Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00525)

In message <AB8555374@serv.peb.ufrj.br>, ABRANTES@serv.peb.ufrj.br
writes
>In another mail I develop the argument that biblical Peter founded the
>church in Rome at first century, AND NO RESPECTABLE HISTORIAN REFUSE
>THIS FACT. So, biblical Peter lived at first century.

Many respectable historians would now question this, and say it may not
be fact.  If fact, then how is it that Paul, who was under house arrest
(staying with Linus, later said to become Bp. of Rome) never mentions
the presence of Peter in the city?  Paul mentions Peter (Kephas) often
enough at other times.  It is inconceivable that he would not mention
the presence of Peter in Rome at the same time as he himself was there.
Neither does he mention that Peter was ever there.  He does not mention
him in Rome at all.  There is NO historical evidence that the apostle
Peter was ever in Rome outside of *later* Church history claims made by
the Roman Church.

The speech of Peter is said, in the gospel, to be noticeably Galilean,
with the inference that he may have been as simple a man as the gospels
portray him.  If so, he probably spoke only Galiliean Aramaic (different
from Judean aramaic) and would have been more at home in the Persian
Empire, where Aramaic was widely spoken, and not the Roman Empire.

Alan
---------
Homepage: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html (Figure "one" after WWW)