Bible Discussion: Was Peter In Rome-Yes

Was Peter In Rome-Yes
Posts: 24

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Jesse Gomez
2003-11-27 04:16:06 EST
Was Peter in Rome?


There were several ancient witnesses who were qualified, by
study or personal experience, to speak on the whereabouts of
Peter after he was invested with power.

The first of these was St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was
martyred, probably in the Colosseum, in about 107.A.D. (See
Cayre, Manual of Patrology, trans. by Tournai; Howitt, 1936, I,
64). On his way from Syria to Rome he dispatched seven letters
(these letters were authenticated by Lightfoot in his work,
Apostolic Fathers- London; Macmillan, 1885, Vol 1, Pt.2,
pp 315-414) to various Christian communities and individuals.

In his letter to the Romans, he writes,

"Make petition, then, to the Lord for me, so that by these
means I may be made a sacrifice to God. I do not command
you, as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles; I am a
condemned man." (Ad Romanos, ch. 4, trans. by Walsh in
"Fathers of the Church" series, New York; Cima 1947)

The implication of this sentence is that Peter exercised
authority in Rome. The casualness with which St. Ignatius
speaks of Peter shows that he is not telling the Romans
something which they did not already know.

Another witness to the whereabouts of Peter was
St. Irenaeus, whose travel, study and acquaintance with
primitive tradition makes his testimony invaluable (Cf.
Tertullian Adv. Valentineanos ch.5). He writes:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews
in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in
Rome and establishing the foundations of the Church there."
(Adversus Haereses Bk. 111. 1.1)

The testimony of a third witness has a double probative force.
The use of the proper name of "Babylon," which occurs in the
First Epistle of Peter has caused much discussion. A
monograph would be required to exhaust the arguments which
have been produced to fix it's meaning. Suffice it here to produce
the testimony of Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 211) on this
point. It is said that,

"He also says that Peter mentions Mark in his first epistle
and that he composed it in Rome itself, referring to the city
metaphorically as Babylon, in words, "The elect one, Babylon,
greets you and Marcus my son." (H.E. Bk. II. 15.2)

The double force of this quotation lies in the fact that it contains
the testimony of both Peter and Clement.

The last of the ancient witnesses to be cited concerning Peter's
whereabouts is Eusebius, the historian of Caesarea in Palestine. He
was in a favorable position to test the truth of many statements
current in his day not only by his extensive travel but also by his
access to the famous library at Caesarea. He summarizes the
tradition in regard to Peter when he says:

"Close after him in the same reign of Claudius, the Providence of
the universe in it's goodness and love toward men, guided to Rome,
as against a gigantic pest on life, the great and mighty Peter, who
for his virtues was the leader of all the other Apostles." (H.E.
Bk. II 14. 16)

And speaking of the tradition concerning Mark, he says:

"Tradition says that he came to Rome in the reign of Claudius to
speak to Peter, who was at that time preaching to those there." (H.E.
Bk. II. 18. 1)

Peter's presence in Rome is also an archeological question upon
which findings in the catacombs of Rome have shed some light.
(Marucchi, Manual of Christian Archeology, trans, by Vecchierello;
Paterson; St. Anthony Guild Press, 1935, pg 24.)

On this theme the eminent archeologist, Orazio Marucchi writes:

"...these dates are not absolutely incontestable, but the principal
fact of Peter's coming to Rome is historical and capable of the most
rigorous and scientific proof." (Ibid., pg 22)

The testimony which has been reproduced above clearly shows that
after Peter had received a primacy of jurisdiction from Christ, he
eventually went to Rome. (For a detailed study of Peter's presence
in Rome, read T.B. Livius' St. Peter, Bishop of Rome , London; Burns,
Oates, 1888)

The testimony quoted here to prove it is important for several
reasons. It is the testimony of witnesses who lived in widely separated
parts of the Roman Empire, none of whom were natives of Rome.
(In ancient times, cities claimed famous men as their natives. Since
none of the above witnesses were natives of Rome, they cannot be
accused of falsely claiming Peter as one of their townsmen). It covers
the entire ante-Nicene period of Christianity with nothing in ancient
literature to contradict it.

Taken from: The Mark of Apostolicity, College Apologetics
(pp 151-153)
Authored by: Fr. Anthony Alexander, of Dept of Theology Carroll Univ.
Imprimatur: Samuel Cardinal Stritch, D.D. Archiep. Chicago
Published by: www.TanBooks.com
Copyright: Original 1954






Libertarius
2003-11-27 21:26:24 EST


Jesse Gomez wrote:

> Was Peter in Rome?
>
> There were several ancient witnesses who were qualified, by
> study or personal experience, to speak on the whereabouts of
> Peter after he was invested with power.
>
> The first of these was St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was
> martyred, probably in the Colosseum, in about 107.A.D. (See
> Cayre, Manual of Patrology, trans. by Tournai; Howitt, 1936, I,
> 64). On his way from Syria to Rome he dispatched seven letters
> (these letters were authenticated by Lightfoot in his work,
> Apostolic Fathers- London; Macmillan, 1885, Vol 1, Pt.2,
> pp 315-414) to various Christian communities and individuals.
>
> In his letter to the Romans, he writes,
>
> "Make petition, then, to the Lord for me, so that by these
> means I may be made a sacrifice to God. I do not command
> you, as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles; I am a
> condemned man." (Ad Romanos, ch. 4, trans. by Walsh in
> "Fathers of the Church" series, New York; Cima 1947)
>
> The implication of this sentence is that Peter exercised
> authority in Rome.

===>That is quite a jump in logic!
Actually, a non sequitur, if you forgive my Latin.
"I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did"
could be said by ANY Christian of ANY time
ANYWHERE! And it in no way means that Peter was
in Rome!
Also, re. Ignatius, the information is considered quite
unreliable.
"There are few more prominent figures
in early Church history than Ignatius,
and yet there are few about whom we
have less unquestioned knowledge.
He is known in history pre-eminently as a martyr.
The greater part of his life is buried in complete
obscurity. It is only as a man condemned to death
for his profession of Christianity that he comes out
into the light, and it is with him in this character
and with the martyrdom which followed that tradition
has busied itself. There are extant various Acts of the
Martyrdom of St. Ignatius which contain detailed accounts
of his death, but these belong to the fourth and subsequent
centuries, are quite contradictory in their statements,
and have been conclusively proved to be utterly unreliable
and to furnish no trustworthy information on the subject in
hand. From writers before Eusebius we have but four notices
of Ignatius (Polycarp’s Ep. ad Phil. 9, 13; Irenæus’ Adv. Hær.
V. 18. 3, quoted below; Origen, Prol. in Cant., and Hom. VI.
in Luc.). These furnish us with very little information."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxvi.html

> The casualness with which St. Ignatius
> speaks of Peter shows that he is not telling the Romans
> something which they did not already know.
>
> Another witness to the whereabouts of Peter was
> St. Irenaeus, whose travel, study and acquaintance with
> primitive tradition makes his testimony invaluable (Cf.
> Tertullian Adv. Valentineanos ch.5). He writes:
>
> "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews
> in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in
> Rome and establishing the foundations of the Church there."
> (Adversus Haereses Bk. 111. 1.1)

===>That makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
Was the author of "Matthew" in Rome???

> The testimony of a third witness has a double probative force.
> The use of the proper name of "Babylon," which occurs in the
> First Epistle of Peter has caused much discussion. A
> monograph would be required to exhaust the arguments which
> have been produced to fix it's meaning. Suffice it here to produce
> the testimony of Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 211) on this
> point. It is said that,
>
> "He also says that Peter mentions Mark in his first epistle
> and that he composed it in Rome itself, referring to the city
> metaphorically as Babylon, in words, "The elect one, Babylon,
> greets you and Marcus my son." (H.E. Bk. II. 15.2)

===>This does not necessarily mean that the AUTHOR is in
"Babylon". I could tell you that my sister from Buenos Aires
is sending you her greetings. That does not mean I am in
Buenos Aires.

> The double force of this quotation lies in the fact that it contains
> the testimony of both Peter and Clement.

===>Testimony to WHAT?
That Peter conveyed someone's greetings from Rome?

> The last of the ancient witnesses to be cited concerning Peter's
> whereabouts is Eusebius, the historian of Caesarea in Palestine. He
> was in a favorable position to test the truth of many statements
> current in his day not only by his extensive travel but also by his
> access to the famous library at Caesarea. He summarizes the
> tradition in regard to Peter when he says:
>
> "Close after him in the same reign of Claudius, the Providence of
> the universe in it's goodness and love toward men, guided to Rome,
> as against a gigantic pest on life, the great and mighty Peter, who
> for his virtues was the leader of all the other Apostles." (H.E.
> Bk. II 14. 16)

> And speaking of the tradition concerning Mark, he says:
>
> "Tradition says that he came to Rome in the reign of Claudius to
> speak to Peter, who was at that time preaching to those there." (H.E.
> Bk. II. 18. 1)

===>The same Eusebius presents a letter that Jesus wrote
to the King of Persia!

> Peter's presence in Rome is also an archeological question upon
> which findings in the catacombs of Rome have shed some light.
> (Marucchi, Manual of Christian Archeology, trans, by Vecchierello;
> Paterson; St. Anthony Guild Press, 1935, pg 24.)
>
> On this theme the eminent archeologist, Orazio Marucchi writes:
>
> "...these dates are not absolutely incontestable, but the principal
> fact of Peter's coming to Rome is historical and capable of the most
> rigorous and scientific proof." (Ibid., pg 22)

===>And who is Orazio Marucchi to be so "absolute" about this?

> The testimony which has been reproduced above clearly shows that
> after Peter had received a primacy of jurisdiction from Christ, he
> eventually went to Rome. (For a detailed study of Peter's presence
> in Rome, read T.B. Livius' St. Peter, Bishop of Rome , London; Burns,
> Oates, 1888)

===>Actually, the BEST tradition says that it was Jesus' true
brother James the Just who had the "primacy of jurisdiction".
Peter appears to have been one of his DELEGATES.

> The testimony quoted here to prove it is important for several
> reasons. It is the testimony of witnesses who lived in widely separated
> parts of the Roman Empire, none of whom were natives of Rome.
> (In ancient times, cities claimed famous men as their natives. Since
> none of the above witnesses were natives of Rome, they cannot be
> accused of falsely claiming Peter as one of their townsmen). It covers
> the entire ante-Nicene period of Christianity with nothing in ancient
> literature to contradict it.
>
> Taken from: The Mark of Apostolicity, College Apologetics
> (pp 151-153)
> Authored by: Fr. Anthony Alexander, of Dept of Theology Carroll Univ.
> Imprimatur: Samuel Cardinal Stritch, D.D. Archiep. Chicago
> Published by: www.TanBooks.com
> Copyright: Original 1954

===>Of course. The Church of Rome has always claimed that its
papal authority derives from Peter. -- L.



Hector
2003-11-27 23:11:53 EST
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:16:06 +0100, "Jesse Gomez"
<*z@sensewave.com> wrote:

>Was Peter in Rome?
>
>
> There were several ancient witnesses who were qualified, by
>study or personal experience, to speak on the whereabouts of
>Peter after he was invested with power.
>
> The first of these was St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was
>martyred, probably in the Colosseum, in about 107.A.D. (See
>Cayre, Manual of Patrology, trans. by Tournai; Howitt, 1936, I,
>64). On his way from Syria to Rome he dispatched seven letters
>(these letters were authenticated by Lightfoot in his work,
>Apostolic Fathers- London; Macmillan, 1885, Vol 1, Pt.2,
>pp 315-414) to various Christian communities and individuals.
>
>In his letter to the Romans, he writes,
>
> "Make petition, then, to the Lord for me, so that by these
>means I may be made a sacrifice to God. I do not command
>you, as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles; I am a
>condemned man." (Ad Romanos, ch. 4, trans. by Walsh in
>"Fathers of the Church" series, New York; Cima 1947)
>
> The implication of this sentence is that Peter exercised
>authority in Rome. The casualness with which St. Ignatius
>speaks of Peter shows that he is not telling the Romans
>something which they did not already know.
>
> Another witness to the whereabouts of Peter was
>St. Irenaeus, whose travel, study and acquaintance with
>primitive tradition makes his testimony invaluable (Cf.
>Tertullian Adv. Valentineanos ch.5). He writes:
>
> "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews
>in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in
>Rome and establishing the foundations of the Church there."
>(Adversus Haereses Bk. 111. 1.1)
>
> The testimony of a third witness has a double probative force.
>The use of the proper name of "Babylon," which occurs in the
>First Epistle of Peter has caused much discussion. A
>monograph would be required to exhaust the arguments which
>have been produced to fix it's meaning. Suffice it here to produce
>the testimony of Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 211) on this
>point. It is said that,
>
> "He also says that Peter mentions Mark in his first epistle
>and that he composed it in Rome itself, referring to the city
>metaphorically as Babylon, in words, "The elect one, Babylon,
>greets you and Marcus my son." (H.E. Bk. II. 15.2)
>
> The double force of this quotation lies in the fact that it contains
>the testimony of both Peter and Clement.
>
> The last of the ancient witnesses to be cited concerning Peter's
>whereabouts is Eusebius, the historian of Caesarea in Palestine. He
>was in a favorable position to test the truth of many statements
>current in his day not only by his extensive travel but also by his
>access to the famous library at Caesarea. He summarizes the
>tradition in regard to Peter when he says:
>
> "Close after him in the same reign of Claudius, the Providence of
>the universe in it's goodness and love toward men, guided to Rome,
>as against a gigantic pest on life, the great and mighty Peter, who
>for his virtues was the leader of all the other Apostles." (H.E.
>Bk. II 14. 16)
>
> And speaking of the tradition concerning Mark, he says:
>
> "Tradition says that he came to Rome in the reign of Claudius to
>speak to Peter, who was at that time preaching to those there." (H.E.
>Bk. II. 18. 1)
>
> Peter's presence in Rome is also an archeological question upon
>which findings in the catacombs of Rome have shed some light.
>(Marucchi, Manual of Christian Archeology, trans, by Vecchierello;
>Paterson; St. Anthony Guild Press, 1935, pg 24.)
>
> On this theme the eminent archeologist, Orazio Marucchi writes:
>
> "...these dates are not absolutely incontestable, but the principal
>fact of Peter's coming to Rome is historical and capable of the most
>rigorous and scientific proof." (Ibid., pg 22)
>
> The testimony which has been reproduced above clearly shows that
>after Peter had received a primacy of jurisdiction from Christ, he
>eventually went to Rome. (For a detailed study of Peter's presence
>in Rome, read T.B. Livius' St. Peter, Bishop of Rome , London; Burns,
>Oates, 1888)
>
> The testimony quoted here to prove it is important for several
>reasons. It is the testimony of witnesses who lived in widely separated
>parts of the Roman Empire, none of whom were natives of Rome.
>(In ancient times, cities claimed famous men as their natives. Since
>none of the above witnesses were natives of Rome, they cannot be
>accused of falsely claiming Peter as one of their townsmen). It covers
>the entire ante-Nicene period of Christianity with nothing in ancient
>literature to contradict it.
>
>Taken from: The Mark of Apostolicity, College Apologetics
> (pp 151-153)
>Authored by: Fr. Anthony Alexander, of Dept of Theology Carroll Univ.
>Imprimatur: Samuel Cardinal Stritch, D.D. Archiep. Chicago
>Published by: www.TanBooks.com
>Copyright: Original 1954
>

The following article might be of some interest:

"In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read,
finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St.
Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site
called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over
Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures show the story. The
first show an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical
characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary
and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the
name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were
found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which
was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary,
Martha and Lazarus were found the remains of St. Peter. They were
found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and
beautifully written in Aramaic, 'Simon Bar Jona'."
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

And this article shouldn't be ignored either:

"In 1951, after twelve years of silence from the excavators and
feverish speculation in the world outside, Ferrua and his colleagues
published their official report. It caused an immediate uproar.
Critics accused them of faulty and haphazard archaeology and the loss
of valuable artifacts. Evidence emerged of a running feud between the
four excavators and Monsignor Kaas, and of nocturnal meddling at the
work site. Kaas had even begun cutting the power to the dig when he
and the sampietrini were absent, to prevent the archaeologists from
making any unsupervised discoveries.

Given the inherent difficulty of the site, Ferrua and his colleagues
had in fact worked with remarkable objectivity: despite intense
pressure from the Vatican community, they reported no trace of Peter
not one inscription that named him, not even amid all the graffiti on
his supposed tomb. Strangest of all, they discovered that the earth
directly beneath the aedicula was empty."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/mueller.htm

Respectfully,
Hector

Roger Pearse
2003-11-28 04:52:40 EST
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FC6B250.1A33947E@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
> Jesse Gomez wrote:
>
> > Was Peter in Rome?
> >
> > There were several ancient witnesses who were qualified, by
> > study or personal experience, to speak on the whereabouts of
> > Peter after he was invested with power.
[etc]

Various good points documented.

> > The first of these was St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was
> > martyred, probably in the Colosseum, in about 107.A.D. (See
> > Cayre, Manual of Patrology, trans. by Tournai; Howitt, 1936, I,
> > 64). On his way from Syria to Rome he dispatched seven letters
> > (these letters were authenticated by Lightfoot in his work,
> > Apostolic Fathers- London; Macmillan, 1885, Vol 1, Pt.2,
> > pp 315-414) to various Christian communities and individuals.
> >
> > In his letter to the Romans, he writes,
> >
> > "Make petition, then, to the Lord for me, so that by these
> > means I may be made a sacrifice to God. I do not command
> > you, as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles; I am a
> > condemned man." (Ad Romanos, ch. 4, trans. by Walsh in
> > "Fathers of the Church" series, New York; Cima 1947)
> >
> > The implication of this sentence is that Peter exercised
> > authority in Rome.
>
> ===>That is quite a jump in logic!
> Actually, a non sequitur, if you forgive my Latin.
> "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did"
> could be said by ANY Christian of ANY time
> ANYWHERE! And it in no way means that Peter was
> in Rome!

I think the implication of 'command' is oral.

> Also, re. Ignatius, the information is considered quite
> unreliable.
> "There are few more prominent figures
> in early Church history than Ignatius,
> and yet there are few about whom we
> have less unquestioned knowledge.
> He is known in history pre-eminently as a martyr.
> The greater part of his life is buried in complete
> obscurity. It is only as a man condemned to death
> for his profession of Christianity that he comes out
> into the light, and it is with him in this character
> and with the martyrdom which followed that tradition
> has busied itself. There are extant various Acts of the
> Martyrdom of St. Ignatius which contain detailed accounts
> of his death, but these belong to the fourth and subsequent
> centuries, are quite contradictory in their statements,
> and have been conclusively proved to be utterly unreliable
> and to furnish no trustworthy information on the subject in
> hand. From writers before Eusebius we have but four notices
> of Ignatius (Polycarp?s Ep. ad Phil. 9, 13; Irenæus? Adv. Hær.
> V. 18. 3, quoted below; Origen, Prol. in Cant., and Hom. VI.
> in Luc.). These furnish us with very little information."
> http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxvi.html

There seems to be nothing in this which is unreliable. The fourth
century martyrologies have nothing to do with us.

> > The last of the ancient witnesses to be cited concerning Peter's
> > whereabouts is Eusebius, the historian of Caesarea in Palestine. He
> > was in a favorable position to test the truth of many statements
> > current in his day not only by his extensive travel but also by his
> > access to the famous library at Caesarea. He summarizes the
> > tradition in regard to Peter when he says:
> >
> > "Close after him in the same reign of Claudius, the Providence of
> > the universe in it's goodness and love toward men, guided to Rome,
> > as against a gigantic pest on life, the great and mighty Peter, who
> > for his virtues was the leader of all the other Apostles." (H.E.
> > Bk. II 14. 16)
>
> > And speaking of the tradition concerning Mark, he says:
> >
> > "Tradition says that he came to Rome in the reign of Claudius to
> > speak to Peter, who was at that time preaching to those there." (H.E.
> > Bk. II. 18. 1)
>
> ===>The same Eusebius presents a letter that Jesus wrote
> to the King of Persia!

May I draw a personal analogy? You say this, but in fact it was
written to the Abgar, King of *Edessa*, not Persia. Now, does this
mistake on your part justify us in presuming nothing you say is of
value? Surely that would be absurd. The argument, if it proves
anything, proves far too much.

Eusebius records whatever he can find. He obtained that letter from
the archives in Edessa and had it translated from Syriac -- a
substantial piece of research, for ancient times. But he expresses no
opinion as to its authenticity -- which we doubt on a priori grounds
rather than from any specific knowledge.

I think the letter to Abgar is often used as an excuse online. I have
seen the dimmer sort of atheist use the same kind of excuse to ignore
any ancient testimony. But, of course, strictly this is just
obscurantism. So I wouldn't feel comfortable with this approach,
myself.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

386sx
2003-11-28 07:48:50 EST
Roger Pearse writes:

> Eusebius records whatever he can find. He obtained that letter from the
> archives in Edessa and had it translated from Syriac -- a substantial
> piece of research, for ancient times. But he expresses no opinion as to
> its authenticity --

For instance the King Abgarus, who ruled with great glory the nations
beyond the Euphrates, being afflicted with a terrible disease which it
was beyond the power of human skill to cure, when he heard of the name
of Jesus, and of his miracles, which were attested by all with one
accord sent a message to him by a courier and begged him to heal his
disease.

But he did not at that time comply with his request; yet he deemed him
worthy of a personal letter in which he said that he would send one of
his disciples to cure his disease, and at the same time promised
salvation to himself and all his house.

Does that sound like an expression of no opinion as to its authenticity?

> which we doubt on a priori grounds rather than from any specific
> knowledge.
>
> I think the letter to Abgar is often used as an excuse online. I have
> seen the dimmer sort of atheist use the same kind of excuse to ignore any
> ancient testimony. But, of course, strictly this is just obscurantism.
> So I wouldn't feel comfortable with this approach, myself.

What do you think about this approach of Eusebius:

Plato: "But even if the case were not such as our argument has now
proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use,
could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their
good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial
than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just,
not by compulsion but willingly?

"Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however,
not easy to persuade men of it."

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such
passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or
angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are
adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.

How about this one of Ben Franklin:

I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that Belief has the
good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more
respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that
the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his
Government of the World with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure.

--
"If an opponent rebuts a claim of irrelevance, the other party must reply to
the opponent's rebuttal of the claim." -- J.F. Till

386sx
2003-11-28 14:20:24 EST
386sx writes:

> Roger Pearse writes:
>
>> Eusebius records whatever he can find. He obtained that letter from the
>> archives in Edessa and had it translated from Syriac -- a substantial
>> piece of research, for ancient times. But he expresses no opinion as to
>> its authenticity --
>
> For instance the King Abgarus, who ruled with great glory the nations
> beyond the Euphrates, being afflicted with a terrible disease which it
> was beyond the power of human skill to cure, when he heard of the name
> of Jesus, and of his miracles, which were attested by all with one
> accord sent a message to him by a courier and begged him to heal his
> disease.
>
> But he did not at that time comply with his request; yet he deemed him
> worthy of a personal letter in which he said that he would send one of
> his disciples to cure his disease, and at the same time promised
> salvation to himself and all his house.
>
> Does that sound like an expression of no opinion as to its authenticity?

No, not really, Mr. 386.

>> which we doubt on a priori grounds rather than from any specific
>> knowledge.
>>
>> I think the letter to Abgar is often used as an excuse online. I have
>> seen the dimmer sort of atheist use the same kind of excuse to ignore any
>> ancient testimony. But, of course, strictly this is just obscurantism.
>> So I wouldn't feel comfortable with this approach, myself.
>
> What do you think about this approach of Eusebius:
>
> Plato: "But even if the case were not such as our argument has now
> proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use,
> could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their
> good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial
> than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just,
> not by compulsion but willingly?
>
> "Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however,
> not easy to persuade men of it."
>
> Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such
> passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or
> angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are
> adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.

Never mind, Mr. Pearse. I found some pretty good stuff here,
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/eusebius_the_liar.htm from a guy
who spells his name nearly, if not exactly, the same as yourself. Seems
like a pretty smart fellow!

--
"If an opponent rebuts a claim of irrelevance, the other party must reply to
the opponent's rebuttal of the claim." -- J.F. Till

Libertarius
2003-11-28 14:53:51 EST


Roger Pearse wrote:

> Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FC6B250.1A33947E@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
>

[SNIPALOT]

>
> >
> > ===>The same Eusebius presents a letter that Jesus wrote
> > to the King of Persia!
>
> May I draw a personal analogy? You say this, but in fact it was
> written to the Abgar, King of *Edessa*, not Persia.

===>FOR THE RECORD: You are right. My mistake.
The story says Abgar got some disease WHILE in Persia.
But he was king of Edessa.
(But I was not writing a history book).

> Now, does this
> mistake on your part justify us in presuming nothing you say is of
> value?

===>I did not present it as a historical detail.
I only illustrated that not everything in Eusebius is true
history. The presence of Peter in Rome may or may not be
a fact, and Eusebius saying so does not prove it. -- L.


Roger Pearse
2003-11-28 18:20:44 EST
386sx <386sx@email.com> wrote in message news:<m24qwobqvhXx386xX.fsf@jms.localhost.localnet>...
> Roger Pearse writes:
>
> > Eusebius records whatever he can find. He obtained that letter from the
> > archives in Edessa and had it translated from Syriac -- a substantial
> > piece of research, for ancient times. But he expresses no opinion as to
> > its authenticity --
>
> For instance the King Abgarus, who ruled with great glory the nations
> beyond the Euphrates, being afflicted with a terrible disease which it
> was beyond the power of human skill to cure, when he heard of the name
> of Jesus, and of his miracles, which were attested by all with one
> accord sent a message to him by a courier and begged him to heal his
> disease.
>
> But he did not at that time comply with his request; yet he deemed him
> worthy of a personal letter in which he said that he would send one of
> his disciples to cure his disease, and at the same time promised
> salvation to himself and all his house.
>
> Does that sound like an expression of no opinion as to its authenticity?

That's how it sounds to me. The passage is the introduction to the
find. If it were authentic, it would have to be scriptural. Eusebius
doesn't even mention the possibility.

Even in our day, a scholar printing a document for the first time is
allowed to propose that it is authentic, you know.

Incidentally, why don't you reference any of your quotes? It makes it
difficult to check, and makes them look suspect. I happen to know the
Eusebius refs -- this one is the HE, I.13. Others may not.

> > which we doubt on a priori grounds rather than from any specific
> > knowledge.
> >
> > I think the letter to Abgar is often used as an excuse online. I have
> > seen the dimmer sort of atheist use the same kind of excuse to ignore any
> > ancient testimony. But, of course, strictly this is just obscurantism.
> > So I wouldn't feel comfortable with this approach, myself.
>
> What do you think about this approach of Eusebius:
>
> Plato: "But even if the case were not such as our argument has now
> proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use,
> could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their
> good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial
> than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just,
> not by compulsion but willingly?
>
> "Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however,
> not easy to persuade men of it."
>
> Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such
> passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or
> angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are
> adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.

I think this passage from the Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31 is
frequently cited in a fraudulent sense, by omission of the context.
Note that the word mistranslated 'falsehood' is actually 'pseudos',
and is instead rendered as 'fiction' by the Loeb translators of this
passage of Plato.

The subject under discussion in book 12 is quotes about education,
particularly with reference to educational fiction such as Homer.
Eusebius is concerned to draw parallels with the best in paganism.
Plato has been talking about this. He then wanders into a question of
whether it is OK to tell people that it is in their own best interests
to act for the good of others. Eusebius ignores all of this, and all
of what follows, in order to comment only on the statement by Clinias,
"Truth...".

One could argue that this is not the point that Plato is making -- but
in so huge and miscellaneous a work, written at speed in a culture
less careful than our own, such things happen.

The alternative -- that Eusebius thinks the Hebrew Scriptures are
'falsehoods' -- would certainly require better evidence than one
ambiguous statement. What he plainly thinks is that they contain
words not literally true, such as God sleeping -- the parable idea --,
in order to get simple truths across to the thick.

May I ask where you got this from? (Since I was the person who
scanned the English translation of the Praeparatio Evangelica myself,
I'm curious).

Abuse of Eusebius dates back to Gibbon, whose sincerity may be judged
from the manner in which he misrepresented Eusebius and then guarded
himself in a footnote he knew few would read. But it owes its vogue,
not to his religious hate but to political events in the 1850's.
Anti-Austrian and Russian agitation attacked the ideological basis of
these empires by debunking Constantine. To do this, abusing Eusebius
was necessary. However I do not think that overthrowing the Hapsburg
emperor is exactly our concern; and the spiteful attempts to libel the
integrity of Eusebius are dismissed as worthless by more recent
writers, such as Lightfoot ca. 1900, and Cameron & Hall in 1999.

> How about this one of Ben Franklin:
>
> I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that Belief has the
> good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more
> respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that
> the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his
> Government of the World with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure.

I'm afraid I have no idea why this person is mentioned, whoever he may
be, or why it is relevant to the question of whether Peter was in
Rome. The passage reads like some well-fed person's excuses for some
form of immorality; but as I say, it seems irrelevant to me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Shaqad
2003-11-28 20:02:59 EST
1st Peter 5:13
"Babylon was the Christian nickname for Rome."(-as was any sinfull city.)
Revelation 2:12 tells us that Satan has a seat in a Church.
I consider Rev. 2-12 a Letter to the Vatican,you know,Peters Church...

Shaqad

386sx
2003-11-28 23:56:44 EST
Roger Pearse writes:

> 386sx wrote:

[...]

> Incidentally, why don't you reference any of your quotes? It makes it
> difficult to check, and makes them look suspect.

Sorry. I'll do that right now. (Please pardon the snipping and pasting.)

>> For instance the King Abgarus, who ruled with great glory the nations
>> beyond the Euphrates, being afflicted with a terrible disease which
>> it was beyond the power of human skill to cure, when he heard of the
>> name of Jesus, and of his miracles, which were attested by all with
>> one accord sent a message to him by a courier and begged him to heal
>> his disease.
>>
>> But he did not at that time comply with his request; yet he deemed
>> him worthy of a personal letter in which he said that he would send
>> one of his disciples to cure his disease, and at the same time
>> promised salvation to himself and all his house.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-06.htm#P892_442449

[...]

>> Plato: "But even if the case were not such as our argument has now
>> proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use,
>> could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for
>> their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more
>> beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything
>> that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?
>>
>> "Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems,
>> however, not easy to persuade men of it."
>>
>> Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such
>> passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or
>> angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are
>> adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.

> May I ask where you got this from? (Since I was the person who scanned
> the English translation of the Praeparatio Evangelica myself, I'm
> curious).

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_12_book12.htm

Thanks!

Thanks for this one, too:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/eusebius_the_liar.htm

And this:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/pe_data.htm

[...]

>> I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that Belief has
>> the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines
>> more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive,
>> that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers
>> in his Government of the World with any peculiar Marks of his
>> Displeasure.
>
> I'm afraid I have no idea why this person is mentioned, whoever he may be,
> or why it is relevant to the question of whether Peter was in Rome. The
> passage reads like some well-fed person's excuses for some form of
> immorality;

Right. (lol.)

http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklin-stiles.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22belief+has+the+good+consequence%22&filter=0

> but as I say, it seems irrelevant to me.

Right again.

--
"If an opponent rebuts a claim of irrelevance, the other party must reply to
the opponent's rebuttal of the claim." -- J.F. Till
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron