Introduction to Romans - New KJV Bible...?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Mary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Little_Mary

Guest
Page 1546 of the New Spirit Filled Life Bible (New KJV) contains an introduction to Romans.

Here is the first paragraph:

"Background: When Paul wrote Romans about A. D. 56 he had not yet been to Rome but he had been preaching the Gospel since his conversion in A.D. 35. During the previous ten years he had **founded churches **throughout the Mediterranean world. Now he was nearing the end of this third missionalry journey. This epistle is therefore a mature statement of his understanding of the Gospel. The church at rome had been founded by other Christians (unknown to us, but see “visitors from Rome” in Act 2:10), and Paul, through his travels knew many of the believers there (16:3-15)"

1). “…founded churches…”?? What does this mean?

2). “The Church at Rome had been founded by other Christians (unknown to us…”
What does this mean??

Thanks…
 
Sounds like a lame attempt to discredit the Catholic Church as being first among Christian Churches. This sort of attempt muddying of the waters of history is a common refrain from those within and without the Church whose goal it is to discredit, and ultimately destroy the Church. In the end, they lose and we win. The Church will be here when Christ returns. Guaranteed. 🙂
 
Here is a** little excerpt** from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: 'The birth of Christianity in Rome is one of the unsolved puzzles of history. The good news may have first reached the city through Jewish pilgrims returning from Jerusalem (Acts 2:10). Tradition also remembers the Apostle Peter ministering in the capital during the 40’s (see note on Acts 12:17). What ever its first contact with the gospel, Rome had a glowing reputation for its faith by the time Paul wrote to the Christian community (Rom 1:8).
 
I can’t speak for the New KJV. The good news may have first reached the city of Rome throught Jewish pilgrims returning from Jerusalem (Acts 2:10). Catholic tradition says the Apostle Peter was ministering in the Roman capital during the 40’s.

He motioned to them with his hand to be quiet and explained (to them) how the Lord had led him out of the prison, and said, “Report this to James and the brothers.” Then he left and went to another place. (Acts 12:17)
 
1). “…founded churches…”?? What does this mean?
Each diocese is considered a “church” in its own right. It’s really no bug deal if you understand Church structure.
2). “The Church at Rome had been founded by other Christians (unknown to us…”
What does this mean??
CalCatholic already addressed this well.

My theory on this: We know that during the first persecution (following the martyrdom of St. Stephen) Christians fled Jerusalem for other areas. This is why some were in Damascus and Philip became a sort of wandering missionary. Those who fled likely would have returned to their hometowns and established the Church (local churches) in those places, including Rome.

Also note that once Paul starts his ministry, Acts follows him almost exclusively. An Apostolic mission to Rome may well have happened during that time to establish the local church formally.
 
Sounds like a lame attempt to discredit the Catholic Church as being first among Christian Churches. This sort of attempt muddying of the waters of history is a common refrain from those within and without the Church whose goal it is to discredit, and ultimately destroy the Church. In the end, they lose and we win. The Church will be here when Christ returns. Guaranteed. 🙂
That was my first impression but I tried not to indicate that in my OP. The more I see stuff like this published, the less faith I have in them. 😦
 
Each diocese is considered a “church” in its own right. It’s really no bug deal if you understand Church structure.

My theory on this: We know that during the first persecution (following the martyrdom of St. Stephen) Christians fled Jerusalem for other areas. This is why some were in Damascus and Philip became a sort of wandering missionary. Those who fled likely would have returned to their hometowns and established the Church (local churches) in those places, including Rome.

Also note that once Paul starts his ministry, Acts follows him almost exclusively. An Apostolic mission to Rome may well have happened during that time to establish the local church formally.
I’m glad it’s no bug deal. I hate bugs…😉
 
=Little Mary;7557772]Page 1546 of the New Spirit Filled Life Bible (New KJV) contains an introduction to Romans.
Here is the first paragraph:
"Background: When Paul wrote Romans about A. D. 56 he had not yet been to Rome but he had been preaching the Gospel since his conversion in A.D. 35. During the previous ten years he had **founded churches **throughout the Mediterranean world. Now he was nearing the end of this third missionalry journey. This epistle is therefore a mature statement of his understanding of the Gospel. The church at rome had been founded by other Christians (unknown to us, but see “visitors from Rome” in Act 2:10), and Paul, through his travels knew many of the believers there (16:3-15)"
1). “…founded churches…”?? What does this mean?
The NT has over 100 references to but One Church, that being today’s Catholic Church. Many of these “brances” [today we’d call the dioceses] were stated by Paul, as his travels were the most widely spread.

**Eph. 4: 4 -8 “There **is one body Only One Church] and one Spirit, Only One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, Only One God] ONLY one faith, Only One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. "

The history of the Catholic Church is an integral part of the history of Christianity and of Western civilization.

The Apostles and many Christians traveled from Jerusalem to northern Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, Greece, and Rome to found the first Christian communities. Christianity spread quickly through the Roman Empire, and by the second century there were many established bishoprics within the Empire including Northern Africa, France, Italy, Syria, and Asia Minor, and twenty bishoprics outside the empire, mainly in Armenia.[3] Irenaeus (d. 202) defended the apostolic tradition.

While Irenaeus believed in the second century that Peter and Paul had been the founders of the Church in Rome, but there is no conclusive evidence that Peter was in fact a Bishop of Rome.[6][7][8] and some historians have questioned whether Peter spent much time in Rome before his martyrdom about 65 AD." Wikipedia,

MY NOTE: Peter was the first Pope, and it’s very unlikely that he assumed direct day to day operation of any single church, as he had other responsibilities to fulfill. But it is historically proveable that Rome did have a “branch” of the CC in Rome, while Peter was there.

2). “The Church at Rome had been founded by other Christians (unknown to us…”
What does this mean??

While it is clear that Rome did have a “The Way” / Christian / Catholic" church, there seems to be no evidence who was the Bishop. Very likely this was due to the fact that both Peter and Paul died in Rome, and the local bishop was secondary to there very dominate presence.

"Early Christianity is generally considered as Christianity before 325. The New Testament’s Book of Acts and Epistle to the Galatians records that the first Christian community was centered in Jerusalem and its leaders included James, Peter and John.[1]

The first Christians were all Jews or Jewish proselytes, either by birth or conversion, referred to by historians as the Jewish Christians. Paul of Tarsus, after his conversion, claimed the title of “Apostle to the Gentiles”. Paul’s influence on Christian thinking is said to be more significant than any other New Testament author.[2] By the end of the 1st century, Christianity began to be recognized internally and externally as a separate religion from Rabbinic Judaism which itself was refined and developed further in the centuries after the destruction of the Second Jerusalem Temple." Wikipedia,

God Bless,
Pat
 
That was my first impression but I tried not to indicate that in my OP. The more I see stuff like this published, the less faith I have in them. 😦
In the last century or so, there have arisen from among certain “theologians” certain errors that lean toward undermining and destroying the teachings of the Church. And, to some degree, they have been successful with certain of our priests and bishops. For example, when Fr. Corapi was in the seminary, a certain “well known theologian” gave a talk one day on the manna in the desert. He said he was going to explain where it came from. Fr. Corapi and his fellow students said, “Oh, this ought to be interesting.” They knew this guy was questionable because of previous lectures he’d given. He said (are you ready for this?!), that the manna in the desert that saved the Israelites was ant dung from a species of carpenter ants that lived in the Judean desert! LOL It’s humbug like this that Pope Leo XIII warned against, I believe, when he spoke about the dangers of the heresy of modernism.
 
In the last century or so, there have arisen from among certain “theologians” certain errors that lean toward undermining and destroying the teachings of the Church. And, to some degree, they have been successful with certain of our priests and bishops. For example, when Fr. Corapi was in the seminary, a certain “well known theologian” gave a talk one day on the manna in the desert. He said he was going to explain where it came from. Fr. Corapi and his fellow students said, “Oh, this ought to be interesting.” They knew this guy was questionable because of previous lectures he’d given. He said (are you ready for this?!), that the manna in the desert that saved the Israelites was ant dung from a species of carpenter ants that lived in the Judean desert! LOL It’s humbug like this that Pope Leo XIII warned against, I believe, when he spoke about the dangers of the heresy of modernism.
That’s scary!! :eek:
 
In the last century or so, there have arisen from among certain “theologians” certain errors that lean toward undermining and destroying the teachings of the Church. And, to some degree, they have been successful with certain of our priests and bishops. For example, when Fr. Corapi was in the seminary, a certain “well known theologian” gave a talk one day on the manna in the desert. He said he was going to explain where it came from. Fr. Corapi and his fellow students said, “Oh, this ought to be interesting.” They knew this guy was questionable because of previous lectures he’d given. He said (are you ready for this?!), that the manna in the desert that saved the Israelites was ant dung from a species of carpenter ants that lived in the Judean desert! LOL It’s humbug like this that Pope Leo XIII warned against, I believe, when he spoke about the dangers of the heresy of modernism.
it’s a good thing I wasn’t eating when I read this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top