• 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.

Protestant Poll: Peter in Rome?

Was Peter in Rome

  • Yes he was and yes the CC is the WB

  • No he wasnt and the CC is NOT the WB

  • The WB tv network is dull and lousy


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I view revelation as having been "visioned" sometime during the period of either just after the Cross up to the end of Peter and Paul's preaching.
What are the catholics view on that? Thanks.

Luke 2:32 A light to the un-covering/apo-kaluyin <602> of nations, and the glory of Thy people Israel.'

Revelation 1:1 A-from-covering/apo-kaluyiV<602> Yeshuwa` Mashiyach, which gives to Him, the God/YAHWEH, to show to the bondservants of Him, which is behooving to be becoming in swiftness.
 
Upvote 0
P

Peaceful Dove

Guest


Are you talking about Johns vision? The book of Revelations?
I am not sure I understand your question.
 
Upvote 0

PastorMikeJ

combat veteran
Nov 10, 2005
2,426
237
80
Shaftsbury, Vermont
✟3,818.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I accept that he was in Rome because he died there..and that babylon was Rome how is that important...the the cc was and is the wh--e I don't believe that.but I do believe that it is the church that is established during the trib.
 
Upvote 0
P

Peaceful Dove

Guest
I accept that he was in Rome because he died there..and that babylon was Rome how is that important...the the cc was and is the wh--e I don't believe that.but I do believe that it is the church that is established during the trib.

Thank you. Good post.
It does seem to be important to many non-Catholic Christians. I have heard the denials of Peter being in Rome since I was a kid and that is a long long time ago.

Are you saying the Church during the trib, meaning the persecutions during Nero, etc? Lots of folks use to call that the trib.
I don't understand. Could you explain for me.?
 
Upvote 0

PastorMikeJ

combat veteran
Nov 10, 2005
2,426
237
80
Shaftsbury, Vermont
✟3,818.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
no I am talking about the book of Rev. tribulations. the church established by the antichrist
 
Upvote 0

TheDag

I don't like titles
Jan 8, 2005
9,459
267
✟36,294.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Thank you. Good post.
It does seem to be important to many non-Catholic Christians. I have heard the denials of Peter being in Rome since I was a kid and that is a long long time ago.
I'm surprised. Maybe it is an american thing as I have never heard any protestant in Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Uniting (methodist and presbertyrian), AOG or other pentecostal churches even discuss this before. The above denominations are ones I have had large involvement in so can speak with confidence. The only people I have heard talk about this are catholics although not many of them.
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ok... Im trying to understand ... DANG

What ARE ya's talking about?

Im seeing Rome (written to) and Babylon (written to) as separate geographically, am I wrong? I'm not good at geography lol

I mean if our Lord was crucified in Jerusalem but in revelation its "spiritually called" Sodom, Egypt.

The ~mystery of~ Babylon (confusion) cant be geographically called Babylon (the one Peter writes of) ya'll think that?

Am I lost?

Just curious

Peace

Fireinfolding
 
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟102,311.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

Didn't know about this 'codename' stuff.
I don't know where Peter was and
I have to admit that I dont know who
the harlot of babylon is.

Seems many think it's the CC?
Why?
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Remember also Peter had to live and preach amongst the OC Jews/circumcision in Judea/Jerusalem, and those rulers/priests were also primarily responsible for bringing much of the persecutions upon the Jewish/non-Jewish Christians assemblies during that time.
Hound-dogs they were, houn-dogs I tell ya!!!!!
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
bump................

Let me post this openly (rather then link it) because I dont click on links myself (just thought about that). Its not that long.

[SIZE=+2]The Bones Of Peter


[SIZE=+1]by Dr. W. A. Criswell [/SIZE]

Simon Peter is addressed by our Lord Jesus in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew in these words: "And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Because of this passage, there is a vast system of religion built upon Simon Peter. Three things in this ecclesiastical system are avowed about him.

1. That Peter ruled the church.
2. That Peter ruled the church in Rome.

Jerome (d. 240 A.D.) declared that Peter, after being first bishop at Antioch, and after laboring in Pontus, Galatia, Asia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, went to Rome in the second year of Claudius (about 42 A.D.) to oppose Simon Magus, and was bishop of that church for 25 years, finally being crucified head downward in the last year of Nero's reign (67 A.D.) and was buried on the Vatican hill.

3. That Peter's tomb and his bones are under the high altar of St. Peter's church in Rome.
There is no intimation in the Scriptures that the words of our Saviour addressed to Simon Peter made him ruler and head of the church.

In the Greek there is a play upon his name - "Thou art Petros (a stone) and upon this petra (a stratum of stone) I will build my church." First Peter 2:5 says, "Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house." First Corinthians 3:11 says, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus." The meaning is self-evident. The foundation, "the petra," upon which Christ will build His church is His deity, which Simon Peter has just confessed upon a revelation from the Father. The stones out of which Christ will erect His church are believing disciples, one of whom is Peter himself.

The keys of the kingdom here given to Peter as a representative disciple, with the authority of binding and loosing, are given to all the disciples in Matthew 18:18 and in John 20:23.

Peter in the Early Churches

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.

Notice in Acts 8:14 that Peter is "sent" by the apostles along with John to Samaria. Peter is not doing the sending; somebody else is.

Notice in Acts 15:14-21 that at the Jerusalem conference, after Peter made his speech and Paul and Barnabas made their speeches, it is James who delivers the final verdict.

Was Peter Ever in Rome?

The second avowal of the Roman hierarchy concerning Peter is that he was bishop at Rome from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D, when he was crucified under Nero. If Peter was in Rome during those years, then the New Testament cannot be relied upon. There is not the faintest, slightest historical foundation for the fiction that Peter ever saw the city of Rome.

1. Paul was converted about 37 A.D. He says in the first chapter of Galatians (Gal. 1:13-18) that after his conversion he went into Arabia, "then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days." This takes us to 40 A.D., and Peter is still in Jerusalem.

2. 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.

3. Paul writes in the second chapter of Galatians that fourteen years after his first visit to Jerusalem to visit Simon Peter he went again to see him. The first journey was 40 A.D.; fourteen years later brings us to 54 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine.

4. 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.

5. 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. So vast a work and so great a territory must have consumed several years. 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.

6. 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 where "governing" the church at Rome, it is most strange that Paul should never refer to him.

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 great principle which he clearly repeats 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." A like avowal is made in I Corinthians 10:15,16. Where no other apostle has been, there Paul wanted to go. Having written this plainly to the people at Rome, his desire to go to the Roman city would be inexplicable if Peter were already there, or had been there for years.

7. 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.

8. 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.

We have gone throughout those 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. There is not a suggestion anywhere that such a thing was true. Rather the New Testament clearly and plainly denies the fiction.

Babylon and Rome

In I Peter 5:13, Peter says, "The church that is at Babylon saluteth you." Some suppose "Babylon" is a cryptic word for Rome.
There is no evidence that Rome was ever called "Babylon" until after the Book of the Revelation was written. The Revelation was written about 95 A.D., many years after the death of Simon Peter. If I Peter 5:13 refers to Rome, then Simon Peter did not write the letter and we have a forgery in the Bible.

Peter's method and manner of writing are in no sense apocalyptic. He is direct and matter-of-fact. That this man Peter, plain of speech almost to bluntness, should interject into the midst of his personal explanations and final salutations such a mystical epithet, with no hint of what he means by it, is beyond credulity. Peter says the elect in Babylon send greetings to the Jews of the Dispersion in Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. "Babylon" is no more cryptic than "Pontus," "Asia," or the rest. He means what he says. His "Babylon" is the Babylon on the Euphrates. It is a part of that eastern world where Peter lived his life and did his work.

Babylon in the time of Simon Peter was no longer a great world capital, but it was still inhabited by a colony of people, mostly Jews. Among those Hebrew friends he won many to Christ, and those Jewish Christians sent greetings to their fellow-Jewish Christians in Asia Minor where Peter had previously done a blessed missionary work.

Unbiased historians and the Scriptural records indicate that Peter died and was buried either in Mesopotamia or Asia Minor.

The Pope of Rome will be able to find plenty of bones beneath the Vatican hills, where Christians by the thousands were murdered and buried by pagan and papal persecutors back when Rome ruled the world. But these bones prove nothing except that the Roman hierarchy is frantic in its efforts to find something that will give a semblance of justification to their false claims that Peter was connected with the papal system.
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.[/SIZE]
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Peter's Presence in Rome
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Some non-Catholic historians

 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The Martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.'
A. Harnack
Protestants protested against man-made traditions, not Jesus Christ.

How dare they refer to us as "Blind"!!!

2 corin 3:12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech -- 13 unlike Moses, [who] put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were dull. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the [veil] is taken away in Christ. 15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veillies on their heart. 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil/kalumma <2571> is taken away.

[ISA] Revelation 1:1 A-from-covering/apo-kaluyiV<602> Yeshuwa` Mashiyach, which gives to Him, the God/YAHWEH, to show to the bondservants of Him, which is behooving to be becoming in swiftness.
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Yeah Nah really... I am honestly looking for scriptural FIRST corrections in what is written above in the post you posted. That which is extracted from the scriptures concerning Peter (what is first clear) then proceed further. Honestly it really makes not much difference really, though I believe Paul can be placed there (without a doubt) I would definately love to see (by looking at his journeys) and running into Peter (in other places) if this can be proven (at all) from there in accord with the years as recorded in it.

Maybe I can find someone online who has intensely studied this and can pinpoint it better, that would help.

Peace

Fireinfolding
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Maybe I can find someone online who has intensely studied this and can pinpoint it better, that would help.

Peace

Fireinfolding
Ok Fire. I am working on other things, so I won't be able to help ya out on that. Good luck girl!!!!
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Didn't know about this 'codename' stuff.
I don't know where Peter was and
I have to admit that I dont know who
the harlot of babylon is.

Seems many think it's the CC?
Why?
I would like to ask if the Orthodox also have proof that Peter was in Rome.
Heck, babylon could have been a code name for "judea/jerusalem" where the murderous corrupt Priesthood was for all we know. Thoughts?
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟30,034.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I would like to ask if the Orthodox also have proof that Peter was in Rome.
Heck, babylon could have been a code name for "judea/jerusalem" where the murderous corrupt Priesthood was for all we know. Thoughts?


A well known Orthodox Bishop answers.

St. Chrysostom became Bishop of Constantinople.

"In speaking of Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me" (viz. St. Flavian, his bishop) "our common father and teacher, who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair. For this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians [cf. Acts 11:26] before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal Rome. Nay, but we did retain him till the end; for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself." (Hom in inscr Act II, 6, vol III, 86[70])
And since Paul shared the world with Peter, so he also must go to Rome. "He prophesies, saying: 'I must also see Rome'" (cf. Acts 19:21, Hom 42, 1, vol IX, 295[317]); and in accordance with this prophecy, thither he goes, and there Peter and Paul, "greater than Kings and Princes" (c. Jud et Gen, 6, vol I, 821[565]) are buried:
 
Upvote 0

Uphill Battle

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2005
18,279
1,221
48
✟23,416.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
no doubt. Ressurection indeed.

a couple things were mentioned.

1) why does it matter if Peter was in rome?

a) depends on whom you are. I believe Peter made it to Rome at one point or another. The when, and why, and how doesn't matter to me, and if I'm wrong In thinking he was there, and he wasn't, ah well. To the Catholics, it is paramount that Peter was in Rome. Their Papacy is built on this idea.

2) Are they the harlot of Babylon

a) Nobody knows who the harlot of Babylon is at this point. Anyone who points and says "there she is" is reading to many Chik tracts. I don't believe that tidbit has been revealed yet.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.