If you would like to believe Peter was in Rome that is fine....but I know from scripture that Peter was appointed Apostle to the circumcised. Rome was Gentile. The scriptures do not have Peter in or anywhere near Rome. Do you think this odd if he later would be your "Rock"?
You base your assumptions entirely on Tradition....I base mine on the Word of God.
No we believe that the word was made flesh and dwelt among us and that the God of Scripture is also the God of history.
Romans 15:20....Paul says he would never preach upon another man's foundation."
You also said:
but I know from scripture that Peter was appointed Apostle to the circumcised.
And:
Rome was Gentile
If this be the case, as you are presenting it, what do you make of Paul's letter to the Thessalonians?
Thessalonica was in Macedonia. Also a Gentile city. So Gentile, in fact, Paul and Timothy were prohibited from preaching to the Gentiles there.
Well to whom then did they preach? The "circumcised". In the synagogue there.
So, let's look at what you're saying:
1) Rome is Gentile. Therefore, there were no "circumcised" men for Peter to be the "Apostle to the Circumcised". This is faulty premise. There were many Christianized Jews living in Rome who were driven out of Jerusalem by the persecuting zealots.
2) Peter was Apostle to the circumcised. Paul was Apostle to the Gentiles (according to Galations 2:9). How does that square with Paul preaching solely to the Jews in Thessalonica? Sounds a lot like Paul was preaching "on another man's foundation" (if that was Peter's assigned flock, as you contend.)
Additionally, 1 Peter 5:13 states...
"The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark"
Babylon, as I've said, was code for "Rome". Babylon proper was laying in ruins when Peter wrote this letter. It was not an inhabited city.
You base your assumptions entirely on Tradition....I base mine on the Word of God.
LOL! I've done nothing but cite Scripture as a foundation, with support from accepted historical facts. You've done nothing but repeat the same "do-it-yourself" theology over and over again, while ignoring the entirety of Sacred Scripture and accepted history.
The scriptures do not have Peter in or anywhere near Rome. Do you think this odd if he later would be your "Rock"?
You haven't answered any of my questions. You've done nothing but evade and then set up straw men because your position is rife with error. I've already addressed the issue of what IS and what ISN'T explicitly in Scripture and its relationship with accepted fact.