Peter in Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mvrk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In skimming that, it seems the author insists that in order for Peter to have been in Rome, Paul HAD to mention this in one of his Scriptural letters. He also presumes Peter was in Rome very early on, which is not the case.

Here is a good response. The historical record is very clear that Peter was in Rome. Peter-never-in-Rome is one of the anti-Catholics’ weakest arguments.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num13.htm
 
An assumption the author of the blog makes is that everything has to be proven is scripture explicitly. This assumption itself is not in scripture explicitly so the very foundation of his argument is self defeating. I do not want this to turn into a Sola Scriptura debate, so if you disagree with this, read one of the hundreds of available threads about this, don’t post here.

Using the Bible to combat “proof” one is so simple. This also combats “proof” two. This is one powerful verse.
Acts 15:7
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Click to expand...
To combat “proof” three, Paul is writing to the church in Rome. An already established church. How can Paul be writing to something that is not already in existence? The church has to be there for him to even be capable of writing a letter to them. He is not writing a letter to a random person to gather together people so he can establish a church when he arrives. The NAB translates the same verse as follows:
Rom 1:11
For I long to see you, that I may share with you some spiritual gift so that you may be strengthened
Click to expand...
“Proof” four is a simple misinterpretation of scripture. When read in context, you see that it is referring to building on Christ’s foundation, not another’s. Again, the NAB is clearer here.
Rom 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
Click to expand...
MarcoPolo covers “proof” five, six and eight adequately. Not mentioning Peter doesn’t prove anything. “Proof” seven is actually proof that the writer is not reading the verse in context. In fact, he is purposefully not quoting the actual scripture in order to make his point. The verse in question is Acts 28:21-22 in which these leaders of the Jews are discussing Paul himself, not Christianity as a whole. The only thing they mention regarding Christianity as a whole is that it is “denounced everywhere.”

“Proof” nine seems a little presumptuous. Simply ask, what if Peter were imprisoned at the time? Peter was martyred and so would have been in prison at some point before his death. Is there no chance that Peter was either unaware of Paul’s trials or unable to show?

“Proof” ten is just crazy. So if Peter wasn’t with Paul, he couldn’t have been in one of the largest cities at the time?

“Proof” eleven is simply based on no proof at all and is a conclusion of someone who wants to read things into scripture that aren’t there. The author has not proven that Peter was not in Rome ever. The only time you could prove that Peter was not in Rome was in Gal 1:18 in which it states that Peter was in Jerusalem. This verse, however, proves that Paul conferred with Peter which protestants do not want to admit. They would rather have Paul be the foundation of Christianity by himself.

He even mentions Peter as being in Babylon, which is Rome. The following quote is from this article.
Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”
Click to expand...
In the end, it is quite simple to disprove every argument put forth by the author of the blog. Hopefully, this helps some.
 
OchsFam said:
Using the Bible to combat “proof” one is so simple. This also combats “proof” two. This is one powerful verse.
Click to expand...
Acts 15:7
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Click to expand...
The verse you have given will soon be proven to be taken out of context by a pointing out that Peter is speaking of Acts 10:44 not very good proof he was commissioned to the Gentiles. He is testifying that the Gentiles received the H Spirit by hearing the words from his mouth. That in its self will open another can of worms between many denominations. Discrediting Paul will not be an easy task with someone so well versed. Acts 9:1and Gal. 2:7
 
MarcoPolo said:
In skimming that, it seems the author insists that in order for Peter to have been in Rome, Paul HAD to mention this in one of his Scriptural letters. He also presumes Peter was in Rome very early on, which is not the case.

Here is a good response. The historical record is very clear that Peter was in Rome. Peter-never-in-Rome is one of the anti-Catholics’ weakest arguments.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num13.htm
Click to expand...
Paul does mention somewhere that he does not need to go to Rome, most likely because Peter is already there.
 
John_one_one said:
The verse you have given will soon be proven to be taken out of context by a pointing out that Peter is speaking of Acts 10:44 not very good proof he was commissioned to the Gentiles. He is testifying that the Gentiles received the H Spirit by hearing the words from his mouth. That in its self will open another can of worms between many denominations. Discrediting Paul will not be an easy task with someone so well versed. Acts 9:1and Gal. 2:7
Click to expand...
I suppose I should not have actually attempted to disprove “proof” one as it is not actually stating anything against Peter and in actually is true. I was actually working to disprove “proof” two and lumped them together for whatever reason. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

On a side note, I never once discredited St. Paul. St. Paul is an integral part of salvation history and if I did any dishonor to him, I apologize to him. I know I did not explicitly say anything in the negative about St. Paul, but if my words somehow had an implicit meaning unknown or unseen by me, I am sorry.

I do actually agree that you could call Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles, but it does not change St. Peter being in Rome. It also does not change Peter being the leader of the Church. I found a quote in this article I think does a decent job of summarizing how St. Peter and St. Paul compliment each other.
Peter professed his faith in Christ first; Paul obtained as a gift the ability to deepen its riches. Peter founded the first community of Christians who came from the Chosen People; Paul became the Apostle to the Gentiles. With different charisms they worked for one and the same cause: the building of Christ’s Church.
Click to expand...
That being said, you cannot ignore Acts 15:7 when St. Peter states that is by his mouth at the Gentiles would hear the gospel and believe. You cannot say that because St. Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles, that he was the only Apostle to the Gentiles or that he was not commissioned to be said Apostle to the Gentiles. Peter was in fact Apostle to both Jew and Gentile. Paul did make a distinction, but the actions of Peter show that this distinction was not as concrete as people interpret Paul to be claiming. It is easier to answer all of these concerns by recommending an article. Please read the following link to address this question and several others that could easily be brought up through this discussion:

Peter and the Orthodox
 
i already Explain to my argument opponent, i explain it like this (please correct my writing if it contains any errors)

Proof 1 and 2, i force it with Matt 16:17-19
PROOF THREE:
Click to expand...
We are told by Paul himself that it was he – not Peter -who was
going to officially found the Roman Church. “I long to see you, that
I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be
established” (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been
ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholic
Church would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years
before – in the reign of Claudius.
What nonsense!
**Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established
the Catholic Church! **But these proofs are given to illustrate that
it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way
associated with ANY Church at Rome.
Click to expand...
At the second Proof the Author says that Paul build the Church, but in the Third Proof it says Neither Peter nor Paul establish the church. *only show that this Article is false
PROOF FOUR:
Click to expand...
We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but
he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon
another man’s foundation.
“Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was
named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION”(Rom.
15:20). If Peter had “founded” the Roman Church some ten years
before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This
statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before
this time to “found” any church. Peter Not in Rome
Click to expand...
The author says IF Peter founded the Church in some ten years before this statement, this represent to Peter.

When Jesus give His Authority to Peter, it’s already happened before Epistle of Rome written.

So the Author is inconsistent.

Proof 9
In Epistle of First Peter and Epistle of Colossians, There is 3 person in the prison, Mark, Paul and Peter.

How can Peter help Paul?

Proof 10

Honest i don’t know how to answer this Argument, so i just say that “Church Fathers says so.”

Historian also say the same fact.

Proof 11

Joh 21:18 Amen, amen, I say to thee, When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, **thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. **

The Writer quote this verse unhonestly, the rest of the verse is not mentioned.

For BABYLON =/= Rome, usually i answer it by compare the Babylon in Revelation and the history.

Babilonian Empire is destroyed, but in Revelation it show another Babylon, so i associate it with Rome.

I also use this reference, too bad some of it is an apocrypha.
Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle.

BTW, i have an opinion that Paul si arrived in Rome before Peter.

Am i right?
 
Mvrk said:
i already Explain to my argument opponent, i explain it like this (please correct my writing if it contains any errors)
Click to expand...
PROOF THREE:
:

We are told by Paul himself that it was he – not Peter -who was
going to officially found the Roman Church. “I long to see you, that
I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be
established” (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been
ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholic
Church would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years
before – in the reign of Claudius.
What nonsense!
Click to expand...
It IS nonsense.

Here is what Paul said

Rm 1:
7* To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8* First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, 10 asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you*. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine.

Notice Paul’s points
  • The Church of Rome is already there
  • The faith of this Church is already proclaimed throughout the world. That means everybody in the known world knows about this Church and her faith
  • Paul hasn’t been to Rome yet but is going there
  • He wants to impart a spiritual gift to strenghten this Church that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine.
Here is an example of how that article butchered what Paul said and created a massive distortion of scripture. All their points are the same. Don’t waste your eyesight on something so distorted and dishonest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top