Was Peter ever in Rome? What saith the Scriptures?

Axehead · Nov 18, 2012

The chronology of the New Testament times is quite easy to establish from dates and events in Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. The dates are also reliably confirmed by secular history. From the dates that are easily established, it is evident that Peter was in certain places at certain times, which almost certainly eliminates the possibility that he ever went to Rome.

The earliest claim that Peter was in Rome is Ignatius (130 A.D.), but his writings are so unreliable in other facts (e.g. Luke succeeded Peter as the bishop of Antioch of Pysidia), that he cannot be trusted. The next clear claim is by Papias (ca. 150 A.D.). So, Peter's supposed residence in the Imperial city is claimed by two unreliable writers who lived some sixty to eighty years after the Apostle's death. And, ironically, they did not consider the avalanche of New Testament evidence against their claims.

Another glaring omission amongst so many is Paul's neglect of mentioning Peter in Rome. Paul does not hesitate to mention Peter's presence in Antioch (Gal 2:11) or Peter's presence in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18). But Paul never even breathes a syllable of Peter in Rome. Other chronological facts simply make it all but impossible that the Fisherman from Galilee was ever in Rome.

Generally, those who believe Peter went to Rome believe that he went to Rome in 42 A.D. and exercised his "pontificate" for twenty-five years in that city until he was killed by Nero in the year 67 A.D. Naturally, they are forced to claim that Peter's reference to his presence in "Babylon" (I Peter 5:13) is used symbolically of Rome.

Biblical and Secular history refutes those who claim Peter was in Rome. An exhaustive examination of New Testament chronology places their assertion in critical disarray. Certain dates and events militate against the supposition that Peter was ever in Rome.

Let's go through the chronology of Peter next. I think you will find it very interesting and informative as we will see quite a bit about the other Apostles and where they were, too.

Does anyone have anything to add before I start?

Axehead

Selene · Nov 18, 2012

Axehead said:
The chronology of the New Testament times is quite easy to establish from dates and events in Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. The dates are also reliably confirmed by secular history. From the dates that are easily established, it is evident that Peter was in certain places at certain times, which almost certainly eliminates the possibility that he ever went to Rome.

The earliest claim that Peter was in Rome is Ignatius (130 A.D.), but his writings are so unreliable in other facts (e.g. Luke succeeded Peter as the bishop of Antioch of Pysidia), that he cannot be trusted. The next clear claim is by Papias (ca. 150 A.D.). So, Peter's supposed residence in the Imperial city is claimed by two unreliable writers who lived some sixty to eighty years after the Apostle's death. And, ironically, they did not consider the avalanche of New Testament evidence against their claims.

Another glaring omission amongst so many is Paul's neglect of mentioning Peter in Rome. Paul does not hesitate to mention Peter's presence in Antioch (Gal 2:11) or Peter's presence in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18). But Paul never even breathes a syllable of Peter in Rome. Other chronological facts simply make it all but impossible that the Fisherman from Galilee was ever in Rome.

Generally, those who believe Peter went to Rome believe that he went to Rome in 42 A.D. and exercised his "pontificate" for twenty-five years in that city until he was killed by Nero in the year 67 A.D. Naturally, they are forced to claim that Peter's reference to his presence in "Babylon" (I Peter 5:13) is used symbolically of Rome.

Biblical and Secular history refutes those who claim Peter was in Rome. An exhaustive examination of New Testament chronology places their assertion in critical disarray. Certain dates and events militate against the supposition that Peter was ever in Rome.

Let's go through the chronology of Peter next. I think you will find it very interesting and informative as we will see quite a bit about the other Apostles and where they were, too.

Does anyone have anything to add before I start?

Axehead

Could you provide the evidence showing that Ignatius made that claim? The reason I ask is because it was St. Ignatius who became the Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter left to Rome. Also, Clement and Ireaneus both attested to Peter being in Rome and being executed in Rome. Furthermore, archaeology also shows that St. Peter was in Rome because his bones was excavated and found there.

Axehead · Nov 20, 2012

Selene said:
Could you provide the evidence showing that Ignatius made that claim? The reason I ask is because it was St. Ignatius who became the Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter left to Rome. Also, Clement and Ireaneus both attested to Peter being in Rome and being executed in Rome. Furthermore, archaeology also shows that St. Peter was in Rome because his bones was excavated and found there.

Hi Selene,

I was wrong on the date and Ignatius never really said Peter was in Rome.
Here is the quote: (This is found all over the Internet).

"In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome."

Ok, let's trace Peter's movement with the Scriptures. Certain dates and events militate against the supposition that Peter was ever in Rome.

33 A.D. The Church was established on Pentecost in Jerusalem and Peter was there - he preached that day (Acts 2).

36 A.D. Paul was converted on the road to Damascus (Acts 9).
1. Acts 9:22-25 together with II Corinthians 11:32 tells us that King Aretas collaborated with the Jews of Damascus who tried to capture Paul, but he was "Let down from window over the wall in a basket" and escaped.
2. With the reign of Aretas, the date of Paul's conversion cannot be earlier than 36 or 38 and certainly not later than 40 because Aretas' reign ended in 40 A. D.

39 A.D. Herod died "eaten of worms" (Acts 12:23).
1. But Peter and James were imprisoned by this same Heron in Jerusalem shortly before his death (Acts 12:1-2).
2. The Lord delivered Peter, and he was restored to the church because "prayers were made earnestly of the church unto God for him." (Acts 12:5).

44-48 A.D. The famine prophesied by Agabus, that "would come over all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius" (Acts 11:28)
1. This famine is also confirmed by secular writers:
a. Suetonius (Claud.,xvii)
b. Dio Cassius (lx. 11)
c. Tacitus (Annals xii.43)
d. Orosius (vii. 6)
e. Josephus (Ant., XX, ii.5)
2. These writers also relate the death of Herod in the same period of time. They confirm N.T. chronology. And Peter was not imprisoned until Acts 12 - which fits this dating.

45-49 A.D. The First Missionary Journey of Paul, Barnabas and John Mark (Acts 13-14).

46-47 A.D. Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Cyprus - a Roman inscription found on the island confirm this date.
1. Annius Bassus became Proconsul in 52 A.D. during the twelfth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar.
2. So Sergius Paulus had to be Proconsul before then, which easily fits the date presented for Paul's journey. (Acts 13:7)

49-50 A.D. The Edict of Claudius which commanded "all the Jews to depart from Rome" (Acts 18:2 does not necessarily mean that the edict was not issued until the time of Acts 18 in Luke's reference, but that the edict was the reason Aquila and Priscilla were in Corinth, having "lately come from Italy").

52-53 A.D. The Jerusalem Conference about the question of Gentile circumcision (Acts 15; Galatians 2:1-10).
1. As already noted, Paul's visit was "three years after" his conversion.
2. "Then after the space of fourteen years", Paul returned "by revelation" (God commanded him to go) because of the uncircumcision question.
3. That makes a total of seventeen years after Paul's conversion, and it dates the Jerusalem meeting about 52 or 53 A.D.
4. But at that very time: "James, Peter and John were reputed to be pillars in the church" in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9)

53-54 A.D. Gallio was Proconsul in Corinth - and that date is confirmed by Roman historians and by a fragmentary inscription from Delphi containing a lettre from the Emperor Claudius in which mention of Gallio was made and it is dated in the twenty-sixth year of his reign.
1. Paul was in Corinth at that time (Acts 18:12) during his Second Missionary Journey.
2. From Corinth he wrote 1 and II Thessalonians.

54-55 A.D. Paul's Third Missionary Journey - during which time he spent two years teaching in the school of Tyrannus in Ephesus.
1. From Ephesus he wrote 1 Corinthians and Galatians.
2. He then went to Macedonia from whence he wrote II Corinthians -- probably the next year -- about 57 A.D.

58 A.D. Paul returned to Corinth where he "spent three months" (Acts 20:3).
1. From Corinth he wrote the Roman Letter. That hs is in Corinth at this writing is evident from the fact that ie is the guest of "Gaius, my host" (Romans 16:23). And "Erastus was the treasurer of the city." Gaius is the same brother mentioned in I Corinthians 1:14; Acts 19:29.
2. In the sixteenth chapter of Romans Paul mentioned some thirty-five different brethren by name - to whom he sent salutations. But there is no mention of Peter being in Rome - and if he were there - then Paul totally ignored him. It is easier to believe he simply was not there.

59-60 A.D. Festus succeeded Felix (Acts 24:27) and Eusebius in this book on Church History places this succession by Festus during the second year of the reign of Nero.
1. Paul had been a prisoner of Felix for almost two years when Festus succeeded him (Acts 24:27).
2. Only "three days" after his ascension to office, Festus went to Jerusalem (Acts 25:1) and the Jews there tried to get him to send Paul to Jerusalem from Caesarea so they could kill him.
3. But he stayed in Jerusalem "not more than eight or ten days" (Acts 25:6). Then the day after his return to Caesarea he called Paul to stand trial (Acts 25:6).
4. It was then that Paul "appealed to Caesar" (Acts 25:11)

61-62 A.D. Paul's journey to Rome and his first imprisonment, during which time he stayed "in his own hired dwelling" for some two years (Acts 28:30).
1. During this time he wrote from Rome the book of Colossians.
a. Timothy was with him at that time in Rome (Col 1:1)
b. Tychicus and Onesimus took the letter he wrote from Rome to Colossae (Col 4:7-9)
c. Paul sends greetings from Aristarchus, Mark, Justus, Luke and Demas. (Col 4:10-14)
d. No mention of Peter being in Rome.
2. From Rome he also wrote Ephesians.
a. Tychicus delivered the letter to Ephesus (Eph 6:21)
b. No mention of Peter as Pope in the list of church offices listed in Eph 4:11
"and he gave some to be apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists and some pastors and
teachers", but no popes.
c. Peter is not mentioned as being in Rome.
3. During this same time he wrote Philemon from Rome.
a. Timothy was with him (Philemon 1:1)
b. He also sends greeting from Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke (Philemon 23).
c. No mention of Peter being in Rome.

63 A.D. Phillipians was written from Rome during this same period of time. It was written later than those mentioned just above - for time was required for Epaphroditus to be sent from Philippi, to get sick: "nigh unto death" (Phil 2:25-30) and then return to Philippi.
1. Timothy was with Paul in Rome (Phil 1:1)
2. Paul also sends greetings from "the brethren" and "especially they that are of Caesar's
household" (Phil 4:22).
3. No mention of Peter being in Rome.

64-65 A.D. Paul was released from the Roman prison and returned to Greece and Macedonia (I Tim 1:3)
1. He wrote I Timothy from Macedonia - see above.
2. He also wrote Titus from Macedonia - after he had returned from Crete (Titus 1:5)

65 A.D.(ca) Peter writes from "Babylon" on the Euphrates river - as indicated by the statement: "She that is in Babylon saluteth you." (I Peter 5:13).
1. There was a strong Jewish colony in Babylon at that time and Peter "had been entrusted with the gospel of the circumcision." (Gal 2:7)
2. Since Claudius had commanded "All Jews to depart from Rome" (Acts 18:3), it would be difficult to understand why Peter would go there to carry out his assignment to the Jews.
3. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that Peter is speaking symbolically of Rome when he says "Babylon," for there is no such symbolic usage until John's Revelation letter.
4. After 96 A.D., when Revelation was composed, the Imperial City of Rome was symbolically and classically called "Babylon" by both Christian and secular writers.
5. Catholic writers universally say that "Babylon" of I Peter 5:13 is Rome (which it isn't), and then generally deny that "Babylon" of Revelation 17:5 is Rome (which it is).

67 A.D. Paul's second imprisonment in Rome.
1. II Timothy was written during Paul's final incarceration in Rome.
a. He wants Timothy to "come shortly to me" (II Tim 4:9)
b. He named some: "Demas forsook me...and went to Thessalonica" (II Tim 4:10)
c. "Crescens" went to "Galatia" (vs 10).
d. "Titus" went to "Dalmatia" (vs. 10).
e. "Only Luke is with me" (vs.11).
f. "Erastus remained at Corinth" (vs. 20).
g. "Trophimus I left at Miletus sick" (vs. 20).
2. He sends some salutations:
a. "Eubulus saluteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia" (vs. 21).
b. No salutation from Peter -- and no mention of him being in Rome.
3. If Peter was there he must have abandoned Paul, for "This thou knowest, that all that are in Asia turned away from me, of which are Phygelus and Hermogenes." (II Tim 1:15)
4. "Only Luke is with me" - He stayed with Paul, and so did "Onesiphorus, for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but when he was in Rome, he sough me diligently and found me" (II Tim 1:16-17).

67 A.D. Peter writes the second epistle -- II Peter and it has the same tone as the first epistle, it must have been written to the same Jewish Christians "of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" (I Peter 1:1)
1. The geography of the brethren to whom Peter wrote places them in the region of Asia and Asia Minor - close to national Babylon!
2. Paul was in Europe and wrote to European churches.
3. John was in Asia and wrote the "letters to the seven churches in Asia." (Rev 2-3)

From this point in history, all inspired or even secular history about either Paul or Peter comes to an end. The next mention of Peter's whereabouts will not appear for another eighty years. And for uninspired writers, whose writings are critically rejected for other reasons, their suggestion that he was in Rome leaves much doubt about their reliability.

All history of Peter's travels in the New Testament do not place him in Rome, but definitely place him elsewhere.

So Peter's definite location in too many other definite locations at too many other defnite times definitely exclude the possibility that he spent 25 years in Rome or even went there in the first place.

Axehead

Selene · Nov 22, 2012

Hello Brother Axehead,

First of all, "Babylon" was the code name for Rome, and we never denied that the Babylon in Revelations was also Rome. Rome at that time was not the Roman Catholic Church, but the Roman Empire of which the rulers were the Roman emperors. The Church at Babylon is the Church at Rome......just as the Church at Corinth was the Church at Corinth. Corinth was the name of a place just as Rome was the name of a place. In St. Peter's epistle, he stated, "The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God's election sends you her greeting, and so does my son Mark (1 Peter 5:13). Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used multiple times in works like the Siblline Oracles (5:159f), the Apolcalyse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that it said that Peter's first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark was written in Rome, and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.

You only name one historical document.....that of St. Ignatius (the Bishop of Antioch). There are many other historical documents mentioning Peter being in Rome. Below are the evidence:

[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]
Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s. [/background][background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]
In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his. [/background][background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]
In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome. [/background][background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome. [/background][background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]
Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “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.” [/background][background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]
Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), 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.” [/background][background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]
These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens’ books or to the Catholic Answers tract Peter’s Roman Residency.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight. [/background]

Furthermore, there is archaeological evidence showing that Peter was in Rome. His bones were found there in 1951. The Bones of St. Peter was written by John Evangelist Walsh. So, archaeology is also on our side. Both St. Paul and St. Peter were in Rome. St. Peter was crucified upside down and St. Paul was beheaded by Nero. Below is a weblink showing the accounts of the archaeological excavation of the Apostle Peter in Rome.

http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/27/27.1/27.1.4.pdf

whitestone · Nov 22, 2012

Selene said:
Hello Brother Axehead,

First of all, "Babylon" was the code name for Rome, and we never denied that the Babylon in Revelations was also Rome. Rome at that time was not the Roman Catholic Church, but the Roman Empire of which the rulers were the Roman emperors. The Church at Babylon is the Church at Rome......just as the Church at Corinth was the Church at Corinth. Corinth was the name of a place just as Rome was the name of a place. In St. Peter's epistle, he stated, "The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God's election sends you her greeting, and so does my son Mark (1 Peter 5:13). Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used multiple times in works like the Siblline Oracles (5:159f), the Apolcalyse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that it said that Peter's first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark was written in Rome, and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.

You only name one historical document.....that of St. Ignatius (the Bishop of Antioch). There are many other historical documents mentioning Peter being in Rome. Below are the evidence:

[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s. [/background]
[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his. [/background]
[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome. [/background]
[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome. [/background]
[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “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.” [/background]
[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), 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.” [/background]
[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens’ books or to the Catholic Answers tract Peter’s Roman Residency.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight. [/background]

Furthermore, there is archaeological evidence showing that Peter was in Rome. His bones were found there in 1951. The Bones of St. Peter was written by John Evangelist Walsh. So, archaeology is also on our side. Both St. Paul and St. Peter were in Rome. St. Peter was crucified upside down and St. Paul was beheaded by Nero. Below is a weblink showing the accounts of the archaeological excavation of the Apostle Peter in Rome.

http://www.ts.mu.edu...27.1/27.1.4.pdf

Babylon was never the "code-name" for Rome. Babylon is ALWAYS the whore ex wife of God, Jerusalem herself. All Bible students know this. Shall we dig out the myriad of scriptures proving this basic truth?

joshhuntnm · Nov 22, 2012

The NT doesn't saith.

Selene · Nov 22, 2012

whitestone said:
Babylon was never the "code-name" for Rome. Babylon is ALWAYS the whore ex wife of God, Jerusalem herself. All Bible students know this. Shall we dig out the myriad of scriptures proving this basic truth?

Babylon is the code name for Rome. In the Old Testament, it was referred to the country of Iraq. In the New Testament, it was referred to as "Rome" because they were the enemy of the people of God. Rome conquered Israel (God's chosen people) and persecuted the Christians in the arenas (God's Church).

The Church at Rome (that is "Christians in Rome) already existed before St. Paul went there. St. Paul wrote to the Church in Rome (Letter to the Romans). That Church was established by Christ through the Apostle Peter. Below is a weblink from Strong's biblical translation of Babylon: As you can see, even the KJV agrees that in the New Testament, Babylon was referring to Rome.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G897&t=KJV

Axehead · Nov 22, 2012

Selene said:
Hello Brother Axehead,

First of all, "Babylon" was the code name for Rome, and we never denied that the Babylon in Revelations was also Rome. Rome at that time was not the Roman Catholic Church, but the Roman Empire of which the rulers were the Roman emperors. The Church at Babylon is the Church at Rome......just as the Church at Corinth was the Church at Corinth. Corinth was the name of a place just as Rome was the name of a place. In St. Peter's epistle, he stated, "The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God's election sends you her greeting, and so does my son Mark (1 Peter 5:13). Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used multiple times in works like the Siblline Oracles (5:159f), the Apolcalyse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that it said that Peter's first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark was written in Rome, and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.

You only name one historical document.....that of St. Ignatius (the Bishop of Antioch). There are many other historical documents mentioning Peter being in Rome. Below are the evidence:

[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s. [/background]
[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his. [/background]
[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome. [/background]
[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome. [/background]
[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “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.” [/background]
[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), 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.” [/background]
[background=rgb(129, 119, 105)]These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens’ books or to the Catholic Answers tract Peter’s Roman Residency.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight. [/background]

Furthermore, there is archaeological evidence showing that Peter was in Rome. His bones were found there in 1951. The Bones of St. Peter was written by John Evangelist Walsh. So, archaeology is also on our side. Both St. Paul and St. Peter were in Rome. St. Peter was crucified upside down and St. Paul was beheaded by Nero. Below is a weblink showing the accounts of the archaeological excavation of the Apostle Peter in Rome.

http://www.ts.mu.edu...27.1/27.1.4.pdf

Hi there, Selene,

Again, I think the RCC is taking great license with one whole verse and building a dogma on it. There are no eyewitnesses in Scripture that ever saw Peter in Rome and there are many people that were mentioned in Rome.

By the way, if Peter was using Babylon as a code word for Rome, and people were supposed to know that (somehow), then what cities or regions did Paul REALLY mean when he was using the following code words:

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

And, wouldn't other Apostles writing to the Roman Christians also use a code word? Here Paul simply writes, "Rome".

Rom_1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

It just doesn't make sense, Selene.

The New Testament contains no trace whatsoever of Peter living in Rome. Throughout the Acts of the Apostles there is nothing but silence. We are told that Luke wrote the book of Acts and that Luke was in Rome with Paul. So, Luke would have known about Peter being in Rome. Peter is never mentioned in any salutations and many consider this as decisive proof that he was never in the city.

Also, Paul labored independently of the other Apostles and was sure to mention that he never built upon the foundation of others. This would mean that Paul would never have written his Epistle to the Romans if he knew that Peter had founded the church in Rome and was building it up in Christ.

The silence of Luke and Paul about Peter being in Rome makes it extremely doubtful if not impossible that Peter was ever in Rome. Luke's presence in Rome with the Apostle Paul near the end of Paul's life was confirmed by 2 Timothy 4:11: "Only Luke is with me". Only Luke, no one else. Where was Peter?

Why would Peter make a friendly salutation to the Roman Christians in "code" and call Rome Babylon? Why didn't Paul salute the Roman Believers in code? It is highly unlikely that salutations would be in "code" since there is no precedent in scripture or any other examples following Peter's salutation.

Peter was called to the Jews and Paul was called to the Gentiles. Josephus tells us in his volume (Antiquities) that Babylon contained many Jews whereas they were few in number (comparatively) in Rome. Philo also mentions the Asiatic dispersion of the Jews in Babylon (by the Euphrates) in his work "Embassy to Gaius".

Act 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, The Jewish Parthians were dwellers in Mesopotamia (Mesopotamian Babylonian "masters" were the Parthians). Check Josephus' Antiquities 15 and 17.

A very interesting and glaring thing is that Josephus lived from 37 A.D. to 100 A.D or so and that he became a Roman citizen. What is glaringly obvious is that Josephus who was the historian of his day, never ever, ever mentioned Peter in Rome let alone 25 years there or anything about him being the Pope. Well, if he never mentions him being in Rome, why would he know anything about Peter being the Pope?

We have no eyewitnesses from Scripture of Peter being in Rome and the Jewish secular Historian of the day, has nothing to say about such a thing!

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me (Paul), 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 (Peter), 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).

Nero was accused of burning Rome in 64 A.D. and he had banished Jews from Rome. So, Peter who was called to the "circumcision" was obviously ministering to the Jews in Babylon (in Asia) not Europe (Italy) since they were banished from Rome.

Peter himself said that Paul and Barnabas should go to the heathen and he and James and John to the Jews.

Conclusion: The Babylon that Peter was speaking of was the Babylon in Asia by the Euphrates.

I read your link about Peter's bones and I think the evidence in that doc gives the greatest proof that Peter was never a Pope and was never in Rome. First, it would have been proclaimed in the Acts of the Apostles and other NT History (in the Bible) and not be silent on the subject. And then, the words that were found on his alleged tomb showed nothing but Simon Bar Jona and no reference to him at all of being the Pope. To omit Peter as the Pope of Rome would be like omitting the Law of Moses or the Prophets or the Acts of the Apostles. And the Catholic church has a history of great pomp and circumstance and boasting about being the one and only true Church and yet, no inscription of "Pope Peter, Simon Bar Jona". The fact that his bones were found under the Vatican altar are really more suspect to me than anything because it would be in Rome's best interests to find his "bones" in Rome to quiet all the controversy around it. I think these alleged bones only made the "faithful" more faithful and the skeptical more skeptical.

Selene · Nov 23, 2012

Brother Axehead,

In the Old Testament, Babylon was referred to as Iraq. In the New Testament, Babylon was referred to as Rome. That is what is in the weblink according to Strong's biblical translation.

As I pointed out to you, there are historical records showing that Peter was in Rome. And in 1951, the bones of the Apostle Peter was dug up in Rome. And the archaeologists who dug them up confirmed that. You can say whatever you want, but the evidence is on our side. Even sacred scripture shows that there were already a Christian Church in Rome when St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. It was the Apostle Peter who established that Church. If the Church in Malta can trace their lineage to the Apostle Paul, and the Church in Constantanople can trace their lineage to the Apostle Andrew, the Roman Church can also do the same. It is only your church who cannot trace its lineage to an Apostle because your church was born only in the 16th century and it was never established any of the Apostles of Christ.

epostle1 · Nov 23, 2012

Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, shows that "Babylon" meant pagan Rome. Selene, you can point out facts all day. Axeheads real agenda is to argue against the Papacy.

Was the Papacy Established by Christ?

Resolved:

The papacy, defined as "the ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian church," was created by Christ, through the apostle Peter, and this ministry was thereafter succeeded to by the bishops of Rome.

Affirming the Resolution: Mark Bonocore

Denying the Resolution: Jason Engwer

debate here

Axehead · Nov 23, 2012

Selene said:
Brother Axehead,

In the Old Testament, Babylon was referred to as Iraq. In the New Testament, Babylon was referred to as Rome. That is what is in the weblink according to Strong's biblical translation.

As I pointed out to you, there are historical records showing that Peter was in Rome. And in 1951, the bones of the Apostle Peter was dug up in Rome. And the archaeologists who dug them up confirmed that. You can say whatever you want, but the evidence is on our side. Even sacred scripture shows that there were already a Christian Church in Rome when St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. It was the Apostle Peter who established that Church. If the Church in Malta can trace their lineage to the Apostle Paul, and the Church in Constantanople can trace their lineage to the Apostle Andrew, the Roman Church can also do the same. It is only your church who cannot trace its lineage to an Apostle because your church was born only in the 16th century and it was never established any of the Apostles of Christ.

I'm sorry, Selene. You are still missing the vital witness of the Scriptures. No prophecy concerning major doctrines of the RCC or the witness of believers. One scripture regarding Babylon and one scripture regarding Jesus making Peter the head of the Church thereby taking the Lord's authority and place on earth. No doubt, there will be many that believe you, and there will be the few that don't. I am perplexed why you bother yourself with the "few" believers down through the centuries that don't know the "voice" behind your doctrine? According to your friends in CyB, people are flocking to the Catholic church in droves from other non-catholic, christian religions.

God's word has a problem with the Papacy and Mary as the Mother of God, Mother of all Christians and their intercessor as well as many other "truths" the Catholic church puts forward. God's word is dependable and He would have given us prophecies as is His reputation for major events. Regarding Peter and his ministry to the Jews, and Paul's desire to not "build on other's foundations", it just makes no sense that Peter was in Rome from that perspective and there are absolutely no witnesses to Peter being in Rome in the Book of Acts or any other Epistle. And contemporary, Roman historians such as Josephus do not mention him being in Rome. And you say he was there for 25 years! The only evidence you have is from people 100 years or more, later. And this is when the "seeds" of the RCC were being crafted, and stories and history were being changed. And you have been revising and rewriting history ever since.

I mentioned before the forgeries in your own Catholic writings that were mentioned by notable Catholics and even joked about. Is it time for me to bring them out? I really don't want to go there. Let people do their own research and google "catholic forgeries".

All those who "have the Son" (1 Jn_5:12) are members of the Church of Jesus Christ. We need only trace ourselves to Jesus by the Spirit. We are told by Paul not to be concerned about genealogies or lineages. This is earthly and carnal and our inheritance is a heavenly one not an earthly one. The only genealogical records that God provided as valuable and important are the records in the Bible that established the descent of Christ through the line of David. What is of prime importance to Christians is the genealogical record of Jesus Christ and that they know they are part of the Body of Christ through Jesus Christ, Himself.

You prove that you are striving to "cover every base" when you engage in studying and discussing such pointless matters. And that was Paul's point when he said "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain" (Tit_3:9).

It seems to me that the Catholic Church displays insecurity when it strives to demonstrate to people that it has an answer for every objection of men, even stooping as low to say it found Peter's bones in 1951. In trying to prove it is legitimate, the RCC only becomes more foolish.

We are made "heirs according to the hope of eternal life", not by being members of a religious organization that says they can trace their lineage all the way back to Peter. And this is what true Christians know and another reason they don't recognize the "voice" behind all your extra-biblical sayings.

"That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Tit 3:7)

He saved us by His own life and according to His mercy.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" (Tit 3:5)

One thing that is glaringly evident in all the writings of the RCC gang here in CyB, is that they constantly hold up their Church and their Pope while others are not pointing to a church or men but rather, Jesus Christ. This is the biggest difference why those who DO KNOW HIS VOICE, are rejecting the "voice" behind all of the writings of the Roman Catholic Church that you are flooding CyB with. You minimize Jesus Christ in all your writings. It is always about your CHURCH and YOUR POPE and never about Jesus Christ and His Church!

Axehead

neophyte · Nov 23, 2012

Affirming the Resolution: Mark Bonocore
Denying the Resolution: Jason Engwer

debate here

Selene · Nov 23, 2012

neophyte said:
Affirming the Resolution: Mark Bonocore
Denying the Resolution: Jason Engwer

debate here

Excellent Neophyte!!!! Very well explained!!!

THE Gypsy · Nov 23, 2012

What is "very we'll explained" (and not by neophyte) is how they "forced the Popes to adapt their style of ministry" and "Popes of Rome were forced to acquire their “emperor-like trappings"...yes...trappings...Forced by God? Of course not. Forced by man, government...hmmm...that in and to itself should be a red flag to anyone who is spiritually minded.

And even more astonishing is the fact that they ADMIT they were "forced" into something by man, not God, and yet it is used as an excuse for what they have become instead of recognizing the problems/divisions it causes and reversing the trend.

Oh we'll...Gotta protect those papal treasures stored up in the Vatican somehow.

BTW...I couldn't read the whole thing. After getting so far into it with the admissions of being forced into things I found myself...well, we'll just leave it at that.

Rex · Nov 23, 2012

It's a scary mess isn't it Gypsy, but they seem to like it.
I wish they would quit falsifying the facts about there own belief system.
Man up and see it and say it for what it is. A church ordered into exsistance and enforced by the Roman Government at its inception.

This, my friends, was the ministry of the fisherman named Simon Peter and that of the Roman bishops who succeeded him. And anything more than that --such as the Pope’s princely manner or temporal (i.e., political) authority --is not intrinsic to the Papacy as Christ created it at all. Rather, these things were added on to the Papacy via its historical experience throughout the first millennium of the Christian era, which (whether rightly or wrongly) forced the Popes to adapt their style of ministry in order to meet the challenges which presented themselves to the Church. And, by these challenges I, of course, mean things like:

a) The legalization of Christianity by the Roman government (c. 313 A.D.), in which the Church was transformed from a persecuted, underground society to the official religion of the Roman Empire; thus requiring the Popes to operate within the perimeters of imperial Roman law (e.g. the first Ecumenical Councils), and to deal with other secular influences creeping into the Church.

In 380, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire by the decree of the Emperor,

neophyte · Nov 23, 2012

Rex said:
It's a scary mess isn't it Gypsy, but they seem to like it.
I wish they would quit falsifying the facts about there own belief system.
Man up and see it and say it for what it is. A church ordered into exsistance and enforced by the Roman Government at its inception.

This, my friends, was the ministry of the fisherman named Simon Peter and that of the Roman bishops who succeeded him. And anything more than that --such as the Pope’s princely manner or temporal (i.e., political) authority --is not intrinsic to the Papacy as Christ created it at all. Rather, these things were added on to the Papacy via its historical experience throughout the first millennium of the Christian era, which (whether rightly or wrongly) forced the Popes to adapt their style of ministry in order to meet the challenges which presented themselves to the Church. And, by these challenges I, of course, mean things like:

a) The legalization of Christianity by the Roman government (c. 313 A.D.), in which the Church was transformed from a persecuted, underground society to the official religion of the Roman Empire; thus requiring the Popes to operate within the perimeters of imperial Roman law (e.g. the first Ecumenical Councils), and to deal with other secular influences creeping into the Church.

In 380, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire by the decree of the Emperor,

It is true that Constantine, following his conversion to Christ, presided over the First Council of Nicaea, but it is not true that Constantine "turned Jesus into a deity" or that Christians had not viewed Jesus as God prior to this event.
Constantine had called the Council together to settle a dispute that had arisen when a priest from Egypt named Arius began to deny that Jesus was God, causing a scandal by repudiating the faith of Christians everywhere. Arius gained a number of followers (known as Arians) and the controversy between the Arians and traditional Christians grew so sharp that the emperor called the Council to settle the matter. Personally, Constantine tended to support the position of the Arians, but he recognized the authority of the bishops in articulating the Christian faith, and the bishops of the Council reaffirmed the traditional Christian teaching that Jesus was fully divine. It was thus the bishops of the Council of Nicaea who reaffirmed the historic Christian position against Arius and his followers. Constantine recognized their authority to do so in spite of the fact he would have preferred a different outcome.

Rex · Nov 24, 2012

Neo neo neo
Pointing to others bad behavior when yours is in the spot light is not very grown up thing to do.

Axehead · Nov 24, 2012

Interesting that their "flagship" verse establishing the Papacy, is not straightforward. You have to go into the Aramaic and like all their unsubstantiated claims, take their word for it. But, then again nothing is straightforward in their dogma.

And there are no prophecies concerning Jesus the Rock giving up His authority to Peter the rock.

That's not like the Lord God not to confirm something so major as this.

If that is not enough, there is no mention of "Pope" in the New Testament writings, anywhere. As much as they use this title from the 4th or 5th century on, it does not exist in Scripture along with many other RCC dogmas. Paul, Luke and James and John never talked about the "Pope".

Selene · Nov 24, 2012

THE Gypsy said:
What is "very we'll explained" (and not by neophyte) is how they "forced the Popes to adapt their style of ministry" and "Popes of Rome were forced to acquire their “emperor-like trappings"...yes...trappings...Forced by God? Of course not. Forced by man, government...hmmm...that in and to itself should be a red flag to anyone who is spiritually minded.

And even more astonishing is the fact that they ADMIT they were "forced" into something by man, not God, and yet it is used as an excuse for what they have become instead of recognizing the problems/divisions it causes and reversing the trend.

Oh we'll...Gotta protect those papal treasures stored up in the Vatican somehow.

BTW...I couldn't read the whole thing. After getting so far into it with the admissions of being forced into things I found myself...well, we'll just leave it at that.

They were not being "force" as in someone was holding a gun to their head and literally forcing them to do something they don't want. This is what the article stated:

This, my friends, was the ministry of the fisherman named Simon Peter and that of the Roman bishops who succeeded him. And anything more than that --such as the Pope’s princely manner or temporal (i.e., political) authority --is not intrinsic to the Papacy as Christ created it at all. Rather, these things were added on to the Papacy via its historical experience throughout the first millennium of the Christian era, which (whether rightly or wrongly) forced the Popes to adapt their style of ministry in order to meet the challenges which presented themselves to the Church. And, by these challenges I, of course, mean things like:

a. The legalization of Christianity by the Roman government (c. 313 A.D.), in which the Church was transformed from a persecuted, underground society to the official religion of the Roman Empire; thus requiring the Popes to operate within the perimeters of imperial Roman law (e.g. the first Ecumenical Councils), and to deal with other secular influences creeping into the Church.

b.The fall of the Western Roman Empire (in 476 A.D.), in which the Papacy acquired the awesome responsibility for holding Western civilization together.

You are misinterpreting the word "force" in this statement. Look at the examples they gave. They stated that the role of the papacy was to be a shepherd to the Church. That was all. However, when the Roman Empire fell, the Pope ended up acquiring the responsibility of holding Western civilization together. This is not the job of the shepherd. This is the job of a government, but the Roman Empire (which is the government) fell, and the Church could not just leave things in chaos as they are. So, the Pope forced himself to take on that duty of holding Western Society together. What that means.....is that he took up the challenge. No one put a gun to the Pope's head and told him to hold up Western Society together.. The Pope chose to meet that challenge....that is what is meant by "force." To force oneself to make a dire choice.

THE Gypsy · Nov 24, 2012

Selene said:
You are misinterpreting the word "force" in this statement.

Of course I am. And Catholics don't change their doctrine either...they just...um...develope it.

And BTW...

Forced:

1
: compelled by force or necessity : involuntary <a forced landing>
2
: done or produced with effort, exertion, or pressure <a forced laugh>

Was Peter ever in Rome? What saith the Scriptures?

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads