[adiaireton8]

Then explain how Peter could be the Bishop of Rome from 42 to 67 AD and still appear before Herod in 44 AD according to those Acts of the Apostles that Jerome had in his hands at the time. Did he not trust Luke? Who did he consider more trustworthy: Luke or Eusebius or his own imagination?

This is an example of being an uncharitable interpreter. Luke does not use the term "44 AD". Nor does Luke say anything that requires us to think that Peter appeared before Herod in 44 AD. Peter's imprisonment under Herod (and release by the angel) is thought to have occurred in 42 AD.

-A8

[wagglebee]

The terms AD and BC absolutely did not exist in the the First Century and wouldn't for some time. Luke would have probably used either the Jewish calender or the Roman calender (which dated everything from the founding of Rome).

[Uncle Chip]

Then explain how Peter could be the Bishop of Rome from 42 to 67 AD and still appear before Herod in 44 AD according to those Acts of the Apostles that Jerome had in his hands at the time. Did he not trust Luke? Who did he consider more trustworthy: Luke or Eusebius or his own imagination?

This is an example of being an uncharitable interpreter. Luke does not use the term "44 AD". Nor does Luke say anything that requires us to think that Peter appeared before Herod in 44 AD. Peter's imprisonment under Herod (and release by the angel) is thought to have occurred in 42 AD.

Thought by whom? --- Jerome. Historians put the reign of Herod Agrippa at 39 to 44 AD. The narrative in Acts 12 would put Peter's imprisonment and release closer to Herod's death in 44 AD.

But let's go forward to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 where Peter was a major player. When was that? 49 AD? 50 AD? some put it 51 or 52. How could Peter be at the Council of Jerusalem and serving as Bishop of Rome at the same time? Bishops did not travel. They resided in one place with their flock. So what was Peter at that point: an Apostle or a Bishop? He couldn't be both. One or the other.

And was Peter in two places at one time? or did he have a clone?

Or was Peter simply in Jerusalem as Luke records traveling between Jerusalem and Asia Minor and Parthian Babylon, and not in Rome as Eusebius and Jerome erroneously pontificate.

You trust Jerome all you like. I trust Luke and his fellow writers.