What is the proof of Peter ever being in Rome?

Is there any evidence that the Apostle Peter ever went to Rome?

A previous thread on this was closed because of "inactivity" So I would like to restart it again.
This was the OP on a previous thread on this topic.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2760314-29/

There is a verse at the end of St Peter's first letter which says:

13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.-1Pt5
​

During those times Babylon was a code name for Rome because it was the romans who were hostile to Christians just as the Babylonians had done to the jews in centuries past. They knew that the original Babylon was in ruins so they didnt worry about people confusing it when it was mentioned later in early Christian writings as a code name for Rome.

Now many protestants would also claim that the CC is the "harlot of Babylon" mentioned in the book of Revelation, but for some reason wont accept that the "Babylon" in St Peter's letteris also Rome.

This thread is about deciding one or the other, either Peter was in Rome and the CC is the WB or he wasnt in Rome and the CC is not the WB.

Please vote.

Click to expand...

.

It's my understanding that in the writings of some of the early church fathers and such, there are accounts of Peter being in Rome.

For example, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria ... here's a quick Google link which offers a few of their quotes:

Was Peter in Rome? | Catholic Answers

The post you're referencing however brings up points concerning the WB, Rome as Babylon, etc. Is it okay to include discussion on those topics as well, or would you view that as a derail ?

If it's cool and not a derail ... I'll go ahead and toss out there something I found interesting, and this is concerning the Babylon=Jerusalem=WB angle. It occurred to me while reading this site here:

The harlot of Babylon

The idea is that when Jesus speaks this in Matt 5:31:

"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

... that Jesus is being prophetic concerning Jerusalem and Israel. In Jeremiah, where God describes Israel as a bride and He the husband, and He is giving her a bill of divorce for her adulteries (and the reference to Jerusalem/Israel as a harlot abounds in Ezekiel), etc ... the idea I'm wondering about is that if Jerusalem and Israel are the "harlot", and the divorced entity due to adulteries ... whoever marries her is also committing adultery, yes ? And we see this resound in Revelations, with Mystery Babylon.

What does this mean about the relationship between those who "marry" Jerusalem/Israel ? Are those who seek to place themselves into "Israel" via non-Christ ways, guilty of adultery ? This kind of goes along with the CC is WB, but from an angle I hadn't considered before.

LittleLambofJesus said:

Is there any evidence that the Apostle Peter ever went to Rome?

A previous thread on this was closed because of "inactivity" So I would like to restart it again.
This was the OP on a previous thread on this topic.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2760314-29/




.

Click to expand...

I would recommend "Upon this Rock" by Stephen Ray. There is an entire section devoted to Peter and the fact he was in Rome.

The earliest reference outside the bible to the Peter and Rome question is from Clement of Rome's Epistle. In it, he simply states that Peter was martyred in Rome. Nothing about transmitting any keys or authority.

Makes sense since Peter himself calls the elders of Asia Minor and instructs them in the same way that Christ instructed him (feed His sheep). 1 Peter 5:1-3.

Bottom line: it doesn't and shouldn't matter to anyone whether Peter was ever in Rome or not.

Peter's epistle places him preaching to his Semitic culture from Jerusalem to the church of Babylon. There is no focus on his early ministry that even considered preaching to the Gentiles, let alone to the Romans who were the perpetrators of his Lord's death.

It is only in Acts 10 we see him finally been moved by the Holy Ghost in the latter part of his ministry to only, let me repeat to only baptise gentile believers starting with Cornelius's household and later 3000 other Gentiles.

So the question whether Peter visited Rome does not prove that Peter gave his ministry over to the Roman Catholic Church.

Peter had given his ministry over to the church of Babylon, located in Babylon Iraq and those living in that provenance were not Romans, but rather his Semitic brothers and sisters, whom he sent one of his Jewish apostles to and included in his letters:

1 Peter 5:13-14
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Click to expand...

It would be unthinkable for Peter to say this to a gentile church because of the way he was brought up within the Jewish culture, that instructed him to only recognise his own Semitic culture.

Now for the Roman Catholic Church to say Peter handed the ranks of the apostolic church to them is so fantastical that this notion completely rejects Acts 10, in how Peter viewed Gentiles and how he never considered them as part of his ministry. Yet towards the end of his ministry he was told by God to baptise them and not to think of them as being unclean as he obviously had always thought of them and portrayed then across his Jewish congregation.

So the church of Babylon elected together with you are his Samaritan brothers and sisters who lived in Babylon Iraq who were of ancient Assyrian decent as Abraham was a descendant of the village of Urr, a provenance of Iraq, the greater ancient Babylon that was ruled by the first Semitic tribe the Assyrians who were also called the Ashurites, Shem-ites, Shem-Rye-Ya meaning Samaritan, hence the term the good Samiritan.

These wee also identified by The Lord as the men of Nineveh who were the indigenous people who loved in the northern parts of Iraq, whereby Jesus spoke in their dialect which is the Aramaic language.

So the first church setup is the church of Babylon and not the Roman Catholic Church.

The church of Babylon later was accused by the Roman Catholic Church through then initial schism as the heretical Nestorian church because it regarded Jesus as the son of Mary yet the Christ who is the Devine, they considers as separate to his human nature, because the Devine is the Almighty God who without a father and without a mother. So the Nestorian church just like then Protestant movement consider Mary the mother of Jesus who bore his human body yet did not consider her the mother of his Devine who is the Christ.

So the Protestant movement is part in the same feather as the church of Babylon and so the one and only church as the Roman Catholic Church claims stands on its own.

Peter had never handed down the keys to the Vatican, but rather the church of Babylon had historically conscripted a Roman clergy to the role of bishop and then from then on the hierarchical wars called the later schisms ensued because the Roman Catholic Church wanted to beat everyone to the top of the mountain as the king of the mountain.

Well they did literally beat everyone, seriously they beat everyone so hard they had them running for their lives and what resulted from the crusades and inquisitions was total take over by the Vatican in which 70 consecutive popes saw to take control of the religious Synod by way of brute force and latter deception by flatteries.

Am I testifying falsely?

No, it is all history that is secretly kept in Vatican archives, stored as a trophy of their victories over the religious community, the Synod.

Thankfully God raised the Protestants who will unite with the Nestorian church of Babylon to expose the fraud.

TillICollapse said:

It's my understanding that in the writings of some of the early church fathers and such, there are accounts of Peter being in Rome.

For example, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria ... here's a quick Google link which offers a few of their quotes:

Was Peter in Rome? | Catholic Answers

The post you're referencing however brings up points concerning the WB, Rome as Babylon, etc. Is it okay to include discussion on those topics as well, or would you view that as a derail ?

If it's cool and not a derail ... I'll go ahead and toss out there something I found interesting, and this is concerning the Babylon=Jerusalem=WB angle. It occurred to me while reading this site here:

The harlot of Babylon

The idea is that when Jesus speaks this in Matt 5:31:

"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

... that Jesus is being prophetic concerning Jerusalem and Israel. In Jeremiah, where God describes Israel as a bride and He the husband, and He is giving her a bill of divorce for her adulteries (and the reference to Jerusalem/Israel as a harlot abounds in Ezekiel), etc ... the idea I'm wondering about is that if Jerusalem and Israel are the "harlot", and the divorced entity due to adulteries ... whoever marries her is also committing adultery, yes ? And we see this resound in Revelations, with Mystery Babylon.

What does this mean about the relationship between those who "marry" Jerusalem/Israel ? Are those who seek to place themselves into "Israel" via non-Christ ways, guilty of adultery ? This kind of goes along with the CC is WB, but from an angle I hadn't considered before.

Click to expand...

To me, Jerusalem is symbolic but God did not divorce her. To me the WB is seen in straying from the Lords commands (the wife submits to the husband) and its seen specifically in covetousness and other worldly ways. Paul preaches against it often, exhorting us to flee from it. We are not suppose to worry about material thing but instead put our affections (as a faithful wife would) on the husband i.e, the kingdom of Heaven. Trusting Christ in this way (to supply our needs and not worry) isn't always easy but faith isn't supposed to be easy or it wouldn't be faith, just as hope that is seen isn't hope. Faith is the substance of things hoped for. But if we put our trust in man/politicians and love the world and set our affections on the earth then we are like an unfaithful wife who doesn't hope or have faith. Covetousness is idolatry and spiritual adultery. This world is not our home, if we love it or the things in it then we become unfaithful to Christ. See what Hebrews says about faith and faithfulness to Christ.


Hebrews 11:11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.


13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them,[c] embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.




The homeland= Kindom of heaven

14For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. 15 And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.

Faith is faithfulness to Christ

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,”[d] 19 concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.
20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.
21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, leaning on the top of his staff.
22 By faith Joseph, when he was dying, made mention of the departure of the children of Israel, and gave instructions concerning his bones.

23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king’s command.
24 By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in[e] Egypt; for he looked to the reward.
27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood, lest he who destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
29 By faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry land, whereas the Egyptians, attempting to do so, were drowned.

By Faith They Overcame

30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.
32 And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: 33 who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again.
Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. 36 Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted,[f] were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented— 38 of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth.
39 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.




Covetousness is spiritual adultery that defiles the marriage bed

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
5 Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”[a] 6 So we may boldly say:
“The Lord is my helper;
I will not fear.
What can man do to me?”[b]

Giantbear said:

Am I testifying falsely?
.

Click to expand...

Yes

MJohn7 said:

To me, Jerusalem is symbolic but God did not divorce her. To me the WB is seen in straying from the Lords commands (the wife submits to the husband) and its seen specifically in covetousness and other worldly ways. Paul preaches against it often, exhorting us to flee from it. We are not suppose to worry about material thing but instead put our affections (as a faithful wife would) on the husband i.e, the kingdom of Heaven. Trusting Christ in this way (to supply our needs and not worry) isn't always easy but faith isn't supposed to be easy or it wouldn't be faith, just as hope that is seen isn't hope. Faith is the substance of things hoped for. But if we put our trust in man/politicians and love the world and set our affections on the earth then we are like an unfaithful wife who doesn't hope or have faith. Covetousness is idolatry and spiritual adultery. This world is not our home, if we love it or the things in it then we become unfaithful to Christ. See what Hebrews says about faith and faithfulness to Christ

Click to expand...

In Jeremiah 3:6-8 we got:

"6 During the reign of King Josiah, the Lord said to me, “Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there. 7 I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. 8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery."

There is one example.

In Revelations 21:2 we got:

"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

Thus one could come to the possible conclusion that the old is divorced, on the grounds of adultery (unfaithfulness) ... and the New Jerusalem is the new bride.

No ?

TillICollapse said:

In Jeremiah 3:6-8 we got:

"6 During the reign of King Josiah, the Lord said to me, “Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there. 7 I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. 8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery."

There is one example.

In Revelations 21:2 we got:

"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

Thus one could come to the possible conclusion that the old is divorced, on the grounds of adultery (unfaithfulness) ... and the New Jerusalem is the new bride.

No ?

Click to expand...

Yes but my point is that there is neither Jew or gentile, Jews are not evil more than others. The faith is trusting Christ to save us, but its also trusting him daily to supply our needs, and love for the world is the WB. Covetousness is the WB. Faith is submitting to Christs commands as a faithful wife does.

MJohn7 said:

Yes but my point is that there is neither Jew or gentile, Jews are not evil more than others. The faith is trusting Christ to save us, but its also trusting him daily to supply our needs, and love for the world is the WB. Covetousness is the WB. Faith is submitting to Christs commands as a faithful wife does.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that Jews were evil. I don't think you meant to do it, but in conversations, that's what's often known as a straw man.

The scriptures say there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male or female, etc. Are they still people though ?

The scriptures also give names to entities like, harlot of Babylon. Mystery Babylon. That great city which is spiritually called Egypt and Sodom, where the Lord was crucified. So on and so forth.

So neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female ... yet we have Gog and Magog, and the harlot of Babylon sits upon peoples, multitudes, nations, languages, etc. She is called "the great city that rules over the kings of the earth".

So whether she is Rome, Jerusalem, whatever ... she is apparently a "city". In her is found the blood of prophets, holy people, etc. There is a voice from heaven that says "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes."

So are we still dealing with people here in relation to the harlot in your opinion ? And in your opinion, did God not divorce Israel or Jerusalem in a way that included people ?

I don't really argue with someone who disagrees with me very often, so I'm not looking to debate, but I don't see how "love of the world" is the only attribute of W B. There are names given to her, and spiritual names given to entities/etc for a reason I imagine.

TillICollapse said:

I didn't say that Jews were evil. I don't think you meant to do it, but in conversations, that's what's often known as a straw man.

The scriptures say there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male or female, etc. Are they still people though ?

The scriptures also give names to entities like, harlot of Babylon. Mystery Babylon. That great city which is spiritually called Egypt and Sodom, where the Lord was crucified. So on and so forth.

So neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female ... yet we have Gog and Magog, and the harlot of Babylon sits upon peoples, multitudes, nations, languages, etc. She is called "the great city that rules over the kings of the earth".



Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
5 Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”[a] 6 So we may boldly say:
“The Lord is my helper;
I will not fear.
What can man do to me?”[b]



Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
5 Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”[a] 6 So we may boldly say:
“The Lord is my helper;
I will not fear.
What can man do to me?”[b]
So whether she is Rome, Jerusalem, whatever ... she is apparently a "city". In her is found the blood of prophets, holy people, etc. There is a voice from heaven that says "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes."

So are we still dealing with people here in relation to the harlot in your opinion ? And in your opinion, did God not divorce Israel or Jerusalem in a way that included people ?

I don't really argue with someone who disagrees with me very often, so I'm not looking to debate, but I don't see how "love of the world" is the only attribute of W B. There are names given to her, and spiritual names given to entities/etc for a reason I imagine.

Click to expand...

Yes, i guess i meant to suggest that if a person has faith in Christ then it doesnt exclude them from the kingdom if they follow the 10c's (for example) Romans 14

But i see a spiritual meaning behind the WB, we can fail to have faith in Christ 2 ways, one is by rejecting the cross atonement, the second is by not bearing our own cross, and not trusting him alone to supply our daily bread, and not being content. Covetousness is faithlessness as Paul teaches timothy, so it seems like something an unfaithful wife would do. covetousness is idolatry as Paul declares, but to me its the same as spiritual adultery against Christ.

The harlot lures men away from being faithful to Christ, as i see it. Or shes like an unfaithful wife who gets pleasure in other men, or other things, i.e. covetousness.



Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
5 Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”[a] 6 So we may boldly say:
“The Lord is my helper;
I will not fear.
What can man do to me?”[b]

Anyway, the topic is about Peter visiting Rome, back on topic. Sorry LLOJ.

Originally Posted by Giantbear

Click to expand...

..........It would be unthinkable for Peter to say this to a gentile church because of the way he was brought up within the Jewish culture, that instructed him to only recognise his own Semitic culture.................

Am I testifying falsely?

​

Click to expand...

Sound logical to me.

concretecamper said:

Yes

Click to expand...

In what way?


.

The early witness of the fathers, as others have noted, placed Peter in Rome and identified Peter as Rome's first bishop.

Making it pretty safe to say that Peter was in Rome. Also, in the Petrine epistles the identity of "Babylon" has just about universally been recognized as code for Rome, as the historic Babylon was--in fact--nothing but uninhabited ruins, and had been for centuries.

So 1 Peter identifying its place of composition as "Babylon" (Rome), the witness of the fathers of both Peter and Paul preaching there and facing their martyrdom there, and also the witness that Peter was Rome's first bishop all demonstrate for us that we can be rather confident of this fact.

-CryptoLutheran