Was Peter went to ROME?

[defender_1611]

---

Bro, I just want to make this point:

1.) Aside from Catholics, other Christians, like Protestants, Orthodox and Copts BELIEVE by virtue of tradition that Paul was martyred in Rome, even if this event is not recorded in the Bible. His body is buried outside the walls of the city, that's why we have the Catholic basilica of St. Paul Outside-the-Walls which is the traditional burial place of Paul.

St. Paul's Tomb Unearthed in Rome -- National Geographic

If Protestants can use the writings of Clement to prove this fact of Paul's martyrdom in Rome, there is no way then that they can deny Peter's martyrdom as mentioned by the same author.

2. Moreover, Babylon is mentioned in the New Testament SIX TIMES, and this UNANIMOUSLY referred to the ancient imperial capital of Roman empire. However, when is used to prove Peter's existence in Rome, when writing from Babylon, you are quick to TWIST THIS FACT and claim (with no certainty, of course) that he is somewhere in an insignificant and remote village in Egypt.


3. Peter's journey to Rome is an UNDISPUTED FACT among early Christians elsewhere. Syrian, Egyptian (Alexandrian), French, Roman, Palestinian (Caesaria), African (Hippo) ancient Christian writers, and even the pagan emperor Julian were UNANIMOUS in stating the FACT that Peter was indeed in Rome where he suffered martyrdom and was buried there.

Had he died somewhere else, there would be rival claimants to the burial place of the first Pope, BUT THERE WAS NONE. Even the Church of Antioch, the first church that Peter also founded AGREES with this fact. The existence of his tomb at Mons Vaticanus has been there centuries ago BEFORE the reign of Constantine.

4. Archeological evidence corroborates with the writings of the ancient writers.

Bones of St Peter

Tomb of St Peter

5. Enormous effort in erecting the Basilica of St Peter in an uneven terrain, when they could have built it more comfortably within the walls of the Roman city. It is also oddly located outside the walls of Nero's Circus -- a place where persecuted Christians were buried.

St Peter's Basilica

Here is the illustration of the position of the tomb and the circus.

sir dili man si apostle paul atong gi hisgotan diri sir. Si apostle Peter Man. Which in fact the place of Peter's burial is also controversial.

Essentially according to the Quo Vadis legend, Peter was buried in Rome. However, that account was not written until over a century after Peter died.

But there was something else that some have pointed to:

"It is not before around 160 CE that we see some kind of interest by Roman Christians in the site by the construction a simple monument that consisted of a niche and a courtyard (the Tropaion Gaii). The monument was probably used for gatherings, but not as a marker as an individual grave, since memory of Peter's original buring place was lost by the time the Tropaion was erected. The existence of the Tropaion did not result in the development of a Christian burial site, but was integrated into a middle-class non-Christian burial street. Only in the age of Constantine the site was firmly and finally taken over by Christians, thereby obliterating all earlier traces of burial activity apart from the immediate space around the Tropaion. ( Zangenberg, Jürgen; Labahn, Michael. Christians as a religious minority in a multicultural city: modes of interaction and identity formation in early Imperial Rome : studies on the basis of a seminar at the second conference of the European Association for Biblical Studies (EABS) from July 8-12, 2001, in Rome. Volume 243 of Journal for the study of the New Testament Library of New Testament Studies, the Series European studies on Christian origins. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004, p. 132)

Furthermore that site must not have been accepted originally as , according to the Liber Pontificalis (the Book of Popes) it was Roman bishop Cornelius who supposedly moved the body of Peter to its present location (nearly two centuries after Peter died). Here is one written account:

"XXII Cornelius (Pope 251-253)...He during his pontificate at the request of a certain matron Lucina, took up the bodies of the apostles, blessed Peter and Paul up out of the catacombs by night; first the body of blessed Paul was received by the blessed Lucina] and laid in her own garden on the Via Ostiensis, near the place where he was beheaded; the body of the blessed Peter was received by the blessed Cornelius, the bishop, and laid near to the place where he was crucified, among the bodies of the holy bishops, in the shrine of Apollo, on the Mons Aureus, in the Batican, by the palace of Nero, on June 29. (Translated by Louise Ropes Loomis. The Book of the Popes (Liber Pontificalis. Originally published by Columbia University Press, NY 1916. 2006 edition by Evolution Publishing, Merchantville (NJ), pp. 25-26)."

[machinecult]

It's quite difficult to gather scientific facts
to such a source as a very profound faith.
But I do believe Saint Peter was in Rome.

Quite true. The traditional view of Peter in Rome is valuable for historians and especially for the entire Christendome. But whether it answers the question, "Was the apostle Peter ever in Rome and died there etc." is left ambiguous and it doesn't have to be scientifically accurate - there's just too little information behind it that it shouldn't even be an issue until claims made by certain Christian writers and iconographers 200 years later especially during the Christianization of the Roman empire by the emperor Constantine. The information gathered are from early Christian sects, cults and relics, some even Catholics find heretical sources. Even if these people were sincere in their belief does not make it historical evidence.

Therefore if you find an explanation, an article, or study of Peter being in Rome, it usually implies to a traditional premise. Just as 25 December is not actually the day Jesus is born but by tradition it is.

[noy]

Early Christian Testimony

Peter's Roman Residency | Catholic Answers

so all of these men of God and Church Fathers were lying then if we insist that St. Peter did not live nor die in Rome,
if so, how are their testimony should be proven wrong? and not only that they are proven wrong, we should also discredit their saintly lives
as well for they have spread Lies throughout History.

i know the link is a Catholic link, so please by all means...do a follow up reserach if their statements were legit.

again, if Peter did not live nor die in Rome, is it safe to conclude that the following listed below lied about the accounts they wrote about St.Peter
either living or dying in Rome.

*Ignatius of Antioch
*Dionysius of Corinth
*Irenaeus
*Gaius
*Clement of Alexandria
*Tertullian
*Eusebius of Caesarea
*Peter of Alexandria
*Lactantius
*Cyril of Jerusalem
*Optatus
*Epiphanius of Salamis
*Pope Damasus I
*Jerome
*Augustine

Lastly, what could have been their intention in spreading lies about Peter?
and with the kind of lives they lived( feel free to do the research) are they really the type that spreads terrible lies?

[<SMILE>]

Quite true. The traditional view of Peter in Rome is valuable for historians and especially for the entire Christendome. But whether it answers the question, "Was the apostle Peter ever in Rome and died there etc." is left ambiguous and it doesn't have to be scientifically accurate - there's just too little information behind it that it shouldn't even be an issue until claims made by certain Christian writers and iconographers 200 years later especially during the Christianization of the Roman empire by the emperor Constantine. The information gathered are from early Christian sects, cults and relics, some even Catholics find heretical sources. Even if these people were sincere in their belief does not make it historical evidence.

Therefore if you find an explanation, an article, or study of Peter being in Rome, it usually implies to a traditional premise. Just as 25 December is not actually the day Jesus is born but by tradition it is.

The fact is all current faith denominations does not have
factual historical foundations, but by faith alone,
so what's the question?

If it's not December 25,
what should be the exact date then?
and back it up with factual historical accounts,please.

[noy]

Quite true. The traditional view of Peter in Rome is valuable for historians and especially for the entire Christendome. But whether it answers the question, "Was the apostle Peter ever in Rome and died there etc." is left ambiguous and it doesn't have to be scientifically accurate - there's just too little information behind it that it shouldn't even be an issue until claims made by certain Christian writers and iconographers 200 years later especially during the Christianization of the Roman empire by the emperor Constantine. The information gathered are from early Christian sects, cults and relics, some even Catholics find heretical sources. Even if these people were sincere in their belief does not make it historical evidence.

Therefore if you find an explanation, an article, or study of Peter being in Rome, it usually implies to a traditional premise. Just as 25 December is not actually the day Jesus is born but by tradition it is.

i think most mature/practicing Catholic Chrsitians know that the 25th of December is not really the exact date Jesus was born...
but all practicing Catholics believed that St.Peter lived and was martyrd in Rome. so the 2 examples are not really fit for comparison.

Rome under emperor Constantine converted to Christianity some time in 300AD
but there were accounts about St. Peter living and martyrd in Rome in 95-97AD, so the Christianization of Rome really has nothing to do with whether St. Peter lived and died in Rome.
such writings in particular is of Pope clemets' letter to the Corinth is believed to be of the same time that the book of revelations was written.
First Epistle of Clement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clemets letter to Corinth has been proven to be legit and genuine.
Pope Clement I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

therefore the writings about Peter's life and death in Rome as a tradition is a huge understatement.
and relating early Christian writings about St.Peter's life and death in Rome with the Roman Christian Convertion
is insignificant.

[defender_1611]

Hence, one of the earliest Catholic writings attempting to demonstrate that Rome had a series of early bishops/popes states that Peter was NOT originally buried in Rome. There would be no point in moving Peter's body if people actually had believed that the Tropaion Gaii marked the spot.

Interestingly the conclusion of the one who supposedly identified the body of Peter in Vatican Hill was that he was not convinced it was Peter:

"Antonio Ferrua ...was the Jesuit archaeologist responsible for uncovering what is believed to be the tomb of St Peter in the grottoes under St Peter's Basilica in Rome…Ferrua's discovery came, however, quite by chance. In 1939 Pope Pius XI died and plans were made to bury him beside Pius X in the crypt below the basilica. But when workmen began to dig under St Peter's they came upon the floor of Constantine's original basilica, beneath which was a necropolis, a street of Roman tombs dating from the 2nd century AD…Under the supervision of Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, the Administrator of St Peter's, the Vatican appointed four archaeologists, including Ferrua, to investigate the tombs…Ferrua's discovery was shrouded in controversy; in 1953, after the death of Monsignor Kaas, it was revealed by a workman that he had discovered some other bones which Kaas had ordered to be removed from the repository and stored at the Vatican. When these were later identified as the remains of an elderly man, it was concluded that these were the bones of the saint. "The relics of St Peter," announced Pope Paul VI on June 26 1968, "have been identified in a manner which we believe convincing"; the following day, after a ceremony in front of the aedicula, the remains were restored to the repository.

Ferrua was more circumspect. Aware of the scepticism that surrounded even the analysis of the Greek fragment - which others had read as Petros endei or "Peter is not here" - he recently told the Italian Catholic newspaper L'Avvenire that he was "not convinced" that the saint's bones had been found…A man of deep faith, Ferrua was a rigorous scholar, much admired for his refusal to allow his beliefs to compromise his work (The Rev Antonio Ferrua. Telegraph, London - May 29, 2003 The Rev Antonio Ferrua - Telegraph viewed 07/20/09)."

[noy]

maypa imu to tubagon akong pangtuana bai defender, about atong mga early Christian testimonies about the Life and death of the Apostle Peter..
so mga bakakon to sila tanan? kaila man kang Augustine diba? with the kind of Christian life he led, bakak ra to iyang gipang storya bahin ni Peter?
or naay mas tigulang, si St. Clement, kadtong iyang written accounts about Peter's martyrdom, bakak pud to?
it was written 95-97AD. kung bakak, unsa may purpose nila? pag palig-on sa bag.ong Christian empire under Constantine isip pamolitika?
nga the convertion of Rome to Christianity did not happen until 300AD, ang gisulat ni St. Clement kay mas manoy pa ug 200 years.

[defender_1611]

maypa imu to tubagon akong pangtuana bai defender, about atong mga early Christian testimonies about the Life and death of the Apostle Peter..
so mga bakakon to sila tanan? kaila man kang Augustine diba? with the kind of Christian life he led, bakak ra to iyang gipang storya bahin ni Peter?
or naay mas tigulang, si St. Clement, kadtong iyang written accounts about Peter's martyrdom, bakak pud to?
it was written 95-97AD. kung bakak, unsa may purpose nila? pag palig-on sa bag.ong Christian empire under Constantine isip pamolitika?
nga the convertion of Rome to Christianity did not happen until 300AD, ang gisulat ni St. Clement kay mas manoy pa ug 200 years.

OT: aw para akoa di ay to bay noy? abi ko mag kang bro. machinecult ra to. sorry bay if na neglect nako.

[noy]

OT: aw para akoa di ay to bay noy? abi ko mag kang bro. machinecult ra to. sorry bay if na neglect nako.

Lol , not intended to someone in particular to bai defs oi, it was a question raised to the opposing parties..hehehe...
so you or anybody from your party may answer it.
so mga bakakon to sila?

[TheSunKing]

Wrong sir. There is no evidence that Rome was ever called "Babylon" until after the Book of the Revelation was written. The Revelation was written about 95 A.D., many years after the death of Simon Peter. If I Peter 5:13 refers to Rome, then Simon Peter did not write the letter and we have a forgery in the Bible.

Peter's method and manner of writing are in no sense apocalyptic. He is direct and matter-of-fact. That this man Peter, plain of speech almost to bluntness, should interject into the midst of his personal explanations and final salutations such a mystical epithet, with no hint of what he means by it, is beyond credulity. Peter says the elect in Babylon send greetings to the Jews of the Dispersion in Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. "Babylon" is no more cryptic than "Pontus," "Asia," or the rest. He means what he says. His "Babylon" is the Babylon on the Euphrates. It is a part of that eastern world where Peter lived his life and did his work.

Here is why Babylon in Peter's writing and everything else in the New Testament referred NOT to the capital of a forgotten empire, but to IMPERIAL ROME:

Babylon(now a remote town of Ur in Iraq) the ancient Assyrian capital was reduced to an INSIGNIFICANT village after the conquest of Rome. It was so insignificant during Peter's time that it was neglected and desolate and NO LONGER a place for trade and commerce.

ROME definitely was referred to as Babylon by exiled Jews even before the destruction of the Second Temple primarily because of its conquest of Israel.

It was also referred to Babylon because of the gross immorality and paganism practiced by the imperial Romans, similar to the Babylonians in the Old Testament.

From Jewish, Christian history and literature, BABYLON definitely refers to a place of excessive luxury and wickedness, and this referred now to IMPERIAL ROME.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, it represents a place of barbarism, sin, or evil.

Rome was referred to as Babylon because of similar events where Jews were dispersed by the Babylonians.
For the second time, the Jewish nation was dispersed by the Romans at 70 AD.

Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC) -- Babylonians


Siege of Jerusalem (70 AD) -- Romans