Featured The Apostle Peter's Jerusalem tomb.

Indeed. And St. Paul affirms St. Peter's testimony that Mark was indeed with St. Peter in Rome. When St. Paul was in Rome under custodia militaris, one of the captivity epistles he wrote was to the faithful at Colossae. Writing from Rome to the Colossians, St. Paul sends them the kind wishes of Mark, thus indicating Mark's presence in Rome with him. (Cf. Col 4:10)

 

No, you made this assertion:

"There is no evidence that Peter ever traveled to Rome (Paul's comments indicate Peter probably did not)."

See below link.

I then proceeded to provide a list of historical accounts, beginning in the first century up until the third, testifying to and affirming that Peter was in fact in Rome.

What I'm asking for is proof of your assertion in light of the evidence I provided. For example, can you provide one early father offering a rebuttal to the historical claims of the early fathers / historians I provided? One source which states the Christian history of Rome is actually wrong?

If you can't, then your original assertion was entirely baseless and fallacious.

Sure thing. See below where you quote the Apostle:

"And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man's foundation, but as it is written,

'Those who have never been told of him will see,
and those who have never heard will understand.'

This is the reason why I have so often been hindered from coming to you."

Bingo! St. Paul acknowledges there had been a person who had already built a foundation in Rome; a person who spread the faith in a city whose faith would be proclaimed through all the world. St. Paul is writing to these Roman people previously evangelized by someone other than himself, as he had not yet visited but had hoped to do so on his way to Spain.

History tells us this person was St. Peter, the protos.

 

No, as once again I am simply asking you to support your assertion, which you made here ↓

I provided primary sources to refute your assertion. You have not offered ONE piece of evidence supporting your assertion. It appears you were simply talking out of your hat.

Again, St. Paul is writing to the Roman Church, whom he had not yet even visited, yet had already been evangelized and whose faith was heralded throughout the world. He says the person who evangelized them had already laid the foundation. St. Paul says the foundation of the Church can only be laid by an Apostle. (cf. Eph 2:20)

Christian history records for us which Apostle it was who brought the faith to the Romans: St. Peter, the protos. It is for this reason the early Church celebrates the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul on the same day. For example, the Depositio Martyrum records that in the year 258 A.D., the faithful would come to Rome on pilgrimage to celebrate the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul on June 29th.

I'm surprised you expected to be able to post an assertion and not be challenged on it. Furthermore, I'm even more surprised that when you did get challenged on supporting your assertion, you equate it with "trolling."

 

Could you please provide us with the evidence that Peter was killed and buried in Rome?

Eliyahu

 

Where is the evidence that Babylon means Rome?
Are you admitting that Church of Rome is Babylon the Harlot?

Revelation 17

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

The Mother of Harlot can manipulate the Bible in many ways, right?


Eliyahu

 

St. Peter's tomb is located beneath St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, where the remains of the first pope reside even to today.

 

There has been a Basilica of Saint Peter commemorating his martyrdom and burial from the 4th century. That’s more than a thousand years before Protestantism. 1700 years of continuous witness.
Even the testimonies of heads of many ancient churches still stand witness.

Denial of all this is just irrational rage against the obvious. Many renowned scholars in Protestantism accept Peter’s being in Rome and martyrdom there.

There are some today who can not accept the intellectual consequences of Peter being in Rome, it raises further questions they don’t want to face.

 

You NAILED it!!!!