someone on another fourm claims that Peter never went to Rome

So? I mean, we don't believe Peter was the "first pope" so we don’t need his presence there to buttress claims of apostolic succession and papal authority... While I believe the historical evidence says he did go to Rome, it must be observed that Scripture doesn't speak to it. So really, if he did or didn't go to Rome, what does it matter?
 
Last edited:
Romans922 said:
Where in Scripture does it say/imply that Peter went to Rome?
Click to expand...
The only thing I can come up with is when Peter sends greetings to his readers at the end of 1 Peter from "she who is in Babylon." I know some commentators take this to mean Peter was writing from Rome, but it appears to me to be far from conclusive.
 
I’m don’t even think the Apostolic Fathers wrote that Peter was in Rome but that entered into tradition sometime.
 
From what we know of his ministry, education, and vocational background, it frankly seems odd that Peter would have gone to Rome.
 
Even if Peter did go to Rome it seems as if by time he arrived there would already have been a bishop or elder in the city overseeing the local church. So even in that case the papist argument is not helped.
 
Tradition says he was bishop of Antioch for 20 some years. If that's true, and I think it is, it's hard to see how he would have had time to go to Rome or at least become the leader there.
 
RamistThomist said:
Tradition says he was bishop of Antioch for 20 some years. If that's true, and I think it is, it's hard to see how he would have had time to go to Rome or at least become the leader there.
Click to expand...
The Antiochians, like Rome, believe in Petrine Supremacy and claim him. They certainly have the better claim.
 
Something else to consider is that Peter was the apostle to the Jews, and Rome was the one city in the world with no Jews after their expulsion by the Emperor Claudius. Peter may not even have been allowed to enter Rome.
 
What do we know.
James seems to have been the presiding Bishop of Jerusalem.
Peter traveled outside of Jerusalem. We know that he traveled to Samaria, to Caesarea, and to Antioch.
We know Peter traveled. Is it possible Peter traveled to Rome?
Tradition says yes. The question is should we believe tradition?
The question is do we regard Eusebius as good history? Eusebius said that Peter after having first founded and presided for seven years over the church at Antioch, went away to Rome preaching the Gospel, and he also presided over that of Rome until his death.
Do we regard Jerome as good history? Jerome said that Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last year of Nero 68 AD.
Early Church tradition says that Peter probably died by crucifixion in the year 64 AD, at the time of the great fire in Rome.
 
I was taught and believed that he had never been to Rome when the The Epistle To The Romans had been written based on chapter 1 lines 11,13 and 15. KJV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top