Protestant Poll: Peter in Rome?

[Catholic Dude]

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

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

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

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

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

Please vote.

 

[Jig]

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

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





​

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

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

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

Please vote.

I believe Peter went to Rome and most likely stayed for a while. I don't see the big deal about that. What I do see a problem with is the timeline Catholics say he was in Rome. A timeline that gives them the authority to call him the first bishop of Rome.

I was looking in the Catholic Encyclopedia and searched for the date Peter was "bishop" of Rome. That date given was (32 AD - 67 AD). I'm not sure how they came up with this date, but it seems very odd at best.

We look first at when Peter wrote his first epistle. Most all scholars agree this was most likely around 64 AD. We know Peter was in Rome at this time (1Pt 5:13)

Now that we established that, we look at Pauls epistle to the Romans. At the end of this letter we see a list of Paul's customary greetings. It would be very odd that he forget to greet Peter, if indeed Peter was the supposed bishop of Rome's church while he was writting this letter and Paul wrote to Rome in the year 57 AD. This leads me to believe, Pater wasn't in Rome yet.

So, it appears, Peter must have came some time after this date, but looking at the list of Popes we see Peter's reign start at 32 AD. Somehow, I think this date is played out to fit. I see evidence in inspired scripture that says this may not be true.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I chose WB is lousy...

cause I must admit I haven't studied that much on the life of Peter

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I chose option 3, because Smallville needs to start getting better if it expects to last past Season 5

 

[stumpjumper]

I chose option 3, because Smallville needs to start getting better if it expects to last past Season 5

I think I should change my answer now to better reflect television programming.

Peter was in Rome, the timeframe is way off though as stated by some (especially considering the details of Acts), and I don't really care much.

Don't these my Church is better than your Church squabbles get old.

It reminds me of the recess yard...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The verse referenced is often taken to mean that Peter is writing from Rome, and that seems most likely to me. But it's far from proof.


But, I'm lost as to the point. IF Peter ever visited or lived in Rome does not supply any support for the self-claims of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Denomination.


MY $0.01...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[David65]

Why must two typological references necessarily mean the same thing? If Peter is writing "from Babylon" and by this means "from Rome", must this mean that when John writes of the "harlot of Babylon", than by this he mean "harlot of Rome"?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

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

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

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

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

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

Please vote.

Not enough options in the poll.

There is ample evidence from the patristics, including Eusebius that Peter was in Rome, even martryred in Rome.

However, that does not support the later claim by the Roman church that Peter was the first pope, or does it support the later claim by the Roman church of a Petrine Primacy, which is the underlying reason for this poll.

But that is a whole other mountain of threads.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I chose option 3, because Smallville needs to start getting better if it expects to last past Season 5

I would like to add that at least "Supernatural" remains an excellent show.

 

[GraceInHim]

edit

 

[Catholic Dude]

why did not Paul write from jail saying.."I am writing from Babylon" or write to the Romans and call the city ever once Babylon?...

Good question, Im not sure, if I had to throw out a guess I would say a matter of timing.
Also I dont recall him writing from Rome did he?

There is no evidence that Rome was ever called Babylon until after the writing of the Book of Revelation in A.D. 90-96, many years after Peter's death.

This doesnt really mean much. How can you argue that 90AD is many years after St Peter's death? If Christ died in 33 then no matter when Peter died in between that time it couldnt have been more than 60 years, hardly "many many years". Also what are you consulting that says "there is no evidence...until Revelation"?

If you really want to deal with plenty of evidence and many many years then its safe to argue that he was not talking about the old Babylon where the jews were sent many generations earlier. That was many many years ago and it was totally destroyed as well.

Evidence from the Bible...
Paul was the Apostle to the un-circumsized..

Are you dispensationalist or something?

Paul the Minister to the Gentiles Romans 15:
15I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me 16to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Think about this: how did the people Paul was talking to hear the Gospel in the first place? There had to be others getting the word out ( before this letter) and establishing these local congregations Paul was talking to. Unless your a dispensationalist I fail to see what your getting at otherwise.

Ministry Established in Romans 1:11< -- Paul wrote this 55ad, and Peter was suppose to be there already 8 years??
11I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith. 13I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.

Where do you get those numbers? I have no idea when stuff was written or when someone did or did not arrive.

Bold statement from Paul, saying the gospel was not preached in Rome, he was going to.. now if Peter was there, why would he not mention Peter once and why would he say they never heard the Gospels??

Think about the simple question: DId Paul send a letter in the mail hoping that there would be some Christians on the other side in Rome? No. There were people who were already there on the ground getting things established (eg preaching, Baptizing, etc)

20It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation. 21Rather, as it is written:
"Those who were not told about him will see,
and those who have not heard will understand." 22 This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you. <--This clearly states Paul was going to preach to Rome (Gentiles) not Peter, he was the one setting foundation, he did not build on Peter's (another man's) ministry as the Apostle to that area..

Im not quite sure what he is saying but Im pretty sure its not about being the sole preacher to the exclusion of others, especially Apostles. After all he goes on and on about how he desires to come see them meaing that the bulk of their Chrstian instruction was not from Paul's single letter.

In the conclusion the the letter to Romans, Paul greets 28 people by name and never once mentions Peter in it.. clearly Paul was the Apostle to Rome..

Paul mentiones a lot of people but was clear they were all helping him, after all v22 says:

I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord.
​

Its pretty clear it wasnt a one man show preaching to the gentiles, as to why the Apostles arent even mentioned? I would guess its because they hadnt expanded out to the gentiles yet.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Good question, Im not sure, if I had to throw out a guess I would say a matter of timing.
Also I dont recall him writing from Rome did he?

Yes, Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy while in chains in Rome, as well as Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon.

Jesus told Paul that Paul would testify in Rome and be martyred there.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Bump.....Does it really matter if Peter was in Rome or not

 

[Peaceful Dove]

Bump.....Does it really matter if Peter was in Rome or not

Maybe, because we believe he was martyrd in the arena being crucified upside down.

There are ancient writings about this and also a writing that witnesses to Peter and Paul choosing Peter's succesor. I will find that quote.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

Wow, I didn't have to hunt it up. Trento posted it in another thread. Good job.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel &#8220;while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.&#8221; A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter&#8217;s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Wow, I didn't have to hunt it up. Trento posted it in another thread. Good job.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel &#8220;while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.&#8221; A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter&#8217;s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

That was before Rome destroyed Jerusalem as Prophecied by Jesus and Paul correct?

Matthew 24:3 He is yet sitting on the Mount of the olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what the Sign of Thy ParousiaV <3952>, and the full-End of the Age?'

John 11:48 "If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation."

http://www.davieapostolicchurch.com/studies/destuct/

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover ; At this season multitudes came up from all the surrounding country, and from distant parts, to keep the festival.

Nevertheless, the city was at this time crowded with Jewish strangers, and foreigners from all parts, so that the whole nation may be considered as having been shut up in one prison,

 

[Peaceful Dove]

That was before Rome destroyed Jerusalem as Prophecied by Jesus and Paul correct?

Matthew 24:3 He is yet sitting on the Mount of the olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what the Sign of Thy ParousiaV <3952>, and the full-End of the Age?'

John 11:48 "If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation."

http://www.davieapostolicchurch.com/studies/destuct/

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover ; At this season multitudes came up from all the surrounding country, and from distant parts, to keep the festival.

Nevertheless, the city was at this time crowded with Jewish strangers, and foreigners from all parts, so that the whole nation may be considered as having been shut up in one prison,

I think the siege of Jerusalem was in the year 70. Good question.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

Bump.....Does it really matter if Peter was in Rome or not

In my opinion, ALL history is important. Especially history of the Christian Church.
I love it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think the siege of Jerusalem was in the year 70. Good question.

According to Acts 7, even the Jewish church was referred to as "the assembly in the wilderness".

Matt 23:38 Lo, is left to you the House of you a wilderness/erhmoV <2048>

Acts 7:38 `This is he who was in the Assembly/ekklhsia <1577> in the wilderness/erhmw <2048>, with the messenger who is speaking to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers who did receive the living oracles to give to us;

 

[Peaceful Dove]

According to Acts 7, even the Jewish church was referred to as "the assembly in the wilderness".

Matt 23:38 Lo, is left to you the House of you a wilderness/erhmoV <2048>

Acts 7:38 `This is he who was in the Assembly/ekklhsia <1577> in the wilderness/erhmw <2048>, with the messenger who is speaking to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers who did receive the living oracles to give to us;

Ah I found the longer quote and the conclusion that Peter and Paul probably died in the year 60.

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.