The Apostle Peter's Jerusalem tomb.

[Campion]

Hi 37818,

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you. And so doth my son, Mark.

My Comment: This shows Peter writing from Rome (Babylon). There were other babylons but, in scripture, this is the one that is referred to (Apoc 17:5, Apoc 18:10).

John 21:18: Amen, amen, I say to thee, When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. 19 And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.

My Comment: This shows that John must have had some knowledge of Peter’s death and how he would die. “thou shalt stretch forth thy hands” means Crucifixion.

There is much evidence from the early church fathers and the historian Eusebius.

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” (Against Heresies, Irenaeus, 3.1)

My Comment: This shows that Peter and Paul were in Rome. It also shows that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome. Eusebius (History, Book 2.15.1) also speaks of this.

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)

 

[JonC]

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to support your assertion, which you made here:



I just gave you evidence from each of the first few centuries. I could provide more from each of those and continue on throughout the subsequent centuries.

Can you provide ONE source which says those fathers were wrong and that Christian history is thus wrong? Just one will suffice.




You previously argued the Catholic Church did not even exist until the 4th century. (See here) I gave you names of people who wrote prior to when you claim the Catholic Church even existed so your point is thus moot.




Says who? Every early Church list of bishops of Rome includes Clement.



Wrong. Here is Irenaeus...

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church,” - Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 c. 189 A.D.




St. Paul was indeed correct and testifies to St. Peter's presence in Rome. St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans in approximately 58 A. D. In it he says that he does not want to preach the Gospel where Christ is already known, because he would not build on "another man's foundation." (Romans 15:20). In the same epistle to the Romans, he writes to a Church clearly already founded, one whose “faith is proclaimed in all the world.” (Romans 1:8). Yet, St. Paul also states that he himself had not yet visited Rome (Romans 1:10-13; 15:22-23), but that he hoped to do so when he later set out to visit Spain (Romans 15:24).

Thus 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 St. Paul, 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.

You ARE asking me to prove a negative. Read your request. You are asking me to prove no evidence exists that Peter was in Rome. THAT IS ASKING TROVE A NEGATIVE.

Please provide a passage where Paul acknowledges a foundation was already laid in Rome.

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, – Romans 15:20

 

[Campion]

You ARE asking me to prove a negative. Read your request. You are asking me to prove no evidence exists that Peter was in Rome. THAT IS ASKING TROVE A NEGATIVE.

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.

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

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.

Please provide a passage where Paul acknowledges a foundation was already laid in Rome.

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."

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, – Romans 15:20

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

You ask me to prove Peter was not in Rome and insist that is not proving a negative.

Paul writes to the Christians in Rome announcing he is planning to travel there, and then making a point to say he goes where there has been no foundation laid and you post that means he went to Rome because Peter had laid a foundation.

I get it. You are just trolling, making illogical assertions because Scripture itself disproves your traditions. That's fine.

Had I realized you were just trolling I would have simply sat back and watched. I don't mind trolls, but I prefer to be in the audience rather than a participant.

Carry on.

 

[Campion]

You ask me to prove Peter was not in Rome and insist that is not proving a negative.

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

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

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.

Paul writes to the Christians in Rome announcing he is planning to travel there, and then making a point to say he goes where there has been no foundation laid and you post that means he went to Rome because Peter had laid a foundation.

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 get it. You are just trolling, making illogical assertions because Scripture itself disproves your traditions. That's fine.

Had I realized you were just trolling I would have simply sat back and watched. I don't mind trolls, but I prefer to be in the audience rather than a participant.

Carry on.

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."

 

[JonC]

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."

That is simple.

My assertion that there is no evidence that Peter went to Rome is based on the fact that there is no evidence Peter went to Rome

My assertion that Peter did not go to Rome is supported by Paul's claim that he was traveling to Rome, there was no foundation laid by the Apostles, and that he did not build on the foundations laid by others.

The "proof" it did not happen is there food twofold. First, there is no proof it did happen. More importantly, had it happened then God was ignorant of it happening or Paul was just rambling off his own errors.

 

[Eliyahu]

There’s one problem, though: the claim itself is a fabrication. The linked article is taken from the pages of a 1971 anti-Catholic tract, self-published by one F. Paul Peterson of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and sold from his home. It is poorly written and rife with factual errors (e.g. the Saracens “never made it to Rome”), unfounded accusations, and unsubstantiated claims. In a tract which purports to provide solid evidence of the burial of the Apostle Peter in Jerusalem, the author actually provides little real evidence other than his own testimony that various people, including a number of well known archaeologists and even Pope Pius XII, agree with him regarding his remarkable discovery and its implications. This is little more than a baseless screed like so much of the anti-Catholic literature out there, akin to Chick tracts

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

Eliyahu

 

[Eliyahu]

Hi 37818,

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you. And so doth my son, Mark.

My Comment: This shows Peter writing from Rome (Babylon). There were other babylons but, in scripture, this is the one that is referred to (Apoc 17:5, Apoc 18:10).

.

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

 

[Walter]

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

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.

 

[37818]

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

What is the earliest source to corroborate this?

 

[JonC]

What is the earliest source to corroborate this?

December 1950. But it was just because they wanted it to be. Tradition holds he was executed in Rome.

 

[37818]

December 1950. But it was just because they wanted it to be. Tradition holds he was executed in Rome.

The alleged execution in Rome is based on a religious fiction. The Acts of Peter.

 

[JonC]

The alleged execution in Rome is based on a religious fiction. The Acts of Peter.

I agree. If Scripture is correct then Paul, not Peter, went to Rome.

 

[Cathode]

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.

 

[Walter]

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!!!!