The Universal Church

[steve-b]

well your one wierd catholic since tradition says that peter founded the curch of rome.

We really don’t have a specific date when the Church was established in Rome. Just that it was established. The quotes that show Peter was (the or a) founder of the Church of Rome don’t give exact dates.

historyfan81:

Peter established the church at Rome . or some others that say peter and paul founded the curch of rome

Yep

Irenaeus writes that.

historyfan81:

so like i said who is rigth here? catholic tradition or historical analysis that contradict said tradition?

can one change tradition when new evidence contradicts the old tradition?

Peter was the first bishop of Rome. And the Church is officially a Church when there is a bishop.

historyfan81:

yeah ill quoted "the argument is that babylon was used for the rome only after the destruction of the second temple wich is true in alot of jewish comunites and therefore and do to other things like writting style it was writen after 70 AD , some push it to emperor Dometian but the concus of now moved to 70s
for the later date

Peter was long dead by 70 a.d.

AND

Re: Babylon
By the time the Parthian Empire ruled the region in 141 BCE Babylon was deserted and forgotten. The city steadily fell into ruin and, even during a brief revival under the Sassanid Persians, never approached its former greatness… for context -----> ancient history

Re: Babylon being a code name for Rome HERE

 

[historyfan81]

Let me refrase wha the secular argument to that really well , Rome was called Babylon , beacuse the romans had destroyed the temple just like how the babylonians did. therefore

so the jewish comunities started calling rome babylon

and yes these people belive 1 peter was pseudonymous so peter didnt write 1 peter in the historical concencus

“Peter was the first bishop of Rome. And the Church is officially a Church when there is a bishop”

iam not sure about that since the bible mentions church in jerusalem before saying that james was its leader or prominant

also paul uses while writing to Priscilla and

Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. 4 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.

5 Greet also the church that meets at their house.

how can their be a chruch here if peter is not the first bishop yet?

 

[Elias]

The Catholic Church is the universal church. Why is this filed under non-Catholic religions?

Catholic (term) - Wikipedia

 

[steve-b]

Let me refrase wha the secular argument to that really well , Rome was called Babylon , beacuse the romans had destroyed the temple just like how the babylonians did. therefore

so the jewish comunities started calling rome babylon

and yes these people belive 1 peter was pseudonymous so peter didnt write 1 peter in the historical concencus

“Peter was the first bishop of Rome. And the Church is officially a Church when there is a bishop”

iam not sure about that since the bible mentions church in jerusalem before saying that james was its leader or prominant

also paul uses while writing to Priscilla and

Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. 4 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.

5 Greet also the church that meets at their house.

how can their be a chruch here if peter is not the first bishop yet?

The Church accepts and teaches, that Peter wrote his letters.

As for appropriate understanding of the bishop and the Church, see ch 8 Bp Ignatius. Ignatius was ordained ~68 a.d. as bishop of Antioch. Ignatius was a direct disciple of St John the apostle. What he wrote in that letter is how the apostles taught regarding a bishop and the Church in each location.

AND

There is no indication, Peter did or didn’t go to Rome prior to Paul going to Rome. Peter did specialize in working with the Jews vs Paul changed his focus from Jews to Gentiles. Peter did bring the first gentiles (Cornelius family) into the Church.

 

[historyfan81]

yeah its a case where the church contradicts the historical concencus.also even in scripture peter didnt now how to

(iam not saying agree with the historical concensus i think peter did write his letters or at least he had person who wrote it for them)

which like i told you quite an ocurrance , since like i mentioned paul says curch so there where priest before peter?

the 2 visits argument is even more flawed , since we already are basing the date on an assumption that he stayed in the city prior to the 60s AD , and then to claim 2 or more visists is an assumption over an assumption , which is bad thing to do , and it has no support from any historical records of ecclisitical or secular .

and it even contraditcs other sources that said he lived there for 25 years , and never mention a second or third visit.

also if peter specialized working with the jews why would he go to a ctiy that had its jews expelled? assuming he went before paul who writes after the rule of emperor claudius

 

[steve-b]

yeah its a case where the church contradicts the historical concencus.

How so?

historyfan81:

also even in scripture peter didnt now how to

didn’t know How to… what?

historyfan81:

(iam not saying agree with the historical concensus i think peter did write his letters or at least he had person who wrote it for them)

which like i told you quite an ocurrance , since like i mentioned paul says curch so there where priest before peter?

the 2 visits argument is even more flawed , since we already are basing the date on an assumption and then to claim 2 or more visists is an assumption over an assumption , which is bad thing to do , and it has no support from any historical records of ecclisitical or secular .

and it even contraditcs other sources that said he lived there for 25 years , and never mention a second or third visit.

also if peter specialized working with the jews why would he go to a ctiy that had its jews expelled? assuming he went before paul who writes after the rule of emperor claudius

To your points

priests don’t operate without a bishop.

AND

by definition, any priest in Rome you are talking about, has a bishop he answers to.

AND

since Only bishops can ordain a priest, any priest in Rome definitely has a bishop he answers to

AND

didn’t you say previously that the Jews were exiled from Rome in 48 a.d.?

that means you just put Peter in Rome before that date.

 

[historyfan81]

well the range is from 41 to 48 AD (48 being the upper most limit ) , since iam still giving the benefit of the doudt (since if emperor claduis kicks them out in 41 to 45 ad its a dead argument)

its a 4 year perdiod when he is free from herdod , during this time he preaches in syria , asia minor and greece , no mention of rome or even italy for that matter not by acts or the church fathers nada de nada.
to say put him here it fits , its not a good argument rember asumption over asumption over assumption

now if we use the nazarene incription that dates no longer to 44 AD (and the nazaren inscrption is a response to the resurection) its the most likely that the expulsion took place from 41 to 44 AD

so later 48 AD date , has to many assumptions , lack of evidence and contradictions of other sources

44 Ad of the nazarene inscription , well peter is just freed so imposible

so this is why just saying put peter first visit in this time dosent work

 

[historyfan81]

Well there are many times where Catholic tradition or dates contradict

For example the authorship of 1 Peter historical connceus says do to many things it was not written by peter ( the main argument is that is has to many themes that an unducated fisherman couldn’t write )

Also (what I forgot) according to acts Peter doesn’t know how to read or write .

There is also the case of the argument that peter didn’t found the Church of Rome (which as pointed out )
Historical concesus don’t agree some others argue he flat out never went there .

And other for example most Catholic websites that I see put the didache at late first century for historians that’s a big if .
And most likely is second century.

 

[steve-b]

well the range is from 41 to 48 AD (48 being the upper most limit ) , since iam still giving the benefit of the doudt (since if emperor claduis kicks them out in 41 to 45 ad its a dead argument)

its a 4 year perdiod when he is free from herdod , during this time he preaches in syria , asia minor and greece , no mention of rome or even italy for that matter not by acts or the church fathers nada de nada.
to say put him here it fits , its not a good argument rember asumption over asumption over assumption

now if we use the nazarene incription that dates no longer to 44 AD (and the nazaren inscrption is a response to the resurection) its the most likely that the expulsion took place from 41 to 44 AD

so later 48 AD date , has to many assumptions , lack of evidence and contradictions of other sources

44 Ad of the nazarene inscription , well peter is just freed so imposible

so this is why just saying put peter first visit in this time dosent work

AND, No one of the apostles carried around with them a diary keeping track of there exact whereabouts 24/7, 365 with dates. We know Peter was in Rome. And as we know, no matter what, Peter is head of the Church on earth as Jesus established him to be.

 

[historyfan81]

Yeah , but wierd that if peter went to the city in the time frame you proposed that acts mentions Syria , grece and anatolia
But no Rome or even italy .

Why would Luke leave it out ?

Why would Clement of Rome not mention more than one visit

Why would other documents mentioned he lived there for 25 years which already contadicts the other argument of multiple visits and acts

( as moving from Jerusalem to Greece by land takes it time )

This is why I said theologicaly you can belive that and that’s fine every man can believe what he wants.

But historically you can’t claim that as fact.
It has no evedince for it.

And the evidence against it is overwhelming , and so full assumptions and contradictions from ecclesiastical sources and secular ones , the timeline doesn’t add up unless you add something here and make another assumption.

That makes us wonder , all these sources can’t be right… Either one is wrong or worse .

But Wich one is wrong ? So do we interpret tradition another way ?

Or is …traidtion wrong .

If new evidence comes and resolves and fix it then good

If new evidence confirms 100% what already has a lot of evidence then one of the arguments of the Roman Catholic Curch ( that perter founded the church of Rome ) is well a myth.

 

[mcq72]

Ignatius was a direct disciple of St John the apostle. What he wrote in that letter is how the apostles taught regarding a bishop and the Church in each location.

Yes but does he cite any bishop of Rome? If I recall he did not.

Many say there was no head bishop there at the time and church governance was by group of bishops/ presbyters. So perhaps that is why Ignatius does not mention by name as he does other cities, like too many to know and no one leader sticking out.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Ignatius was a direct disciple of St John the apostle. What he wrote in that letter is how the apostles taught regarding a bishop and the Church in each location.

Yes but does he cite any bishop of Rome? If I recall he did not.

Many say there was no head bishop there at the time and church governance was by group of bishops/ presbyters. So perhaps that is why Ignatius does not mention by name as he does other cities, like too many to know and no one leader sticking out.

As for who Ignatius wrote and sent his letter(s) to,

In his mind, it would have 1st been to the bishop, since he is very clear in his writings, see ch 8 for his understanding of how the Church is to operate. . Ignatius isn’t going to then contradict that instruction when sending his letters. Therefore, he doesn’t just send his letter to Rome the city, in hopes it gets to the right person(s). Since Rome at the time was trying to eradicate the Church, it would be understood who he gave his letter to would be delivered to the bishop. Clement was bishop of Rome at that time.

How do we know that

Looking one man forward in time, Bp Irenaeus, was , taught by Bp Polycarp, who like Bp Ignatius, were direct disciples of St John the apostle. Making Bp Irenaeus one man away from an apostle.

So

As for the unbroken succession of bishops in Rome

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies ~ 180 a.d., 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… Irenaeus goes on to name 12 bishops in succession from Peter, down to Bp Irenaeus day…HERE see paragraphs 2-3

Obviously Bp Irenaeus naming succession from Peter in Rome, was already necessary to do because of heretics (The Gnostics) in his day.

AND

Considering Ignatius is a bishop, he is not going to contradict himself on his way to be martyred. He is arrested and on his way to Rome to be thrown to the lions, so it is safe to say, he keeps names out of his letter for their protection.

 

[steve-b]

Yeah , but wierd that if peter went to the city in the time frame you proposed that acts mentions Syria , grece and anatolia
But no Rome or even italy .

Why would Luke leave it out ?

Why would Luke have to put it in his writing too? We already know from Paul what Paul says about Rome in his letter to the Romans. HERE

How & who, did the people of Rome, Paul writes to, get their faith from, in the beginning, that is reported all over the world? It had to be from the apostles in the first place because There WAS no other way to be taught the faith. The apostles spread the faith from the beginning. They ordained bishops priests and deacons. So how was their faith in the city of Rome broadcasted then, all over the known world at the time such that everyone has heard of their faith…that is, according to Paul?

So

Who taught THEM in Rome?

We know people learned from tradition, both by word of mouth, and by writing. HERE

So

Not everything has to be written down.

AND

No matter where Peter is physically, he is still over the entire Church everywhere.

That said

We know Peter was in Rome. And He was martyred in Rome and his grave is under the Vatican.

historyfan81:

Why would Clement of Rome not mention more than one visit

Why would other documents mentioned he lived there for 25 years which already contadicts the other argument of multiple visits and acts

( as moving from Jerusalem to Greece by land takes it time )

This is why I said theologicaly you can belive that and that’s fine every man can believe what he wants.

But historically you can’t claim that as fact.
It has no evedince for it.

Seems you want to believe what you want to believe, and ignore evidence you don’t want to accept…
istoryrfan81:

And the evidence against it is overwhelming , and so full assumptions and contradictions from ecclesiastical sources and secular ones , the timeline doesn’t add up unless you add something here and make another assumption.

That makes us wonder , all these sources can’t be right… Either one is wrong or worse .

But Wich one is wrong ? So do we interpret tradition another way ?

Or is …traidtion wrong .

If new evidence comes and resolves and fix it then good

If new evidence confirms 100% what already has a lot of evidence then one of the arguments of the Roman Catholic Curch ( that perter founded the church of Rome ) is well a myth.

Since the apostles spread the faith in the beginning, Everyplace that had faith then, got it from the apostles. Peter & Paul were in Rome. THEY both then built the faith of Rome. Since they are apostles, they started AND built up Rome’s faith. Peter’s last see was Rome. Rome is also the place of Paul’s death

 

[historyfan81]

Why would Luke have to put it in his writing too? We already know from Paul what Paul says about Rome in his letter to the Romans.

so he mentions grece asia minor ans syria but could bother to write rome or even italy beacuse if we use the argumet of the first visit it ocurs circa 42 AD around the time that peter was travaling and very in the time range of acts.

“How & who, did the people of Rome, Paul writes to, get their faith from, in the beginning, that is reported all over the world? It had to be from the apostles in the first place because There WAS no other way to be taught the faith. The apostles spread the faith from the beginning. They ordained bishops priests and deacons. So how was their faith in the city of Rome broadcasted then, all over the known world at the time such that everyone has heard of their faith…that is, according to Paul?”

 

[historyfan81]

“Seems you want to believe what you want to believe, and ignore evidence you don’t want to accept…”

no its beacuse , there is no evidence for it , the sources contradict and its to ad hoc ( adds more suspositions to a hypotesis )

lets see how many supositions

1. claiduis expulsion has to be later down in the timeline if its earlier peter who specialized in jews has no motive to go there
2. peter traveled to the city one or more times during x perdiod of time,since
3. sources dont metion multiple visists beacuse X reasons
4. the nazare inscription predates the expulsion of the jews
5. luke dosent mention this beacuse he though syria , asia minor and greece where more important and not italy

6)clement of rome ignores it for x reason

1. paul dosent metion peter beacuse x reason , or that he was not in the city at the time , which implies more visits

yeah its ad hoc and a lot

1. there has to be another x explination as to why a source say that he lived 25 years there , despite this most likely do to other travels and the explusion of the jews makes not reliable

 

[steve-b]

so he mentions grece asia minor ans syria but could bother to write rome or even italy beacuse if we use the argumet of the first visit it ocurs circa 42 AD around the time that peter was travaling and very in the time range of acts.

Re: dates

If the resurrection was in the yr 33, ( I say it that way because some argue it was the yr 30)

AND

you’re talking about the yr 42, … Since We know Peter was in Rome, and it is estimated he was martyred around the mid 60’s,…

So

From the yr 33 to, let’s say the yr 65, estimate of Peter’s death, we’re talking a span of 32 yrs. What is it you’re arguing about? The apostles didn’t carry around with them a diary. They didn’t give us a record of there whereabouts by date and by time, 24/7, 365.

AND

Re: time frame, there are those who argue over ( a 3 yr discrepancy) in the date of Jesus birth. Does that 3 yr discrepancy, really matter? Not in my view.

NOW

After 2000 yrs, you’re arguing over a time period, somewhere within 32yrs? Peter was in Rome. We know that. Jesus made Peter the leader and head of the Church. Rome was his last see. Therefore in succession from Peter, that is where the leader of the Church comes from.

 

[steve-b]

no its beacuse , there is no evidence for it , the sources contradict and its to ad hoc ( adds more suspositions to a hypotesis )

lets see how many supositions

1. claiduis expulsion has to be later down in the timeline if its earlier peter who specialized in jews has no motive to go there
2. peter traveled to the city one or more times during x perdiod of time,since
3. sources dont metion multiple visists beacuse X reasons
4. the nazare inscription predates the expulsion of the jews
5. luke dosent mention this beacuse he though syria , asia minor and greece where more important and not italy

6)clement of rome ignores it for x reason

1. paul dosent metion peter beacuse x reason , or that he was not in the city at the time , which implies more visits

yeah its ad hoc and a lot

1. there has to be another x explination as to why a source say that he lived 25 years there , despite this most likely do to other travels and the explusion of the jews makes not reliable

I’m trying my best to try and follow your points and understand you… but I have to say, to no avail.

 

[historyfan81]

ok ad hoc is part of a historical analysis , ad hoc is to add the suppositions to a hypotesis

the more suppositions the more ad hoc and the less belivable that hypotesis is

in the case of peter multiple visits its 8 extra supossitions and thefore is ad hoc

them being

1. we have to asume that expulsion of the jews by emperor clauduis takes place in the later date of the 41 to early 50s time range, other wise peter would have been kicked out or not gone there
2. there where multiple visits in this peroid
3. sources of the church fathers dont mention these visits beacuse reasons
4. the nazarene inscription who most likely is a responde to the debates of the resurection of jesus has to predate the expulsion fo the jews other wise if the expulsion took place prior to 44 AD peter visits prior to that dont make sense.
5. luke mentions in acts peter travels to syria , asia minor and greece but not rome or italy , despite the hypotesis telling us that around this time peter made his first visit .
6. clement of rome dosent comet about the multiple visits of peter
7. paul dosent mention peter for some reason .
8. if the source that say he lived there for 25 years , is true than peter lived during the expulsion of the jews by emperor claduis therefore , he was in hiding

so yes 8 assumptions its ad hoc

the other one there is only one visit and peter stayed to live in rome from late 50s till his death only has 2

1. the source of him living in the city for 25 years is wrong
2. peter took over the church of rome.

 

[steve-b]

ok ad hoc is part of a historical analysis , ad hoc is to add the suppositions to a hypotesis

the more suppositions the more ad hoc and the less belivable that hypotesis is

in the case of peter multiple visits its 8 extra supossitions and thefore is ad hoc

You don’t even quote correctly. Therefore your entire argument is your supposition and hypothesis

 

[historyfan81]

how so …?