Was Peter went to ROME?

[TheSunKing]

---

No record of Peter going to Rome in the NT, only Paul. Peter concentrated more on the Jews/Jewish converts to Christianity, Paul was to non-Jews (gentiles) and foreigners.

Ther is no explicit statement bro,

BUT you could at least, AGREE with me that he DID write his first epistle while at Rome.

[machinecult]

niadto siya oi, kay sa Rome man siya gi martyr. History confirms it.
Saint Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From that same source:

The See of Rome is traditionally said to be founded by Peter and Paul, who had invested it with apostolic authority. The New Testament says nothing directly about Peter's connection to Rome, but an early Catholic tradition supports such a connection.
That Peter was bishop of Rome is corroborated by both positive and negative evidence. However, some historians have challenged this traditional view of Peter's role in the early Roman Church. Still, most Catholic and Protestant scholars, and many scholars in general, conclude that Peter was indeed martyred in Rome under Nero. In 2009 Otto Zwierlein (de) concluded in a critical study that "there is not a single piece of reliable literary evidence (and no archaeological evidence either) that Peter ever was in Rome."

The extent of the Roman empire (which was vast) Roman provinces, Italy and Rome itself are often confused or mixed up in the earlier records 100+ years or so later are considered unreliable even during those times. Even Peter's death is based on an illustrated/prophecy from the Book of John 21: 18-19 that states that he will be crucified upside down, not on historical accounts. There's is nothing in the Bible that stated how Peter died. His fate is basically unknown.

When Paul (who will be killed a litte later) wrote his epistles there is also a great lack of detail to what happened to Peter or his supposed martyrdom. Which would have been a great deal because these men were very close - and not to include Peter's death, especially in Rome in which Paul was a citizen seems strange.

Anyway I'm looking forward for more historicity on this. I'm not denying the idea that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there but I will not be so quick to believe he was.

[noy]

From that same source:


The extent of the Roman empire (which was vast) Roman provinces, Italy and Rome itself are often confused or mixed up in the earlier records 100+ years or so later are considered unreliable even during those times. Even Peter's death is based on an illustrated/prophecy from the Book of John 21: 18-19 that states that he will be crucified upside down, not on historical accounts. There's is nothing in the Bible that stated how Peter died. His fate is basically unknown.

When Paul (who will be killed a litte later) wrote his epistles there is also a great lack of detail to what happened to Peter or his supposed martyrdom. Which would have been a great deal because these men were very close - and not to include Peter's death, especially in Rome in which Paul was a citizen seems strange.

Anyway I'm looking forward for more historicity on this. I'm not denying the idea that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there but I will not be so quick to believe he was.

even Jesus' divinity and claims are still in dispute till this very day, but we know its true, because we are Chrsitians.

same thing goes for St.Peter to Catholicism.

a testimony so great, that withstood disputes for 2000 years
with our technology and capacity for verification today...if it still hasn't been disproven, then it must be true.

Saint Peter's life Story is much easier to crack compared to the magnificent Scientific Discoveries and experiments.

therefore if He did not set foot in Rome, if he was never the First Pope, if he didn't die the wat Historians said he did...
Then it must have been proven by now.

please read the link, you don't have to believe it bro, but at least you'll get an idea why we believe.
Was Peter in Rome? | Catholic Answers

[machinecult]

even Jesus' divinity and claims are still in dispute till this very day, but we know its true, because we are Chrsitians.

same thing goes for St.Peter to Catholicism.

a testimony so great, that withstood disputes for 2000 years
with our technology and capacity for verification today...if it still hasn't been disproven, then it must be true.

The Bible has no problems with Jesus' divinity but the Bible doesn't state Peter's fate or journeys unlike Paul's and the Bible is supposed to be the first reference if we are to find out our early Christian history.

therefore if He did not set foot in Rome, if he was never the First Pope, if he didn't die the wat Historians said he did...
Then it must have been proven by now.

please read the link, you don't have to believe it bro, but at least you'll get an idea why we believe.
Was Peter in Rome? | Catholic Answers

There is no mention of how Peter died in the Bible; Paul does not state Peter's death which would be strange because death (martyrdom) was important in the early Christian movement and they were close brothers and elders of the church. Everything that is written about Peter's death is based on tradition that serves as a reinforcement to the early Roman church religion and nothing more.

Edit:
The origins of the Papacy is a sensitive issue which I'll steer clear and just concentrate on the subject.

[Kutokuyamadkuslad]

Galabad akong ulo sa imong simple English gone bad TS. Nagbinisaya na lng unta ka.
Wa ko masayod kung didto ba'g Rome si Pedro, basta ako I went to London to look at the Queen.

[BanshEe]

TS maka saway man sad ta's imung grammar..

Ug mag-research na lang ta's google ani.. wa man sad ko kahibaw..
Kundi maghikog ta, atong pangutan-on si Peter mismo..

[TheSunKing]

The Bible has no problems with Jesus' divinity but the Bible doesn't state Peter's fate or journeys unlike Paul's and the Bible is supposed to be the first reference if we are to find out our early Christian history.

Bro, the Bible does not explicitly mention of Peter going to Rome.
However, nowhere in the Bible can you find a statement like this: "Peter did not go to Rome."

Therefore, since the Bible does not say that he did not go there, all possibilities are open...

the mere fact that he has written his first epistle "HERE in Babylon" is proof enough that he was indeed in Rome. Ka klaro ana.

The Bible has no problems with Jesus' divinity but the Bible doesn't state Peter's fate or journeys unlike Paul's and the Bible is supposed to be the first reference if we are to find out our early Christian history.

Yes, I agree. The Bible is supposed to be our first reference in Christianity, BUT it is NOT a COMPLETE history book.

[<SMILE>]

And now as it appear,
a faith based entity is asking about concrete and physical proof,
I now find this ironic.

[machinecult]

And now as it appear,
a faith based entity is asking about concrete and physical proof,
I now find this ironic.

Not all people with beliefs would readily absorb anything without looking through for themselves. That's just being lazy and exposes their lack of interest in their God.

Bro, the Bible does not explicitly mention of Peter going to Rome.
However, nowhere in the Bible can you find a statement like this: "Peter did not go to Rome."

Therefore, since the Bible does not say that he did not go there, all possibilities are open...

the mere fact that he has written his first epistle "HERE in Babylon" is proof enough that he was indeed in Rome. Ka klaro ana.



Yes, I agree. The Bible is supposed to be our first reference in Christianity, BUT it is NOT a COMPLETE history book.

Reference does not necessarily mean a clear word for word sentence that support something that occurred. It could be something else that affirms a certain event took place (especially if that event is important or the participants are well-known by the writer). As I mentioned before even Paul did not mention Peter travelling as far as Rome and being killed there. An event that is supposed to be very important because they belong to the same community and are elders/leaders of their church.

There is a great detail in Paul's missionary work, how many times he spent at sea, the number of times he was shipwrecked, stoned, etc.. These simple references are not found in Peter.



Peter may have wrote 1 Peter in Rome and used the term Babylon. But the apostles hardly use the term "Babylon" to refer to Rome. Only the book of Revelations makes that description as symbolic reference to avoid Roman instigation, the rest literally meant the ancient city Babylon or the place where the former Babylon was. Even Egypt was at one time coined 'Babylon' by early historians.

[porbidaman]

*Did Peter went to Rome?*