What is the evidence of Peter in Rome

[Tu Es Petrus]

That is the RCC's and some others view, not mine and some others view

Its a matter of context. In 1 Pet 5 it would be impossible for Peter to be actually talking about THEE Babylon.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Its a matter of context. In 1 Pet 5 it would be impossible for Peter to be actually talking about THEE Babylon.

With God, nothing is Impossible

Isaiah 21:9 And behold this! cometh a chariot of man, pair of horsemen. And he is responding and is saying, "she fell, she fell, Babylon and all of graven-images of her gods/elohiym he broke to land".

Reve 14:8 And another messenger, second-one, follows saying she falls, she falls, Babylon the Great, the out of the wine of the fury of the fornication of her she has given to drink all the nations.

 

[Thekla]

Come on; in order to "support" this you need to attack Christianity? Really? It reminds me of the "proof" sometimes offered for some UNIQUE RCC dogma that "well, it's gotta be dogmatic fact because you can't prove the dogma of the Trinity is true! So there!" Come on, my friend...

how is my statement an attack on Christianity

The RCC makes this claim as a foundation to all the remarkable, self-serving, accountability-evading claims of itself for itself. Alone. When I claim that God's Scriptures are reliable, I'm making NO CLAIMS for myself. Nor am I making an exclusive claim within Christianity.

The OP is about evidence that Peter was in Rome ... if you accept the NT, and accept that Babylon in Peter's epistle means Rome, and accept that the Peter who authored the epistle is the apostle, then it should be a closed issue.

Now, let's return to the issue before us: What EVIDENCE is there that Peter was in Rome and that thus the remarkable claims of the RCC alone for itself alone are historically proven?

What does that have to do with the OP ?????



.[/quote]

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Its a matter of context. In 1 Pet 5 it would be impossible for Peter to be actually talking about THEE Babylon.

With God, nothing is Impossible....

Thats not an answer. As I said, there is no way that Peter was in the actual Babylon.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Only the most extremist Fundies don't believe that Peter was in Rome. All reputable theologians, regardless of whether they are protestant, Catholic, or EO, know that Peter was in Rome.

The people who keep repeatedy asking for more "evidence" are the people who will never accept any evidence

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Only the most extremist Fundies don't believe that Peter was in Rome. All reputable theologians, regardless of whether they are protestant, Catholic, or EO, know that Peter was in Rome.

The people who keep repeatedy asking for more "evidence" are the people who will never accept any evidence

Then consider me an extremist fundy and a cynical unreputable theologian

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Then consider me an extremist fundy and a cynical unreputable theologian

okay

 

[Trento]

Thanks, my friend, for so obviously making the point. The "evidence" is laughably weak and does NOTHING to support ANYTHING the RCC alone says about itself alone. No one could have made this more obvious than you have done.




Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah

You obviosly have not read Roman History because both Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III
speak of "the primacy of the Apostolic See of Rome, made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops.

Even Protestant Historian Schoff agrees with the historical Fact.
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Eerdmans, 1910
"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)




Schaff then proceeds to list the Bishops of Rome , along with the corresponding Roman Emperors. St. Irenaeus gives this exact list of successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome up to his time (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3 c. 180-199 AD), as does St. Hegesippus up to his time (about 20 years earlier, c. 160 AD) cited in the first History of the Church by Eusebius

• St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
• St. Linus (67-76)
• St. Anacletus (76-88)
• St. Clement I (88-97)
• St. Evaristus (97-105)
• St. Alexander I (105-115)
• St. Sixtus I (115-125)
• St. Telesphorus (125-136)
• St. Hyginus (136-140)
• St. Pius I (140-155)
• St. Anicetus (155-166)
• St. Soter (166-175)
• St. Eleutherius (175-189)
• St. Victor I (189-199)

Now if our critic would care to produce ONE ancient quote that DENIES that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, then perhaps he has an argument. Yet, until such time, the ancient witness stands firm and consistent.

History of the Christian Church
CHAPTER IV:

ORGANIZATION AND DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. SchoffHISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*

 

[visionary]

About 34AD ( Acts 2:41), we have an early mention of Peter. Some days later, in Acts 5:19, Peter is freed from prison by an angel. He spends four years in Jerusalem (Acts 8:25). St. Paul arrived at the beginning of Peter's fourth year (Acts 9:27-28). In the same year Peter (Acts 9:32) went to Joppe, raised Tabitha, and had the linen vision (Acts 10:11-12). After a few days he went to Caesarea (to visit Cornelius - Acts 10:23). He returned to Jerusalem (Acts 11:18) for a short time. Then he went to Antioch in Syria (as did Barnabas).

Question... it is understood my catholics that Peter was in Rome when Paul wrote Romans.. yet Paul never greeted Peter in his epistle

 

[visionary]

Peter wrote his second Epistle, in which he foretells his own death (1:14) 68-69AD, Peter and Paul were sentenced to death.... and yet it is understood that when he wrote this epistle it was from Rome... yet again no mention of Rome or hint that is where he is writing this... why? especially since the catholics understand the Peter is a pontificate in Rome during this time. Read his epistle.... this is suppose to be a pontification from Rome from Peter.. Does it read like one... No I say.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Well from what I understand is that there is no evidence that Peter ever made it to Rome.

seems you haven't read much christian history then... most of the people who deny that peter died in Rome usually do so because of theological reasons, not the testomony of the early christians..

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

seems you haven't read much christian history then... most of the people who deny that peter died in Rome usually do so because of theological reasons, not the testomony of the early christians..

You mean the ECFs?

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

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Notes:


1. These cherrypicked quotes are AMAZINGLY late, all from people who could have no knowledge of whether Peter was or was not in Rome. Let's say a snippet is found from the year 2141 that for the first time claimed that President Obama was actually born in Nigeria and thus an unqualified president, written by a woman in New Zealand who had never been to the USA or Nigeria and wasn't even born when Obama died, would you say: "PROOF! SOLID HISTORY! OBAMA WAS AN ILLEGET PRESIDENT!!!!" I doubt it. Somehow, you are embracing a radical double standard, TRYING to support a claim with means you'd NEVER accept otherwise.


2. These are indicating that Peter and Paul were IN Rome, preaching. Even IF such is true, it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with supporting ANY self-serving self-claim of the RCC alone for itself alone. Just because one is IN a city doesn't mean anything about Jesus founding a denomination or that denomination being infallible or that when that denomination speaks, Jesus speaks. After all, Peter was in LOTS of cities - that we KNOW about - and none of those congregations make any claims at all, and we know Peter was there.



Thanks, my friend, for so obviously making the point. The "evidence" is laughably weak and does NOTHING to support ANYTHING the RCC alone says about itself alone. No one could have made this more obvious than you have done.




Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah




.

they are not late at all. 100AD-200AD dosen't really seem too late. And during those times the general christian community talked about what was happening, the early fathers would have picked up on this.

Is there any early christian that you can find that denied Peter ever died in Rome? If you can find one that would at least provide some evidence for your claim.

Secondly with that attitude ALL written history is not valid to you. Considering most history is written around 100-200 years after the event(with the exception of the Gospels, but that is different).

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

seems you haven't read much christian history then... most of the people who deny that peter died in Rome usually do so because of theological reasons, not the testomony of the early christians..

You are correct.

Heck, if we had PHOTOGRAPHS of Peter in Rome they would just say they're phony.

If Jesus came down right now and said Peter was in Rome, they'd say, "That wasn't Jesus. That was just a demon disguised as Jesus."

You can't win with people who are in denial

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You are correct.

Heck, if we had PHOTOGRAPHS of Peter in Rome they would just say they're phony.

If Jesus came down right now and said Peter was in Rome, they'd say, "That wasn't Jesus. That was just a demon disguised as Jesus."

You can't win with people who are in denial

Guess we will just have to wait on Reve 19:11 for that

James 5:8 be ye patient! also stand-fast the hearts of ye, that the Parousia <3952> of the Lord has-neared/hggiken <1448>

Reve 19:11 And I saw the heaven open up and behold! a horse white and the One sitting on him *called faithful* and true and in righteousness is judging and is battling.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

they are not late at all. 100AD-200AD dosen't really seem too late.

Understood. So, if a person says in the year 2141 that Obama was born in Nigeria, that would be strong evidence that such is true to you. I understand your position. Are you consistent in that position, or just in this one situation?

Is there any early christian that you can find that denied Peter ever died in Rome?

Can you find a quote from 1975 that states that Obama was not born in Nigeria?

If you can find one that would at least provide some evidence for your claim.

What claim?

This thread is about what evidence is there that Peter was in Rome (as if such has anything to do with anything). The "evidence" presented is AMAZINGLY weak and late - of a nature generally not accepted at all.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Heck, if we had PHOTOGRAPHS of Peter in Rome they would just say they're phony.

There was no photography in 65 AD, so yes.


.

 

[Thekla]

Understood. So, if a person says in the year 2141 that Obama was born in Nigeria, that would be strong evidence that such is true to you. I understand your position. Are you consistent in that position, or just in this one situation?

It seems he holds a like position re: the NT

 

[Yarddog]

Notes:




2. These are indicating that Peter and Paul were IN Rome, preaching. Even IF such is true, it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with supporting ANY self-serving self-claim of the RCC alone for itself alone. Just because one is IN a city doesn't mean anything about Jesus founding a denomination or that denomination being infallible or that when that denomination speaks, Jesus speaks. After all, Peter was in LOTS of cities - that we KNOW about - and none of those congregations make any claims at all, and we know Peter was there.

- Josiah

.

Hello Josiah,

You are someone that has given us much information from the ECF's. You know that there is much debate that can be used to dispute the RCC's claims on certain matters but can you give us some ECF's that dispute that Peter went to Rome at some point before his death?

Both the Eastern and Western Churches agree that Peter went to Rome, though there is dispute on many other items.

Yarddog

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Both the Eastern and Western Churches agree that Peter went to Rome, though there is dispute on many other items.

Yarddog

So?