"Simon Bar-Yonah" ("Peter son of Jonah")
Simon does not translate as "Peter".
Its also worth noting that "Jonah" means "Dove" and thus stands not as a name (the Gospels do not give the family lineage of the Apostles), but a designation - Simon son of the Dove, or more explicitly, Simon son of the Holy Spirit! Interpret this how you will, but certainly give it the weight it is due. Christ did not call him this for nothing (and Christ is the only one who calls him "Simon bar Jonah"), and the Bible never mentions St. Andrew, St. Peter's brother, as Andrew bar Jonah.
Now do look at where it is used - St. Matthew 16.17, St. John 1.42 and 21.15-17. Don't those verses seem familiar to any discussion of the Papacy??? Methinks you folks are missing the forest while staring at the trees.
Evidence in both catacombs indicated their use for burial until the middle part of the first century AD, several years before the New Testament was written.
Apparently we are dealing with modernist scholars here. Christians, as opposed to Modernist historical deconstructionists, believe most of the New Testament was written prior to AD 67, in other words, during and before the middle part of the first century AD. This is certainly true of the Epistles of St. Paul, St. James, St. Peter, and St. Jude, as well as the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. It appears the only texts that any Christian is willing to grant a later date to are the Gospel of St. John and the Apocalypse.
As he continued his excavations, Bagatti also found a coffin bearing the unusual inscription "Shimon bar Yonah" (= "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah").
I'm amazed that you cut short your article here. Why not let it be continued with the full text of the paragraph?
As he continued his excavations, Bagatti also found a coffin bearing the unusual inscription "Shimon bar Yonah" (= "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah"). Other than its existence among the burial tombs of some of the very first Christians, no conclusive evidence was found to identify this stone coffin as that of the disciple and close companion of Jesus, Simon Peter.
Kind of deflates the whole purpose of your writing this tripe though, doesn't it? I don't suppose its any more likely to be Peter's coffin than the one marked "Yeshua" is to be Jesus'?
Below are Ten major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero.
That is an interesting strawman argument to attack. The Roman Catholic claim is based on Sts. Peter and Paul founding the Church and Rome and then being martyred there, with St. Peter handing over the episcopate and his primacy to St. Linus. The claim says nothing about St. Peter being continuously in Rome.
Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles
It seems the the so-called missions of Sts. Peter and Paul were determined as a manner of speaking by the Church, not by Christ. Christ commissioned both St. Peter and St. Paul to preach to all men.
St. Peter: "And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. ... And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: ... Going therefore, teach ye all nations ..." (St. Matthew 28.16, 18, 19)
St. Paul: "And the Lord said to him: Go thy way: for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel." (Acts 9.15)
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles!
How about Acts 10? Acts 15? 1 St. Peter 1? Note that of the Christians St. Peter writes to in Asia Minor, he mentions their "former ignorance" (1.14) and "futile conduct" (1.18), says explicitly that before they were not "God's people" (2.10), etc. Sounds like non-Jews to me. And where was St. Peter between AD 42 (release from prison) and AD 49 (Council of Jerusalem). Acts mentions "he left and went to another place" (Acts 12.17). Where? WHY NOT ROME, as spoken of by tradition? And desn't AD 49 fit in well with what we know of secular history (Seutonius) and the Bible (Acts 18.2) regarding the expulsion of Jews from the capital by edict of Claudius in AD 49 because of the preaching of Christ causing tumults among them? Who was doing the preaching? NOT ST. PAUL!!!
This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.
That seems like a rather unrigorous and illogical proof. Using similar reasoning with what you have presented, I might expect you to say it is certain that St. Paul never uttered a word to Jew in evangelism since he was "Apsotle to the Gentiles". Yet, the book of Acts is replete with his preaching to both Jews and Gentiles.
Additionally, the Christian community in Rome was clearly made up of both Jews and Gentiles. Otherwise, why the very Jewish focus of St. Paul's epistle to the Romans?
Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed." PAUL Established The Only TRUE Church at Rome.
A highly amusing claim which is made even more humorous because St. Paul is writing to an existing Christian community in Rome which he did not establish! As St. Paul notes in Romans 15.19, he has preached only between Jerusalem and Illyricum (modern Albania/Dalmatia). Perhaps he is sending his letter by a sealed bottle tossed into the sea in hopes that he might come to preach there before it arrives??? Note Acts 23.11 also specifies that St. Paul has never yet been to Rome - and this is AD 58!
We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter -who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing!
So WHO is he writing to then if not the Chrsitians of Rome? These Christians so famous that "their faith is spoken of in the whole world" (Romans 1.8)?
The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D.
As to verse 11, the word under examination is sterichthenai - strengthen, not establish. Strong notes the following definitions: "1) to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix, 2) to strengthen, make firm, 3) to render constant, confirm, one's mind" Perhaps your Protestant translators are insinuating their own prejudices into this verse (again)?
However, the Roman Church would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense!
Well certainly somebody had done it, else St. Paul would have no Christians to be writing to. He'd clearly never been there himself.
We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man's foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20).
We need to step back and examine the grammar here. Note St. Paul is talking in the past tense here "strived". In other words, he is giving a summary of his efforts to date, not saying what he will be doing in Rome.
If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church – because Peter was not in Rome.
Again, who could he possibly be writing to here but men of another man's foundation? The Romans he address the letter to were Christians, but St. Paul had never been to Rome when he wrote to the Romans. Additionally, St. Paul clearly worked in areas where St. Peter also worked. 1 Corinthians 1.12 and 3.22 should be clear enough to establish this, since he admits to working with disciples made in Corinth by Kephas - none other than St. Peter, of course.
At the end of Paul's Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn't there!
So? St. Peter was clearly off doing more than just preaching in Rome. Obviously he was in Corinth and Asia Minor as well, to name but a few spots.
When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul's arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter's meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
So? Again, St. Peter did more than sit down in Rome and stay there. He was an Apostle. However, it needs to be asked who made all these Christians by their preaching? Certainly it was not St. Paul - this was his very first visit.
When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ``as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn't. Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. There is no mention of Peter in Paul's Letters.
Lets refresh. Catholic tradition is St. Peter went to Rome in AD 42 and returned to Jerusalem during the Claudian expulsion in AD 49. Apparently some time after perhaps around Claudius' death in AD 56, the Jews returned. St. Peter, of course, was apparently occupied elsehwere at this time. By the time St. Paul comes on the scene in roughly AD 60, its been eleven years since the expulsion. There is nothing incongruous with St. Peter still being elsewhere busying himself with Apostolic work (probably Asia Minor), even though a Church founded by him still tarried in Rome. And there is nothing incongruous with Jews coming from elsewhere to Rome after he left not know of Christianity.
If this seems incredible that St. Peter was spending years in Asia, let's recall that St. Paul spent about five YEARS in Ephesus and Corinth establishing Churches in just those two cities.
Now break out a population map of the Roman Empire. Note where the bulk of the population lived at that time? What we know call Greece and Turkey! Note who St. Peter writes to in 1 St. Peter? Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia - this is all of modern Turkey excepting a 100 mile strip inland from Rhodes to Antioch along the Mediterranean (Lycia, Pamphylia, and Cilicia) - the area that St. Paul originated from (Tarsus), and in which he preached.
Now break out Apocalypse 1 and note the Churches St. John writes to - Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyratia, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. In which did St. Paul preach? Ephesus, Laodicea only. Is it unreasonable to suppose St. Peter preached in some of the rest, since he address a letter to their area? Pergamum and Smyrna were both as large as Ephesus, in which St. Paul had to spend three years preaching! It seems St. Peter would have had plenty to occupy himself with in Asia Minor after spending 7 years in Rome AD 42-AD 49 laying the foundations of the Church there.
After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn't there!
Again - so what? What do you think you are prooving saying that St. Peter was not in Rome AD 60-62?
With the expiration of Paul's two year's imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Romanist Church, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter thrice denied Christ, but that was before he was indwelt by the Spirit at Pentecost. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul's trial, and FORSOOK Paul as he forsook Christ, is absolutely untenable. Peter did not forsake Paul; PETER WAS NOT IN ROME.
OP, I'm really beginning to question your basic knowledge of what you are writing about.
The people who "forsook" St. Paul at his first defense were those in Asia, where he was obviosuly captured, and where the first trial would have taken place, which determined that he needed to be sent back to Rome! 2 St. Timothy 1.15: "Thou knowest this, that all they who are in Asia are turned away from me". Why do I say obviously? Because he asks St. Timothy to bring him the cloak left in Troas (in Asia Minor) and the papyrus and parchment rolls (2 St. Timothy 4.13) - clearly he left his things with friends where he was captured. Otherwise, we are left wondering why the Roman judicial system would bother arresting a man in Troas and hauling him immediately off to Rome without a hearing.
As to his being alone in Rome - obviosuly not. A list of important brethren is given in 4.21, and notes that all the brethren in Rome salute St. Timothy - so the Roman Church most certainly had not abandoned St. Paul. Included in the list is St. Linus, the second Pope. It is quite probable that, St. Peter being executed in AD 64, that St. Linus was already the new Bishop of Rome when St. Paul was writing.
The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though The Romanist Church says he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!
Your silliness know no limits. Did all the rest of the brethren of Rome, who salute St. Timothy in verse 21 suddenly rally to the city in between his writing those ten verses? Is it not obvious that "only Luke is with me" means with him personally, not dwelling in the same City? As to AD 65, it is quite possible St. Peter was already dead then, the Neronian persecution having commenced in AD 64.
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4).
No, AD 42. And its "AD 42", not "42 AD". You know "The Year of Our Lord 42", not "42 Year of Our Lord".
In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles.
No the incidents related in Galatians are in AD 49, before the council, and precipitating its convocation. St. Paul specificially dates them taking place around 14 years after his conversion (AD 34-35), which would place the time frame as AD 49.
Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13).
This is a highly imaginative date. Where do you get AD 66 from?
As to Babylon the city, it was an uninhabited wasteland at this time. It had been abandoned around 300 years previously, and the stones and bricks used to build Seleucia-Ctesiphon some miles away. Babylon is clearly a code for Rome here, as in the Apocalypse (or does using the Bible to interpret the Bible only hold for when we are not busy spinning lies about Catholicism???).
Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED.
You are displaying your own exegetical biases here. Again, 1 St. Peter clearly shows him as an Apostle to all men in Asia, just as commissioned by our Lord at the Ascension. This sort of racial differentiation has no place in Christianity, and is foreign from the Bible, which uses these terms in entirely different ways from how you are.
Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ's time as there were in Palestine.
Mesopotamia is not Babylon - it is the entire land between the rivers. As to the mission to the Jews there, tradition mentions Sts. Jude, Thomas, Bartholomew, and others as being preachers there. St. Peter is mentioned by no one.
It is no wonder we find him in the East…. scholars say Peter's writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon.
The Aramaic spoken in Mesopotamia (again, there was no Babylon then) was no different than that in Syria or Israel. They all used the same Aramaic version of the scriptures and spoke the same language. St. Peter's writings would naturally have that flavor if he wrote them thinking in his native tongue, which Christ spoke also, as did all Israelites in Galilee.
At the times the Romanists believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere.
I'm afraid the only thing you've shown is your ignorance of the Bible on this topic.
There are, of course, many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome -- but none of them are first-hand accounts, and none of them should be put above the many accounts of The Bible.
Let me know when you find the Biblical account of precisely what St. Peter was doing at every moment from AD 49 to his death, let alone "the many accounts of the Bible".
The Sword of the Spirit: On the Apostles Peter and Paul
Its impossible to take that site seriously. I'm not even going to bother pointing out how "Pator", wherever the heck you dug that up from, and "Petros" are obviously dissimilar.
"There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." ~~ Rev. Father J.T. Milik, Roman Catholic Priest and archaeologist
No better citation than that? Who is this person, where did he say this, in what context, when, etc.?
In #35 you note:
In response to mounting demand, however, Pius finally permitted rigorous scientific examination of the bones in 1956. It emerged that the remains were actually bones of three different people, along with scores of animals. Of the humans, two were men in their 50s, and one was a woman in her 70s. Clearly, these were not the fisherman’s bones.
This needs to be responded to here, because it shows your fundemental and inherent dishonesty - the sort of dishonesty that is necessary to remain an intellectual and a Protestant.
The bones of St. Peter were found. There is a book which clearly discusses the decades long investigation with all its twists and turns - "The Bones of St. Peter" by John E. Walsh. But all you needed to do was scroll down further on the page you linked too:
http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200105052a.html
As this disappointment unfolded, another scholar, Margherita Guarducci, worked to decipher some strange graffiti found on a necropolis wall. One day in 1952, she inquired about a nearby cavity, the one previously emptied by Kaas. Segoni, still laboring away on the project, led her to the bones he’d placed in a storeroom years before. She made nothing of them, simply recommending that the specialists take a look.A decade later, those bones were identified as those of a man 5 feet 7 inches tall, of heavy build, age 60 to 70. The hollow of the bones contained soil, suggesting they had lain in a bare earth grave. Stains suggested the bones had been wrapped in a purplish, gold-threaded cloth.
In the meantime, Guarducci pieced together a partial inscription by the cavity as Petros Eni, which in ancient Greek could mean “Peter is within.” The bones gathered from the cavity by Kaas, she concluded, must be those of Peter – moved out of the tomb 1,800 years ago, perhaps during a persecution.
Guarducci presented her theory to Paul VI in 1964. After additional tests, the pope was convinced, despite dissent from three of the original four archaeologists. Paul announced that the bones of Peter had been identified “in a manner which we believe convincing.” On June 27, 1968, Paul reinterred them, stored in 19 Plexiglas cases, in Peter’s tomb.
Lastly from your #39:
Now, to reiterate: the simplest read on Peter's Epistles would be to understand that when he claims to be writing from Babylon -- he's writing from Babylon. HOWEVER, if one believes that Peter is writing of a "metaphorical Babylon", the most obvious candidate would be the "metaphorical Babylon" recorded in the pages of the New Testament -- that is, Jerusalem.
Does Jerusalem sit on seven hills? I think not. How gullible do you think we are?
-------------------------
Let me put it simply and bluntly. This effort of yours is a lying fraud. If this article is your best effort - a pastische of lies and half-truths strung together like a necklace of rabbit turds gussied up to look like pearls - let it be said it still stinks like rabbit turds! You've moved many notches down on my level of respect meter with your blatant misrepresentations here - both of the Bible and of archaeology. Its really pretty pathetic.
Let it be said that tradition relates St. Peter coming to Rome in AD 42 and staying until AD 49, and then returning at least once and likely more than once before his death in the Neronian persecutions in AD 64, handing on the episcopate there to St. Linus. None of this is incompatible with anything you've presented.
I'm freeping a bit more regularly of late, so after I respond to your post above (I'll probably grant some points; there's other I'll contest) do you suppose you might be able to answer the question I asked you regarding the Regeneration of a fallen individual? I had defined Regeneration per your request, but I don't think I ever saw your answer to my question... (unless I missed it?)
best, OP
James having been identified as the son of Zebedee, John is simply identified as his brother. "James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother who was also son of Zebedee, which, being the brother of the son of Zebedee, you would well expect..." would get a little tedious.
Same goes double for Simon bar-Jona, and his brother Andrew.
Evidence in both catacombs indicated their use for burial until the middle part of the first century AD, several years before the New Testament was written. ~~ Apparently we are dealing with modernist scholars here.
Or, the author intended to mean the completion of the New Testament's writing. Bad word choice.
As he continued his excavations, Bagatti also found a coffin bearing the unusual inscription "Shimon bar Yonah" (= "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah"). I'm amazed that you cut short your article here.... I don't suppose its any more likely to be Peter's coffin than the one marked "Yeshua" is to be Jesus'?
I cut short the article because neither the part about the evidence being inconclusive as to the certainty that the ossuary is that of the Simon bar-Jonah, nor the additional information detailing the use of Antiochan monograms (which lends evidence to the likelihood that the tomb is that of Peter, given his stay in Antioch), provided much of a segue into the article critiquing the claim of Peter's burial in Rome. When posting two Articles in one, I'll cut to the chase for brevity's sake (there's always the link for the full article, of course).
It seems the the so-called missions of Sts. Peter and Paul were determined as a manner of speaking by the Church, not by Christ. Christ commissioned both St. Peter and St. Paul to preach to all men.
Point Granted.
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! How about Acts 10? Acts 15?
I never disputed that Peter unlocked the gate for the Gentiles, but this doesn’t make him the “Apostle to the Gentiles” in anything like the sense of Paul. That said, I do agree that Peter preached to all men; albeit there may have been a difference in focus between his ministry and Paul’s, as Scripture suggests.
1 St. Peter 1? Note that of the Christians St. Peter writes to in Asia Minor, he mentions their "former ignorance" (1.14) and "futile conduct" (1.18), says explicitly that before they were not "God's people" (2.10), etc. Sounds like non-Jews to me.
Well, sure. Even if Peter had his primary focus as the “Apostle to the Circumcision”, I never denied his General Epistles were not written to the Church… in general.
And where was St. Peter between AD 42 (release from prison) and AD 49 (Council of Jerusalem). Acts mentions "he left and went to another place" (Acts 12.17). Where? WHY NOT ROME, as spoken of by tradition? And desn't AD 49 fit in well with what we know of secular history (Seutonius) and the Bible (Acts 18.2) regarding the expulsion of Jews from the capital by edict of Claudius in AD 49 because of the preaching of Christ causing tumults among them? Who was doing the preaching? NOT ST. PAUL!!!
To reason from “another place” all the way to Rome is quite a leap -- Especially considering that Biblical accounts list several places Peter journeyed during his ministry, including Antioch, Samaria, Joppa, Caesarea, and (indirectly but likely) Corinth, but never Rome…. WHY NOT ROME? This is hardly a matter of Paul’s (only once-mentioned) side-trip to Crete; leaving out mention of Peter’s alleged preaching in Rome is quite a biggie.
A highly amusing claim which is made even more humorous because St. Paul is writing to an existing Christian community in Rome which he did not establish! As St. Paul notes in Romans 15.19, he has preached only between Jerusalem and Illyricum (modern Albania/Dalmatia). Perhaps he is sending his letter by a sealed bottle tossed into the sea in hopes that he might come to preach there before it arrives??? Note Acts 23.11 also specifies that St. Paul has never yet been to Rome - and this is AD 58!
An “existing Christian community” is not necessarily indicative of Apostolic formal establishment as a properly-organized church. Considering that 3,000 from all over the Roman world converted during Peter’s first big sermon, it’s not at all unlikely that quite a few ended up in Rome – and were then expelled by Claudius, many came back to Rome in time (presumably), and finally enjoyed formal organization by Paul.
This doesn’t disprove the possibility that Peter preached in Rome, but it is curious that the Bible nowhere mentions Peter’s alleged trip to Rome.
We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter -who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! ~~ So WHO is he writing to then if not the Chrsitians of Rome? These Christians so famous that "their faith is spoken of in the whole world" (Romans 1.8)?
Again, Rome being the center of the empire, I’m sure that there were Christians in Rome even before Paul got there. However, that does not speak to their formal Apostolic organization as a proper church.
The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. As to verse 11, the word under examination is sterichthenai - strengthen, not establish. Strong notes the following definitions: "1) to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix, 2) to strengthen, make firm, 3) to render constant, confirm, one's mind" Perhaps your Protestant translators are insinuating their own prejudices into this verse (again)?
As you note, to “make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix” is the primary translation. Ergo, if the Church at Rome had not yet been firmly placed, what was Peter doing during his alleged sojourn there?
However, the Roman Church would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense! ~~ Well certainly somebody had done it, else St. Paul would have no Christians to be writing to. He'd clearly never been there himself.
”Somebody” could simply have been those Converted during Peter’s ministry in the Holy Land who journeyed (or just returned home) to Rome. But again, they apparently had not been “firmly placed” and “set fast” as a properly-organized church when Paul wrote.
We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man's foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). ~~ We need to step back and examine the grammar here. Note St. Paul is talking in the past tense here "strived". In other words, he is giving a summary of his efforts to date, not saying what he will be doing in Rome.
Well, okay… but you’ve got a bit of Assuming your own Conclusion going on here. Because you assume that Peter had already “firmly placed” the Church at Rome (never mind that was what Paul was going there to do), you assume that Paul’s use of the past tense indicates that he is only giving a summary of his efforts to date and he will be building on another’s foundation (Peter’s) at Rome.
However, if you don’t assume your own conclusion, Paul’s use of the past tense to describe his previous policy may just as well describe his continuing policy. If I say, “I have always tried to take care of new customers in other markets”, that doesn’t mean I am not going to take care of new customers in my next market, or that they aren’t new customers.
If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church – because Peter was not in Rome. ~~ Again, who could he possibly be writing to here but men of another man's foundation? The Romans he address the letter to were Christians, but St. Paul had never been to Rome when he wrote to the Romans. Additionally, St. Paul clearly worked in areas where St. Peter also worked. 1 Corinthians 1.12 and 3.22 should be clear enough to establish this, since he admits to working with disciples made in Corinth by Kephas - none other than St. Peter, of course.
Peter working in areas where Paul also worked would not impinge on Paul’s policy of getting to new destinations “the firstest with the mostest”. So, all we’ve got here is some strong Biblical evidence that Peter did some preaching in Corinth… and still no Biblical evidence of Peter’s preaching in Rome, not to say it’s impossible that he ever did.
At the end of Paul's Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn't there! ~~ So? St. Peter was clearly off doing more than just preaching in Rome. Obviously he was in Corinth and Asia Minor as well, to name but a few spots.
At this point, the poor church of Rome must be wondering what “their Bishop’s” job has to do with Rome, since the guy is hardly (if ever) around…
But, since you grant that Peter was not in Rome at this time, so I’ll be fair and grant that neither does this prove that Peter was never in Rome (he’s just certainly never there when the writers of the Bible are looking, apparently).
When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul's arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter's meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome! ~~ So? Again, St. Peter did more than sit down in Rome and stay there. He was an Apostle. However, it needs to be asked who made all these Christians by their preaching? Certainly it was not St. Paul - this was his very first visit.
I’ve already addressed the matter of Christian converts from the Holy Land, Asia Minor, etc., ending up in Rome prior to its formal establishment. It was the center of the Empire. That said…
At this point, the poor church of Rome must be wondering what “their Bishop’s” job has to do with Rome, since the guy is hardly (if ever) around…
But, since you grant that Peter was not in Rome at this time, so I’ll be fair and grant that neither does this prove that Peter was never in Rome (he’s just certainly never there when the writers of the Bible are looking, apparently).
When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ``as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn't. Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. There is no mention of Peter in Paul's Letters. ~~ Lets refresh. Catholic tradition is St. Peter went to Rome in AD 42 and returned to Jerusalem during the Claudian expulsion in AD 49. Apparently some time after perhaps around Claudius' death in AD 56, the Jews returned. St. Peter, of course, was apparently occupied elsehwere at this time. By the time St. Paul comes on the scene in roughly AD 60, its been eleven years since the expulsion. There is nothing incongruous with St. Peter still being elsewhere busying himself with Apostolic work (probably Asia Minor), even though a Church founded by him still tarried in Rome. And there is nothing incongruous with Jews coming from elsewhere to Rome after he left not know of Christianity.
These aren’t just “some jews from elsewhere”, these are the CHIEFS of the Jewish eldership whom Paul calls upon. Peter preached in Rome for seven years (allegedly), and these guys hadn’t heard even the basics about Christian teachings?
Really??
After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn't there! ~~ Again - so what? What do you think you are prooving saying that St. Peter was not in Rome AD 60-62?
At this point, the poor church of Rome must be wondering what “their Bishop’s” job has to do with Rome, since the guy is hardly (if ever) around…
But, since you grant that Peter was not in Rome at this time, so I’ll be fair and grant that neither does this prove that Peter was never in Rome (he’s just certainly never there when the writers of the Bible are looking, apparently).
Peter thrice denied Christ, but that was before he was indwelt by the Spirit at Pentecost. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul's trial, and FORSOOK Paul as he forsook Christ, is absolutely untenable. Peter did not forsake Paul; PETER WAS NOT IN ROME. ~~ OP, I'm really beginning to question your basic knowledge of what you are writing about. The people who "forsook" St. Paul at his first defense were those in Asia, where he was obviosuly captured… As to his (Peter’s) being alone in Rome - obviosuly not. A list of important brethren is given in 4.21, and notes that all the brethren in Rome salute St. Timothy - so the Roman Church most certainly had not abandoned St. Paul. Included in the list is St. Linus, the second Pope. It is quite probable that, St. Peter being executed in AD 64, that St. Linus was already the new Bishop of Rome when St. Paul was writing.
Well, the author of Proof Ten was referencing Jerome’s tradition that Peter held the bishopric of Peter for 25 years, AD 42/43 – AD 67/68 or so. If your contention is that Peter was either dead or out of town (always out of town, it seems) in AD 64-65, then Proof Ten concerning Peter’s absence from Paul’s side wouldn’t apply.
Although if Peter is not dead at this point, what was the “Bishop of Rome” doing while one of the greatest of Apostles was being sentenced to death in the “Bishop of Rome’s” own alleged back yard? Alternatively, if Peter were dead by this point, it’s interesting that the “Pope” (Linus) gets only passing mention, certainly not first on the list, of important Christians in Rome.
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). No, AD 42. And its "AD 42", not "42 AD". You know "The Year of Our Lord 42", not "42 Year of Our Lord". In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles. ~~ No the incidents related in Galatians are in AD 49, before the council, and precipitating its convocation. St. Paul specificially dates them taking place around 14 years after his conversion (AD 34-35), which would place the time frame as AD 49.
Point Granted – I myself disagree with the author’s dating of events here.
Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). This is a highly imaginative date. Where do you get AD 66 from?
It’s a speculative date. Catholic Encyclopedia prefers to date the Petrine Epistles around AD 63/64, which is okay by me; so if you think the author is off by a couple years, I’ll grant the contention for the sake of argument.
As to Babylon the city, it was an uninhabited wasteland at this time. It had been abandoned around 300 years previously, and the stones and bricks used to build Seleucia-Ctesiphon some miles away. Babylon is clearly a code for Rome here, as in the Apocalypse (or does using the Bible to interpret the Bible only hold for when we are not busy spinning lies about Catholicism???).
Addressed below.
The bones of St. Peter were found. There is a book which clearly discusses the decades long investigation with all its twists and turns - "The Bones of St. Peter" by John E. Walsh. But all you needed to do was scroll down further on the page you linked too: http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200105052a.html As this disappointment unfolded, another scholar, Margherita Guarducci, worked to decipher some strange graffiti found on a necropolis wall. One day in 1952, she inquired about a nearby cavity, the one previously emptied by Kaas. Segoni, still laboring away on the project, led her to the bones he’d placed in a storeroom years before…. A decade later, those bones were identified as those of a man 5 feet 7 inches tall, of heavy build, age 60 to 70…. After additional tests, the pope was convinced, despite dissent from three of the original four archaeologists. Paul announced that the bones of Peter had been identified “in a manner which we believe convincing.” On June 27, 1968, Paul reinterred them, stored in 19 Plexiglas cases, in Peter’s tomb.
Hmmm…. Well, I guess one outta four ain’t bad.
Lastly from your #39: Now, to reiterate: the simplest read on Peter's Epistles would be to understand that when he claims to be writing from Babylon -- he's writing from Babylon. HOWEVER, if one believes that Peter is writing of a "metaphorical Babylon", the most obvious candidate would be the "metaphorical Babylon" recorded in the pages of the New Testament -- that is, Jerusalem. ~~ Does Jerusalem sit on seven hills? I think not. How gullible do you think we are?
At the time that John wrote the Revelation, in the same sense that the Jewish Elders once “sat” upon the “chair of Moses” (Matthew 23:2) – absolutely. Jesus did not here mean a literal seating upon a literal chair; He was referring to their spiritual foundation.
Likewise with John’s Revelation. We are not discussing a literal woman literally sitting upon a literal beast. We are discussing the harlot “Babylon” (Jerusalem) who has rejected her foundation and is now “sitting” upon (foundationalized herself) the idolatrous, emperor-worshipping “Beast” (Rome) of seven hills -- ”We have no king but Caesar!”
Gosh, John specifically tells us that the “Great City” (Revelation 18:10) IS Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8).
Ergo, when we encounter “metaphorical Babylon” in the New Testament, we are talking about Jerusalem.
Sorry for the long delay, just a long post demanding a long response.
best, OP