Protestant Poll: Peter in Rome?

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

Well if the RCC has the fulness of Truth and they are full of the Holy Spirit, don't ya think they could figure it out?
Afterall, some of them believe they are now in the "millinnium" so that harlot would no longer be around.

http://christianforums.com/t6823406-question-on-reve-1911.html
Question on Reve 19:11

quote RC: Chapter 20 Verse 4-5 Deals with Christ's Established Church that refussed to follow the beast. This was all done when Rome converted to Christianity and the 1000 years began.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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:

Hi. In relation to the whold Bible and Salvation, does it really matter where they are buried?

 

[TraderJack]

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.

In addition, in Paul's Epistle to the Romans he also says that he is coming to Rome to establish their church;

Romans 1
11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established

Then Paul says:

Romans 15:20
And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation

Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans roughly AD65-67. Clearly Peter was not in Rome by that time, or Paul would be building on another man's foundation.

Also, many early writers cite Paul as ordaining the first pastor/presbyter/bishop in Rome, the Linus whom Paul mentions sending his greetings to Timothy in 2 Timothy;

2 Timothy 4:21
Do your utmost to come before winter. Eubulus greets you, as well as Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brethren.

There is no credible evidence of Peter being in Rome prior to AD67, whereas most Roman apologists claim Peter was bishop in Rome around AD50 or so.

 

[TraderJack]

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.

There is scant evidence, but probably enough to show that Peter was in Rome at a much later date than Rome puts forth, most likely after AD70, and after Paul had established the churches in Rome as he said he would, and after Paul had been martyred at the hands of Nero.

There is no credible early evidence of Peter ever being bishop in Rome.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There is scant evidence, but probably enough to show that Peter was in Rome at a much later date than Rome puts forth, most likely after AD70, and after Paul had established the churches in Rome as he said he would, and after Paul had been martyred at the hands of Nero.

There is no credible early evidence of Peter ever being bishop in Rome.

Hi. I am under the impression that both Peter and Paul died before 70 ad and the event John is writing in Revelation is the consummation of that event for the OC Jewish Nation and Priesthood.
What about these verses showing both Peter and Paul were soon to be departing this "world"? Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

2 Timothy 4:6 For I am already being poured out and the time of the my up-loosing/analusewV <359> is come.
7 The ideal contest I have contested, the runninh I have finished, the faith, I have kept:
8 Rest being reserved to me, the of the righteousness a crown which shall be giving to me, the Lord, in that the Day the righteous judger not only yet to me but also to all the ones having loved the manifestation of Him

2 peter 1:14 Having known that speedily is the putting off/apoqesiV <595> of the booth/skhnwmatoV <4638> of me, according as also the Lord of us, Jesus Christ, makes evident to me.

1 Peter 4:7 Yet Of all-things/pantwn <3956> The End Has-Neared/hggiken <1448> (5758) ; be sober-minded then, and watch into the prayers,

 

[New_Wineskin]

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.

Well , even if Peter was in Rome , that sentence doesn't refer to him being there but some woman or ( in the interpretation that you use ) a group of believers - not himself . It certainly doesn't say that the CC is equivalent to Catholicism .

I don't usually think of the Catholic group as being the harlot . But , if Catholic doctrine connects babylon and Rome it gives good reason for noncatholics to agree .

 

[Trento]

Hi. In relation to the whold Bible and Salvation, does it really matter where they are buried?

Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III 375AD
In their writings 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).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III 375AD
In their writings 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).

How come you added "rome" in parenthesis? And how do we know they are talking about the Peter of the NT and why would that matter [except maybe to RCs]?

Did Peter also get to witness the "the end of all things" as written in 1 Peter 4:7 or did he die before that?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

2 peter 1:14 Having known that speedily is the putting off/apo-qesiV <595> of the booth/skhnwmatoV <4638> of me, according as also the Lord of us, Jesus Christ, makes evident to me.

1 Peter 4:7 Of all-things/pantwn <3956> yet The End Has-Neared/hggiken <1448> (5758) ; be sane then, and be sober into the prayers,

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

I wish the search function worked just so I could see how many threads there are just on peter, mary and the pope.
I am skeptical of Peter even being in Rome myself but does it matter in the whole scope of the Bible itself? I say no it doesn't execpt maybe to the Orthodox and Catholic. Thoughts?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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 do not believe Peter was ever in Rome........

 

[DD2008]

I do not believe Peter was ever in Rome........

I do.

 

[MamaZ]

what does Peter being in rome have to do with the CC?

 

[DD2008]

what does Peter being in rome have to do with the CC?

The RC claims that the Pope is the successor of Peter with powers of binding and loosing and the keys to the kingdom of heaven. I think that the Pope is simply the Bishop of Rome which is the office that Peter held. I just don't see any evidence that any authority given to Peter by Christ was given to Peter's successor. Any ECF writing that leads one to believe that is far removed in time from Peter's time. I think Peter's successor simply holds the office of Bishop in the Diocese of Rome and has a wealth of history around him but has no more power or authority than any Bishop of any Christian Diocese or any Elder or Pastor. He is famous for occupying that spot and through tradition that started at an unknown time claims the same powers as Peter and the original apostles. I think Christ was referring to Peter in regards to building the Church and penning scripture not an eternal power that Peter or the Apostles have the right to pass to another Peter or another apostle. I think there was an apostolic age and since then we have followed their teachings that they passed on to us in scripture.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

what does Peter being in rome have to do with the CC?

The question I asked is where in the NT does it say God sent Peter to Rome. It doesn't........only Saul/Paul was commissioned by the Lord to go there........case closed

Rotherham) Acts 23:11 But, on the following night, the Lord, standing over him, said--Be of good courage! for, as thou hast fully borne witness of the things concerning me in Jerusalem, so must thou, in Rome also, bear witness.

 

[DD2008]

The question I asked is where in the NT does it say God sent Peter to Rome. It doesn't........only Saul/Paul was commissioned by the Lord to go there........case closed

Rotherham) Acts 23:11 But, on the following night, the Lord, standing over him, said--Be of good courage! for, as thou hast fully borne witness of the things concerning me in Jerusalem, so must thou, in Rome also, bear witness.

The entire history of the world is not encompassed within the pages of sacred writ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The entire history of the world is not encompassed within the pages of sacred writ.

It is for me

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6730673&page=7
Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263824
Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better?

 

[DD2008]

That St. Peter died in Rome is testifed by:

• St. Augustine, de Consense Evangelistarum, Book 1.
• Eusebius, Chronicon 71, a Christo nato.
• Paul Orosius, History, Book VIII.
• St. Maximus, Sermon v on the Birthday of the Apostles.
• Origen, Book III on Genesis, as stated by eusebius, HIstory, Book III, ch. 2.
• St. Jerome, Book of Illustrious Men.

Calvin: "I cannot withstand the consent of those writers who prove that Peter died at Rome." Institutes, Book IV.


http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/PeterRome.html


Regardless if one believes in the Roman Catholic tradition. It would be a gross denial of plain history to deny that Peter was ever in Rome.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Regardless if one believes in the Roman Catholic tradition. It would be a gross denial of plain history to deny that Peter was ever in Rome.

My Salvation or Faith doesn't hinge on whether Peter was ever in Rome.

 

[DD2008]

My Salvation or Faith doesn't hinge on whether Peter was ever in Rome.

I agree!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I agree!

I have never read the ECFs so I will let more knowledgable ones answer whether Peter was ever in Rome or not.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263327&page=3
Early ECFs and Queen/Babylon in Revelation