The Myth of Papal Origins?

[left]THE MYTH OF PAPAL ORIGINS?

Michael D. Goulder, Professor of Biblical Studies, University of Birmingham (retired)
"Did Peter ever go to Rome?"
The Scottish Journal of Theology 57 : 4 2004

Abstract
Paul and Acts suggest that after Easter Peter lived in Jerusalem and had special responsibility for the mission to Palestine. 1 Clement mentions his two-plus labours (cf. Acts 3–4, 5, 12), but not Rome and not martyrdom. It places him second of seven chronologically ordered victims of jealousy between AD 40 and 70. Asc. Is. 4:2–3 is about Nero redivivus, not the historical Nero, and has nothing to do with Peter. By AD 100 legends were forming about his sojourn in Rome (1 Peter) and his martyrdom (John 21). He probably died in his bed in Jerusalem about AD 55.

Complete article is currently free online!

journals.cambridge.org/bin/bladerunner?30REQEVENT=&REQAUTH=0&500001REQSUB=&REQSTR1=S0036930604000316

Goulder’s email is
m.d.goulder@bham.ac.uk

Goulder is well known and a writer of many theological works. The Johns Hopkins University had a symposium focusing on the New Testament research of Professor Michael D. Goulder in 2000.


RELATED ONLINE ARTICLE

“Was Peter the First Pope? – How the Papacy Originated in Rome”

atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/peterpope.htm?nl=1


Ed
edwardtbabinski.us
[/left]

Peter was the leader not because he went to Rome but because he was Peter

He could have gone to Glastonbury and he and his heirs would still have been in charge

Smaller font would be helpful.

[quote=EdwardTBabinski][left]THE MYTH OF PAPAL ORIGINS?

. By AD 100 legends were forming about his sojourn in Rome (1 Peter) and his martyrdom (John 21). He probably died in his bed in Jerusalem about AD 55.

[/left]

/QUOT

WHen you consider that if Jesus was born in 1 A.D that means he died in 34A.D. How is that significant? !00A.D. is not 100 years after Jesus’s death, it is less then seventy. THere were surely people alive that knew the apostles at this time. Generally speaking seventy years is a short amount of time for a legend to be accepted as truth.

Also, anyone who discredits Christianity in general, or the Catholic church specifically, is going to get a lot of press and attention. As far as being a respected theologian-well, the press reported that the members of the Jesus Seminars were respected theologians. Any body remember them? Unless he has some mind boggling archeological evidence, I would ignore him.
[/quote]

This guy is a PHONY. Dont waste your time. He’s an ex-Prot, who didnt like life and turned into a Darwin wannabe.

Thats one big CUT AND PASTE.

[quote=EdwardTBabinski][left]THE MYTH OF PAPAL ORIGINS?

Clement mentions his two-plus labours (cf. Acts 3–4, 5, 12), but not Rome and not martyrdom. It places him second of seven chronologically ordered victims of jealousy between AD 40 and 70.

[/left]

[/quote]

deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000447.html

This site has very interesting historical evidence for Peter’s stay in Rome, including the writing of Clement and the possible finding of Peter’s body by archeologist. Its very early in the morning and I am too tired at this time to condense what the site says into this post. It is interesting, so please take a look at the link

Personally I don’t care much whether Peter went to Rome.

His office was given to a person and his successors, not to a geographical location.

Blessings

Asteroid

Currently feeling stressed with the mention of the Scottish Journal of Theology and having had to read articles from it at college!

[quote=EdwardTBabinski][left]
Complete article is currently free online!

[/left]

[/quote]

I tried that - only the abstract was available free without a subscription to the journal.

[quote=deb1]deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000447.html

This site has very interesting historical evidence for Peter’s stay in Rome, including the writing of Clement and the possible finding of Peter’s body by archeologist. Its very early in the morning and I am too tired at this time to condense what the site says into this post. It is interesting, so please take a look at the link
[/quote]

Thanks for the link - an interesting article. A shame the author quotes Eusebius as an historical source and then begins the next paragraph with “A little later on, around 200AD…” Eusebius lived after 200AD. Other than that the article - and the following debate are quite illuminating.

Actually I’m bookmarking the blog site for future reading.

That’s enough posting from me on this thread!

Ahh, second post by the original poster and it’s an anti-Catholic slam. Can you spell T-R-O-L-L?

This is all old garbage. If anyone finds any of this article in anyway convincing or disturbing, read Patrick Madrid’s “Pope Fiction.” Here’s a related article by Pat:

envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.2/mar_apr98_coverstory.html

In honor of the Pope’s passing 20 minutes ago, I recommend this thread be closed and the originator suspended for defiling one of our core beliefs.

[quote=Scott_Lafrance]In honor of the Pope’s passing 20 minutes ago, I recommend this thread be closed and the originator suspended for defiling one of our core beliefs.
[/quote]

God bless you :slight_smile:

I’m quite moved by today’s events so I shall retire in prayer. Please all reading this I ask prayer for our Pope John Paul II, and our Church. Transistion is always very hard going!

God bless,

Mike

**St. Jerome: **“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

Bishop of Rome! Leader of Church

Through many the Early Fathers writings they speak of “The Bishop of Rome has spoken”, “Peter has spoken through XXX” the Bishop of Rome. Many early Bishops write to the Church at Rome and to the Bishop of Rome specifically for clarification on some matter. Many early letters carry the decisions of the Bishop of Rome back out to other Bishops. All the early Councils had to be approved by the Bishop of Rome and slightly later we see representatives of the Bishop of Rome attending Councils. Some decisions of Councils were rejected by the Bishop of Rome and never went tnto effect. We never see any example like this with Antioch or any other See for that matter

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.