Peter in Rome?

Carl Urie · Mar 29, 2005

According to the Catholic Church Peter went to Rome in A.D. 44 and remained there for 25 years.

Act 12:17 But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place.

This took place just before the death of Herod. According to Josephus Herod died in A.D 45. Peter was not in Rome.

Gal 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

This was in 54 A.D. Peter was not in Rome then.

1Co 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

This was written in A.D. 57. Peter was traveling with his wife. He was not staying in one place. He was not in Rome

1Pe 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
Peter was in Babylon when he wrote I Peter. Neither he nor Mark were in Rome. Rome was never referred to as Babylon until much later.

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

No mention of Rome.

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Peter went to the Jews, Paul went to the Gentiles.

Rom 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

Paul calls the Roman Church a Gentile Church. The church in Rome then was not started by Peter.

Rom 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

From this statement by Paul, if Peter had been in Rome, Paul would not have gone there. Paul was in Rome right up to his death. He never mentions Peter being there. In 2nd Timothy which was written just before his death he says that only Luke was with him.

Conclusion. Peter was never in Rome.

Here is a site that suggests Peter was buried in Jerusalem.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

Ps104_33 · Mar 29, 2005

This has the potential to be a very interesting discussion. But I agree with everything you have written. If you are waiting for a knowledgable Roman Catholic to give you their side of this issue forget it. They have been banned or have left out of protest.

tamborine lady · Mar 30, 2005

I agree that Peter was not in Rome for 25 years.

Peter was not even appointed by Jesus as the head of the church, but thats probably another story!

Peace,

Tam

Melanie · Mar 30, 2005

What a novel concept Tamborine Lady, please elucidate you argument that Peter was not appointed as head of the church?

csmith · Mar 30, 2005

Christ is the chief cornerstone of the church, not Peter. You can't take Mt. 16:18 and declare that Peter is the head of the church. Show me in the Bible where Christ ever relinquished his position as head of the church.

Melanie · Mar 30, 2005

That is not being argued here CSmith. Jesus appointed Peter the head of the church on Earth in a physical sense and thus the Pontifex of the Church after His ascension into heaven.

I am very interested in this concept.

csmith · Mar 30, 2005

Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:
That is not being argued here CSmith. Jesus appointed Peter the head of the church on Earth in a physical sense and thus the Pontifex of the Church after His ascension into heaven.

I am very interested in this concept.
Click to expand...

Yes, this IS the issue being argued here. Christ in NO way transferred his authority whether it be in a physical sense or otherwise.

You seem so confident in your position. Show the Scriptures.

BobRyan · Mar 30, 2005

Carl

1Pe 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

Peter was in Babylon when he wrote I Peter. Neither he nor Mark were in Rome. Rome was never referred to as Babylon until much later.
Click to expand...

This is where your proofs fall apart. "Babylon" is the symbol for Rome among Christians in the first century as can be seen in Rev 17 - the city of seven hills.

The reference to "Babylon" in 1Pet 5 is likely to be Rome according to A. W. Fortune in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi

And apparently this was the dominant view of historians and Bible scholars until Calvin changed his mind on that view in order to more fully reject the claims of the Pope of Rome.

But it does no good to "deny all historic fact" related to Peter ever going to Rome at all -- simply because the Pope of Rome is in error.

In 1 Peter:
In 1 Peter 5:13 Babylon is designated as the place from which 1Pe was written. Down to the time of the Reformation this was generally under stood to mean Rome, and two cursives added "en Roma." Since the Reformation, many scholars have followed Erasmus and Calvin and have urged that the Mesopotamian Babylon is meant. Three theories should be noted:

(1) That the Egyptian Babylon, or Old Cairo; is meant. Strabo (XVII, 807) who wrote as late as 18 AD, says the Egyptian Babylon was a strong fortress founded by certain refugees from the Mesop Babylon. But during the 1st century this was not much more than a military station, and it is quite improbable that Peter would have gone there. There is no tradition that connects Peter' in any way with Egypt.

(2) That the statement is to be taken literally and that the Mesop Babylon is meant. Many good scholars hold to this view, and among these are Weiss and Thayer, but there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Babylon, or that there was even a church there during the 1st century.

Mark and Silvanus are associated with Peter in the letter and there is no tradition that connects either of them with Babylon. According to Josephus (Antiquities, XVIII, ix, 5-9), the Jews at this time had largely been driven out of Babylon and were confined to neighboring towns, and it seems improbable that Peter would have made that his missionary field.

(3) That Rome was the city that was designated as Babylon.
The Apocalypse would indicate that the churches would understand the symbolic reference, and it seems to have been so understood until the time of the Reformation. The denial of this position was in line with the effort to refute Peter's supposed connection with the Roman church. Ancient tradition, however, makes it seem quite probable that Peter did make a visit to Rome (see Lightfoot, Clement, II, 493).

Internal evidence helps to substantiate theory that Rome was the place from which the letter was written. Mark sends greetings (1 Peter 5:13), and we know he had been summoned to Rome by the apostle Paul (2 Timothy 4:11).
The whole passage, "She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you," seems to be figurative, and that being true, it is natural that Babylon should have been used instead of Rome. The character of the letter as a whole would point to Rome as the place of writing. Ramsay thinks this book is impregnated with Roman thought beyond any other book in the Bible (see The Church in the Roman Empire, 286).

A. W. Fortune

http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T1074
Click to expand...

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Mar 30, 2005

Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:
That is not being argued here CSmith. Jesus appointed Peter the head of the church on Earth in a physical sense and thus the Pontifex of the Church after His ascension into heaven.

I am very interested in this concept.
Click to expand...

Actually - Christ declared that the Holy Spirit was His "successor on Earth" (John 14:

16 ""I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
18 ""I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
Click to expand...

And the NT makes it clear that "NTHER foundation" (Petra) can be laid - other than Christ 1Cor 3.

In 1Cor 10 we find that Christ "IS the Petra" the Bedrock of the Church.

This is true whether Peter had visited Rome at the time of the writing of 1Peter 5 or not.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Mar 30, 2005

IN Pagan Rome they had Pontiff's and supreme Pontifex -- but this is never something you see the first century NT authors claiming for themselves in regard to the Church.

In Christ,

Bob

John3v36 · Mar 30, 2005

Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians made reference to Peter Martyrdom but never said where.

In”The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans” Ignatius “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles” Never states that they where in Rome. But, only that he did not have the same authority.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), talked of Peter 3 time but never said he was in Rome.

Not till the 3rd century do you see that people start to say that peter was in Rome.
This would be like we now know that Gorge Washington was born in Texas because we have a letter that Mr. Soandso with PHD in 1999 said so.

this would fall into the area of an Urban legends

Peter was in Babylon 3 years
before his death.
I PETER 5:13

John3v36 · Mar 30, 2005

Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians made reference to Peter Martyrdom but never said where.

In”The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans” Ignatius “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles” Never states that they where in Rome. But, only that he did not have the same authority.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), talked of Peter 3 time but never said he was in Rome.

Not till the 3rd century do you see that people start to say that peter was in Rome.
This would be like we now know that Gorge Washington was born in Texas because we have a letter that Mr. Soandso with PHD in 1999 said so.

this would fall into the area of an Urban legends

Peter was in Babylon 3 years
before his death.
I PETER 5:13

Living4Him · Mar 30, 2005

Holy Scripture does not deny that Peter was ever in Rome either, does it?

Is Holy Scripture supposed to be "all encompassing", and the sole source for all historical facts?
Does it say that it is? Did you ever read John 21:25?
However, surprisingly, Holy Scripture does, in fact, say that Peter was in Rome...
Peter wrote,
"The Church which is at Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does my son Mark." 1Pet 5:13.
Where is this Babylon? By the time the New Testament was written, the city of Babylon, in what is now Iraq, was of almost no importance. Its days of glory were long past in the Old Testament.
Christians were under constant persecution by both the Jews and the Romans from the very beginning and had to practice the faith underground in the homes of believers, and in the catacombs of Rome. In order to recognize one another as fellow Christians, they used code words and symbols. The fish symbol (icthos) was used for recognition, and Babylon was the code word for Rome.
If Peter had said he was writing from Rome, then no doubt, the Romans would have begun an intensive search for him.

Holy Scripture tells us that the Roman Emperor Claudius (41-54) ordered all Jews to leave Rome (Acts 18:2). Peter was a Jew, but the Church was an underground Church in hiding at the time.
Well that charge to leave Rome, even implies that Peter could have been in Rome doesn't it?
Eusebius wrote in "The Chronicle" (Ad An Dom 42), that Peter, after establishing the Church in Antioch, went to Rome where he remained as Bishop of Rome for 25 years. We know from other early writings that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome in 67 A.D.. That date, minus 25 years would put him in Rome in the year 42, during the reign of Claudius. Again, this charge can be dismissed for the same reasons given already, that the Church was forced to practice the faith in an underground situation in order to avoid persecution. The Romans had a policy of hunting down and persecuting all of the Apostles.

Here are more genuine historical writings attesting to the fact that Peter was indeed in Rome, and that he died there...

St Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", 3,1,1, 180 A.D., J208
"...in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."
St Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", chapter III,
"...the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops."

Eusebius, "History of the Church", 2,14,6, 300 A.D., J651dd
In the same reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious providence which watches over all things guided Peter, the great and mighty one among the Apostles, who, because of his virtue, was the spokesman for all the others, to Rome."

Tertullian, "The demurrer against the heretics", chapter XXXII,1,
"...like the church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter."

Who has the authority to ordain priests? Only Bishops do. Clement was ordained by the Bishop of Rome, Peter.

Saint Peter of Alexandria, "The Canonical Letter", canon 9, 306 A.D.
"Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome."

Eusebius, "The Chronicle" Ad An.Dom 68, J651cc
"Nero is the first, in addition to all his other crimes, to make a persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously in Rome."

Eusebius, "History of the Church", 3,2, 300 A.D., J652a
"After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first appointed to the Episcopacy of the Church at Rome."

Lactantius, "Of the manner in which the persecutors died":
This letter is addressed to Donatus. It not only shows that Peter was actually in Rome, but that he died there also at the hands of Nero. Chapter II. "His apostles were at that time eleven in number, to whom were added Matthias, in the room of the traitor Judas, and afterwards Paul. Then were they dispersed throughout all the earth to preach the Gospel, as the Lord their Master had commanded them; and during twenty-five years, and until the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Nero, they occupied themselves in laying the foundations of the Church in every province and city. And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the true religion, built up a faithful and steadfast temple unto the Lord. When Nero heard of those things, and observed that not only in Rome, but in every other place, a great multitude revolted daily from the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, went over to the new religion, he, an execrable and pernicious tyrant, sprung forward to raze the heavenly temple and destroy the true faith. He it was who first persecuted the servants of God; he crucified Peter, and slew Paul: nor did he escape with impunity; for God looked on the affliction of His people; and therefore the tyrant, bereaved of authority, and precipitated from the height of empire, suddenly disappeared, and even the burial-place of that noxious wild beast was nowhere to be seen."

Saint Damasus I, "The Decree of Damasus" 3, 382 A.D., J910u
"The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it."

Saint Augustine, "Letter to Generosus", 53,1,2, 400 A.D., J1418
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it."

Peter's tomb has been found. It was found under the altar of St. Peters Basilica in Rome in 1965. The tomb is plainly marked with his name and there are human remains within it. Anyone who visits St. Peters can see the tomb for himself

Other early writings which show that Peter was indeed in Rome...

Dionysius of Corinth in his letter to the 12th Pope Soter in 170 A.D.
Clement of Corinth in his letter to the Corinthians in 70 A.D.

Peter of Alexandria, in his work called 'Penance' in 311.

St Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Romans, about 107.

Living4Him · Mar 30, 2005

Christ in NO way transferred his authority whether it be in a physical sense or otherwise.
Click to expand...

"Father figures", are all throughout Holy Scripture.
You can see that GOD always provided a "Father Figure" on earth to shepherd His people.
GOD is the invisible head of His people, and His "Father Figure" is the visible head.

Adam became the "Father of the Human Race" in Genesis 4:1-2,25.
GOD spoke directly to Adam in Genesis 2:16-17, and in many other verses.

Noah, the Father of three sons, Genesis 6:10, his wife and his sons wives, were all that was left of the human race after the great flood, Genesis 7:23.
GOD spoke directly to Noah in Genesis 6:13-14, and in many other verses.

Our Father Abraham: Luke 1:73,3:8, John 8:39,53, Acts 7:2, Romans 4:1,12, James 2:21. He became the "Father of a Multitude of Nations" in Genesis 17:5.
GOD spoke directly to Abraham in Genesis 17:1-22, and in many other verses.

Our Father Isaac...Romans 9:10
GOD spoke directly to Isaac in Genesis 26:2-5, and in many other verses.

Our Father Jacob...John 4:12. He became the "Father of Israel" in Genesis 32:29, and he had twelve sons who became the "Father Figures" of each of the twelve tribes of Israel, Exodus 29-49.
GOD spoke directly to Jacob in Genesis 35:1, and in many other verses.

Moses was the "Father Figure" for GOD's chosen people, the one who would lead them out of the bondage of Egypt. Exodus 1 to Deut 34.
GOD Spoke directly to Moses from the Burning Bush in Exodus 3:4-10, and in many other verses.

Our Father David...Mark 11:10, who was both King, 2Sam 6:16, and Priest, 2Sam 6:18, foreshadowed Jesus Christ who is both King and High Priest in the New Testament.
GOD spoke directly to David in 2Samuel 2:1 and in many other verses.

"Thus said the Lord, the GOD of David thy Father...", 2Kings 20:5

"He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."
Matthew 16:15-17

In these verses it is shown that GOD had spoken through His "Father Figure", Peter, and Peter only, revealing the truth to him. Why then do some say that GOD does not speak today through His "Father Figure" on earth, the successor to Simon Peter?

It is no different today.
GOD is the same yesterday, today and forever. The truth never changes. Since GOD is infinite truth, how then could He possibly change, since any change would then imply a defect in the truth?

mioque · Mar 30, 2005

Now we have the more or less stock Roman Catholic response.
I think there is some archeological evidence that usually get's mentioned as well. There have been digs beneath the San Pietro basilica in Rome, digging up what could be the remains of Petrus and his mrs. .

Now everybody on the opposite side can line up and post that Living4Him is wrong.

These debates can be so predictable at times.

Born Again Catholic · Mar 31, 2005

Peter's tomb in Rome has the graffiti all over the outside of it from 1st and 2nd century christian pilgrims commemorating their visit there. Not to mention all the historical information pointing to peter's time and death in Rome.This tomb in Jerusalem has a charcoal inscription which says "Simon son of Jonah" probably a hoax like the recent ossuary, but even if not how common were the names Simon and Jonah, I have no doubt that even today in the United States I could find several Simon's who fathers happen to be named Jonah ie "Simon Bar Jonah"

D28guy · Mar 31, 2005

"That is not being argued here CSmith. Jesus appointed Peter the head of the church on Earth"
Click to expand...

Complete falsehood.

Jesus Christ is the head of the church in heaven. Jesus Christ is also the head of the church on Earth, on the Moon, on Mars, on Pluto, on the Sun, and anywhere else in the universe.

Jesus Christ is the head of the church...PERIOD.

God bless,

Mike

Glen Seeker · Mar 31, 2005

Jesus is the GOOD SHEPHERD and we are His sheep. But didn't he put HIS flock into the care of Peter?

He still is the head of the Church(flock)and always will be. But HE appointed Peter as caretaker of that flock.

Who's Church (flock) is it?
Peter's? NO!
Paul's? NO!
Jesus'? YES!!!

If Peter was appointed as Caretaker of the flock (Church), Why wouldn't his successor still hold that position?

Did He change His mind? Can He? Would He?

Living4Him · Mar 31, 2005

I gave several passages from scripture that show that God has always provided an earthly leader for His people.

While Christ was on earth, He was the earthly leader. Christ appointed an earthly leader who was to continue to lead His people and that was Peter. But Jesus told Peter that he would be helped by the Holy Spirit.

The NT is full of references of Peter being the leader of the Apostles. Take at the Resurrection narrative in John 20:1-9. In this passage, John mentions how he and Peter went to the tomb of Jesus. John also states that he arrived at the tomb before Peter, but he waited and let Peter go into the tomb before him.

In Acts 2, when the people were accusing the Apostles of being drunk on Pentecost, it was Peter who spoke up.

It was also Peter who gave the sermon to the people on that day.

In Acts 3, Peter and John healed the lame beggar in the name of Jesus Christ. Peter was the one who spoke to the beggar, and it was also Peter who preached to the people.

In Acts 4, it was Peter who answered the charges of the Sanhedrin

In Acts 5, it was Peter who spoke to Ananias and Sapphira about trying to deceive the Holy Spirit.

In this same chapter, Peter is the spokesperson for the Apostles the second time they were brought before the high priest.

In Acts 8, it is Peter who rebukes Simon the practicer of sorcery of not being interested in receiving the Holy Spirit; all he wanted was the Apostles' power so he could do as they had done.

In Acts 10, it was Peter who received the vision from God that showed that salvation was for all people, not just the Jews.

In Acts 15, it is Peter who settles the dispute of wether the Gentile converts to Christianity needed to be circumcised.

It seems to me that the Apostles recognized the authority that Jesus gave to Peter. Why don't we?

Bro. James · Mar 31, 2005

It seems that one must understand the difference between a "pebble" and a "cornerstone".

Peter is a "little stone". Jesus is "The Rock"--the chief cornerstone--the one the builders rejected.

If Mt. 16:18 does not apply to Peter, the RCC has no authority--likewise her daughters.

If Mt. 16:18 refers to Peter, the RCC has sole authority--all others are apostate and separated.
It is that black and white--no middle ground.

Selah,

Bro. James

P.S. Outside the Catholic Encyclopedia, there is no evidence Peter was ever in Rome. The Apostle Paul was there for sure--according to scripture.

Peter in Rome?

Carl Urie New Member

Ps104_33 New Member

tamborine lady Active Member

Melanie Active Member
Site Supporter

csmith New Member

Melanie Active Member
Site Supporter

csmith New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

John3v36 New Member

John3v36 New Member

Living4Him New Member

Living4Him New Member

mioque New Member

Born Again Catholic New Member

D28guy New Member

Glen Seeker New Member

Living4Him New Member

Bro. James Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

Peter in Rome?

Carl Urie New Member

Ps104_33 New Member

tamborine lady Active Member

Melanie Active Member Site Supporter

csmith New Member

Melanie Active Member Site Supporter

csmith New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

John3v36 New Member

John3v36 New Member

Living4Him New Member

Living4Him New Member

mioque New Member

Born Again Catholic New Member

D28guy New Member

Glen Seeker New Member

Living4Him New Member

Bro. James Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Melanie Active Member
Site Supporter

Melanie Active Member
Site Supporter

Bro. James Well-Known Member
Site Supporter