Peter in Rome?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Other than Peter being in Antioch (Gal.2:11) where he and Paul had a disagreement there are no verses that say Peter was in Rome.

As a matter of fact in the two scriptures recorded times that Paul went back to Jerusalem the 12 were there in Jerusalem.

As some have said the 12 remained in Jerusalem to try and get the Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah and King. But as we know they were not able to do that.
 

rockytopva

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Dec 31, 2010
5,583
2,753
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. - 1 Peter

I have often thought that it is a long way from Babylon (Iraq) to Rome.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
644
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
rockytopva said:
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. - 1 Peter

I have often thought that it is a long way from Babylon (Iraq) to Rome.
Babylon was a code word for Rome. It is used several times that way in Revelation.

But knowing you guys, all of a sudden it will stop meaning Rome.

Apart from that there is much historical evidence that Peter was in Rome. But then again you guys follow Henry Ford who said "history is bunk".
 

rockytopva

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Dec 31, 2010
5,583
2,753
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. - 1 Peter... The first and next to last verse

Babylon - Iraq
Pontus - Right above Iraq
Galatia - Central Turkey
Cappadocia- Central Turkey
Asia - Basically, in those times, Turkey
Bithynia - Northern Turkey

Rome? Nowhere close!
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
644
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
rockytopva said:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. - 1 Peter... The first and next to last verse

Babylon - Iraq
Pontus - Right above Iraq
Galatia - Central Turkey
Cappadocia- Central Turkey
Asia - Basically, in those times, Turkey
Bithynia - Northern Turkey

Rome? Nowhere close!
Couldn't they send letters from Rome to the Middle East then?

Paul's letter to the Romans is reckoned to have been sent from Corinth or thereabouts so letters could get from the Middle East to Rome.
 

rockytopva

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Dec 31, 2010
5,583
2,753
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mungo said:
Couldn't they send letters from Rome to the Middle East then?

Paul's letter to the Romans is reckoned to have been sent from Corinth or thereabouts so letters could get from the Middle East to Rome.
Possibly... The only accounts I have of Peter is that he began his ministry in Israel, and continued it in Asia, or modern day Turkey/Iraq.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
644
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
rockytopva said:
Possibly... The only accounts I have of Peter is that he began his ministry in Israel, and continued it in Asia, or modern day Turkey/Iraq.
As I said Babylon was a code for Rome in Revelation. According to apologist Karl Keatingt Babylon was also used as a code for Rome in the Sibylline Oracles, the Apocalype of Baruch and 4 Esdras. Also he says "Eusebius Pamphilius, writing about 303, noted that 'it is said that Peter's first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed in Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon'"

So now you know a bit more.
 

rockytopva

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Dec 31, 2010
5,583
2,753
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I have no biblical records of Peter in Rome.

1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. - Acts 18

If a Jew were in Rome in those times he was most likely there in bonds.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
644
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
rockytopva said:
I have no biblical records of Peter in Rome.

1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. - Acts 18

If a Jew were in Rome in those times he was most likely there in bonds.
No Biblical record apart from him writing a letter from Rome using the code Babylon. As you note it was dangerous for Christians in Rome so best not to be too open about it.

On the other hand there is no Biblical record that Peter was never in Rome.

And of course as you would not believe other historical records there is no point in giving them.
 

rockytopva

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Dec 31, 2010
5,583
2,753
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mungo said:
No Biblical record apart from him writing a letter from Rome using the code Babylon. As you note it was dangerous for Christians in Rome so best not to be too open about it.

On the other hand there is no Biblical record that Peter was never in Rome.

And of course as you would not believe other historical records there is no point in giving them.
You can believe that Peter was in Rome... However you have a weak hand.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
644
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
rockytopva said:
You can believe that Peter was in Rome... However you have a weak hand.
I believe Peter was in Rome because I believe historical records.
 

rockytopva

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Dec 31, 2010
5,583
2,753
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't believe Peter was ever in Rome until after the liberation of Rome by Constantine. And only in that the Catholic church had to put him in that position and declared him first Pope of the church. The Apostle Paul had encounters with Peter in Asia, but never in Europe.The Apostle Paul would have mentioned Peter in I/II Timothy had be been there. If Peter were in Rome he did not do a whole lot!
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mungo said:
Babylon was a code word for Rome. It is used several times that way in Revelation.

But knowing you guys, all of a sudden it will stop meaning Rome.

Apart from that there is much historical evidence that Peter was in Rome. But then again you guys follow Henry Ford who said "history is bunk".
If you believe that the scriptures in the Bible are inspired by God (the Holy Spirit) it would be strange if the Holy Spirit left out Peters being in Rome.

I think what Jesus said to Peter, three time, was what God wanted Peter to do; "feed my sheep" Since Jesus said, in two places, that He only came to the Jews you have to see that when Jesus said "my sheep" He was only talking about His people, the Jews.

I may be wrong but it seems to me that when I say something those in the RCC want proof. So where is the historical evidence that Peter was in Rome.
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mungo said:
Couldn't they send letters from Rome to the Middle East then?

Paul's letter to the Romans is reckoned to have been sent from Corinth or thereabouts so letters could get from the Middle East to Rome.
On wrong post so I deleted it.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,500
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
My understanding is that yes...Mungo has a point: babylon could be a code word for babylon. Just look at Rev 17:5! And it sealed as true in the last verse of that chapter!

Peter may have been in Rome and the reference to Babylon may be a good point. Babylon the Empire was large. Babylon the city lays in ruins and I believe it was utterly destroyed long before the first century AD.

Coming from a Biblical perspective, it makes more sense that Paul was the founder of the Church at Rome. There were Christians there before Paul's arrival, but i doubt they were directly taught by Peter in Rome. Paul was not one to build on another's foundation.
 

heretoeternity

New Member
Oct 11, 2014
1,237
39
0
86
Asia/Pacific
Peter died in the first century...the pagan Roman church did not start until 323 AD...so these people saying he was the first pope is a lie, plain and simple..another fabrication of the roman church.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
644
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
From This Rock, December 1990

For some reason, Fundamentalists--and not a few other Protestants--think the best argument against the institution of the papacy is the argument that Peter never was in Rome. The problem for them is that he really was there, as most Protestant scholars affirm. Still, for the recalcitrant, here's proof.


Clement of Rome:
"But, to leave the examples of antiquity, let us come to the athletes who are closest to our own time. Consider the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy, the greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted, and they persevered even to death. Let us set before our eyes the good apostles: Peter, who through unwarranted jealousy suffered not one or two but many toils, and having thus given testimony went to the place of glory that was his due" (Epistle to the Corinthians, 5:1 [ca. A.D. 80 or 96]).

Ignatius:
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Epistle to the Romans, 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus:
"Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the [local] churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles" (Against Heresies, 3, 3:2 [A.D. 180]).

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 [A.D. 180]).

Gaius:
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cata-phrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: 'I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church'" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:5).

Dionysius of Corinth:
"You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Epistle to Soter of Rome [A.D. 166] in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:8).

Tertullian:
"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood" (Against Marcion, 4, 5:1 [A.D. 207]).

Clement of Alexandria:
"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).

Peter of Alexandria:
"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" (Penance, Canon 9 [A.D. 306]).

Lactantius:
"When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of the Persecutors, 2, 5 [A.D. 316]).

Cyril of Jerusalem:
"While the error [of Simon Magus] was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived [in the city of Rome], a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright" (Catechetical Lectures, 6, 14 [A.D. 350]).

Damasus I:
"In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero . . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world. 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" (Decree of Damasus, 2 [A.D. 382]).

Epiphanius:
"At Rome the first Apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Panacea Against All Heresies, 27, 6 [A.D. 374]).

Optatius:
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head--that is why he is also called Cephas--of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
644
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
FHII said:
Coming from a Biblical perspective, it makes more sense that Paul was the founder of the Church at Rome. There were Christians there before Paul's arrival, but i doubt they were directly taught by Peter in Rome. Paul was not one to build on another's foundation.
You have a good point there.

According to a report the Liber Pontificalis Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 years, Since he was executed in 67 AD that puts him in Rome at about 42 AD.

The report also notes that he ordained three bishops in Rome, Linus, Cletus (or Anacletus) and Clement who eventually succeeded him as Bishop of Rome (in that order).

As you point out. In Paul’s letter to the Romans he says “thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man's foundation” (Rom 15:20).

A foundations of a new church needed to be laid by an apostle and Peter is the only apostle, other than Paul who is known (or claimed) to have been in Rome. It therefore follows that Paul is referring to Peter as the other man who laid the foundation of the Church in Rome.

Why not name him? When Paul wrote this, Jews and Christians had only recently been allowed back into Rome by the Emperor Nero after being expelled by the Emperor Claudius. Rome was not a safe place, especially for the leader of the Christians.

In AD 49 Claudius expelled Jews and Christians (regarded by Rome as a sect of Judaism) because of, according to Seutonius, the continuous riots over “Chrestus their ringleader”, a Roman mispronunciation of Christus – Christ.

So Peter would have had to leave Rome in AD 49 which explains why he was in Jerusalem in AD 49 for the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
 

heretoeternity

New Member
Oct 11, 2014
1,237
39
0
86
Asia/Pacific
All this from the roman church doctrines, which are about as trustworthy as a counterfeit currency...oh thats right they are the counterfeit christianity according to Revelation 17
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
heretoeternity said:
All this from the roman church doctrines, which are about as trustworthy as a counterfeit currency...oh thats right they are the counterfeit christianity according to Revelation 17
You are absolutely RIGHT.