Protestant interpretations...

[Ginger2]

To my knowledge, the Church does not have an official position on this.

… Peter was most certainly in Rome prior to his martyrdom there as his own letter suggests (cf. 1 Peter 5:13).

hmmm…prior to his death…can you narrow it down just a little?

1 Peter 5:13 states Peter was in Babylon, not Rome.

 

[Randy_Carson]

hmmm…prior to his death…can you narrow it down just a little?

1 Peter 5:13 states Peter was in Babylon, not Rome.

Peter in Rome

“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox).

Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is 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.”

Rome is also referred to as “Babylon” repeatedly in the Book of Revelation.

If you were being hunted by the authorities, would you openly admit your actual location in a written letter that could be confiscated by Roman soldiers? :nope:

What about the testimony of the 20+ Protestant scholars, Ginger? The ones that admit that Peter is the rock?

---

Gerhardt Meier

“Nowadays, a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree…Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins.” (The End of the Historical Critical Method, 58-60).

 

[Ginger2]

Peter in Rome

Babylon is a code-word for Rome… 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.”

Babylon does not appear to be a “code name” for Rome in 1 Peter.
…1. Paul spent nearly all his lifetime in Roman cities and never once felt the need to hide the fact by using a code name.
…2. Over and over again, the Bible makes reference to Paul being in one Roman city or another. If Peter was indeed living in Rome, why isn’t there at least one mention of it
…3. There really was a place called Babylon that existed at the time of the Apostles, so it stands to reason Peter was exactly where he said he was, in Babylon.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Babylon does not appear to be a “code name” for Rome in 1 Peter.
…1. Paul spent nearly all his lifetime in Roman cities and never once felt the need to hide the fact by using a code name.
…2. Over and over again, the Bible makes reference to Paul being in one Roman city or another. If Peter was indeed living in Rome, why isn’t there at least one mention of it
…3. There really was a place called Babylon that existed at the time of the Apostles, so it stands to reason Peter was exactly where he said he was, in Babylon.

J.N.D. Kelly

“It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where ‘BABYLON’ is a code-name for ROME, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter’s companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome” (THE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF POPES [Oxford Univ Press, 1988], p. 6).

Shotwell and Loomis

"The First Epistle of Peter has been the fundamental text for the contention that Peter was in Rome. Its closing salutation, ‘The church that is in Babylon…saluteth you’ (1 Peter v,13), refers UNDOUBTEDLY to Rome. Babylon was then in ruins, and there was no tradition for five centuries that Peter had been there, whereas the tradition connecting him with Rome is one of the STRONGEST in the Church. Babylon is used for Rome in the Sibylline Oracles and in Revelation (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10)…

“Upon the whole, there seems nothing improbable in the tradition and the belief of Catholic writers in St. Peter’s early labors in Rome. His martyrdom there, at a later period, is vouched for by a fairly continuous line of references in the documents from Clement on.” (THE SEE OF PETER [NY: Octagon Books, 1965] by James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis, p. 56-57, 58-59)

New Bible Commentary

"In 5:13 the writer sends greetings from ‘she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you’. This seems like a reference to the local church in Babylon, but it is unlikely that Peter would have gone to the former capital of Nebuchadnezzar’s empire.

“By Peter’s time it was a sparsely inhabited ruin (fulfilling Isaiah 14:23). In Rev 16:19 and 17:5 ‘Babylon’ is used as a cryptic name for Rome, and Col 4:10 and Phm 24 (most likely written in Rome) show that Mark was there with Paul. In 2 Tim 4:11 Mark is in Asia Minor, and Paul sends for him to come, most probably to Rome.”

“The fact that neither Peter nor Paul mentions the other in the list of those sending greetings from Rome merely suggests that they were not together at the time of writing their letters. All this points to the theory that Peter was writing from Rome, which is supported by the evidence of Tertullian (praescrip haeret, 36) and Eusebius (Eccl History, 2.25.8; 2.15.2 and 3.1.2-3).” (NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY [Intervarsity Press, 1994], p. 1370 edited by Donald Guthrie with D.A. Carson, R.T. France, J.A. Motyer, and G.J. Wenham)

 

[Ginger2]

J.N.D. Kelly (Protestant Scholar)

“…To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome.”

Can you show me their quotes stating Peter was referring to Rome in 1 Pet 5:13 ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you show me their quotes stating Peter was referring to Rome in 1 Pet 5:13 ?

See above…I was editing and adding as you responded.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you show me their quotes stating Peter was referring to Rome in 1 Pet 5:13 ?

Early Church Fathers – Peter in Rome

---

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]).

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).

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 successions of the bishops qf 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, 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 epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, 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 Eleutherus. 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 [inter AD. 180-190]).

Tertullian

“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]” (The Demurrer Against the Heretics [A.D. 200]).

“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” (ibid.).

**Cyprian **

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
**Optatus **

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas - of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . .Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
**Augustine **

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Epistle to Generosus 53:1:2 [A.D. 400]).

 

[Ginger2]

What? Nothing from the first century? Sources from hundreds of years later who merely repeat what they were taught are not proof.

Usually I pick one example to dispel, but in this case I will take a look at your earliest examples (mostly because I have not seen all of these before, and truth is more important than pretending to be right if you are proven wrong, BUT also because I respect you as an intelligent person):

Early Church Fathers – Peter in Rome

---

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 is not a definite statement to Peter being in Rome, but more a statement similar to Paul when he differentiated between God’s commands and his opinions.

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).

This is one I thought I had heard before, but not this same excerpt. Does this letter actually exist Dionysus actually exist? What I believe I saw before was an excerpt making claim to the letter, but not a specific quote? Having a specific quote like this is more credible. I will consider this more.

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]).

This one defies the time itself according to the timeline I was given (by a Catholic) the last time I discussed it:

But I’m not going to go there. It is easier to point out Matthew was written between 42-50 A.D.* Paul was not in Rome during this time period. If Irenaeus was wrong about Paul why should I assume he was correct in thinking Peter was in Rome?

So that leaves us Eusebius’ claim from the 3rd or 4th century. Does the letter he speaks of which was supposedly written in the late second century exist?

 

[Randy_Carson]

What? Nothing from the first century?

Do you know who these people were?

Clement is mentioned in the NT. He was a disciple of Peter and Paul and the fourth pope. Ignatius was a disciple of Peter and a bishop of Antioch after Peter went to Rome. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John.

We’re not talking about huge gaps in history here…and certainly not “hundreds of years” as you claim. John taught Polycarp who taught Irenaeus. Ignatius and and Clement knew Peter and Paul personally. These men are called Apostolic Fathers because of their IMMEDIATE connection to the Apostles.

When Ignatius says, “I’m not commanding you Romans the with the same authority that Peter and Paul commanded you”, he is implicitly telling us that Peter and Paul were in Rome directing the Church there.

When Irenaeus tells us that Peter and Paul were in Rome, it is because he knew what Polycarp had taught him from the mouth of John the Apostle.

Protestant Scholars admit what Ginger2 refuses to accept:

---

1. Peter is the rock;
2. Babylon is a code-word for Rome;
3. Peter was in Rome.

Ginger, this isn’t your fault. I wasn’t taught this when I was a Protestant. Could it be that the Protestant pastors and Sunday School teachers that you have been listening to all your life have been wrong about this stuff?

 

[Ginger2]

Protestant Scholars admit what Ginger2 refuses to accept:

---

1. Peter is the rock;
2. Babylon is a code-word for Rome;
3. Peter was in Rome.

I don’t trust people to be infallible, that’s why I depend heavily on the written word and guidance from the Holy Spirit.

I don’t deny Peter is called a rock - it is written in black and white in the Scriptures.
There was a real City called Babylon in the first century, and nothing to support your theory Peter was referring to Rome and not Babylon.
There is no solid evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. Why did James make the final decision at the council of Jerusalem if Peter was pope?

After they had fallen silent, James responded, "My brothers, listen to me.
According to the Scriptures
The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written:…
It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,

Could it be that the Protestant pastors and Sunday School teachers that you have been listening to all your life have been wrong about this stuff?

I was raised Catholic.

I’ve told you I am willing to consider one of your examples, Does the letter Eusebius speaks of which was supposedly written in the late second century exist?

Why not expand on that instead of giving up?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t trust people to be infallible, that’s why I depend heavily on the written word and guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Okay. Why then do you read Bible commentaries and go to Church on Sunday to listen to your pastor’s sermons? Moreover, why do most denominations require their pastors to attend seminary at all? Can the seminaries teach them things that the Holy Spirit is unable to teach them? Of course not. There is nothing unscriptural about learning from others who have studied more deeply than we have.

Your argument is a dodge. You are using it to avoid drawing logical conclusions that you do not want to face.

I don’t deny Peter is called a rock - it is written in black and white in the Scriptures.

Great. What are the implications of this? When Jesus promised to build His Church upon Peter, what did that mean and how did it play out in the course of history?

There was a real City called Babylon in the first century, and nothing to support your theory Peter was referring to Rome and not Babylon.

My theory? Heh…read those Protestant scholars again, Ginger. Everyone seems to have gotten the message but you on this.

There is no solid evidence that Peter was ever in Rome.

EVER? Are you now claiming that Peter wasn’t even martyred in Rome??? I mean, it’s one thing to say that Peter didn’t build the Church in Rome, etc., but to say that Peter was NEVER in Rome is quite another. Is that your position?

I was raised Catholic.

And poorly catechized by all appearances.

I’ve told you I am willing to consider one of your examples, Does the letter Eusebius speaks of which was supposedly written in the late second century exist?

Why not expand on that instead of giving up?

Suppose it doesn’t? So what? Eusebius’ history obviously does. Therefore, we have direct testimony concerning what was in the letter. Do we have the original autographs of the Gospels? No. Does that mean that we don’t know what was in them? Hardly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why did James make the final decision at the council of Jerusalem if Peter was pope?

After they had fallen silent, James responded, "My brothers, listen to me.
According to the Scriptures
The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written:…
It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,

Good question…for which I have a good answer…and yes, I put this together myself!

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.
Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
​

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12). Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
​

In 2009, I contacted Mr. Bonocore via email regarding some questions on this matter. He responded:
James is NOT speaking on behalf of the council, but ONLY on behalf of his own, ultra-Jewish party. For, WHO was “making it difficult for the Gentiles”??? Not Peter. He converted and Baptized the first Gentiles without demanding that they be circumcised. Not Paul or Barnabas or the other members of the council. Rather, it was only JAMES’ ULTRA-JEWISH PARTY! THEY were the ones “making it difficult” for the Gentiles and creating the controversy (see Acts 15:1-2 and Acts 15:5). So, the one and only reason why James speaks after Peter is*** to concede*** to Peter’s authoritative teaching and back down.
In addition the reference from Titus cited by Mr. Bonocore, this passage from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians is relevant:
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
“Certain men came from James…who belonged to the circumcision group.” This passage indicates not only that James’ group was the one causing problems for the Gentile converts but also points out the primacy of Peter in that Paul boasts of having stood up to Peter on this doctrinal matter. If Peter were not viewed by all as the leader of the Church, then Paul would have gained nothing be mentioning his opposition to Peter’s hypocritical behavior.

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ?
bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm

 

[kepha1]

Bones of St. Peter found in Rome:
saintpetersbasilica.org/Necropolis/MG/TheTombofStPeter-1.htm#intro
mysticspot.ru/?p=1882&lang=en
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Saint_Peter
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,805321,00.html
select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0610F63D5F16738DDDAD0A94DA415B8089F1D3
hissheep.org/catholic/the_bones_of_peter.html

Note: this is archeology, not doctrine. But truth cannot contradict truth.

 

[Ginger2]

Okay. Why then do you read Bible commentaries and go to Church on Sunday to listen to your pastor’s sermons? Moreover, why do most denominations require their pastors to attend seminary at all? Can the seminaries teach them things that the Holy Spirit is unable to teach them? Of course not. There is nothing unscriptural about learning from others who have studied more deeply than we have.

Their are seminaries with teachers teaching false doctrines.

I don’t have a problem with listening to others express their ideas concerning God. I just don’t depend on them to be right all the time.

I have corrected more than one pastor and a Priest at least once.
"Ginger:

Does the letter Eusebius speaks of which was supposedly written in the late second century exist?

Suppose it doesn’t? So what? Eusebius’ history obviously does. Therefore, we have direct testimony concerning what was in the letter. Do we have the original autographs of the Gospels? No. Does that mean that we don’t know what was in them? Hardly.

I expect there is not letter or you would have produced it. Eusebius obviously didn’t get this info first hand. So, does he say he actually read the letter or did he read what someone else said the letter said???

 

[kepha1]

Peter made a final decision regarding circumcision for the whole Church. Nobody “fell silent” when James spoke.
James, bishop of Jerusalem, made a local decision regarding fasting from stangled meats, because the Christian Jews were so appauled by the Gentiles horrid behavior. This disciplinary restriction was later rescinded when it was no longer a scandal, and is not recorded in scripture because the rescindence occured long after the Bible was enscripturated.

Acts 15 (KJV)
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Pope spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching.

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 SIMEON HATH DECLARED how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

How can anyone honestly say that James is handing down any final decision at this Council?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Their are seminaries with teachers teaching false doctrines.

I don’t have a problem with listening to others express their ideas concerning God. I just don’t depend on them to be right all the time.

I have corrected more than one pastor and a Priest at least once.

Great. But when 20+ world-renowned scripture scholars who DO NOT have any allegiance to Rome tell you that, well, Rome is right on this one after all…you ought to be honest enought to take some notice of that admission, don’t you think?

I expect there is not letter or you would have produced it. Eusebius obviously didn’t get this info first hand. So, does he say he actually read the letter or did he read what someone else said the letter said???

Ginger-

You can Google just as easily as I can…here is a link to the letter:

earlychristianwritings.com/dionysius.html

And this:

But the most important letter is that to the Romans, the only one from which extracts have been preserved. Pope Soter had sent alms and a letter to the Corinthians:

For this has been your custom from the beginning, to do good to all the brethren in many ways, and to send alms to many Churches in different cities, now relieving the poverty of those who asked aid, now assisting the brethren in the mines by the alms you send, Romans keeping up the traditional custom of Romans, which your blessed bishop, Soter, has not only maintained, but has even increased, by affording to the brethren the abundance which he has supplied, and by comforting with blessed words the brethren who came to him, as a father his children.
Again:
You also by this instruction have mingled together the Romans and Corinthians who are the planting of Peter and Paul. For they both came to our Corinth and planted us, and taught alike; and alike going to Italy and teaching there, were martyred at the same time.
Again:
Today we have kept the holy Lord’s day, on which we have read your letter, which we shall ever possess to read and to be admonished, even as the former one written to us through Clement.
The testimony to the generosity of the Roman Church is carried on by the witness of Dionysius of Alexandria in the third century; and Eusebius in the fourth declares that it was still seen in his own day in the great persecution. The witness to the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul, kata ton auton kairon, is of first-rate importance, and so is the mention of the Epistle of Clement and the public reading of it. The letter of the pope was written “as a father to his children”. Dionysius’s own letters were evidently much prized, for in the last extract he says that he wrote them by request, and that they have been falsified “by the apostles of the devil”. No wonder, he adds, that the Scriptures are falsified by such persons.

newadvent.org/cathen/05010a.htm

​

So, yeah, I guess the critical passage survived.

Happy now?

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Good question…for which I have a good answer…and yes, I put this together myself!

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.
Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
​

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12). Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
​

In 2009, I contacted Mr. Bonocore via email regarding some questions on this matter. He responded:
James is NOT speaking on behalf of the council, but ONLY on behalf of his own, ultra-Jewish party. For, WHO was “making it difficult for the Gentiles”??? Not Peter. He converted and Baptized the first Gentiles without demanding that they be circumcised. Not Paul or Barnabas or the other members of the council. Rather, it was only JAMES’ ULTRA-JEWISH PARTY! THEY were the ones “making it difficult” for the Gentiles and creating the controversy (see Acts 15:1-2 and Acts 15:5). So, the one and only reason why James speaks after Peter is*** to concede*** to Peter’s authoritative teaching and back down.
In addition the reference from Titus cited by Mr. Bonocore, this passage from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians is relevant:
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
“Certain men came from James…who belonged to the circumcision group.” This passage indicates not only that James’ group was the one causing problems for the Gentile converts but also points out the primacy of Peter in that Paul boasts of having stood up to Peter on this doctrinal matter. If Peter were not viewed by all as the leader of the Church, then Paul would have gained nothing be mentioning his opposition to Peter’s hypocritical behavior.

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ?
bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm

You said: “Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James”

I’ve never met a Christian who thought there was such a thing as a Pope, much less James as a Pope. Have you Ginger2? I’m sure if you look hard enough you could find some nonCatholic to buy into the notion you described; but I never met one. I hope I do meet one so I can set them straight on what God says concerning the overseers and their responsibilities as described in I Timothy. Also to let them know that Jesus is the head of the church in heaven and on earth and the the Pope idea came way after the Bible was written; that is historical fact.

 

[Des]

Good question…for which I have a good answer…and yes, I put this together myself!

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.
Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
​

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12). Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
​

In 2009, I contacted Mr. Bonocore via email regarding some questions on this matter. He responded:
James is NOT speaking on behalf of the council, but ONLY on behalf of his own, ultra-Jewish party. For, WHO was “making it difficult for the Gentiles”??? Not Peter. He converted and Baptized the first Gentiles without demanding that they be circumcised. Not Paul or Barnabas or the other members of the council. Rather, it was only JAMES’ ULTRA-JEWISH PARTY! THEY were the ones “making it difficult” for the Gentiles and creating the controversy (see Acts 15:1-2 and Acts 15:5). So, the one and only reason why James speaks after Peter is*** to concede*** to Peter’s authoritative teaching and back down.
In addition the reference from Titus cited by Mr. Bonocore, this passage from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians is relevant:
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
“Certain men came from James…who belonged to the circumcision group.” This passage indicates not only that James’ group was the one causing problems for the Gentile converts but also points out the primacy of Peter in that Paul boasts of having stood up to Peter on this doctrinal matter. If Peter were not viewed by all as the leader of the Church, then Paul would have gained nothing be mentioning his opposition to Peter’s hypocritical behavior.

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ?
bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm

Excellent post and analogy there Randy. Puts an entirely new perspective on things doesn’t it. I could easily see it was Peter in charge there anyways but that conclusion about the WE is gold man.

And I see GottaGo finally went, but not on his own. About time. He was never here to even make an attempt to learn anything anyways.

This part got a chuckle out of me though.

I hope I do meet one so I can set them straight on what God says concerning the overseers and their responsibilities as described in I Timothy.

 

[Ginger2]

Good question…for which I have a good answer…and yes, I put this together myself! …

Indeed that is a good, well thought out hypothesis. So, please don’t be offended at my questions and desire to verify it - if possible.

What exactly is meant by “extracts” in the NA? I read up on this and it says extracts were preserved but doesn’t tell who actually preserved them and under what circumstances.

Thanks.

 

[Ginger2]

As I have been reading this morning about this letter to Soter, I read Eusebius also wrote stating Peter went to Rome in 42 A.D. and remained there for 25 years. That makes sense as it is believed he was martyred in Rome around 67 or 68, correct?

Please comment.