Peter loved Jesus. He had esteem for him. Therefore in his spontaneous nature he added immediately: " But at your word I will let down the nets. And so he did. Peter did an act of faith which, seen from a purely human point of view, contradicted his professional experience as a fisherman. He went along with and was obedient to the word of the Lord and did not react to the Lord's invitation with words such as 'if' and 'but'.
Magnanimously he put aside each excuse that came to mind on the basis of his thinking, his feelings and his experience. It was a conquest of self which exceed the natural limits of his person. By following Jesus' instructions, he acted supernaturally. Peter proved at that moment that he did not want to remain only an admirer of Jesus. He showed that he was also prepared to obey him with a loving faith. He disregarded his own ego and refrained from doing only what he could understand.
He made his own purely human truth subordinate to the divine Truth and Will.
Here Peter shows us the content of an act of faith. An act of faith consists, in its essence, not in religious feelings or thoughts, but in an act which exceeds and transcends human limitations. Religious feelings may accompany our life of faith and religious thoughts may bring us closer to the world of faith, but to be able to get to know God, step by step, in his majesty and glory, it is necessary to act in faith.
The same is necessary in order to understand his Truth and his Love, as well as to get to know his Will. Jesus asked of Peter a pure act of faith, an act which does not worry and does not analyze people and situations according to its own personal insights. It has to be an act of faith in love and confidence, which is at the same time submissive to the will of God. Luke tells us how such acts of faith are richly rewarded.
And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. When the Lord does something, He doesn't do it half-way. Peter and the other apostles could experience the joy and astonishment which everyone has who is willing to do acts of faith. In first Peter , Peter sends greetings from Babylon, which is the opposite direction from Rome. It was the home to a large Jewish community, so he had reason to go there. Fishing was a business, and peter was successful at it. Also from his name we can tell that there was some Hellenization. For me, the presence of St Peter in Rome cannot be proved or disproved definitively from biblical testimony.
We have to rely on post- or extra-biblical testimony to do so. I am amused at the intent of most scholars associated with BAS research eventually is coloured by opinions to the negative to disprove the orthodox teachings of the Roman ans Eastern Othodox churches.
One gers the impression the BAS is a society that typifies a ditched lover who seeks to discredit a former spouse to support their existance and very recent belief system and theology. Where is it written in the bible that all evidence should be in the bible. No experience is written and then lived- It is lived and the lived tradition is recorded as well as handed down by word of mouth. On a positive note i am surprised that Peter is refered to as St Peter in the article which is a very Catholic adress for those who died in the friendship of our Lord Chris Jesus.
There is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome. Paul was in Rome for two trials and he was the author of most of the new testament. Peter would have been lost in Rome as he tended to think Jew first and Christian second theology. Paul had to confront his on this one one occasion.
One would have thought that Paul, who spent several years in Rome, would have mentioned Peter, if he gone to Rome………. Joe, I think you are way, way, way to dismissive and skeptical of my sources. Furthermore, the traditions is both early, abundant, and unanimous. And by the way, reviewing the responses, I see why this made the list as one of the top ten. With regard to the canon, many of his remarks modern disputes still echo the questions raised — and the skepticism Eusebius voiced about a 15th epistle of Paul Hebrews and a second epistle of Peter.
Evidently he disagreed with Athanasius on much. But it is also remarkable that Eusebius traces his arguments for Peter as leader in Rome to both tradition and other, earlier Church writers and historians such as Origen. Eusebius places no credence in the book, the Acts of Peter, yet he attests to Peter acting as the Bishop of Rome — from his perspective in Asia Minor.
There are several accounts within the NT that would lead a reader to judge him as such. In Matthew , when Jesus asks the disciples who do the people say the Son of Man is, others were confused, but Peter submits that they mean that Jesus is the Messiah. In addition, Luke of Antioch, in his account known as Acts, in chapter 2 seems to have a canonical antedote for Peter being a fisherman and only able to speak Aramaic The speeches before the crowd and the gift of tongues.
After confinement in jail and escape, it is not a matter of controversy that Peter did travel and act as a leader in Asia minor, including positions of authority in Antioch and elsewhere. Why going to Rome is such a stretch, a bridge too far, despite such testimony as that below — is that it is one cherry that many do not want to pick. Section s 2. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way. What do we need to say concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero?
These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis. Chapter 2. The First Successor to St. Peter in Rome. The evidence, both scriptural and historical, seems to give weight to the likelihood that the Apostle Peter was never in Rome. Firstly, he was uneducated and only spoke in Aramaic. Just forming such a religious system would have taken many more years again, just in the building of the mega-structures of Vatican City alone.
Furthermore, Peter was married and probably had children. He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him.
Peter was a sinful man, yet he became a part of Christ’s inner circle.
The main point is the revelation of Who Jesus is, not who Peter is, It is also good to remember he was to his death, a Jew. Never a Catholic Bishop. The rest could simply be repeating. Remember, Paul said the antichrist was already at work when he was alive,..
I believe the point is very good that a fisherman from Israel was not fluid in the languages of Rome. Furthermore, the miracle is that none of them knew anything about the problems he left behind.rehonasgoldra.cf
THE APOSTLE PETER: his life and works by Jerry Haughton
Paul in Rome, definitely. Died in Rome, most likely. Peter, very very doubtful. The Church is built on Revelation, not a man.. But for heathens, they always need a man, and then a statue, and then a church building to collect more popularity and money. Peter would have stayed with his own people. That is obvious. Yet ironically you cannot attend a church service today without some type of tie-in about Paul…all because he claimed to have seen Jesus in the flesh. So this church Quo Vadis that has claimed to have the marblized footprint of Jesus post-ascension is built on a fallacy; not on the Truth.
Polycarp and heard St. This whole notion that the Roman Catholic Church made up the story that St. Peter was in Rome is nothing but rubbish. The article at Catholic Answers also points out that among others, St. Clement of Alexandria also wrote that Peter was in Rome. I suggest reading it.
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them.
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.
Acts My 7th grade son just did a project on the spread of Christianity through the Roman Empire. Apostle Peter was never in Rome.
The Apostle Peter in Rome
Christianity was not spread through Rome until 50 A. Paul was responsible for spreading Christianity on 4 different journeys traveling aprox. This is what Jesus called Peter when He fist met him John The church in Babylon that Peter writes about is in modern day Iraq the remains of Babylon are there. The places the Bible says Peter traveled are: Antioch, which was located in Syria then, and is now in Turkey called Antakya this is where Paul rebuked Peter because he would not sit with the Gentiles ; Lydda and Joppa now called Lod and Jeffa both located in Israel; and Jerusalem and Caesarea both located in Israel.
The first Roman-Jewish wars were between A. Also, Christianity was not accepted in Rome until A. It is a false teaching by the Roman Catholic church. Yes, Nero hated Christians, and accused them of burning Rome in 64 A.
Related THE APOSTLE PETER: His Life and Works
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved