Did the Apostle Peter Ever Go To Rome? Part I

[outsidethecamp]

Did the Apostle Peter Ever Go To Rome? Part I

Ok, let's trace Peter's movement with the Scriptures. Certain dates and events militate against the supposition that Peter was ever in Rome.

33 A.D. The Church was established on Pentecost in Jerusalem and Peter was there - he preached that day (Acts 2).

36 A.D. Paul was converted on the road to Damascus (Acts 9).
1. Acts 9:22-25 together with II Corinthians 11:32 tells us that King Aretas collaborated with the Jews of Damascus who tried to capture Paul, but he was "Let down from window over the wall in a basket" and escaped.
2. With the reign of Aretas, the date of Paul's conversion cannot be earlier than 36 or 38 and certainly not later than 40 because Aretas' reign ended in 40 A. D.

39 A.D. Herod died "eaten of worms" (Acts 12:23).
1. But Peter and James were imprisoned by this same Heron in Jerusalem shortly before his death (Acts 12:1-2).
2. The Lord delivered Peter, and he was restored to the church because "prayers were made earnestly of the church unto God for him." (Acts 12:5).

44-48 A.D. The famine prophesied by Agabus, that "would come over all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius" (Acts 11:28)
1. This famine is also confirmed by secular writers:
a. Suetonius (Claud.,xvii)
b. Dio Cassius (lx. 11)
c. Tacitus (Annals xii.43)
d. Orosius (vii. 6)
e. Josephus (Ant., XX, ii.5)
2. These writers also relate the death of Herod in the same period of time. They confirm N.T. chronology. And Peter was not imprisoned until Acts 12 - which fits this dating.

45-49 A.D. The First Missionary Journey of Paul, Barnabas and John Mark (Acts 13-14).

46-47 A.D. Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Cyprus - a Roman inscription found on the island confirm this date.
1. Annius Bassus became Proconsul in 52 A.D. during the twelfth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar.
2. So Sergius Paulus had to be Proconsul before then, which easily fits the date presented for Paul's journey. (Acts 13:7)

49-50 A.D. The Edict of Claudius which commanded "all the Jews to depart from Rome" (Acts 18:2 does not necessarily mean that the edict was not issued until the time of Acts 18 in Luke's reference, but that the edict was the reason Aquila and Priscilla were in Corinth, having "lately come from Italy").

52-53 A.D. The Jerusalem Conference about the question of Gentile circumcision (Acts 15 and Galatians 2:1-10).
1. As already noted, Paul's visit was "three years after" his conversion.
2. "Then after the space of fourteen years", Paul returned "by revelation" (God commanded him to go) because of the uncircumcision question.
3. That makes a total of seventeen years after Paul's conversion, and it dates the Jerusalem meeting about 52 or 53 A.D.
4. But at that very time: "James, Peter and John were reputed to be pillars in the church" in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9)

53-54 A.D. Gallio was Proconsul in Corinth - and that date is confirmed by Roman historians and by a fragmentary inscription from Delphi containing a lettre from the Emperor Claudius in which mention of Gallio was made and it is dated in the twenty-sixth year of his reign.
1. Paul was in Corinth at that time (Acts 18:12) during his Second Missionary Journey.
2. From Corinth he wrote 1 and II Thessalonians.

54-55 A.D. Paul's Third Missionary Journey - during which time he spent two years teaching in the school of Tyrannus in Ephesus.
1. From Ephesus he wrote 1 Corinthians and Galatians.
2. He then went to Macedonia from whence he wrote II Corinthians -- probably the next year -- about 57 A.D.

58 A.D. Paul returned to Corinth where he "spent three months" (Acts 20:3).
1. From Corinth he wrote the Roman Letter. That hs is in Corinth at this writing is evident from the fact that ie is the guest of "Gaius, my host" (Romans 16:23). And "Erastus was the treasurer of the city." Gaius is the same brother mentioned in I Corinthians 1:14; Acts 19:29.
2. In the sixteenth chapter of Romans Paul mentioned some thirty-five different brethren by name - to whom he sent salutations. But there is no mention of Peter being in Rome - and if he were there - then Paul totally ignored him. It is easier to believe he simply was not there.

59-60 A.D. Festus succeeded Felix (Acts 24:27) and Eusebius in this book on Church History places
this succession by Festus during the second year of the reign of Nero.
1. Paul had been a prisoner of Felix for almost two years when Festus succeeded him (Acts 24:27).
2. Only "three days" after his ascension to office, Festus went to Jerusalem (Acts 25:1) and the Jews there tried to get him to send Paul to Jerusalem from Caesarea so they could kill him.
3. But he stayed in Jerusalem "not more than eight or ten days" (Acts 25:6). Then the day after his return to Caesarea he called Paul to stand trial (Acts 25:6).
4. It was then that Paul "appealed to Caesar" (Acts 25:11)

61-62 A.D. Paul's journey to Rome and his first imprisonment, during which time he stayed "in his own hired dwelling" for some two years (Acts 28:30).
1. During this time he wrote from Rome the book of Colossians.
a. Timothy was with him at that time in Rome (Col 1:1)
b. Tychicus and Onesimus took the letter he wrote from Rome to Colossae (Col 4:7-9)
c. Paul sends greetings from Aristarchus, Mark, Justus, Luke and Demas. (Col 4:10-14)
d. No mention of Peter being in Rome.
2. From Rome he also wrote Ephesians.
a. Tychicus delivered the letter to Ephesus (Eph 6:21)
b. No mention of Peter as Pope in the list of church offices listed in Eph 4:11 "and he gave some to be apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists and some pastors and teachers", but no popes.
c. Peter is not mentioned as being in Rome.
3. During this same time he wrote Philemon from Rome.
a. Timothy was with him (Philemon 1:1)
b. He also sends greeting from Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke (Philemon 23).
c. No mention of Peter being in Rome.

63 A.D. Phillipians was written from Rome during this same period of time. It was written later than those mentioned just above - for time was required for Epaphroditus to be sent from Philippi, to get sick: "nigh unto death" (Phil 2:25-30) and then return to Philippi.
1. Timothy was with Paul in Rome (Phil 1:1)
2. Paul also sends greetings from "the brethren" and "especially they that are of Caesar's household" (Phil 4:22).
3. No mention of Peter being in Rome.

64-65 A.D. Paul was released from the Roman prison and returned to Greece and Macedonia (I Tim 1:3)
1. He wrote I Timothy from Macedonia - see above.
2. He also wrote Titus from Macedonia - after he had returned from Crete (Titus 1:5)

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. Paul's second imprisonment in Rome.
1. II Timothy was written during Paul's final incarceration in Rome.
a. He wants Timothy to "come shortly to me" (II Tim 4:9)
b. He named some: "Demas forsook me...and went to Thessalonica" (II Tim 4:10)
c. "Crescens" went to "Galatia" (vs 10).
d. "Titus" went to "Dalmatia" (vs. 10).
e. "Only Luke is with me" (vs.11).
f. "Erastus remained at Corinth" (vs. 20).
g. "Trophimus I left at Miletus sick" (vs. 20).
2. He sends some salutations:
a. "Eubulus saluteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia" (vs. 21).
b. No salutation from Peter -- and no mention of him being in Rome.
3. If Peter was there he must have abandoned Paul, for "This thou knowest, that all that are in Asia turned away from me, of which are Phygelus and Hermogenes." (II Tim 1:15)
4. "Only Luke is with me" - He stayed with Paul, and so did "Onesiphorus, for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but when he was in Rome, he sough me diligently and found me" (II Tim 1:16-17).

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.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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).

If Peter had wanted to say he was in Persia, he would have said so. "Babylon", a city, was very much in ruins; this is why it is generally agreed by most (not just Roman Catholics) that "Babylon" refers to Rome.

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.

St. Clement's epistle to the Corinthians was written less than 30 years after Paul and Peter's martyrdom. That's significantly less than eighty years. I can't think of a good reason to doubt Clement when he writes,

"But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. 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. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience."

Why mention the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul? Clement is speaking of those who perished in recent memory, he is speaking as bishop of Rome. It seems entirely sensible here that Clement is referring to both because both were important to the Christian community in Rome; and both suffered martyrdom there.

Additionally, why should we dismiss later Christian writers which make far more explicit claims?

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant." - St. Ignatius to the Romans, ch. 4

"For in this way Apostolic Churches declare their origin: as, for instance, the Church of the Smyrnaeans records that Polycarp was placed there by John; and the Roman Church that Clement was ordained thereto by Peter." - Tertullian, Prescription Against the Heretics, ch. 32

In the case of Ignatius, this is yet another example of of someone writing significantly less than eighty years after Peter and Paul's martyrdom.

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.

This seems to only be an issue for someone if they have a personal gripe against the Roman Catholic idea of the papacy. The problem is that this is an attempt to reject well established history in the writings of the ancient Church; one certainly doesn't need to do this to argue successfully against the idea of the papacy--the Eastern Churches, Anglicans, and Lutherans all reject the papacy but have never disputed that Peter was in Rome, was martyred in Rome, and was the first bishop of Rome--and indeed we accept that the See of St. Peter is completely valid. It's not the See of St. Peter that is disputed, but the papacy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Job8]

Did the Apostle Peter Ever Go To Rome?

The short answer is "No". The mythical answer is Peter was the first Pope. Take your pick. But be prepared to explain why Peter is NOT EVEN HINTED AT in Paul's Epistle to the Romans. After all, it should have been addressed to the first Pope.

 

[outsidethecamp]

The short answer is "No". The mythical answer is Peter was the first Pope. Take your pick. But be prepared to explain why Peter is NOT EVEN HINTED AT in Paul's Epistle to the Romans. After all, it should have been addressed to the first Pope.

Did the Apostle Peter Ever Go To Rome? Part II

Right you are!! Paul never addressed Peter and much more evidence than that. Read on!

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 37 AD to 101 AD 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 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.

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 37 AD to 101 AD 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.

 

[TheBarrd]

Did the Apostle Peter Ever Go To Rome? Part II

Right you are!! Paul never addressed Peter and much more evidence than that. Read on!

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 37 AD to 101 AD 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 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.

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 37 AD to 101 AD 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.

*whispers in Outsidethecamp's ear*
(I think you posted Part II of your article twice...you might want to edit.)

Any way you look at it, Peter could not have been a "pope".
I just do not see him allowing people to kneel at his feet. I can't imagine Peter, thinking of himself as "The Vicar of Christ", much less "the voice of God on earth."

 

[outsidethecamp]

*whispers in Outsidethecamp's ear*
(I think you posted Part II of your article twice...you might want to edit.)

Any way you look at it, Peter could not have been a "pope".
I just do not see him allowing people to kneel at his feet. I can't imagine Peter, thinking of himself as "The Vicar of Christ", much less "the voice of God on earth."

Exactly!

Acts 10:25-26
And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Yes. Peter actually went to Rome, and became the prime leader of Christianity. The East doesn't even deny this, even though they split from the papacy in the 11th century.

 

[outsidethecamp]

Yes. Peter actually went to Rome, and became the prime leader of Christianity. The East doesn't even deny this, even though they split from the papacy in the 11th century.

Can you show that from the New Testament? I have described why it was impossible for Peter to have gone to Rome. What is your proof?

 

[outsidethecamp]

*whispers in Outsidethecamp's ear*
(I think you posted Part II of your article twice...you might want to edit.)

Any way you look at it, Peter could not have been a "pope".
I just do not see him allowing people to kneel at his feet. I can't imagine Peter, thinking of himself as "The Vicar of Christ", much less "the voice of God on earth."

I don't see Part II, posted twice.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Can you show that from the New Testament? I have described why it was impossible for Peter to have gone to Rome. What is your proof?

The Bible is not the only source of information. The whole of the civilized world knew he was there, using the poor underground to establish his faith- the East wanted him dead, and Rome considered him a deviant against it's common religion.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I'm not aware that Peter went to Rome, from the Scriptures. But just supposing he did (and I'm not saying he did), Scripture does not make him a pope, so in the end it makes no difference.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not aware that Peter went to Rome, from the Scriptures. But just supposing he did (and I'm not saying he did), Scripture does not make him a pope, so in the end it makes no difference.

Yes, there seems to be some confusion here. Is the question whether Peter went to Rome or whether Peter was the first pope? Those are 2 different questions. The answer to the first question is that it seems highly probable Peter went to Rome (see post #2). The answer to the second question is that Peter was not the first pope. As best I know, the Bishop of Rome did not start claiming primacy until Stephen I in the 3rd century. The claim to be the Vicar of Christ appears to have started in the 5th century with Gelasius I, and the claim of infallibility seems to be a medieval innovation.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Did the Apostle Peter Ever Go To Rome? Part I

Ok, let's trace Peter's movement with the Scriptures. Certain dates and events militate against the supposition that Peter was ever in Rome.

33 A.D. The Church was established on Pentecost in Jerusalem and Peter was there - he preached that day (Acts 2).

36 A.D. Paul was converted on the road to Damascus (Acts 9).
1. Acts 9:22-25 together with II Corinthians 11:32 tells us that King Aretas collaborated with the Jews of Damascus who tried to capture Paul, but he was "Let down from window over the wall in a basket" and escaped.
2. With the reign of Aretas, the date of Paul's conversion cannot be earlier than 36 or 38 and certainly not later than 40 because Aretas' reign ended in 40 A. D.

39 A.D. Herod died "eaten of worms" (Acts 12:23).
1. But Peter and James were imprisoned by this same Heron in Jerusalem shortly before his death (Acts 12:1-2).
2. The Lord delivered Peter, and he was restored to the church because "prayers were made earnestly of the church unto God for him." (Acts 12:5).

44-48 A.D. The famine prophesied by Agabus, that "would come over all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius" (Acts 11:28)
1. This famine is also confirmed by secular writers:
a. Suetonius (Claud.,xvii)
b. Dio Cassius (lx. 11)
c. Tacitus (Annals xii.43)
d. Orosius (vii. 6)
e. Josephus (Ant., XX, ii.5)
2. These writers also relate the death of Herod in the same period of time. They confirm N.T. chronology. And Peter was not imprisoned until Acts 12 - which fits this dating.

45-49 A.D. The First Missionary Journey of Paul, Barnabas and John Mark (Acts 13-14).

46-47 A.D. Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Cyprus - a Roman inscription found on the island confirm this date.
1. Annius Bassus became Proconsul in 52 A.D. during the twelfth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar.
2. So Sergius Paulus had to be Proconsul before then, which easily fits the date presented for Paul's journey. (Acts 13:7)

49-50 A.D. The Edict of Claudius which commanded "all the Jews to depart from Rome" (Acts 18:2 does not necessarily mean that the edict was not issued until the time of Acts 18 in Luke's reference, but that the edict was the reason Aquila and Priscilla were in Corinth, having "lately come from Italy").

52-53 A.D. The Jerusalem Conference about the question of Gentile circumcision (Acts 15 and Galatians 2:1-10).
1. As already noted, Paul's visit was "three years after" his conversion.
2. "Then after the space of fourteen years", Paul returned "by revelation" (God commanded him to go) because of the uncircumcision question.
3. That makes a total of seventeen years after Paul's conversion, and it dates the Jerusalem meeting about 52 or 53 A.D.
4. But at that very time: "James, Peter and John were reputed to be pillars in the church" in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9)

53-54 A.D. Gallio was Proconsul in Corinth - and that date is confirmed by Roman historians and by a fragmentary inscription from Delphi containing a lettre from the Emperor Claudius in which mention of Gallio was made and it is dated in the twenty-sixth year of his reign.
1. Paul was in Corinth at that time (Acts 18:12) during his Second Missionary Journey.
2. From Corinth he wrote 1 and II Thessalonians.

54-55 A.D. Paul's Third Missionary Journey - during which time he spent two years teaching in the school of Tyrannus in Ephesus.
1. From Ephesus he wrote 1 Corinthians and Galatians.
2. He then went to Macedonia from whence he wrote II Corinthians -- probably the next year -- about 57 A.D.

58 A.D. Paul returned to Corinth where he "spent three months" (Acts 20:3).
1. From Corinth he wrote the Roman Letter. That hs is in Corinth at this writing is evident from the fact that ie is the guest of "Gaius, my host" (Romans 16:23). And "Erastus was the treasurer of the city." Gaius is the same brother mentioned in I Corinthians 1:14; Acts 19:29.
2. In the sixteenth chapter of Romans Paul mentioned some thirty-five different brethren by name - to whom he sent salutations. But there is no mention of Peter being in Rome - and if he were there - then Paul totally ignored him. It is easier to believe he simply was not there.

59-60 A.D. Festus succeeded Felix (Acts 24:27) and Eusebius in this book on Church History places
this succession by Festus during the second year of the reign of Nero.
1. Paul had been a prisoner of Felix for almost two years when Festus succeeded him (Acts 24:27).
2. Only "three days" after his ascension to office, Festus went to Jerusalem (Acts 25:1) and the Jews there tried to get him to send Paul to Jerusalem from Caesarea so they could kill him.
3. But he stayed in Jerusalem "not more than eight or ten days" (Acts 25:6). Then the day after his return to Caesarea he called Paul to stand trial (Acts 25:6).
4. It was then that Paul "appealed to Caesar" (Acts 25:11)

61-62 A.D. Paul's journey to Rome and his first imprisonment, during which time he stayed "in his own hired dwelling" for some two years (Acts 28:30).
1. During this time he wrote from Rome the book of Colossians.
a. Timothy was with him at that time in Rome (Col 1:1)
b. Tychicus and Onesimus took the letter he wrote from Rome to Colossae (Col 4:7-9)
c. Paul sends greetings from Aristarchus, Mark, Justus, Luke and Demas. (Col 4:10-14)
d. No mention of Peter being in Rome.
2. From Rome he also wrote Ephesians.
a. Tychicus delivered the letter to Ephesus (Eph 6:21)
b. No mention of Peter as Pope in the list of church offices listed in Eph 4:11 "and he gave some to be apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists and some pastors and teachers", but no popes.
c. Peter is not mentioned as being in Rome.
3. During this same time he wrote Philemon from Rome.
a. Timothy was with him (Philemon 1:1)
b. He also sends greeting from Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke (Philemon 23).
c. No mention of Peter being in Rome.

63 A.D. Phillipians was written from Rome during this same period of time. It was written later than those mentioned just above - for time was required for Epaphroditus to be sent from Philippi, to get sick: "nigh unto death" (Phil 2:25-30) and then return to Philippi.
1. Timothy was with Paul in Rome (Phil 1:1)
2. Paul also sends greetings from "the brethren" and "especially they that are of Caesar's household" (Phil 4:22).
3. No mention of Peter being in Rome.

64-65 A.D. Paul was released from the Roman prison and returned to Greece and Macedonia (I Tim 1:3)
1. He wrote I Timothy from Macedonia - see above.
2. He also wrote Titus from Macedonia - after he had returned from Crete (Titus 1:5)

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. Paul's second imprisonment in Rome.
1. II Timothy was written during Paul's final incarceration in Rome.
a. He wants Timothy to "come shortly to me" (II Tim 4:9)
b. He named some: "Demas forsook me...and went to Thessalonica" (II Tim 4:10)
c. "Crescens" went to "Galatia" (vs 10).
d. "Titus" went to "Dalmatia" (vs. 10).
e. "Only Luke is with me" (vs.11).
f. "Erastus remained at Corinth" (vs. 20).
g. "Trophimus I left at Miletus sick" (vs. 20).
2. He sends some salutations:
a. "Eubulus saluteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia" (vs. 21).
b. No salutation from Peter -- and no mention of him being in Rome.
3. If Peter was there he must have abandoned Paul, for "This thou knowest, that all that are in Asia turned away from me, of which are Phygelus and Hermogenes." (II Tim 1:15)
4. "Only Luke is with me" - He stayed with Paul, and so did "Onesiphorus, for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but when he was in Rome, he sough me diligently and found me" (II Tim 1:16-17).

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.

Babylon was in ruins at the time. There was no viable Babylon. Peter was martyred in Rome. But why does it matter?

 

[Root of Jesse]

The short answer is "No". The mythical answer is Peter was the first Pope. Take your pick. But be prepared to explain why Peter is NOT EVEN HINTED AT in Paul's Epistle to the Romans. After all, it should have been addressed to the first Pope.

Could it be that Peter wasn't in Rome yet, when Paul wrote to the Romans, or that Paul didn't know Peter was in Rome when he wrote?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Can you show that from the New Testament? I have described why it was impossible for Peter to have gone to Rome. What is your proof?

Why does it have to be in the NT to be believed? It's not impossible! Paul went all the way to Spain, most likely. Paul converted places that he didn't record letters to, as well, are we to believe that, since it's not in the NT, he didn't do it?

 

[outsidethecamp]

Why does it have to be in the NT to be believed? It's not impossible! Paul went all the way to Spain, most likely. Paul converted places that he didn't record letters to, as well, are we to believe that, since it's not in the NT, he didn't do it?

The NT is a record of the early church and original Apostles which included Peter. There is absolutely no hint that Peter ever went to Rome.

What is your documentation that Paul went to Spain and Peter went to Rome? Link, name of book or something, please.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The NT is a record of the early church and original Apostles which included Peter. There is absolutely no hint that Peter ever went to Rome.

What is your documentation that Paul went to Spain and Peter went to Rome? Link, name of book or something, please.

What if he went after? The Early Church Fathers. Spain/Paul is speculation, but Peter/Rome is documented. We accept the Fathers of the Church as part of Sacred Tradition.

 

[outsidethecamp]

The NT is a record of the early church and original Apostles which included Peter. There is absolutely no hint that Peter ever went to Rome.

What if he went after? The Early Church Fathers. Spain/Paul is speculation, but Peter/Rome is documented. We accept the Fathers of the Church as part of Sacred Tradition.

What do you mean "what if"? A religious organization that is a billion strong is basing a foundational truth of it Papacy on "what if"?

Where is Peter/Rome documented?

Where did these so-called Church Fathers get their tradition from? Why is there no hint of a record of this "tradition" in the NT?

For the record, the Church Fathers are the Apostles and writers of the NT. Other "Church Fathers" are Catholic church fathers, and could it be that they are designed to marginalize and supercede what the Apostles and other inspired writers of the NT wrote?

I would like to see this "documentation" about Peter going to Rome.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What do you mean "what if"? A religious organization that is a billion strong is basing a foundational truth of it Papacy on "what if"?

Where is Peter/Rome documented?

Where did these so-called Church Fathers get their tradition from? Why is there no hint of a record of this "tradition" in the NT?

For the record, the Church Fathers are the Apostles and writers of the NT. Other "Church Fathers" are Catholic church fathers, and could it be that they are designed to marginalize and supercede what the Apostles and other inspired writers of the NT wrote?

I would like to see this "documentation" about Peter going to Rome.

Well, we know. It's not "what if." You don't accept it. Shrug. Not my problem. But we have Peter's bones. Under Vatican Hill. Regardless of what anyone else says, the Roman Church kept track of where Nero martyred Peter, and retrieved his remains, and gave them proper burial.
For the record, the Apostolic Fathers, the Apostles, who wrote the NT, are different from the Early Church Fathers, who were taught by the Apostles. Their tradition came from the Apostles.

 

[outsidethecamp]

Well, we know. It's not "what if." You don't accept it. Shrug. Not my problem. But we have Peter's bones. Under Vatican Hill. Regardless of what anyone else says, the Roman Church kept track of where Nero martyred Peter, and retrieved his remains, and gave them proper burial.
For the record, the Apostolic Fathers, the Apostles, who wrote the NT, are different from the Early Church Fathers, who were taught by the Apostles. Their tradition came from the Apostles.

That's it? Bones? You have no proof that these are Peter's and they probably aren't because Peter would have had to be in Rome, first and he never was.

Bones of St. Peter and Rome's Truth

Outside the Vatican, the jury is still out about their authenticity, with experts weighing in on both sides of the debate.

“It’s very difficult for me to believe the bones are authentic,” said Antonio Lombatti, a church historian. “It’s one thing to say the bones are 2,000 years old and that they have the characteristics we believe to be those of St. Peter. But recall that in the time of St. Peter, Christianity was illegal. Things were hidden and moved around hastily.

“A man of faith, of course, may see things differently, but the truth is that from a factual perspective there is no way to know if something that old is real or not,” Lombatti said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/st-peters-bones-fake_n_4393739.html