Replies

• There is actually very little proof that Peter was even in Rome other then at his death. Read Paul’s letter to the Romans in Romans 16: 1-15. He mentions everyone of note but nothing about or to Peter. Not only that, but in Romans Paul is giving instructions in the faith if Peter was already the Bishop of Rome. If Catholics are right Peter would have been Paul’s superior. Yet Paul never mentions him in his letter to the church at Rome and gives them instructions in the faith. If Peter had been in Rome as it’s Bishop there certainly would have been mention and there would have been no need to “go over his bosses head” and give instruction in the faith.

There is no record in the Bible or elsewhere, of Peter issuing instructions to the diocese of Rome. What an amazing oversight by a supposedly infallible commander-in-chief! In addition to that, Paul wrote to Timothy from Rome.

2 Timothy 4:9-12 - "Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus."

Where was Peter the supposed Bishop of Rome? Again in 2 Timothy Paul is giving instructions to Timothy. If Peter was the Supreme Pontiff of Rome why is Paul writing from Rome with no mention of Peter?

Then there is Irenaeus.

Irenaeus: "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. . . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus, was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth (SOURCE: Iraeneus Against Heresies, Volume I, Book III, Para 3)

Did you notice that it was Paul who made mention of Linus, not Peter? With no indication of Peter ever being in Rome nor any indication that Peter in fact was the head of the Apostles there can be no legitimate claim that Peter was the first Pope or that the RC was built on Peter.

And then one more embarrassment for the RCC. In the 1950s Roman Catholic archaeologists discovered a tomb in Jerusalem containing an ossuary—a bone box used in first-century Jewish burials—that bore the engraved name “Simon Bar Jona” (a name by which the apostle Peter is known in the Gospels).

The RCC has erroneously interpreted one verse of scripture to try to wrest control of Christ’s church and then tried to manipulate scripture for hundreds of years until those interpreting from the original languages found gross errors in the RCC manuscripts which precipitated the Reformation.

“”There is actually very little proof that Peter was even in Rome “”

Complete nonsense ,even protestant scholars don’t agree with you

New Advent does a good job of laying out all of the ancient manuscript evidence that Peter was in Rome and died in Rome. These men are the same men who recognized that the writings of Paul and Peter were from God.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV

If you believe this is biased, also check out this information from a “Church of YEHOVAH” site.
http://hope-of-israel.org/petrome.htm

Here is some information compiled on the subject matter...I didn’t include the whole article, but this conclusion is clear - that Peter did die in Rome.

Peter had to die and be buried somewhere; and the OVERWHELMING CHRISTIAN TRADITION has been in agreement, from the EARLIEST TIMES, that it was actually in Rome that Peter died. F. J. Foakes-Jackson, in his book Peter: Prince of Apostles, states “that the tradition that the church [in Rome] had been founded by...Paul was well established by A.D. 178. From hence forth there is NO DOUBT whatever that, NOT ONLY AT ROME, but throughout the Christian church, Peter’s visit to the city was an ESTABLISHED FACT, as was his martyrdom together with that of Paul” (New York, 1927. P. 155.).

Historian Arthur Stapylton Barnes agrees:

The strong point in the evidence of the [church] fathers is their UNANIMITY. It is QUITE CLEAR that no other place was known to them as claiming to have been the scene of St. Peter’s death, and the repository of his relics. — St. Peter in Rome, London, 1900. P. 7.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge corroborates this by saying:

Tradition seems to maintain that Peter went to Rome toward the end of his life and there suffered martyrdom UNDER NERO. NO SOURCE describes the place of Peter’s martyrdom as other than Rome. It seems most probable, on the whole, that Peter died a martyr’s death IN ROME TOWARD THE CLOSE OF NERO’S REIGN, sometime AFTER the cessation of the general persecution. — Article, “Peter.”

John Ignatius Dollinger claims that the evidence “St. Peter worked in Rome is a FACT SO ABUNDANTLY PROVED and so deeply imbedded in the earliest Christian history, that whoever treats it as a legend ought in consistency to treat the whole of the earliest church history as LEGENDARY, or, at least, QUITE UNCERTAIN” (The 1st Age of Christianity and the Church, London. 1867. P. 296).

As author James Hardy Ropes states:

The tradition, however, that Peter came to Rome, and suffered martyrdom under Nero (54-68 A.D.) either in the great persecution which followed the burning of the city or somewhat later, rests on a different and FIRMER basis....It is UNQUESTIONED that 150 years after Peter’s death it was the COMMON BELIEF at Rome that he had died there, as had Paul. The “trophies” of the two great apostles could be seen on the Vatican Hill and by the Ostian Way...a firm local tradition of the death at Rome of both apostles is attested for a time NOT TOO DISTANT FROM THE EVENT. — The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism. New York. 1908. Pp. 215-216.

The belief that Peter was martyred in Rome was NOT due to the vanity or ambition of the LOCAL Christians, but was ADMITTED, at an early date, THROUGHOUT THE CHURCH. No testimony later than the middle of the 3rd century really needs to be considered; by this time the Roman church claimed to have the body of the apostle and NO ONE DISPUTED THE FACT.

It is more than interesting to realize that there IS NOT ONE SINGLE PASSAGE or utterance to the contrary in ANY of the literary works dealing with the foundations of Christianity — until AFTER the Reformation. Don’t you think that’s odd? Don’t you think SOMEONE would have seized upon this claim of Rome, and used it as a point of contention if there were ANY doubt at all regarding its validity? Don’t you think the eastern churches would have gotten UNLIMITED PROPAGANDA MILEAGE out of this claim if it were not true? For centuries the eastern churches were in almost CONSTANT conflict with Rome over Easter, the Sabbath, and many other doctrinal issues. If they could have seized upon Rome’s claim that Peter had worked and died there, they SURELY would have used this against the Roman church! But they didn’t. WHY? Because there was ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER about Rome being the site of Peter’s death!

From William McBirnie:

We certainly do not even have the slightest reference that points to any other place besides Rome which could be considered as the scene of his death. And in favor of Rome, there are important traditions that he did actually die in Rome. In the second and third centuries when certain churches were in rivalry with those in Rome it never occurred to a single one of them to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. — The Search for the Twelve Apostles. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton, Illinois. 1973. P. 64.

Unger’s Bible Dictionary states unequivocally that “the evidence for his [Peter’s] martyrdom there [in Rome] is COMPLETE, while there is a TOTAL ABSENCE of any contrary statement in the writings of the early fathers” (3rd Edition, Chicago. 1960. P. 850).

George Edmundson, in his book The Church in Rome in the 1st Century, dogmatically repeats the same conclusion:
We do not have even the SLIGHTEST TRACE that points to any other place which could be considered as the scene of his [Peter’s] death....It is a further important point that in the second and third centuries, when certain churches were in rivalry with the one in Rome, IT NEVER OCCURRED TO A SINGLE ONE OF THEM to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. Indeed, even MORE can be said; precisely in the east, as is clear from the pseudo-Clementine writings and the Petrine legends, above all those that deal with Peter’s conflict with Simon the magician [Magus] THE TRADITION OF THE ROMAN RESIDENCE OF PETER HAD A PARTICULARLY STRONG HOLD. — London. 1913. Pp. 114-115.

Jerome writes as follows: “Simon Peter, prince of the apostles, after an episcopate of the church at Antioch and preaching to the dispersion of those of the circumcision, who had believed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, IN THE 2ND YEAR OF CLAUDIUS GOES TO ROME TO OPPOSE SIMON MAGUS and there for 25 years beheld the sacerdotal chair until the LAST YEAR OF NERO, that is the 14th.” Now here amidst a CERTAIN CONFUSION...a definite date is given for Peter’s FIRST ARRIVAL IN ROME, and, be it noted, it is the date of his escape from Herod Agrippa’s persecution and his disappearance from the narrative of the Acts. — London. 1913. Pp. 50-51. According to George Edmundson, in his work The Church in Rome in the 1st Century:

Jerome claims the 14th year of Nero’s reign was his last, and history records Nero died in June of 68, then, using the reckoning of Jerome, the 2nd year of Claudius must have been 43 A.D. This AGREES, as Mr. Edmundson noted, with the date of Peter’s imprisonment and escape under Herod, and agrees with the historical dates for the reign of Claudius.
Chronologers agree that Herod died in 44 A.D.; and the Book of Acts shows that after Peter’s escape, Herod went to Caesarea where he spent some time in negotiations with envoys from Tyre and other Phoenician cities before his death. This, coupled with the UNIVERSAL GREEK TRADITION that the apostles did not leave the Syro-Palestinian region UNTIL THE END OF 12 YEARS MINISTRY, fits in well with the dating of Eusebius and Jerome.

I think the evidence is quite clear, from those men who were there, that Peter did die in Rome. I see no reason to doubt the universal agreement of the first Christian writers who all say Peter was in Rome and eventually died in Rome. It is only after the Reformation that we begin to see any “doubt” of that.