But apart from that, take a look at your argument that Peter had no business in Rome. Even if the cities of Mesopotamia had large numbers of Jews, Peter still had business everywhere if he was reaching out to the Jews. One out every ten inhabitants in the Roman Empire was Jewish, and all its major cities:- Rome, Alexandria and Antioch being the largest-- had large Jewish colonies.und the Mediterranean than it would ever again be until the 20th Century. So he not only had the duty, he had the ability to live up to that duty, because travel within the Roman empire was easier in the 1st and second centuries than it would every again be until the 20th Century. The fact that Paul could appeal to Rome and reasonably expect to be transported there, show how easy it would have been for Peter to make the same trip.
Clement is toilet paper. I've read it. It has no flow of thought, just an endless cut and paste of verses from other works with know logical order of thought and no central message. It is someone attempting to look genuine while dropping suggestion. The primacy statement in the volume is dropped in out of nowhere and the thought dissappears into a morass of other senseless groupings including one passage from pagan mythos stated as fact (story of the pheonix). This is why nobody buys it outside your circles. It smaks of fraud so loudly...
Clement I hints at this; the Apocolypse of Peter says Peter did.
The Apocolypse of Peter.. who cares? It tries to be scripture and was rejected as such. Therefore, what weight in believeability do we give it? If it isn't inspired and fails on that mark, then it's historical significance is highly dubious and must be substantiated. Failing an ability to substantiate what it says, your left with what amounts to fiction.
Revelations evidently identifies hated Rome with hated Babylon, as each had destroyed the temple of God.
Revelation was written 31 years after ya'll say he died. And the author of Revelation states plainly that the message he writes is from God, not from himself. Therefore, it doesn't establish common usage. Though others borrowed from Revelation after it was written and it later became common usage - that *can* be shown. But during Peter's time, it is nowhere established that it was common usage - nowhere. If it wasn't common usage during the time that I Peter was written, then you have no argument. Peter could hardly appeal to common usage in making a statement if that common usage does not exist.
By 160-170, according to Arnold Toynbee in his book the Shrine of Peter, The aedecula, a memorial to Peter had been set up on Vatican Hill,and it was at that spot, which is under the main altar of Peter, that the digging you mock have taken place, and which found a grave and written reference to Peter. Certain Ireneus was so certain of the tradition that it made it part of his argument. Most historians are more willing to accept this evidence than any tendentius and sectarian theories based on the spotty history in the New Testament.
Ireneus isn't the tower of credibility either. And Toynbee isn't saying anything we don't know from other places. Doesn't make it anymore authoritative. But I understand the approach - the more Catholic and pro Catholic authors that repeat the claim, the more likely someone will bite and believe it - Not Hardly. Proof is required and not just because a Catholic is saying it. Ya'll have no credibility on claims made - none. Therefore, requiring proof from you is prudent. The primary issue here is we have a pretty good understanding from the Bible as to where Peter was and where he *was not*. The thing yall miss is that I Peter is actually dated slightly before II Timothy. I don't think ya'll actually missed it so much as understand the significance of the fact and can't argue it. Which is why I raise it.
But apart from that, take a look at your argument that Peter had no business in Rome. Even if the cities of Mesopotamia had large numbers of Jews, Peter still had business everywhere if he was reaching out to the Jews. One out every ten inhabitants in the Roman Empire was Jewish, and all its major cities:- Rome, Alexandria and Antioch being the largest-- had large Jewish colonies.
Back up the cart there spanky, Judea was under roman control. Let's play Mr. obvious for a moment, shall we? Population numbers are based on overall population added up and divided against how many of culture x. This doesn't mean x was scattered thoroughly. And where are you getting your numbers? Next point: There was already someone in Rome with things well in hand by the writing of I Peter. And I Peter could not have been written from Rome. Could not have been. II Timothy was written between 65-67. By the writing of I Timothy, Mark isn't in the Picture - He's off with Peter. By II Timothy, Paul is sending for Mark outside of Italy. These people are in movement with a purpose. Italy is covered. Peter has a ministry to the Jews. And you want to argue that Peter left the Biggest Jewish population in the world to go preach to 'little jerusalem' in Rome.. Noting that we don't know how many jews were concentrated in Rome Proper or even in all of Italy, it is safe to say that If the largest concentration is at Babylon and Peter was teaching Gentiles alongside the Jews. There is no reason for him to turn around and go to Rome where we already know Paul has talked to the Jews alongside the Gentiles. Peter has no reason to minister to those who already are being ministered to.
und the Mediterranean than it would ever again be until the 20th Century. So he not only had the duty, he had the ability to live up to that duty, because travel within the Roman empire was easier in the 1st and second centuries than it would every again be until the 20th Century. The fact that Paul could appeal to Rome and reasonably expect to be transported there, show how easy it would have been for Peter to make the same trip.
The problem again is the misnomer that because a small population of jews existed that Peter had to be present, not the case. there were others commissioned to that ministry as well that could easily have fit the purpose if that was needed. They weren't there either. Again. If Peter ministered to Gentiles in the crowds he taught and Paul ministered to Jews. It is not an attrocity, They were meeting their primary obligations and taking care of others alongside. If your job is to raise wheat, it's inconsequential if you have Apple trees on the same property, But you go where the wheat grows and you plant that as your major crop. You don't go where wheat barely thrives and plant apple trees as your majority crop.
I can explain very easily from the Bible without having to make excuses. Why is it you guys constantly have to beg the what ifs and stretch the boundaries of reason? Hmmm. We're not talking about deep spiritual things here, this is common sense stuff. And you are squirming and grasping at straws to give an appearance that your story works. It doesn't. That's another reason why you need PROOF. You accuse Peter of being a liar - discount the fact that when Paul sent for Mark between 65-67 Mark was Not even in Italy, let alone Rome and was with Peter. If Mark wasn't in Italy, neither was Peter. Simple Algebra: If a=b and a <> c, then b <> c (ie Not c!). If the two were together, heck lets make it three, Silas was there too. If the three were together and one of them isn't in Italy, none of them are in Italy. Unless you know how human beings can be two places at once, you have a pretty High and thick wall to get through.