The Pope: A Discussion of the Roman Primacy

Just a word or two on the matter of Peter's tenure at Rome.

I could not hope to keep up with the archaeological and textual evidence you guys are bringing to bear in the conversation over whether or not Peter was ever actually at Rome. I can, however, attempt to present the authentic tradition of the Church regarding this matter.

Edited by Akolouthos - 15-Sep-2007 at 15:19

Originally posted by Menumorut The so-called Petrine heritage was the primary basis of Rome bishops' claim for their supremacy. You can read in the passage of Irenaeus I gived.

Edited by Akolouthos - 15-Sep-2007 at 15:25

Originally posted by Menumorut Is not about the absence of reference of Clement about Peter. Is about how Clement speaks about Peter, in comparison with how he speaks about Paul. You say that I am uselessly repeating points but I see is necessary:

I understood your point.  My point is that just because Clemente didn�t talk about it here, it doesn�t mean that he didn�t know about it or talked about it in another instance.  The lack of mentioning is certainly probative, but not conclusive.  There are many reasons that a person would refer to someone but not go into the same great detail as he would another person, and �not knowing� is only one possible reason, not the only possible reason.  For example, one possibility is that Clemente could have felt the greater need to describe Paul if the audience are already more familiar with Peter than with Paul.

The Council at Jerusalem is in the 15th chapter of Acts and you speak about what is in the 10th chapter. It was a solemn decision. It is considered the first Council of the Church, even not a general (Ecumenic) council.

 

Some ecclesial decisions are made for specific circumstances.  The separate missions to Gentiles and Jews appear to be more of a organizational arrangement, a division of tasks.  The division doesn�t appear to be an inflexible dogma � after all, it concerns the arrangement of the works of the apostles, which appears to be different from unchangeable dogma of faith.  Alternatively, as I noted, though this is a weaker point, there were Jews in Rome.  Peter could have evangelized to them.

 

The decisions of the Councils were and are the laws of the Church.

 

The laws of the Church, unlike the Law of Moses and the Gospel, are not said to be unchangeable.

You are very right and the favorite disciple of Jesus was John, not Peter.

 

What you said here doesn't really address my point.  The point is not whether Peter was the favorite, but why Jesus spoke to him as the representative of the other apostles.  What makes you think that Jesus chose Peter as the representative of the apostles based on age? 

 

What you said here still doesn't address my point.  What makes you think that he was treated specially because of his age?  Furthermore, even if he was the oldest, his being the oldest doesn�t tell us exactly how old he actually was.

I can't find again that reference (maybe I have read on another website) but look a paragraph from this webpage: The Vatican and others have calculated through all existing evidence that Peter lived to be around 80 and 82 years, and that he died around the years of 62 or 64 A.D. Go to the third paragraph starting from the end of the webpage.

 

I hope you can discuss these evidence.  Since I don�t really believe in Catholicism, I�m not going to accept something as true simply because the Vatican and others have said so.

I didn't sayed that the Church hasn't structures but that the doctrine about Church-institution was not yet born in the conscience of the Christians.

 

You have not shown evidence that church-institution was not yet born in the consciousness of the Christians.  Further, the New Testament already discusses some institutional structures of the early church, like ranks of the servants, overseers, and elders.

You sayed that "planted" and "organized" can both refer to the organizing, not to the apparition of the first believers in that town. Your assertion is wrong because is not logical that a structure can first be implemented and than organized. If is not organized, is not a structure.

 

You misread me.  I did not say that �planting� and �organizing� can both refer to �organizing�.  In fact, what I said was the opposite: that �planting� and �watering� can both be seen as a part of �planting,� depending on whether one uses the word �planting� in a strict sense or in a broad sense.  In other words, �planting� can be seen, in a stricter sense, as the initial beginning, but can also be seen, in a broader sense, as including both the initial beginning and the early stages of organizing.  In a broad sense, one can say that the initial founder as well as other early organizers together participated in �planting.�  These words such as �planting� and �watering� are simply metaphorical, there are not definite, restrictive ways to use them.

Also, Irenaeus speaking about two etaps of the proces of founding the eclesial system in Roma's church would necesitate an elaborate doctrine,about the Church as institution, which missed at the time.

 

We have seen such ranks and positions already in the New Testament.  Whether you call the New Testament �elaborate doctrine,� it is very authoritative to the Christians.  Even if you don�t consider the New Testament �elaborate doctrine,� there is no need for elaboration � any simple, non-elaborate institutionalized church structure is different from a collective of believers.

Regarding your discussion about archeology:

Interesting discussion about archeology!  Since I'm not a student of archeology myself, I don't feel qualified to discuss my opinions on archeology.  I will leave it to you and the archeologists who believe that Peter went to Rome to debate which side has stronger evidence.  Looking at the archeological findings alone: there appear to be evidence on both sides of the argument, so I don�t think I would draw my own conclusion about the archeological factual findings specifically.  In any event, I again suggest that you read "The Bones of St. Peter", written by John Evangelist Walsh, which presents the archeological evidence supporting Peter's presence and martyrdom in Rome.

My interest was only to point out the illogical and invalid inferences that you have made thus far about the evidence you have presented, and so far, you have made quite a lot of illogical and invalid inferences.  While I can't comment on the archeological findings, I will continue to point out the illogical and invalid inferences made by you and others.  And so far as I'm capable, I would even point out illogical and invalid inferences any of you make regarding the archeological findings themselves.

Edited by MengTzu - 15-Sep-2007 at 17:40

I understood your point. My point is that just because Clemente didn�t talk about it here, it doesn�t mean that he didn�t know about it or talked about it in another instance. The lack of mentioning is certainly probative, but not conclusive. There are many reasons that a person would refer to someone but not go into the same great detail as he would another person, and �not knowing� is only one possible reason, not the only possible reason. For example, one possibility is that Clemente could have felt the greater need to describe Paul if the audience are already more familiar with Peter than with Paul.

You have to chose: or Clement wished to emphasize on Paul but then why he mention the both apostles and not just Paul, or you say that he wished to present the two in equal way but lacked details about Peter.

Some ecclesial decisions are made for specific circumstances. The separate missions to Gentiles and Jews appear to be more of a organizational arrangement, a division of tasks. The division doesn�t appear to be an inflexible dogma � after all, it concerns the arrangement of the works of the apostles, which appears to be different from unchangeable dogma of faith. Alternatively, as I noted, though this is a weaker point, there were Jews in Rome. Peter could have evangelized to them.

When at the council was decided that Peter to be the apostles of the Circumcised and Paul of the Gentiles, it was a rather geographical arrangement: Peter remained in the area of the Jewish concentration: Palestine, Syria and Paul obtained the rest of the territories. Paul was commonly preaching to the Jewish communities of the diaspora even before the council in Jerusalem, see Acts 14.

I remember you that in Galatians Paul says that Peter and the other two (James and John) recognized that the One who worked in them was God:


...when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles...

So, I think is not such a flexible thing. I don't consider that at that time apostles were having an understanding about what a council is, but the way Paul speaks shows that it was a decision considered to be of God, not of the humans.

Also I remember (or inform) you that the Near East was the area where were most of the Christians at that time (and later too) and I still wait to give a reason for which Peter would leave Near Orient and come to Rome. And a possible date of such a visit, in your opinion.

What you said here doesn't really address my point. The point is not whether Peter was the favorite, but why Jesus spoke to him as the representative of the other apostles. What makes you think that Jesus chose Peter as the representative of the apostles based on age?

It was not chosed by Jesus for this, it was the acceptance among the apostles. Peter was speaking in the name of others. If a younger one would have done this, it would have been considered a daring.

Furthermore, even if he was the oldest, his being the oldest doesn�t tell us exactly how old he actually was.

You maybe have the image of a group of young apostles. Is a clichee. Maybe the apreciation of Peter's age was made by explaining his behaviour from psychanalitic and sociologic points of view. He is daring and is not apostrophated for this. At an age of 20, 30 or 40, a behaviour like his would be considered daring, but if he was 50 his daring was considered correct.

ou have not shown evidence that church-institution was not yet born in the consciousness of the Christians. Further, the New Testament already discusses some institutional structures of the early church, like ranks of the servants, overseers, and elders.

You have to understand that people absorb information and form principles hardly, because they progress starting from nothing. Jesus several times apostrophated his audience for lack of understanding. Or you can look how hard the apostles progressed in undertanding the sense of Jesus' mission. A sophisticated concept like that of church-institution appeared only after the First ecumenical council, when the Church started to be seen not as the summe of the Christians but as a divine-human institution.

The evolution of the Christian church principles is reflected in the theological literature, which in the first centuries is simple and then became more and more elaborated, even its esence remained fundamentaly the same.

In any event, I again suggest that you read "The Bones of St. Peter", written by John Evangelist Walsh, which presents the archeological evidence supporting Peter's presence and martyrdom in Rome.

I prefer to read what several scholars (or other informed people) are saying, even there are small remarsk found on internet pages.
I don't see how a single person could be more authoritative than several.

Also, from some description of this Walsh, I'm afraid is a kind of "popularising" historian (even more: in a romanticised way!). I prefer the ones who are addressing to specialists.

As I said, and as has been repeatedly noted, both in this thread and others, the role is one of leadership. This is amply attested to--as even you have noted--in the Gospels, and in the book of Acts. His role as leader was based on more than his age; it was based on his faith. The Scripture (Matthew 16) is very simple and straightforward.

Peter didn't act as a leader. He didn't ordered something. It was a natural atitude to consider him the representant of the apostles. Or you sugest that Peter was invested with a kind of "he is different" among the apostles?



Could you explain in simple words what is at Matthew 16?

Is the founding of some Mysteries? Is the Church founded on Peter? If yes, why Paul says that the Church is founded on the apostles, as in Ephesians 2, 19-22?


19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.



Where is the special role of Peter here?

Tradition holds that he was martyred during the reign of Nero in 67 A.D. (or, less commonly, 64 A.D.). The exact date of his arrival in Rome is unknown, and while it could have been as early as 50 A.D., most scholars would place it much later (with many placing it shortly before his martyrdom).

Tradition is a social phenomenon in which each generation take the stories from the precedent one.

So, you say that the tradition says that Peter was at Rome but the scholars doesn't know when he came. So this tradition is an oral transmitting proces, which may have fake origins and is hard to believe it escaped to enrichments.

Speaking about scholars, you may know that they think that the less rich in details, the older a source is, when comparing sources about the same thing.

And the way that the story of Peter at Rome is enriched in each century from the 1st to the 3rd is conclusive for this general statement in historiographical science.

If you are unwilling to admit that the overwhelming testimony of the Fathers (including the historians among them), and the complete lack of any opposing tradition makes it remarkably unlikely that Peter died anywhere except Rome, then I fail to see how you ever manage to accept anything at all.

I didn't contradicted you, I agree that is a general consense. I sayed that this consense has not any authority because each generation grounded on the convinctions and documents of the anterior ones.



Do you know that Rome haven't a bishop until few decades of the second century?


Ofcourse, if Peter would have been at Rome is possbile that he not invested a bishop, but then why he should have left his jurisdiction and come to Rome?


See this material about the fact that Rome haven't bishop until few decades of the second century:


While there were bishops in the first century in Jerusalem, and at the latest, by the early 2nd century in Asia Minor, this was not the case in Rome.

When Ignatius of Antioch wrote eight epistles just prior to his martyrdom, he mentioned bishops in many areas--the bishop of Smyrna (Polycarp) mentioned the most. His style was to address his letters to the leaders of the various areas, and in areas that had bishops, he mentioned them. However, unlike most of his letters, his Epistle to the Romans never mentions a bishop in Rome by either name nor title.
...
We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).

http://www.cogwriter.com/clement.htm



Paul didn't invested a bishop at Rome perhaps due to the heterogenousness of the Christian communities, but with his authority (as one who was the direct disciple of Jesus) Peter would have done this.

The fact that Rome didn't had a bishop even few decades in the second century, is a proof that Peter wasn't at Rome.

At this point, Menumorut, I think we would all benefit if you took the time to explain your religious background, as everyone else in the thread has done.

I'm Christian Orthodox.



Edited by Menumorut - 15-Sep-2007 at 18:54

I don't have to choose from these two possibilities, because there is a third one that I already proposed: that the audience already knew the details of Peter.

The epistle of Clement is not with an informational purpose, it gives examples of the malice of envy. The examples are first from the Old Testament and then from the   recent history of the Church.

Why you say that the audience (the Corinthians) were knowing the details of Peter? Why these details haven't arrived to us, as arrived the ones about Paul?

The Scriptures you quoted does not show that the arrangement is inflexible and permanent.

To change arrangement would mean to consider that God's plans are changing and this is contrary to the beliefs of the apostles.

Missionaries tend to go to places where there are few believers in order to find more converts.

Not all the apostles were having the task of converting by journeys. John lived at Ephesus, Peter lived more than 15 years at Antioch. We see from Scriptures that Peter has not made converting journeys, he was moving in the same space, between Palestine and Antioch.

1. I haven't studied the Bible for quite a long time, so my memory might be failing me, but I don't remember Scriptures ever saying that Peter was chosen by the apostles as their head. 2. On the other hand, Jesus clearly treated him in a special way and as representative of the others. 3. Where does Scriptures say that such a selection is based on age? Didn't Paul say that Timothy shouldn't be despised by others because of his young age? It is pure speculation that the respresentative was chosen by the apostles based solely on age.

1. I didn't say it was chosen. It was a spontanous behaviour of the apostles, like in a family with many children, were the oldest is respected and obeyed in a measure.

2. Why do you say Jesus treated Peter in a special way? which was this special way?

3. I didn't speaked about a special arrangemen among the apostles but about the common way East Orient people were behaving socialy.

Rather, you are the one who is trying to prove that Peter was old, so you are the one who needs to prove the apostles' age to show that Peter was at the old age you insist that he was at.

I don't try to prove. I have met this asertion about Peter's age in some webpages. Is the common believe of the exegets. you may know that in visual represetations, Peter is presented aged and gray-haired, while the other apostles are younger.

Speaking of daring: his apparently reckless behavior (like cutting someone's ear) tends to show youth more than elderliness.

This reckless was not spontanous but demonstrative, deliberated.

There are many archeologists who support the "Peter was in Rome" argument, and Walsh is only one of them.

Is Walsh archaeologist?

The archaeologists are not divides in the ones who support and the ones who don't support the theory of Peter being at Rome.

Their activity consists in excavating sites, analysing the discoveries, publish them, comment on them.

1. it would seem otherwise, that the apostles did have the ability to communicate with whomever they met - Peter was at the Roman Cornelius' home, Philip explained scriptures to an Ethiopian - that is your mere assumption that the apostles could only speak in tongues on one occasion, and that goes against the tradition of the Pentecost - what, did the Holy Spirit take off after that one event? 2. second, can you prove that the apostolic writings we have today are the only writings that the first Christians had around in the beginning of the Church? it could be that we are missing texts mentioning Peter in Rome, hence why what you are arguing against was painfully obvious to them. 3. also, like the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria would allow Rome a seat of honor at the Councils if Peter didn't die in Rome, like they didn't have an interest in the truth, or were too dumb to figure it out... 4. sounds like hubris when you dismiss out of hand the intelligence of the ancients.

1. I never heard that the gift of speaking in tongues is permanent.

Cornelius would speak Aramaic, ofcourse, the Ethiopian was knowing Greek or Hebrew because he was reading the Judaic Scriptures.

I think speaking in tongues was a gift manifested only in some ocassions, like the propheting too, for example, or the making of miracles.

The gifts of the Holy Ghosts are not ireversible gived to people, on the contrary, in Orthodoxy is a rich theology about that any quality of someone is a gift from God and could be taken back. This due to the fact that God is Persons, has free will, not something authomatic.


Anyway, the tradition is that St. Mark was the translator of Peter at Rome.


2. I'm sure that existed much more than this.
But is hard to believe that from the tradition preserved at Rome and Corinth vanished the parts about Peter and remained the ones about Paul. The Acts of Apostles are ending saying that Paul remained for two years at Rome (this was in 61-63). Nothing about Peter.

For the Paul journey in Rome we have several sources: The Acts of Apostles, the epistles writen by Paul from Rome, the epistle of Clement.


Is hard to believe what you say, that for the contemporaries were obvious the thing about Peter, wihtout these obvious things to be put somewhere in writen.


3. The tradition that Peter was at Rome was general in 3-4th centuries and later. This wasn't the the reason for which Rome's bishop obtained the honourific "primus inter pares", but stopped the posibility that the other churches to rise this claim. And the missionary work of Peter at Antiochia was not well known to the generations of Christians from 3-4th century, as probably they were not having sources for this presence. Even today, this presence and activity is presumed as the most acceptable variant, but is not sure.

The death of Peter should took place during Neronian persecution. It was executed by crucifixion (this is the sense of the prophecy in John 28) in Jerusalem and buried there. With the destruction of this city in 70 AD and the disparition of the Christian community here, the tradition about Peter's death remained an oral transmitted phenomenon, which weakened and after two generations started to be replaced by the rumour that Peter died at Rome.



4. I dont know about which ancients you speak.
The early Christians were groups of people among who legends apeared freqeuently, spreaded, enriched, became truth. There are tons of such untrue traditions.

For example, is enough to compare the Martyric Acts (which are Roman cancelary documents, presenting correct the events) with the Lives of the Saints which are the product of oral traditions and transcribers' "contributions".

In any event, whether it was about malice of envy, or heroic suffering, my point remains the same: lack of detail does not necessarily mean lack of knowledge.

Depends of context. If is a retoric reference, like in this case, normal would be Clement to refer equaly to the two.

No, the apostles certainly believed that God's plan could change in some aspects. Remember the dream of Peter in which God declared food that was previous thought unclean to be clean.

The way Peter was thinking before that dream was his Judaic belief. The moment of that dream is important for the history of Christianity because it marks the separation of the Judaic religion.

So, it was a debarasement of the old and "not valid" doctrine.

As for what was decided at Jerusalem, it was considered to be the wish of God of the New Testament, so a change of their convinction on that decision would occur if they would change the doctrine, which didn't happened.

Such matters as task division is not nearly as fundamental as the eternal laws of God about cleanliness of animals.

I repeat: a change in that division would occur only if they considered that they received a sign of God that that arrangement should be changed. They were not acting from their initiative, there are several examples for this, including what Paul says about the meeting at Jerusalem.

So, they could change the arrangement only if they would considered that God changes his mind, and this seem little possible.

In addition, there were Jews in Rome that Peter could administer to.

I answered at this: it was not an ethnic but geographical division at the council in Jerusalem. Paul were going usualy to the sinagogues before and after the council. Peter too were converting Gentiles, wee see what Paul says about Peter with the ocassion of the meeting at Jerusalem, that Peter was eating with the Gentiles.

Pure speculation, as I said already. There is no indication that Peter's role was the result of a spontaneous, familial setting.

There is not indication for everything in Bible. Some things you should presume.

About the age of Peter, the text of Jesus' prophecy is interesting:

I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."

You yourself already stated more than once what this "special way" was -- that Jesus spoke to Peter as though spoking to all of them, treating him as their representative.

I sayed that only about the event from Matthew 16.

Peter was not an exception, sometime Jesus is addressing to Philip as to all the apostles:

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

As I said before, all of your arguments is based on elimination of possibilities, including this one. Your point is that age is the only possibility for such arrangement, but there are numerous possible criteria.

I don't state something. Just offering my opinion about what I consider the most acceptable explication.

Again, there is no indication that this particular arrangement was a spontaneous, cultural effect.

Try to see the ensamble picture. If you took, for example, each verse of Bible separately, you'll get to strange things.

This is all the more why you have no reason to avoid reading Walsh. If the archeologists are not divided into camps, then reading any archeological writings can only add to your objective knowledge. Walsh is a distinguished historian, and whether or not Walsh himself is an archeologist, his books might have enough references to the works of archeologists to make it more worthwhile to read than finding short remarks here and there on the internet. Being arbitrarily selective about your sources can only undermine the objectivity of your argument.

I live in Romania were there are not such books, nor in the bookshops or in the public libraries. If I would live somewhere were I could obtain, I would prefer read specialised academic works, because they are usualy lacking interpretations, as I presume is the case with Walsh. Also, an archaeologist has a incomparable more vast knowledge of the specific of material cultures than a general historian as Walsh. And the idea of "making accesible to large masses" scientifical concepts is erroneous, it generates a wrong understanding of the matters.

Edited by Menumorut - 16-Sep-2007 at 17:13

1. It's possible that he expected the audience to know; it's possible that Peter's life was more widely circulated than particular details of Paul's experience. 2. The only detail in Clement's letter probably not in the Bible is the exact number of times he was imprisoned, but this hardly proves the depth of his knowledge about Paul.    3. But this comparison that you have made is flawed because a closer look at the passage shows that his description of Paul's life is very general, just longer.

1. Let's put again the passage:

Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

I think the difference between how he refers to each one is great. And I think that is not acceptable to think that Peter died at Rome and Clement gives not details.


There are these variants:

a. Peter died in Near East and Paul died in the extreme West

b. Both died at Rome

c. Peter died in Near East and Paul died at Rome.

d. Peter died at Rome and Paul in extreme West



Variant a. is matching the best Clement's description. Variant b. is contradicted by the facts that he make alusion to where Paul died, but doesn't make the same for Peter. If they both would died in the same place, such a differentiation would not have made.
Variant c. is also possible.
Variant d. has a problem with the word "finally". As was not characteristic for Peter to journey, coming at Rome and dying would be mentioned both as a finality, not just his death.


2. That detail is very signifiant. Another one is that he says Paul died under prefects. Bible says nothing about Paul's death. And also the mentioning of Paul going to the extreme west is found only at Clement. But all these are normal, as is sure that Paul lived for more than two years at Rome, see the end of Acts of Apostles.


3. Is longer both also gives details. Three details that are not in Bible.

Not only is it important, it shows a clear change in as aspect of God's plan. The Christians recognized the Law of Moses. They recognized it to be part of God's plan. Animals that were unclean and now were clean shows that some aspect of God's plan has changed.

No, God's plans never changed. In the epistle of James is sayed "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

It was a stepped revelation of God to mankind. The Mosaic Law was a prefiguration of the thrue Law. This was planned by God before the centuries.

Apostles understood this only after Peter's dream. Actualy, it was oficially established at the council in Jerusalem that the Gentiles would be accepted too, because the apostles initialy believed that only the Jews are called for the salvation.

So, the acceptance of Gentiles was not because God changed his mind.

Jesus said as much, that not a dot of the Law should be taken out unti fulfillment. If his fulfillment of the Law brought about changes to some aspects of God's plan, then it is clear that the apostles understood that some aspects of God's plan could change.

Jesus sayed that about the prophecies of the Olt testament, not about fulfiling the rituals of the Mosaic law. Because He broken that religious precets, curing people in the Sabbath etc.

Your second phrase is in contraiction with the way apostles were thinking. A God changing his mind and plans was the oposite of the way Apostles believed and teached.

1. Your argument is based on an elimination of possibility -- namely, your point that God's plan COULD NOT change in the minds of the apostles. But here you already admitted that change of some aspects of it in some circumstances is possible (such as if they believed they have recieved a sign for such change.) Whether such a sign in fact occurred does not affect my point: my point is that by your own admission, you have stated that they believed change of some aspects is possible. 2. There is no need to have always a formal meeting to decide the current status of God's plan. Peter believed that God can pronounce something as significantly as declaring unclean animals clean to him personally, and he accepted the message without the need of a council.

1. If a vision in which God would asked a change of one of his previous indications would occured, the apostles would get such a belief, that God is changing his plans.

But this is missing from the Bible and from the belief of Christians in all the times.

There are passages in the Old Testament, like the one with Jonas and the condemnation of Ninive by God (followed by his change of mind) but it have to be seen as an educative manifestation, God knowing the reaction his acts will generate.

The conception that God is changing his plans is totaly contrary to Christian belief.



So, it was not any change at the council of Jerusalem. Apostles passed from some principles which were prejudices, to the right understanding of God's plans.



2. The understanding of the apostles evolved gradual and their principles of activity too.
It was not a declaration of God and it was not about animals. It was a revelation of what God always thinked (I remember that the Christian God is personal) and Peter understood that his anterior belief was wrong.

The Mosaic Law was symbolic. The choice of Jews and their guidance by the Mosaic Law has had the purpose of preparing the humanity for the embodiment of Jesus. It was not the true Law of God, because the humankind could not understand the truth in its initialy estate. The thousand and more years of Mosaic Law prepared the humankind for the revelation of a personal God in Jesus.

Remember you said previously that Peter is the oldest because he represents the apostles. Now you're saying that he doesn't have this unique role of representing the apostles, so you're now admitting that you have less reason to think he is the oldest. You're now contradicting what you said earlier. When you were trying to prove that Peter was the oldest, you gave this example: "We see how Jesus ask all the apostles what people are saying, they answer together, but when Jesus ask what is the believe of the apostles, Peter answer in the name of them."

There were not rules, just a natural way of behaviour. Peter often was speaking in the name of Apostles because he was considered somehow their representant, being the oldest. But it was not a rule.

The discussion with Philip started from an intervention of Philip. But the discussion from Matthew 16 started from Jesus ask to all of the apostles.

Unfortunately, I do not possess the ability to keep up with the conversation here--honestly, do you guys ever sleep?

Edited by Akolouthos - 17-Sep-2007 at 14:44

Originally posted by Menumorut "Suffered martyrdom under prefects" is a sign that Clement was knowing how and where Paul died. I think that this refers to Paul's death at Rome, because of the plural prefects, which seems to indicate a more complex administrative aparatus concentrated in one geographical point.

Edited by MengTzu - 17-Sep-2007 at 17:11