November 29, 2004
Was the Apostle Peter ever in Rome?
Catholics might start by asking, “Why does this matter?” And one must forgive them for doing so. After all, a Bishop of a diocese does not have to be physically present in order to manage the diocese. There have been bishops, for example, forced to flee their diocese because of persecution, but they retain their status. In other words, even if Peter wasn’t in Rome, he could have been the Pope.
Yet, there is this Catholic tradition (lowercase “t”) that Peter was in Rome at the end of his life and was actually martyred there. So the thought goes, if we can prove Peter wasn’t in Rome, we can discredit in some way the Catholic Church. Thus, I am here answering the question. Let’s start with some background information . . .
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Pope is, by definition, the Archbishop of Rome, Italy. Peter, in Matthew 16:18 was named the first Pope, so he was the first Archbishop of Rome. Why can we assume that Rome was his diocese, and not Jerusalem or some other important city? I addressed that in an early post entitled Why are we Roman Catholics, and not just Catholics? I recommend you take a moment and read it if you have not – it’s important to understand in this discussion.
The important point to take from the article is that the Jews could be sure that the Catholic Church was true because it was in Rome (each of the four conquering powers in Daniel eventually converted to the “true” religion, the first three to Judaism, the last to Catholicism). So there was no question that if Catholicism were ordained by God, Rome would be its focal point.
From the early Church, tradition has maintained that Peter was living in Rome and was martyred there (he was crucified upside down). So, some feel they can discredit the Catholic Church in some way by showing that Peter was never in Rome. As I’ve already pointed out, even if true this doesn’t prove anything, just as the proof that Peter was in Rome doesn’t prove he was the first Pope. However, since it seems important to some, let’s look at the evidence.
Biblical Evidence
We can begin by looking to Scripture. Peter wrote two books of Bible, 1st & 2nd Peter, and is featured prominently throughout Scripture. Does Scripture attest to Peter being in Rome?
As a matter of fact, it does:
1 Peter 5:13. The church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark.
I can already her the cry “Wait, that doesn’t say Rome!” That is true, we’ll get there. But clearly, Peter is writing from a city he calls “Babylon” and is “sending” greetings from that church. Note that he is also writing instruction to another church.
So what about Babylon? Babylon was the capital of the Babylonian Empire, but it had been crushed and reduced to ruin over the years. In fact, it was the first city converted in the prophecy of Daniel I mentioned. Babylon was known in Old Testament days for persecuting the church (see 2 Kings 24) and now Rome was the persecutor of the church, as Daniel prophesied.
For the early Church, “Babylon” was the code word for Rome. I know you want proof, and only Biblical proof, so take a look at the other uses of the word Babylon in the New Testament. One example:
Revelation 14:8. A second angel followed, who cried out, Babylon, great Babylon is fallen; she who made all the nations drunk with the maddening wine of her fornication.
Other examples include Rev 16:19, Rev 17:5, Rev 18:2, Rev 18:10, and Rev 18:21. In these verses, Babylon is repeatedly referred to as a “great city,” which immediately removes ancient Babylon from the running. But why would the Apostles not simply use the word “Rome” when talking about Rome? Rome was the chief persecutor of the early Church and martyred more than its share of early Christians. I have personally stood in the catacombs in Rome where the bodies of martyred Christians are piled in small graves along the walls. They used the word Babylon to hide their presence, their location, from those looking to kill them. A simple study of Roman history will illuminate the wisdom of this choice.
What fascinates me about this is that the very people who suggest Peter was never in Rome will immediately refer to the verses in Revelation as pertaining to Rome, particularly to the Catholic Church. In other words, they agree the Apostles used “Babylon” to refer to Rome when it suits their purposes, and disagree when it doesn’t. There are numerous protestant scholars that also agree with this:
The key to the problem, in the view of most critics, lies in the fact that in the 1st century ‘Babylon’ was becoming in Jewish and Christian circles a symbolic title for Rome. For the prophets (e.g. Is 13; 43:14; Jer 50:29; 51:1-58) the name had denoted the proud, immoral, godless city that dominated their world, and it was natural for later Jews to see this as the type of the Rome they knew and which embodied these very characteristics. So we find Rome referred to as ‘Babylon’ in the rabbinical literature . . . ‘She who is at Babylon’ simply means ‘the church in Rome’ . . . So the church in Rome is in Babylon because Rome is its place of exile.
- - J.N.D. Anderson A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude
Several extra-Biblical sources (as Anderson alluded to above) also refer to Rome as “Babylon,” for example the Sibylline Oracles and the Apocalypse of Baruch do so. Virtually all serious protestant scholars in modern times agree with this (I’m not aware of any that don’t), mainly due to the vast evidence which has come out more recently through archeology (we’ll get there).
This is pretty clear Biblical evidence, but like all infallible books, without an infallible interpreter they can be misused. So there are those who argue that the “great city” of Babylon isn’t Rome. But, there’s more evidence.
Historical Evidence
There is also good evidence from non-Biblical writings that Peter was in Rome. To start, I’ll refer to a writing from approximately 80 A.D., just about 4 years after Peter’s martyrdom:
But, to leave the examples of antiquity, let us come to the athletes who are closest to our own time. Consider the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted, and they persevered even to death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles: Peter, who through unwarranted jealousy suffered not one or two buy many toils, and having thus given testimony went to the place of glory that was his due. Through jealousy and strife Paul showed the way to the prize for endurance . . . Thus he became our greatest example of perseverance. To these men who lived such holy lives there must be added a multitude of the elect, who suffered terrible indignities and tortures on account of jealousy, and who became shining examples in our midst.
- - St. Clement of Rome Letter to the Corinthians
St. Clement, who everyone agrees was writing from Rome, notes that Peter and Paul were “in their midst” – the way he uses the phrase indicates they were at Rome. Typically, in writings so close to the historical facts, authors don’t feel the need to point out the obvious. In other words, St. Clement puts Peter in Rome, but never imagines that 1,500 years later others would even suggest that Peter wasn’t there. Other texts are more explicit:
It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified during the reign [of Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphyrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the afore-mentioned Apostles were deposited: “I can point out the trophies of the Apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church.”
- - Fragment in Eusebius, History of the Church
Eusebius, however, was attempting to write an early history of the Church, so his information is more direct. He notes that Peter was crucified in Rome (which indicates he was there) and that he is buried there, but more on that later.
A little later on, around 200 A.D., we have more confirmation:
Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to the voice and recalling the faces of each. Achaia is near you, so you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi. If you can cross into Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives. How happy is that Church, on which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s, where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffering no hurt, was exiled to an island.
- - Tertullian The Demurrer Against the Heretics
Note first that the Bible wasn’t compiled in this time, so he points out that in some churches “their own authentic writings are read.” But also he puts Rome as the city where Peter “poured out [his] doctrine along with [his] blood.”
There are many more references like this, but these are just a few early ones. But there is also the “other side” of history. For example, who first suggested Peter was never at Rome? Was it someone from the early Church? Perhaps a priest in the Dark Ages? Suprisingly no, it was much, much later. In fact, there are exactly zero manuscripts from the early Church that suggest Peter was never at Rome. Zero. Even though there are numerous (and I do mean numerous) non-Christian and Christian writings about Peter, none place his martyrdom outside of Rome. Then where does this idea come from? Naturally it comes from those with an agenda in the Sixteenth century (again: Zero until the Sixteenth century).
But most of the push behind today’s amateur exegetes that push this theory rests on one book, Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner where he makes the claim that there is no evidence to suggest Peter was ever at Rome (I think you can read through the previous sections of this article and realize that many errors exist in Boettner’s book). This brings us to the Archeological evidence and an odd decision by Boettner.
Archeological Evidence
Above Eusebius quotes Gaius as putting Peter’s tomb on the Ostian Way. This is important because tradition held that Peter was buried beneath an altar in specific place in Rome. In 324 A.D., still before the Bible was compiled, but well after the death of Peter, Constantine ordered a church be built on St. Peter’s tomb. The church was called St. Peter’s Basilica and was completed around 349 A.D.
Twelve centuries later, Pope Julius II began rebuilding St. Peter’s Basilica. Michelangelo was famously hired to finish it in 1546 and included a beautiful dome over the central altar in the church. This dome, it was said, was directly above St. Peter’s grave. But some still had their doubts.
In 1939, Pope Pius XII commissioned some addition excavations (called “scavi”) below St. Peter’s Cathedral when an odd wall was found. The excavations first found a large graveyard and eventually a red wall. The red wall featured Christian “graffiti” that included “Peter is [here]” as well as a secret compartment holding bones wrapped in a purple cloth. Once studied, the bones were of a man who died around 70 A.D., was around 60 to 70 years old, and was short and very stocky. Oddly enough, the set of bones included everything but the feet. Why? Peter was crucified upside down and it was believed that he was removed from the crucifix by simply chopping his feet off.
The archeologists themselves were surprised to find the bones of Peter almost directly under the main altar in St. Peter’s Basilica. The evidence surrounding the tomb of Peter continued to mount (for example, Gaius also described Peter’s “trophy” or tomb in detail, and it matched his description). For more information, read articles here by George Weigel and here by EWTN (I couldn’t find the final report by the archeologists online).
The Vatican still offers the “Scavi Tour” that takes you through the excavation step-by-step and points out the early pictures of Mary and the places where the early Church celebrated Mass. Here is more information on the tour. Personally, I’ve done the tour twice and have a good friend who leads it while studying to be a priest. It is a great tour.
By the way, the odd decision by Boettner? He has updated his less-than-scholarly work multiple times and continued to ignore all of the archeological evidence offered by these excavations. In my mind, this is a clear sign that truth is not something Boettner cares much about (this is also obvious by his outright errors of Catholicism that could be corrected in five minutes with the Catechism. Of course, Boettner probably wouldn’t sell as many books if he did that).
CONCLUSION
In the end, the evidence that St. Peter was in Rome is overwhelming. The Biblical evidence, historical evidence, and archeological evidence are overwhelming. I was told once as a non-Catholic that you can always tell how intelligent an attack on Catholicism is if it uses this argument; the evidence is so clear that only those who simply hate the Church and wouldn’t convert even if it were True would use this argument.
This is the evidence I offer you: the suggestion that Peter was never in Rome is so far-fetched that you should be cautious about anything else said by someone making this point! Some highlights:
- All of the historical and Biblical evidence agree Peter was in Rome
- No one, not even a non-Catholic, makes this claim until the Reformation
- The archeological evidence backs up the historical and Scriptural claims perfectly
In the end, this does not prove that Peter was the Pope. But it does show that some who attack the Church are not honest.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
the only comment I have regarding the mention of mystery Babylon as being Rome, (in your original post), is that in my prophecy studies, I have found Jerusalem, the holy city as Babylon... so I am not so sure that using jewish extra biblical writings , like the apocalyse of Baruch or others helps since they, (the jews) will recognize Babylon as their enemy while God recognizes Babylon spiritually for whom he see Bbylon as... (remember, BAbylon played the harlot.. that means she cheated on her first husband) she sits as queen and is no widow, (judaism denies Christ, thus is still married to God, never having become a widow thru Christ's death and the annulment of the first covenant.... we see that Rome actually went up against Jerusalem and burnt her to the ground. (they did God's will as per parable)
Some today are trying to prove, nevertheless that the bones of St Peter are the bones of Simon Magus and he brought the mystery religions with him and created catholicism. a mixture of christian lingo and mystery religions..
I have an exceptional study that teaches the parallels of Jacob's life and Christ's and how it was MANDATED that the church move to Rome as it's captial. Consider that the "master of the palace" of pharoah was Joseph who fed the hebrews in Egypt, (a pagan country).. So too, in our day, it was th Rome, (a pagan entity) that God set up rule in and Peter as the master of the house, and later popes would feed the world with the ONLY food source..... I'll prepare and get the study out for those interested... I'll post it under primacy of Peter thread
The catholic position and her articles of faith are not in need to prove Peter's being in Rome or not, in fact, by type, the requirement wasn't necessary til around 135 AD and HAdrian.. the holy city taken in captivity and became a city within a city.. (into BAylon ye shall go and from there shall I rescue you...
Carmine
Jay,
Please clarify, are you saying that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome ? (B)IF yes then for how long?
2) Was Peter present in Rome for the entire time he was Bishop?
3) Were there two groups or churches in Rome, a Gentile and a converted Jewish church? Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Romans 1:13 clearly identifies the church at Rome as
Gentile.
4) Paul and Peter were contemporaries. You claim that Peter used Babylon as a code word for Rome. Why did he need to use Code when Paul clearly Identifies his audience as Rome in the book of Romans verses 1:7 and 1:13. (A)If there was a need for a code why didn't he use it. (Maybe he didn't get the memo from Peter ?)
B) If security or secrecy were an issue, then why did Paul name 27 members of the church at Rome putting them in danger if the the letter should fall into the wrong hands ?
C)If Peter was the Bishop of Rome either in residence or in exile, then why didn't he list Peter amongst the 27 other names Paul lists at the end of the book of Romans ?
D) The gospel ministry of Paul was motivated by a great principle which he clearly repeats in Romans 15:20: "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." A like avowal is made in I Corinthians 10:15,16. Where no other apostle had been, there Paul wanted to go. Having written this plainly in two letters, why would Paul need to write a letter to the Romans if Peter were already there ministering to them for years ?
E)At the Jerusalem conference (Gal. 2:9), it was agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Did Peter make an exception to this agreement and start a Gentile church at Rome? As I said Romans 1:13 identifies the church at Rome as gentile.
Again looking at the timeline on the website below, based on accounts from scriptures how could Peter have been in residence as the Bishop of Rome for 25 years which tradition claims he was?
http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/cath/cath2.htm
Your Brother in Christ,
Clem
Posted by: Clem at November 30, 2004 02:35 PMRegarding 1 Pe. 5:13, you seem to be relying on the accuracy of that translation of that verse. New International Version, for example, reads: "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark."
Essentially, everything rests on whether the word "here" is actually in the text ("here in Babylon", in your translation). I'm no Greek scholar so I can't comment, but perhaps someone else can.
Clem,
More polluted sources that miss a great deal, none of which have the time to discuss right now. However, your snide remarks are sloppy as usual. Peter would have had to use code so that anyone intercepting the message would not know where he was. Paul was writing TO Rome, not FROM Rome. It didn't matter that he expressly identified Rome since he wouldn't have been trying to conceal the location of the city to whom he was writing. Stop me if I'm going to fast for you--I'm a little annoyed that you couldn't figure this out yourself. Also, remember that at the time Paul wrote Romans he was not the sought after figure that Peter was. The Romans and Jews both knew that Peter was the head of the Church and were thus agressively pursuing him in order to snip the Christian cult in the bud. Finally, even if secrecy were not necessary, please re-read Jay's post. You will note that he is saying Babylon and Rome were used interchangeably, not that Babylon was the exclusive term by which Rome was called. You completely fail to acknowledge that millions of Protestants think the "Babylon" of Revelation is actually Rome, yet for some reason deny that the same is true of the Babylon of Peter.
In Christ,
Dave
This is to bring forth both church fathers and historical references that state Peter was in Rome. The heresy of some who claim it was NOT Simon Peter but Simon Magus, (some are starting to push this heresy) have no legits when we read the church fatehrs, particularly the last erference on this list who specifically states Peter and Paul BOTH arrived in Rome to counter Simon Magus....
Anyway, the reference of Peter in Rome is not dependent on the definition of Babylon, nor was it ever....
the real quesiton for all the pundits here is this ---> Are you "spiritually HONEST" or are you rather, looking for "advantage"?
Carmine
Ignatius of Antioch
--------------------
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).
(this reference was specifically regarding what they did in person above)
Dionysius of Corinth
--------------------
"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).
(AD 170 seems to be a pretty early time, much earler than Constantine, isn't it? Apparently, the catholic conspiracy of constantine and waht protestaments say was the origin of the catholic church falls flat when we have church fathers witnessing to the actual apostles, peter and Paul both in Rome.....)
Irenaeus
---------
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).
Gaius
------
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).
Clement of Alexandria
----------------------
"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: 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 a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).
Tertullian
-----------
"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (ibid., 32:2).
"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood" (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D. 210]).
The Little Labyrinth
--------------------
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
(Seems that apostolic succession didn't start wtih constantine and the make believe start of the catholic church in the 300's. it is obvious that succession was already well established by this time with not 2 or 3 but 13 papal successions.....)
The Poem Against the Marcionites
-----------------------------------
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
---------------------
"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).
Peter of Alexandria
-------------------
"Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome" (Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
Lactantius
-------------
"When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 318]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
--------------------
"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven. And it was nothing to marvel at, for Paul was there—he that was caught up into the third heaven" (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
Clem:
you bring up the same "cut and psate" studies that are rampant on the internet, 9the same exact arguments, word for word)... Soem of the arguments are not valid... They are meanto lead the person reading down a deceitful path and let me explain how...
Well, Paul was to the gentiles, Peter to the jews so why would Peter go to Rome, obviously a gentile church. Or the church in Rome was gentile church, etc....
This is the only one I will approach in this post. Clem, did you study ACTS? I am sure you have.. Lets go there for a moment.....
(i expect a withdrawal of this one point from your list Clem if you expect to maintain your spiritual integrity.. as a matter of fact, every single one of your points on the list become questionable and I will get into that also....(I am arguing the teaching you bought into and consider you a victim of it for now.. your spiritual integrity is only questioned once ou see this truth but refuse to withdraw the points and continue to teach them.. this is said from brother to brother Clem)
First, let's look at ACTS 2:
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.
7: And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8: And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9: Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10: Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11: Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12: And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13: Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
Clem, let me help you here ... what does verse 10 say?
ACTS 2:10: "10: Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes"
OK
strangers of Rome, jews and proselytes. What does that mean? THat jews were not roman citizens,(not were they citizens of an of the other cities mentioned) they were strangers there and wtih the jews in Rome, there were gentile converts to judaism there to judaism. A gentile proselyte wsa considered a jew by old testament promise even to the jews, (Christ had many gentile women in his geneology for instance).....
Peter identifies Jews in Rome.. He also identifies JEws in each and every single other city mentioned. The OVERWHELMING number of people in Jerusalem at the time of the REQUIRED, mandatory pilgrimage to Jerusalem, (Pentecost) brought in JEWS from all those surronding cities.. mind you, gentile cities. With a city like JErusalem over run with jews coming in from all cities, over 1 million lambs for one count were slain for PAssover for instance by their own writings, I doubt a gentile thgouht to go on vacation to Jerusalem from other cities when there wold be found no room for them and the city wold be on LOCK DOWN cuz of the high sabbaths.....(enter in by the eye of the camel, the main gates were closed, stores were closed, all was solemn)
If paul was the apostle to the gentiles, as you say legalistically, that means he didn't talk to jews, only gentiles and established only gentile churches, 9thus what was made ONE in Christ, PAul seperated out jew and gentile. ALSO, Pauls ministry is full of "tot he jew first, then the gentile" Paul the apostle to the gentiles STAATES in his own words, he went to the jews first, then the gentiles... And if you doubt thta interpretation, then you are STILL in trouble cuz then someone HAD to go in first, "to the jew" before Paul could go in to the gentiles, (I wonder who that person was in that case...)
James speaks of in his letter to the 12 tribes scattered abroad..... that includes the tribes of the southern kingdom or the jews, (kingdom of Judah not israel)....
The point is that even in the Jerusalem church, a jewish church wherr you claim peter was, there were proselytes, (gentile converts).. The jerusalem church was no more "only jewish" than the gentile churches were "only gentile." this is the logic fallacy that aflls when the rest of scripture is analysed in context and taken as a whole....
You preach "seperatism" Clem.. tha a church is only gentile or jewish by the way you interprete the meaning of gentile church..... And you preach that NO JEWS were saved in Rome because then that causes one to see TWO Roman churches, a gentile and a jewish one. (again, this is the road your logic forces you to go down).....
EAch and every single point yo umade, when studied under sola scriptura, 9as you feel is the ONLY ay to understand things), forces you to descridit God and seperatism or forces you in leaving certain people out of the gospel, whether jew or gentile in Pauls ministry, (apostle to the gentiles ought not go to seek the jew first, by YOUR definition), this proves you got to withdraw your position points.... your integrity and honesty is on the line.. I have to be this strong Clem becasue I have run into fundamentalists and SDA churches who have this emnity to the point of blinding themselves to the simplicity for arguments that deceive only those who haven't read much fo the bible so you direct them downt eh wrong road of logic. (doesn't satan do that? Use only some of the word of God to redirect and deceive?)
selah
CArmine
Posted by: carmine at December 4, 2004 11:56 AMbtw.. I qote from the KJV of the bible so as to not cause additional stumbling blocks to our protestant brethren.. some are adamataly KLJV Only, some not but so as to not cause this to interfere wit the main pints, I always use the KJV whenever posible, (unless ther eis a real mistranslation)
Posted by: carmine at December 4, 2004 11:58 AM
