Evidence of Peter in Rome . . .

[racer]

There is clearly evidence that--not only--was Peter in Rome, so was Paul. What there is no evidence of is that Peter served as the Bishop/Pope of the Roman Church. See below:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html?highlight=succession,of,bishops,in,rome,linus,peter,and,paul#highlight

Chapter III.—A refutation http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf...,rome,linus,peter,and,paul#highlighthighlightof the heretics, from the fact that, in the various Churches, a perpetual succession of bishops was kept up.

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times;

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.
​

What we clearly know from this passage, for those who consider it credible evidence, is that both Peter and Paul established the Church in Rome and appointed Linus to the office of the episcopate. It does not even imply that Peter was the Pope.

 

[racer]

How embarrassing! Is there a way to correct a misspelled word in the title of a thread? I wrote "Roam" for "Rome!"

 

[nestoj]

Close enough.


God helps

 

[Uphill Battle]

More interesting to me is some evidence I've seen posted recently, that Peter is buried at the Mt. of olives, and not under St. Peters Bascilla in Rome. Don't know if it's flash in the pan, or true.... but interesting nonetheless.

 

[HisWordisTruth7]

You never know what future news will pop up of discoveries Rome kept hidden for years.

 

[NoDoubt]

More interesting to me is some evidence I've seen posted recently, that Peter is buried at the Mt. of olives, and not under St. Peters Bascilla in Rome. Don't know if it's flash in the pan, or true.... but interesting nonetheless.

I don't know if this has ever been posted but I found it fascinating!


Peter's Jerusalem Tomb

 

[Trento]

There is clearly evidence that--not only--was Peter in Rome, so was Paul. What there is no evidence of is that Peter served as the Bishop/Pope of the Roman Church. See below:



http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html?highlight=succession,of,bishops,in,rome,linus,peter,and,paul#highlight

Chapter III.—A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in the various Churches, a perpetual succession of bishops was kept up.​

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times;​

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul​

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.​

What we clearly know from this passage, for those who consider it credible evidence, is that both Peter and Paul established the Church in Rome and appointed Linus to the office of the episcopate. It does not even imply that Peter was the Pope.

According to the witness of our ancient Christian forefathers:



Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of "the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops" (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI, col 637).


(1) Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).


(2) The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).


(3) Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).


(4) Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).


(5) Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as "the place of Peter" (Ep ad Anton), and as "the Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).


(6) Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen's claim to the "succession of Peter" and to the "Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Cyprian).


(7) Eusebius (314) says that Peter was "the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years" (Chron an 44), and calls Linus "first after Peter to obtain the episcopate" (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was "the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter" (HE III, 4).


(8) The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).


(9) Athanasius (340's) calls Rome the "Apostolic Throne" -- a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).


(10) Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, "in which chair sat Peter himself." He also says how "Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair," which "is the first of the marks of the Church." (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).


(11) Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the "Apostolic chair" in which "the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church" (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how "The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church" and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, "Thou art Peter..." (Decree of Damasus 382).


(12) Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as "Peter's chair" and the Roman church where "Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat" (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).


(13) Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).


(14) Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of "the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat" (Contra Lit Petil).


(15) Prudentius (405) writes how in Rome there were "the two princes of the Apostles, one the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other holding the First Chair" (Hymn II in honor of St Laurent, V).


(16) Bachiarius (420) speaks of Rome as "the chair of Peter, the seat of faith" (De Fide 2).


(17) Prosper of Aquitaine (429) calls Rome "the Apostolic See" and the "Chair of the Apostle Peter" (Carm de Ingratis).


(18) The Roman legates at the Council of Ephesus (431) declare how "it is a matter doubtful to none that Peter lived and exercised judgement in his successors" and how "the holy and most blessed [Pope] Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place" (Acta Councilia, session 3, tom III, col 621).


(19) Peter Chrysologus (440) speaks of "blessed Peter living and presiding in his own see" (Ep ad Eutech).



(20) Pope Leo the Great (440) says how "the whole Church acknowledges Peter in the See of Peter (Rome)" (Serm II, 2).


(21) At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the assembled bishops respond to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great by crying out, "Peter has spoken through Leo." The sentence of the council is pronounced by the legates "in the name of Leo, the Council, and St. Peter" (Canons of Chalcedon).


(22) The Synodical Letter to Pope Leo from Chalcedon calls the Pope "the interpreter of Peter's voice."


Now, if our critic would care to produce ONE ancient quote that DENIES that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, then perhaps he has an argument. Yet, until such time, the ancient witness stands firm and consistent.

 

[NoDoubt]

The Catholic Church says that Peter was Pope in Rome from 41 to 66 A.D., a period of twenty-five years, but the Bible shows a different story.

The book of the Acts of the Apostles (in either the Catholic or Protestant Bible) records the following: Peter was preaching the Gospel to the circumcision (the Jews) in Caesarea and Joppa in Palestine, ministering unto the household of Cornelius, which is a distance of 1,800 miles from Rome (Acts 10:23, 24).

Soon after, about the year 44 A.D. (Acts 12), Peter was cast into prison in Jerusalem by Herod, but he was released by an angel. From 46 to 52 A.D., we read in the 13th chapter that he was in Jerusalem preaching the difference between Law and Grace. Saul was converted in 34 A.D. and became Paul the Apostle (Acts 9).

Paul tells us that three years after his conversion in 37 A.D., he "went up to Jerusalem to see Peter" (Galatians 1:18), and in 51 A.D., fourteen years later, he again went up to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1, 8), Peter being mentioned.

Soon after that he met Peter in Antioch, and as Paul says, "Withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed," Gal. 2:11. The evidence is abundant, the truth is clear from the Scriptures which have never failed. It would be breathtaking to read of the boldness of Paul in dealing with Peter. Very few, if any, have withstood a Pope and lived (except in these days when everybody seems to withstand him).

If Peter were Pope it would have been no different. Paul does not only withstand Peter but rebukes him and blames him of being at fault.

(same link)

 

[Uphill Battle]

According to the witness of our ancient Christian forefathers:



Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of "the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops" (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI, col 637).


(1) Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).


(2) The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).


(3) Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).


(4) Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).


(5) Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as "the place of Peter" (Ep ad Anton), and as "the Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).


(6) Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen's claim to the "succession of Peter" and to the "Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Cyprian).


(7) Eusebius (314) says that Peter was "the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years" (Chron an 44), and calls Linus "first after Peter to obtain the episcopate" (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was "the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter" (HE III, 4).


(8) The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).


(9) Athanasius (340's) calls Rome the "Apostolic Throne" -- a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).


(10) Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, "in which chair sat Peter himself." He also says how "Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair," which "is the first of the marks of the Church." (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).


(11) Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the "Apostolic chair" in which "the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church" (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how "The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church" and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, "Thou art Peter..." (Decree of Damasus 382).


(12) Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as "Peter's chair" and the Roman church where "Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat" (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).


(13) Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).


(14) Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of "the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat" (Contra Lit Petil).


(15) Prudentius (405) writes how in Rome there were "the two princes of the Apostles, one the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other holding the First Chair" (Hymn II in honor of St Laurent, V).


(16) Bachiarius (420) speaks of Rome as "the chair of Peter, the seat of faith" (De Fide 2).


(17) Prosper of Aquitaine (429) calls Rome "the Apostolic See" and the "Chair of the Apostle Peter" (Carm de Ingratis).


(18) The Roman legates at the Council of Ephesus (431) declare how "it is a matter doubtful to none that Peter lived and exercised judgement in his successors" and how "the holy and most blessed [Pope] Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place" (Acta Councilia, session 3, tom III, col 621).


(19) Peter Chrysologus (440) speaks of "blessed Peter living and presiding in his own see" (Ep ad Eutech).



(20) Pope Leo the Great (440) says how "the whole Church acknowledges Peter in the See of Peter (Rome)" (Serm II, 2).


(21) At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the assembled bishops respond to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great by crying out, "Peter has spoken through Leo." The sentence of the council is pronounced by the legates "in the name of Leo, the Council, and St. Peter" (Canons of Chalcedon).


(22) The Synodical Letter to Pope Leo from Chalcedon calls the Pope "the interpreter of Peter's voice."


Now, if our critic would care to produce ONE ancient quote that DENIES that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, then perhaps he has an argument. Yet, until such time, the ancient witness stands firm and consistent.

how normal, that all records in such a list are HUNDREDS of years later. Just a note.

 

[Trento]

The Catholic Church says that Peter was Pope in Rome from 41 to 66 A.D., a period of twenty-five years, but the Bible shows a different story.

The book of the Acts of the Apostles (in either the Catholic or Protestant Bible) records the following: Peter was preaching the Gospel to the circumcision (the Jews) in Caesarea and Joppa in Palestine, ministering unto the household of Cornelius, which is a distance of 1,800 miles from Rome (Acts 10:23, 24).

Soon after, about the year 44 A.D. (Acts 12), Peter was cast into prison in Jerusalem by Herod, but he was released by an angel. From 46 to 52 A.D., we read in the 13th chapter that he was in Jerusalem preaching the difference between Law and Grace. Saul was converted in 34 A.D. and became Paul the Apostle (Acts 9).

Paul tells us that three years after his conversion in 37 A.D., he "went up to Jerusalem to see Peter" (Galatians 1:18), and in 51 A.D., fourteen years later, he again went up to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1, 8), Peter being mentioned.

Soon after that he met Peter in Antioch, and as Paul says, "Withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed," Gal. 2:11. The evidence is abundant, the truth is clear from the Scriptures which have never failed. It would be breathtaking to read of the boldness of Paul in dealing with Peter. Very few, if any, have withstood a Pope and lived (except in these days when everybody seems to withstand him).

If Peter were Pope it would have been no different. Paul does not only withstand Peter but rebukes him and blames him of being at fault.

(same link)

A careful reading shows that Paul in no way belittled Peter. On the contrary! He used Peter as an example precisely because Peter was the chief apostle.


Only after three years did Paul go up to Jerusalem and spend a fortnight with Peter (1:18-24). While he was there he happened to see James the Just, but nobody else (1:19). Paul even assured his readers that he was not lying about this (1:20), for they might have thought, "How could one go to Jerusalem and not try to meet as many apostles as one could?" But Paul wasn't interested in meeting the others, only Peter, whom he went to see. Why? Because Peter was the one to see. He was the head apostle, and so Paul wanted to confer with him.

Fourteen years after his conversion, Paul made another visit, in which he did see the other apostles (2:1-10). He stressed that he did not curry the favor of others, saying that the reputations of the most important apostles did not matter to him, for God judges impartially (2:6a). But Paul did have regard for the teaching of the Jerusalem apostles, who also had been instructed by Christ. His gospel had to agree with theirs, so he explained it to them privately, "lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain" (2:2). He thus submitted his gospel to the Jerusalem apostles.

The fact that God judges impartiality does not do away with offices in the Church; it means that God will judge the officeholders impartially. Paul singled out Peter as one who had a special office, above James and John, as the one God entrusted with leading the mission to the Jews (2:7-8). This made Peter a perfect test case to show the transcendent importance of the gospel. It is more important than any person, so Paul used Peter, the most important person in the early Church, to show this.

He recounted an incident in which Peter visited the Church in Antioch (2:11-17). Peter had been the one who first admitted Gentiles to the Church (Acts 10), though doing so subjected him to criticism (Acts 11). When Peter visited Antioch, he kept his usual practice of holding table fellowship with Gentile Christians, but drew back when some Jewish Christians arrived (2:12). Paul rebuked Peter since this action could be misunderstood as implying that Jews should not sit at table with Gentiles and that the Mosaic Law is binding (2:14-16). (We should also note that Paul himself later did something similar, and it led to his arrest [Acts 21:17-33]).

Peter knew that keeping the Mosaic Law was not necessary, and Paul reminded him of this fact (2:15-16). Peter's understanding of the gospel was correct. The problem was with his behavior, not his teaching (making this totally irrelevant to the issue of papal infallibility, especially since Peter was not trying to define solemnly a dogma of the faith). Nor did Paul's rebuke impugn Peter's authority. If a pope's behavior causes scandal, he should be rebuked by someone. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the pope in her day, and she is regarded as a doctor of the Church. In fact, it is precisely because Peter is so important-because he is the chief apostle-that he provides such a useful illustration for Paul's exposition of the gospel's supreme importance.

 

[Uphill Battle]

is there still a rule about cut and paste without citation? Jus' curious.

 

[NoDoubt]

Trento, wasn't that an interesting article about Simon Bar Jonah's ossuary found by the Franciscan monk in Jerusalem?

Hey, I just noticed this:

"This ancient Christian burial ground shows that Peter died and was buried in Jerusalem, which is easily understandable since neither history nor the Bible tells of Peter’s having been in Rome. To make matters more clear, the Bible tells us that Peter was the Apostle to the Jews. It was Paul who was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and both history and the Bible tells of his being in Rome. No wonder that the Roman Catholic Bishop, Strossmayer, in his great speech against papal infallibility before the Pope and the Council of 1870 said, "Scaliger, one of the most learned men, has not hesitated to say that St. Peter’s episcopate and residence in Rome ought to be classed with ridiculous legends." Eusebius, one of the most learned men of his time, wrote the Church history up to the year 325 A.D. He said that Peter never was in Rome. This Church history was translated by Jerome from the original Greek, but in his translation he added a fantastic story of Peter’s residence in Rome. This was a common practice in trying to create credence in their doctrines, using false statements, false letters and falsified history. This is another reason why we cannot rely on tradition, but only on the infallible Word of God."

(same link)

 

[ThomasDa]

Evidence of Peter in Roam . . . Isn't roam traveling?

 

[NoDoubt]

How embarrassing! Is there a way to correct a misspelled word in the title of a thread? I wrote "Roam" for "Rome!"

Evidence of Peter in Roam . . . Isn't roam traveling?

She noticed her typo in post #2

 

[Uphill Battle]

sigh.... good ol' paste in, and run out.

 

[sunlover1]

How embarrassing! Is there a way to correct a misspelled word in the title of a thread? I wrote "Roam" for "Rome!"

I thought it was by design lol.
Peter.. roaming

I don't know if this has ever been posted but I found it fascinating!


Peter's Jerusalem Tomb

Trento, wasn't that an interesting article about Simon Bar Jonah's ossuary found by the Franciscan monk in Jerusalem?

I dont think anyone's interested in a new pov.
Yes, I thought it was very interesting.
It seems to have strong backing too.

 

[NoDoubt]

sigh.... good ol' paste in, and run out.

It looks a bit like this

I dont think anyone's interested in a new pov.

I don't know what the word "pov" means. Maybe I'm slow or it's because I'm French.

 

[jckstraw72]

prolly point of view

 

[Uphill Battle]

It looks a bit like this

I don't know what the word "pov" means. Maybe I'm slow or it's because I'm French.

POV= Point of View.

 

[sunlover1]

It looks a bit like this

I don't know what the word "pov" means. Maybe I'm slow or it's because I'm French.

Cela m'est égal
POV means Point of view.

I dont think people want to look at a new idea,
sometimes they'd rather just stick with the
status quo.

French AND latin,
Merci beaucoup