First century bishops:
1st Cen. Christianity - One Organization
by StandFirm 144 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
TTWSYF
Yes, there were many bishops made in the first centuries of Christianity, however, always the Bishop of Rome was the leader on doctrine and had the final authority according to history.
dc
-
Satanus
TTWSYF
When did the 'center' of christianity move from jerusalem to rome?
'I wonder when, exactly the 'great apostasy' happened.'
On this thread, noone has stated that there was one big one. Actually, if there was any of import, i would say paul was it, since he radically changed the nature of the movement. He changed it from a freewheeling herd of cats to a more centralized and controled system.
S
-
Band on the Run
If the leader of the church was the Bishop of Rome, why is Rome conscpicuously absent in all the early doctrines and conferences of the church. The true leaders were all Middle Eastern. I can't think of one prominent Church Father. Many were No. African, too.
You can't believe your rosary beads.
-
Band on the Run
Also, only church myth places Peter at Rome. There is not a shred of proof Peter was there. It seems very unlikely that Peter travelled to Rome. We have documentation for Paul, but not for Peter. Such a momental event and the bringing of Jewish customs to Rome would garner some coverage or discussion among Christians.
Don't get me started about RC, especially the fold brand. They make the Witnesses appear credible which is some feat.
-
jgnat
There's Canonical history, the best evidence available, and what really happened. We have to go with the best evidence available. A long unbroken line of Roman popes is Canonical.
Another proposed center for the early Church, Bethsaida .
-
PSacramento
Also, only church myth places Peter at Rome. There is not a shred of proof Peter was there. It seems very unlikely that Peter travelled to Rome. We have documentation for Paul, but not for Peter. Such a momental event and the bringing of Jewish customs to Rome would garner some coverage or discussion among Christians.
Actually, we have Peter's own words ( Babylon was a typical way of referring to Rome for 1st century Christians and he did NOT go to Babylon since it didn't really exist as such in his time) and the words of the apostolic fathers.
Tertulian, Ignatious, Irenaeous, Clement of Alexandira, to name just some.
-
PSacramento
In regards to the Canon and how it came to be:
The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger.
-
botchtowersociety
Christianity was very decentralized by the end of the 1st Century. Apostles took the Gospel from Western Europe to India. It was too geographically disparate to be highly centralized. Ecumenical councils were only called when differences of opinion threatened schism, as was the case in Acts 15. This set the model for the episkopos that were ordained by and succeeded the original 12. In Apostolic Christianity, this decentralization remains the case down to this day.
-
botchtowersociety
Also, only church myth places Peter at Rome. There is not a shred of proof Peter was there. It seems very unlikely that Peter travelled to Rome. We have documentation for Paul, but not for Peter. Such a momental event and the bringing of Jewish customs to Rome would garner some coverage or discussion among Christians.
There is a great deal of evidence that Peter was among the earliest Christians in Rome. Afterwards, he left for a time when Claudius drove the Jews out of the city (around 49). Claudius considered the Jews to be an insurrection threat. There were riots.
Acts 18:2 There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them.
Suetonius corroborates this in his history of the Caesars:
Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.
Peter was in Jerusalem for the council described in Acts 15, which was around 50 AD.
Peter returned later (with other Jewis Christians) when Nero lifted the ban on Jews in the city (around 54).
The cultural difficulties that existed between the Gentile and Jewish Christians when they returned under Nero helped prompt Paul's letter to the Gentile Christians in Rome: Letter to the Romans. Romans deals a great deal with this issue.
Suetonius again:
Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.
Nero eventually had Peter killed in the 60's, around the time of the great fire of Rome. Part of the "punishment" was the killing of the prominent leaders. He killed Paul too at around the same time, but since Paul was a Roman citizen, he received a more lenient execution--beheading rather than crucifixion.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1:1, AD 189
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.htmlEusebius Church History, book 2:
The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome.
But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.xv.html
