Replies

The narrative in Acts 12 would put Peter's imprisonment and release closer to Herod's death in 44 AD.

That's unjustified speculation on your part. You are using another argument from silence to claim that events that occurred in 42 AD must have occurred in 44 AD, since the two narratives don't say that two years elapsed between them.

How could Peter be at the Council of Jerusalem and serving as Bishop of Rome at the same time? Bishops did not travel.

Where did you get the notion that "bishops did not travel"? How would they ever get to ecumenical councils if they did not travel??

You trust Jerome all you like. I trust Luke and his fellow writers.

The very notion that one has to choose between Jerome and Luke is a construct of your own making.

Here'e a timeline of Peter's life, from Stephen Ray's Upon This Rock:

c. 30   Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus; Pentecost

30-37   Peter head of the Church in Jerusalem

38-39   Peter's missionary journeys in Samaria and on the coast of Palestine

40-41   Peter in Antioch

42      Imprisonment in Jerusalem, escape, and departure to "another place".

42-49   First sojourn in Rome

49      Expulsion from Rome by the edict of Claudius against its Jews

49-50   In Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council

50-54   In Antioch, Bithynia, Pontus, Asia, and Cappadocia (or some of them)

54-57   Second sojourn in Rome; Gospel of Mark written under Peter's direction

57-62   In Bithynia, Pontus, and Cappadocia (or some of them); Mark in Alexandria, Egypt

62-67   Third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome

67      Martyrdom in Rome and burial near the Necropolis at the Vatican.

-A8

So Ray says that Peter was in Rome for 7 years, then away from Rome for 13 years, then back in Rome for 5 years. Well then he too disagrees with Jerome. So Is Ray right or Jerome? Jerome's 25 years versus Ray's 7 and maybe 5 more if they wanted Peter back after a 13 year hiatus?

Surely you are not going to tell us that Peter had a 13 year long distance Bishopric with his flock in Rome? And if he had been away that long, surely he would have written letters to them during those 13 years. Where are those? Where are any? Nowhere because it never happened.

Apostles travelled and established churches. Bishops resided with their churches and shepherded their flock, and they did not take 13 year sabbaticals away from their flocks without resigning their bishoprics.

The Church at Rome was not established by Peter in 42 or any time by Peter. It was established by Paul after he wrote his Epistle to the Romans which was circa 56 AD.

In Ch 1:11 of Romans Paul writes: "For I long to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift to the end that ye may be ESTABLISHED". As late as 56 AD there were believers there in Rome but without a spiritual gift and therefore not established in the apostolic way. And Paul did that when he was taken to Rome.