Peter

[ralphinal]

Peter was persona non gratia in Rome. If Paul had stated that Peter was there, it would have called attention to him. Think about a letter written to the head of the French Resistance during WWII. How much detail would have been in it? Now, what if the head was writing it? Do you think he would have included a return address?

 

[Jimmy_B]

I asked this on “Ask an Apologist” last wk but it hasn’t been answered and I saw not all questions are answered there. So posting here if that’s ok.

I’m not sure it says in Scripture if Peter went to Rome or not. So far from what I can find the earliest Church father to write about Peter’s whereabouts was Clement of Rome sometime between yr 70 (which as I understand would have been only a few yrs after Peter’s death) to as late as yr 96. Other ECFs wrote about this even later.

My question about this is if the ECFs wrote about Peter’s whereabouts so many yrs later, how do we know they were correct if it’s not in Scripture?

Also was Peter the Bishop of Antioch? If so why was the Bishop of Antioch not considered his successor?

And in Acts 15 after a long debate we are told Peter gets up to speak. He did that a lot in the early Acts. But James ends the debate. (Acts 15:13-20) Why then does that not suggest the 2 were co-chairs at this council?

Finally, if all the disciples were given the power to bind and loose in Matt 18 after Peter was given the power in Matt 16, why is it not thought that all shared equal powers? I know Peter was given keys but the function of keys are to bind and loose. So why could not keys and the power all the disciples were given have been the same?

I don’t really want to simply get down to the different interpretations about whether Peter was the rock or Peter’s statement of faith was the rock. I know the different interpretations Christians have about that. I’m trying to dig deeper beyond that one verse.

Thanks for your help and I think I may just sit back and listen to the various ideas.

Where was he buried?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You need to have a good conversation with a solid Greek Orthodox teacher!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

From Scripture, we know Peter was in Antioch - and it’s likely he was the bishop there.

Scripture does not specifically state that Peter was ever in Rome. Paul writes to the Romans in 55 AD. He makes no mention of Peter whatsoever - which seems profoundly odd if Peter had been there or had anything at all to do with the congregation there. Luke writes Acts perhaps 62 AD when the history there stops rather abruptly. It does not have Peter in Rome at that time, in fact, as we read Acts - Peter almost entirely drops out of the picture. But it’s thought Peter died in 67 AD so there are perhaps 5 years in which Peter could have arrived at Rome (to a very well established congregation, one where Paul was probably dominate). We just have no biblical or contemporary history to support that.

Nonetheless, the tradition that Peter was there - indeed was a bishop there - while a bit late (and for that reason, historically a bit problematic) is nonetheless never challenged at that early date and very ecumenical. For that reason, it is not challenged. Now, whether he was the first “pope” in any modern sense of that, whether he was regarded as “infallible” in 66 AD - that’s a whole other issue. But his being in Rome and being a bishop there, I don’t think that is seriously disputed.

.

He was appointed Chief Shepherd of the Church by Jesus in John 21:15-19.

No.

Jesus instructed Peter to teach. That’s it. That’s all.

I hope it’s not exclusive to Peter! If so, then Paul was wrong to teach and we need to remove his 13 letters, as we do Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1-3 John, Jude, James and Revelation. The Council of Jerusalem must be rejected because many taught there besides Peter, and James rendered the decision - not Peter. And you would be wrong to teach as you did in your post. I would, too.

He was the highest-ranking Christian in Rome (thus “Bishop of Rome”) at the time of his death. (He died by crucifixion at the order of Caesar Nero.)

Would you provide either a quote from Scripture for each of those points, or the quote from an historian writing that in 67 AD?

Acts 15 is very interesting! Yes, obviously James is the chair here. And it’s unclear WHICH James. It could not be James the Greater, and it’s unlikely it’s James the Lessor. But it’s clearly not Peter. Many speak at the meeting, of which Peter is simply one. Not the first, not the last. And NOTHING is said there about Peter being infallible or the Vicar of Christ or “whoever hears him, hears Jesus.” And there’s nothing to indicate that he made the decision. Actually, it’s almost shocking how little importance is giving to him. Just as interesting, the “rule” here is not Peter but is Scripture. James says the decision is good NOT because it conforms to what Peter said but because it conforms to what Scripture says - going on to quote Scripture and to not so much as mention Peter.

.

When I read it, I find it very unclear. I can’t even discern that James is the Bishop, let alone whether Peter is in charge, or not.

It would seem Peter was just one speaker at the meeting. His words given no special significance. NOTHING here about him being infallible or the Vicar of Christ. NOTHING here about him having any authority at all. In fact, the rule there was clearly the words of Scripture (“the prophets”) - not of Peter.

And there’s nothing to indicate that he made the decision. Actually, it’s almost shocking how little importance is giving to him. Just as interesting, the “rule” here is not Peter but is Scripture. James says the decision is good NOT because it conforms to what Peter said but because it conforms to what Scripture says - going on to quote Scripture and to not so much as mention Peter.

You know, I don’t even see that

It states that in verse15. Lots had spoken (including Peter, Paul, Barnabas and several others). The Apostles and Elders and “the whole assembly” discussed the issue. Then James (not Peter) renders the decision. He specifically states the rule for this. “The words of the prophets are in agreement with this. As it is inscripturated…” He then goes on to quote some Scriptures (NOT Peter). It’s unmistakable that the rule or authority at the meeting was Scripture. Verse 19 adds strength to this. After James notes that the words of Scripture affirm/norm this, he stated, “THEREFORE, it is my judgement…” He rests his “judgment” on the Scriptures - the “therefore” making Scripture the basis. Nothing about Peter’s words or office or infalliblity. Kinda stunning, I think.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

.
No.

Jesus instructed Peter to teach. That’s it. That’s all.

Jesus, through what He gave Peter, instructed more of Him than that.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Jesus instructed Peter to care for His flock.

**Joh 21:15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. **

Denying Peter’s place in Biblical history, is only beneficial to some arguments and not reading the New Testament in context, by using scriptures against other scriptures.

It seems the only reason to reject the true essence of Matthew 16:17 - 19, is the Catholic Church’s claim to the Papacy. It seems Martin Luther had problems with the Church in his time, not all the teachings of the Church, from it’s beginning. Maybe Josiah would be so kind as to provide us teachings from the founder of his Church that show Peter did not received the authority given by Christ as understood by Catholics, or for that matter that Martin Luther never believed Peter to have been in Rome?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Babyllon was a code word for Rome

Peter was looking out for his life and Babylon is the code for Rome

 

[jmcrae]

It states that in verse15. Lots had spoken (including Peter, Paul, Barnabas and several others). The Apostles and Elders and “the whole assembly” discussed the issue. Then James (not Peter) renders the decision. He specifically states the rule for this. “The words of the prophets are in agreement with this. As it is inscripturated…” He then goes on to quote some Scriptures (NOT Peter). It’s unmistakable that the rule or authority at the meeting was Scripture. Verse 19 adds strength to this. After James notes that the words of Scripture affirm/norm this, he stated, “THEREFORE, it is my judgement…” He rests his “judgment” on the Scriptures - the “therefore” making Scripture the basis. Nothing about Peter’s words or office or infalliblity. Kinda stunning, I think.

Not really, since the passage he quotes says nothing about allowing the Gentiles to retain their cultural practices. The Jews were already allowing Gentiles to convert to Judaism; that part was nothing new.

He is adding to the Scriptures that they don’t have to change their cultural practices in order to become Christians, and that part flies directly in the face of the Law of Moses - Peter is making himself greater than Moses.