Protestant Poll: Peter in Rome?

[DD2008]

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

They're christians that lived in the first few centuries of the life of the Church and wrote a lot of things about their time and the situation that led up to it.

I like reading many of their writings. All are good for historical research, Some are thought provoking. Some are even funny. They display a wide range of diverse theological thought. So there are a lot of letters written back and forth bickering with one another a lot like you see on GT.

They're given the designation early church fathers because they are considered the people responsible for nurturing the early development of the Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

They're christians that lived in the first few centuries of the life of the Church and wrote a lot of things about their time and the situation that led up to it.

I like reading many of their writings. All are good for historical research, Some are thought provoking. Some are even funny. They display a wide range of diverse theological thought. So there are a lot of letters written back and forth bickering with one another a lot like you see on GT.

They're given the designation early church fathers because they are considered the people responsible for nurturing the early development of the Church.

That depends on what is defined by "The Church"

 

[DD2008]

That depends on what is defined by "The Church"

 

[TheDag]

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

It is for me

Then perhaps you are knowledgable enough to be ablr to tell me how many children Adam and Eve bore? Complete with references and explaining any situation that may seem to contradict your answer. I have not been ablr to find an answer to that question myself although I am certainly no bible scholar.

 

[MamaZ]

Then perhaps you are knowledgable enough to be ablr to tell me how many children Adam and Eve bore? Complete with references and explaining any situation that may seem to contradict your answer. I have not been ablr to find an answer to that question myself although I am certainly no bible scholar.

Well one must want to know how many I guess. For me it really does't matter.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Then perhaps you are knowledgable enough to be ablr to tell me how many children Adam and Eve bore? Complete with references and explaining any situation that may seem to contradict your answer. I have not been ablr to find an answer to that question myself although I am certainly no bible scholar.

This thread isn't about the "adam and eve".....

 

[TheDag]

This thread isn't about the "adam and eve".....

True that is not the topic of the thread however it is related to your claim that the entire history of the world is contained in pages of sacred writ. That does have a connection to the topic considering your view that because the bible does not say peter went to rome then it means he didn't is based on the claim that all of history is recorded.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

of course peter was in rome

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

True that is not the topic of the thread however it is related to your claim that the entire history of the world is contained in pages of sacred writ. That does have a connection to the topic considering your view that because the bible does not say peter went to rome then it means he didn't is based on the claim that all of history is recorded.

I do know it says Paul was sent to Rome by the Lord Himself. That is good enough for me.

It matters not to me whether Peter was ever in Rome or not.....

Acts 23:11 And on the following night, the Lord having stood by him said "take courage Paul, for as thou didst fully testify the things concerning me at Jerusalem, so it behoveth thee also at Rome to testify.'

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, if the pope is the bishop of Rome and has to be in Rome to be bishop and pope then Peter had to be there if he was the first Pope. Imagine the tragedy of it all if he just stayed put in Asia Minor and Palestine!!!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well, if the pope is the bishop of Rome and has to be in Rome to be bishop and pope then Peter had to be there if he was the first Pope. Imagine the tragedy of it all if he just stayed put in Asia Minor and Palestine!!!

What kind of tragedy? Paul was already there and able to handle things pretty well, even converting some heathens.....

 

[TheDag]

I do know it says Paul was sent to Rome by the Lord Himself. That is good enough for me.

It matters not to me whether Peter was ever in Rome or not.....

So just to be clear you now withdraw your earlier claim of

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

with your reasoning being

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

if it doesn't matter why make the claim. However all I am asking is for you to back up your claim. You should have an answer because in case you make the claim to an unbeliever and they ask you to support it. it may not relate to salvation but if you are going to use that as an answer would it not be better to avoid the absolute statements on non-salvation matters?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So just to be clear you now withdraw your earlier claim of

with your reasoning being
if it doesn't matter why make the claim. However all I am asking is for you to back up your claim. You should have an answer because in case you make the claim to an unbeliever and they ask you to support it. it may not relate to salvation but if you are going to use that as an answer would it not be better to avoid the absolute statements on non-salvation matters?

My absolute statement is I do not believe Peter was ever in Rome.....is that absolute enough for ya.....

Since this poll is closed, I may start a new one and a new thread on this......

 

[Uphill Battle]

of course peter was in rome

of course. Rome wouldn't be Rome without Peter in it.

I have no strong position on the matter. He may, or may not have been in Rome. Evidence that I have read suggests that his timeline did not match that of the Catholic claims of when he ended up there.

Other evidence I have read suggests that he was buried nowhere near Rome.

understandably and completely rejected evidence by Roman Catholics, of course, but I don't have to neccessarily look through the Roman glasses to derive an opinion.

Even if Peter did make it to Rome, it makes little difference in support, or in opposition to the "Peter was #1" thing... it's Moot.

 

[Zoness]

There aren't enough good options in the poll; I'm sure Peter did spend time in Rome but the church (not scriptures) made him the first bishop of Rome which for some reason made Rome the all important city ignoring the other patriarchs of the time. But I do not think the Catholic Church is the harlot of Babylon I'm not quick to condemn.

 

[TheDag]

My absolute statement is I do not believe Peter was ever in Rome.....is that absolute enough for ya.....

Yeah it is clear enough although I guess I would have liked something to actually back your opinion up rather than just an opinion. Oh well nevermind.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There aren't enough good options in the poll; I'm sure Peter did spend time in Rome but the church (not scriptures) made him the first bishop of Rome which for some reason made Rome the all important city ignoring the other patriarchs of the time. But I do not think the Catholic Church is the harlot of Babylon I'm not quick to condemn.

How's bouts our viewers here give some options they would like to see for a new "was Peter ever in Rome" thread.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What kind of tragedy? Paul was already there and able to handle things pretty well, even converting some heathens.....

The great tragedy just begins when St. Peter's Basilica has to be renamed and the lovely Latin quotation around the interior base of the drum of the dome has to be chiselled out and a new one carved probably to the effect that Paul was the first Pope. Could the world accept St. Paul's Basilica? What would the Church of England do with St. Paul's Cathedral in London? Imagine all the Catholic theologians and historians busily at work reinventing Catholic theology and history. Imagine Mr. Ratzinger giving an ex cathedra statement to the effect that it was really Paul, after all, and not Rocky Peter. And that, my friend, is just the beginning of the tragedy.

 

[racer]

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.

Dude, really, like how many Protestants have you like encountered in this forum who like say that the RCC is the WB?

 

[racer]

And, btw, there is evidence which supports that Peter was in Rome. He and Paul were there. I don't understand the argument that apparently some people make saying Peter wasn't there.