Did the Apostle Peter Ever Go To Rome? Part I

[DoubleZero]

The question really is, "Why does it matter whether he was in Rome?"

Regarding Paul, he wrote to particular churches about particular problems and sent his own minions to minister to them. I don't think he would need to mention Peter. Had there been a written gospel, then maybe.

This pretty much sums up the mentality of the Romish church. "Why does it matter whether he (Peter) was in Rome?" Truth is always a casualty and not important to them.

Paul mentioned other Apostles in his letters, by the way.

 

[tz620q]

This pretty much sums up the mentality of the Romish church. "Why does it matter whether he (Peter) was in Rome?"

That was not the question asked by the OP. The whole theory that this thread is based upon is that Peter was never in Rome. Many people responded with historical writings confirming his being there and a lot of these people were not in the "Romish' church. So I think the OP question has been answered adequately. Why not start a thread asking the question that you just posited?

 

[Armoured]

Did the Apostle Peter Ever Go To Rome? Part I

He is buried there, so obviously he went there. [/thread]

 

[Root of Jesse]

This pretty much sums up the mentality of the Romish church. "Why does it matter whether he (Peter) was in Rome?" Truth is always a casualty and not important to them.

Paul mentioned other Apostles in his letters, by the way.

The reason it doesn't matter is that the Gospels tell us that Jesus commissioned Peter Himself, so it didn't matter where Peter was. Does Pope Francis no longer remain Pope when he travels? So the problem is really for those who deny that Peter was ever in Rome. It doesn't matter where Peter was, where he was, there was the Pope. When he died, they appointed a successor.

 

[DoubleZero]

The reason it doesn't matter is that the Gospels tell us that Jesus commissioned Peter Himself, so it didn't matter where Peter was. Does Pope Francis no longer remain Pope when he travels? So the problem is really for those who deny that Peter was ever in Rome. It doesn't matter where Peter was, where he was, there was the Pope. When he died, they appointed a successor.

The Bible tells us that Peter received the revelation from God that Jesus Christ who is God, is the ROCK! And that is corroborated in many places in Scripture. No mortal man can be the Rock upon which the Church is built. This is the great perversion of scriptures by the Romish cult.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Bible tells us that Peter received the revelation from God that Jesus Christ who is God, is the ROCK! And that is corroborated in many places in Scripture. No mortal man can be the Rock upon which the Church is built. This is the great perversion of scriptures by the Romish cult.

Any point you might have possibly had in attempting biblical exegesis is undermined by your explicit prejudice against Catholicism; as such instead of making a sincere attempt at an objective exegesis of Scripture you are really just committing some sort of intepretatio contra Roma; an interpretation against Rome. The basis of interpretation isn't exegesis but the need to reject or disagree with what you perceive as "Romish".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Inri]

I'd like to point out a continuation of bible verses which have already been discussed here which is Romans 15:20-24

Here's what my translation says:

20 It has been a point of honour with me to preach the gospel thus, never in places where Christ’s name was already known; I would not build on the foundation another man had laid,
21 but follow the rule of scripture, He shall be seen by those who had had no tidings of him, he shall be made known to those who had never heard of him.
22 This was the chief reason which prevented me from visiting you; it has kept me back until now.
23 But now I can find no further scope in these countries, and I have been eager, these many years past, to find my way to you;
24 as soon, then, as I can set out on my journey to Spain, I hope to see you in passing; and you shall put me on my way, when you have done something to gratify this longing of mine.
[Knox Version] (I underlined some words)

outsidethecamp wrote that it would have been contradictory if Paul came to Rome, but I think if you read what comes next in the chapter it explains perfectly why Paul decided to stop by Rome. This part of Romans is a clear indication that Paul was not to preach at Rome because he knew that Peter was already there; he was "another man," or another one of the Apostles.
Also, I think the authors of the New Testament were very weary of writing too much explicitly about Rome. The reason Christ was finally crucified was because Pontius Pilate was afraid of some sort of insurrection by the Jews, and so writers like Paul wanted to keep discussion about Rome low key lest they got themselves in trouble they certainly didn't need. What ultimately happened to Peter and Paul at the hands of Rome shows how right they were in not trying to write explicitly about Rome e.g. referring to Rome as Babylon.
edited for readability

 

[DoubleZero]

Any point you might have possibly had in attempting biblical exegesis is undermined by your explicit prejudice against Catholicism; as such instead of making a sincere attempt at an objective exegesis of Scripture you are really just committing some sort of intepretatio contra Roma; an interpretation against Rome. The basis of interpretation isn't exegesis but the need to reject or disagree with what you perceive as "Romish".

-CryptoLutheran

I make no apology for holding Roman Catholicism teachings as a "christian" cult.

 

[DoubleZero]

I'd like to point out a continuation of bible verses which have already been discussed here which is Romans 15:20-24

Here's what my translation says:

20 It has been a point of honour with me to preach the gospel thus, never in places where Christ’s name was already known; I would not build on the foundation another man had laid,21 but follow the rule of scripture, He shall be seen by those who had had no tidings of him, he shall be made known to those who had never heard of him.
22 This was the chief reason which prevented me from visiting you; it has kept me back until now. 23 But now I can find no further scope in these countries, and I have been eager, these many years past, to find my way to you; 24 as soon, then, as I can set out on my journey to Spain, I hope to see you in passing; and you shall put me on my way, when you have done something to gratify this longing of mine. [Knox Version] (I underlined some words)

outsidethecamp wrote that it would have been contradictory if Paul came to Rome, but I think if you read what comes next in the chapter it explains perfectly why Paul decided to stop by Rome. This part of Romans is a clear indication that Paul was not to preach at Rome because he knew that Peter was already there; he was "another man," or another one of the Apostles.
Also, I think the authors of the New Testament were very weary of writing too much explicitly about Rome. The reason Christ was finally crucified was because Pontius Pilate was afraid of some sort of insurrection by the Jews, and so writers like Paul wanted to keep discussion about Rome low key lest they got themselves in trouble they certainly didn't need. What ultimately happened to Peter and Paul at the hands of Rome shows how right they were in not trying to write explicitly about Rome e.g. referring to Rome as Babylon.

Peter was an Apostle to the Jews not the Gentiles (Rome).

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Peter did not really travel very far. He went to Caesarea and Joppa and his longest missionary journey recorded was to Antioch. (Gal 2:11).

 

[ViaCrucis]

Peter was an Apostle to the Jews not the Gentiles (Rome).

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Peter did not really travel very far. He went to Caesarea and Joppa and his longest missionary journey recorded was to Antioch. (Gal 2:11).

Read St. Paul's letter to the Romans. There were both Jews and Gentiles in the Roman church.

Further, St. Paul may have been apostle to the Gentiles but he still ministered and preached to Jews. St. Peter, likewise, ministered and preached to Gentiles. So such an argument doesn't really hold much weight.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Goatee]

I have always thought that when Jesus said to peter 'and on this Rock I build my church' could it have meant, as we know, that the name Peter means 'Rock' and as he had strong faith Jesus was referring to his strong faith as being what the church would be built upon?

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Bible tells us that Peter received the revelation from God that Jesus Christ who is God, is the ROCK! And that is corroborated in many places in Scripture. No mortal man can be the Rock upon which the Church is built. This is the great perversion of scriptures by the Romish cult.

That's true, no mortal man could, but one given the power by Christ, could. And in fact, Peter was given that power. Jesus told him "What you open, no one can shut, what you shut, no one can open." Peter was Christ's prime minister after He ascended into heaven.
(I'm charitably ignoring your insults...)

 

[Root of Jesse]

I make no apology for holding Roman Catholicism teachings as a "christian" cult.

And I make no apology for telling you what Catholicism believes, the Truth. Your placing quotes around christian, as well as your non-capitalization could get you reported...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Peter was an Apostle to the Jews not the Gentiles (Rome).

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Peter did not really travel very far. He went to Caesarea and Joppa and his longest missionary journey recorded was to Antioch. (Gal 2:11).

None of which proves he didn't go to Rome. There's nothing that says Peter only preached to Jews, or that Paul only preached to Gentiles.
Pretty picture:

 

[Root of Jesse]

I have always thought that when Jesus said to peter 'and on this Rock I build my church' could it have meant, as we know, that the name Peter means 'Rock' and as he had strong faith Jesus was referring to his strong faith as being what the church would be built upon?

Agree, and also note that when God changes someone's name, it usually means something important.

 

[DoubleZero]

I have always thought that when Jesus said to peter 'and on this Rock I build my church' could it have meant, as we know, that the name Peter means 'Rock' and as he had strong faith Jesus was referring to his strong faith as being what the church would be built upon?

Why would the Church be built upon the faith of a mere mortal, sooner, instead of the faith of the Son of God, who is perfect?

 

[DoubleZero]

None of which proves he didn't go to Rome. There's nothing that says Peter only preached to Jews, or that Paul only preached to Gentiles.
Pretty picture:

Outsidethecamp is just saying nothing is recorded in the NT of Peter going to Rome. The book of Acts is the NT record of the Early Church.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Outsidethecamp is just saying nothing is recorded in the NT of Peter going to Rome. The book of Acts is the NT record of the Early Church.

And that record isn't the entire story of the early Church. That record is the part of the story that the Church has received as holy and canonical Scripture.

History didn't stop when St. Paul was imprisoned in Rome.

Since Scripture doesn't record what happened to Peter, or Paul, or Thomas then it's not a bad idea to see, at the very least, what Christians seemed to have understood to have happened to them. And, as it turns out, in some cases the record of what happened to the Apostles exists in the writings of those Christians who lived in the generations after the Acts was written; in some cases there are conflicting legends, but in other cases the testimony of the ancient Christian Church sheds some pretty clear light on the subject.

Clement wrote near the end of the 1st century, and speaks of both Paul and Peter as martyrs who gave their lives to the cause of Christ, Clement is speaking as a Christian leader in Rome and speaks of their deaths as being part of the living memory of the Church in Rome. Other Christians in the years to come spoke, likewise, of both Paul and Peter as having suffered martyrdom in Rome, during the reign of Nero. Paul having been beheaded, and Peter receiving death by crucifixion--a fate which some of the other Apostles, such as Peter's brother Andrew, likewise suffered. Seeing as we know, historically, that Nero chose to blame Christians for the great fire that broke out in Rome and took to task to murdering Christians en masse. For example lighting up his imperial gardens by covering Christians in pitch, hanging them on stakes and setting them on fire.

The idea that Paul and Peter were among the victims of this major persecution of the Church is hardly a fanciful idea.

That Peter was in Rome is attested to by many in the ancient Church; which does not credence to the Roman Catholic teaching on the papacy. And that's kind of a big point to make here because, quite frankly, I'm convinced the big reason for the argument here that Peter wasn't in Rome isn't really about evaluating history, it's about coming up with reasons to reject the Roman Catholic teaching on the papacy.

That Peter was in Rome, martyred in Rome, and was bishop of Rome is a well-attested fact of Christian history and tradition--one that is shared by millions of non-Roman Catholic Christians who have always recognized this fact but have never accepted the peculiar Roman Catholic belief in the papacy. Peter's episcopacy in Rome does not establish the papacy, it merely establishes Peter's episcopacy in Rome. It is entirely possible to recognize that the pope sits in St. Peter's chair while also recognizing that the institution of the papacy is a radical departure and innovation of the Western medieval Church that does not represent the reality of the ancient Church or the views held by millions of Christians in the East for the last two millennia.

Exegesis, theology, and historical inquiry must be objective, not based upon an ideological prejudice.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Goatee]

Why would the Church be built upon the faith of a mere mortal, sooner, instead of the faith of the Son of God, who is perfect?

No, what i am saying is that Jesus was saying, in so many words, that His church would be built upon the faith of such a man as Peter. On the type of faith that Peter showed!

 

[Root of Jesse]

Why would the Church be built upon the faith of a mere mortal, sooner, instead of the faith of the Son of God, who is perfect?

Because Jesus told us that Peter was His representative after He was gone.