Luke and Romans

[irenaeuslyons]

The thing is, it would seem that Christianity in Rome was not the result of missionary activity, but rather due to the immigration of (Jewish) Christians from Palestine and Syria. There was actually a writer (Ambrosiaster in the late 4th century) who claimed that the Romans “accepted faith in Christ without seeing miraculous works or any apostle.” It’s true that St. Peter (and Paul) were associated with Rome, but AFAIK I’m not aware of any tradition that explicitly claims Peter was the founder of the Church in Rome aside from this quote.

It’s true that Acts 12 mentions Peter going “for another place” after his miraculous escape from prison, and Eusebius does claim Peter was to Rome during AD 42 (History 2.14.6), but few people today really agree with Eusebius. They think it’s more likely that this ‘another place’ was Antioch (cf. Galatians 2:11-14). In any case, around 48-50, Peter was (back) in Palestine in time for the Council of Jerusalem, just around the same time the Chrestus controversy you mention happened under the emperor Claudius. If Peter went to Rome, it would have first been during the mid-50s, which is where we have slightly more firmer ground.

I think it’s better to understand Irenaeus as meaning that Peter and Paul ministered to and were martyred in Rome, not that they literally planted Christianity there. (Even if Peter’s case is more unclear, everybody agrees that Paul had nothing to do with the actual founding of the church there.) One other possible interpretation I could think of would point out Irenaeus’ interests here: in the same book, he was emphasizing Tradition, its reliability, and apostolic succession. He could have used the traditional connection between Peter and Paul and Rome to his advantage, presenting them as if they were the literal founders of the Roman church to stress what he wanted to stress. In other words, he was not so much just stating dry fact but was speaking rhetorically. Put bluntly, one could say he stretched a truth a bit to make his point.

I don’t think St. Irenaeus is saying Peter and Paul founded Christianity there. He is saying they founded the Church there. The “founder” of a church in Rome means a the person who created the episcopal foundation in Rome and connected it to the universal Church. This is laying the foundation. I don’t think it means the first Christian to convert a person in Rome or the first Christian in Rome. Preexisting christian communities would not be considered part of the universal church unless they were somehow connected to the apostles. (Which incidentally caused contention/classifications over who they were connected to).

“Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ.”
1Cor1:12

Ultimately, this “foundation” can only be laid by an apostle who is the “founder”, because that is how the Church authentically connects itself to the teachings of Christ.

“Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:”
Eph 2:20

 

[Abu]

In the three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, “William A Jurgens cites at length a great number of works from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references… divided…about evenly between the statements that ‘Peter came to Rome and died there, and that ‘Peter established his See at Rome and made the Bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.’ Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, 1988, p 201-2].

 

[patrick457]

I don’t think St. Irenaeus is saying Peter and Paul founded Christianity there. He is saying they founded the Church there. The “founder” of a church in Rome means a the person who created the episcopal foundation in Rome and connected it to the universal Church. This is laying the foundation. I don’t think it means the first Christian to convert a person in Rome or the first Christian in Rome. Preexisting christian communities would not be considered part of the universal church unless they were somehow connected to the apostles. (Which incidentally caused contention/classifications over who they were connected to).

“Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ.”
1Cor1:12

Ultimately, this “foundation” can only be laid by an apostle who is the “founder”, because that is how the Church authentically connects itself to the teachings of Christ.

“Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:”
Eph 2:20

This makes sense. Thank you.

 

[Jim_Baur]

For forty years I have believed that the Muratorian cannon is of great value.

Here is a quote that makes me believe the Gospel were written early to evangelize.

The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, “Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us.” On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind.28 And hence, although different points29 are taught us in the several books of the Gospels, there is no difference as regards the faith of believers, inasmuch as in all of them all things are related under one imperial Spirit,30 which concern the Lord’s nativity, His passion, His resurrection, His conversation with His disciples, and His twofold advent,-the first in the humiliation of rejection, which is now past, and the second in the glory of royal power, which is yet in the future.