Peter in Rome?

[JM]

Did Peter ever visit Rome?

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

He died there.

 

[Georges]

I don't think there is any proof that he ever visited Rome....

 

[Solo]

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

 

[thessalonian]

Oddly enough the very book that Solo recommends as a good read, Foxe's Book of Martyrs says Peter died in Rome. It does say some dissent to it but the fact is the put up no real evidence for their dissention. Only that it is not in the Bible. The Bible oddly enough doesn't tell us where Peter died and so such arguements are arguements from silence. Historical evidence from the early church points strongly to Peter being in Rome from the likes of Irenaus, Eusibius, the Labryth, etc. Odd that these many sources from varying parts of the world would have some sort of conspiracy going to place Peter in Rome. Especially since most of you don't even believe the Papacy got established until around Constantine. But then historical continuity before 1600 of Christianity doesn't seem to be a big issue for most Protestants. A hodge podge of calling Paulicians and Albegisians and Donatists and every other heretical group Baptists and ignorning that they were in to fornication and dual God theories or denial of the deity of Christ is about the best you can come up with for historical continuity. History flows with the Church from 33 to 2006 if your Catholic and research it. We don't have to make it up and distort it. It's there. Start with the Fathers. They were Catholic. Oddly enough you also cannot find ONE writer before Calvin in the 1600's who said that Peter did not die in Rome. Seems like this history has had a life of it's own since that early witness to the events, John Calvin. :wink:

 

[thessalonian]

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

A few problems with your site. First of all Simon != Peter and I don't see the brackets in the inscription on the stone. If Peter was actually on the tomb that would be a definite find as Peter was not a common name back then. In fact there is only evidence of one person being named Peter before that time. Now Simon AND John (Jonah) ware ridiculously common as we even see from scripture itself and in Aaramaic it would not have been unlikely that there were other simon, son of John's about. Even a Christian one. Peter was pretty well known as Peter and not simon after Jesus changed his name so it seems most likely that would have been on his tombstone, just as it is in the tomb found directly under St. Peter's Altar in Rome. Your beloved Foxe's book of Martyrs says he died in Rome.

But let's forget all of that. Even if Peter was buried in Jerusalem, how does that prove he was never in Rome, especially when so many early Church writers say that he was. Hmmm. If I am burried in Minneapolis, I was never in Salt Lake City? What kind of logic is that? Could it even be that he died in Rome and was brought back to Jerusalem? Oh no, your one solution proves the whole thing wrong. In reality your conclusions are simply based on anti-catholic bias.

 

[thessalonian]

oops

 

[thessalonian]

oops

 

[thessalonian]

I don't think there is any proof that he ever visited Rome....

What do you call proof? In the Bible? From what I have read from your posts that wouldn't even be proof. Hoever the Bible is silent on the matter and silence is a poor logical position if one is going to use it to prove something. There is much significant evidence in the writings of the early Church that he was there and there would have to have been some kind of conspiracy accross the word going on for him not to have been there. Several writers from several different countries did in fact say he was in Rome. Back when there wasn't even a pony express this is significant.

Was Peter in Rome? Read.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9012frs.asp

 

[Solo]

It is interesting that the Roman Catholic Church requires that Peter be in Rome so to push their doctrine, but it doesn't matter where the Apostles lived or died from a doctrinal perspective in the non-Roman Catholic doctrines.

 

[thessalonian]

It is interesting that the Roman Catholic Church requires that Peter be in Rome so to push their doctrine, but it doesn't matter where the Apostles lived or died from a doctrinal perspective in the non-Roman Catholic doctrines.

:o

Once again you raise a straw man. there is nothing doctrinally that requires that Peter ended up in Rome. You don't know what you are talking about. Find a dogmatic or doctrinal statement by an official Catholic communication, via council or Pope that says Peter HAD TO HAVE BEEN IN ROME FOR CATHOLICISM TO BE TRUE. It's called a challenge. Peter could have died in Jerusalem. It really does not effect our doctrine. Historically though it does not fit well at all was never in Rome. One has to somehow explain Irenaus thinking that Linus, Cletus and Clement are his successors. Then you have to explain how Clement of Rome was acting in a Papal fashion toward a Church that would have been outside his authoritative area if he did not have a broader authority. Taking in to account all the writings of the time period, they support the likelyhood that Peter was in Rome. This historical accounting flows from a birds eye view of the early writings and supporting evidence. The protestant view is a revisionist view of John Calvin. Another challenge, find me a writer between 100 and 1600 that says Peter was never in Rome. Good luck. Your unwillingness to look at the great amount of historical evidence that supports this fact and simply look at one tombstone is telling.

It also seems that Protestants like you out of neccessity must try to prove he was not in Rome in order to not have to consider the possibility that he did appoint Linus, Cletus, and Clement as Successors. It does damage to the Protestant cause if he did end up in Rome so you ignore Irenaus, Eusibuis, Labryth, etc. etc. and proclaim that Peter was not in Rome. :-?

 

[thessalonian]

Another challenge for Solo and anyone else who might want to rise to the occassion. Come up with a decent explanation of why all of these people from different countries, separated by many miles all come to the same conclusion that Peter was in fact in Rome at least for some time?

Ignatius (Anitoch)
Irenaus (France)
Dionysius (Corinth)
Clement (Corinth)
Clement (Rome)
Tertullian (Carthage)
Eusibius (Palestine, Cessarea) Hey he's even pretty close to Jerusalem and he said Peter was in Rome.
Peter (Alexandria)
Augustine (Africa)

That's the short list. Also if you could provide a similar list of those who were not in on this conspiracy spread throughout the world that Peter was in Rome. :o

I look forward to your replies on this but expect to be waiting a LOOOOONGGGGG time for a good answer.

 

[thessalonian]

Oh and by the way I will give anyone who can meet the challenge above a check for $10,000. I seriously will!

Explain how all these people from various places came up with Peter being in Rome.
Give me a list of let's say 7 citations of early writers scattered throughout the known world that show Peter was never in Rome.

Blessings

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

dude, im catholic and even i want to try and disprove that now! 10 grand?

(j/k)

 

[thessalonian]

dude, im catholic and even i want to try and disprove that now! 10 grand?

(j/k)

Go for it. Knock yourself out. : Start searching those writings.

 

[thessalonian]

dude, im catholic and even i want to try and disprove that now! 10 grand?

(j/k)

Go for it. Knock yourself out. : Start searching those writings.

 

[thessalonian]

dude, im catholic and even i want to try and disprove that now! 10 grand?

(j/k)

Go for it. Knock yourself out. : Start searching those writings.

 

[JM]

Well, the Bible says [hear it comes]:

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

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.

If Peter was in Rome he was there to minister to the "circumcision" as was agreed upon. But I'll add more latter.

 

[thessalonian]

Let's say this passage means that Peter couldn't evangelize or minister to the Gentiles. Something pretty untenable when you consider Acts 10 & 11 as well as Pauls rebuke of Peter for moving over to the Jewish side of the isle when certain Jewish leaders of the Church came to town:

Gal 2
12: For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.


Were there no Jews in Rome? History says otherwise. The Emporer Claudius (emporer from 41-54 AD) ordered all Jews expelled from Rome according to early historians. A rather odd command if there were no Jews there. It is likley that up to 50000 Jews lived in Rome at that time. So I am afraid I can't count your two. Please try again.

 

[thessalonian]

http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaspora/rome.html

It is possible to estimate the number of Roman Jews during the reign of Augustus. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions a lawsuit in which 8,000 Jews from Rome sided with one of the parties (Jewish antiquities 2.80). They must have been adult men, because women and children were not permitted to take part in a lawsuit. Since a nuclear family consisted of at least four or five members, there must have been some 40,000 Jews. It is likely that this number rose after the mass deportation of prisoners of war after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. This is mirrored by the enormous size of the Monteverde catacomb.


Seems Peter might have been able to find something to do. 40,000 is a decent sized minestry I would say.