Replies

THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO..."

As to the question of whether Peter was ever at Rome, the Roman claim is that he suffered martyrdom there with Paul, after a pontificate of twenty five years. This would have to be in the period from A.D. 41 to 66. But let us note the evidence from the Scriptures:-

1. In A.D. 44 he was imprisoned in Jerusalem (Acts 12).
2. In A.D. 52 he was at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
3. In A.D. 53 Paul joined him at Antioch (Galatians 2).
4. In A.D. 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but he does not mention Peter. In Romans 1:11, Paul wants to impart special gifts to the believers in Rome; and in 1:15 he is ready to preach there. In this Roman letter he sends greetings to twenty seven persons, but none to Peter. It is inconceivable that Paul would not have referred to the presence of one who was one of the foremost apostles.
5. In A.D. 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter.
6. When Paul writes to the Galatians, he mentions Peter, but not as having been in Rome, or as having been Pontiff there for twenty years. Indeed, the circumstances in Antioch were such that Peter was sternly rebuked by Paul, whose authority was much greater than Peter's. (Galatians 2:11).
7. The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as being his associates, or sending greetings, Peter is never once mentioned.
8. From Rome also Paul's last letter is written (2nd Timothy). He says, "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me" ((2 Tim. 4:16). So if Peter was in Rome he enjoyed a immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the Great Apostle.
9. And finally, in this very epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, "Only Luke is with me" (2 Tim. 4:11). This is conclusive.
Paul had written to Rome: the last years of his life were spent in Rome: and his last letters are all written from Rome. Not only does he never once mention Peter, but emphatically, at the last moment declares "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome.

Published by "Grace and Truth," 28 Burlington Rd., Sherwood, Nottingham England NG5 2GS Tel. 0115 -962 6346

Published by "Grace and Truth,"

They should change their name to "Tommyrot and Foolishness".

It is inconceivable that Paul would not have referred to the presence of one who was one of the foremost apostles.

It is not "inconceivable" at all. If you were a member of a tiny group persecuted by both Jews and Romans, would you put down on paper, which might fall into the hands of the authorities, the whereabouts of your critical leaders? I mean, come on, Paul wasn't stupid.

Indeed, the circumstances in Antioch were such that Peter was sternly rebuked by Paul, whose authority was much greater than Peter's. (Galatians 2:11).

Nothing in Gal 2 says that Paul's authority was "much greater than Peter's," or greater at all, in fact. Paul makes a big deal out of rebuking Peter for his bad conduct precisely because Peter's authority was recognized and important.

The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon were all written from Rome

Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't. Ephesians and Collossians refer to "fetters" and being an "ambassador in chains," and Philemon refers to imprisonment, but Paul was imprisoned in the Holy Land before going to Rome, so that proves nothing. Nor do we know that they were written before Peter's death, so that again proves nothing.

So if Peter was in Rome he enjoyed a immunity which was not accorded to Paul

Says who? He was a hunted criminal!

Not only does he never once mention Peter, but emphatically, at the last moment declares "Only Luke is with me."

And for all you or they know, Peter was already dead by then.

Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome.

A non-conclusion based on a non-argument fraught with wishful thinking. Mildly persuasive, except for the evidence. Except for the writings of the fathers, in particular, Ignatius, who knew both Peter and Paul, and who mentions them as commanding the church in Rome in his letter to the Romans. Except for the writings of Eusebius, who is the most authoritative historian of the early church, far more authoritative than a bunch of Protestant pampleteers in London. And except for that troublesome tomb on Vatican Hill, and the words on it: Petros eni ... "Peter is here".

Hello OLD REGGIE,

Thank you for the ping. I’ve read the argument from the source in Birmingham, England that you posted. The authors claim to demonstrate from Scripture that the Apostle Peter was never in Rome. While there are many points with which I would disagree, fundamentally their argument fails because it attempts to prove its point from silence. The essence of the argument is that, because St. Paul does not send a personal greeting to St. Peter in the Epistle to the Romans, St. Peter must have never been in Rome. “Why,” we are asked, “didn’t St. Paul personally greet St. Peter in his Epistle to the Romans?” While plausible explanations can be forwarded, in the end it is unnecessary to assign a motivation to the Apostle Paul for something that he did not write.

The argument is based upon the claim that there is no evidence St. Peter was ever in Rome. As it turns out, the historical record is unanimous in placing him there.

I appreciate your pinging me to this discussion. Realistically, the question is not whether St. Peter was ever in Rome. The question is, “What does that mean for Christianity today?” What role does the Bishop of Rome play in the faith lives of the Christians who are members of the flock which he shepherds? What is the role of St. Peter’s successor in the Church and in the broader world world today? What is his role in the establishment of fraternal dialog between men of good will in the currently fractured Christian Church? Is the papacy an impediment to Christian unity? What role does the papacy play in the ongoing dialog between Jewish and Christian believers? What role does the current successor of Peter play in the relationship between the Islamic world and the historically Christian West? What role does the Papacy play in movements that attempt to segregate religious faith from the public discussion of moral and political issues such as abortion? There is room for discussion and honest disagreements around these and other questions.

Such a conversation, which is both legitimate and necessary, is being avoided by a denial of historical evidence.

I hope you are doing well, and once again, thanks for the post.