Rom. 15:20 Peter was in Rome

[Semper_Fi_1]

Some Fundamentalists like to claim that since Paul wrote his letter to the Romans and if Peter was definitely leader of the Church he would have mentioned Peter in his letter. Not necessarily, for a variety of reasons. You don’t go off and tell the Roman authorities who outlawed the Church where your leader is staying. And from Rom. 15:20, we can tell that an Apostle had already been evangelizing the Romans before he was going there. It also mentions that Paul didn’t want to go there without the permission of the bishop there so he would just go there on his way passing through to Spain.

Rom. 15:20 DRV

And I have so preached this gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation.

Rom. 15:20 KJV

Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:

thoughts?

 

[tjmiller]

Even many protestant biblical scholars have pointed out a remarkable series of similarities between St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and St. Peter’s First Catholic Epistle. (A good cross-referenced Bible will help one to find these connections. )
My belief is that the latter makes implicit use of the former: Paul sends his letter to the church in Rome, where its influence is later reflected in Peter’s writing.

Even liberal atheistic historians concede that Peter was Bishop of Rome.

 

[awalt]

Check out Peter’s Roman Residency