Was Peter Ever In Rome ?

[Lewis]

There is still no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. And I still think that he never went to Rome. And I am not trying to step on anybodies toes, here. But this has been on my mind from time, to time.

KY> In fact, no mention is made of Peter ever being in Rome at ANY time in the 27 documents of the oldest existing record of the Christian Faith. The Apostle Paul wrote an Epistle to the church at Rome, named approximately SIXTEEN (16) people, by name, and never mentioned Peter. That was NO oversight on his part. Peter was never there! Peter's tomb was also discovered outside *Jerusalem*; there is historical documentation to verify this factor. Even if that were not the case, Paul's neglect at mentioning Peter, in Romans 16, is INEXCUSABLE, if Peter were Head of the Church.

Romans 16

1I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

2That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

3Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

4Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

5Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

6Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.

7Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

8Greet Amplias my beloved in the Lord.

9Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved.

10Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus' household.

11Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.

12Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord.

13Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

14Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.

15Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.

16Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

17Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

18For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

19For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

20And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

21Timotheus my workfellow, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen, salute you.

22I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.

23Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.

24The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

27To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

http://www.christianbeliefs.org/article ... &rome.html

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num13.htm

 

[Imagican]

Agreed.

While there 'may have been' a Peter that was one of the first leaders of the RCC, there is NO concrete 'evidence' that the 'apostle' Peter was 'this leader'.

MEC

 

[thessalonian]

Lewis,

Do you have to rehash this red herring again. You guys have your Constantine and Hislop evidence that is not in the Bible. Yet you will not accept the mountain of evidence that does say Peter was never in Rome. Historic documents are only good when you want to use them.

So what if the Bible does not say Peter was in Rome. Peter may well not have been in Rome at the time Romans was written or perhaps Paul did not know his whereabouts. Perhaps Paul was only writing to a certain group in the city, which was quite large at the time. I wonder if our govenor in Minnesota, when he writes to washington always mentions George Bush? But even if Peter never was in Rome, it's not Catholic Doctrine that he ever was in Rome anyway so what is your point. It's simply a historic fact from the same historians you try to prove the Constantine stuff from. By the way, do you believe there was a Martin Luther and a George Washington? It's not in the Bible. Of course neither is this reformation that supposedly is so important that happened in the 1600's. God forgot to tell us he needed to restore the truth.

 

[thessalonian]

By the way, anti-catholics like to think that the Babylon spoken of in Revelations is Rome but when it comes to this passage it couldn't possibly be of course. :-?

1Pet.5
[13] She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.

Hmmmmm. Peter got some greeting from someone in babylon (rome) eh. Likely then he was/is there. The city of babylon was destoryed many years before this.

 

[thessalonian]

Agreed.

While there 'may have been' a Peter that was one of the first leaders of the RCC, there is NO concrete 'evidence' that the 'apostle' Peter was 'this leader'.

MEC

Quite hypocritcal of you imagican. You swear up and down that Constantine started the Catholic Church. You defend it by citing from history. Yet when the same historical texts are used to show Peter was in Rome you obvuscate. Very sad. :-?

 

[thessalonian]

Was Peter in Rome?

IGNATIUS

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIONYSIUS

"You [Pope Soter] 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 Pope Soter of Rome [A.D. 166], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 189]).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IRENAEUS

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]" (ibid., 3:3:3).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IRENAEUS

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall . . . [point] 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. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).


IGNATIUS

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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIONYSIUS


"You [Pope Soter] 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 Pope Soter of Rome [A.D. 166], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 189]).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IRENAEUS

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]" (ibid., 3:3:3).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IRENAEUS

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall . . . [point] 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. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9701frs.asp

Peter is the Rock

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801word.asp


Not one single Church Father can be found that denies Peter was in Rome. Simple fact.

 

[Lewis]

Thess I did not raise this issue, to get you upset. I raised this issue because, it has been on my mind. And I am sure that this issue can be talked about, without people getting all riled up.

 

[Lewis]

it's not Catholic Doctrine that he ever was in Rome anyway

Are you kidding me Thess, and I am not trying to be funny here.

 

[thessalonian]

Why do you think I'm riled up? I oppose you on this matter. That in no way makes me riled up. I am used to such arguements drawing from poor logic and history.

Nope, I'm not kidding it's not doctrine. Peter would not have been any less the first Pope had he stayed in Jerusalem or Antioch (which the Bible does say he was there). Find me one official statement anywhere that says you have to believe that Peter was in Rome or your excommunicated. It's simply shown in history that he was and so noone doudted it until Calvin came along and used this "well it isn't in the Bible" arguement. The faulty logic people use to "prove" he wasn't in Rome doesn't even come close to proving it except in the minds of those who want to believe it. (i.e. anti-catholics for example). It's kinda the same deal as Moslems and the Koran or Mormons and the book of mormon. If they want to believe it it's very difficult to convince them otherwise, no matter how hard the evidence. I am sure you will say that with me.

Once again I find it odd that all historical evidence that points to Catholicism, i.e Real Prescence, Peter in Rome, Churches looking to Rome, baptismal regeneration, etc. etc. are ignored or denied and all "evidence" supposedly against Catholicism (i.e. constantine started the Catholic Church) is asserted and stretched to fit the cause. It's sad.

 

[thessalonian]

Lewis, I just went to the catechism of the Catholic Church and searched all the decress of the councils. There are no dogmatic or doctrinal statements about Peter being in Rome. There is one statement in on of the Councils about Peter being in Rome but it is not doctrinal and binding. Once again as a historical fact it seems most likely he was. The arguements from silence are rather poor as a logical way of arguing. Hurley doesn't think much of them. Nor do other experts in logic.

Protestants many times like to site the theory that Peter couldn't have gone to Rome because he was "apostle to the Jews" while Paul was Apostle to the Gentiles. Well we will ignore the fact that there were many Jews in Rome (or the emporer wouldn't have ordered their expulsion in 54 I believe). Well romans appears to be written to the Gentiles so then why would it mention Peter (from the protestant perspective)? He wouldn't have been among gentile Christians (from the Protestant perspective). It's even possible because of the expulsion order that Paul thought Peter left Rome at the time he wrote romans.

I'm not trying to shotgun reasons but it seems there are some and the arguement from silence is not a good one.

Blessings

 

[Lewis]

Agreed.

While there 'may have been' a Peter that was one of the first leaders of the RCC, there is NO concrete 'evidence' that the 'apostle' Peter was 'this leader'.

MEC

Yes I have a hard time with Peter being the first Pope.

 

[thessalonian]

Agreed.

While there 'may have been' a Peter that was one of the first leaders of the RCC, there is NO concrete 'evidence' that the 'apostle' Peter was 'this leader'.

MEC

Yes I have a hard time with Peter being the first Pope.

Well secular sources that have studied the matter trace the papacy back to Peter.

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/L ... lic+Church

Early Historical sources say that he and Paul ordainded Linus and that Cletus and Clemnent were his successors. Historians down through the ages in every century have recognized this lineage. So it may bother you but you have to be honest. Is it true or isn't it. If you don't want to believe it of course your going to come up with some bogus Simon Magnus theory or some other magic trick like Constantine established it. Your going to make silly arguements like "Nobody was called pope until Pope Leo", neglecting to notice how the Church operated before then and statements that showed the primacy of the Roman See. Dan Brown has done a fine job of showing how history can be easily manipulated to show just about anything. Do you want to be honest about it or do you just want to confirm where you are at? I guess Dan Brown is comfortable these days with his comfortable lifestyle off of a lie.


Here is a good site for you:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num13.htm

It can bother you all you want but it is only because of your anti-catholic leanings that you don't want Peter ever to have been in Rome. If he was that leads you down a path you don't want to go. If he was ever in Rome you have to admit that there might be a lineage back to him. Thus the basis of your desire that he never was and the need to make up fallacious arguements from silence and ignore the mound of historical evidence that supports it. No offense please. I'm not upset.

 

[Lewis]

Where was Peter buried ?

http://www.sxws.com/charis/pope-17.htm

http://biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

 

[thessalonian]

Your site has a tomb of a Simon son of John. He would not have been the only simon son of John in the area if the tomb isn't a fabrication like that box with Joseph the brother of Jesus was. Simone was a quite common name at the time and so was John. Look in the Bible to figure that out.

But even if he was buried in Jerusalem, how would that prove he did not spend a significant amount of time in Rome. Another logical fallacy. Further once again the mountain of evidence that says he was in Rome is ignored and the arguement from silence is used as the supposed showstopper. Doesn't fly lewis.

Evidently you didn't open the link I gave you above.

THE BONES OF ST. PETER : The First Full Account of the Search for the Apostle's Body (Doubleday, 1982) by John Evangelist Walsh, cover flaps of book

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

1 Start of excavations beneath St. Peter's Basilica
2 The roofless Caetennius tomb after clearing of the interior
2a Tomb of a second-century Roman merchant
3 Water accumulation beneath St. Peter's Basilica
4 The narrow street between the two rows of second-century Roman tombs under the basilica
5 The street between the tombs, looking east
6 Crudely sketched heads on the wall of the Valerius tomb
7 The Christ-Helios mosaic on the ceiling of the Julius tomb
8 Monsignor Ludwig Kaas
8a Father Engelbert Kirschbaum
9 Sketch reconstruction of the original shrine erected by the Emperor Constantine
9a A later remodeling of the original Constantinian shrine and the high altar area
10 The present high altar of St. Peter's Basilica
11 The Niche of the Pallia
12 The front wall of the underground chapel
13 The north side of the shrine beneath the high altar
14 The second-century graffiti wall
15 Remaining portion of Peter's grave in the original soil of Vatican Hill
16 The ceiling of the central chamber beneath the high altar
16a Some of the human bones found beneath the red wall
17 Overhead view (sketch reconstruction) of the red wall complex
18 The original second-century entrance to the alleyway behind the red wall
19 The alleyway behind the red wall after excavation
20 The alley side of the red wall, which cuts across Peter's grave
21 A few of the second- and third-century graves
22 A model reconstruction of the Tropaion
23 The graffiti wall standing beside and above Peter's grave
24 Close-up of a portion of the graffiti wall
25 Dr. Margherita Guarducci
25a The wooden box in which the bones from the graffiti wall were preserved
26 Sketch of an inscription from the graffiti wall
27 The chunk of plaster from the red wall containing Peter's name
27a The interior of the marble-lined repository hidden in the graffiti wall
28 Skeletal remains identified as St. Peter's
29 Skeletal remains identified as St. Peter's
30 Skeletal remains identified as St. Peter's
31 The bones of St. Peter returned to the repository in the graffiti wall
32 The bronze grillwork doors guarding the entrance to the shrine and grave beneath the high altar

 

[thessalonian]

Ah yes, and I love how they did this:


The charcoal inscription reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" which means "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".

Isn't that hillarious. Adding a little bias in to the mix are they. Simon does not mean Peter and there is a rather significant lack of brackets with the name Petros or Kepha (which it would likely have been) on the rock. Why on earth doesn't it say Kepha since that is what Peter was mostly called in the Bible?

He told me that it would be very improbable that a name with three words, and one so complete, could refer to any other than St. Peter.

Yale, really? He's kidding right. How many simons are there in the Bible. How many John's. It is "improbably that there is another Simon in Jerusalem with a father named John? : Even an egghead like me can figure that out. If my kids want to go to Yale, I'm not footin the bill. :-?
Once again, that there would be more than one Christian "Simon Son of John", ["Shimon Bar Yonah"] (I can bracket that : ) is quite plausable.

 

[Lewis]

I took a good look at the first link.

 

[thessalonian]

Simon the Cananean
Simon the Leper
Simon of Cyrene
Simon Magnus
Simon Son of John
Simon the brother of Jesus
Simon the Zealot
Simon, a tanner
Simon Iscariot,

So it seems Simon was a pretty common name.
John was as well.

http://experts.about.com/q/Archaeology- ... oxes-1.htm

" Simon was one of the most common Jewish names in the
first century, but the name Alexander is very rare. "


implausable? Not in the least.

 

[thessalonian]

I took a good look at the first link.

This one?
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num13.htm

 

[Lewis]

I took a good look at the first link.

This one?
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num13.htm

No this one
http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/L ... lic+Church

 

[thessalonian]

So is there tours available today to go see this tomb? Why isn't it ever in the news? Conspiracy theories?