Was Peter ever in Rome? What saith the Scriptures?

[SilenceInMotion]

You make a key point that in my mind is a deal breaker.

That's not really a point at all.

Fundamentalists are just outrageously stubborn when it comes to this subject, because they want to be convinced of something that has been grounded in history for thousands of years and now that so much time has gone by, one must practically build a time machine to convince them. They want proof of this and that, or 'it didn't happen', as if history is supposed to cater to them what they demand while they close their eyes and shut their ears.

It's preposterous and dishonest. It hasn't even been until the past couple decades that this unfounded attack on the Church even began. How convenient it must be, truly, to just come up with anything to attack an institution and not look asinine for doing it. Such is the way of fundamentalist country, where the rest of the world isn't scrutinizing them on their claims, a luxury that the Church has never had.

If you want to find the truth, you have to get your nose out of the Bible for a second and look elsewhere. If that is too much to ask, then their really is nothing else one can do. There is a reasonable approach, and then there's simply abusing the Bible to cover the wool over your eyes.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome

 

[Axehead]

That's not really a point at all.

Fundamentalists are just outrageously stubborn when it comes to this subject, because they want to be convinced of something that has been grounded in history for thousands of years and now that so much time has gone by, one must practically build a time machine to convince them. They want proof of this and that, or 'it didn't happen', as if history is supposed to cater to them what they demand while they close their eyes and shut their ears.

It's preposterous and dishonest. It hasn't even been until the past couple decades that this unfounded attack on the Church even began. How convenient it must be, truly, to just come up with anything to attack an institution and not look asinine for doing it. Such is the way of fundamentalist country, where the rest of the world isn't scrutinizing them on their claims, a luxury that the Church has never had.

If you want to find the truth, you have to get your nose out of the Bible for a second and look elsewhere. If that is too much to ask, then their really is nothing else one can do. There is a reasonable approach, and then there's simply abusing the Bible to cover the wool over your eyes.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome

SIM, the Scriptures trump non-Biblical History not the other way around. There have been too many cases of revisionist history by religious organizations, chiefly yours.

Why would I read that tract you listed? Ever heard of the "the fox in the hen house"? The RCC has a vested interest in proving that Peter was in Rome. Their whole religion stands or falls on Peter being the Pope and Rome being his headquarters.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SilenceInMotion]

SIM, the Scriptures trump non-Biblical History not the other way around.
There have been too many cases of revisionist history by religious
organizations, chiefly yours.

You have the Church fathers speaking of Peter in Rome as a matter of fact, not just Roman but also Greek Orthodox *the entire preface of Christianity*. The Bible does not say he wasn't in Rome, his bones are buried in Rome, historians, BBC, national Geographic- everyone has concluded this as valid history.

Besides Paul, very little is spoken of in Scriptures about the locations and movements of the apostles, so your attempt at using Scripture bears no real fruit. I've been to many places in my life, and I'm not even pushing 30 yet. You are arguing pretty much nothing and masquerading it as being more.

What's more is that there was no motive to make Peter the pope of Rome. Bishopric power was shared between Greece and Roman churches untl the schism in 1054AD. The seat in Rome was simply considered sentimental and venerated, it wasn't declared prime until the schism.
It's so incredibly obvious where the whole opposition to Peter being in Rome comes from- fundamentalists who hate the papacy. They didn't go look into history and deduce that he wasn't in Rome, they try to find excuses to attack the succession of the bishops.

Dime a dozen anti-catholic tripe, that is all it is. The same people who could never even figure out that Peter's name means 'rock' or that the Whore of Babylon existed before the Church. What a credible intitution, let me tell you.

 

[Episkopos]

The "succession" (a term that does not apply to the church at all) of the church is not through an organization but through the Spirit. Men seek to replace the Spirit. But the Head of the church is always Christ.


Succession is from a dead king to a living king. Jesus Christ is not dead...He is ALIVE and not in need of any succession.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

The "succession" (a term that does not apply to the church at all) of the church is not through an organization but through the Spirit. Men seek to replace the Spirit. But the Head of the church is always Christ.


Succession is from a dead king to a living king. Jesus Christ is not dead...He is ALIVE and not in need of any succession.

You replaced the Spirit with a canon of books. Ican't even make a point that Peter was in Rome because 'it's not written in Scripture'. What kind of bologna is that? Just stick to your script.. literally. As for me, I'll pay attention to the church Christ instituted.

 

[Selene]

The "succession" (a term that does not apply to the church at all) of the church is not through an organization but through the Spirit. Men seek to replace the Spirit. But the Head of the church is always Christ.


Succession is from a dead king to a living king. Jesus Christ is not dead...He is ALIVE and not in need of any succession.

It is said in the Bible that Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot. The Apostle Judas Iscariot was dead, and another took his place. As I said, God uses people as His instrument to continue His mission and ministry on earth.

 

[Episkopos]

You replaced the Spirit with a canon of books. Ican't even make a point that Peter was in Rome because 'it's not written in Scripture'. What kind of bologna is that? Just stick to your script.. literally. As for me, I'll pay attention to the church Christ instituted.

Jesus Christ is the Head of the church that Jesus Christ instituted.

Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

One can try to make up a religion that puts men in the driver's seat.....but that is NOT Christianity.

It is said in the Bible that Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot. The Apostle Judas Iscariot was dead, and another took his place. As I said, God uses people as His instrument to continue His mission and ministry on earth.

There is a big difference between a spiritual mission on earth and setting up a CEO of a religious conglomerate purporting to represent Christ. The Vatican is the very antithesis of the teachings of Jesus. The kingdom of God is NOT represented by an earthly kingdom....HIS kingdom is NOT of this world. True Christians are in the world but not of it. The Lord rebuke those who set pomp and worldly wealth as a guise of His church. The lover of pomp and show is the devil. The kingdom of God cannot be observed by human eyes.

Isa_5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.
Isa_14:11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Jesus Christ is the Head of the church that Jesus Christ instituted.

Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

One can try to make up a religion that puts men in the driver's seat.....but that is NOT Christianity.

The Bible did not magically fall out the sky one day, it was written by men. And 95% of everything in it were done by men, and Jesus gave authority to the apostles, who were men.

What you are saying is not applicable to church order. You have to put it all in a collection of books. If you like Revelation 1:18, read Matthew 16:19. Cherry-picking Scripture is a fool's game.

 

[Episkopos]

The Bible did not magically fall out the sky one day, it was written by men. And 95% of everything in it were done by men, and Jesus gave authority to the apostles, who were men.

What you are saying is not applicable to church order. You have to put it all in a collection of books. If you like Revelation 1:18, read Matthew 16:19. Cherry-picking Scripture is a fool's game.

There is a big difference between God using men and men using God.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

There is a big difference between God using men and men using God.

Then the Pharisees must have been in shock when they found that they were doing God's will the entire time, because they were definitively using God for their own self-importance.

Jesus states to do as they say, but do not do as they do. He was speaking about the seat of Moses. Corruption comes and goes, but God's will remains. This is carried over to the seat of Peter.

 

[Episkopos]

Then the Pharisees must have been in shock when they found that they were doing God's will the entire time, because they were definitively using God for their own self-importance.

Jesus states to do as they say, but do not do as they do. He was speaking about the seat of Moses. Corruption comes and goes, but God's will remains. This is carried over to the seat of Peter.

We are not to do as the Pharisees...that is the point that is being lost. Disobedience does not need to carry over in the new testament.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

We are not to do as the Pharisees...

do, but we are supposed to do as they say. Otherwise, you're going against God's will. Simplicity itself: God did not do away with authority. In fact, Jesus explicitly continues that authority unto the apostles. If you say there should be no sucession from there, then there shouldn't have been any sucession of Moses either. But there was, and God willed it.

 

[Rex]

Isa 42:8-9


Curious? read the 2 verses before

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Isa 42:8-9


Curious? read the 2 verses before

Being that the Church does not consider the pope God anymore then Peter, and instead of continuing to show how wrong the accusation that the Church commits idolatry is, I'm just going to say that your post is irrelevant.

If you're going to be anti-Catholic, at least try to be better at it. You all just start to become a broken record after a while.

 

[Episkopos]

do, but we are supposed to do as they say. Otherwise, you're going against God's will. Simplicity itself: God did not do away with authority. In fact, Jesus explicitly continues that authority unto the apostles. If you say there should be no sucession from there, then there shouldn't have been any sucession of Moses either. But there was, and God willed it.

Your error lies in thinking that the New Covenant is also according to the physical world as the Old Testament was. The New Covenant is about a new birth into a spiritual reality of life in Christ Jesus.....not an external religious system. Those who embark on the external interpretation of the church also call buildings ...churches. This shows the perception of the world has not changed from before...it is yet carnal.

 

[John_8:32]

You have the Church fathers speaking of Peter in Rome as a matter of fact, not just Roman but also Greek Orthodox *the entire preface of Christianity*. The Bible does not say he wasn't in Rome, his bones are buried in Rome, historians, BBC, national Geographic- everyone has concluded this as valid history.

Ahmadinijad speaks matter of factly that the Holocaust DID NOT OCCUR. Must not have happened then.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Ahmadinijad speaks matter of factly that the Holocaust DID NOT OCCUR. Must not have happened then.

Well, people exaggerate the truth sometimes. Only about 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust, and a good amount of that was simply due to being denied food and a place of living.
Any intelligent and honest person knows that's the truth, as the '6 million' number was induced by Zion trying to squeeze in a Jewish prophesy in there. The history books state the number because that was simply the consensus at the time it was given by them, and nobody changes it now because Jews will just put on their antisemitism hat and start crying about it.

The Brown Shirts were also a masculine homosexual gang that leaked into the German military, by which Nazi symbolism became based on. Want to know the real truth about the Nazi reign? I could tell you all about it.

I could tell you all about it just like how I could tell you all about how Peter being the first bishop of Rome is only questioned by anti-Catholic fringe. And I can provide actual reason for those things, and not through an arbitrary dislike of something which I nitpick until I think I have a case. I could do many things, but it's in vain when spoken to people who are irreversibly fixed on believing or disbelieving something simply because they don't like it.

 

[Episkopos]

...or inventing something for convenience sake...

 

[SilenceInMotion]

...or inventing something for convenience sake...

...why don't you think about that in terms of how a Catholic sees Protestants against the Church

 

[Episkopos]

...why don't you think about that in terms of how a Catholic sees Protestants against the Church

I don't see anyone protesting the renewal of empty Catholic steeple buildings into condominiums, boutiques, and libraries.

I represent a growing number of Christians that are coming out of man guided religious institutions in order to follow the faith of Christ handed down to the apostles.