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.
Chapter & Verse, please?
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.)
Chapter & Verse, Please?
Matthew 10:5; [These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the "Lost Sheep of Israel".]
In John 21:14-17 Jesus appearing to all of his disciples for the 3rd time since the resurrection and says to Peter after the meal: Feed my Lambs(verse 15); Take care of my sheep(verse 16); Feed my sheep(verse 17). These are not Gentile sheep.
Again....why would it be necessary for the Lord to designate Paul as an Apostle to the Gentiles if it was O.K. for the twelve to handle that chore? As you can see by plain scripture....that was not their commission.
Additionally, 1 Peter 5:13 states...
As I said in my earlier post, Babylon is Babylon. You can call it Rome all day long with any "code" word you like. It is still Babylon. Did you notice whom Peter was writing to? [To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.....] Doesn't sound too much like Gentiles, does it?