One cannot Deny the Recorded Facts that Peter went to Rome.

PanDeVida

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2007
878
339
✟42,102.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
One cannot Deny the Recorded / written Documents / facts that Peter went to Rome, as many Protestants do.

In other Fathers Know Best tracts we have shown that Jesus made Peter the rock on which the Church is built and that this gave Peter a special primacy. Here we will show that Peter went to the city of Rome and was martyred there.


In order to escape the truth of the doctrine of the papacy, according to which the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, some Fundamentalists have tried to deny that Peter ever went to Rome.

But the historical evidence reveals that this assertion is untenable. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Further, the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero.

This being the case, the historical evidence is unambiguous in declaring that Peter went to Rome, revealing the Fundamentalist claim to the contrary for what it is: an attempt to deny one of the tenets in the doctrine of the papacy, even if truth must be sacrificed to do so.

(Lets read what the Early Church Fathers had to say about Peter being in Rome)

Ignatius of Antioch



"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).



Dionysius of Corinth



"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).



Irenaeus



"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).



Gaius



"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).



Clement of Alexandria



"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).



Tertullian



"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (ibid., 32:2).

"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood" (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D. 210]).



The Little Labyrinth



"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).



The Poem Against the Marcionites



"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).



Eusebius of Caesarea



"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).



Peter of Alexandria



"Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome" (Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).



Lactantius



"When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 318]).



Cyril of Jerusalem



"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven. And it was nothing to marvel at, for Paul was there—he that was caught up into the third heaven" (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).



Optatus



"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).



Epiphanius of Salamis



"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).



Pope Damasus I



"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.

"In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero. . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world.

"The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome and where the name Christianswas first applied, as to a new people" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).



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]).



Augustine



"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).


Catholic.com

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
 

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,064
✟560,360.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
One cannot Deny the Recorded / written Documents / facts that Peter went to Rome, as many Protestants do.

In other Fathers Know Best tracts we have shown that Jesus made Peter the rock on which the Church is built and that this gave Peter a special primacy. Here we will show that Peter went to the city of Rome and was martyred there.


In order to escape the truth of the doctrine of the papacy, according to which the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, some Fundamentalists have tried to deny that Peter ever went to Rome.

But the historical evidence reveals that this assertion is untenable. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Further, the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero.

This being the case, the historical evidence is unambiguous in declaring that Peter went to Rome, revealing the Fundamentalist claim to the contrary for what it is: an attempt to deny one of the tenets in the doctrine of the papacy, even if truth must be sacrificed to do so.
How do you explain the use of the name Babylon by Josephus, "When Hyrcanus was brought into Parthia, the King Phraates... gave him a habitation at Babylon, where there were Jews in great numbers. These Jews honored Hyrcanus as their high priest and king, as did all the Jewish nation that dwelt as far as Euphrates." Because it would be unreasonable to assume he was using code.

I believe conjecture doesn't mean fact.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,683
8,019
PA
Visit site
✟1,021,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Sure, Peter established the Church of Rome. He also established Antioch before Rome - in 34AD!

Check out the historic origins of the feast of the Chair of Peter with January 18 and February 22nd. The Chair of Peter isn’t just with the Church of Rome. In fact - the first Chair of Peter was in Antioch. That’s the important thing to remember when looking at the writings of the Church Fathers.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,591
12,122
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,181,092.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

This reminds me of Father Stephen Keenan's Irish catechism, widely circulated in Ireland and the United States which also carried a NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR.
In the editions published before 1871 it contained the following Q & A:

Q: Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?

A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.​
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,677
1,048
Carmel, IN
✟574,816.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This reminds me of Father Stephen Keenan's Irish catechism, widely circulated in Ireland and the United States which also carried a NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR.
In the editions published before 1871 it contained the following Q & A:

Q: Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?

A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.​
This seems a rather illogical argument. If you do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope, why would you believe in an Imprimatur as official Catholic doctrine. At best you can say that one Catholic Priest expressed in writing his opinion prior to Vatican I that later contradicted Vatican I and the formal obligation to affirm this.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,591
12,122
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,181,092.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
This seems a rather illogical argument. If you do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope, why would you believe in an Imprimatur as official Catholic doctrine.
That does not follow. First, I wasn't making an argument, I was simply making a comment on how little value these NIHIL OBSTAT's and IMPRIMATUR's have when what is considered correct teaching one day is considered incorrect the next. Second, I was not commenting on Papal infallibillity but on the official stamp of approval given to publications by the Catholic Church and third, one can believe Christian doctrine is preserved by the bishops working in council as opposed to one bishop.
At best you can say that one Catholic Priest expressed in writing his opinion prior to Vatican I that later contradicted Vatican I and the formal obligation to affirm this.
The IMPRIMATUR was from the Bishops of Ireland and Scotland. They apparently accepted his opinion as being not contrary to Church doctrine prior to 1871.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,677
1,048
Carmel, IN
✟574,816.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That does not follow. First, I wasn't making an argument, I was simply making a comment on how little value these NIHIL OBSTAT's and IMPRIMATUR's have when what is considered correct teaching one day is considered incorrect the next.
Sorry that I took it the wrong way. I agree with you about NIHIL OBSTAT's and IMPRIMATUR's being attached to documents that later turn out to be teaching error or at best a controversial opinion. How is this contained in the Orthodox church?

Second, I was not commenting on Papal infallibillity but on the official stamp of approval given to publications by the Catholic Church and third, one can believe Christian doctrine is preserved by the bishops working in council as opposed to one bishop.

The IMPRIMATUR was from the Bishops of Ireland and Scotland. They apparently accepted his opinion as being not contrary to Church doctrine prior to 1871.
I happen to believe as you do that the normative process is bishops working in council. After reading a bit about the history of Vatican I and Vatican II, I realized that there were 15 propositions to be discussed at VI. These are outlined before the council by documents showing a normative position on each subject. Then the fine points are ironed out in the discussion. What I found was that only the first 4 of these were discussed at VI before the Vatican was overran and the council suspended. At the start of VII they actually formally called an end to VI and went back to these 15 documents as a framework for where to start VII. Within the first 4 propositions was a formal definition of what Papal infallibility was. Within the propositions not discussed at VI was the document on the setting of Papal infallibility within the broader context of collegiality and the point that a council is the regular means to issue dogma.
 
  • Like
Reactions: prodromos
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,118
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The most recent free Rose Bible Publishing notes obvious allusions to Roman "triumph" traditions:

upload_2020-3-7_11-11-12.png
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,781
2,579
PA
✟274,985.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This reminds me of Father Stephen Keenan's Irish catechism, widely circulated in Ireland and the United States which also carried a NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR.
In the editions published before 1871 it contained the following Q & A:

Q: Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?

A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.​
this silly argument has been successfully refuted. I cant believe that it is still used.

Q: Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?

The term in himself is the key. The Pope is not impeccable. He, by his office safeguards the deposit of faith.

The Pope cannot change doctrine. The Bishops cannot change doctrine. The Pope, the Bishops, or the 2 combined can further clarify existing doctrine. Their jobs is the preserve the deposit of faith.

After Vatican I, the answer was changed to

A. The Pope as the constant head of the Church we hold infallible in decisions ex cathedra: but not exempt from falling into personal sin. The various bishops are neither individually infallible or sinless. But we may argue that if the Pope and the various bishop teach any particular doctrine,—men who have had no motive for such, do actually teach the very same truths, then we maintain, by all laws of human evidence or moral certainty, that their combined testimony to the existence of any doctrine infallibly proves its truth. This, however, is not what we contend for here; we maintain our teaching body to be infallible, because God has made them so; as in the Old

Since the beginning, the Bishop of Rome enjoyed iniversal jurisdiction over the Church, it's a matter of history.

That's not to say that during Vatican I there was some disagreement about how Papal Infallibility was to be further clarified amd defined. But guess what, the Bishops of the Church gave us what we have today. It is over.

The original answer was true, the revised answer is expanded and also true.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,591
12,122
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,181,092.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Since the beginning, the Bishop of Rome enjoyed iniversal jurisdiction over the Church, it's a matter of history.
LOL. History is definitely not on your side.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Albion
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,118
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
LOL. History is definitely not on your side.
If in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, then why is there such an obvious ethnic divide in Christendom (Greek "Orthodox" vs. Latin "Catholic") ?
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,591
12,122
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,181,092.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
If in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, then why is there such an obvious ethnic divide in Christendom (Greek "Orthodox" vs. Latin "Catholic") ?
The divide is theological, not ethnic.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,591
12,122
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,181,092.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
So the terms "Greek Orthodox" vs. "Roman Catholic" have been purely randomly coinciding with ethnicity for 1500 years by pure happenstance ?
Try Eastern Orthodox. The Church includes Greeks, Russians, Chinese, Bulgarians, Fins, Serbians, Italians, Australians, Japanese, Indonesians, Americans, Mexicans, etc.
The Latins like to refer to the Church as just the Greeks but is not a true reference.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,118
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Try Eastern Orthodox. The Church includes Greeks, Russians, Chinese, Bulgarians, Fins, Serbians, Italians, Australians, Japanese, Indonesians, Americans, Mexicans, etc.
The Latins like to refer to the Church as just the Greeks but is not a true reference.
So the Pope being of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch being of Constantinople is, again, a purely random happenstance coincidence?

Because if you plot all the major schisms on a map, they all line up rather precisely with ethno-political borders:
  • Roman Catholics
  • Greek Orthodox
  • Syrian Jacobites
  • Persian Nestorians
No chance external ethno-political issues have penetrated into internal Christian discourses (since at least Chalcedon in 453 AD or so) ?
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,079
3,768
✟290,868.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
So the Pope being of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch being of Constantinople is, again, a purely random happenstance coincidence?

Because if you plot all the major schisms on a map, they all line up rather precisely with ethno-political borders:
  • Roman Catholics
  • Greek Orthodox
  • Syrian Jacobites
  • Persian Nestorians
No chance external ethno-political issues have penetrated into internal Christian discourses (since at least Chalcedon in 453 AD or so) ?

I'm not willing to dismiss ethnic clashes happening or contributing to division within the Church, yet I can't agree that they are as important as you make it out to be.

What keeps the Orthodox and Catholics divided today? Is it the external issues which earlier Orthodox Patriarchs criticized Catholics for or is the major issues like the filioque or the idea of Papal supremacy?

If we are going to reduce schisms to matters of ethnicity then I fear we are using a materialist worldview which sees things through an animal perspective, instead of one which takes divine things importantly. Otherwise we might be justified in concluding that the reason for the Protestant reformation was primarily an ethnic struggle on part of the Germans, English, Scandinavians and others.
 
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,118
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If we are going to reduce schisms to matters of ethnicity then I fear we are using a materialist worldview which sees things through an animal perspective, instead of one which takes divine things importantly. Otherwise we might be justified in concluding that the reason for the Protestant reformation was primarily an ethnic struggle on part of the Germans, English, Scandinavians and others
All of whom are ethnically "Germanic" peoples, yes

That is the risk -- we are all responding more to materialisms & nationalisms than to the divine supernatural

It's not impossible to construe the four Beasts of Daniel (pagan Rome, pagan Greece, pagan Persia, pagan Babylon) in the four major clusters of Christianity (Roman Catholic, Greek-Eastern Orthodox, Nestorian, Jacobite)

According to Saint Paul, the original Christianity stated "neither Jew nor Greek" [nor Persian nor Roman nor German] in Christ
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums