this NEVER came to "light" in the Early Church.
Interesting - pathetic, actually - that it was only AFTER the centuries following the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century that this supposed "tomb" was discovered.

No - as Unger's Bible Dictionary and many other Protestant sources now admit:
"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).

 

[BreadOfLife]

I never said the early church was catholic.

SURE, you did.

In post #20, YOU responded to my listing of the testimonies of Peter's presence in Rome by the Early Church Fathers by posting "Catholics."

 

[CoreIssue]

Religion and Spirituality: Was Peter Ever in Rome? | Vision

 

[CoreIssue]

SURE, you did.

In post #20, YOU responded to my listing of the testimonies of Peter's presence in Rome by the Early Church Fathers by posting "Catholics."

Catholicism as a concept began early within the minds of some teachers. But not in fact until Emperor Constantine.

 

[Enoch111]

This doesn't address my challenge.

Yes it does. Did you notice the link I provided? That was the Biblical Archaeology Society telling you that all the claims are bogus.

 

[FHII]

Well... Here's my take... I've given it before but here it is again.

The only hint of Biblical evidence that Peter was in Rome is his mention of "Babylon". I agree... He was speaking of Rome. But that's it for Biblical evidence.

But there are plenty of other historical writings which lead me to believe he did make his way to Rome. I also believe he was matryed there.

What I don't believe based on history and Bible is that he was the head of the Church, started the Church or was any way a VIP except by reputation. Meaning.... If Peter went to Rome, of course he is going to be well received and be an honored guest.

I believe that Christianity started in Rome via grass roots. It was solitified when Paul went there. So it was Paul, not Peter who grounded the Church at Rome.

Again, I do believe Peter was in Rome, well received and even taught. But Paul should get the honor for the organization.

Consider this verse:

Acts 23:11 KJV
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

Jesus himself said he needed Paul to bear witness at Rome. We have no Biblical evidence he asked the same of Peter.

In short, if anyone started the Church at Rome it was Paul. I believe it already started before Paul arrived, but he was the one God sent toRome.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Catholicism as a concept began early within the minds of some teachers. But not in fact until Emperor Constantine.

Actually - that is an historically-bankrupt claim.

The term, "The Catholic Church" was used as a TITLE as early as the end of the first century.
We see this in the writings of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who wrote about it at the turn if the 2nd century:
Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

In another 2nd century document called the Martyrdom of Polycarp - we see the term, "The Catholic Church" once again being used as a TITLE and not merely a description:
Excerpt from The Martyrdom of Polycarp:
When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ass, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath.

The words, καθ ολης (katah-holos) are GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal”.

This phrase in The Martyrdom of Polycarp - which, by the way, is ALSO written in GREEK - would be horribly redundant, if not comical. It would go something like this:
"... and the whole whole throughout Church throughout the world ..."

It is blindingly clear to anybody with an open mind who is NOT plagued with an anti-Catholic bias - that this is the TITLE of the Church.

Finally - here are some further examples of the Early Church Fathers referring to "The Catholic Church" centuries BEFORE Constantine . . .
Irenaeus
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (On the Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 [A.D.200])

Cyprian
The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled; she is uncorrupted and chaste. She knows one home . . . Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (On the Unity of the Catholic Church 6 [A.D. 251]).


History is NOT your friend . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes it does. Did you notice the link I provided? That was the Biblical Archaeology Society telling you that all the claims are bogus.

No - it doesn't make the claim that it is "bogus".
It simply states that there is no hard evidence - which is patently FALSE, as I have presented.

 

[101G]

I have no scriptural references of Peter ever entering or addressing Europeans.

We have no biblical records of Saint Peter being in Europe. It would of helped had Saint Peter written to a European Church.

he preached to some, who was from Rome, dwelling at Jerusalem on pentecost..
Acts 2:5 "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Acts 2:6 "Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
Acts 2:7 "And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
Acts 2:8 "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Acts 2:9 "Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Acts 2:10 "Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Acts 2:11 "Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Acts 2:12 "And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
Acts 2:13 "Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
Acts 2:14 "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words".

so Peter did preach to some who was from Rome. the apostle Paul establish the first church in Rome, via long distance, hence the book of Romans.

PICJAG.

 

[epostle]

Well... Here's my take... I've given it before but here it is again.

The only hint of Biblical evidence that Peter was in Rome is his mention of "Babylon". I agree... He was speaking of Rome. But that's it for Biblical evidence.

But there are plenty of other historical writings which lead me to believe he did make his way to Rome. I also believe he was matryed there.

What I don't believe based on history and Bible is that he was the head of the Church, started the Church or was any way a VIP except by reputation. Meaning.... If Peter went to Rome, of course he is going to be well received and be an honored guest.

I believe that Christianity started in Rome via grass roots. It was solitified when Paul went there. So it was Paul, not Peter who grounded the Church at Rome.

Again, I do believe Peter was in Rome, well received and even taught. But Paul should get the honor for the organization.

Consider this verse:

Acts 23:11 KJV
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

Jesus himself said he needed Paul to bear witness at Rome. We have no Biblical evidence he asked the same of Peter.

We have biblical evidence of Jesus Himself changing the name of Simon bar Jonah to Peter, which means "ROCK". Paul was always subject to the Church, not the other way around.

In short, if anyone started the Church at Rome it was Paul. I believe it already started before Paul arrived, but he was the one God sent to Rome.

Why can't it be BOTH Peter AND Paul building the Church in Rome??? Sure, there were Christians in Rome before the arrival of Peter and Paul, but that does not make it a church. Nowhere in Scripture or in early church history do we find a church with no apostolic leadership. This is crystal clear in the Book of Acts and historical documents.

“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars (plural) [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles.(plural) Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.”
Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth.”
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.”
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

“It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: ‘But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'”
Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

 

[aspen]

Peter and Paul, according to the early church fathers, were equally credited as continuing Christ’s Church. However, there is no evidence that Paul was ever a Bishop or the Bishop of Rome - you can claim that Catholics made up the evidence that Peter was Bishop of Rome, but at least there is evidence to deny. It seems evident to me that Peter was in Rome and he was the first Bishop and that he was martyred in Rome - whether he was the first Pope or even considered the sole leader of the Church (instead of James or equal leadership among bishops) is more of a matter of faith.

 

[FHII]

We have biblical evidence of Jesus Himself changing the name of Simon bar Jonah to Peter, which means "ROCK". Paul was always subject to the Church, not the other way around.

You and I have discussed this many times before so I won't go through it again other than to reiterate my position: Peter was given the name by Jesus, but he was an informal leader of the Apostles. Paul was always subject to Christ, not the Church. He worked with the Chur h when possible. I will add this: he loved the Church (meaning the authority) and stood with it as much as possible. But he was not afraid to go against it when led by Christ to do so.

Why can't it be BOTH Peter AND Paul building the Church in Rome??

Well for sure both were. My question is about how large Peter's role was. Again I believe Peter was there (you provided a list of historical documents that say so, all but one which I have read). Furthermore, Peter has influence on all Churches. He's Peter, after all. I called him an informal leader... But a leader no less and the most prominent apostle until Paul arrived. I love Peter! I just must stop short on calling him the first Pope or the starter of Rome's Church.

before the arrival of Peter and Paul, but that does not make it a church

Absolutely! Good point! To back that up, in his [Paul] salutations to Rome he never called it a Church nor addresses leaders (bishops or ddeacons). This as far as I can see was the only one he did not recognize a region as a church or with Churches.

Short on time so I must stop there. But good post... Not that I totally agree.

 

[epostle]

The central authority of the Church never began in Rome. It began with the Apostles in Jerusalem. It was no longer the seat of authority after the death of James. Peter could have been sent to any city. If Peter went to establish a primary church in Joppa, you would call us "Joppa Catholics" or Joppists or Joppillians. Generally, Catholics don't care where he went. Yea or nay, it doesn't change the pedigree, or the legacy. It doesn't matter where Peter went, but it sure mattered to everyone at the time who knew how to write, and little of that survived. The Bible contains history, but it is not a history book. To extract church history from the Bible Alone is impossible.

 

[Willie T]

The simple fact is that there is not one single word in the Bible about Peter being in Rome. So, any claims are strictly "tradition."

 

[BreadOfLife]

The simple fact is that there is not one single word in the Bible about Peter being in Rome. So, any claims are strictly "tradition."

It's not only Tradition - it's history.

YOU believe in the "facts" of history because of the written testimonies of the contemporaries of the time - yet you dismiss the SAME types of evidence when it comes to CHURCH history.
WHY is that??

For example - How do YOU know that there was a Julius Caesar?
How do YOU know that there was a Revolutionary War?
How do YOU know that there was ship called the "Mayflower"?
How do YOU know that there was a guy named "Attila the Hun"?

You rely on HISTORY for these matters - yet you reject the SAME evidence when it cones to CHURCH history, referring to it as mere "tradition".

 

[Willie T]

It's not only Tradition - it's history.

YOU believe in the "facts" of history because of the written testimonies of the contemporaries of the time - yet you dismiss the SAME types of evidence when it comes to CHURCH history.
WHY is that??

For example - How do YOU know that there was a Julius Caesar?
How do YOU know that there was a Revolutionary War?
How do YOU know that there was ship called the "Mayflower"?
How do YOU know that there was a guy named "Attila the Hun"?

You rely on HISTORY for these matters - yet you reject the SAME evidence when it cones to CHURCH history, referring to it as mere "tradition".

I think we all already know the old adage that "history" is written by the winners. (The people in power.) Ask any Black person if their "history", handed down through their ethnic linage, is the same as the way the White men wrote it in school books. (You already know their answer.)

The "basics" may be there, but you also get the slanted and biased "traditional" addition of things like Peter being the first Pope, a humanly-selected man from among the "Church" hierarchy who supposedly is speaking for Jesus on Earth. (Ever notice that the Popes have all been selected from among church "officials"... chosen BY other church officials?)

 

[BreadOfLife]

I think we all already know the old adage that "history" is written by the winners. (The people in power.) Ask any Black person if their "history", handed down through their ethnic linage, is the same as the way the White men wrote it in school books. (You already know their answer.)

The "basics" may be there, but you also get the slanted and biased "traditional" addition of things like Peter being the first Pope, a humanly-selected man from among the "Church" hierarchy who supposedly is speaking for Jesus on Earth. (Ever notice that the Popes have all been selected from among church "officials"... chosen BY other church officials?)

YOUR original argument was simply about Peter's PRESENCE in Rome - nothing else.
And it wasn't written by the "winners".

These Early Church Fathers were being hunted, persecuted and martyred when they wrote these testimonies.
So, again I ask - WHY would you disregard this history when you accept secular history??