Comments on Christian Unity: The Church at Rome

I'm not aware of any reliable church history docum...

2008-06-06T05:19:00.000-07:00

I'm not aware of any reliable church history documents from that period other than the scriptures themselves. Clement of Rome may come close to that. You can check out the writings of the early church "fathers" here

But you are correct in saying it is a stretch to make Peter the head of the church in Rome -- much less the first pope. We don't have any biblical evidence of this. It seems odd that the scriptures would neglect to speak of a pope, or of Peter serving in that capacity in Rome. Since Peter was martyred in the mid 60's, he would have had to serve in that capacity prior to that time -- a period when the NT was being written. But it was not mentioned. In fact it seems that Jerusalem, not Rome, was the leading congregation in the church at the time of the biblical writings, and James seems to have been the prominent leader in that church.

Alan,Thank you for your analysis. If there were mu...

2008-06-05T16:01:00.000-07:00

Alan,

Thank you for your analysis. If there were multiple house churches in Rome, each led by a different group of believers, how does one get from there to the Roman Catholic claim of a single church with Peter at the head? Seems like quite a stretch!

Is there any reliable history or analysis of what happened, say, between 60 AD and 80 AD? Any references would be appreciated.

regards,

David Addison

Alan, I enjoyed your post on the Roman church. Wh...

2007-01-19T04:53:00.000-08:00

Alan,
I enjoyed your post on the Roman church. When I think about Rome my first thought is always Nero and the circumstances facing the Christians during that time in Roman history. Thanks for your study.
Sisterly,
Paula

Yes, if only we could learn from how it was and no...

2007-01-18T13:13:00.000-08:00

Yes, if only we could learn from how it was and not how we want it to be.

The commentaries I've checked seem to agree that t...

2007-01-17T04:54:00.000-08:00

The commentaries I've checked seem to agree that there were separate congregations in Rome.

According to the IVP Bible Background Commentary, the Jewish community was predominantly poor, and there were multiple geographically separate congregations across the city. This commentary suggests that many of the predominantly Jewish house churches existed in the Jewish ghetto across the Tiber. The commentary also states that there were about 50,000 Jews in Rome at the time, including Romans who were converted to Judaism.

I don't see anything in the book of Romans suggesting that they change their pattern of assembly. Instead Paul seems to address the heart issues around their differences.

Alan, Great points. Thanks for your time and effo...

2007-01-17T03:06:00.000-08:00

Alan,
Great points. Thanks for your time and effort in this study. After reading the "Body Broken" by Jack Reese, I have struggled to picture in my mind the Roman church and how it met, what it was like and most of all God's expectations of their meetings. Were they to attempt to meet together or by house church? (I suspect as you do, the house church model seems to fit best.)

If meeting geographically, would there not be house churches predominately comprised of rich, poor, gentile, Jew, etc... If today we were to take a large metropolitan church and break it into geographic slices, chances are, each slice would be segregated by ethnicity and economics.

With that in mind, was Paul merely interested in the heart and attitude of the Romans, or did he want integrated house churches? What would he say to our congregations which are organized to reach a small suburb or neighborhood?

Alan (or anyone else) - your thoughts would be helpful.

Sincerely,
Phil Spadaro
RestorationUnity.com