Saint Peter - Much European talk relies on tradition

[rockytopva]

We have Saint Peter spending much of his early ministry in Israel ministering to the Jews. And according to scripture the Apostles handed the gentile church to the Apostle Paul....

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles). And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. - Galatians 2:7-9

After that we have l and ll Peter where he declares....

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, - 1 Peter 1:1

Pontus - Due north os Syria
Galatia - Next door to Pontus
Cappadocia - Between Pontus and Syria
Asia - That whole area
Bithynia - North of Galatia

And in 2 Peter he declares, “This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:” Noting the first epistle references Asians.

Paul, writing to the Romans declares, “For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:” - Romans 11:13

I have no scriptural references of Peter ever entering or addressing Europeans.

 

[rockytopva]

We have no biblical records of Saint Peter being in Europe. It would of helped had Saint Peter written to a European Church.

 

[CoreIssue]

History shows Peter did not want to deal with gentiles, only Jews.

He was never in Rome.

The catholic history concerning Peter is false. What document proof they offer was invented by them.

 

[Enoch111]

We have no biblical records of Saint Peter being in Europe. It would of helped had Saint Peter written to a European Church.

Had Peter been genuinely involved with the church at Rome at the time, surely he would have been mentioned in the epistle to the Romans, or he would himself have said something about Rome in his epistles.

Peter was Christ's apostle to the Jews, as Paul was to the Gentiles. Every apostolic church had a plurality of elders, not one man claiming to be bishop. And Peter humbly regards himself as an elder also in his first epistle.

 

[101G]

I have no scriptural references of Peter ever entering or addressing Europeans.

History shows Peter did not want to deal with gentiles, only Jews.

not saying that any is right or wrong, but consider this. the Europeans came to Peter. Acts 10:1 "There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
Acts 10:2 "A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway".

God can do anything, even bring the church to you.

Galatians 2:11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Galatians 2:12 "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Galatians 2:13 "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Galatians 2:14 "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

PICJAG.

 

[CoreIssue]

not saying that any is right or wrong, but consider this. the Europeans came to Peter. Acts 10:1 "There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
Acts 10:2 "A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway".

God can do anything, even bring the church to you.

Galatians 2:11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Galatians 2:12 "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Galatians 2:13 "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Galatians 2:14 "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

PICJAG.

Not wanting to deal with gentiles and refusing to deal with gentiles is two different things.

 

[101G]

Not wanting to deal with gentiles and refusing to deal with gentiles is two different things.

but he was eating with them, was he not?

PICJAG.

 

[BreadOfLife]

History shows Peter did not want to deal with gentiles, only Jews.
He was never in Rome.
The catholic history concerning Peter is false. What document proof they offer was invented by them.

The arguments against Peter having been in Rome are impotent at best – and ludicrous and completely without merit. You would have to erase history to delete Peter’s presence in Rome during the first century because there is FAR too much evidence to the contrary.

The blunder YOU make is a common one – insisting that if something isn’t explicitly mentioned in Scripture – then it didn’t happen. This is an asinine approach to Church history. As have pointed out on SEVERAL occasions – not ONE is a baptism described in the NT – yet many Protestants insist that full immersion if the “only” way to baptize. Tradition and history tell a different story – as do the implicit teachings of Scripture.

As for Peter, his bones were discovered beneath the main altar at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Chronicled in the Book, The Bones of St. Peter, they were found in the cavers beneath the church surrounded by first and second century graffiti attesting to the fact that it was indeed the remains of St. Peter. Forensic testing confirmed that they were the bones of a very elderly man who had been crucified.

The Early Church Fathers UNANIMOUSLT place Peter in Rome with Paul in the first century. In fact – there is not even ONE SINGLE Early Church writing to the contrary – not ONE.

Finally – in 1 Pet. 5:13, he sends his greeting from himself, Mark and the Church at “Babylon” – which is 1st century code for ROME.
Once again - all YOU have is your opinions, which does NOT make for a valid argument.


In ANY court of Law – this is what is known as an “open and shut” case . . .

 

[CoreIssue]

The arguments against Peter having been in Rome are impotent at best – and ludicrous and completely without merit. You would have to erase history to delete Peter’s presence in Rome during the first century because there is FAR too much evidence to the contrary.

The blunder YOU make is a common one – insisting that if something isn’t explicitly mentioned in Scripture – then it didn’t happen. This is an asinine approach to Church history. As have pointed out on SEVERAL occasions – not ONE is a baptism described in the NT – yet many Protestants insist that full immersion if the “only” way to baptize. Tradition and history tell a different story – as do the implicit teachings of Scripture.

As for Peter, his bones were discovered beneath the main altar at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Chronicled in the Book, The Bones of St. Peter, they were found in the cavers beneath the church surrounded by first and second century graffiti attesting to the fact that it was indeed the remains of St. Peter. Forensic testing confirmed that they were the bones of a very elderly man who had been crucified.

The Early Church Fathers UNANIMOUSLT place Peter in Rome with Paul in the first century. In fact – there is not even ONE SINGLE Early Church writing to the contrary – not ONE.

Finally – in 1 Pet. 5:13, he sends his greeting from himself, Mark and the Church at “Babylon” – which is 1st century code for ROME.
Once again - all YOU have is your opinions, which does NOT make for a valid argument.


In ANY court of Law – this is what is known as an “open and shut” case . . .

Purely catholic claims with no verification.

Being the bones of an elderly man is not the same as the bones of Peter. In any court of law that is called heresay and inadmissible.

You forget I dealt with legal issues as a councilman, mayor and arbitrator. So don't try to lecture me on law.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Purely catholic claims with no verification.

Being the bones of an elderly man is not the same as the bones of Peter. In any court of law that is called heresay and inadmissible.

You forget I dealt with legal issues as a councilman, mayor and arbitrator. So don't try to lecture me on law.

Apparently, you weren't a very good arbitrator.
The archaeological, forensic, manuscript and testimonial evidence of Peter's having been in Rome is overwhelming.

Don't take MY word for it - take the words of archaeology, history, Tradition and science and read The Bones o St. Peter.
More and more of your Protestant scholars are beginning to acquiesce to this fact because the truth can no longer be denied . . .

 

[CoreIssue]

Apparently, you weren't a very good arbitrator.
The archaeological, forensic, manuscript and testimonial evidence of Peter's having been in Rome is overwhelming.

Don't take MY word for it - take the words of archaeology, history, Tradition and science and read The Bones o St. Peter.
More and more of your Protestant scholars are beginning to acquiesce to this fact because the truth can no longer be denied . . .

Offering a catholic proof for a catholic claim. Nonstarter.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Offering a catholic proof for a catholic claim. Nonstarter.

Nonsense.
I have science and 2000 years of history and Tradition on my side.

All YOU offered was an anti-Catholic denial - sans ANY actual proof.

 

[CoreIssue]

You mean catholic history and catholic tradition. No science.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You mean catholic history and catholic tradition. No science.

And once again - a thousand of your opinions don't add up to ONE single fact.
The overwhelming archaeological evidence is summed up in the book, The Bones of St. Peter by John Walsh.

As for history - it's not "Catholic" history - it's simply history. It didn't just happen to Catholics.
That's the funny thing about history - it happens no matter WHAT faith tradition you belong to.

As I stated before - I challenge you to fine ONE SINGLE extrabiblical document that refutes the fact that Peter was in Rome with Paul.
Just ONE . . .

 

[Enoch111]

As I stated before - I challenge you to fine ONE SINGLE extrabiblical document that refutes the fact that Peter was in Rome with Paul.
Just ONE . .

Is there any evidence that the apostle Peter died in Rome?

St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City, the traditional burial site of the apostle Peter.

There is no solid evidence—textual or even archaeological—that Peter died in Rome. Starting around the end of the second century, Christian pilgrims went to see Peter’s tropaion. But a tropaion is not a tomb. The word itself is very unusual; sometimes translated as “trophy,” it means something like a war memorial or a cenotaph (i.e., an empty grave). It’s not the word used in the Roman Empire for a burial place. Yet this spot—which was originally in the middle of an ancient cemetery—was quickly understood as the place where Peter was buried. When it was excavated in the 1950s, archaeologists were shocked to find that there was no grave and no bones under the tropaion. Only later were some bones produced from that excavation, and it’s a fascinating story we talk about in Finding Jesus. Are these Peter’s bones? That appears to be a matter of faith. The official Vatican position, first stated in 1968, is that they might be.

The Apostle Peter in Rome - Biblical Archaeology Society

 

[epostle]

You mean catholic history and catholic tradition. No science.

You won't accept reputable Protestant historians either. That's because you depend on false histories to support your man made system. Bible origin fantasies is a clear example of that. Claims that Peter was never in Rome doesn't disprove his office, anti-Catholics think it does. There are over 70 verses in the NT showing Peter as spokesman for all the Apostles and/or leader of the earthly Church. The anti-authority / anti-institution mentality is common among non-denoms, fundamentalists, Landmark Baptists, and every cult of the post enlightenment era. (JW's, SDA's etc., etc.) So they dream up this false story about Peter not being in Rome because they think it usurps the papacy.

Changing the meaning of "Tradition", forcing it to fit your prejudices, won't work either.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Is there any evidence that the apostle Peter died in Rome?

St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City, the traditional burial site of the apostle Peter.

There is no solid evidence—textual or even archaeological—that Peter died in Rome. Starting around the end of the second century, Christian pilgrims went to see Peter’s tropaion. But a tropaion is not a tomb. The word itself is very unusual; sometimes translated as “trophy,” it means something like a war memorial or a cenotaph (i.e., an empty grave). It’s not the word used in the Roman Empire for a burial place. Yet this spot—which was originally in the middle of an ancient cemetery—was quickly understood as the place where Peter was buried. When it was excavated in the 1950s, archaeologists were shocked to find that there was no grave and no bones under the tropaion. Only later were some bones produced from that excavation, and it’s a fascinating story we talk about in Finding Jesus. Are these Peter’s bones? That appears to be a matter of faith. The official Vatican position, first stated in 1968, is that they might be.

The Apostle Peter in Rome - Biblical Archaeology Society

This doesn't address my challenge.

My challenge was:
Find ONE SINGLE extrabiblical Early Church document that refutes the fact that Peter was in Rome with Paul.
Just ONE . . .

If you can't find one - please explain WHY not ONE Early Church Father or ANY of their contemporaries attempted to refute this claim.

 

[CoreIssue]

This doesn't address my challenge.

My challenge was:
Find ONE SINGLE extrabiblical Early Church document that refutes the fact that Peter was in Rome with Paul.
Just ONE . . .

If you can't find one - please explain WHY not ONE Early Church Father or ANY of their contemporaries attempted to refute this claim.

That is negative prove demand.

Can you provide a positive proof he did die in Rome other than claims from the catholic church?

 

[BreadOfLife]

That is negative prove demand.

Can you provide a positive proof he did die in Rome other than claims from the catholic church?

No - I'm NOT asking for solid "proof" of anything.
ALL I want is a dissenting opinion from the Early Church - or one of their contemporaries on the matter.

Just ANY opposing opinion that differs from Apostolic Tradition on Peter's presence in Rome.
Here is the Early Church on the matter. Just give me something - ANYTHING else . . .

Dionysius of Corinth
You 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 Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).

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. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions 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 successions 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. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all 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 (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
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 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

Eusebius
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
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 for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).

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 (Canonical Letter, 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 by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, 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 [inter A.D. 316-320]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
Simon Magus so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. 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… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).

Damasus
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 Christians was first applied, as to a new people (The Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

 

[CoreIssue]

No - I'm NOT asking for solid "proof" of anything.
ALL I want is a dissenting opinion from the Early Church - or one of their contemporaries on the matter.

Just ANY opposing opinion that differs from Apostolic Tradition on Peter's presence in Rome.
Here is the Early Church on the matter. Just give me something - ANYTHING else . . .

Dionysius of Corinth
You 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 Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).

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. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions 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 successions 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. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all 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 (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
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 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

Eusebius
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
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 for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).

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 (Canonical Letter, 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 by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, 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 [inter A.D. 316-320]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
Simon Magus so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. 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… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).

Damasus
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 Christians was first applied, as to a new people (The Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

catholics