Replies

Yes, if this is a permanent charge, as Havoc and his would have us believe, then none of the original Apostles ever went into any Gentile territory.

No one said they never trod upon Gentile territory. What do you think those lands are that I listed for where the tribes went to as documented to date? All Gentile lands. And the charge was the charge. Saying they could also minister to gentiles doesn't remove their primary charge to the house of Israel. Scripture and history are in sync on where the tribes went. That would put the duties of ALL the apostles save for Paul primarily OUTSIDE the empire of Rome. Not just Peter - all of them.

Playing devil's advocate and trying to find a splinter of a chance that Peter might have gone near Rome doesn't give reason for him to be there for the rest of his life after the death of Christ. It isn't supportable scripturally. Nor historically given what his mission was, where it would have to lead him, and where we know he was by his own testimony. Begging whether Peter could have gone to Rome is as useful as begging whether he might have sailed to Hawaii - they're equally as relevant to his mission. A more useful question is not "couldn't he go to rome at some point in his life ever"; but, rather "Why on earth would he given what we know." Rome was in good hands with Paul. There was zero reason for ANY other apostle to be there other than to visit Paul.

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans,

Right. They were Gentile lands. And Jesus told them not to go into them. So you're stuck.

Unless you realize that Jesus sent all of the apostles out into the entire world. Not just Paul. All of the Apostles got a new mission after the Resurrection.

You can't be this dense, can you?

Scripture and history are in sync on where the tribes went. That would put the duties of ALL the apostles save for Paul primarily OUTSIDE the empire of Rome. Not just Peter - all of them.

Why is it that you accept the "history" of the lost tries on some wacky website, but reject actual historians who place Peter in Rome? You are simply not credible.