Peter never went to Rome

Nondenom40

Active member
Personally i couldn't care less if Peter ever went to rome. But he was never bishop of rome let alone pope. I think a more compelling verse is in 2 Tim 4 where Paul says all who were with him deserted him, ONLY Luke is with me..If Peter were pope in rome, then he deserted Paul.

2 Tim 4:11,16
11 Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service. 16 At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them. NASB
 

Septextura

Active member
Personally i couldn't care less if Peter ever went to rome. But he was never bishop of rome let alone pope. I think a more compelling verse is in 2 Tim 4 where Paul says all who were with him deserted him, ONLY Luke is with me..If Peter were pope in rome, then he deserted Paul.

Pa-pa, pope, pater, is the 7th and highest initiation sacrament of Mithraism, it's a pagan sun worship. They have statues of Mithra in the Vatican holding two keys and being born from a rock. Another Roman god Janus holds a key, he's the god of doors and called pater. This is why pagan Rome has obsession with Peter even though Paul would suit them better from a Christian perspective.

Visiting the Vatican is like Disneyland for Religious Syncretism. Every pagan religion from Babylon onwards has been somehow melded into it. It's truly the seat of Satan as the reformers said.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
I think the evidence is fairly strong that Peter was in Rome. However, you're right to ask why Paul doesn't mention Peter in Romans or 2 Timothy. I'd say it's likely because (a) Peter was there yet (at least at time Romans was written) or (b) Paul didn't know Peter was there. Then there's the question of whether 2 Timothy is authentically Pauline (though I'm convinced that it is).

As for the evidence. From the Bible itself, in 1 Peter the author addresses the letter from the church "in Babylon", which is generally considered to be code for "Rome" and mentions Mark is there too. Many biblical scholars consider Mark's Gospel to be written for the Roman church (with its emphasis on faith under suffering, Latin terms and Aramaic explanations, and identification of the demonic and not Romans as enemies of God's people), and it would therefore Mark sense if Mark is in Rome with Peter, as 1 Peter suggests.

Then there's the evidence from the Early Church Fathers. 1 Clement recounts the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, which Clement would be in a good position to know if they were both in Rome (since he was in Rome himself). Likewise, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen all attest to Peter being at Rome.
 
Romans 15:20 Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another’s foundation,

Who do you think that would be?
 

Septextura

Active member
Peter was touring the Middle East
I think the evidence is fairly strong that Peter was in Rome. However, you're right to ask why Paul doesn't mention Peter in Romans or 2 Timothy. I'd say it's likely because (a) Peter was there yet (at least at time Romans was written) or (b) Paul didn't know Peter was there. Then there's the question of whether 2 Timothy is authentically Pauline (though I'm convinced that it is).

As for the evidence. From the Bible itself, in 1 Peter the author addresses the letter from the church "in Babylon", which is generally considered to be code for "Rome" and mentions Mark is there too. Many biblical scholars consider Mark's Gospel to be written for the Roman church (with its emphasis on faith under suffering, Latin terms and Aramaic explanations, and identification of the demonic and not Romans as enemies of God's people), and it would therefore Mark sense if Mark is in Rome with Peter, as 1 Peter suggests.

Then there's the evidence from the Early Church Fathers. 1 Clement recounts the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, which Clement would be in a good position to know if they were both in Rome (since he was in Rome himself). Likewise, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen all attest to Peter being at Rome.

Church fathers are not acceptable evidence. They are full of errors on historic facts, exaggerations and hearsay. Apocrypha also is not evidence. Book of Acts shows where Peter was and what he was doing. He wasn't in Rome for 20 years building the papacy.

Paul went to Rome because no one was there to lay a foundation.

Romans 15:20
Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

Alone in the Roman prison he writes to Timothy:

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

At his first trial Paul is alone. No pope Peter.

2 Timothy 4
16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.
17 Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.

Rome is not Babylon. Why would it be? Old Testament prophets referred to Jerusalem as being a spiritual harlot. Book of Revelation calls Jerusalem the Whore of Babylon. God made Hosea marry a prostitute to prove a point.

Isaiah 1:21
How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

Jeremiah 2:20
For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot.
 

Septextura

Active member

Has no credibility. You might as well quote Bergoglio or de Borja.

Romans 15:20
Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

This means Paul went to preach in Rome and lay a foundation because no one else did. Paul is the apostle to the gentiles.

Acts 23:11
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

Romans 11:13
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

2 Timothy 1:11
Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

1 Timothy 2:7
Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
 
Has no credibility. You might as well quote Bergoglio or de Borja.

Romans 15:20


This means Paul went to preach in Rome and lay a foundation because no one else did. Paul is the apostle to the gentiles.

Romans 15:20 Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another’s foundation

Who's foundation?
 
Tertullian

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
 

Nondenom40

Active member
So whats your take on this Arch? Was Peter and Paul physically walking around rome preaching the gospel or is he speaking of something else? If Paul was there physically how do you reconcile his words in Romans where he said he'd never been there? And hes writing to an already established church. And if memory serves, Irenaeus was the guy that thought Jesus was pushing 50 when he went to the cross. Who ya gonna trust, Gods inspired word, or some other guy 1 or 2 hundred years after the crucifixion?
 

Septextura

Active member
In other words.... someone was already there preaching and Paul did not want to 'build on that foundation'

He went there and preached. It literally demonstrates the opposite of what you're saying.

Romans 15
15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,
16 That 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, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
 
So whats your take on this Arch? Was Peter and Paul physically walking around rome preaching the gospel or is he speaking of something else? If Paul was there physically how do you reconcile his words in Romans where he said he'd never been there? And hes writing to an already established church. And if memory serves, Irenaeus was the guy that thought Jesus was pushing 50 when he went to the cross. Who ya gonna trust, Gods inspired word, or some other guy 1 or 2 hundred years after the crucifixion?
Who would have the 'clout' to keep Paul away for a time?
 
So whats your take on this Arch? Was Peter and Paul physically walking around rome preaching the gospel or is he speaking of something else? If Paul was there physically how do you reconcile his words in Romans where he said he'd never been there? And hes writing to an already established church. And if memory serves, Irenaeus was the guy that thought Jesus was pushing 50 when he went to the cross. Who ya gonna trust, Gods inspired word, or some other guy 1 or 2 hundred years after the crucifixion?
does that cancel everything you have said regarding Augustine [Eucharist]?
 
Do you really think "Babylon' is not a code word?

1Peter 5:13 The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.
 
Top