Was Peter In Rome Between 24 Ad An 64 Ad ?

[dan p]

Hi to all , and I have posted this OP on many sites !!

Was Peter in ROME between 24 AD and 64 AD .

In Acts 8:1 , all will see that in the great Persecution at Jerusalem , all were scattered , EXCEPT , the Apostles !!

In Gal 2:1 and verse 11 we see that Peter is still in Jerusalem some 10 years PLUS 14 years with Paul in Gal 2:1 .

How could Peter be in ROME ??

It is impossible , as Peter could not be in 2 places at the same time !!

John 21:18-19 , shows how Peter died , of old age !!

Gal 2:1 lays to rest the RCC claims that Peter was Pope in ROME !!

DAN P

 

[A New Dawn]

Admin Hat

Thread moved to Christian History.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've no clue how the OP has concluded that Peter couldn't have been in Rome.

Peter is said to have been present with the other apostles when he went to Jerusalem. Fair enough, and later is said to have been present in Antioch.

How this excludes being present in Rome, I have no idea.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I've no clue how the OP has concluded that Peter couldn't have been in Rome.

Peter is said to have been present with the other apostles when he went to Jerusalem. Fair enough, and later is said to have been present in Antioch.

How this excludes being present in Rome, I have no idea.

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed!

 

[Radagast]

The reference to John 21:18-19 is odd, since it's generally read as a prophecy of martyrdom.

 

[Knee V]

"Lead you where you do not want to go" is not a reference to old age, but to martyrdom. The New Testament is not the only historical document of the 1st century, nor is it our only source of information of the happenings of that century. Peter died as a martyr in Rome.

I understand what you're trying to do. Many people try very hard to revise history in order to try to divorce Peter from the bishop of Rome, and thus to debunk the modern understanding of the Papacy. But that is not necessary. It is perfectly OK to understand that Peter died in Rome. Peter dying in Rome does not mean anything other than that he died in Rome. That does not automatically mean that Rome inherited something from Peter that no other bishop could have inherited. Putting Peter in Rome for any period of time does not mean that Peter handed down to the bishop of Rome something that no other bishop could have possessed.

It's OK to say that Peter went to Rome and that he was martyred there. There is no reason to revise history. The 1st century happened the way it happened. The Orthodox oppose the modern notion of the Roman papacy probably just as much as any Protestant, yet we have no problem saying that Peter went to Rome and died there, and that Rome had a role as a father among fathers for many centuries, and that during that time she was a solid rock of orthodoxy. But none of that necessitates the legitimacy of the modern notion of the Papacy; the two are not mutually inclusive. One can acknowledge Peter's role in the early church and not be a Roman Catholic. One can acknowledge Rome's role in the early church and not be a Roman Catholic.

 

[Metal Minister]

While I agree with you on not having a problem with Peter's role in the church, my question would be, first can we substantiate this biblically? I would start with Peter's mission to take the Gospel message to the circumcised (Jews). If that's the case, why would he go to Rome? Secondly I would point out that in all the letters Paul wrote to those in Rome, he never acknowledges Peter as being there. He greets a great many people but never once greets Peter. In fact, after Acts, Peter disappears from the bible entirely. Is it possible that Peter was in Rome, and died their...perhaps, but its not likely. Does it affect my faith either way? Not in the least.

"Everything is possible for him who believes."

 

[Knee V]

In fact, after Acts, Peter disappears from the bible entirely. Is it possible that Peter was in Rome, and died their...perhaps, but its not likely. Does it affect my faith either way? Not in the least.

Why isn't it likely? "The Circumcised" were scattered all over the Roman Empire. If Peter's sole ministry was to them, then he could have been traveling to Jewish communities all over the known world (and he did travel all over the place). Rome had its share of Jews as well.

I agree that the location of Peter's death doesn't affect our faith. But I'm sure that you don't limit your entire life to only those things which directly affect your faith. Learning from history can often be highly beneficial to us.

 

[Metal Minister]

Why isn't it likely? "The Circumcised" were scattered all over the Roman Empire. If Peter's sole ministry was to them, then he could have been traveling to Jewish communities all over the known world (and he did travel all over the place). Rome had its share of Jews as well.

I agree that the location of Peter's death doesn't affect our faith. But I'm sure that you don't limit your entire life to only those things which directly affect your faith. Learning from history can often be highly beneficial to us.

My point is, that biblically we have no proof of Peter being in Rome. Nothing more, nothing less. I've seen mountains of dogma built on the idea of Peter being in Rome, without any scripture to back it. I'm not attacking anything, just pointing it out. I'm generally a fairly good student of history, and I find when I start with what my bible says, things tend to add up much more cohesively.

"Everything is possible for him who believes."

 

[Knee V]

My point is, that biblically we have no proof of Peter being in Rome. Nothing more, nothing less. I've seem mountains of dogma built on the idea of Peter being in Rome, without any scripture to back it. I'm not attacking anything, just pointing it out. I'm generally a fairly good student of history, and I find when I start with what my bible says, things tend to add up much more cohesively.

Biblically, we have no proof of Thomas being in India or of Matthew being in Ethiopia, but that is where they went (among other places).

When the New Testament doesn't speak of something historically (such as whether Peter did or did not go to Rome, as it never explicitly states either way), are you generally willing to look at other histories? Or is the New Testament generally your only source of 1st century history?

I understand that you're not attacking anything, and that this is not a big deal to you. However, the "mountains of dogma build on the idea of Peter being in Rome" are not necessitated by Peter being in Rome. Many people acknowledge the historical fact that Peter was martyred in Rome, yet are staunchly opposed to those "mountains of dogma".

It reminds me of one of the reasons that people reject books like Macabbees: "Catholics use that book to justify purgatory, therefore that book must be rejected". Well, other people use that book who staunchly reject purgatory and see no problem with the book. Similarly, just because people turn one thing into something that it is not doesn't mean that that is the only conclusion that can be drawn. There is no reason why there need to be "mountains of dogma" built on Peter having been in Rome. One can acknowledge that Peter went to Rome and still reject future dogmatic innovations that are linked to him being there.

I'm not trying to argue with you (I promise). I just don't understand why people are so hesitant to acknowledge that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there. Acts and the rest of the New Testament weren't written in order to give an exhaustive account of everything that happened to the Apostles and the fledgling church, so we shouldn't expect to have every historical question answered in the pages of the New Testament.

Another thing that puzzles me (and this is not about you, Metal Minister, since you've not stated anything like this in this thread) is that people tend to be very gracious to secular and pagan historical sources about what happened in the earliest days of the church. But when it comes to christian historical accounts, many christians are very happy to almost completely ignore them and discount them, and give them next to no credibility whatsoever. They'll trust the pagans when it comes to first-hand historical accounts, but not the christians. Go figure.

Anywho, I don't mean to make a mountain out of a mole hill, so I'll cut myself off at that.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

My point is, that biblically we have no proof of Peter being in Rome. Nothing more, nothing less. I've seen mountains of dogma built on the idea of Peter being in Rome, without any scripture to back it. I'm not attacking anything, just pointing it out. I'm generally a fairly good student of history, and I find when I start with what my bible says, things tend to add up much more cohesively.

"Everything is possible for him who believes."

I agree that there is no Biblical proof of Peter being in Rome, or that he died there. While most (if not all) Lutherans believe that St. Peter was martyred in Rome, the acceptance of the location of his death and his martyrdom are not conditional for Salvation.

Confessional Lutherans, such as myself, hold Sola Scriptura; and employ a stricter standard of interpretation than is employed by reformed Protestantism; in that we exclude the use of "Human Reason" and "personal interpretation"; using only Scripture to interpret Scripture; and we look only to Scripture to give context to Scripture. In Scripture, God has given us everything that we need to know for Salvation, providing for us what He wants us to know; but not everything that we want to know.

Like knee-v and the Orthodox Church, we Lutherans also reject the Primacy and Authority of the Bishop of Rome over the whole of the Christian Church; but we do not reject traditions and teachings that have been handed down to us through time by the ECFs and other extra-Biblical sources; providing that such traditions neither conflict with Scripture nor are prohibited by Scripture. Such things we regard as Adiaphora, that is "things of indifference".

My Parish, St. Peter's Evangelical Lutheran Church, has the Icon of St. Peter below; In that Icon you will note, on the small scroll which he is holding, another Icon of St. Peter that has been traditionally used by the Church to represent him; two crossed keys, and an inverted Cross. The crossed keys, for us, do not represent the Papacy but teach Christ's response to Peter's Confession of faith; the authority given to the Church by Christ to Bind and loose (Biblical). The inverted Cross speaks of the (extra Biblical) tradition that St. Peter requested that he be crucified upside-down, as he felt that he was unworthy be be crucified as Christ was.

While such "traditions" are not found in Scripture and are not conditional on faith or salvation, they should, and do serve as an example of faithful Christian lives for us.

 

[ViaCrucis]

While I agree with you on not having a problem with Peter's role in the church, my question would be, first can we substantiate this biblically? I would start with Peter's mission to take the Gospel message to the circumcised (Jews). If that's the case, why would he go to Rome? Secondly I would point out that in all the letters Paul wrote to those in Rome, he never acknowledges Peter as being there. He greets a great many people but never once greets Peter. In fact, after Acts, Peter disappears from the bible entirely. Is it possible that Peter was in Rome, and died their...perhaps, but its not likely. Does it affect my faith either way? Not in the least.

"Everything is possible for him who believes."

There was a very large Jewish population in the capital city. As a point of fact the entire epistle to the Romans deals with the struggle between Jew and Gentile in the Church--Paul pointing out that in our sin we are the same, just as in Christ we are the same. That's perhaps the central theme to the Epistle to the Romans. Peter being in Rome, as an Apostle to the Circumcised, fits quite well with this, and with him being in Rome.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[abacabb]

1 Clement (earliest extrabiblical writing) has the earliest known quotation of 2 Peter, which otherwise did not spread as quickly as other early Christian letters, and Clement refers to it as Scripture. It doesn't prove, but is a strong indicator of a Roman origin of the letter and thereby, Roman matyrdom of Peter.

 

[branchofthevine]

I suppose 1 Peter 1:1 helps a little bit

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,


Sorry to cut it off in the middle of the sentence, but it seems Peter had at least traveled to these areas, I mean he could be writing to them, though never visited them, but I don't think that is the case. Also, these areas are in the modern day turkey.

 

[Albion]

My point is, that biblically we have no proof of Peter being in Rome. Nothing more, nothing less.

OK. That is correct. We have nothing FROM THE BIBLE that places him there. It is totally based upon ordinary history.

 

[pathfinder777]

OK. That is correct. We have nothing FROM THE BIBLE that places him there. It is totally based upon ordinary history.

Yep, that "ordinary history" thats behind the canon of the NT also.......
The same Traditions and traditions behind Peter being in Rome. If "ordinary history" is behind the NT canon does differentiating it from some other kind of history change anything regarding it subject matter ie ancient texts. This is bizarre don't you think? Are not ancient texts (regardless of their inspiration and uniqueness as Gods word) studied based on ordinary history. Their nature of being uniquely inspired is theological in nature not purely historical. Does not the Bible contain ordinary history as well as theological reflection and truth?

In Christ

 

[pathfinder777]

I agree that there is no Biblical proof of Peter being in Rome, or that he died there. While most (if not all) Lutherans believe that St. Peter was martyred in Rome, the acceptance of the location of his death and his martyrdom are not conditional for Salvation.

Confessional Lutherans, such as myself, hold Sola Scriptura; and employ a stricter standard of interpretation than is employed by reformed Protestantism; in that we exclude the use of "Human Reason" and "personal interpretation"; using only Scripture to interpret Scripture; and we look only to Scripture to give context to Scripture. In Scripture, God has given us everything that we need to know for Salvation, providing for us what He wants us to know; but not everything that we want to know.

Like knee-v and the Orthodox Church, we Lutherans also reject the Primacy and Authority of the Bishop of Rome over the whole of the Christian Church; but we do not reject traditions and teachings that have been handed down to us through time by the ECFs and other extra-Biblical sources; providing that such traditions neither conflict with Scripture nor are prohibited by Scripture. Such things we regard as Adiaphora, that is "things of indifference".

My Parish, St. Peter's Evangelical Lutheran Church, has the Icon of St. Peter below; In that Icon you will note, on the small scroll which he is holding, another Icon of St. Peter that has been traditionally used by the Church to represent him; two crossed keys, and an inverted Cross. The crossed keys, for us, do not represent the Papacy but teach Christ's response to Peter's Confession of faith; the authority given to the Church by Christ to Bind and loose (Biblical). The inverted Cross speaks of the (extra Biblical) tradition that St. Peter requested that he be crucified upside-down, as he felt that he was unworthy be be crucified as Christ was.

While such "traditions" are not found in Scripture and are not conditional on faith or salvation, they should, and do serve as an example of faithful Christian lives for us.

How do you exclude human reason and personal interpretation and use scripture to interpret scripture? logically aren't both required ?

In Christ

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

How do you exclude human reason and personal interpretation and use scripture to interpret scripture? logically aren't both required ?

In Christ

If one includes logic, which is part of human reason.

I believe that "officially" the Catholic Church uses the same interpretive standards as we Lutherans do, but also give equal weight to tradition.

When we use Scripture to interpret Scripture we may read something, for example the Prophesies of Isiah regarding the Messiah. From reading these alone we get realize that something great was foretold, yet without the Gospel, we can not fathom exactly what is being foretold, likewise we would not be able to see the Gospel in the OT without the new. Looking at it another way, we can read the Gospels alone, but without the OT prophesies, we may (as many do) see only an amazing set of circumstances and may miss the fulfilment of God's plan.

Human reason get's us into trouble. Zwingli reasoned that Christ's physical body can not be in two places at once (because our physical bodies can't either), therefore since Christ and His body are in heaven, then reason leads us to understand the His body and blood can not be present on the Altar during the Mass; even though Christ's words tell us over and over that it is indeed. Further on this topic of logic, St. Thomas Aquinas solidified the Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation through embracing the pagan logic of Aristotelian metaphysics, when Scripture clearly mentions that both bread and wine and Christ's body and blood are present at the same time; both we Lutherans and the Eastern Orthodox consider this "sacramental union" to be a Divine Mystery, and, in light of Scripture see no further explanation offered, nor is one needed.

If one can not understand something in the Bible, similar circumstances, issues, concerns can be found elsewhere in Scripture, and be reading and studying all of these similar things, Scripture interprets Scripture, and Scripture gives context to Scripture.

Many denominations today use an historical critical methodology to interpret Scripture today, which is how they can justify female and gay ordination; same sex marriages, abortion, extreme ecumenism (syncrytism, universalism, and Unitarianism); they reason that that was then this is now.


1 Corinthians 1:17-25 (New King James Version)

New King James Version (NKJV)

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
Christ the Power and Wisdom of God

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.


When we employ personal interpretation or logic, we are putting our wisdom before God's.

 

[pathfinder777]

If one includes logic, which is part of human reason.

I believe that "officially" the Catholic Church uses the same interpretive standards as we Lutherans do, but also give equal weight to tradition.

When we use Scripture to interpret Scripture we may read something, for example the Prophesies of Isiah regarding the Messiah. From reading these alone we get realize that something great was foretold, yet without the Gospel, we can not fathom exactly what is being foretold, likewise we would not be able to see the Gospel in the OT without the new. Looking at it another way, we can read the Gospels alone, but without the OT prophesies, we may (as many do) see only an amazing set of circumstances and may miss the fulfilment of God's plan.

Human reason get's us into trouble. Zwingli reasoned that Christ's physical body can not be in two places at once (because our physical bodies can't either), therefore since Christ and His body are in heaven, then reason leads us to understand the His body and blood can not be present on the Altar during the Mass; even though Christ's words tell us over and over that it is indeed. Further on this topic of logic, St. Thomas Aquinas solidified the Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation through embracing the pagan logic of Aristotelian metaphysics, when Scripture clearly mentions that both bread and wine and Christ's body and blood are present at the same time; both we Lutherans and the Eastern Orthodox consider this "sacramental union" to be a Divine Mystery, and, in light of Scripture see no further explanation offered, nor is one needed.

If one can not understand something in the Bible, similar circumstances, issues, concerns can be found elsewhere in Scripture, and be reading and studying all of these similar things, Scripture interprets Scripture, and Scripture gives context to Scripture.

Many denominations today use an historical critical methodology to interpret Scripture today, which is how they can justify female and gay ordination; same sex marriages, abortion, extreme ecumenism (syncrytism, universalism, and Unitarianism); they reason that that was then this is now.


1 Corinthians 1:17-25 (New King James Version)

New King James Version (NKJV)

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
Christ the Power and Wisdom of God

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.


When we employ personal interpretation or logic, we are putting our wisdom before God's.

I agree logic is limited in regards to the mysteries of our faith (it can only take us so far, the same can be said of the resurrection and using history to try and "prove" it) both history and logic only goes so far, however logic and human reason are absolutely necessary when interpreting passages of Scripture in relation to most of its contents. Philosophy as you know has always been utilized not just with Transubstantiation but with the other major doctrines as well including the Trinity and dual nature of Christ. As far as the historical critical method goes it is a valuable tool used by both Lutheran and Catholic scholars and like any other can be abused (ie 19th century Protestant Scholars (modernists)) which was part of the reason the Catholic scholars were johnny come lately in utilizing it. The magisterium was skeptical of its abuse potential. God blessed us with logic, philosophy etc. Just as Jesus was fully human and fully divine, Scriptures are both the product of man and God therefore why would we not use human reason and logic to interpret them..I don't think the perspicuity of Scripture idea stands up to history as evidenced by the development of doctrine that took centuries to be worked out by the early Church and in fact think most doctrines go beyond the Scriptures to some extent, even the Trinity. If Scripture interprets Scripture (I agree in a more limited sense) how does one explain the time period it took for the early Church to articulate its doctrines regarding the Trinity and Dual nature of Christ?

In Christ

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<snip> If Scripture interprets Scripture (I agree in a more limited sense) how does one explain the time period it took for the early Church to articulate its doctrines regarding the Trinity and Dual nature of Christ?

In Christ

Thanks pathfinder for your reply. I think, and I'm no scholar, that there were two main reasons why these doctrines were not articulated until later. First, Scripture was not standardized into the Bible as we know it for the first few hundred years of the Church; some Churches had some, some more, some less books. The second reason, and maybe the biggest reason was that until certain heresies appeared, there was no need for the Church to articulate these doctrines, in that they may have been taken as wrote.

For over a millennium, the 5th commandment was enough; today, we need to be more articulate than just the words of Scripture when we counter those who have promoted, legalized and perform abortions. This is about as far as historic critical standards should go; to defend God's word and to endeavour to do His will only. God's word does not change, but the challenges that the Church faces do!