Replies

On thread #158,post #97 Havoc states that no-one seemed to have any trouble getting in and out of Rome. I was reading Acts18;1and 2 and noticed that Aquila,who was a Jew and his wife Priscilla met Paul in Corinth after they left Rome. They left Rome because Claudius had ordered all Jews out of Rome.

This would indicate to me that if Peter had been in Rome,he probably was in hiding,since Jews were exiled and he was a Jew. If he was in hiding,in Rome,he quite possibly did write his location in code. The code word for Pome just might have been Babylon. I would be interested in your thoughts on it.

This would indicate to me that if Peter had been in Rome,he probably was in hiding,since Jews were exiled and he was a Jew.

Sara, I took this off of my Easton Bible Dictonary, and it seems this ban was temporary, what do you think ?

(1.) The fourth Roman emperor. He succeeded Caligula (A.D. 41). Though in general he treated the Jews, especially those in Asia and Egypt, with great indulgence, yet about the middle of his reign (A.D. 49) he banished them all from Rome (Acts 18:2). In this edict the Christians were included, as being, as was supposed, a sect of Jews. The Jews, however soon again returned to Rome. During the reign of this emperor, several persecutions of the Christians by the Jews took place in the dominions of Herod Agrippa, in one of which the apostle James was "killed" (12:2). He died A.D. 54.

They left Rome because Claudius had ordered all Jews out of Rome.

Yeah, you seem not to realize that Acts was written 5-7 years earlier and was recording events over a long period of time prior to the time of writing. another OOPS for ya'll. Helps to have context doesn't it. We read Pauls epistles and letters and we can see people constantly in and out - constantly. But then you make another point for my side of the argument, How many Jews wandered back into rome as time went on. We know that it took a long time for Jews to return to parts of Europe after being pursecuted and run out.

The Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter was the bishop of the church at Rome and that he held the position as the first Pope. The Bible record conclusively testifies against this. The following study by Henry Hudson is from his book Papal Power: Its Origins and Development--

"In A.D. 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but does not mention Peter. In Romans 1:11, he wants to impart special gifts, and in Romans 1:15 he is ready to preach there. He sends greetings to twenty-seven persons, but none to Peter.

"In 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter.

"At Rome Paul writes to the Galatians, and mentions Peter, but not as being there or as having been pontiff there for twenty years [as the Roman Catholic Church claims].

"The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as sending messages, or as being associated with Paul, Peter is never once mentioned.

"From Rome also Paul's last letter is written (the Second Epistle to Timothy). He says, 'At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me' (2 Timothy 4:16). So that if Peter were Bishop of Rome he enjoyed an immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the great apostle.

"And, finally, in this very Epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, 'Only Luke is with me' (2 Timothy 4:11). This is conclusive.

"So Paul had written to Rome, he had been in Rome, and at the end he writes from Rome, and not only never once mentions Peter, but declares, 'Only Luke is with me.'"

While it is possible that Peter visited Rome briefly at some point, the biblical record testifies conclusively that he was not the bishop of the church at Rome.

BigMack