So what kind of evidence would you like? Frankly the Bible does suggest it in several ways and the testimony of early Church fathers is evidence. The only situation where it would not be considered conclusive is if there was evidence he died some place else. Since there is no other testimony or hard evidence that he died some place else we have by default only Rome as a plausible grave. Why should we not take the testimony of St. Irenaus(180 AD) who said "The blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, having founded and built up the Church handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus...." Against Heresies 3,3,3 This was the belief of all Christendom for a long time, we don't need to prove it, you need to prove that he wasn't there. Now you may not like the burden of proof, and you my say "Oh No YOU guys have to prove it!" but frankly no we don't. The evidence you want seems to be some thing other then writings of early Christians, I wonder what other evidence would survive? I suppose inscriptions in the Christian catacombs of Rome "Paul and Peter pray for Victor" Wouldn't be good enough either?
Now if you can't give us one single bit of "factual evidence - proof" that he did not die in Rome, why should we respond to you on that issue. If you can't you should drop it now.
If my notes on Irenaeus are correct, there are no original copies of his works in existence, and what is credited to him was written in ancient barbarous Latin at some point in time, and then these didn't turned up until around 1526AD, and it was then that they were copied and printed.
Hummmm, they didn't turn up until 1526AD, that sure is a long time for these writings to be floating around the monasteries giving someone plenty of opportunity to make some interpolations, and it seemed to me there was something else going on at this time in history in the 1500's.
I think he developed the doctrine of "apostolic succession" too, boy you had better keep this guy propped up as long as you can. Oh, wait, I see here he had some pretty weird ideas that you may want to look into before you take anything he said too serious.:-)
I have suggested multiple evidences that should be present by way of questions asked in the last number of threads - Tax records, census, location of a home, a synagogue, a bill of sale, etc. These are all things that would exist and do not. A court record of his trial and death would also be helpful, decrees were not simply word of mouth, they were recorded.. And let's face it, Rome proper was not overrun. We have civil records of individual will's from the time, where are any written records from Rome proper showing Peter abiding by local law? Where is Any hard physical evidence of his presence.
Frankly the Bible does suggest it in several ways and the testimony of early Church fathers is evidence.
The testimony of the "early church fathers" is the hearsay of a bunch of men repeating each other's inconclusive hearsay. None of them can say of any authority that he was there. I've addressed their lack of credibility on a number of bases. We've no idea who wrote the books Their works are not inspired, not scripture and therefore must be judged in light of history - not Christianity. What Historic documents exist to establish the veracity of anything they say.
The only situation where it would not be considered conclusive is if there was evidence he died some place else. Since there is no other testimony or hard evidence that he died some place else we have by default only Rome as a plausible grave.
This is your opinion - not the laws of science or of reality. Just because you want to believe it does not change the way the real world views science and archeological proof. Saying something does not make it true in absence of evidence to the contrary, and there is evidence to the contrary in the scriptures.
Why should we not take the testimony of St. Irenaus(180 AD) who said "The blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, having founded and built up the Church handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus...." Against Heresies 3,3,3
Who are we quoting here, Irenaus or someone else who lived at the end of the second century and wrote something 120 years (6 generations) after Peter's death. And what is it he did Not say here. Well, he didn't say that Peter was in Rome. If we believe the author's statement, it doesn't either first or second hand, put Peter in Rome or require that he be in Rome. Peter spoke at pentecost to people who were from Rome. Others in Rome had heard the Gospel before Paul showed up. And Peter is never mentioned as being in Rome - persecutions or no - never placed there either by Peter's testimony or anyone elses from his time.
This was the belief of all Christendom for a long time, we don't need to prove it, you need to prove that he wasn't there.
Uh, no. All Christendom has not always believed this, All Catholicism maybe; but, not all Christendom. And, lest we forget, all Europe believed for a long time that the Donation of Constantine was legit - oops. 1100 years of telling a lie does not baptise it as truth. 1500 years of repeating hearsay doesn't make it true either. And the burden of proof is squarely on the Catholic Church as the author of the claim. I'm not dumb enough to buy this, "we say it's true, you have to prove us wrong or it's true" crap. Prove your case.
.. but frankly no we don't. The evidence you want seems to be some thing other then writings of early Christians,
Well, the people you cite cannot get certain beliefs right, were they really christians - or just good at the lingo? Their books are uninspired and considered dubious for numerous reasons - which is why noncatholics disregard them and question their authority. If they had any authority, that should be easy to establish, why has Catholicism been unable to do so? Is it, perhaps, because the number of claimed writings that are found fraudulent through the march of time and technology seems to bump them off every so often? Is it because the greatest support for the claims the Catholic church has made re: Peter in Rome happened to be forged? Is it because there is no first hand evidence of someone - anyone contemporary of Peter writing not just that he was in Rome but what he was doing there. Is there no civil record of his presence. The name Appolos appears in Roman Records by way of trial account if memory serves - why no Peter?
I wonder what other evidence would survive? I suppose inscriptions in the Christian catacombs of Rome "Paul and Peter pray for Victor" Wouldn't be good enough either?
You can't be serious. I could paint you anything you want on a catecombe wall and let people view it in 10 centuries. If it's Bilbo Baggins, it won't make Bilbo Baggins anymore present on earth than Peter in Rome. Nor do such Paintings of neccesity place such a fictitious happenstance in Rome. Time does not make truth of hearsay, guesses, or little pictures portraying an event from someone's life. Tell us, if Pictograms of Moses and Pharoah were found in Israel, would that mean Pharoah was in Israel? Not. Give us a break and credit for a brain.
Now if you can't give us one single bit of "factual evidence - proof" that he did not die in Rome, why should we respond to you on that issue. If you can't you should drop it now.
In other words, "How dare you require that we prove our claim?!" No, you make a loud and boastful claim that is unproven. If you are going to sell it, you must prove it. If you all can stand and call Joseph Smith a liar on his wild unproven claims, ya'll can prove your own wild unproven claims. If you can't, it's hot air and we are in no way obliged to honor it any more than Smith's stories of little winged men on the moon.