by whom is it being widely held? I have asked for citations from Josephus, Tacitus, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and they say nothing. Ignatius tells us something but nothing close to what is claimed here as being widely held.
that Peter paid a first visit to Rome after he had been miraculously liberated from the prison in Jerusalem; that, by "another place", Luke meant Rome, but omitted the name for special reasons.
Didn't he know how to spell "Rome"? If he meant "Rome" why didn't he say "Rome" as he does later when telling about Paul's upcoming visit to "Rome". He didn't call it "another place" there, did he? He clearly knew how to spell "Rome" and had no special reason not to.
It is not impossible that Peter made a missionary journey to Rome about this time (after 42 A.D.)
It is not impossible that Peter made a missionary journey to China about this time either? Shall we assert that since we have no evidence to the contrary?
but such a journey cannot be established with certainty.
Then why are you trying so hard to believe that for which you have no evidence?
At any rate, we cannot appeal in support of this theory to the chronological notices in Eusebius and Jerome
Then why have you been pontificating this myth for 1500 years and claiming that it is true when you know that you have NO EVIDENCE. Why are you lying to your own people and those outside your church as well? The entire magisterium of your church is built upon the words of Eusebius and Jerome, which you now claim to be untrue.Your church was built upon a LIE.
Why are you accusing jo kus of "lying to his own people"?
by whom is it being widely held? I have asked for citations from Josephus, Tacitus, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and they say nothing. Ignatius tells us something but nothing close to what is claimed here as being widely held.
It is widely held that Peter was in Rome. It is widely held that Peter wrote 1 Peter from Rome. It is widely held that "Babylon" refers to Rome. It is widely held that Peter and Paul died there - as the book of Revelation seems to point out. (the two prophets killed). Regarding the twenty-five year reign of Peter as bishop of Rome, I have given you the background. It is not certain. But we are discussing history, not dogma. The study of history is rife with uncertainties. However, in the study of history, we follow the axiom that "one's witness is accurate until proven otherwise". With Aristotle, we take the historian's view is true - until we find other more reliable sources that prove otherwise.
All you have is your own biases against the THEOLOGY of the church. Because you do not trust the Catholic Church's dogmas are from God, you naturally believe that the history regarding the Church must answer to some higher proof of its claims regarding such miscellaniety as a 25 year reign of Peter as bishop. An unbiased historian will accept what is written unless proven otherwise. You appear to demand more evidence BECAUSE it is something about the Catholic Church. In history, one must leave his religious bias at home.
Didn't he know how to spell "Rome"? If he meant "Rome" why didn't he say "Rome" as he does later when telling about Paul's upcoming visit to "Rome".
Have you ever been on the run before, maybe people trying to toss you to the lions, say? Note that Revelation ALSO conceals a lot through symbology that clearly points to the Roman Empire and the Emperor himself... This is accepted by the majority of Protestant exegesis on the subject.
It is not impossible that Peter made a missionary journey to China about this time either? Shall we assert that since we have no evidence to the contrary?
Because we have other evidence that shows Peter was in Rome and it certainly seems reasonable to presume that the head Apostle of our Lord would EVENTUALLY go to the head city of the Empire. We have evidence of a clash between the Jews and Christians in c. 42 AD. It is NOT unreasonable to presume that Peter was there - since Paul does not claim to have been to Rome yet. And it would make sense to "hide" Peter's destination in case the letter had fallen into Roman hands.
Then why have you been pontificating this myth for 1500 years and claiming that it is true when you know that you have NO EVIDENCE.
Again, you appear ignornant of how historians work. An established theory is upheld until evidence is brought forward to bring about another theory. This is true in science, as well. All you do is demand evidence of "CNN" quality. Your standards are beyond what is available, thus, the Catholic version fails. However, one must question whether ANY evidence would pass your positive acceptance and standards you have set. Until you prove otherwise, this is no "myth".
Regards