Peter in Rome

[spina1953]

Paul’s letter to the Romans is a letter of introduction to a church he does not know.

This is why he goes to such great lengths to name as many people as he can that he does know…to establish some connections…taking almost all of chapter 16 for this purpose. But two people he names are Priscilla and Aquila. We hear of them here:

Acts 18:1-3
18 After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, 3 and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them.

Priscilla and Aquila (and possibly Peter) had left Rome in AD 42 when Claudia expelled all the Jews. However, by the time the Letter to the Romans was written, they were back in Rome.

Paul did not like building on another man’s foundation, and so he merely planned to visit Rome on his way to Spain. God, and the Romans, had other plans, of course.

Randy, how does this tie in with Acts where Paul was arrested and asked to go to Rome for his trail as he was a Roman citizen? Thanks

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, how does this tie in with Acts where Paul was arrested and asked to go to Rome for his trail as he was a Roman citizen? Thanks

Well, Paul went to Jerusalem to take a love offering to the Church, and while he was there, he was accused of violating the temple (the Jews mistakenly believed that Paul had taken Timothy, a Greek, into the Temple area prohibited to Gentiles).

As the trial was in progress, Paul appealed to Caesar, and that’s where he was taken. So, he did eventually make it to Rome, but under very different circumstances than he had planned.

 

[spina1953]

Well, Paul went to Jerusalem to take a love offering to the Church, and while he was there, he was accused of violating the temple (the Jews mistakenly believed that Paul had taken Timothy, a Greek, into the Temple area prohibited to Gentiles).

As the trial was in progress, Paul appealed to Caesar, and that’s where he was taken. So, he did eventually make it to Rome, but under very different circumstances than he had planned.

Thanks Randy, Thought that you see it that way you stated as that was my point in that Paul did not go to Rome in the way I think some have thought but in the way you stated or at least not the it has be suggested seemely by some of the posters on this thread.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks Randy, Thought that you see it that way you stated as that was my point in that Paul did not go to Rome in the way I think some have thought but in the way you stated or at least not the it has be suggested seemely by some of the posters on this thread.

:tiphat:

 

[spina1953]

Randy: I would like to add that I think from tradition that Peter went to Rome in about 42 AD then went to Jerusalem for the Council in about 49 AD. I could be wrong about it, yet, that appears the tradition seems correct to me. I also think the main reason as to why Peter went to Rome was that Rome was the capital of the empire at that time and so established where the Church Catholic should be in order to oversee the other Churches. I guess peter could have settled anywhere in the east if he wanted to but choose Rome instead. At least thats my take on it. Any thoughts Randy on this?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I believe that another reason is that the Christians were eager to see Daniel’s prophecies (Daniel 2) fulfilled regarding the destruction of the last part of the statue: the legs of iron and the feet of clay, and the destruction thereof by the the rock not hewn by human hands.

 

[spina1953]

I believe that another reason is that the Christians were eager to see Daniel’s prophecies (Daniel 2) fulfilled regarding the destruction of the last part of the statue: the legs of iron and the feet of clay, and the destruction thereof by the the rock not hewn by human hands.

FatherKnowsBest: I had not thought of what you said. It does make a lot of sense that Christains would think that. Tahnks for the info.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

FatherKnowsBest: I had not thought of what you said. It does make a lot of sense that Christains would think that. Tahnks for the info.

Don’t thank me – I stole it from Scott Hahn & Brant Pitre who stole that idea from the Early Church.

 

[spina1953]

Father KNows Best: OK, But it was you that posted in this thread not them. So it to you that Thank.

 

[spina1953]

Father KNows Best: OK, But it was you that posted in this thread not them. So it to you that IThank.

 

[Randy_Carson]

AD 43-49 – Peter in Rome
AD 49-54 – Peter in Antioch
AD 50(?) – Peter in Jerusalem for the Acts 15 Council
AD 54 – Peter Returns to Rome
AD 60-63 - Peter Writes Epistles from Rom (1 Peter 5:13 refers to “Babylon” - code word fro “Rome”)
AD 65-67 – Peter Martyred in Rome

Was Saint Peter in Rome or Antioch? The Chronology of Peter’s Papacy
By Dr. Taylor Marshall
taylormarshall.com/2012/01/was-saint-peter-in-rome-or-antioch.html

Catholic Tradition holds that Saint Peter arrived in Rome for the first time in about AD 44. This coincides with the martyrdom of St James the Greater and St Peter’s arrest in Jerusalem and subsequent departure:

“But he, beckoning to them with his hand to hold their peace, told how the Lord had brought him out of prison. And he said: Tell these things to James and to the brethren. And going out, he went into another place.” (Acts 12:17, D-R)

Here, Peter departure to “another place,” is his departure from Jerusalem to Rome. After the imprisonment and attempted murder of Peter, the Apostle’s location throughout the New Testament is kept secret and hidden.

Saint Peter established the Church in Rome from AD 43 till AD 49 when he and all Jews were expelled from Rome by the decree of Claudius in AD 49. Why were they expelled?

According to Roman historians the Jews were expelled from the city of Rome in AD 49 because the Roman Jews were fighting over a Jew named “Chrestus.” Hmmm…Jews in Rome fighting over “Chrestus”…there must have been a mighty preacher (Pope) of “Chrestus” or “Christ” in Rome in the AD 40s to lead to all that infighting within the synagogues! This has Peter’s fingerprints all over it.

Also remember that Saint Peter pops back into Jerusalem from “another place” in AD 49, which is the occasion for the Apostolic Council in Acts 15 regarding circumcision and baptism.

From AD 49 till AD 54 (during the Jewish expulsion from Rome), we find Saint Peter reigning temporarily in Antioch. This is why Peter is known also as the first bishop of Antioch. It was the first “Babylonian captivity” of the Pope.

Tradition holds that in AD 54, when Nero revoked the Jewish expulsion from Rome, Saint Peter moved back to Rome and continued to reign as the first Pope of the Apostolic See.

In my book The Eternal City: Rome and the Origins of Catholicism I present a theory that Saint Paul cryptically refers to St Peter in Rome in the book of Romans:

“And I have so preached this Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation.” (Romans 15:20, D-R)

The Greek is μὴ ἐπʼ ἀλλότριον θεμέλιον οἰκοδομῶ.

Here “another man” is Saint Peter as the Catholics of Rome would know. What other man (singular) had built a foundation for the Church in Rome? Paul had not yet preached there because “another man” was laying the “foundation” of the Church in Rome, Saint Peter.

 

[spina1953]

Randy: Great timeline. However, I was under the impression that Peter went to Antioch before he went to Rome. then after going to he Jerusalem he then may have went on to Antioch then back to Rome and stayed there till he was martryed along with Paul. Could it have happen the way I think or is it just they way you have stated. I know that this is all tradition so far as i know as there are no first hand writings about it. Maybe you could explain it a little more in depth. Thanks

 

[dje14338]

Peter came to Rome about 42 AD. However, in 49 AD the Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome. Peter would have had to leave at that time. He probably came back to Rome in the early 60’s, certainly after the death of Claudius around 54 AD. In his Letter to the Romans written about 58 AD, Paul does not mention Peter which implies he was not in Rome.