Now, the Catholic church is trying to have it both ways. They believe they've discovered "evidence" that Peter was in Rome, want to call Reformer liars even thought the REFORMERS wanted the CATHOLIC church to adhere to Biblical teachings which wasn't and still doesn't the Catholic church doesn't adhere to or teach this day - just a few things here and there that fits in to their ancient heresies ... .
I have to disagree with what you are writing. There are many Protestants that claim there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. This could mean simply that he could have been, but there's nothing conclusive to say so. A sort of "agnostic" thought on the topic. However, many will cite this lack of evidence to knock down the Catholic belief about the Papacy and Papal primacy.
Historical fact that Peter ever went to Rome is missing. Show me any evidence that Peter was ever in Rome and I might reconsider my basic protestant argument. After many hundreds of years, Rome has yet to give any “proof” that Peter ever set foot in Rome.So if you think that some Protestants do not make this claim then your dispute is with those that do, not with me. Please be more retrospect before you charge someone with lying or creating a straw man.
--doc1019, post #5Like most historians, I’m still waiting for proof that Peter ever ventured to Rome. Why would he, he had already shown that he was unworthy by denying Christ three times. And after denying Christ, we don’t hear about him much. So this has been , denier (sp) of Christ went on to Rome and became the first pope . Excuse me if I don’t buy into this whole thing.
--doc1019, post #5Irenaeus tells us several things. First, Peter AND Paul established the Church of Rome. Second, when the Church of Rome was established they left it in the hands of Linus. Finally, they left Rome.
--HarleyD, post #27Where is this "documentation from the earliest Christians" on this matter. Please post all that you have. Search the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and send them to me. We are doing a wonderful ecumenical treatise on the Evidence that Saint Peter was in Rome for that 25 year Bishopric as Saint Jerome pontificates and to date we have no evidence from Scripture or the "earliest Christians" or the Ante-Nicene Fathers, other than Jerome and Eusebius, of course, way off in the 4th century. But what were their sources????
They didn't pontificate on this matter without proof, did they? Or were their sources that thin over their heads there on Vatican hill or perhaps that ream of whole cloth down there in the basement that the magisterium have been using for years?
Please post all that you have from the Ante-Nicene Fathers that in the wildest imagination could be construed by the most rhetorical among us to possibly be some shred of evidence of that legendary Petrine Bishopric in Rome followed by upside down crucifixion under Nero. Just the words not the rhetoric.
--Uncle Chip, post #43What proof is there that Peter was martyred upside down in Rome. We know Paul was because of the books he wrote.
--wmfights, post #59This still does not answer my original question … were is there physical proof that Peter ever visited Rome?
--doc1019, post #61Neither lived contemporaneous with Peter. Tertuillian AD 145-220, Ireneaus AD 120-202. So anything they have to report would be hearsay. They never claim to have actually seen Peter walking the streets of Rome.
--doc1019, post #62This is the crux of the problem. St. Jerome lived from 347AD-420AD. How could he assert who was in Rome 300 years before? Did he have tangible proof?
--wmfights, post #64If the 'pope' was in Rome, wouldn't the chief Jews already have heard of Peter, and been preached the Kingdom of God??? Of course they would... But the chiefs of the Jews knew nothing about the Kingdom of God other than the small talk and rumors they heard about another sect of religious nuts...And since the Jewish people were Peter's responsibility, that's a pretty good indication Peter was no where near the area...
--Iscool, post # 99