Oh really? PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.
Peter’s commission was to the circumcised not to the Gentiles.
Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8).
It was Paul who was commissioned to be the apostle to the Roman Gentiles.
"And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9).
II Timothy 1:11 "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."
Paul established the church in Rome.
"I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16).
In the first chapter of Romans Paul states clearly that it was he who established the church in Rome.
"I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11).
No one had established a church there before him. He emphatically stated he would not go into another church established by someone else.
"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation" (Rom. 15:20).
Would you argue not only that Peter would go against his commission to the Jews but that Paul lied and actually went into the church in Rome after Paul established it and “built upon another man’s foundation”?
you are trying to argue the logic of scripture against the rationale of institutional “tradition”
“Oh really? PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.”
Just as it doesn’t record St. Thomas going to India or St. Mark going to Ethiopia.
That was the entire point, CB. The argument made is that these two churches were older than the Church in Rome, which seems a rather silly argument.
This is an even worse one. Really? It precludes other apostles ministering to gentiles? There’s no scriptural evidence for this.
“Peter’s commission was to the circumcised not to the Gentiles.”
Of which Rome had both. Hence the letter of Paul which speaks of Jews and Gentiles.
“It was Paul who was commissioned to be the apostle to the Roman Gentiles.”
Not scripture, sadly.
“we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision”
Again, Jews in Rome were a big part of the congregation there. Nothing here is said of Rome.
“Paul established the church in Rome.”
Not scripture.
“I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established”
Not what he’s saying here at all. He’s writing to the church already there. Otherwise he’d not be writing to it if it didn’t exist.
“No one had established a church there before him.”
Not scripture again, sadly.
“Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation”
Yet he travelled with Barnabas. So he clearly didn’t have a problem with collaboration between not just the apostles either. Again, you’re reading into things that are not there.
“Would you argue not only that Peter would go against his commission to the Jews but that Paul lied and actually went into the church in Rome”
Did he preach to the Church in Rome prior to his eventual arrest and execution?
Acts 10 and 15:7
Peace be to you