There are no Biblical references of Peter being anywhere in or about Rome. Babylon in [1 Peter 5:13] means....Babylon. Peter, as well as the other twelve had received instructions to "Go to the Lost Sheep" of the house of Israel and stay away from the Gentiles [Matthew 10:5-6]. That's why Paul was selected....if you recall.
During the first century a very large Israelite population still inhabited the area of Ancient Babylon and Peter, being the Apostle to the circumcised, [Galatians 2:7-8] had no business in Rome....ever!
But it will be futile for you to debate this subject with the Romans......as they claim to have the authority to make things up as they go along.
I am always amazed when Protestants deny what was always known and believed and claim the Bible backs them up!
Diego1618 wrote:
"There are no Biblical references of Peter being anywhere in or about Rome. Babylon in [1 Peter 5:13] means....Babylon."
Incorrect.
1) Babylon also meant Rome. It was essentially a code word.
Even most Protestants openly admit that Babylon means Rome:
"It is generally agreed that "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5:13 is a cipher for the city of Rome. The great city in Mesopotamia was no longer such in the first century. Diodorus of Sicily (56-36 BCE) writes: "As for the palaces and the other buildings, time has either entirely effaced them or left them in ruins; and in fact of Babylon itself but a small part is inhabited at this time, and most of the area within its walls is given over to agriculture." (2.9.9) Strabo, who died in 19 CE, writes: "The greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate to say . . . 'The Great City is a great desert'." (Geography 16.1.5) Also, no church other than Rome was claimed in ancient times to be the resting place of Peter. The Sibylline Oracles (5.143-168; 5.434), the Apocalypse of Baruch (10:1-3; 11:1; 67:7), 4 Ezra (3:1, 28, 31), and Revelation (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2-21) also refer to Rome as "Babylon." There was a reason for connecting the Babylonian and Roman empires, as Norman Perrin writes, "Rome is called Babylon because her forces, like those of Babylon at an earlier time, destroyed the temple and Jerusalem" (Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, p. 58)."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
You also wrote:
"Peter, as well as the other twelve had received instructions to "Go to the Lost Sheep" of the house of Israel and stay away from the Gentiles [Matthew 10:5-6]. That's why Paul was selected....if you recall."
2) And if you cracked open that Bible of yours you might recall Acts 10? Did St. Paul's designation as Apostle to the Gentiles stop him from preaching to Jews? Nope. He preached to Jews FIRST in each city he visited in fact.
Protestants used to know this! Martin Luther wrote: "Did not Paul preach to the Jews, while Peter preached to the Gentiles also? Peter converted the Centurion. Paul's custom was to enter into the synagogues of the Jews, there to preach the Gospel. Why then should he call himself the apostle of the Gentiles, while he calls Peter the apostle of the circumcision?"
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal2-04.html
* I find it futile to debate with protestants because they generate lies to justify dividing the Body of Christ