Peter in Rome?

[mjrhealth]

Just go a book about the popes, seems tha tthe "church" had being formed long before peter even wnet there. Besides it proves nothing. A lie is a lie even when you think its true,

 

[FHII]

Mungo,

I started to write a very detailed timeline of events. Halfway through it, I read what I wrote and found it pretty annoying. So, I'll spare you that annoyance!

But my overall conclusion is that Peter being in Rome for 25 years consecutively is impossible. 25 total years is possible but only on a very tigjt timeline and most likely its improbable.

And irrelevant. Its interesting that you say Paul wasn't building on Peter's foundation because Paul WAS building!

Given that Paul wasn't going to build on another's foundation, what reason do I have to believe that Peter had a long standing Church going at Rome?

Paul, I conclude was the Apostle to the Romans. Not Peter, though don't deny the possility of Peter being in Rome at some time.

 

[rockytopva]

If Peter were in Rome I would have expected him to have referred to it in his epistles. And I would have expected the Apostle Paul to have written about it too.

 

[Mungo]

Mungo,

I started to write a very detailed timeline of events. Halfway through it, I read what I wrote and found it pretty annoying. So, I'll spare you that annoyance!

But my overall conclusion is that Peter being in Rome for 25 years consecutively is impossible. 25 total years is possible but only on a very tigjt timeline and most likely its improbable.

And irrelevant. Its interesting that you say Paul wasn't building on Peter's foundation because Paul WAS building!

Given that Paul wasn't going to build on another's foundation, what reason do I have to believe that Peter had a long standing Church going at Rome?

Paul, I conclude was the Apostle to the Romans. Not Peter, though don't deny the possility of Peter being in Rome at some time.

FHII,

Paul did not arrive in Rome until 60 AD (I’m using this Timeline (https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/paul/timeline.cfm) so he cannot have founded the Church in Rome. Nor by that stage was he building. It had been done – although in a sense building always continues.

In Romans he writes “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.” (Rom 1:8).

So the question remains, if not Paul – who? Peter is the only one mentioned in history.

The quotes I gave from the early Church (post #17) testify to Peter being in Rome.

Peter was not there continuously for 25 years. As I pointed out he would have been expelled in AD 49 and could not return until AD56 when Claudius’ edict was repealed.

Taylor Marshall in his book The Eternal City has an interesting explanation for the reason Paul wrote to the Romans and it involved Peter’s absence. I’ll try and give the gist.

Before the ruling of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) the relationship between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians was a hot topic. Peter would have been evangelising both Jews and Gentiles. Disputed let to the riots that caused Claudius to expel all Jews (which would have included Jewish Christians) from Rome. That left only the Gentile Christians.

During the years of Peter’s absence it would seem to Gentile Church had grown and then in AD 56 Jews, including Jewish Christians returned to Rome en masse. This led to disputed, not between Jews and Jewish Christians but between the returning Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. He suggests that the Jewish Christians saw themselves as “first class” Christians on account of their Abrahamic ancestry and their keeping of the Law, and the Gentile Christians were “second class” because they has neither of these. It was this problem that Paul was addressing. Taylor Marshall uses many quotes from Paul’s letter to illustrate this. He also says that “Scholars almost unanimously agree that this [the return of the Jewish Christians to Rome] was the occasion for Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.”

I think it all fits together.

 

[FHII]

Mungo,

I'm sorry, but I don't agree based on what I have read in your post, the Bible and other references.

Peter was matryed around 67 AD. You claim he returned to Rome around 56 Ad. Ok, fine. For the sake of the discussion I will entertain that notion. Also, that he was expelled in 49 AD.

So, when did he first go to Rome? Accordin to what I read in various articles (i will retrieve the website if you'd like) Peter arrived around 43 AD. This was thought to be after being freed from prison by the angel in acts 12. It says he went to "another place" in hiding. Problem is, it doesn't say where, but Catholic tradition has taken the opportunity to claim it was Rome.

I do believe that IF (and its a big if) he was in Rome prior to 49 AD, he wasn't there prior to that time. That's a no brainer as he was very active up until the in Caesaria.

Now, by using the powers of addition, that's roughly 17 years; well short of 25. And again that is a big "if", and in reality, I don't believe he was.

You had said something to the effect that Paul wasn't laying a foundation in the epistle to the Romans. I disagree. The fist 2 1/2 chapters are a bit of correction as to what the Jews were pressing on the gentiles. The majority of the rest is some pretty heavy doctrinal teaching. Yes, Paul commended them on their faith, but he felt compelled to correct errors.

Was Peter responsible for these errors?

When was Romans written? The two most radical dates that I've read are 51 and 60 AD. I doubt it. I go with more of the norm as being circa 56 AD.

The intersting thing is that Paul most likely heard about Christians from Priscilla and Aquila, who are documented to have been expelled from Rome. Yet, not a mention of Peter being there.

So how did Christianity come to Rome? The best answer (unless you believe Peter allowed erronous beliefs to flourish) is by well meaning yet poorly trained evangelicals.

For this reason i do not believe Peter to be in Rome earlier (if at all) before the expelling in 49 AD.

 

[Mungo]

Mungo,

I'm sorry, but I don't agree based on what I have read in your post, the Bible and other references.

Peter was matryed around 67 AD. You claim he returned to Rome around 56 Ad. Ok, fine. For the sake of the discussion I will entertain that notion. Also, that he was expelled in 49 AD.

So, when did he first go to Rome? Accordin to what I read in various articles (i will retrieve the website if you'd like) Peter arrived around 43 AD. This was thought to be after being freed from prison by the angel in acts 12. It says he went to "another place" in hiding. Problem is, it doesn't say where, but Catholic tradition has taken the opportunity to claim it was Rome.

I do believe that IF (and its a big if) he was in Rome prior to 49 AD, he wasn't there prior to that time. That's a no brainer as he was very active up until the in Caesaria.

Now, by using the powers of addition, that's roughly 17 years; well short of 25. And again that is a big "if", and in reality, I don't believe he was.

You had said something to the effect that Paul wasn't laying a foundation in the epistle to the Romans. I disagree. The fist 2 1/2 chapters are a bit of correction as to what the Jews were pressing on the gentiles. The majority of the rest is some pretty heavy doctrinal teaching. Yes, Paul commended them on their faith, but he felt compelled to correct errors.

Was Peter responsible for these errors?

When was Romans written? The two most radical dates that I've read are 51 and 60 AD. I doubt it. I go with more of the norm as being circa 56 AD.

The intersting thing is that Paul most likely heard about Christians from Priscilla and Aquila, who are documented to have been expelled from Rome. Yet, not a mention of Peter being there.

So how did Christianity come to Rome? The best answer (unless you believe Peter allowed erronous beliefs to flourish) is by well meaning yet poorly trained evangelicals.

For this reason i do not believe Peter to be in Rome earlier (if at all) before the expelling in 49 AD.

Just a few comments
I suggested AD 42 which makes 25 years Bishop of Rome as the Liber Pontificalis states. Dates are always going to be approximate so whether it was 42 or 43 it that fits OK. Note I didn’t say that he was IN Rome for 25 years but was the Bishop OF Rome for 25 years. For seven of those (49AD – 56 AD) he was absent. But he didn’t stop being the Bishop of Rome for that time.
One reason for suggesting “another place” is Rome is the practice of being very careful about mentioning Rome. It’s like using the code “Babylon”. Taylor Marshall says that in Paul’s letter to the Romans he refers to the Emperor Nero several times but never by name. He uses “authority”, “servant of God”, “ruler” even “minister” (Rom 13:2-6)

Regarding the errors, the suggestion is not that they were doctrinal errors but attitudes. And they developed while Peter was absent. If the problems arose between the Gentile Christians and the returning Jewish Christians in 56AD then a date of 56 AD or slightly later for Romans would be about right.

Paul would a good person to help reconcile the attitudes. He was a pharisee and therefore well respected by the Jewish Christians. He makes a point early on that he has been evangelising gentiles (Rom 1:5) and later is an Israelite (Rom 11:1)

 

[FHII]

Just a few comments
I suggested AD 42 which makes 25 years Bishop of Rome as the Liber Pontificalis states. Dates are always going to be approximate so whether it was 42 or 43 it that fits OK. Note I didn’t say that he was IN Rome for 25 years but was the Bishop OF Rome for 25 years. For seven of those (49AD – 56 AD) he was absent. But he didn’t stop being the Bishop of Rome for that time.
One reason for suggesting “another place” is Rome is the practice of being very careful about mentioning Rome. It’s like using the code “Babylon”. Taylor Marshall says that in Paul’s letter to the Romans he refers to the Emperor Nero several times but never by name. He uses “authority”, “servant of God”, “ruler” even “minister” (Rom 13:2-6)

Regarding the errors, the suggestion is not that they were doctrinal errors but attitudes. And they developed while Peter was absent. If the problems arose between the Gentile Christians and the returning Jewish Christians in 56AD then a date of 56 AD or slightly later for Romans would be about right.

Paul would a good person to help reconcile the attitudes. He was a pharisee and therefore well respected by the Jewish Christians. He makes a point early on that he has been evangelising gentiles (Rom 1:5) and later is an Israelite (Rom 11:1)

Consider my theory that Paul heard of the growth of Christianity in Rome from Prescilla and Acquilla. The Bible documents their being there and their being force out. They were also in Corinth with Paul. So Paul most likely heard about what was going on there from them. So the doctrinal errors or attitudes as you suggest, hapoened prior to 50 AD. So if Peter was there, it was under his watch.

Peter was a hard head (I say that to his credit). On one point it's up to the Jewish Christians to fall in line. On another point, Peter himself was still being corrected by the Lord (both through his visions and Paul's Antioch rebuke). Maybe not so much error but an evolving from error.

The notion that Paul didn't mention him by name for safety reasons.... I don't buy. Peter learned his lesson from denying he knew Jesus before the crucifixion. As for Paul.... He named several people in the last part of Romans... Yet not Peter? He didn't care about outing those he named.... But not Peter? And both these men are known for their defiant attitude?

I am enjoying this convesation between us Mungo. But respectfully, I am not buying the arguement (despite careful consideration of your evidence) that Peter was in Rome prior to any date before circa 57 AD.

Its all speculation which I find highly unlikely. Yes, I've given plenty of speculation myself. I acknowledge that. But I humbly suggest my evidence is stronger. After circa 57? I believe Peter might have been there.

All that being said, EVEN IF Peter was there throughout the years you suggest, Mungo, it doesn't change my point of view on the Catholic Church. That is to say, even if Peter did start the Church at Rome (and I don't believe he did) it doesn't mean Catholicism today or ever was correct and is God's Church today.

Paul, after all, founded the Church at Leodicia. And what happened?

My beef with the Catholic Church is first, their history. That however, can be forgiven. But secondly and more importantly, their current doctrines.

 

[Mungo]

Consider my theory that Paul heard of the growth of Christianity in Rome from Prescilla and Acquilla. The Bible documents their being there and their being force out. They were also in Corinth with Paul. So Paul most likely heard about what was going on there from them. So the doctrinal errors or attitudes as you suggest, hapoened prior to 50 AD. So if Peter was there, it was under his watch.

Peter was a hard head (I say that to his credit). On one point it's up to the Jewish Christians to fall in line. On another point, Peter himself was still being corrected by the Lord (both through his visions and Paul's Antioch rebuke). Maybe not so much error but an evolving from error.

The notion that Paul didn't mention him by name for safety reasons.... I don't buy. Peter learned his lesson from denying he knew Jesus before the crucifixion. As for Paul.... He named several people in the last part of Romans... Yet not Peter? He didn't care about outing those he named.... But not Peter? And both these men are known for their defiant attitude?

I am enjoying this convesation between us Mungo. But respectfully, I am not buying the arguement (despite careful consideration of your evidence) that Peter was in Rome prior to any date before circa 57 AD.

Its all speculation which I find highly unlikely. Yes, I've given plenty of speculation myself. I acknowledge that. But I humbly suggest my evidence is stronger. After circa 57? I believe Peter might have been there.

All that being said, EVEN IF Peter was there throughout the years you suggest, Mungo, it doesn't change my point of view on the Catholic Church. That is to say, even if Peter did start the Church at Rome (and I don't believe he did) it doesn't mean Catholicism today or ever was correct and is God's Church today.

Paul, after all, founded the Church at Leodicia. And what happened?

My beef with the Catholic Church is first, their history. That however, can be forgiven. But secondly and more importantly, their current doctrines.

It all depends on interpretation and the weight one gives to historical documents (and yes, speculations). We obviously differ and are not going to agree.

 

[FHII]

It all depends on interpretation and the weight one gives to historical documents (and yes, speculations). We obviously differ and are not going to agree.

Probably not.... But I do understand where you are coming from. I hadn't previously looked this deeply into the subject, so I appreciate the conversation.

Thanks

 

[H. Richard]

All these commits and still no proof that Peter was ever in Rome. So the OP stands.

Other than Peter being in Antioch (Gal.2:11) where he and Paul had a disagreement there are no verses that say Peter was in Rome.

As a matter of fact in the two scriptures recorded times that Paul went back to Jerusalem the 12 were there in Jerusalem.

As some have said the 12 remained in Jerusalem to try and get the Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah and King. But as we know they were not able to do that.

 

[Mungo]

All these commits and still no proof that Peter was ever in Rome. So the OP stands.

Other than Peter being in Antioch (Gal.2:11) where he and Paul had a disagreement there are no verses that say Peter was in Rome.

As a matter of fact in the two scriptures recorded times that Paul went back to Jerusalem the 12 were there in Jerusalem.

As some have said the 12 remained in Jerusalem to try and get the Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah and King. But as we know they were not able to do that.

As I said to FHII
It all depends on interpretation and the weight one gives to historical documents (and yes, speculations). We obviously differ and are not going to agree.

 

[heretoeternity]

Peter died in the first century and the pagan Roman church was not started until 323 AD....and Peter was a Godly man and staunch follower of Jesus..even if he lived in the time the pagan Roman church was started, he would have nothing to do with it, and would run far from it..he would know the difference between his true Christian following, and the pagan based antichrist Roman system

 

[Mungo]

Peter died in the first century and the pagan Roman church was not started until 323 AD....and Peter was a Godly man and staunch follower of Jesus..even if he lived in the time the pagan Roman church was started, he would have nothing to do with it, and would run far from it..he would know the difference between his true Christian following, and the pagan based antichrist Roman system

What would a pagan know about Godliness?

But a pagan like you should know all about paganism.

Yes I am calling you a pagan. And I hope you report it .

Apparently you can call me a pagan and get away with it so I don't see whay I shouldn't call you one.

 

[mjrhealth]

What would a pagan know about Godliness?

But a pagan like you should know all about paganism.

Can see where this is going...

 

[heretoeternity]

What would a pagan know about Godliness?

But a pagan like you should know all about paganism.

Yes I am calling you a pagan. And I hope you report it .

Apparently you can call me a pagan and get away with it so I don't see whay I shouldn't call you one.

Report it? Why? You are a poor misled soul, who continues to be blinded to the truth....we should all pray for you...I was fortunate, at an early age I saw the fallacy of the Roman church, and it's pagan roots...my parents and I left...As Revelation 18 God says "come out of her my people" and we did...now it's your turn to realize the truth!

 

[heretoeternity]

What would a pagan know about Godliness?

But a pagan like you should know all about paganism.

Yes I am calling you a pagan. And I hope you report it .

Apparently you can call me a pagan and get away with it so I don't see whay I shouldn't call you one.

Report it? Why? You are a poor misled soul, who continues to be blinded to the truth....we should all pr

 

[Mungo]

Report it? Why? You are a poor misled soul, who continues to be blinded to the truth....we should all pr

So says our resident pagan

 

[heretoeternity]

According to Rome, everybody that agrees with JESUS teachings are pagan....and of course the pagan Roman church, is the pagan based organization....seems satan is not the only deceiver..

 

[Mungo]

According to Rome, everybody that agrees with JESUS teachings are pagan....and of course the pagan Roman church, is the pagan based organization....seems satan is not the only deceiver..

Well you ought to know about paganism my pagan friend.

 

[heretoeternity]

The satan filled Roman church has made sure paganism and counterfeit christianity is all around the globe and touches the spiritual lives of most people on the planet...as Revelation 17 and 18 says "come out of her my people" God warns, so they are not destroyed along with this pagan based Roman religion.