What is the evidence of Peter in Rome

[Deut 5:29]

On another thread there was a poll on Peter being in Rome.
What I would like is all the evidence to be brought forth on this thread that proves Peter was in Rome. Guess that is it....Thanks

...........None.........

 

[Rick Otto]

.

After his death, we have a report that he was there.
It's unconfirmed. Non-contemporary.

Even if true, it means NOTHING vis-a-vis any claim of the RCC itself for it itself.
IF Peter was in Rome, it just means he was in Rome.
My sister was, too.
(She liked it)

.

Then she has primacy over you.

 

[brinny]

On another thread there was a poll on Peter being in Rome.
What I would like is all the evidence to be brought forth on this thread that proves Peter was in Rome. Guess that is it....Thanks

i honestly don't know. Was he?

 

[MrPolo]

i honestly don't know. Was he?

The historical record is unanimous he was there. There's even Scriptural evidence if one recognizes all uses of the term "Babylon" in antiquity.

 

[brinny]

The historical record is unanimous he was there. There's even Scriptural evidence if one recognizes all uses of the term "Babylon" in antiquity.

Thank you. I see I have some research to do.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Since this post on another thread is also on the topic of this thread, I thought I would post it here for more discussion......

There are other Epistles, like the First Epistle of Peter, in which Peter says "I write you this briefly through Silvanus...The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son." Silvanus and Mark were companions of Paul, who was already in Rome as is indicated by the mention of Silvanus and by the mention of "the chosen one", which, like "Babylon", is symbolic: "The chosen one" means the Church and "Babylon" means Rome.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

Interesting post and thanks!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by MrPolo The historical record is unanimous he was there. There's even Scriptural evidence if one recognizes all uses of the term "Babylon" in antiquity.

Thank you. I see I have some research to do.

You might glean some good info on this poll thread concerning Peter in Rome

http://www.christianforums.com/t2760314/
Protestant Poll: Peter in Rome?

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.

 

[razeontherock]

The historical record is unanimous he was there. There's even Scriptural evidence if one recognizes all uses of the term "Babylon" in antiquity.

So then why do RC's object to being called the WoB?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So then why do RC's object to being called the WoB?

Wouldn't your church do the same thing

http://www.christianforums.com/t7333145-10/#post50259815
RCC and harlot of Babylon...Why?