Eleven facts about Peter the Apostle part 1

AliveinJesus · Eleven facts about Peter the Apostle part 1

Eleven facts about Peter the Apostle

Simon Peter and Apostolic Succession

One of the pillars that the Rome Catholic Church states that they are the first and true church of Christ that had there beginning from the apostle Peter. They claim that the line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. In its concrete form, apostolic succession is the line of bishops that goes from Rome stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops claim to have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles; specifically the apostle Simon Peter who is stated to be the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in The Bible.
Today, as we look at The Bible and the Roman Catholic Church we can see that there are many differences concerning doctrine. These differences are not a simple misunderstanding but at times appear to be the complete opposite of The Bible. When one studies out the major differences between the Church of Rome and The Bible it is not difficult to see that they have not preserved the doctrine of Christ or The Bible. If anyone were to study such subjects as infant baptism, the mass, Immaculate Conception of Mary, eternal torment in hell, engraven images, or the Sunday Sabbath they would not be able to support these ideas from The Bible. In fact, as stated earlier, these doctrines are completely opposite of The Bible. These ideas and practices have their roots in Paganism and Babylonian religions.
Where did the departure of simple Bible truth enter the church? Like any seeker of truth, let’s go back to the beginning to see where these false doctrines came into the church. With the claim of apostolic succession, we’ll go back to the apostle Peter himself and see how the departing of the truth came to be. When we look in The Bible there is no recorded of the apostle ever being in Rome much less being the head of the church. There are countless supposed historical accounts that Peter was in Rome but they all come from Catholic sources and are not first hand accounts. The earliest accounts are of Catholic fathers but even they do not agree with The Bible. So let’s look to The Bible and see why the apostle Peter was never in Rome and couldn’t be the founder of the Roman Catholic Church.
Below are eleven major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. These biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice what God tells us! The truth IS conclusive!

PROOF ONE: We should consider Christ’s commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles.
"The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7- Cool

.
Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN’T Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.

PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."
PAUL Established the Only TRUE Church at Rome during the apostolic era.

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 Catholics 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.

PROOF FOUR: 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

PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn’t there!

PROOF SIX: 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 Paul’s 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 Peter’s meeting with Paul.
Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!

PROOF SEVEN: 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 didn’t.

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 Paul’s Letters

PROOF EIGHT: 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 wasn’t there!

PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Paul’s two year’s imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter once denied Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul’s trial, is untenable!

PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!

PROOF ELEVEN: Peter’s death is foretold by Christ himself (John 21:18-19.) “. When you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Hmm, it sounds like Christ himself said that Peter would die of old age. Why would Peter’s death in old age glorify God? Peter was the one that ran from Christ the night of his trial and crucifixion. This exchange is after Christ rose from the tomb and Peter was forgiven three times, just as he denied his master three times before the cock crowed that fateful night of Christ’s trial.

Where was Peter the apostle of Christ? At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows that he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By paying attention to God’s own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!

Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect.

At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. As previously mentioned there are many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome but none of them are first hand accounts and should not be put above the many accounts of The Bible.

We know from The Bible that the apostle Peter was not in Rome. There was a Simon Peter in Rome after the death of Christ but it is not the apostle Peter that was a fisherman from Jerusalem. Who is this Simon Peter that was in Rome during the middle of the first century? This is how the great false Church of Rome got its start; along with the first leader Simon Peter not the apostle Peter.

jessica

......You posted....."One of the pillars that the Rome Catholic Church states that they are the first and true church of Christ that had there beginning from the apostle Peter. They claim that the line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. In its concrete form, apostolic succession is the line of bishops that goes from Rome stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops claim to have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles; specifically the apostle Simon Peter who is stated to be the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in The Bible. "

The early Church fathers testify in many of their writings that there was indeed a Pope who suceeded Peter ......... "The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96)

Notice the date?

And yes it is in scripture and has been proven also by many secular historians who have no agenda in mind at all.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out."

Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

You may want to look up the historical documents rather than just taking our word or the Word of Holy Scripture as truth

You also posted......"Today, as we look at The Bible and the Roman Catholic Church we can see that there are many differences concerning doctrine. These differences are not a simple misunderstanding but at times appear to be the complete opposite of The Bible. When one studies out the major differences between the Church of Rome and The Bible it is not difficult to see that they have not preserved the doctrine of Christ or The Bible. "

Secular history will again tell you that the Catholic Church gave you the Bible..the writings being handed down and preserved. A Catholic Monk undertook the enormous task of putting the scriptures together and giving us a complete Bible..He put together 72 books too! It didn't come together any other way. Even Luther thanked the Church for the Bible.

"If anyone were to study such subjects as infant baptism"

What if I was to say to you that 'altar calls' are not in scripture and we all know that the doctrine of the Trinity is not explained so we can understand it. Now why is this..because we do know that this doctrine was always true? The Church finally settled the arguments....going against the many heretics who did not believe in the Trinity..Those heretics who said... wrongly as you do....".the Catholics invented it..It's not in scripture!" Now can you see what I am getting at? Many things are not mentioned explicitly in scripture. What would have happened is the followers of Christ would have started to practice what they had been taught from the Apostles themselves and they followed those orders...namely "baptise your children!"

......" the mass,"

This is mentioned so many times in scripture that I fail to understand why so many non-Catholics fight aginst Christ's clear teaching...This is typical of the masses who say they love scripture and yet disobey the commands in it! Poor Jesus and he didn't use parables to explain this either..If he had so many would not have walked away from his words...just as you do today.

..."Immaculate Conception of Mary, "

You say that God cannot do what He desires? He wanted a sinless Mother.... He who is the Creator of the universe and you say He cannot do this? Why is it unfair to you or me? Shame on you! She who was "Full of Grace" in order to conceive and bring forth the Child of God! There should be no arguments concerning this as God can do all..With Him nothing is impossible. praise the Lord!

..."eternal torment in hell,"

Oh for goodnes sake read scripture! Hell is mentioned more times than heaven is..What book are you reading because it isn't the Bible?

.."engraven images,"

Another silly superstition from those who know nothing! God loves us..God loves to be praised. We can see throughout the Bible how God is praised. Angels prostrate before him night and day...And we cannot have a representation of Him?.....No where... I repeat No where does God say we cannot make an image of Him!

...." or the Sunday Sabbath they would not be able to support these ideas from The Bible."

Oh but they are on scripture you just have to take the blinkers off and leave that tradition you read alone...yes man's tradition which we are warned about. Remember God sees you and knows your heart.

......" In fact, as stated earlier, these doctrines are completely opposite of The Bible. These ideas and practices have their roots in Paganism and Babylonian religions. "

In fact my dear fellow it was the Church that finally destroyed paganism though even I have to say that it is back with us in a different form..In the world and in our families.

..."When we look in The Bible there is no recorded of the apostle ever being in Rome much less being the head of the church. There are countless supposed historical accounts that Peter was in Rome but they all come from Catholic sources and are not first hand accounts. "

How sad to disbelieve what is so very evident. Again historians knew Peter was in Rome from various sources..The early Church knew..its in scripture too. Ah these disbelievers who say they love scripture in reality actually despise it!

1 Peter 5:13 - This verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome. Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

---"PROOF ONE: We should consider Christ’s commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles. The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7- Cool

.
Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN’T Peter!"

Oh ye of little understanding. You see only what you want to see and leave out what interfers with your distorted doctrines.....Acts 10:34-48, .... 48 He then gave orders for them to be baptised (gentiles) in the name of Jesus Christ.

Peter defends his having received the Gentiles into the church.

Acts...11-1 And the apostles and brethren, who were in Judea, heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.

.Acts 11-2 .. and when Peter came up to Jerusalem the circumcised believers protested to him..-3 and said, 'So you have been visiting the uncircumcised and eating with them!' ......Acts 11- 17 I realised then that God was giving them the identical gift he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ; and who was I to stand in God's way?'

18 This account satisfied them, and they gave glory to God, saying, 'God has clearly granted to the gentiles too the repentance that leads to life.'

Peter was head of the whole flock as well as being apostle to the Jews...In Christ nobody is either Jew nor Greek.

I need to finish this later.

God's blessings on you

Jessica

jessica

PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."

Peter and Paul preached both to the gentiles and the Jews

Peter himself reminded them, at the Council meeting in Jerusalem:
"After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe." (Acts 15:7).

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them all that I have commanded you; " Matthew 28:19-20

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).

11 "For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace, to strengthen you: 12 That is to say, that I may be comforted together in you, by that which is common to us both, your faith and mine"..Your faith and mine!

There is nothing in Paul's letter to suggest he was founding a Church...only strenghtening the one there already!

"PROOF FOUR: 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."

Paul was never there to establish the Church but to help the Church already started there. Remember paul said ..."your faith and mine"

Scripture tells us that the Roman Emperor Claudius (41-54) ordered all Jews to leave Rome (Acts 18:2). Peter was a Jew, but the Church was an underground Church in hiding at the time.

Eusebius wrote in "The Chronicle" (Ad An Dom 42), that Peter, after establishing the Church in Antioch, went to Rome where he remained as Bishop of Rome for 25 years. ...We know from other early writings that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome in 67 A.D.. That date, minus 25 years would put him in Rome in the year 42, during the reign of Claudius.

Eusebius, "The Chronicle" Ad An.Dom 68, J651cc
"Nero is the first, in addition to all his other crimes, to make a persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously in Rome."

"PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn’t there! "

The author of Hebrews does not greet the leader of the Church in Jerusalem either. In any case, Peter may not have been there at the time. The following is an account of the history of Peter from the earliest mention of him in the Acts of the Apostles.

About 34AD ( Acts 2:41), we have an early mention of Peter. Some days later, in Acts 5:19, Peter is freed from prison by an angel. He spends four years in Jerusalem (Acts 8:25). St. Paul arrived at the beginning of Peter's fourth year (Acts 9:27-2 Cool

. In the same year Peter (Acts 9:32) went to Joppe, raised Tabitha, and had the linen vision (Acts 10:11-12). After a few days he went to Caesarea (to visit Cornelius - Acts 10:23). He returned to Jerusalem (Acts 11:1 Cool

for a short time. Then he went to Antioch in Syria (as did Barnabas). This is attested to by Anacletus (Ep. iii), Marcellus (Ep. iii), St. Innocent I (Ep. xiv), St. Damasus in the Pontifical Book, St. Jerome in the "De Viris Illustribus" etc.

Peter's episcopacy in Antioch lasted seven years (St. Leo, Sermon on Sts. Peter and Paul). Eleven years after the Ascension (the second year of Claudius), Peter went to Rome, first visiting Jerusalem (Acts 12, where he is thrown in prison, then rescued by an angel). The Roman Martyrology records the converts he sent to various parts, e.g. to Sicliy he sent Pancras, Marcian, and Berillus; to Verona he sent Exuperius, etc.

In the seventh year of his Roman pontificate, Claudius expelled all the Jews (and the Christians, who were regarded as a Jewish sect) from Rome. Peter returned to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas came for him over the dispute at Antioch (Acts 15: Cool

. This Council took place in the 10th year of Claudius.

Paul was converted the year after the Ascension, and went to see Peter in Jerualem in the third year of his conversion (Gal. 1:1 Cool

; fourteen years later he went again to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1) and attended the Council (Acts 15). So there were eighteen years from the Crucifixion to the Council of Jerusalem, which would be the tenth year of Claudius' reign.

Claudius died after a reign of thirteen years, and his four-year edict of expulsion against the Jews died with him. It was during this four-year spell that Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans. Nero succeeded, and Christians began returning to Rome (including Aquila and Priscilla). Peter returned to Rome in the first year of Nero's reign. Two years later Paul joined Peter in Rome as a prisoner.

Two years later (fourth year of Nero's reign), Paul, now set free, spent some time in Rome, then left for Spain.

In the tenth year of Nero (22nd year of Peter's pontificate, 64 AD), Rome was set on fire. Nero blamed the Christians and began a persecution against them the following year.

In the twelfth year of Nero (68AD), Peter, who had been absent for a while, came back to Rome to revive the Church. In this year Peter wrote his second Epistle, in which he foretells his own death (1:14). Nero cast Peter and Paul into the Mamertine prison for nine months. From here Paul wrote his Second Letter to Timothy, requesting he come to Rome to witness his (Paul's) martyrdom. It was at this tme that Process and Martinian were converted, alomg with 47 others.
In ~68-69AD, in the 25th year of Peter's pontificate in Rome, Peter and Paul were sentenced to death.

"PROOF SIX: 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 Paul’s 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 is no proof that Peter was or was not there!

"PROOF SEVEN: 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 didn’t. "

Acts 28-14...... "And so we came to Rome.

15 When the brothers there heard about us they came to meet us, as far as the Forum of Appius and the Three Taverns. When Paul saw them he thanked God and took courage. "

The above tells us that there were Christian communities there..we may not have an indication of how many but it is no proof for what you are claiming.

I can imagine there were many people who had not heard the Gospel except to hear of the problems surrounding the Christian sect Remember also Rome was the largest city Paul had visited.

"PROOF EIGHT: 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 wasn’t there! "

Peter may not have been there at that time. What is clear though from historical documents is that Peter did go back to Rome and was executed there...Remember that not one Church Father can be found who denies that Peter went to Rome and died there.

DIONYSIUS

"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome [A.D. 166], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25: Cool

.

GAIUS

"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:5).

PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Paul’s two year’s imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter once denied Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul’s trial, is untenable! "

First of all Peter is not in Rome ..now he is.. and has abandoned Paul? Incredible how you can twist and turn to make things fit in with any new idea. It is an indisputably established historical fact that Peter was in Rome during the last years of his life, and died by martyredom. As to the time he spent there and his activity we cannot say with certainty..but that he was there we certainly can.

"PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome! "

By Paul saying only Mark is with me does not prove anything... one way or another.

TERTULLIAN

But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood, where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (De Prescriptione 36 [A.D. 200]).

"PROOF ELEVEN: Peter’s death is foretold by Christ himself (John 21:18-19.) “. When you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Hmm, it sounds like Christ himself said that Peter would die of old age. Why would Peter’s death in old age glorify God?"

Jesus was telling Peter exactly how he would die..and yes a martyrs death would glorify God!

Where was Peter the apostle of Christ? At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows that he was elsewhere.

The Bible also tells us he was in Rome..Babylon. This fact is not disputed by any bible scholar either.

The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By paying attention to God’s own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!

Sorry but the truth is you have no proof at all....The evidence I have presented to you points to Peter going to Rome..writing from Rome.. and dying there.

God's blessings

Jessica

Sosthenes