In the Apostle Paul's footsteps in Malta!
Here is my beloved wife Berit depicted where presumption respectively Paul and his entourage of 276 souls got saved in the country after the disaster with no past St. Paul on Malta (Acts 27, 37, we were two hundred seventy-six souls on the ship) .
I and my wife were new recently in Malta to find traces of the Apostle Paul there. Has in recent years been all over the Middle East and southern Europe to find traces of the early Christians. What strikes me is that we do not find much trace of any of the apostles except the apostles Paul. Even in Rome as we have been, we find no trace of any of the apostles except Apostle Paul.
This is from the book of Acts when the Apostle and his companion go ashore in Malta after the disaster:
Acts 28th 1 As we now had rescued us, we know that island hood Malta. 2 The Uncommonly benevolence towards us, they kindle the fire, and received us all, because it had begun to rain and was cold. 3 But when Paul had gathered a crowd of dry twigs and threw them into the fire, a viper out of the heat and fastened in his hand. 4 And when the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said among themselves, This man is a murderer, as the vengeance suffereth not to live, though he hath escaped the sea. 5 He shook the snake off into the fire, and had no harm; 6 But they were expecting that he would swell or fall dead immediately. When they had waited a long time, and so he did not have any evil of it, they changed their minds and said he was a god. 7 the neighborhood of that place was the first man of the island, named Publius, a farm, he welcomed us and showed us friendly hospitality for three days. 8 And there came down so that Publius' father was very sick with fever and blood once, Paul went in to him and prayed, and laid hands on him and healed him. 9 When this had happened, came also the other in the island who had diseases and were healed. 10 They also showed us great honor, and when we went there, they brought aboard the ship that we might have use for. 11 And now, three months had passed, we set sail in a ship of Alexandria which had wintered at the island and had twins to brand.
Today, the city of St. Paul's Bay where Paul stranded, a nice little nice tourist as an absolute can recommend. There is very little Protestant Christianity in Malta, but in return much Catholic. On the islands of Malta is well with 400,000 inhabitants is about. 360 Catholic churches, it is very much. Assumption estimated date. capita Malta worlds 'most' Catholic country.
Out in the open sea, there is a statue of St. Paul St. Paul's Bay, set up in 1845 by the Catholic Church. Given it is so rough there, this is the largest uninhabited island of Malta, it is said to have shed a farmer there who have left the island.
The 10th February celebrates the Apostle Paul's day in Malta which is both a free and public holiday.
According to tradition, the apostle took refuge in a cave, now known as St. Paul grotto in Rabat, Malta. During his stay in the winter, he was invited to the house of Publius, the Roman main man on the islands. It was here, according to what Acts says that Paul healed Publius father with a severe fever. Publius is said then to have converted to Christianity and was made the first Bishop of Malta. Cathedral of Medina is said to stand on the site of Publius house. Mdina is Malta's first capital and is located on a ridge with a view of the whole of Malta. Today's capital, Valletta. Have even seen this and the dimensions of the whole castle is great!
Thoughts on why we do not find anything other than the Apostle Paul in South Europe and within its Roman Empire is clear to me. Neither Peter nor any of the other of the apostles seemed within its nations with the message of Jesus in the great and all. It was the apostle Paul who was apostle to the Gentiles, that was his main mission in life, not the other apostles.
From my commentaries Galatians 2.1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and I also had Titus with me. Now there was another Paul who pulled up, a mature Paul. There is suffering, loneliness and dependency of our Lord that makes us fit to hold a spiritual ministry and spiritual position. Not human recognition and or exaltation. 2 I went there because of a revelation. In a separate meeting with the most highly regarded, I presented to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, because I did not want all my work would be in vain. As Christianity emerged as a separate movement, more and more independent of Judaism, it was also forced to clarify how the Christian school live right in the face of Roman diverse cultural and religious life. Therefore, this event is essential! 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, and that is Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. Titus was not a Jew, and therefore not circumcised. Paul had left Timothy circumcised without positive results. Paul had learned, and he did not turn aside or bent off longer. Acts 16th 3 Paul wanted to have him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in these areas. All knew that his father was a Greek. 4 This requirement came from some false brethren who had sneaked in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, that they might make us slaves. Many of the Jews who believed in Jesus as things went from Judaism with them into the new life that Jesus had abolished by the sacrifice of Calvary. It has always been the church and church history that those who have believed have gone with the stuff from the old life and the faith they had. Such as the Trinity doctrine that all people will live forever etc. Acts 6 7 The word of God came more and more, and the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly. Also a number of priests became obedient to the faith. 5 But not for a moment did we after and bowed to them. Because we wanted the truth of the gospel should be preserved for you. Paul was trying to please the Jews, but it was always unsuccessful, the only thing he succeeded in was to keep the truth of the gospel. So it is today, compromise and compromise with their conscience is bad for business. Acts 24 These four will you take with you and let you clean with them. You will take on the expenses for this, so they can cut your hair again, as required. Thus everybody will know that there is nothing in what they have heard about you and that you live so you keep the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them, informing them that they should stay away from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. " 26 Paul took the men with him and allowed himself clean with them the next day. Then he went to the temple to give notice when purging time expired and sacrifice for each of them should be carried out. 6 And the most prestigious - whatever they were, it does nothing for me, for God is no respecter of persons - they asked me to new requirements. As Christianity emerged as a separate movement, more and more independent of Judaism. Were also have to clarify how the Christian school live right in the face of Roman diverse cultural and religious life. In several places we find encouragement as the two below: 1 Letter of Peter 2,12 Live right and good among the nations! They speak against you and say that you are bad people. Therefore, you shall let them see that you do good deeds, that they may glorify God on the day he arrives. Philippians 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, right and pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things every good work and all that deserve praise; seek it! Elsewhere again, we see that the Christians faced many challenges, not only from the cultural environment and from Jewish circles, but they also had some way to go in order to clarify within what was a straight Christian faith. The examples show a small part of the discussions that enough has been quite intense, and that has been about very important matters of faith 7 On the contrary, they understood that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter of the circumcision. Acts 1 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and ye shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. " Jesus' teaching was that the gospel should be preached until the end of the earth from the day. 1 Since the disciples did not quite managed to cope with this God had to raise up Paul. Peter remained faithful to the gospel, but Paul led baton. 8 For he who with his power did Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, he did the same to me apostle to the uncircumcised. It was the same God and Lord who had called them both. They were in an equal relation to each other and thus completed the other. I do not think Peter was disobedient, but the task needed to be shared. Therefore, Paul Gentile Apostle Peter and the Jews. 9 And when James, Cephas and John, who is regarded as the pillars, recognized the grace I had received, when they gave me and Barnabas hand as a sign of community. We would go to the nations, to the Jews. When Paul presented his views in Jerusalem, he was not contradicted by the other apostles. On the contrary, he had the full support of his views. Admittedly, there were some who taught that circumcision was necessary, but they had no apostolic authority behind it. The Paul shows clearly in his discussion of the so-called apostolic meeting in Jerusalem Also in Luke's account of this meeting (as found in Acts 15), we confirmed the same: Both Peter and James stood behind the view that Paul and Barnabas stood for: that a man is justified without letting himself be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. In this very important question was thus apostles together. When Paul speaks of one faith, therefore this seems to have a real basis in the early church. This question - whether the works of the law are necessary for man's salvation - however, the only question which our sources give us insight into a consultation between the apostles and where they came up with a joint statement (cf. Acts 15:23-29). Here, we face what we justly be called a common apostolic tradition. This term - apostolic tradition - however, we are not in the NT. But the word "tradition" exists, and we will take a closer look at the meaning and usage of this. Tradition We turn up at NO 78/85, we find the word "tradition" only two places in the NT, both times with a clear negative tone. In Galatians 1:14 Paul speaks about his life before he came to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. He says he went further in their Judaism than their peers and "was even more fierce for the traditions of the fathers". With the "traditions of the fathers" obviously refers to regulations that did not exist in the law of Moses, but as the Pharisees did nevertheless binding. This is clear from the account in Mark 7:1-13: The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus. 2 They noticed that some of his disciples ate with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. 3 For the Pharisees and the Jews in the entire wash their hands with water before the meal. This is namely tradition of the elders. 4 And when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash themselves. They also have many other customs that they have taken over and comply with, such as rinsing mugs and plates and copper kettles. 5 So the Pharisees and scribes him: "Why do your disciples not follow the regulations we have taken over from the old, but eat with defiled hands?" 6 Jesus said: "Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites ─ as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 They worship me in vain, for they teach, men.' 8Dere you do not know God's commandments and hold to the regulations made by humans. " 9 And he said to them: "Yes, you get it nice to ye nullify the commandments of God, that you may follow its own regulations. 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother: and, He who curses the father or mother shall die. '11 But you say, If a man says to his father or mother: What you should have done to help me, to be a Korban ─ it does a gift to the temple ─ 12 that forbids you him to help the parent. 13 Placing the word of God out of power for the sake of the rules you've taken over and gives further. And much of the same kind do you. " This text is important because it gives us an insight into the Jewish tradition of thinking and the terminology associated with it. Let's look at some simple concepts. In 7:13 Jesus refers to "the rules you have taken and pass on." More literally, we could render it thus: "the tradition (Greek: paradosis) you pass on (Greek: paredåkate)". And in 7:4 shows evangelist to the customs that Jews have "taken over" or "received" (Greek: parélabon). The three concepts we encounter here, in the nature of technical terms: (1) "tradition" / "handover" (paradosis), (2) "receive" (paralambánå) and (3) "pass on" / "hand" ( paradídåmi). In later Jewish writings of the tradition of the fathers led the way back to the revelation at Sinai: "Moses received the Law from Sinai and handed it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets and the prophets handed it over to the men of the Great Synagogue .. . " (Mishnah, Avot 1.1). Also here occurs terms "receive" (Hebrew: qibbel) and "surrender" (Hebrew: Masar) relating to delivery of oral tradition. "The handover of the fathers" is in NT negatively assessed - for the simple reason that it is a question of human handover (cf. Mark 7:8). There is also the point in the text where the other EU uses the term "tradition", namely Col. 2:8. There, Paul warns against wisdom teachings based on "human tradition" and that stems from Christ. It is important to note the context of this section. In Colossians 2:6 we read: "You have received (parelábete) Jesus Christ, so walk ye in him. Yet rooted in him and built upon him, stand firm in your faith by what you have learned." There is talk of another form of tradition, a Christ-tradition that the Colossians have been trained in, and exhorted to stick to. And this is as opposed to "human traditions (parádosin Taan anthråpån)". Tradition is not something which in itself is negative. And when the originator is Christ, it has a completely different authority than human handover. Yes, it is only Christ tradition that has authority in the Christian church. That one in the early church regarded with such tradition is evident especially from the Gospel of Matthew. According 11:10 p.m., his disciples only one teacher, the Christ. And it was he who gave the command to make disciples of all nations "in the baptizing them ... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (28:19 f). Acts of the mission, was to lead Christ the tradition. If we then set a historically oriented questions: What were the apostles and their associates teaching and preaching when they founded churches? We know sadly little about. We have no sources that can give us a straight answer on this. But we have some suggestions. An interesting note is found in Papias (from the first half of the 2nd century), which relies on an older informant regarding Mark Gospel origins: And this said the "old": "Mark, Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately, but not in the scheme, all that he recorded of the Lord had said and done." For he neither heard the Lord and followed him, but later he said that Peter's disciple. Peter gave his instruction in the form of short stories, but not to provide an overall representation of the Lord gospel. There is reason to believe that this tradition of St. Mark's has a historical foundation. And the core of this is that Mark's gospel has its basis in the Apostle Peter's teaching and preaching. According to Papias were the contents of his teachings have been brief accounts of what Jesus had said and done. It sounds likely and also correlates with the image we otherwise can form the earliest apostolic preaching. An interesting text in this regard is the restoration of Peter's sermon in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:37 ff), a sermon which essentially gives an account of Jesus 'ministry and then apply this on listeners' situation. Apparently this has been typical of the oldest Christian preaching - it has largely been linked to the story of Jesus. To deliver the words of Jesus and the stories about him have obviously been mainly for those who had followed Jesus. Paul and the apostolic tradition What about Paul? He had not followed Jesus, and his letters contain very little about Jesus' life and ministry. Some have interpreted this to mean that Paul was not interested in the historical Jesus. But that is hardly the case. The case is the fact that Paul clearly requires knowledge of Jesus' life and ministry in its letter. In other words, he assumes that his audience has been teaching about Jesus' words and deeds. Let me take a few examples. Several times in his letters Paul points out Jesus as an example (1 Cor 10:33-11:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; File 2:5). When Jesus set forth as an example, and readers are exhorted to "dress up" in the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 1:14 p.m.), assumes that both Paul and his readers know anything about how Jesus lived. Specifically, Paul speaks of such about "Christ's own kindness and gentleness" (2 Corinthians 10:1), and his description of love in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 is probably formulated with Jesus as an example (see the discussion of Christ as "not thought of themselves "in Romans 15:3). Several times we find statements that assumes familiarity with Passion: Paul speaks of "the night Lord Jesus was betrayed" (1 Cor 11:23), the "world rulers" who crucified Him (1 Corinthians 2:8), to carry Jesus Makes / Jesus' death on his own body (Gal 6:17, 2 Cor 4:10). And not least is Passion in the background when Paul speaks of "Christ crucified" (1 Cor 1:23) that his audience has been "painted" for their eyes (Gal. 3:1). Do not just assume Paul knowledge of Jesus-story, he also refers directly to his readers have been handed down traditions of Jesus.4) The two brightest coatings found in 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 11:23 ff Paul quotes Jesus' Institution of the Eucharist - the following introduction: "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you ...". The other text is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1 ff: I declare unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, that ye have received (parelábete) and stands for. Through it you will be saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached - as long as you are not in vain believed. For primarily delivered (parédåka) I tell you that I have received (parélabon) - That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; - That he was buried, - That he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, - And that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. In both of these texts shows Paul to the Jesus tradition that he has already given to their congregations. But especially interesting is that Paul says that he had accepted this. From who? Based on Galatians 1, it could be tempting to say, the Lord Jesus himself. In Galatians 1:12 Paul says in fact: "I have not received (parélabon) or learned it from any man, but by Jesus Christ appeared to me." Paul's point in this context is to emphasize that his calls and messages are not man's. He is not called of men, but of God (1:1). And his gospel, Paul has not from men, but from God himself (1:11 f). The core of this revelation was certain that Jesus of Nazareth was not a cheat, but that he actually was the Son of God (cf. 1:16) that God had raised from the dead (cf. 1:1 b). Thus Jesus came korsdød in a whole new light: He was not one who was cursed by God, but one who died for our sins (cf. 3:13; 1:4 a). What God had revealed to Paul was thus interpreting the key to the Jesus story. But the story of Jesus' life and ministry, he had probably received from other people. And the fact that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 and 15 use the technical terms for traditional handover makes it unequivocally clear that there is no question of any revelation, but for surrender through people. But unlike the Jewish handover that Paul is critical, this is a delivery that goes back to the Lord Himself, as He says in 1 Corinthians 11:23. Knowledge of this handover, Paul has probably been already shortly after his Damascus experience. Furthermore, Paul tells himself that he is three years after this incident, went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter / Cephas (Gal 1:18). Exactly what was the purpose of this visit, we do not know, but - as the English nytestamentleren CH Dodd said, "we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather" .5) No obviously not. The verb Paul uses it, historeo, actually means to explore, utspørre.6) NO 78/85 therefore seems to hit well when the translator: "to hear more through Cephas". What Paul wanted to know more about, was undoubtedly the traditions about Jesus, and then the leader of the apostolic flock to the next turn. Paul says that he was with Peter for 14 days and that he otherwise just as James the Lord's brother. What does this tell us? Yes, that Paul himself made use of the apostolic tradition - from those who were apostles before him. The Jesus-tradition Paul brought forward in their congregations, was thus a common apostolic tradition. With regard to 1 Corinthians 15, it is important to note that Paul not only renders the "bare facts" about Jesus' death and resurrection. The handover he renders, also contains an interpretation of events. Firstly events are interpreted in light of GT. Both in connection with the death of Jesus and his resurrection states: "according to the Scriptures." The interpretation of Jesus' life and ministry in light of the Old Testament prophecies is central to the early church. There we find clear examples of such. in 1 Letter of Peter (cf. 2:23 and Isaiah 53:7) and in the speeches in Acts. An illustrative example is also Acts 8:26 ff which states that Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch - from Isaiah 53 This way of reading the scriptures can most likely be traced back to Jesus himself, as such. said in Luke 22:37 (cf. 24:25-27, 44ff). The early Church Jesus-tradition contained words also an interpretation of the Jesus story in the light of Old Testament texts. Second: The reading of GT has probably been important in terms of the soteriological interpretation given by Jesus story in 1 Corinthians 15, he died "for our sins". This interpretation was in keeping with Jesus' own words that he came to "give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45) - obviously understood in the light of Isaiah 53 (and 43:3-4) .7) In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul thus continuing the tradition of Jesus and an interpretation of his death and resurrection. Interesting in this context is the so said in verse 11: "But whether it's me or the other [implied: the apostles] - this we proclaim, and this is what you have received in faith." Indeed, Jesus and the interpretation of his death and resurrection was thus common apostolic tradition. The apostolic tradition also contained other material. It is clear from Paul's other use of the terms for traditional handover. We will look at the most important examples. We start with 1 Thessalonians 4:1-2, which states: "Moreover, brethren, pray and beseech you in the Lord Jesus, You have received (parelábete) from us how you ought to live and be pleasing to God, and so do you live already. But you must make even greater progress in this ye know what commands we gave you by the Lord Jesus. " Apostolic Jesus handover has thus also contained ethical materials, which we have a concrete example of Jesus' words about divorce rendered in 1 Corinthians 7:10. Such material actually plays a crucial role in Paul's ethical guidance. He can constantly referring to what he has previously taught their congregations also on the ethical area. An important example is 2 Thessalonians 3:6: "We command you, brethren, in the Lord Jesus Christ, to pull you back from every brother who leads a disorderly life and do not comply with the handover as you received from us (kata ten parádosin hen parelábosan couples' hemån) ". Paul's reference to handover / tradition is important because it tells us that we are facing a permanent element in Paul's teaching. It's often been pointed out that Paul's letters are apartment writings, that their content is determined by the current situation in the various churches he writes to. It is undoubtedly correct. But in its guidance can thus Paul repeatedly show back to what he said earlier. Paul could probably adapt its guidance to new situations, but his guidance has a base that churches already known, which also belonged to the basic education. Therefore, Paul is saying to the Thessalonians: "Stand firm then, brothers, and take care of what you have received (taken paradóseis) and taught by us, either orally or by letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The permanent in this apostolic handover is further emphasized when Paul says that his teaching is the same in all the churches. In connection with its guidance on marriage and celibacy, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:17: "And so ordain I in all churches." And when it comes to their employee Timothy he says: "And why was I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful son in the faith of the Lord, who will remind you of my way of Jesus Christ, as I teach everywhere in every the churches "(1 Corinthians 4:17). Timothy would just remind them - because they had heard it before. And no matter what church they previously could have been, they would have heard it before. Thus, we can say that Paul's counsel was ecumenical (see also the reference to ecumenical practice in 1 Corinthians 11:16 and 2:33 p.m.). A common apostolic tradition With regard to the question of church unity can we assume this to say: The Pauline churches constituted a unit because they were based on a common apostolic tradition, a tradition that Paul constantly reminded them. But what about the other churches, those who were not founded by Paul? Was also those based on the same apostolic tradition? We have already seen that Paul presupposes a common Apostolic Kerygma - related to Jesus' death and resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 3:11 p.m.). And there are other indications of such a common apostolic tradition. In this context, the Romans of particular interest. Unlike the other letters Paul is in fact written to a church that is not founded by Paul or his close associates. It is Paul's very aware when he writes to the Romans. Yet he implies necessarily that they are united in a common faith (cf. 1:12: "the faith we have in common"). And when he talks about the new way of life, he shows no modifications to the doctrine which they have received. Actually, it says: "the learning form you are committed to (hon paredóthete TYPON Didache)" (6:17). And at 4:17 p.m. he exhorts them: "Keep your eye on those who cause spitter and causes others to fall by going against the teachings you have received." He is not referring to what he has written in his very comprehensive letter, but generally what they have learned. It shows that Paul assumes a common Christian tradition that he necessarily able to link to an. There is also another element that is worth noting in this regard. For a long time scientists have been keen to look for traditional goods in Paul letters, in other words, examples of material that is formulated by Paul himself, but which he makes use of previously formulated texts. There is still debate on a number of individual texts, but it is generally agreed that Paul, in many cases making use of such material. In particular, the question of hymnisk material and confession-like formulations. The criteria to determine if something is traditional goods include lyrics that stand out from the context that they have a vocabulary which is not typical of Paul and the such. can have a poetic touch. The most famous examples of such texts are hymns in Phil 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-20. Also in Romans we find secure examples of such pre-Pauline fomuleringer. Let me just mention Rooms 1:3-4 which has a clear formula like feel and contain a single word which is not usual for Paul. Let me quote from the letter beginning: 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, chosen to proclaim the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who according to the flesh is a descendant of David 4 and as by the Spirit of holiness inmate The Son of God by the resurrection from the dead - Jesus Christ our Herre.8) When Paul to introduce himself and his Gospel, he grabs that is a traditional Christological formula. It is hardly a coincidence. When Paul writes to the Romans, he is committed to finding the right "tone" to this church that he has founded, but that he plans to visit and get as supporter of missionary work in Spain. Among its members could perhaps be people who had heard unfavorable rumors about Paul and his theology. So when Paul presents himself using a confessional formula, it helps to emphasize its roots in the ecumenical tradition. He does not represent any særmening but are planted in the common Christian, fellesapostoliske tradition. Indications of an fellesapostolisk tradition we find if we compare the writings of various authors. We will see that there are several similarities. We find for example. a fairly solid tradition tribe when it comes Christological formulas, much public goods exhortations (especially in dyds and download catalogs and Domestic Decalogue) and many commonalities in terms of the interpretation of Old Testament texts. All this suggest an early church tradition that has been common to all the New Testament forfattere.9) The time has come to conclude: Irenaeus' and Tertullian picture of the historical developments in the oldest church is probably somewhat schematic and simplified. But they are hardly far from the truth when it comes to the apostolic tradition as the basis for church unity. True church unity is only on this basis. The people were aware of the 2nd century and there is reason to repeat it today. Ecumenical unity can only be when we believe and teach so that the apostolic churches did. (End of quote).
Final Comment: It is certainly exciting, rewarding and eventful not only to study this through literature and other ways. But to get to those places and talking to locals. In this way an overview and insight throughout. It tells me that the story lies in many respects. But God's word is eternal truth which says that Apostle appeared among the Gentiles, and was willing to preach everywhere, also in Rome. Whereas the apostle Peter did not, and far less was the first Bishop of Rome and died there. His grave was probably in Jerusalem, not in Rome, Italy! Refers to other articles on this topic under related articles and the blog and our website.
Rooms 1:15 So I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome.
Related links: http://janchristensen.net/ http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/05/nr-310-apostle-peter-was-never-apostle.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2013/03/nr-476-paul-concluded-his-service-among.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2013/03/nr-471-peters-tomb-recently-discovered.html
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar