The history of belief in Peterine primacy

[LittleLes]

Continuing with Corunum Catholic Apologetic Web page "Peter's Presence in Rome," We have Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Romans, chapter 4, (c 110 A.D.)

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you."

The argument here seems to be that Peter and Paul issued commandments, and, since the letter was written to the Romans, Peter and Paul had to have been in Rome to issue these "commandments."

What's the unsupported assumption here? "Commandments" or commands were issued to all the communities especially those of the Gentiles (see Act 15 in which Antioch is mentioned). There is no claim in Ignatious that Peter or Paul, or James, or any other issuing church leaders specifically went to Rome to do so. That's what "epistles"were invented for.

But there is yet another problem here. That of possible interpolation, a common practice with early Christian writings. As even the Catholic Encyclopedia says of Ignatius' "long recession" or collection of letters, the oldest surviving, "It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal view of its author."

So this reference is uncertain at best.

Little Les

[jasJis]

Troll vomit.

[LittleLes]

Hi JasJis,

Is "troll vomit" your only considered response to the evidence? But I guess if you have no counter-point, you just have to go with what you have.

LittleLes, aka The Troll

Edited March 10, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

Are you going to respond to my posts directly?

Cam

[Cam42]

[quote]What's the unsupported assumption here? "Commandments" or commands were issued to all the communities especially those of the Gentiles (see Act 15 in which Antioch is mentioned). There is no claim in Ignatious that Peter or Paul, or James, or any other issuing church leaders specifically went to Rome to do so. That's what "epistles"were invented for.[/quote]

[quote]From Irenaeus in the late second century until modern times, Christian tradition regarded Peter the apostle as author of this document. Since he was martyred at Rome during the persecution of Nero between A.D. 64 and 67, it was supposed that the letter was written from Rome shortly before his death. This is supported by its reference to "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13), a code name for Rome in the early church. (NAB; USCCB)[/quote]

Here is an interesting thought though. The Papacy is not contingent on Rome. It is clear that Rome is the third See created. Jerusalem is the First, Antioch is the Second and Rome the Third. The Papacy is contingent on Peter and the fact that Christ instituted it.

If Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established by Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome. There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yet have its connection to Rome.

Admittedly, the Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. Just as the New Testament never says, “Peter then went to Rome,” it never says, “Peter did not go to Rome.” In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension.

William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, 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.”

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 180), 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. That pesky Irenaues sticks his head into this thread again.

[quote]"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. 180]).

"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). (Irenaeus, Against Heresies (A.D. 180)[/quote]

The historical evidence reveals that this assertion is untenable. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Further, the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero.

Now, I know that some of this is repetative, but since you refuse to answer it, I post it again.

Will you please address my posts directly?

Cam

Edited March 10, 2005 by Cam42

[thirsty-for-orthodoxy]

Please respond to the arguments brought up by the opposition, with clear and conclusive proofs. Especially the arguments brought up by Cam.:argue: Until then I agree that no more posts should be made.

God bless you all,

Kenny B. :tiphat:

[LittleLes]

Hi CAM 42

I believe that I've answered this question on at least two occassions.

(1) Assuming that 1 Peter was actually written by St. Peter, it would have to have been written before his death in 64 A.D.

(2) The Babylon "code word" first appears in Revelation which was written about 95 A.D. Thus Peter would have missed it by 31 years.

(3) Bablylon on the Euphrates was a large flourishing Jewish colony from the time of the Babylonian captivity. It survived the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D and became the center of Jewsih culture after that time. If Peter claimed he was writing from Babylon, that's where the letter would be from. (Before you demand a reference [which I've given in the past] try "search" for "Jews of Babylon."

(4) And again you are beginning to shotgun, so I cease responding and I'll continue to analyze each claimed writing progressively as I have been. Also please note that the writings you are attempting to use were written more than 100 years after the fact. This may be the way church traditions are created, but not history.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]I believe that I've answered this question on at least two occassions.[/quote]

Dude, I haven't asked you a question, except that you answer me.

[quote]Assuming that 1 Peter was actually written by St. Peter, it would have to have been written before his death in 64 A.D.[/quote]

Where and I want documentation to support your statement.

[quote]The Babylon "code word" first appears in Revelation which was written about 95 A.D. Thus Peter would have missed it by 31 years.[/quote]

Doucmentation? I disagree. Peter's letter precedes this, assumption.

[quote]Bablylon on the Euphrates was a large flourishing Jewish colony from the time of the Babylonian captivity.[/quote]

So, what is your point? Babylon was a code word. You are contradicting yourself now. Documentation and proof.

[quote](Before you demand a reference [which I've given in the past] try "search" for "Jews of Babylon."[/quote]

Ummm....I don't like the internet????? I don't need the internet to follow your fallacious logic. I did and got:

[quote]1.  Audio Tapes
... 1457 - New Covenant Israel (2) ____ 1463 - New Covenant Israel (3) ____ 1464 - The Jews, Babylon, & Ezekiel 38 ____ 1465 - A Need For Leadership (1) ____ 1466 - A Need For Leadership (2) ____ 1467 - A ...
www.amprom.org/AUDIOT.htm Cached page

2.  www.samlink.com/~mus_ldj/Additional_Colors.htm
... the king had set up. Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews. Babylon: Isaiah 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath ...
samlink.com/~mus_ldj/Additional_Colors.htm Cached page

3.  The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulub: section 7
... Allah ibn Abi Bakr Qazvini CHAPTER V The chief cities of Arabian `Iraq. Anbar, and the captive Jews. Babylon. Basrah, its foundation. The Great Mosque: miracle of its Minaret. Com­panions buried here ...
erga.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=16301012&ct=7 Cached page

4.  The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulub
... of Baghdad CHAPTER V pp. 44-53  The chief cities of Arabian `Iraq. Anbar, and the captive Jews. Babylon. Basrah, its foundation. The Great Mosque: miracle of its Minaret. Com­panions buried here. The ...
erga.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=16301012&ct=0 Cached page
Show more results from "erga.packhum.org".

5.  Satan's Great Deception
... In Bible Light, p. 55). Now notice carefully, for this is very important! "To the later Jews, Babylon was the complete embodiment of the enmity of the heathen world against the kingdom of God, and ...
ultimatechurcharchive.cogcw.org/SGD.HTM Cached page [/quote]

1. I am not interested in buying tapes
2. I really don't care about colors
3. dead link
4. previous link
5. There is no merit in this link, it is full of erroneous "bible-ology."

[quote]And again you are beginning to shotgun, so I cease responding and I'll continue to analyze each claimed writing progressively as I have been. Also please note that the writings you are attempting to use were written more than 100 years after the fact. This may be the way church traditions are created, but not history.[/quote]

No, I am being very consistent. I want you to respond to me. You just have a lot of work ahead of you PRECISELY because you refused to do so earlier.

Address my points. They are all related to the Petrine primacy. There is no shotgunning. It is all on one point. Don't mislead....it is not becoming.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Hi CAM.

(1) You want documentation that Peter didn't write 1 Peter after his death? Is that it?

(2) The Introduction to Revelation in the New American Bible gives the approximate date of its writing. Are you claiming that it was written before the persecution it concerns? And yes, 1 Peter, if written while he was still alive and not already dead would precede this.

(3) That Babylon was a code word is not my assertion to defend.

(4) I've given the reference before. I'm sorry if you don't know how to use the search function. Maybe your librarian can help you or direct you to an encyclopedia. But for the rest of us (using Google), The Jews of Babylon brings up the topic in a "crash course in Jewish history."

And finally wasn't it Eric Berne who, in writing "The Games People Play" advised that when one encounter someone obviously playing games, refuse to play. For one thing they are probably far more experienced at game playing. .So while I may read your posts, I refuse to play your games.

But if I find that Peter did indeed write 1 Peter himself after his death, I promise to let you know.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]You want documentation that Peter didn't write 1 Peter after his death? Is that it?[/quote]

I just want you to prove it....documentation....your loaded questions don't count.

[quote]The Introduction to Revelation in the New American Bible gives the approximate date of its writing. Are you claiming that it was written before the persecution it concerns? And yes, 1 Peter, if written while he was still alive and not already dead would precede this.[/quote]

You do know that these introductions are not definitive don't you? But where is this date that you assert? Do you mean:
[quote]The date of the book in its present form is probably near the end of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), a fierce persecutor of the Christians.[/quote]

That is not a definitive statement. There is no inference that it is, execpt by you. I want definitive proof that your assumption has merit.

[quote]That Babylon was a code word is not my assertion to defend.[/quote]

When you attack it within the context that you did, it does become your assertion to defend, so defend it.

[quote]I've given the reference before. I'm sorry if you don't know how to use the search function. Maybe your librarian can help you or direct you to an encyclopedia. But for the rest of us (using Google), The Jews of Babylon brings up the topic in a "crash course in Jewish history."[/quote]

Oh, I see, I used MSN search. That is my search engine of choice. Yes, I am pro-choice in this matter. However, it doesn't really matter, you still have used no documentation. There is no reference. If you think there is, repost it. Or give the date as to when you did post it.

[quote]So while I may read your posts, I refuse to play your games.[/quote]

I am playing no games....I am simply asking you to respond to my posts. My sarcasm is something else....however, when exactly are you going to respond to my points?

[quote]But if I find that Peter did indeed write 1 Peter himself after his death, I promise to let you know.[/quote]

Introduction to 1 Peter:
[quote]From Irenaeus in the late second century until modern times, Christian tradition regarded [b]Peter the apostle as author of this document.[/b] Since he was martyred at Rome during the persecution of Nero between A.D. 64 and 67, it was supposed that the letter was written from Rome shortly before his death. This is supported by its reference to "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13), a code name for Rome in the early church.....[b]Hence there is nothing in the document incompatible with Petrine authorship in the 60s.[/b] (Introduction, NAB; USCCB)[/quote]

You are not accomplishing anything. However, if you address my points, perhaps you could.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Reviewing the writings produced over a hundred years after the events they describe, we have to be on guard for the introduction of legend, tradition, and spurious writings.

At this point some apologetic "Peter in Rome" lists include Clement's Epistle to James as proof that Peter was in Rome. However, Clement to James is one of the many False Decretals (aka pseudoisodorian Decretals) produced around the 8th century to support papal authority.

Fortunately, "Corunum" omits James, but does limit its Dionysius of Corinth (about 178 A.D.) to just one sentence:

"You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth."

A more complete translation is:

"You have thus by such an admonition (1) bound together the planting (2) of the Romans and Corinthians that came from Peter and Paul. For both of them indeed planted into our Corinth, likewise taught us. And, likewise, having taught into Italy, they suffered martyrdom at the same time."

(1) admonition = a letter fro Bishop Sorter of Rome
(2) planting = implantation of the word of God
(3) Italy - not Rome. (Question: Since the writer knows Paul was at Rome, why does he limit this phrase to Italy, unless he is aware that Peter wasn't also in Rome with Paul. Actually, this might be reading too much into the statement).

Note: It should be pointed out that the Roman Christian community predates any visit by Paul or allegedly Peter. See Acts on this point.

Summary: The work of Peter and Paul spread the same teachings on Christianity among the Corinthians and the Romans. But, again, there is nothing about Peter being bishop of Rome or even being in Rome.

Sorry for the long post.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]Summary: The work of Peter and Paul spread the same teachings on Christianity among the Corinthians and the Romans. But, again, there is nothing about Peter being bishop of Rome or even being in Rome.[/quote]

I would like irrefutable documentation to back that claim. I have given proofs as to Peter being in Rome, you haven't responded, or refuted the Catholic position.

[quote]It should be pointed out that the Roman Christian community predates any visit by Paul or allegedly Peter.[/quote]

Allegedly? Are you saying that it is possible that Peter was in Rome? I think that is what you are saying.

Again, you need proof. You need to quote and cite your proofs. Vague allusions to documents don't allow for proof. It is at best speculation and at worst, calumny against the Church. Unless of course you can give irrefutable proof as to the truth of your malicious claim.

Cam

[Cam42]

[quote]Reviewing the writings produced over a hundred years after the events they describe, we have to be on guard for the introduction of legend, tradition, and spurious writings.[/quote]

I can assume that you hold this position on anything topic. You are so vehement about it. The most definitive works chronicling the life of George Washington were written in the early to mid 20th century.

A non-exhaustive list would include:

Abbott, W. W., and Twohig, D., eds., The Papers of George Washington (1990- )
Alden, John R., George Washington: A Biography (1984)
Callahan, North, Thanks, Mr. President: The Trail-Blazing Second Term of George Washington (1992)
Cunliffe, Marcus, George Washington: Man and Monument (1958)
Davis, Burke, George Washington and the American Revolution (1975)
Dupuy, Trevor N., The Military Life of George Washington (1969)
Flexner, James T., George Washington, 4 vols. (1965-72; repr. 1982)
Freeman, Douglas S., George Washington, 7 vols. (1949-57; repr. 1975)
Jones, R. F., George Washington, rev. ed. (1986)
Knollenberg, Bernhard, George Washington: The Virginia Period, 1732-1775 (1964) and Washington and the Revolution (1940; repr. 1968)
Lewis, Thomas A., For King and Country: The Maturing of George Washington, 1748-1760 (1993)
McDonald, Forrest, The Presidency of George Washington (1974)
Nettels, Curtis P., George Washington and American Independence (1951; repr. 1977); Schwartz, Barry, George Washington (1987)
Smith, Richard Norton, Patriarch: George Washington and the New American Nation (1993)

Arguably the most definitive work on the life of Geo. Washington was by Douglas Freeman. It was published first in 1949. This would invalidate it according to you, precisely because it was published 152 years after his death. You are ubsurd.

Cam

N.B. This allegory was given to illustrate that definitive works can be produced in a reasonable timeframe, after one's death. To say that 100 years after one's death is too long a timeframe is incredibly naive and close minded.

[thirsty-for-orthodoxy]

[quote]A more complete translation is:

"You have thus by such an admonition (1) bound together the planting (2) of the Romans and Corinthians that came from Peter and Paul. For both of them indeed planted into our Corinth, likewise taught us. And, likewise, having taught into Italy, they suffered martyrdom at the same time."[/quote]

I see that you are again trying to disguise your opinion of a reading as a "more accurate translation." Unless you have the original statement right in front of you in its original language and you are actually translating it into english, it is not a translation Please don't try this ploy again. It has never worked before, nor shall it start working in the future.

God bless all of you,

Kenny B.

[Cam42]

[quote]Unless you have the original statement right in front of you in its original language and you are actually translating it into english, it is not a translation....[/quote]

Ego eram admiratio idem eadem idem res.

Cam