The Record Is Clear: St. Peter Taught in Rome, and Died in Rome

[Michie]

The cumulative historical evidence provides a compelling case for the Catholic claim of Peter’s presence and eventual martyrdom in Rome.

Tertullian wrote circa 200 regarding Rome: “How happy is its church, on which Apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s!”

That St. Peter taught and died and Rome is a tradition of the Catholic Church, yet some have disputed the historicity of this claim. However, even outside of comments by Church Fathers, there is Scriptural evidence that also strongly attests to this tradition.

Tim Gray makes a strong case that the typology of Jonah finds fulfillment in Peter. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines typology as “a person, a thing, or an action, having its own independent and absolute existence, but at the same time intended by God to prefigure a future person, thing, or action.” Christians are familiar with Jesus’ comparison to Jonah, prophesying that he will rise from the dead after three days, but Peter also is a type of Jonah.

We know from the Gospel of John that Peter’s father was named John. Yet, when Jesus declares he will build his Church on Peter in the Gospel of Matthew, he refers to Peter as “Simon Bar-Jona,” meaning “Simon, son of Jona.” Some have suggested the Jona here is simply a contraction of John, but just earlier in the same chapter of Matthew speaks of “the sign of Jonah,” which refers to the resurrection after three days, just as Jonah’s body was in the fish for three days. It is unlikely to be coincidental that Peter’s father is referred to as “Jona” shortly after Jesus speaks of the sign of Jonah. Just as Jesus is titled the son of David, signifying he will be a type of David by sitting on the throne of David, so too Peter, as the son of Jonah, will be a type of Jonah in some manner.

There are plenty of similarities between the two:

Jonah left with a boat from Joppa, while Peter preached in Joppa;
Jonah fled from God’s presence after being given a command to go to Nineveh, while Peter fled from Christ at the trial of the Sanhedrin;

Jonah is in the belly of the fish for three days in Sheol, while Peter denies knowing Jesus three times, an action that caused loss of salvation;

Jonah becomes faithful to the God after disobeying his command, while Peter also returns to the faith after denying Christ;
and so on.

Most significant for whether Peter was in Rome is God’s sending Jonah to Nineveh. As Gray notes in his book Peter: Keys to Following Jesus, Nineveh was the “was the archenemy of Israel.” He writes:

Continued below.

The Record Is Clear: St. Peter Taught in Rome, and Died in Rome

The cumulative historical evidence provides a compelling case for the Catholic claim of Peter’s presence and eventual martyrdom in Rome.

www.ncregister.com

 

[sandman]

The cumulative historical evidence provides a compelling case for the Catholic claim of Peter’s presence and eventual martyrdom in Rome.

Tertullian wrote circa 200 regarding Rome: “How happy is its church, on which Apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s!”

That St. Peter taught and died and Rome is a tradition of the Catholic Church, yet some have disputed the historicity of this claim. However, even outside of comments by Church Fathers, there is Scriptural evidence that also strongly attests to this tradition.

Tim Gray makes a strong case that the typology of Jonah finds fulfillment in Peter. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines typology as “a person, a thing, or an action, having its own independent and absolute existence, but at the same time intended by God to prefigure a future person, thing, or action.” Christians are familiar with Jesus’ comparison to Jonah, prophesying that he will rise from the dead after three days, but Peter also is a type of Jonah.

We know from the Gospel of John that Peter’s father was named John. Yet, when Jesus declares he will build his Church on Peter in the Gospel of Matthew, he refers to Peter as “Simon Bar-Jona,” meaning “Simon, son of Jona.” Some have suggested the Jona here is simply a contraction of John, but just earlier in the same chapter of Matthew speaks of “the sign of Jonah,” which refers to the resurrection after three days, just as Jonah’s body was in the fish for three days. It is unlikely to be coincidental that Peter’s father is referred to as “Jona” shortly after Jesus speaks of the sign of Jonah. Just as Jesus is titled the son of David, signifying he will be a type of David by sitting on the throne of David, so too Peter, as the son of Jonah, will be a type of Jonah in some manner.

There are plenty of similarities between the two:

Jonah left with a boat from Joppa, while Peter preached in Joppa;
Jonah fled from God’s presence after being given a command to go to Nineveh, while Peter fled from Christ at the trial of the Sanhedrin;

Jonah is in the belly of the fish for three days in Sheol, while Peter denies knowing Jesus three times, an action that caused loss of salvation;

Jonah becomes faithful to the God after disobeying his command, while Peter also returns to the faith after denying Christ;
and so on.

Most significant for whether Peter was in Rome is God’s sending Jonah to Nineveh. As Gray notes in his book Peter: Keys to Following Jesus, Nineveh was the “was the archenemy of Israel.” He writes:

Continued below.

The Record Is Clear: St. Peter Taught in Rome, and Died in Rome

The cumulative historical evidence provides a compelling case for the Catholic claim of Peter’s presence and eventual martyrdom in Rome.

www.ncregister.com

I don’t dismiss the great things that Peter did…He was given the keys to the kingdom which he faithfully excited. And his continued faithfulness proclaiming the truth throughout his life.
Keys open things…. and Peter in Acts 2 opening the kingdom to the Jews…. and Acts 10 opened the kingdom to the Gentiles….

I will dispute that Jesus build the church on him.

Church (ekklēsia) simply means called out …It is even used as a “mostly peaceful” protest in Act 19:32, 39 &41 as “assembly”. But the epistles are quite clear that the “called out” (church) in this administration (dispensation) of grace is not built on Peter… or any man.

And the comparison of Jonah being in the fish for 3 days falls short ….since the gospels declare that Peter denied Christ six (6) times not just three

 

[Strong in Him]

Tim Gray makes a strong case that the typology of Jonah finds fulfillment in Peter. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines typology as “a person, a thing, or an action, having its own independent and absolute existence, but at the same time intended by God to prefigure a future person, thing, or action.” Christians are familiar with Jesus’ comparison to Jonah, prophesying that he will rise from the dead after three days, but Peter also is a type of Jonah.

We know from the Gospel of John that Peter’s father was named John. Yet, when Jesus declares he will build his Church on Peter in the Gospel of Matthew, he refers to Peter as “Simon Bar-Jona,” meaning “Simon, son of Jona.” Some have suggested the Jona here is simply a contraction of John, but just earlier in the same chapter of Matthew speaks of “the sign of Jonah,” which refers to the resurrection after three days, just as Jonah’s body was in the fish for three days. It is unlikely to be coincidental that Peter’s father is referred to as “Jona” shortly after Jesus speaks of the sign of Jonah. Just as Jesus is titled the son of David, signifying he will be a type of David by sitting on the throne of David, so too Peter, as the son of Jonah, will be a type of Jonah in some manner.

There are plenty of similarities between the two:

Jonah left with a boat from Joppa, while Peter preached in Joppa;
Jonah fled from God’s presence after being given a command to go to Nineveh, while Peter fled from Christ at the trial of the Sanhedrin;

Jonah is in the belly of the fish for three days in Sheol, while Peter denies knowing Jesus three times, an action that caused loss of salvation;

Jonah becomes faithful to the God after disobeying his command, while Peter also returns to the faith after denying Christ;
and so on.

Sorry but I don't find any of that convincing.

As you have said, Matthew records that Jesus gave people the sign of Jonah - just as Jonah was in the fish for 3 days, so Jesus would be in the tomb for 3 days. An OT story pointed to, and foreshadowed, what would happen to Jesus. He gave it as a sign that pointed to him.
That doesn't give us the right to assume that Jona - different spelling, someone who is mentioned later in the same chapter and was Peter's father - is somehow a sign that pointed to Peter. The NT is not about pointing to, proclaiming and promoting a particular disciple - Jesus is the important One. The NT proclaims Jesus, not Peter. No slave is greater than his master.

Your "similarities" are very tenuous.
Jonah left from Joppa and Peter preached there - so what?
Jonah THOUGHT he was fleeing from God's presence, but Peter, who ran away in the garden, followed Jesus to a courtyard - again, so what?
What has Jonah being in the fish for 3 days got to do with Peter's denial? Jonah has already been given as a sign to CHRIST. And this didn't cause Peter's loss of salvation. Jesus predicted that Peter would deny him 3 times and said "when you turn back, strengthen your brothers", Luke 22:32. Jesus later restored Peter after the resurrection, John 21.

Even if we were to accept all of those and say "oh yes; Peter was similar to Jonah" - so what?

 

[prodromos]

Sorry but I don't find any of that convincing.

Agreed. I don't dispute that Peter was martyred in Rome, but all that stuff about Peter and Jonah is nonsense.

 

[The Liturgist]

Agreed. I don't dispute that Peter was martyred in Rome, but all that stuff about Peter and Jonah is nonsense.

I suggested to @Michie that he share this material with us in General Theology because I believe that there are too many Christians who, without compelling reason, reject the traditional narrative that both St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred in Rome during the reign of Nero.

If you disagree with the specific line of reasoning he provides, I can understand that, but perhaps if you know of a superior argument in favor of a Petrine presence in Rome?

From my perspective, the references to Jonah looked like standard Alexandrian typological exegesis.

 

[prodromos]

I suggested to @Michie that he share this material with us in General Theology because I believe that there are too many Christians who, without compelling reason, reject the traditional narrative that both St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred in Rome during the reign of Nero.

If you disagree with the specific line of reasoning he provides, I can understand that, but perhaps if you know of a superior argument in favor of a Petrine presence in Rome?

From my perspective, the references to Jonah looked like standard Alexandrian typological exegesis.

The Old Testament typologies are for Christ. I don't think there is any disagreement regarding that across christendom. This is the first time I've ever heard of someone suggesting a typology for Peter. The only reason some Protestants reject Peter being in Rome is because the Catholic Church makes such a big deal of Peter being there. If it wasn't for that then I believe pretty much everyone would accept the traditional narrative. There is no alternative history recorded placing Peter anywhere else, is there?

 

[The Liturgist]

The Old Testament typologies are for Christ. I don't think there is any disagreement regarding that across christendom. This is the first time I've ever heard of someone suggesting a typology for Peter. The only reason some Protestants reject Peter being in Rome is because the Catholic Church makes such a big deal of Peter being there. If it wasn't for that then I believe pretty much everyone would accept the traditional narrative. There is no alternative history recorded placing Peter anywhere else, is there?

Well several Old Testament typologies seem to refer to the Theotokos, for example, the Mercy Seat, the Ark of the Covenant, and so on, so surely it is not impossible for Old Testament typological prophecy to talk about the apostles provided it does so in a Christocentric manner?

There is no alternate history from antiquity placing St. Peter anywhere other than Rome; several writers suggest he came to Rome to help St. Paul deal with the Gnostic heresy.

 

[prodromos]

Well several Old Testament typologies seem to refer to the Theotokos, for example, the Mercy Seat, the Ark of the Covenant, and so on, so surely it is not impossible for Old Testament typological prophecy to talk about the apostles provided it does so in a Christocentric manner?

You are correct regarding the Theotokos (the burning bush is another) but as you also point out, they are ultimately Christocentric, whereas I don't really see that in the claimed Petrine typology in Jonah. The article also fails to provide evidence that such an understanding was ever expressed by any Church Father.

On the other hand, in the Orthodox Church we recognise Peter as a type of the Apostles and ultimately the bishops in the Church. There is no apostle of apostles nor bishop of bishops in the Orthodox Church.

There is no alternate history from antiquity placing St. Peter anywhere other than Rome; several writers suggest he came to Rome to help St. Paul deal with the Gnostic heresy.

 

[The Liturgist]

On the other hand, in the Orthodox Church we recognise Peter as a type of the Apostles and ultimately the bishops in the Church. There is no apostle of apostles nor bishop of bishops in the Orthodox Church.

To be very clear I was not suggesting there was, or that a special Petrological primacy existed in the Eastern Orthodox Church; indeed I have been very troubled in recent years by attempts by the GoArch Archbishop of the Americas, who will likely succeed His All Holiness Bartholomew I, to claim that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is primus sine paribus rather than, at most, primus inter pares (and I am not even convinced if this primacy of honor actually still exists, or was ever recognized as a general principle outside of the canonical borders of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and some, but not all, of the other Greek patriarchates of the Eastern mediterranean, but at least primus inter pares is not a problem with regards to Orthodox episcopal equality, whereas in the case of what the current Archbishop of the Americas has argued, it would be a great depature from how things traditionally have been done according to every historical document I have seen if the ability to revoke the autocephaly of an autocephalous church was granted to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

This is all the more the case when one considers that canons 6 and 7 of the Council of Nicaea recognize in the case of Antioch and Alexandria, and restore in the case of the rebuilt Jerusalem, the status of autocephaly, and also it would be very undesirable if we saw a two tiered system emerge with a distinction between Orthodox churches whose autocephaly is mentioned or restored or granted through the acts of ecumenical councils, and Orthodox churches like the OCA whose autocephaly (in the case of the OCA, a real autocephaly that the EP has never even recognized,) was granted by tomos.

 

[ViaCrucis]

St. Peter has two Seats, one in Rome and one in Antioch. Neither is higher nor greater than the other.

Neither are the other Apostolic Sees less than those of St. Peter.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[WarriorAngel]

I will dispute that Jesus build the church on him.

You are Rock [No longer Simon] and upon this rock [that I called you] I shall build My Church...
and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail.

Which leaves no wiggle room for argument. I mean, people will, but then they have to change the promise of Jesus.
And I wonder how expedient that is, really.

 

[WarriorAngel]

St. Peter has two Seats, one in Rome and one in Antioch. Neither is higher nor greater than the other.

Neither are the other Apostolic Sees less than those of St. Peter.

-CryptoLutheran

Nobody, even if Peter began a Church in Antioch ever in early history said Antioch was the going to hold the chair.

Nay nay, for Ignatius in the 115 AD? or some such close to that year said to Rome you have favor and whatever you ask...
[Chair of Peter]

And conclusively throughout the entire history - [even Eugene], as well as Irenaeus proclaimed the CHAIR of Peter was in Rome and who took his place henceforth.
Anything else is an argument, and what did St Paul say about argument, etc?

Have none of it.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Assisted by two papal priest-legates, Vito and Vincentius, Hosius of Cordova presided at the Council of Nicaea. It is reasonably certain that Pope Sylvester had designated Hosius, as well as the two legates, to represent him.

Hosius and the legates were the first to sign the decrees of the Council. In fact, says historian Luke Rivington, the Graeco-Russian liturgy, in the office for Pope Sylvester, speaks of him as actual head of the Council of Nicaea: “Thou hast shown thyself the supreme one of the Sacred Council, O Initiator into the sacred mysteries, and hast illustrated the Throne of the Supreme One of the Disciples.”

The Council of Nicaea condemned the teachings of Arius as b.asphemy and accepted the word homoousios (“of one substance”) as the appropriate term for the relation of God the Father and God the Son. The result of the council, according to Gillquist, was that “the Orthodoxy of Athanasius had prevailed at the Council.” The orthodoxy of whom? Where did Athanasius get his “Orthodoxy”? From Pope Victor, who a century and a half earlier had condemned the teaching of Theodotus, a doctrinal ancestor of Arius, and from Pope Dionysius, who sixty years earlier had condemned what was called later the Arian heresy and who fixed the term homoousios as a key to authentic Christology.

Papal Primacy in Nicea

 

[prodromos]

Nobody, even if Peter began a Church in Antioch ever in early history said Antioch was the going to hold the chair.

Nay nay, for Ignatius in the 115 AD? or some such close to that year said to Rome you have favor and whatever you ask...
[Chair of Peter]

And conclusively throughout the entire history - [even Eugene], as well as Irenaeus proclaimed the CHAIR of Peter was in Rome and who took his place henceforth.
Anything else is an argument, and what did St Paul say about argument, etc?

Have none of it.

Why then did Rome continue to celebrate the feast of the Chair of Peter in Antioch on February 22 until 1960, when Pope John XXIII merged it with the feast of the Chair of Peter in Rome which had been celebtated on January 18?

 

[Strong in Him]

You are Rock [No longer Simon] and upon this rock [that I called you] I shall build My Church...
and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail.

The rock being the confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God.
I doubt that Jesus meant that he was going to build his church on a MAN, and I doubt that Peter believed that.
The church is built on Jesus, the corner and foundation stone, 1 Corinthians 3:11. And whoever believes, and practices, Jesus' words is like a man who built his house on the Rock. God is our Rock, refuge and strength, Psalm 18:2, Psalm 18:31, Psalm 19:14.

If the church was built on a human being, it would fail. Jesus said that Satan had asked permission to sift the disciples as wheat, Luke 22:31. And Peter failed, and denied Jesus - despite saying that he would die for him. I don't believe that the gates of hell would have any trouble overcoming an institution that was built on a sinful, fallible, finite human being.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nobody, even if Peter began a Church in Antioch ever in early history said Antioch was the going to hold the chair.

Nay nay, for Ignatius in the 115 AD? or some such close to that year said to Rome you have favor and whatever you ask...
[Chair of Peter]

And conclusively throughout the entire history - [even Eugene], as well as Irenaeus proclaimed the CHAIR of Peter was in Rome and who took his place henceforth.
Anything else is an argument, and what did St Paul say about argument, etc?

Have none of it.

So nevermind the historical facts, don't argue? I'm sorry, but no. Truth remains truth even when it isn't convenient.

So I shouldn't also mention that Blessed St. Gregory the Great of Rome wrote that whoever would have the audacity to call himself pastor of the universal Church deserves to be called precursor to Antichrist?

The claims of Peter's supremacy, and the Chair in Rome as being supreme over the whole of Christ's Holy Church is thoroughly without merit.

Every argument I've seen used to support such things has been seemingly of the same quality as the arguments I've seen some use when they try to argue that the ancient fathers believed in Dispensationalism, or that the early Church denied the baptism of infants, etc.

The fact of the matter is that we have the testimony of the fathers, the ancient canons of the Councils, and all of that witness simply does not support the institution of the papacy.

Of course St. Peter has a chair in Rome. But St. Peter's Chair in Rome is not a universal chair of the Holy and Catholic Church. The occupant of the Chair sits in the seat of Peter, no less than the occupant of the Chair of Antioch sits in the seat of Peter and Paul, and in Alexandria that of St. Mark, and St. Andrew in Constantinople, and St. James in Jerusalem, and so on.

For Christ established and built His Church on His Apostles and the confession and testimony of faith that He is the Messiah, the Son of God, our Lord. It is on account of St. Peter's confession that our Lord called him Kepha, Peter. For the man Simon bar-Jonah was neither higher nor lesser than any of the rest; for to all were given the Keys of the kingdom when our Lord, in John ch. 20 says, "Receive the Holy Spirit, whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whoever's sins you retain are retained."

Christ is the Foundation, the Apostles became the instrument of Christ's founding His Church, and she rests alone upon Christ and the Apotolic testimony, witness, and confession of faith. So that she is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

- CryptoLutheran

 

[WarriorAngel]

So nevermind the historical facts, don't argue? I'm sorry, but no. Truth remains truth even when it isn't convenient.

So I shouldn't also mention that Blessed St. Gregory the Great of Rome wrote that whoever would have the audacity to call himself pastor of the universal Church deserves to be called precursor to Antichrist?

The claims of Peter's supremacy, and the Chair in Rome as being supreme over the whole of Christ's Holy Church is thoroughly without merit.

Every argument I've seen used to support such things has been seemingly of the same quality as the arguments I've seen some use when they try to argue that the ancient fathers believed in Dispensationalism, or that the early Church denied the baptism of infants, etc.

The fact of the matter is that we have the testimony of the fathers, the ancient canons of the Councils, and all of that witness simply does not support the institution of the papacy.

Of course St. Peter has a chair in Rome. But St. Peter's Chair in Rome is not a universal chair of the Holy and Catholic Church. The occupant of the Chair sits in the seat of Peter, no less than the occupant of the Chair of Rome sit in the seat of Peter and Paul, and in Alexandria that of St. Mark, and St. Andrew in Constantinople, and St. James in Jerusalem, and so on.

For Christ established and built His Church on His Apostles and the confession and testimony of faith that He is the Messiah, the Son of God, our Lord. It is on account of St. Peter's confession that our Lord called him Kepha, Peter. For the man Simon bar-Jonah was neither higher nor lesser than any of the rest; for to all were given the Keys of the kingdom when our Lord, in John ch. 20 says, "Receive the Holy Spirit, whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whoever's sins you retain are retained."

Christ is the Foundation, the Apostles became the instrument of Christ's founding His Church, and she rests alone upon Christ and the Apotolic testimony, witness, and confession of faith. So that she is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

- CryptoLutheran

St Gregory the great called himself "Servant of the Servants of God" (servus servorum Dei) as a papal title, thus initiating a practice that was to be followed by most subsequent popes.
Which is what Jesus also said.
Yet Jesus also said: Feed My sheep. Feed My lambs.

AND Luke 22 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:31–32).
If the others were also in an equal position why did Satan wish to solely attack Peter [Rock] and why was Peter to strengthen the others?

Because the steward... is why.

The statement of St Gregory which the above comment seems to be inferring he was even suggesting he was not the teacher of all, which honestly proves nothing that changes or revokes the position Peter was made to take, is out of context.

 

[WarriorAngel]

St Gregory the great called himself "Servant of the Servants of God" (servus servorum Dei) as a papal title, thus initiating a practice that was to be followed by most subsequent popes.

Jesus said: The FIRST SHALL be last and the last shall be first.
IE - the Pope - Peter's chair would defer to esteem his brethren so they are first [loved and honored] and in turn they ought to do the same being Peter and subsequent successors would remain FIRST but to strengthen the others would also esteem and honor the brethren.

But it would seem, due to the divide, that this is not a very well liked idea Jesus had. So are humans wiser than the Lord?
Are they superior to the One Who stated without apology or concern - "and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail..."?

 

[sandman]

You are Rock [No longer Simon] and upon this rock [that I called you] I shall build My Church...
and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail.

Which leaves no wiggle room for argument. I mean, people will, but then they have to change the promise of Jesus.
And I wonder how expedient that is, really.

I understand wanting to defend your religion ….it is a very human response.

One thing I learned early on… is that the Word of God has no opinion and needs no defense ….it speaks for itself and people either accept it or not. What people say about the Word of God should always be verified with what is written in the Bible, as that is our only source of Truth. If what is stated about the Word lines up with what is written …that is great …. if not, then it becomes a decision of who you are going to believe …. God or man….and the same goes for extrabiblical writings.

I will try not to interject my personal diatribe …I will simple give you what the Bible states….what you do with the information is up to you.

Let’s look at Mat 16:18

And I say also 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.

There are a couple things about this verse that need mentioning. The first are the words Peter and rock.

The word Peter The masculine noun (πετρος) = petros describes a loose stone that one may pick up and throw or kick out of the way.

The word rock the feminine noun (πετρα) = petra means rock or rather: mountain of a rock, used to build houses on or hew sepulchers in.


Some people believe that Jesus was pointing to an actual rock. But I believe that He was pointing to himself as the ROCK ....and scripture does back that up in the following.

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed.

And in the revelation given to Peter the same is reiterated

1Pe 2:4 -7

4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner



The other thing this scripture in Mat 16:18 states is → the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The word hell (hades) was the counterpart used for the Hebrew word (sheol)

I wont get into the various uses of the word now... but the word sheol (translated hell) simply means grave…. or to be more precise …. the state, reign, or time of being in the grave (not the grave itself) in other words…. Death….. I am sure I don’t have to tell you who conquered death….. other than to note, it wasn’t Peter.


One final note: The words spoken by Jesus in the Gospels are sometimes given greater significance in Catholicism….but all words from the New Testament are from Jesus Christ, all given by revelation some 20 to 60 years after Christ was taken up.

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

[WarriorAngel]

.it speaks for itself and people either accept it or not.

This is true. So ponder what Jesus said. I posted it.
Any argument is against His Words, not mine.