Was Peter went to ROME?

[crocodile]

---

uu ni ad2 cya rome nag tagay gni mi d2 perting huboga lagi.

[TheSunKing]

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.



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.

This is a form of INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY on your part, brother.

Historians, secular and religious would go against you. It is an INDISPUTABLE fact that Babylon has been a euphemism to Rome by the early Christians, due to the extent of persecution there.

Christians ALL OVER THE EMPIRE use codes in their correspondences, and Babylon definitely is a universal code amongst them to refer to the center of the Roman empire.

The Bible uses very powerful codes, and Babylon is a very meaningful code especially for Jewish Christians, and not just an insignificant place somewhere placed in Egypt. To exempt the Book of Revelation is just illogical since both books were written at roughly the same time.


MOREOVER: The Acts of the Apostles DOES NOT contain ALL the Acts of all the Apostles, neither does it contain all the acts of any Apostle.

It gives us GLIMPSES only of the ministry of Paul and Peter, but NOT THE ENTIRE ACTS by any of them.

Whatever happened in between the records therefore, is a matter of tradition to be cherished by the converts and Christian communities.

[TheSunKing]

@ Machinecult:

Out of intellectual honesty,

You must admit the FACT that the Bible itself DOES NOT categorically deny Peter being in Rome. He has indeed written from Babylon = Rome.

Just because the Bible does not say a sentence literally "Peter went to Rome", you would ignore the evidences to the affirmative.


Because you cant see something in the Bible, you would now deny it didnt happen. Just because you cant read from the bible that Paul was martyred, you would deny his martyrdom.

[machinecult]

This is a form of INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY on your part, brother.

Historians, secular and religious would go against you. It is an INDISPUTABLE fact that Babylon has been a euphemism to Rome by the early Christians, due to the extent of persecution there.

Christians ALL OVER THE EMPIRE use codes in their correspondences, and Babylon definitely is a universal code amongst them to refer to the center of the Roman empire.

The Bible uses very powerful codes, and Babylon is a very meaningful code especially for Jewish Christians, and not just an insignificant place somewhere placed in Egypt. To exempt the Book of Revelation is just illogical since both books were written at roughly the same time.


MOREOVER: The Acts of the Apostles DOES NOT contain ALL the Acts of all the Apostles, neither does it contain all the acts of any Apostle.

It gives us GLIMPSES only of the ministry of Paul and Peter, but NOT THE ENTIRE ACTS by any of them.

Whatever happened in between the records therefore, is a matter of tradition to be cherished by the converts and Christian communities.

I don't think so. I laid out what is available without going through the "traditional" route of which is itself an unreliable source. Make no mistake I admit that Babylon is indeed a code for the Roman Empire especially during the time of persecution but the term was used very much later. The Book of Revelations which was written at a later time (long after the apostles were dead) is an example of this. However at earlier times, back when the original apostles were still alive (Peter and Paul included), Babylon meant the literal Babylon not a symbolical Rome.

Whether Peter wrote his address as "Babylon" as a code for the city of Rome or he meant just one of the territories of the Roman empire which extended from Britonia, Gaul in Europe to Asia Minor (Middle East) is still a subject of speculation by historians except for the traditional Roman Catholic view which strongly emphasizes that Peter was in Rome and died there to support the theory of Papal lineage.

[3pqlang]

*did peter went to rome?*

did peter go to rome?

[%75life4Him]

did peter go to rome?

I believe he did not go to Rome because he was so devoted to judaic religion which prohibits jews to have friendship with Gentiles (non-jews). Roman people are not Jews. They were and have been a gentile city/nation. As a matter of fact, according to Acts, when Peter was in Ceasaria (A gentile City), he immediately excluded himself from gentile people because he doesnt want to be called unclean like rest of the people there.

Furthermore, Peter was an apostle for a Jewish nation only, while Paul was a apostle for the gentiles. Read Galatians 2.

[Chubi]

walay mga bible verse ug supporting verse nga mkapamatuod nga ni adto jud sya? just want to learn more from bible xD

[MasterK]

mga catholic nagtou nga si st. peter nakaadto gyud sa rome. pero nabahin diay ang mga protestant ani nga issue dah? abi man nako tanan dili katoliko, dili sad motou nga si sn pedro nakaadto sa roma. another interesting topic

[necrotic freak]

^^hagbay raman na bahin sa makadaghan ang potestante brod..

Ont: naa man lagi sa Roma iyang lubong, nya wala na nuon siya naka adto?

[MasterK]

^^hagbay raman na bahin sa makadaghan ang potestante brod..

Ont: naa man lagi sa Roma iyang lubong, nya wala na nuon siya naka adto?

mao diayng pwerte na gyud daghana