Peter in Rome?

[FHII]

I'd like to introduce something new to this topic. I looked through the thread, and couldn't find anyone bringing this up.

In Acts 21-23 Paul is Jerusalem and is seized. Have a look at this verse:

Acts 23:11 KJV
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

So in regards to whether Peter was in Rome, this verse brings up some interesting questions and talking points:

1. According to at least timeline I consulted, this was around 58 AD.
2. Why would Jesus need Paul to be a witness in Rome if Peter was there?
3. It is known that there was already a Christian community in Rome, and had been for about 10 years. Who was their leader (if they had one) and why did Jesus need to go if they had a leader?
3. Why did the Lord not send Peter?
4. We have a direct commission by Jesus to Paul concerning Rome, yet nothing from Jesus about going to Rome. So why does the RCC not acknowledge this commission to Paul since he (Paul) was chosen by Jesus to be the leader at Rome?

In conclusion, I've stated that I do believe there is a good possibility that Peter at some point was in Rome. However, this commission to Paul leads me to believe that if Peter was there, he had very little bearing on the Church.

 

[FHII]

Kepha,
That is a very interesting take on the scriptures.

1. Again, if you read the first 2 chapters of Galatians in its entirety you should realize that Paul was not complimenting Peter, James or anyone else. He said they had a reputation and seemed to be pillars. He also said it didn't matter to him what their reutation was and they added nothing to him. He also affirms from verse 1 of chapter 1 and onwatd that he was appointed and confirmed by Christ and not of men.

You also make several errors by adding to the scripture to suit the teaching of the Catholic Church. For example, nowhere is Ananias called a bishop. Yes, Paul had to go to him. But he was not a bishop. Jesus had to go to John in the same way... Was Jesus under subjection to John the Baptist?

Another example: Paul never went to Peter for confirmation. Yes he abided with him for 15 days. It wasn't for confirmation. This would be seen in Acts 9:27. It was more like Barnabas introducing Paul to the Apostles and calming their fear.

You want to talk about Paul being semt by thr Church.... James and the Council. Well, what was their commission? It was to go with Barnabas to Antioch and Syria and preach to the gentiles. Fine... But what were Payl and Barnabas doing before being brought to the council? They were in Antioch and surrounding areas preaching the gospel to the grntiles.

Kind of sounds more like a rude, time wasting interruption of what they were already doing than some "commission".

By the way... Read the account. Paul didn't seem to be in a big hurry to get to the council.

A second by the way.... James didn't live up to his end of the agreement.

All this, by the way is an attempt to try to downplay Paul's calling. Its an attempt to uphold Peter as a supreme authority when he actually disappears from mention in Acts after chapter 16.

Thats not a big deal or surprising or downplays Peter's ministry. Luke was a companion of Paul. It makes sense that Peter wasn't mentioned. But it also shows Paul was not with Peter in Rome when he arrived there nor was Peter significant in Paul's missionary work. At least not to the exent that Paul was under subjection to him or James, for that matter.

 

[epostle1]

I'd like to introduce something new to this topic. I looked through the thread, and couldn't find anyone bringing this up.

In Acts 21-23 Paul is Jerusalem and is seized. Have a look at this verse:

Acts 23:11 KJV
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

So in regards to whether Peter was in Rome, this verse brings up some interesting questions and talking points:

1. According to at least timeline I consulted, this was around 58 AD.
2. Why would Jesus need Paul to be a witness in Rome if Peter was there?

Peter and Paul are not competitors. "Church in Rome" refers to the Magisterium which is central to the whole Church. It is IN Rome, not OF Rome. (The pagan Romans killed the first 40 popes.) Therefore Peter and Paul, working together, are not just building the local Roman community, they are building the universal Church from the Church in Rome.
3. It is known that there was already a Christian community in Rome, and had been for about 10 years. Who was their leader (if they had one) and why did Jesus need to go if they had a leader?

Your question is confusing. I think you mean "why did Paul need to go there if they already had a leader". Are you trying to disprove Paul or prove Calvinism? Maybe Paul knew by interior locution he had to go there to die. Maybe he was summonsed by Peter, and as usual, did what he was told. Paul's presence in Rome does not diminish Peter's primacy in any way, and Peter's presence in Rome does not diminish Paul's role as co-founder of the Church. It's not either/or, which is the typical false dichotomous mindset found in Protestantism, it's both/and.

3. Why did the Lord not send Peter?

He did.

4. We have a direct commission by Jesus to Paul concerning Rome, yet nothing from Jesus about going to Rome. So why does the RCC not acknowledge this commission to Paul since he (Paul) was chosen by Jesus to be the leader at Rome?

Paul was not chosen by Jesus to be the sole leader at Rome. Remember that Paul's presence in Rome is a later development. He had the authority of an Apostle, but he did not receive the Keys of the Kingdom directly from from Jesus, as Peter did. Paul worked with Peter as a key member of the Magisterium (teaching authority) but did not have the same universal jurisdiction as Peter. The CC has never denied Paul's commission, I don't know where that comes from. Pitting Paul's commission against the Church is a man made Protestant tradition and totally ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that.

In conclusion, I've stated that I do believe there is a good possibility that Peter at some point was in Rome. However, this commission to Paul leads me to believe that if Peter was there, he had very little bearing on the Church.

Your opinion is contrary to stacks of evidence.

Kepha,
That is a very interesting take on the scriptures.

1. Again, if you read the first 2 chapters of Galatians in its entirety you should realize that Paul was not complimenting Peter, James or anyone else. He said they had a reputation and seemed to be pillars. He also said it didn't matter to him what their reutation was and they added nothing to him.

" they added nothing to him." Why would Paul say Peter, James and John had a reputation and were pillars and in the next breath play holier than thou??? Your eisegesis doesn't make sense. "they added nothing to him" refers to the unconverted Jewish leaders with status that didn't impress Paul. He was not insulting the Apostles and not asserting superiority over them. That is not the behavior of a divinely ordained leader. Read Galatians 1-2 carefully.
also affirms from verse 1 of chapter 1 and onwatd that he was appointed and confirmed by Christ and not of men.
You also make several errors by adding to the scripture to suit the teaching of the Catholic Church. For example, nowhere is Ananias called a bishop. Yes, Paul had to go to him. But he was not a bishop. Jesus had to go to John in the same way... Was Jesus under subjection to John the Baptist?

Acts 9: 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;[a] 6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7 Then Christ Himself must have appeared to Paul the second time in Damascus and layed Hands on him that marked the beginning of Paul's ministry.....no wait...wasn't that Ananias, bishop of the Church? Did Jesus directly tell Paul what to do? No, he did what he was told, by a human (again) his blindness was healed through the administrations of a bishop, a human, and got baptized, by a human.
Bishops, priests, and deacons are identified in scripture mostly by their function, not so much clear cut titles. Ananias is called a disciple (often interchangeable with bishop) had a vision, a conversation with Jesus, and received instruction directly from Jesus. You go on and on about Paul's commission but downplay Ananias' role so that it fits your system. Scripture does not explicitly state Ananias was ordained by an Apostle, but his function in Acts 9 clearly shows his role in the Church is not that of your average believer. Did Jesus appear and baptize Paul?

Another example: Paul never went to Peter for confirmation. Yes he abided with him for 15 days. It wasn't for confirmation. This would be seen in Acts 9:27. It was more like Barnabas introducing Paul to the Apostles and calming their fear.

The community was afraid of Paul for his reputation as a Christian killer. That's another reason why Paul went to the Apostles, as assurance to all that he was truly called by Christ.

You want to talk about Paul being semt by thr Church.... James and the Council. Well, what was their commission? It was to go with Barnabas to Antioch and Syria and preach to the gentiles. Fine... But what were Payl and Barnabas doing before being brought to the council? They were in Antioch and surrounding areas preaching the gospel to the grntiles.

They were commissioned by the Church to explain to all the churches that circumcision was no longer necessary. Paul did what he was told, get over it. They were given a letter to take with them. See Acts 15:22-29. Before that, Paul preached the gospel to the gentiles, but Paul wanted to make sure he was in union with the other Apostles, that their gospel was the same. See Gal. 2:2

Kind of sounds more like a rude, time wasting interruption of what they were already doing than some "commission".

It just means "sent". It's found repeatedly in Scripture.

By the way... Read the account. Paul didn't seem to be in a big hurry to get to the council.

Yea, he misplaced his car keys.

A second by the way.... James didn't live up to his end of the agreement.

What's that supposed to mean?
All this, by the way is an attempt to try to downplay Paul's calling. Its an attempt to uphold Peter as a supreme authority when he actually disappears from mention in Acts after chapter 16.



No, it is an explanation of how Paul was always subject to the Church. Downplaying Paul's calling is typical false dichotomous thinking of either/or found in Protestantism. It's both/and. Peter's primacy does not in any way diminish or downplay Paul's calling. Not at all. It's a complementary relationship, not a competitive one.

Thats not a big deal or surprising or downplays Peter's ministry. Luke was a companion of Paul. It makes sense that Peter wasn't mentioned. But it also shows Paul was not with Peter in Rome when he arrived there nor was Peter significant in Paul's missionary work. At least not to the exent that Paul was under subjection to him or James, for that matter.

I choose my words carefully and say Paul was always subject to the Church, not Peter alone, who is in union with Apostles and bishops, that make up the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Church. The Jerusalem Council was a greater authority than Paul since it sent him off (Acts 15:22-25), and he proclaimed “for observance” the “decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). Thus the Council, representing the infallible and binding authority of the Church (binding and loosing), had greater authority than he did.

Paul says that it is quite possible and conceivable that he could fall away, and that his salvation wasn’t yet assured, but apostasy is never applied to the Christian Church:

Philippians 3:11-14 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . . I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

1 Corinthians 9:27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
Thus, you have it exactly backwards. You have to exalt the authority of the individual over the institution (being a Protestant), even though this is the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches.

 

[H. Richard]

Kepha,
That is a very interesting take on the scriptures.

1. Again, if you read the first 2 chapters of Galatians in its entirety you should realize that Paul was not complimenting Peter, James or anyone else. He said they had a reputation and seemed to be pillars. He also said it didn't matter to him what their reutation was and they added nothing to him. He also affirms from verse 1 of chapter 1 and onwatd that he was appointed and confirmed by Christ and not of men.

You also make several errors by adding to the scripture to suit the teaching of the Catholic Church. For example, nowhere is Ananias called a bishop. Yes, Paul had to go to him. But he was not a bishop. Jesus had to go to John in the same way... Was Jesus under subjection to John the Baptist?

Another example: Paul never went to Peter for confirmation. Yes he abided with him for 15 days. It wasn't for confirmation. This would be seen in Acts 9:27. It was more like Barnabas introducing Paul to the Apostles and calming their fear.

You want to talk about Paul being semt by thr Church.... James and the Council. Well, what was their commission? It was to go with Barnabas to Antioch and Syria and preach to the gentiles. Fine... But what were Payl and Barnabas doing before being brought to the council? They were in Antioch and surrounding areas preaching the gospel to the grntiles.

Kind of sounds more like a rude, time wasting interruption of what they were already doing than some "commission".

By the way... Read the account. Paul didn't seem to be in a big hurry to get to the council.

A second by the way.... James didn't live up to his end of the agreement.

All this, by the way is an attempt to try to downplay Paul's calling. Its an attempt to uphold Peter as a supreme authority when he actually disappears from mention in Acts after chapter 16.

Thats not a big deal or surprising or downplays Peter's ministry. Luke was a companion of Paul. It makes sense that Peter wasn't mentioned. But it also shows Paul was not with Peter in Rome when he arrived there nor was Peter significant in Paul's missionary work. At least not to the exent that Paul was under subjection to him or James, for that matter.

***
Excellent and thoughtful post.

 

[epostle1]

***
Excellent and thoughtful post.

His spin on Galatians and Acts is illogical, as shown. I demonstrated using several proof texts that Paul was always subject to the Church which is in harmony with his divine call he received directly from Christ. Pitting Paul's divine call against the Church always fails because it's nowhere in the Bible. It is a man made Protestant tradition. My position stands.

 

[FHII]

***
Excellent and thoughtful post.

Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it.

 

[H. Richard]

His spin on Galatians and Acts is illogical, as shown. I demonstrated using several proof texts that Paul was always subject to the Church which is in harmony with his divine call he received directly from Christ. Pitting Paul's divine call against the Church always fails because it's nowhere in the Bible. It is a man made Protestant tradition. My position stands.

****
Just because you say so, right?

 

[epostle1]

****
Just because you say so, right?

No, because it's nowhere in the Bible. If you say otherwise then prove it. I simply pointed out, more than once, a list of proof texts showing Paul was subject the the Church. I don't make any distinctions that removes Paul from the Magisterium, he is very much part of it. But he did not have the office of Peter; his divine call never trumped Peter's authority, because it was the same authority in the same hierarchy. with the same doctrines. They were united in doctrine and belief. "The Church is not infallible, only the Bible is infallible" which is the illogical and self defeating mindset of sola scriptura. Infallibility doesn't come from popes, bishops or councils

Paul had to scold Peter at one point. (Gal. 2:11-15) But it had nothing to do with his teaching. Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites ((Matt 23:2 ff.).
That's trying to set the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that. I’ve already given the example of the Jerusalem Council, which plainly shows the infallibility of the Church.
The Church cannot "fall away" from the gospel because of the guarantees from God. It can't happen. The Bible teaches that the true Church is infallible and indefectible. That is a promise of God. One either accepts it in faith or not. That is the task: does one accept all of what the Bible teaches, or just selectively, with man-made traditions added to it? The reformers went against the Bible insisting that Jesus builds junk.

 

[tom55]

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.

Where in scripture does it say everything you need to know about the history of Christianity can be found in scripture?