Replies

Hey Salvation, out of this entire list about Peter and Rome, I find nothing about him residing there in Rome at all or about that mythological Roman Bishopric of Catholic legend. All they say, if they can be believed at all, is that Peter may have preached there on his travels but not resided in Rome at all.

Isn't it true that the first time that we hear about this legendary Petrine Bishopric is when Eusebius invents it out of whole papyrus in the 4th century and from Eusebius the legend grew?

One would think that every writer of Roman history from Josephus to Tacitus to Clement of Rome to Justin Martyr to Irenaeus to Hippolytus --- all of whom should have provided atleast some detail regarding such a legendary Bishopric. But they have nothing to say about it at all. Isn't it true that it never happened as even Catholic authors have stepped forward to now admit.

Isn't it true that the first time that we hear about this legendary Petrine Bishopric is when Eusebius invents it out of whole papyrus in the 4th century and from Eusebius the legend grew?

There was a early Bishopric in Rome....and I know you are very aware of it's namesake. He was also called Simon....Simon Magus [Acts 8:9-24].....or "Simon Pater" as he became known.

What is simply amazing is that these Romans we deal with on these threads everyday do not think anyone else knows about it!

Isn't it true that the first time that we hear about this legendary Petrine Bishopric is when Eusebius invents it out of whole papyrus in the 4th century and from Eusebius the legend grew?

LOL!

She's not going to answer until you stop beating your wife ...

Personally I don't know. Why do you say "invent". Is there evidence to the contrary or what? I mean real evidence, not Dan Brown evidence.

One would think that every writer of Roman history from Josephus to Tacitus to Clement of Rome to Justin Martyr to Irenaeus to Hippolytus --- all of whom should have provided atleast some detail regarding such a legendary Bishopric. But they have nothing to say about it at all.

Okay. I appreciate the hostile witness thing, but isn't (see? notice the leading question?) it going a bit far to expect Tacitus to say anything about whether Peter was there or not? I mean it's been a few decades, but I don't recall that kind of detailed interest on his part.

Similarly for Josephus. I'm not syaing they didn't I'm just saying that I don't see them taking that detailed an interest. It's a new idea to me. And, on the off-chance that my perception is not unreasonable, the ommission would not be remarkable.

I think maybe you dropped a clause in our last paragraph, but in any event, THIS particular one would not thing what you say one would think.

Isn't it true that it never happened as even Catholic authors have stepped forward to now admit.

I don't do history much, but I'd be interested in some names/sources here if it wouldn't be a nuisance.

What makes it so important to you that Peter resided in Rome.

They are speaking of Rome as inclusive -- the entire Roman Empire, aren't they?

Excavations have been ongoing under the Basilica of St. Peter. Two tombs have been found underneath the High Altar. The bones in the first were a collection from different people and animals. The bones in the second were of a man about 60 years old. It is not known if they are the bones of St. Peter, but the monument over the tomb is estimated to be from about 160 AD, because of the complex of mausoleums (from the 2nd & 3rd centuries) in which it is located, underneath the Basilica. See this article for more details:

http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/historyandclassics/nav02.cfm?nav02=27355&nav01=25087

The excavation sight can be viewed today if one goes to the Vatican.