The Church At Rome

[ThyWordisTruth]

I've been studying the Book of Romans here lately, and I would like to know everyone's opinion on who started the Church at Rome. This what im studying for school...

BTW, if any of you have any info to add, please do so.

The Views -

1.) It was founded by Simon Peter - The traditional view of the Roman Catholic Church which holds that Simon Peter founded the church at Rome. This view, however, easily can contradict itself...

- Paul never greets him once in the Book of Romans.
- If it were so, why did Paul say that he would never intrude on another man's field of labor? (Romans 15:20) [Paul planned on visiting Rome in Romans 1:11-12 , to preach and teach.]
- There is no evidence that Peter ever visited Rome, and even if he had, how could he in just eight years after the "First Church Council in Jerusalem" (A.D. 48), erect a church at Rome holding a worldwide reputation?

2.) It was founded by the "strangers of Rome" - These are they who were present at Pentecost (Acts 2:10).

- They were Jews/Jewish proselytes, who would have founded the church in the Jewish synagogue... However, it seems unlikely that new converts would possess the time to establish a new Church at Rome.
- In Acts 28: 17-22, we read that when Paul first arrived in Rome- He being bound in chains- not one Jew had any intimate knowledge of Christianity... They even denied recieving any letters on his behalf.

3.) It was founded by various converts of Paul - Those whom he greets in Romans 16. (The Most Acceptable View)

- Paul greeted 24 people in Rom. 16 (It should be remembered that he has not yet visited Rome) but he showed to have a personal acquaintance with a number of Roman Christians.
- In v. 3-5 of Rom. 16, he shows an intimate knowledge of the household of Priscilla and Aquilla - In v. 10 he greets the household of Aristobulus - v.11 he greets the household of Narcissus - and the family of five in v.14.

According to my textbook, the 3rd view is most acceptable, and the best view IMO. ;)

 

[TexUs]

I don't think it matters. You never see any Apostle make a point of "Who started this church"... The big idolatry and self-exaltation of men about who founded what was pretty much started by the RCC- I never see the Apostles make a point of who started it. On the contrary they consistently held to Christ as the head. Paul goes into Elders/Deacons (equal leadership, no "leader" status at all).

I also don't think there's good evidence to support any view. It could have been founded by the Jews after Pentecost (see Acts 2:10)- I think this is the only one that really has any merit due to the reference in Acts 2:10.
Thus the church started primarily Jewish.
Gentiles became ingrained though- which is why Paul spends much time addressing it.
But before being corrected the Jews apparently had much conflict with the Gentiles which resulted in their exile from Rome by the Emperor.

 

[Martin W.]

- They were Jews/Jewish proselytes, who would have founded the church in the Jewish synagogue... However, it seems unlikely that new converts would possess the time to establish a new Church at Rome.

Paul describes them as Gentiles in Romans 1 . I am not aware that Peter was an apostle to the Gentiles. I could be mistaken.

[sup]...... 5[/sup] Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake. [sup]6[/sup] And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.


.....[sup]13[/sup] in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.


That is as far as I got for now.

Martin

 

[TexUs]

Acts 2:10 tells us there were "visitors from Rome" that were Jewish.
Acts 18:2 tells us that Claudius had expelled the Jews from Rome. (Secular sources say it was because of a disagreement with the Gentiles over Christ).

How do these two things make sense?

Well it can only mean that Acts records (this part is obvious) a long span of time. Placing Acts 2:10 before 49AD (When it's believed the expelling of the Jews took place), and placing Acts 18:2 after that.

Acts 2 deals with the Holy Spirit. We can only assume this happened rapidly after Christ's ascension. Putting it around 30AD.
This then means at least 19 years had passed between the "visitors from Rome", and when the Jews were expelled. At least. Now, Acts 18 is in Paul's third missionary journey (54AD) so I think we can set the maximum date at 24 years- just in case the 49AD date could be wrong. 54AD could be wrong, too, however we're working on two dates now and the purpose is we can roughly point to when this happened.

So between 19-24 years after there was a Jewish presence in the church (there's no reason to believe that Rome wasn't like all the others and primary started by Jewish)- the scene changes and it is now largely Gentile.

Being that Paul wrote Romans before he went into Jerusalem (Romans 15:25). He mentions some people in Corinth which also helps us date it to him being in Corinth when he wrote it. Regardless this puts it dating in the mid-50s.

So everything said and done, Paul would have been writing this, most likely, to a Gentile church at the time- just a few years after the Jews had been removed from Rome, so most likely Claudius would have found them all and removed them by then. It is worth noting that Claudius died in 54AD. This is why dating can be tricky. Even as much as a year or two difference COULD mean that the Jews started making their way back into Rome by this time.

So it started out Jewish, ended up Gentile. I guess the question for the OP is now, are you wanting the present leadership (when Romans was written) or the founding leadership?

 

[TexUs]

I was going to try to pinpoint Romans dating but to do that require pinpointing the dating in Acts 20, which is very hard to do as you must backtrack through all the events.
I looked up many sources and nearly everyone thinks it was written in 56-57: I trust these guys have dated it correctly, and like I said, everything I see points to those dates.

So Claudius, the emperor that expelled the Jews, died in 54AD. Given 2-3 years, some Jews may have came back to the church in Rome once more.

 

[Martin W.]

Paul describes them as Gentiles in Romans 1 . I am not aware that Peter was an apostle to the Gentiles. I could be mistaken.

[sup]...... 5[/sup] Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake. [sup]6[/sup] And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.


.....[sup]13[/sup] in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.


That is as far as I got for now.

Martin

When a forum member starts quoting himself you know that is a sign of trouble :)

Actually I found no other way to reply , it is like the thread is closed unless you first vote. I dislike being forced to vote when no category exists that I would select. I have not voted on this poll on this thread.

But I want to comment that Romans appeared to be addressed to a Gentile audience at first , but later chapters indicate a Jewish audience , and that is as far as I got.

This whole book could be an interesting look at the early Roman church and see if it can claim to be the RC denomination we are familiar with in modern day.

So far I do not see Peter in Romans , but have much reading to do yet.

talk later

 

[TexUs]

So far I do not see Peter in Romans , but have much reading to do yet.

Find "Peter" - no matches
Find "Cephas"- no matches
Find "rock"- one match in Romans 9:33, that does not refer to Peter.

 

[Selene]

I've been studying the Book of Romans here lately, and I would like to know everyone's opinion on who started the Church at Rome. This what im studying for school...

BTW, if any of you have any info to add, please do so.

The Views -

1.) It was founded by Simon Peter - The traditional view of the Roman Catholic Church which holds that Simon Peter founded the church at Rome. This view, however, easily can contradict itself...

- Paul never greets him once in the Book of Romans.
- If it were so, why did Paul say that he would never intrude on another man's field of labor? (Romans 15:20) [Paul planned on visiting Rome in Romans 1:11-12 , to preach and teach.]
- There is no evidence that Peter ever visited Rome, and even if he had, how could he in just eight years after the "First Church Council in Jerusalem" (A.D. 48), erect a church at Rome holding a worldwide reputation?

St. Peter was in Rome. St. Peter wrote his letter from Rome. Babylon is another name for Rome during Jesus' time.

1 Peter 5:13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.

There are also historical documents showing that both St. Peter and St. Paul were executed in Rome.

 

[Foreigner]

St. Peter was in Rome. St. Peter wrote his letter from Rome. Babylon is another name for Rome during Jesus' time.

1 Peter 5:13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.

-- Probably not.


Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible The church that is at Babylon,.... The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, supply the word "church", as we do. Some, by "Babylon", understand Rome, which is so called, in a figurative sense, in the book of the Revelations: this is an ancient opinion; so Papias understood it, as (e) Eusebius relates; but that Peter was at Rome, when he wrote this epistle, cannot be proved, nor any reason be given why the proper name of the place should be concealed, and a figurative one expressed. It is best therefore to understand it literally, of Babylon in Assyria, the metropolis of the dispersion of the Jews, and the centre of it, to whom the apostle wrote; and where, as the minister of the circumcision, he may be thought to reside,



Geneva Study Bible



{15} The church that is at {d} Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

(15) Familiar salutations. (d) In that famous city of Assyria, where Peter the apostle of circumcision then was.



Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

13. The . at Babylon-Alford, Bengel, and others translate, "She that is elected together with you in Babylon," namely, Peter's wife, whom he led about with him in his missionary journeys. Compare 1Pe 3:7, "heirs together of the grace of life." But why she should be called "elected together with you in Babylon," as if there had been no Christian woman in Babylon besides, is inexplicable on this view. In English Version the sense is clear: "That portion of the whole dispersion (1Pe 1:1, Greek), or Church of Christianized Jews, with Gentile converts, which resides in Babylon." As Peter and John were closely associated, Peter addresses the Church in John's peculiar province, Asia, and closes with "your co-elect sister Church at Babylon saluteth you"; and John similarly addresses the "elect lady," that is, the Church in Babylon, and closes with "the children of thine elect sister (the Asiatic Church) greet thee"; (compare [2626]Introduction to Second John). Erasmus explains, "Mark who is in the place of a son to me": compare Ac 12:12, implying Peter's connection with Mark; whence the mention of him in connection with the Church at Babylon, in which he labored under Peter before he went to Alexandria is not unnatural. Papias reports from the presbyter John [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39], that Mark was interpreter of Peter, recording in his Gospel the facts related to him by Peter. Silvanus or Silas had been substituted for John Mark, as Paul's companion, because of Mark's temporary unfaithfulness. But now Mark restored is associated with Silvanus, Paul's companion, in Peter's esteem, as Mark was already reinstated in Paul's esteem. That Mark had a spiritual connection with the Asiatic' churches which Peter addresses, and so naturally salutes them, appears from 2Ti 4:11; Col 4:10.





Clarke's Commentary on the Bible



The Church that is at Babylon - After considering all that has been said by learned men and critics on this place, I am quite of opinion that the apostle does not mean Babylon in Egypt, nor Jerusalem, nor Rome as figurative Babylon, but the ancient celebrated Babylon in Assyria, which was, as Dr. Benson observes, the metropolis of the eastern dispersion of the Jews; but as I have said so much on this subject in the preface, I beg leave to refer the reader to that place.

Instead of Babylon, some MSS. mentioned by Syncellus in his Chronicon have Ιοππῃ, Joppa; and one has Ῥωμῃ, Rome, in the margin, probably as the meaning, according to the writer, of the word Babylon.

Elected together with you - Συνεκλεκτη· Fellow elect, or elected jointly with you. Probably meaning that they, and the believers at Babylon, received the Gospel about the same time. On the election of those to whom St. Peter wrote, see the notes on 1 Peter 1:2. And ...Marcus my son - This is supposed to be the same person who is mentioned Acts 12:12, and who is known by the name of John Mark; he was sister's son to Barnabas, Colossians 4:10, his mother's name was Mary, and he is the same who wrote the gospel that goes under his name. He is called here Peter's son, i.e. according to the faith, Peter having been probably the means of his conversion. This is very likely, as Peter seems to have been intimate at his mother's house. See the account, Acts 12:6-17.

 

[Selene]

Hello Foreigner,

The term "Babylon" in the New Testament is a code-name for Rome. It is not Assyria because Assyria no longer became a great city. During Jesus' time it was the Rome that became an empire and Babylon was the code name for Rome. It was used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

Furthermore, as I mentioned, there are historical records dating back to the first century stating that St. Peter was in Rome. Here are the documents below:

1. Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.

2. In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

3. In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

4. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

5. Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “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 for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

6. Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to William A. Jurgens’ books on The Faith of the Early Fathers.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight.

In addition to the above documents, there is ALSO archaeological evidence showing that St. Peter was in Rome. The actual tomb of St. Peter had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. His tomb was found in Rome. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[TexUs]

I really don't have a problem calling Rome, Babylon.


However... Is that what the text actually supports?


Maybe in the Catholic Herecy Bible perhaps but not in the Greek or any real translation of the text.


The items that Selene typed [in brackets] are not found in the original text.


Let's look at the literal Greek and see if it supports Peter being in Rome, shall we?


"Salute you the at Babylon chosen together"


Does it support Peter being in Rome? No. I think the ESV does a good job here:
"She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings"


Additionally, this doesn't even really matter. Just because Peter was in Rome is not proof he started the church there.
Plus even many first-century church leaders (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen) doubt 1 Peter was even written by Peter.


Sorry, Catholics, but the proof is just not there, you're following blind heresy no matter how you cut it.

 

[Selene]

I really don't have a problem calling Rome, Babylon.


However... Is that what the text actually supports?


Maybe in the Catholic Herecy Bible perhaps but not in the Greek or any real translation of the text.


The items that Selene typed [in brackets] are not found in the original text.


Let's look at the literal Greek and see if it supports Peter being in Rome, shall we?


"Salute you the at Babylon chosen together"

Hello TexUs,

That biblical verse that I quoted in my post did NOT come from any Catholic Bible. It came from the King James Version (a Protestant Bible). Why the Protestants put those words in brackets, I do not know for I am not a Protestant.

1 Peter 5:13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.

Taken from the King James Version. The biblical verse below came from the Douay-Rhimes, which is a Catholic Bible. The Douay-Rhimes was a translation from the Latin Vulgate written in the fourth century:

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark.

Taken from the Douay-Rhimes.

Sacred Scripture showed that St. Peter wrote about a Church in Babylon (which is in Rome) and this letter was written in Rome.

Additionally, this doesn't even really matter. Just because Peter was in Rome is not proof he started the church there.
Plus even many first-century church leaders (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen) doubt 1 Peter was even written by Peter.

You say that the early Fathers did not believe that the letter did not come from St. Peter TexUs, look at what the Bible says. Look at how the first letter of St. Peter started out.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained equal faith with us in the justice of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ

How do you know that St. Paul was the one who wrote the first letter to the Corinthians? Look at the beginning of St. Paul's letters. Do you see the similarites? We know it came from an Apostle because they generally start writing their letter with their names in it first.

1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes a brother,

2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother: to the church of God that is at Corinth, with all the saints that are in all Achaia

St. Peter was in Rome, and he was the one who started the Church in Rome through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church is able to trace her lineage to the Apostle Peter. Furthermore, all the other Churches that the Apostles built are also able to do the same thing as the Catholics. For example: The Coptic Church of Alexandria can trace their lineage to St. Mark who was the secretary of the Apostle Peter. The Armenian Orthodox Church can trace their lineage to the Apostles Bartholomew and Thaddeus. All the Apostolic Churches can trace their lineage all the way back to the first century. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can trace their lineage all the way back to the first century.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[TexUs]

That biblical verse that I quoted in my post did NOT come from any Catholic Bible. It came from the King James Version (a Protestant Bible). Why the Protestants put those words in brackets, I do not know for I am not a Protestant.

1 Peter 5:13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.

Taken from the King James Version. The biblical verse below came from the Douay-Rhimes, which is a Catholic Bible. The Douay-Rhimes was a translation from the Latin Vulgate written in the fourth century:

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark.

Taken from the Douay-Rhimes.

The quotes mean the text doesn't exist.

Sacred Scripture showed that St. Peter wrote about a Church in Babylon (which is in Rome) and this letter was written in Rome.

It shows he wrote about a church in Babylon but "and this letter was written in Rome" is supported NOWHERE in the text. Sorry.

You say that the early Fathers did not believe that the letter did not come from St. Peter TexUs, look at what the Bible says. Look at how the first letter of St. Peter started out.

How do you know that St. Paul was the one who wrote the first letter to the Corinthians? Look at the beginning of St. Paul's letters. Do you see the similarites? We know it came from an Apostle because they generally start writing their letter with their names in it first.

I'm not really saying he wasn't. You place a huge emphasis on church Fathers, but apparently ignore and discount them when it doesn't suit your argument of the day?


The early church fathers apparently believe this letter to have originated AFTER Peter's death, therefore it not being Peter's letter. I really don't think it matters though as the case isn't strong enough. I was simply saying for one that places huge value on the teachings of men, you sure do discount them when they disagree with your opinion.

St. Peter was in Rome

You can say that a hundred times but it doesn't make it fact.

 

[Selene]

I'm not really saying he wasn't. You place a huge emphasis on church Fathers, but apparently ignore and discount them when it doesn't suit your argument of the day?


The early church fathers apparently believe this letter to have originated AFTER Peter's death, therefore it not being Peter's letter. I really don't think it matters though as the case isn't strong enough. I was simply saying for one that places huge value on the teachings of men, you sure do discount them when they disagree with your opinion.

TexUs, it was the early fathers who stated in their writings that the Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome. As I said, we are not the only Church that can trace its lineage all the way back to the first century and even to an Apostle. The Orthodox Church in the East can also do the same.

 

[TexUs]

TexUs, it was the early fathers who stated in their writings that the Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome. As I said, we are not the only Church that can trace its lineage all the way back to the first century and even to an Apostle. The Orthodox Church in the East can also do the same.

Then if you believe your church fathers without question then surely you must believe them when they believe 1 Peter was not written by Peter, therefore it cannot support what you claim.

Or are your church fathers fallible? If they are fallible, how do you not know they are wrong about Peter being the first bishop of Rome?

Seems to me you're picking and choosing what you'd like them to support.

 

[Selene]

Then if you believe your church fathers without question then surely you must believe them when they believe 1 Peter was not written by Peter, therefore it cannot support what you claim.

Or are your church fathers fallible? If they are fallible, how do you not know they are wrong about Peter being the first bishop of Rome?

Seems to me you're picking and choosing what you'd like them to support.

Could you provide the document of the early Church fathers saying that?

 

[veteran]

1 Pet 5:13
13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
(KJV)


Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's comments on 1 Peter 5:13:

"Babylon"-the Chaldean Babylon on the Euphrates. See 'Introduction,' ON THE PLACE OF WRITING, in proof that Rome is not meant. How unlikely that in a friendly salutation the enigmatical title of Rome given in prophecy (John, Rev 17:5) should be need! Babylon was the center from which the Asiatic dispersion whom Peter addresses was derived.

Philo. 'Legat. ad Caium,' sec. 36, and Josephus, 'Antiquities,' xv., 22; xxiii. 12, inform us that Babylon contained many Jews in the apostolic age, whereas those at Rome were comparatively few-about 8,000 (Josephus, 17:11) - so it would naturally be visited by the apostle of the circumcision. It was the headquarters of those whom he had so successfully addressed on Pentecost (Acts 2:9) - Jewish 'Parthians, dwellers in Mesopotamia' (the Parthians were then masters of Mesopotamian Babylon); these he ministered to in person. His other hearers-the Jewish 'dwellers in Cappadocia, Pontes, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia'-he now ministers to by letter. The earliest authority for Peter's martyrdom at Rome is Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, in the latter half of the second century. The desirableness of representing Peter and Paul, the two leading apostles, as together founding the church of the metropolis probably originated the tradition. Clement of Rome (`1 Epistola ad Corinthios,' secs. 4, 5), often quoted for, is really against it. He mentions Paul and Peter together, but makes it as a distinguishing circumstance of Paul that he reached both in the East and West, implying that Peter never was in the West. 2 Peter 1:14, "I must shortly put off this tabernacle," implies his martyrdom was near; yet he makes no allusion to Rome, or to any intention of visiting it.
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)


Thinking Peter applied Babylon figuratively to Rome certainly is nothing more than a tradition among some in the early Church.

The Books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, etc. all speak of the captivity of the Jews to the literal area of Babylon (house of Judah of tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi). Ezra and Nehemiah specifically give which ones of Israel returned to Jerusalem after the 70 years captivity to Babylon. It was only a very small remnant of Jews that returned to Jerusalem.

The majority of Jews remained in Babylon after the 70 years of their own choice. God had promised if they obeyed in going to Babylon He would take care of them there, and He did. The Jews' numbers actually increased while in Babylon. They built houses and vineyards in Babylon. Per Ezra 8, he even had to send back to Babylon for priests of the sons of Levi, seeing all of them stayed in Babylon after the 70 years.

So to the 'literal' area of Babylon among Christinized Jews is what Peter intends, for Babylon is where a great many of the scattered Jews still were.

 

[veteran]

Saved2Serve,

It would appear that the third choice would be the most correct, seeing how Apostle Paul had intended to visit the Church at Rome and by some 'charisma' establish the Church there. Paul's captivity at Rome per the end of Acts with being allowed to preach The Gospel in his house to those who came there is also another marker for that establishing.

Councils of the early Roman Church also conceded that the Church in Britain held antiquity over the estalbishing of the Church at Rome.

The Roman historian Tacitus records a curious little history in his Annals involving the early Briton royal family with a connection to Rome. The Pudens (Rufus Pudens - Pudentius), Linus, and Claudia of Roman history, are most likely were of British origin that Paul while in Roman captivity mentioned to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:21.

2 Tim 4:21 Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.
(KJV)


The palace at Rome called Plautium Britannicum was where a royal branch of the Silurian Britons dwelt, a king Arviragus along with the later captivity of the Briton military leader Caractacus (Caradoc) and Gladys (a Celtic relative who was a Christian). The king of the Britons Arviragus and Gladys were 1st cenutry Christians before the pagan Romans invaded early Britain (see history of the British Culdee Church in early Britain).

Because the Roman emperor Claudius had so much trouble with the Britons on the battlefield, he offered a truce. With that he offerred marriage of his daughter Venus Julia to king Arviragus of the Britons. So the Christian Briton king Arviragus became son-in-law to the pagan emperor Claudius of Rome. This was between 45 to 53 A.D.

Gladys (relation of Caractacus, possibly his daughter) was adopted by emperor Claudius, even though she was a Christian. She was then later wedded to Aulus Plautius, a Roman commander-in-chief that had been assigned in Britain. Gladys was brought to trial in Rome for being a Christian (per Tacitus in his Annals). She was declared innocent by her husband Plautius and his relations (no doubt powerful political relations). Claudia was most likely their daughter who married Rufus Pudens Pudentius that accompanied the Roman commander Plautius to Britain. They were married at the Plautium Britannicum in Rome, the palace of royal family of Britons given them in Rome.

The first Church at Rome named after St. Prudentia is connected with that history. Prince Linus (Lleyn) was one of the four sons of Claudia and Prudens in Rome. History also shows that Prudens held estates in Umbria, in Britain, but remained in Rome at the Plautium Britannicum. There's little doubt in my mind that Apostle Paul would be well aquainted with that British royal family captive in Rome during the same time he was there, and even before his arrival there.

Hasn't anyone ever thought how strange it was that a later Roman emperor Constantine would suddenly convert to Christianity later, and declare Rome as Christian?

That history is more in line with God's Working than some tradition of man using Peter's name (Petre or rock) with what our Lord Jesus said to him. Apostle Paul was especially sent by Christ to preach The Gospel to Gentiles, to the children of Israel, and... to kings! (Acts 9:15). Because of this early Briton Christian link to Rome, even prior to Paul's captivity in Rome scholars put later in 56 A.D., it shows us the real origin of the Roman Church actually being established from a Briton basis. In later Roman Church Councils, including Augustine's writings centuries later, they would admit this history, declaring the antiquity of the Briton Church having existed prior to the Roman Church. It's also why the King James Bible translators refused to bow to the later Roman pope in authority, just as the 4th century bishops in Britain that Augustine met refused also.

 

[TexUs]

Could you provide the document of the early Church fathers saying that?

Irenaeous
Tertullian
Clement
Origen

I really can't link to a book of collected church father works
I'd suggest you Googling around. I did so and see it's mentioned in Wikipedia as well.


Again, I personally believe it is, I don't have a problem with it, I was just saying it's yet another problem for Catholics that hold church father teachings so dear.

 

[Selene]

Irenaeous
Tertullian
Clement
Origen

I really can't link to a book of collected church father works
I'd suggest you Googling around. I did so and see it's mentioned in Wikipedia as well.


Again, I personally believe it is, I don't have a problem with it, I was just saying it's yet another problem for Catholics that hold church father teachings so dear.

In other words, you can't find it.

Saved2Serve,

It would appear that the third choice would be the most correct, seeing how Apostle Paul had intended to visit the Church at Rome and by some 'charisma' establish the Church there. Paul's captivity at Rome per the end of Acts with being allowed to preach The Gospel in his house to those who came there is also another marker for that establishing.

A Christian Church was already established in Rome BEFORE St. Paul went to Rome. When St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he was addressing it to Christians who had already heard the Gospel (See Romans 1:6-7). From his letter, it is obvious that St. Paul have never been to Rome when he wrote that letter (See Romans 1:11-13). Therefore, it was not St. Paul who established that Church in Babylon nor any of his converts. It was St. Peter.

The oldest Christian Church in Rome is the Roman Catholic Church, and it is this Church that claimed to be established by Christ through the Apostle Peter. It is this Church that can trace its lineage to the Apostle Peter. Do you know of another Christian church in Rome that is much older than the Catholic Church?