Why did Peter vanish?

[Hank77]

Actually, I stand corrected because I consulted Wikipedia, and discovered that there was a region called Babylon right through to 650 A.D. So here is a quote from Wikipedia under the heading Renewed Persian Rule:
"Christianity was introduced to Mesopotamia in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, and Babylon was the seat of a Bishop of the Church of the East until well after the Arab/Islamic conquest." So I can happily accept that Peter may have visited that region and referred to it in his letter.

How about that. I like studying with someone who will take the time to dig in. Thanks.
God Bless

 

[Open Heart]

Yes, Catholic tradition is the only source we have of Peter after the epistle I Peter.
Maybe I'm making too much of it but out of all Yeshua's apostles, Peter was given the task of feeding Yeshua's sheep. I would have expected to find a lot more written word from him.

I don't want to make a big deal about this. I don't consider it an issue that is important to MJ's. But FWIW regarding your assessment of my post, I actually gave you THREE sources: one Catholic (Eusebius), one Roman (the Chrestus document) and one Biblical (where Babylon equals Rome). That hardly can be summed up as Catholic tradition being the only source. If you don't want to believe that Peter was the bishop of Antioch and Rome, more power to you--it really doesn't bother me. But please don't misrepresent my posts.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't want to make a big deal about this. I don't consider it an issue that is important to MJ's. But FWIW regarding your assessment of my post, I actually gave you THREE sources: one Catholic (Eusebius), one Roman (the Chrestus document) and one Biblical (where Babylon equals Rome). That hardly can be summed up as Catholic tradition being the only source. If you don't want to believe that Peter was the bishop of Antioch and Rome, more power to you--it really doesn't bother me. But please don't misrepresent my posts.

A search of the Vatican archives might unearth some interesting literature. Much of traditional literature is just as reliable as most histories. There may be documents in Greek and Latin still untranslated way back in dark corners, in the same way that archived files from World War II have been so buried in the Russian, American and British archives are still being discovered. Although I wouldn't equate tradition with Holy Scripture (apologies to any Catholic person who does), I believe most of it has a basis of truth and goes a fair way to fill in the gaps about what happened to Peter, Paul and the other Apostles.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

To add: Wouldn't be very interesting if someone venturing into a dusty corner of the Vatican where there were old Roman records and found a previously undiscovered transcript of Jesus' trial before Pontius Pilate? That would put the cat among the pigeons!

 

[BukiRob]

We know that Peter was living at Joppa 10 years after the Day of Pentecost (that would put it around 44 A.D). Also, Peter was with Paul in Galatia, where Paul corrected him over his attitude to Gentiles in the presence of Jewish visitors. (my reckoning it was after 50 A.D.) It was also around that time that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to sort things out, and it was James who was the leader at that stage. That would have been more than 10 years after Pentecost, because it would have been some years since Paul's conversion. The death of James would have to have been after 50 A.D. and before 70 A.D. because Pentecost was around 34 A.D. and Paul's conversion would have to have been at least a couple of years after that, and then he spent 14 years in Arabia before he was brought to Antioch, and we don't know how long they were there until Paul and Barnabas were sent out on the first missionary journey. Then we don't know how long it was until Paul had the problem with the Galatian churches that prompted his visit to Jerusalem to confer with James and the other Apostles. Peter is not mentioned at that visit. Paul was in Ephesus 20 years after Pentecost (around 64 A.D.). So it appears that Peter was travelling outside of Jerusalem, and it is quite easy to believe that he went to Rome at some stage.

Peter is at the Acts 15 debate regarding what to do with the Gentiles. Peter is a co-leader of the leadership and in Acts 21;18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. This STRONGLY suggests that Peter is there since there is no mention that a new elder had been appointed by leadership. This is right before Paul's arrest. This happened around 57 AD. This is only ~13 years before the temple is destroyed and we know that the church leadership left Jerusalem and fled to Asia Minor shortly (~2 years) before the temple was destroyed.

I see nothing to persuasively argue that Peter was ever in Rome.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

I don't want to make a big deal about this. I don't consider it an issue that is important to MJ's. But FWIW regarding your assessment of my post, I actually gave you THREE sources: one Catholic (Eusebius), one Roman (the Chrestus document) and one Biblical (where Babylon equals Rome). That hardly can be summed up as Catholic tradition being the only source. If you don't want to believe that Peter was the bishop of Antioch and Rome, more power to you--it really doesn't bother me. But please don't misrepresent my posts.

Well, all of your sources are certainly tradition. And there is *absolutely* no scripture that says Babylon equals Rome. Nobody is misrepresenting you.
Btw.... where were your links to your "sources?"

 

[Open Heart]

Well, all of your sources are certainly tradition. And there is *absolutely* no scripture that says Babylon equals Rome. Nobody is misrepresenting you.

Not so. In Revelation, Babylon is clearly Rome.

You misrepresented me by stating all my sources were Catholic when clearly only one out of three were.

But enough. Let's on to other discussions.

 

[visionary]

Peter is at the Acts 15 debate regarding what to do with the Gentiles. Peter is a co-leader of the leadership and in Acts 21;18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. This STRONGLY suggests that Peter is there since there is no mention that a new elder had been appointed by leadership. This is right before Paul's arrest. This happened around 57 AD. This is only ~13 years before the temple is destroyed and we know that the church leadership left Jerusalem and fled to Asia Minor shortly (~2 years) before the temple was destroyed.

I see nothing to persuasively argue that Peter was ever in Rome.

James the Just, brother of Yeshua, was the leader of the congregation of Jerusalem.