Was Peter ever in Rome? What saith the Scriptures?

[Selene]

Really Selene how many times have you denied a statement you made and accused me of one that you never proved in the last few days?
That statement is so what? resorting to what? whats so uncivil about it? what debate?
please explain your strawman

Kepha gave you a straight answer.....and your response has nothing to do with what he posted. Plain and simple.

 

[Rex]

Kepha gave you a straight answer.....and your response has nothing to do with what he posted. Plain and simple.

You lecturing me about straight answers, thats a joke.
kepha says I'm an Adventist something I have never claimed or admitted and told him I've only been a 7day church one time my whole life.

Rex is a Seventh Day Adventist. Anti-Catholicism is their obsession.

I told Justin M where I was baptized in the polygamy thread. I also explained my use of the literature that indicates the RCC first developed the Idea of futurism and preterisum during the reformation two Jesuits proposed and wrote the works to steer the uncomfortable light the reformers were shining on Rome in prophesy.

As I told kepha I don't believe in White or Adventist slightly twisted doctrine. I also said they have had false prophets but that doesn't change the fact they know where the bones are buried, and continue to teach the prophesy message taught by the reformers. Something long forgotten in the churches today. I also noted that this information is available on other non Adventist sites but I like there complete presentation and photos. Now what part of this don't you or kepha understand? now that you have asked me to repeat myself again.
http://www.christian..._30#entry175601

Like I said they know where the bones are buried as well as a few others, Many Christians realize the RCC is a non doctrinal "biblical" church but they may not know the larger picture. The story and what the reformers believed. These people risked their lives literally, and the RCC literally killed people for daring to teach something not approved by Rome.

Most people already know the catholic church has been engaged in a disinformation campaign for centuries.
That interpretation comes from the reformers BTW.
Here is the disinformation released to stear the light away from your church shortly after the reformation. I have to admit many Christians today have swallowed the futurist bait

Anyone interested can read up here.
http://www.aloha.net.../antichrist.htm


The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism

This is a Protestant site as well as being open to others interested in debate and christian theology.
This is the History of the "Protestants" Reformers and its foundation.

 

[Selene]

Well, for someone who claims that he is NOT Seventh Day Adventist, you sure use a lot of Seventh Day Adventist literature. Therefore, your actions speaks louder than your words.

 

[Rex]

Would it make you feel better If I used a different source? I highly doubt it your simply trying to distract attention from history by paining the source.anti catholic. In my opinion the RCC made its bed let them sleep in it. If you choose to share it so be it.
But lets be realistic the CC has a very sorted past.

Now if you or kepha can prove the 2 documents false or forgeries that's a different matter,
So believe what you like I don't suppose your to jiggy with Fox book of martyrs ether.

 

[aspen]

It just goes to show how far people will go to deny the truth - even the grave and bones of Peter cannot convince those who want to believe their own version of history. Even doubting Thomas considered the evidence before him.

 

[Rex]

What it proves is there is no end to the RCC disinformation campaign
If your so right disprove the documents

 

[Selene]

It just goes to show how far people will go to deny the truth - even the grave and bones of Peter cannot convince those who want to believe their own version of history. Even doubt Thomas considered the evidence before him.

Exactly. They create their own version of history and deny the evidence before their eyes. Some of them even go so far as saying that the Early Church died off.

 

[Rex]

Our resident catholic have attacked everything except the message.
The kick and hiss and point fingers but they can't deny thr evidence.

Most people already know the catholic church has been engaged in a disinformation campaign for centuries.
That interpretation comes from the reformers BTW.
Here is the disinformation released to stear the light away from your church shortly after the reformation. I have to admit many Christians today have swallowed the futurist bait

Anyone interested can read up here.
http://www.aloha.net.../antichrist.htm


The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism

This is a Protestant site as well as being open to others interested in debate and christian theology.
This is the History of the "Protestants" Reformers and its foundation.

 

[Selene]

I find it so humorous that all the disinformation campaign have all been found in the Protestant websites rather than in Catholic websites. :lol: The fact that you can't find any disinformation campaign in any Catholic websites says it all.

 

[aspen]

Not sure why these documents are being brought up on this thread. Perhaps you should start a new thread, Rex so that we can properly discuss the topic of Preterism. It is interesting to me that you seem to have such a problem with Jesuits referencing Preterism, but fail to mention that Luther didn't even believe Revelation was inspired by God.

 

[Rex]

Not sure why these documents are being brought up on this thread. Perhaps you should start a new thread, Rex so that we can properly discuss the topic of Preterism. It is interesting to me that you seem to have such a problem with Jesuits referencing Preterism, but fail to mention that Luther didn't even believe Revelation was inspired by God.

Was Peter ever in Rome that seems to be a topic of concern to Catholics not me. It contains links to early church fathers as well.
The ones that Selene and Kepha like to quote to validate the foundation of the RCC.

So it boils down to what you believe and what others in history also believed. And the Preterism label you tagged me with is incorrect as well its Historicist. Preterism and Futurism was first developed by the RCC.

Heres some quotes from early church fathers like I said they know where the bones are buried concerning the RCC.
You don't think people simply read and accept Romes version do you?
just face it the dream of an image Daniel interpreted showed that the Roman Emp would stretch to the end "Christ Return" and in not such a favorable light as the RCC likes to portray itself in.

St. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165)
DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO
CHAPTER XXXII -- TRYPHO OBJECTING THAT CHRIST IS DESCRIBED AS GLORIOUS BY DANIEL, JUSTIN DISTINGUISHES TWO ADVENTS.
... and he whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half, is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High. ...

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202)
Adversus haereses (inter A.D. 180/199)
Book V, Chapter 26
John and Daniel have predicted the dissolution and desolation of the Roman Empire, which shall precede the end of the world and the eternal Kingdom of Christ. The Gnostics are refuted, those tools of Satan, who invent another Father different from the Creator.

1. In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord's disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, ...

Tertullian (2nd-3rd Century)
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way." What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? "And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish."
CHAP. XXXII.

There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock im (43) pending over the whole earth--in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes---is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration.

Hippolytus (3rd Century)
TREATISE ON CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST.
25. Then he says: "A fourth beast, dreadful and terrible; it had iron teeth and claws of brass." And who are these but the Romans? which (kingdom) is meant by the iron--the kingdom which is now established; for the legs of that (image) were of iron. And after this, what remains, beloved, but the toes of the feet of the image, in which part is iron and part clay, mixed together?

And mystically by the toes of the feet he meant the kings who are to arise from among them; as Daniel also says (in the words), "I considered the beast, and lo there were ten horns behind it, among which shall rise another (horn), an offshoot, and shall pluck up by the roots the three (that were) before it."

And under this was signified none other than Antichrist, who is also himself to raise the kingdom of the Jews. He says that three horns are plucked up by the root by him, viz., the three kings of Egypt, and Libya, and Ethiopia, whom he cuts off in the array of battle. And he, after gaining terrible power over all, being nevertheless a tyrant, shall stir up tribulation and persecution against men, exalting himself against them. For Daniel says: "I considered the horn, and behold that horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them, till the beast was slain and perished, and its body was given to the burning of fire."
26. ...
27. As these things, then, are in the future, and as the ten toes of the image are equivalent to (so many) democracies, and the ten horns of the fourth beast are distributed over ten kingdoms, let us look at the subject a little more closely, and consider these matters as in the clear light of a personal survey.
28. The golden head of the image and the lioness denoted the Babylonians; the shoulders and arms of silver, and the bear, represented the Persians and Medes; the belly and thighs of brass, and the leopard, meant the Greeks, who held the sovereignty from Alexander's time; the legs of iron, and the beast dreadful and terrible, expressed the Romans, who hold the sovereignty at present; the toes of the feet which were part clay and part iron, and the ten horns, were emblems of the kingdoms that are yet to rise; the other little horn that grows up among them meant the Antichrist in their midst; the stone that smites the earth and brings judgment upon the world was Christ.

 

[aspen]

I never said you were Preterist

 

[Rex]

I never said you were Preterist

Not sure why these documents are being brought up on this thread. Perhaps you should start a new thread, Rex so that we can properly discuss the topic of Preterism. It is interesting to me that you seem to have such a problem with Jesuits referencing Preterism, but fail to mention that Luther didn't even believe Revelation was inspired by God.

Then my mistake, its so difficult conversing with people that speak a different language.

 

[dragonfly]

Has it occurred to those of you who defend unbiblical doctrine (teaching) that God is going to carry out His plans, regardless of any church's mistaken or fabricated claims?

The Holy Spirit was sent to bring us into a greater knowledge of truth, which we are to love, because truth makes us free. John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

But the bad news is 2 Thessalonians 2: '... of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed to them. Romans 1:19 is not referring to Roman Catholic teachers only. (Well, they didn't exist at that time, so Paul couldn't have had them in mind.) He is referring to individual people from Peter, who was 'unlearned', to learned Nicodemus.

God expects us to love truth. God has the total monopoly on truth. There are no doubts, no lies, no disinformation or misinformation in God. He is pure Truth. He knows our thoughts, and He knows when we are not submitting our hearts to truth, because avoiding its stringence is less painful. Romans 1:18 is about God's plan for people who push truth over to the side, and carry on as if He had not revealed it to them.

Psalm 2:3, 4, 5.

Romans 12:19 Paul writes:
avenge not yourselves; make room for the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord.

2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;


Such obvious things - like the lack of biblical record of Peter being in Rome - should concern you, and certainly it should cause you to become more objective in your apprehension of what is claimed in the NT, because of Matt 7:24. Bear in mind that the denial of Jesus Christ will cause Him to deny us, and therefore, truth is of utmost importance to Him.

 

[Axehead]

Very good documentation, Rex. Glad you have posted this for all to see. I am familiar with much of it and learned more from your link: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm

There is much more the RCC produced to create confusion in Christianity.

The Catholic Church boasts that their Church is validated by post-apostolic "doctors of the Church" and history and archaeology, etc., etc., yet the most famous historian in Rome who lived from 37AD to 101AD is Josephus and HE NEVER MENTIONED PETER IN ROME.

Was Peter ever the ruler of the church? Of any church any time, any place? Not that anybody knows of. The pastor and leader of the church at Jerusalem was James, the Lord's brother (Acts_12:17; 15: 13-21; 21:18; Gal_2:9.) This Scriptural account of James is confirmed by Josephus in his Antiquities XX, 9,1, where James' martyrdom is described. Josephus never heard of Simon Peter, but the Jewish historian knows all about the faithful pastor and leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem.

Roman Catholicism says Peter was the the bishop at Rome from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D, when he was crucified under Nero.

What we have here if Peter was in Rome during those years, is that the New Testament is not reliable.

Sometime during those days Peter made his missionary journey through the western part of Judea, to Lydda, to Joppa, to Caesarea, and back to Jerusalem (Acts 9, 10, 11). Then came the imprisonment under Herod Agrippa I and the miraculous deliverance by the angel of the Lord (Acts 12). Peter then "went down from Judea to Caesarea and there abode" (Acts 12:19). Herod Agrippa died not long after these events (Acts 12:20-23). Josephus says that the death of Agrippa occurred in the fourth year of the reign of Claudius. This would be about 45 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine.

1. Peter returns the visit and goes to Antioch where Paul is working. This occasioned the famous interview between the two recorded in Galatians 2:11-14. Peter is still in the Orient, not in Rome.

2. After 54 A.D., and after the Antioch visit, the Apostle Peter makes an extensive missionary journey or journeys throughout the Roman provinces of the East. On these missionary tours Peter takes his wife (I Cor. 9:5). They labor in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. This must have taken several years since this is a large territory and a larger work/ministry. This would take us, therefore, to at least 60 A.D., and Peter and his wife are still not in Rome but in the East.

3. In about 58 A.D. Paul wrote a letter to the church at Rome. In the last chapter of that epistle, Paul salutes twenty-seven persons, but he never mentions Simon Peter. If Peter was "governing" the church at Rome, why doesn't Paul mention Peter?

Romans 1:13 shows that the church at Rome was a Gentile church. At the Jerusalem conference (Gal. 2:9), it was agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

The gospel ministry of Paul was motivated by a statement he makes in Romans 15:20: "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." Something similar he repeats in I Corinthians 10:15,16. Having written this to the brethren at Rome, it would have been contradictory for Paul to go to Rome if Peter were already there, or had been there for years.

4. Paul's first Roman imprisonment took place about 60 A.D. to 64 A.D. from his prison the Apostle to the Gentiles wrote four letters - Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. In these letters he mentions many of his fellow Christians who are in the city, but he never once refers to Simon Peter.

5. Paul's second Roman imprisonment brought him martyrdom. This occurred about 67 A.D. Just before he died Paul wrote a letter to Timothy, our "II Timothy." In that final letter the apostle mentions many people but plainly says that "only Luke is with me." There is never a reference to Peter.

I have now covered the years of 42 A.D. to 67 A.D., the years Peter is supposed to have been the prince and bishop and ruler of the church at Rome. Yet, there is not even a "peep" that this suggestion is even remotely true. The New Testament denies such fictitious stories.

Peter was never in Rome. Nor was he ruler over any church. Nor did he have any keys to give to anybody else to hand down to others. He was a stone, one out of many with which God is building His spiritual house in earth and in heaven.

Discovering "bones" in 1951 and calling them Peter's just exhibits the unabashed audacity of the RCC.

Axehead

 

[epostle1]

Peter was in Rome, and even if he wasn't, it does not take away from the glaring truth of his universal jurisdiction.

1 Peter 5:13

Primacy of Peter...list of verses

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him."
Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth."
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out."
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'"
Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood."
Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).

'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another (an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross."
Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15:3 (A.D. 212).

"Peter...at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way." Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome."
Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

"[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome..."
Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4:21 (A.D. 310).

"Peter...coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there..."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II:14,5 (A.D. 325).

"This man [Simon Magus], after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome...Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven..."
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures ,6:14-15 (c. A.D. 350).

"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing..."
Athanasius, Defence of his Flight, 18 (c. A.D. 357).

 

[Axehead]

Peter was in Rome, and even if he wasn't, it does not take away from the glaring truth of his universal jurisdiction.

1 Peter 5:13

Primacy of Peter...list of verses

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him."
Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth."
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out."
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'"
Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood."
Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).

'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another (an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross."
Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15:3 (A.D. 212).

"Peter...at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way." Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome."
Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

"[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome..."
Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4:21 (A.D. 310).

"Peter...coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there..."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II:14,5 (A.D. 325).

"This man [Simon Magus], after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome...Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven..."
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures ,6:14-15 (c. A.D. 350).

"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing..."
Athanasius, Defence of his Flight, 18 (c. A.D. 357).

Thank you for making my point that you cannot find any evidence in the New Testament that Peter was ever in Rome. Since no mention of him exists at Rome in the Scriptures in the form of greetings or salutations or intended journey, then extra-biblical "proof" can only be viewed as doubtful. Either the document is a forgery (which the Catholic church boasts about), or it is an outright deception.

 

[Selene]

Peter was in Rome, and even if he wasn't, it does not take away from the glaring truth of his universal jurisdiction.

1 Peter 5:13

Primacy of Peter...list of verses

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him."
Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth."
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out."
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'"
Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood."
Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).

'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another (an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross."
Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15:3 (A.D. 212).

"Peter...at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way." Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome."
Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

"[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome..."
Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4:21 (A.D. 310).

"Peter...coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there..."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II:14,5 (A.D. 325).

"This man [Simon Magus], after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome...Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven..."
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures ,6:14-15 (c. A.D. 350).

"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing..."
Athanasius, Defence of his Flight, 18 (c. A.D. 357).

Excellent documentation. All the quotes are cited by historical documents and dates.

Thank you for making my point that you cannot find any evidence in the New Testament that Peter was ever in Rome. Since no mention of him exists at Rome in the Scriptures in the form of greetings or salutations or intended journey, then extra-biblical "proof" can only be viewed as doubtful. Either the document is a forgery (which the Catholic church boasts about), or it is an outright deception.

There is no evidence in the New Testament that George Washington was the first President of the United States. But you know he was the first President of the US because of historical records. It is the same with the Apostle Peter. Historical records also shows that he was in Rome. Do you honestly believe that the Apostles ONLY existed in the Bible??

 

[Axehead]

There is no evidence in the New Testament that George Washington was the first President of the United States. But you know he was the first President of the US because of historical records. It is the same with the Apostle Peter. Historical records also shows that he was in Rome. Do you honestly believe that the Apostles ONLY existed in the Bible??

And you make my point, too. If there is no evidence in the NT, then it can just be made up. You demonstrate that you will believe anything the RCC hierarchy tells you. We are not talking about a small thing, are we? Do you consider Peter as the Bishop of Rome a small thing? That he was in Rome for 25 years and Pope of the Church? Is that a small thing? Looking at the timelines put together from Scripture, how could Peter be in Rome for 25 years, let alone 5 or 10 years without any mention from any other Believers or secular historians? Critical thinking would suggest that something is wrong between Peter and Paul and even Mark since neither Peter or Mark are mentioned as being in Rome. Or that it is a made up story. The NT is a major historical document, too. And why hasn't a major secular historian like Josephus mentioned Mark or Peter, in Rome? You are only citing "historical documents" from those within your own camp.

To perpetuate such a major doctrine upon the Christian church, you should try to get more evidence from one of the most important historical documents of that time: The New Testament! Unless, you think it is all a myth and only what Rome says is fact.

Axehead

 

[Selene]

And you make my point, too. If there is no evidence in the NT, then it can just be made up. You demonstrate that you will believe anything the RCC hierarchy tells you. We are not talking about a small thing, are we? Do you consider Peter as the Bishop of Rome a small thing? That he was in Rome for 25 years and Pope of the Church? Is that a small thing? Looking at the timelines put together from Scripture, how could Peter be in Rome for 25 years, let alone 5 or 10 years without any mention from any other Believers or secular historians? Critical thinking would suggest that something is wrong between Peter and Paul and even Mark since neither Peter or Mark are mentioned as being in Rome. Or that it is a made up story. The NT is a major historical document, too. And why hasn't a major secular historian like Josephus mentioned Mark or Peter, in Rome? You are only citing "historical documents" from those within your own camp.

To perpetuate such a major doctrine upon the Christian church, you should try to get more evidence from one of the most important historical documents of that time: The New Testament! Unless, you think it is all a myth and only what Rome says is fact.

Axehead

Truth is still truth. You cannot change it. I showed that Truth can still be found outside of the Bible.