Was Peter ever in Rome? What saith the Scriptures?
- Thread starter Axehead
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Selene
New Member
And they were correct in choosing the name Peter. The words "petra" and "petros" were synonyms in the first century because the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. In Koine Greek the words "petra" and "petros" both means "rock." Koine Greek is a different dialect than Attic Greek. If Jesus wanted to call Peter a stone, the Greek word "lithos" would have been used. The ancient Greek language is not the same as the modern Greek that you claimed to be familiar of. See the weblink below, which was taken from the Linguistic Research Center:dragonfly said:
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ntgol-0-X.html
No one really needs Greek to understand that when you take the preponderance of Scriptures into view, it is easy to know Who the Rock of the Church, is. The Holy Spirit always points to Christ, not Peter (and certainly not Mary). The Holy Spirit does not direct anyone's heart toward any man. Always to Christ.Selene said:
Simon Peter was commisioned by God to the circumcised not the uncircumcised
Galatians 2:7-8 (NKJV)
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles)
It was Paul who was given the commission to be the chief apostle ministering to the Gentiles. 2 Timothy 1:11, Romans 15:16 - not Peter
Please note: that when Paul arrived in Rome, he gathered the chief Jews together Acts 28:17, 23. These Jewish elders claimed to know very little about the basic teachings of Christ.
20 For this reason therefore I have called for you, to see you and speak with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.”
21 Then they said to him, “We neither received letters from Judea concerning you, nor have any of the brethren who came reported or spoken any evil of you. 22 But we desire to hear from you what you think; for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere.”
23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some were persuaded by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved.
If Peter had already established a Church in Rome some...10-15 years prior to Paul's visit, and was apparently still there?, he didn't do a very good job because these Jewish elders knew hardly anything of what Paul was professing regarding the "Way" and some disbelieved him.
Also note: what Paul says when they are about to depart:
25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, 26 saying,
‘Go to this people and say:
“Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand;
And seeing you will see, and not perceive;
27 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”’
28 “Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!” 29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed and had a great dispute among themselves.
Paul stayed in his rented home, he wrote - Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon and to the Hebrews. He mentions others in Rome during that period but never, anywhere, does he mention Peter. That is because Peter was never in Rome or in 65 A.D. If he were, he would have been mentioned in the bible. Paul says in 2 Timothy 4:11 "only Luke is with me"
It is now obvious why the RCC do not recognize the bible as sola scriptura only - because it denies any place of Peter ever being in Rome. The very foundation of the RCC belief.
Here's something I would like to know personally. Catholic Priests do not marry and Peter was supposedly the first Bishop of Rome, why was he allowed to be married and his priests were not? Mark1:29-30 :huh:
Shalom!
Galatians 2:7-8 (NKJV)
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles)
It was Paul who was given the commission to be the chief apostle ministering to the Gentiles. 2 Timothy 1:11, Romans 15:16 - not Peter
Please note: that when Paul arrived in Rome, he gathered the chief Jews together Acts 28:17, 23. These Jewish elders claimed to know very little about the basic teachings of Christ.
20 For this reason therefore I have called for you, to see you and speak with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.”
21 Then they said to him, “We neither received letters from Judea concerning you, nor have any of the brethren who came reported or spoken any evil of you. 22 But we desire to hear from you what you think; for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere.”
23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some were persuaded by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved.
If Peter had already established a Church in Rome some...10-15 years prior to Paul's visit, and was apparently still there?, he didn't do a very good job because these Jewish elders knew hardly anything of what Paul was professing regarding the "Way" and some disbelieved him.
Also note: what Paul says when they are about to depart:
25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, 26 saying,
‘Go to this people and say:
“Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand;
And seeing you will see, and not perceive;
27 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”’
28 “Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!” 29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed and had a great dispute among themselves.
Paul stayed in his rented home, he wrote - Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon and to the Hebrews. He mentions others in Rome during that period but never, anywhere, does he mention Peter. That is because Peter was never in Rome or in 65 A.D. If he were, he would have been mentioned in the bible. Paul says in 2 Timothy 4:11 "only Luke is with me"
It is now obvious why the RCC do not recognize the bible as sola scriptura only - because it denies any place of Peter ever being in Rome. The very foundation of the RCC belief.
Here's something I would like to know personally. Catholic Priests do not marry and Peter was supposedly the first Bishop of Rome, why was he allowed to be married and his priests were not? Mark1:29-30 :huh:
Shalom!
Selene
New Member
Axehead said:
I agree that the Holy Spirit never direct anyone's heart toward any man, but Christ showed that He and His bride are one that He even shared His titles with His bride, the Church. For example, Christ is called the Good Shepherd. The bishops and priests are also called "shepherds" in the Bible. Christ is a priest and not only a priest, but the High Priest. Christ also made His Church a priest.....an entire nation of priests. So, when He changed Simon's name to Cephas (meaning rock in Aramaic) Christ is showing that He and His Church are indeed one. Christ built His Church using men. Surely, you would agree that the Christian Church was founded and built by God.....using men as His instruments. After all, God used men to continue His mission and ministry on earth. And He showed the Apostle Paul that when he persecuted his Christian Church, Paul was persecuting Christ Himself.
Acts 9:4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?"
More importantly, this passage was written by an eye witness that experienced the moment. When Matthew wrote this, he knew what he intended to convey.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros), and upon this rock(petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matthew used two different words here that the translators rendered "rock". Now, who was the head of the church?
Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
James!
From Bullinger's notes...
Matthew 16:18
I say also = I also say (as well as the Father), looking back to a preceding Agent with Whom the Lord associates Himself.
thou art Peter. See App-147.
Peter. Greek. petros. A stone (loose and movable), as in Joh_1:42.
this. Very emphatic, as though pointing to Himself. See notes on Joh_2:19; Joh_6:58. One of three important passages where "this" stands for the speaker. See notes on Joh_2:19, and Joh_6:58.
this rock = Greek. petra. Petra is Feminine, and therefore could not refer to Peter; but, if it refers to Peter's confession, then it would agree with homologia (which is feminine), and is rendered confession in 1Ti_6:13, and profession in 1Ti_6:12. Heb_3:1; Heb_4:14; Heb_10:23. Compare 2Co_9:13. Whether we are to understand it (with Augustine and Jerome) as implying "thou hast said [it]" (see App-147), or "thou art Peter", most Protestants as well as these ancient "Fathers" agree that Peter's confession is the foundation to which Christ referred, and not Peter himself. He was neither the foundation nor the builder (a poor builder, Mat_16:23) but Christ alone, Whom he had confessed (1Co_3:11). Thus ends the great subject of this second portion of the Lord's ministry. See App-119.
rock. Greek. petra. A rock (in situ) immovable: the Messiah, as being "the Son of the living God", Who is the foretold "foundation-stone" (Isa_28:16); and the rejected stone (Psa_118:22).
will = shall. Therefore then future, as in Hos_1:10; Hos_2:23.
church = assembly. Defined as "Israel", and the "Remnant" (Rom_9:2, Rom_9:1-27). Not the ecclesia of the mystery (or secret) revealed in Ephesians; but that referred to in Psa_22:22, Psa_22:25, &c.
the gates. Put by Figure of speech Metonymy (of Adjunct), App-6, for power.
the gates of hell = the gates of Hades (= THE grave), denoting the power of the grave to retain, as in Isa_38:10. Job_38:17 (Septuagint) Psa_9:13; Psa_107:18.
hell = THE grave. Greek. Hades. See App-131.
prevail. Greek. katischuo. Occurs only here and Luk_23:23 = have full strength, to another's detriment: i.e. THE grave shall not have power to retain its captives, because Christ holdeth the keys of those gates, and they shall not be strong enough to triumph (Rev_1:18. Compare Psa_68:20). Resurrection is the great truth asserted here. Compare Eze_37:11-14. Act_2:29-31. 1Co_15:55. Hos_13:14.
So, Peter was a moveable stone and Christ was the Rock...
Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
There was a Simon that went to Rome, but it was not Simon Peter...
We have eyewitnesses in Rome...who....never....saw....Peter!!
And people say he was there for at least 10 years????
And people say he was there for at least 10 years????
Selene
New Member
Axehead said:
Actually, there are many eye witnesses in Rome who saw Peter, and they wrote it down. These historical documents still exist. And Peter's grave and bones were also found in Rome. Archaeology has already confirmed this.
It is quite clear in the Bible that Christ was never referring to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself.
Matthew 16:1-19 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, [fn] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades [fn] will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be [fn] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be [fn]loosed in heaven."
Also, Petros is the masculine name of "Petra" (a feminine name). Unlike Aramaic, the Greek language has male and female genders. The translators could not give Peter the name "Petra" simply because Peter was a man, not a female. So, the masculine name of "rock" was used, which in this case was "Petros."
Isn't it amazing and the irony of God that as important as some men think Peter is, the Lord did not see fit for any corroborating witnesses in His Divinely Inspired Word? He provides everything else we need, but omits Peter. The Holy Spirit is quite the historian, too. Inspiring men to document in pretty good detail their missionary journeys and who went with them and who they met on the way, etc, etc. It screams out loud, that none of Peter's fellow bondsmen in the Gospel made any mention of him in Rome. Little bit fishy, don't you think when people say he has such a long and rich history in Rome? And these writings are not part of the Bible from Peter's contemporaries.Selene said:
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).
Do you know what is incredulous for a Spirit-filled believer to believe?
1. Peter tells Jesus something that was revealed to him by revelation from heaven. "Ye are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!"
2. Jesus Christ shed His blood and suffered and died.
3. The Church was birthed out of Christ's suffering and death and subsequent resurrection.
4. Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone. Jesus Christ/God is known as the Rock throughout the Bible.
5. Then, men in one religious denomination say that their church was built upon a sinner who denied Christ 3 times.
6. These same men equate their church with the Church of Jesus Christ.
The Word and the Spirit say that Christ is the Head of the Church and that it is built upon Him and not a mere man.
Except the lineage of sucessors, unwritten traditions and teachings, and pretty much the entirety of history that isn't written in a canon of Scripture.Axehead said:
The fabrication lies in laboring under solo scriptura to deny an entire history. Those such as yourself are dishonest about things you can't even demonstrate as being false to propel your own agenda. Only anti-Catholics propel such things. National Geographic doesn't, and neither do 90% of historians, or atheists, or anybody. Nobody but those such as yourself. As if anybody who swears by some extremity that the church is the idolatress on a seven headed beast could actually make an honest assessment. It's laughable.
You should just keep that Baptist, anti-Catholic, or whatever nonsense you labor under to yourself. Acting like you know something that you can't even prove- those like yourself know no bounds. A bunch of extremist nuts is what you all are, pretending like something like the Church sits on nothing because you can't man up to your own falsehoods.
Think for a minute, SIM.SilenceInMotion said:
Since, as you say Peter was annointed by Jesus to build His Church upon Peter (the man) instead of Peter's great confession that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God", then why didn't the Holy Spirit provide witnesses of Peter (the first "pope") in Rome?
Again, think about it! You have 1 entire verse that sets Peter as Head of the Church on earth and such a major doctrine seems lacking in the corroborating witness of other scriptures as most major doctrines do. Why would the Holy Spirit who has established a pattern of corroborating scriptures for major doctrines, be so uncharacteristic as to only give one Scripture regarding Peter supposedly being the head of the church and NO scriptures (scripture is history, you know?) about Him being in Rome?
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?
Paul was in Rome and he mentions Luke. But no mention of Peter. In II Timothy when Paul is writing salutations and naming many names in Rome, he does not name Peter.
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.
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.
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. This is quite dubious because this is when the "seeds" of the Roman Catholic Church were being crafted, and stories and history were being changed. And you have been revising and rewriting history ever since.
I'm sorry SIM, but the witness of Scripture is more important than secular history.
Axehead
Christianity was illegal and practicing it was punishable by death. Rome considered it treason, because Roman religion and government were so intrinsically connected that you couldn't be against their religion and not their government, and vice versa.Axehead said:
Why would Josephus go and snitch on Peter being in Rome committing treason? You anti-catholics just don't get it. You all think that Peter was wearing a pope hat, sitting on a high seat and issuing papal bulls. Neither him nor any of the other popes until Christianity was made legal were much more then other Christians themselves, except that they were getting things done just as Jesus gave them the authority to do. Christians were poor, and the religion was little more then a lore in the slums,
So all your backflips in redefining history simply fails. Just like how fundamentalists treat the Bible, you all think something has to be on a sheet of paper to be true. The witnesses are the succession to the Church fathers, and declared by them thereof. Those are your witnesses, who you deny because you are anti-Catholic. Fundamentalist extremists play those such as yourself like a fiddle, the same people who also say the church is the Whore of Babylon, which the Church can prove is impossible because the Whore is spoken as existing in John's time where the Church DID NOT.
Like I said, after enough time goes by, you could put anything into question and sell it off to impressionable people. You are better off just pulling yourself out of that claptrap, you and every mistakened Protestant on here.
What was Peter doing in Rome for 25 years? Hiding? Keeping quiet? Josephus committing treason? I don't think he was a Catholic. Josephus was an historian. His loyalties were to the accuracy of his writings.SilenceInMotion said:
Hey, what's a "pope hat"?SilenceInMotion said:
Why didn't the church ever mention Peter in their writings to one another?SilenceInMotion said:
What is in the Bible is true, is it not?SilenceInMotion said:
The scriptures are the single most important witness of the early church, because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit.SilenceInMotion said:
I'm not anti-catholic. I love catholics and have led many to Christ. I would love to lead you to Christ.SilenceInMotion said:
The Church was birthed at Pentecost, my friend. It is only your church that did not exist until the 4 century.SilenceInMotion said:
You seem to know about that pretty well. When you always go back to the scriptures, you really cannot make up things. But, yes, you can revise secular history and the RCC has done that quite a bit. Would you like me to provide Catholic quotations from Catholic sources for you regarding the revising of history?SilenceInMotion said:
You completely miss the point, SIM!!SilenceInMotion said:
The Church did not even know he was in Rome! In all the letters to the churches, where they are greeting one another in Rome and sending salutations, even though Christians were persecuted, PETER IS NEVER MENTIONED. PETER is NEVER MENTIONED WITHIN THE CHURCH!!!
You have absolutely no esteem for God's word. Don't you even think it is important and worth considering that you cannot even back up your beliefs with God's word? Doesn't that bother you?
SIM, do you have a relationship with Jesus? Do you love him with all your heart? Do you love everyone that loves Jesus? Or do you only love those that love your religious organization?
Axehead
The Bible doesn't state this or that, so this and that is not true. Makes perfect sense. I'll have to let the church father's who confessed that Peter was the 1st pope, who put the canon of Scripture together in the first place know that when I enter through the pearly gates.
I'm done with arguing against hopeless denial. Go tell it to somebody dumb enough to actually find your statements reasonable, trying to sell pure unrational bias to a Catholic against the very cornerstone of their entire church.
The only people that initially denied Peter being the 1st pope were fundamentalists, and that's pretty much still true today. They have no reason not to believe it, they just search for ways to discredit it because they are simply anti-catholic. It's no different then someone not liking evolution and so goes and tries to find whatever they can to show the Earth is 6000 year sold. It's lunacy.
I'm done with arguing against hopeless denial. Go tell it to somebody dumb enough to actually find your statements reasonable, trying to sell pure unrational bias to a Catholic against the very cornerstone of their entire church.
The only people that initially denied Peter being the 1st pope were fundamentalists, and that's pretty much still true today. They have no reason not to believe it, they just search for ways to discredit it because they are simply anti-catholic. It's no different then someone not liking evolution and so goes and tries to find whatever they can to show the Earth is 6000 year sold. It's lunacy.
Again, I'm not anti-catholic and I still believe Jesus Christ is Head of His Church and is administrating it by the Holy Spirit which He promised He would send once He ascended to the Father.SilenceInMotion said:
That's all. Bye for now.
You make a key point that in my mind is a deal breaker. There was a very large Jewish population in Babylon. Peter was an apostle to the Jews, so it makes sense for him to have been there. Peter knew that Paul was evangelizing the Greco-Roman world, so it also makes sense that he would have left that area to him and concentrated on other areas.Axehead said:
Wow, you've become Super.Angelina said:
There is another factor that I missed. Peter grew up during the Targumist period in Galilee and likely spoke Aramaic, which was the language of Babylon. All the more reason for him to have been in Babylon.
Similar threads
