See post #58. The Israelites were world wide (sifted through the Nations) [Amos 9:9] by this time and that is where He sent the Twelve! If he meant they were to evangelize the Gentiles....why was Paul, twenty years later, still saying his (Peter's) mission was to the circumcised [Galatians 2:7-8]?
I also refer you to Acts 10 and 11:1-18. Peter is convinced through the vision given him and the subsequent events concerning Cornelius, that God had commanded that the Gentiles be evangelized.
Peter was not sent to evangelize Cornelius [Acts 10:1-3] as Cornelius was already a God fearing man. Peter was sent by the Holy Spirit to show a way for the Gentiles because God's chosen Apostle Paul was yet in Arabia sorting things out [Galatians 1:17].
Peter was never in Rome! I realize this statement destroys much of Catholicism's tradition.....but "C'est la vie"!
LOL. Yes, all the Christian writers of the 1st-4th centuries who all asserted that Peter was in Rome really botched that one, didn't they? They should've consulted Diego1618 2000 years later, who is mystically endowed with infallible knowledge of the fact.
What skin off your nose is Peter in Rome, anyway? You can admit he was in Rome without believing in the Papacy you know....just ask the Orthodox.
I mean really...let's not go burning down all of history to make a theological point.
It destroys the unanimous testimony of a whole lot of people who were a lot closer to the events than you are. But to be deep into Protestantism is to ignore history, so that's just fine ... right?