M
Mr_Adrian_OP
Guest
I would just like to ask, it is a well established fact that Peter was in Rome. however, some fundamentalist uses acts 28 as their “proof” the Peter was not in Rome. they say,
*"Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Pauls arrival, they all went to meet him. “When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us” (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts.
But he says nothing of Peters meeting with Paul.
When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon “the chief of the Jews together” (Acts 28:17) to whom he “expounded and testified the kingdom of God” (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22).
Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed – the majority didnt.
Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE – how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D.
No Mention of Peter in Pauls Letters
After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter.
The obvious reason is – the Apostle to the circumcision wasnt there!"*
*"Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Pauls arrival, they all went to meet him. “When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us” (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts.
But he says nothing of Peters meeting with Paul.
When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon “the chief of the Jews together” (Acts 28:17) to whom he “expounded and testified the kingdom of God” (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22).
Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed – the majority didnt.
Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE – how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D.
No Mention of Peter in Pauls Letters
After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter.
The obvious reason is – the Apostle to the circumcision wasnt there!"*