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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?"
Did the Apostle Peter Ever Go To Rome? Part I
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.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.
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
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).
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.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.
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...I make no apology for holding Roman Catholicism teachings as a "christian" cult.
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.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).
Agree, and also note that when God changes someone's name, it usually means something important.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?
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?
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.
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.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?