Biblical evidence that Peter the Apostle has never been in Rome nor the first bishop of Rome

[Follower Of Christ]

I know this is controversial and Catholicism teaches that Peter the Apostle was the first bishop of Rome and the founder of the Roman Church. The teaching of Catholic historians tells us that Simon Peter went to Rome at the same time as Simon Magus in order to thwart his evils. This was during the reign of Claudius and is about 41 AD to 54 AD. After successfully combating the Magus, they tell us, Peter assumed the Roman bishopric and ruled it until the Neronian persecutions of 68 A.D., during which Peter was supposed to have been crucified upside down on Vatican hill. Looking at the bible though this claim is nowhere to be found. That is:

1. Christ was commissioned by Peter to be apostle to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. If anything, Paul should have been the first bishop of Rome. From Galatians 2:7 "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised..."

2. We are told by Paul in Romans 1:11 "For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to strengthen you." Paul wrote this around 57AD to 59 AD yet we told by Catholic historians that Peter had done this imparting of spiritual gifts a while ago during the reign of Claudius Caesar.

3. Paul states in Romans 15:20 "and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else's foundation. Well, if Peter had already been in Rome then Paul had to have a confrontation with Peter about this which makes no sense.

4. At the end of Romans epistle, Paul greets a lot of individuals, yet the name of Peter is not mentioned even once. That is very odd!

5. When Paul was sent to Rome after 60 AD we have from Acts 28:15 "And the brothers there, when they heard about us, came as far as the forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage. Again, no mention of Peter. Very odd!

6. When Paul arrived in Rome he gathered the local leaders of the Jews from Acts 28:17. From Acts 28:22-23 it is obvious that the Jews had not heard of Christ until then which is odd since if Peter the Apostle to the Jews had been in Rome he would have done that.

7. 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. Again very odd!

8. 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 2 Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in 2 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! Very odd!

9. In 2 Timothy 4:11 it is stated "Luke along is with me..." Where on earth is Peter?

Conclusion is obvious: Peter the Apostle to the circumcised has never been in Rome. Therefore, the foundation of Catholic Church is non-existent. Talk about building a house on sand.

 

[LeviR]

I know this is controversial and Catholicism teaches that Peter the Apostle was the first bishop of Rome and the founder of the Roman Church. The teaching of Catholic historians tells us that Simon Peter went to Rome at the same time as Simon Magus in order to thwart his evils. This was during the reign of Claudius and is about 41 AD to 54 AD. After successfully combating the Magus, they tell us, Peter assumed the Roman bishopric and ruled it until the Neronian persecutions of 68 A.D., during which Peter was supposed to have been crucified upside down on Vatican hill. Looking at the bible though this claim is nowhere to be found. That is:

1. Christ was commissioned by Peter to be apostle to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. If anything, Paul should have been the first bishop of Rome. From Galatians 2:7 "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised..."

2. We are told by Paul in Romans 1:11 "For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to strengthen you." Paul wrote this around 57AD to 59 AD yet we told by Catholic historians that Peter had done this imparting of spiritual gifts a while ago during the reign of Claudius Caesar.

3. Paul states in Romans 15:20 "and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else's foundation. Well, if Peter had already been in Rome then Paul had to have a confrontation with Peter about this which makes no sense.

4. At the end of Romans epistle, Paul greets a lot of individuals, yet the name of Peter is not mentioned even once. That is very odd!

5. When Paul was sent to Rome after 60 AD we have from Acts 28:15 "And the brothers there, when they heard about us, came as far as the forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage. Again, no mention of Peter. Very odd!

6. When Paul arrived in Rome he gathered the local leaders of the Jews from Acts 28:17. From Acts 28:22-23 it is obvious that the Jews had not heard of Christ until then which is odd since if Peter the Apostle to the Jews had been in Rome he would have done that.

7. 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. Again very odd!

8. 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 2 Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in 2 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! Very odd!

9. In 2 Timothy 4:11 it is stated "Luke along is with me..." Where on earth is Peter?

Conclusion is obvious: Peter the Apostle to the circumcised has never been in Rome. Therefore, the foundation of Catholic Church is non-existent. Talk about building a house on sand.

It doesn’t matter whether Peter was in Rome or not. The question addresses who is the head of the Church.
In other words, who is the head of the body of Christ?
The analogy of the Church as a body means the Church, like a body, has only one head. And that one head is Christ.
To claim that the body of Christ requires another head is false.
That would mean that the teaching of Christ is insufficient to salvation. It claims that another head is required to reasonably explain what is required for salvation.
They therefore exalt themselves as head over the real head and body of Christ. They therefore exalt their own ideas of salvation above those taught by the true head as if the true head has not shown you what is true.

 

[LeviR]

The keys that Christ gave to Peter were the keys to the kingdom of God. Therefore, Peter was given the keys to open the door of salvation to those interested in it.
We know from Scripture that Peter’s teaching does not contradict that of Jesus.
So, go ahead, have your head and I’ll have mine.

 

[Follower Of Christ]

It doesn’t matter whether Peter was in Rome or not. The question addresses who is the head of the Church.
In other words, who is the head of the body of Christ?

In this Laodicean era we are encouraged by Christ to leave organized religion and seek Christ individually. Popes, ministers, pastors etc just cut us off from Christ who is the head of the church.

I made this post not to support any other denominations claims. I belong to no denomination and worship Christ and God on my own. In the future I shall have fellowship with other Christians maybe in a home, or nature etc.

I posted this more of a reminder to many that the Catholic Church has a foundation built on sand and it is evolving more towards a religion supporting a one world government. For more please read "Keys Of This Blood" by Malachi Martin. I leave it up to the reader to conclude whether Catholic Church is the Harlot Church of the Book of Revelation.

 

[LeviR]

In this Laodicean era we are encouraged by Christ to leave organized religion and seek Christ individually. Popes, ministers, pastors etc just cut us off from Christ who is the head of the church.

I made this post not to support any other denominations claims. I belong to no denomination and worship Christ and God on my own. In the future I shall have fellowship with other Christians maybe in a home, or nature etc.

I posted this more of a reminder to many that the Catholic Church has a foundation built on sand and it is evolving more towards a religion supporting a one world government. For more please read "Keys Of This Blood" by Malachi Martin. I leave it up to the reader to conclude whether Catholic Church is the Harlot Church of the Book of Revelation.

The Roman Church is not a harlot because it has never joined itself in agreement with the covenants of God.
A person or group persons who are ignorant of the covenants of God are without God and without hope in this world.
When the Israelites joined themselves in covenant with God it was required for them to know the terms of that covenant and to agree to it.
When an Israelite realizes his inability to live up to the terms of the covenant it forces him to seek another covenant whereby he might gain the same promise given by God in the covenant.
Well, those same promises God gave to Abraham long before the covenant made with the Israelites at Sinai.
They therefore only needed to rest on those promises rather than joining themselves to something new.
Abraham is saved by faith and not by the works of the law given to Moses and the Israelites.
It therefore takes a knowledge of the covenants to gain the promises of God.
This does not mean the law is not good and right, it simply means that neither Jew or Gentile can be saved by it. If they could, there would be no need for Christ or the promises God made to Abraham which became effective by Christ.

 

[Follower Of Christ]

Please note Isaiah 22:15-16 "Thus says the Lord God of hosts, Come go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household and say to him. What have you to do here, that you have cut out here a tomb for yourself..." From Isaiah 22:20-22 "And on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah,...,And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open."

From Matthew 16:18-19 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Christ is saying that yes you are Petros (Peter) and yet upon another rock (Petra) I shall build my church. Eventually the key of David shall be given to Eliakim.

 

[LeviR]

Please note Isaiah 22:15-16 "Thus says the Lord God of hosts, Come go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household and say to him. What have you to do here, that you have cut out here a tomb for yourself..." From Isaiah 22:20-22 "And on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah,...,And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open."

From Matthew 16:18-19 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Christ is saying that yes you are Petros (Peter) and yet upon another rock (Petra) I shall build my church. Eventually the key of David shall be given to Eliakim.

False teachers not only dig their own grave but also the graves of their followers.

 

[Follower Of Christ]

False teachers not only dig their own graves but also the graves of their followers.

True. Yet the key of David is only mentioned twice in the bible, one regarding Eliakim and the other one regarding the Church of Philadelphia. And in revelation 3:7 it is stated "The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens."

I say that Eliakim is typical of Jesus Christ. From 1 Corinthians 3:21-23 "So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas or the world, all are yours. And you are Christ's and Christ is God's."

From John 21:22 "If it is my will that he remain until I come what is that to you (talking to Peter). You follow me".

 

[Follower Of Christ]

Lastly, from 1 Corinthians 3:4-5 "For when one says "I follow Paul", and another "I follow" Apollos are you not being merely human? What is then Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed as the Lord assigned to each."

Don't misunderstand me LeviR. Peter is the Apostle of the circumcised. But that is where it ends. Peter is a dead servant waiting the first resurrection like all other blessed saints. The key of heaven and hell (the key of David) is Christ's. And he shuts or opens the door.

 

[Follower Of Christ]

The Roman Church is not a harlot because it has never joined itself in agreement with the covenants of God.

From Revelation 17:7-8 "And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: "Babylon the great..." and I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints."

The roots of the Catholic Church are in Babylon, for in Babylon they worshipped the trinity of Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. And we all know about the inquisition and so on. If Catholic Church and its offshoots are not Babylon, then who is that woman? Do you know much about Simon Magus who was from Samaria which contained people coming from Babylon? Why in John 4 Jesus dwells so much with that woman from Samaria? Apparently in John 4 many Samaritans believed in Christ.

Yet James 2:19 says "You believe that God is one: you do well - even the demons believe and shudder."

 

[WalterandDebbie]

I know this is controversial and Catholicism teaches that Peter the Apostle was the first bishop of Rome and the founder of the Roman Church. The teaching of Catholic historians tells us that Simon Peter went to Rome at the same time as Simon Magus in order to thwart his evils. This was during the reign of Claudius and is about 41 AD to 54 AD. After successfully combating the Magus, they tell us, Peter assumed the Roman bishopric and ruled it until the Neronian persecutions of 68 A.D., during which Peter was supposed to have been crucified upside down on Vatican hill. Looking at the bible though this claim is nowhere to be found. That is:

1. Christ was commissioned by Peter to be apostle to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. If anything, Paul should have been the first bishop of Rome. From Galatians 2:7 "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised..."

2. We are told by Paul in Romans 1:11 "For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to strengthen you." Paul wrote this around 57AD to 59 AD yet we told by Catholic historians that Peter had done this imparting of spiritual gifts a while ago during the reign of Claudius Caesar.

3. Paul states in Romans 15:20 "and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else's foundation. Well, if Peter had already been in Rome then Paul had to have a confrontation with Peter about this which makes no sense.

4. At the end of Romans epistle, Paul greets a lot of individuals, yet the name of Peter is not mentioned even once. That is very odd!

5. When Paul was sent to Rome after 60 AD we have from Acts 28:15 "And the brothers there, when they heard about us, came as far as the forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage. Again, no mention of Peter. Very odd!

6. When Paul arrived in Rome he gathered the local leaders of the Jews from Acts 28:17. From Acts 28:22-23 it is obvious that the Jews had not heard of Christ until then which is odd since if Peter the Apostle to the Jews had been in Rome he would have done that.

7. 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. Again very odd!

8. 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 2 Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in 2 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! Very odd!

9. In 2 Timothy 4:11 it is stated "Luke along is with me..." Where on earth is Peter?

Conclusion is obvious: Peter the Apostle to the circumcised has never been in Rome. Therefore, the foundation of Catholic Church is non-existent. Talk about building a house on sand.

Hello again Follower Of Christ, According to the OP: http://christianbeliefs.org/articles/peter&rome.html

More views: https://www.hope-of-israel.org/petrome.htm

Love, Walter And Debbie

 

[Follower Of Christ]

Hello again Follower Of Christ, According to the OP: http://christianbeliefs.org/articles/peter&rome.html

Love, Walter And Debbie

This is where I took the information. I just condensed it a bit and only used the information about the absence of Peter in Rome. I should have mentioned that I was quoting some other person's writing here. I shall make sure next time to point out when I use someone else's material.

Simon Magus (Simon THE PATER) founder of the Roman Catholic Church

Simon Magus the "Man of Lawlessness" that Paul warned about in 2nd Thessalonians. The one who calls himself a Jew but is not, but is really a synagogue of Satan, teachijng people to eat food sacrficed to idols. http://www.pointsoftruth.com/SimonMagus.html By: Ernest Martin 1964 About Simon…

archangel16.livejournal.com

 

[Follower Of Christ]

I did not want to post the original link for I do not want to start a discussion about whether Simon Magus started the Church of Rome. All I wanted to say is that Peter has never been in Rome.

 

[follower]

I thought I'd try something here.....
I think one of the best proofs / best evidence/ that something is false is when the source is simply known to be false. After all, or first of all, a good tree produces good teachings, true teachings;
a bad tree produces bad fruit, false teachings.
Whenever , always all things likewise, this lines up with and is in harmony with all Scripture,
then it is as often quoted from somewhere: Let Sctipture interpret Scripture. I'm not at all certain "interpret" is the correct word here, as no Scripture is open to any man's interpretation by man.
The interpretation always rests with the Creator.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

This is where I took the information. I just condensed it a bit and only used the information about the absence of Peter in Rome. I should have mentioned that I was quoting some other person's writing here. I shall make sure next time to point out when I use someone else's material.

Simon Magus (Simon THE PATER) founder of the Roman Catholic Church

Simon Magus the "Man of Lawlessness" that Paul warned about in 2nd Thessalonians. The one who calls himself a Jew but is not, but is really a synagogue of Satan, teachijng people to eat food sacrficed to idols. http://www.pointsoftruth.com/SimonMagus.html By: Ernest Martin 1964 About Simon…

archangel16.livejournal.com

Thank you Sir

Love, Walter

 

[Follower Of Christ]

I thought I'd try something here.....
I think one of the best proofs / best evidence/ that something is false is when the source is simply known to be false. After all, or first of all, a good tree produces good teachings, true teachings;
a bad tree produces bad fruit, false teachings.
Whenever , always all things likewise, this lines up with and is in harmony with all Scripture,
then it is as often quoted from somewhere: Let Sctipture interpret Scripture. I'm not at all certain "interpret" is the correct word here, as no Scripture is open to any man's interpretation by man.
The interpretation always rests with the Creator.

Of course follower, but from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 we have "...test everything; hold fast what is good."

 

[WalterandDebbie]

This is where I took the information. I just condensed it a bit and only used the information about the absence of Peter in Rome. I should have mentioned that I was quoting some other person's writing here. I shall make sure next time to point out when I use someone else's material.

Simon Magus (Simon THE PATER) founder of the Roman Catholic Church

Simon Magus the "Man of Lawlessness" that Paul warned about in 2nd Thessalonians. The one who calls himself a Jew but is not, but is really a synagogue of Satan, teachijng people to eat food sacrficed to idols. http://www.pointsoftruth.com/SimonMagus.html By: Ernest Martin 1964 About Simon…

archangel16.livejournal.com

Okay, this is fine.

 

[journeyman]

Lastly, from 1 Corinthians 3:4-5 "For when one says "I follow Paul", and another "I follow" Apollos are you not being merely human? What is then Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed as the Lord assigned to each."

Paul always directed us toward Jesus.

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 1Cor.11:1 KJV

He's the Head

I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1Cor.11:3 KJV

Paul is teaching every man should consider God his Head, because as the head of every man Christ did.

Inserting the people from vs.3 into their proper places with "heads" uncovered or covered leads to something revealing.
Paul is saying all men should honor Christ as God. It won't fit the context any other way.

 

[follower]

Of course follower, but from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 we have "...test everything; hold fast what is good."

And if all the people did that accurately, there would be no promoting the world religion at all, ever. It would be known for what it is (a way to destruction), and neither accepted nor believed.

 

[Alfred Persson]

The Roman Church is not a harlot because it has never joined itself in agreement with the covenants of God.
A person or group persons who are ignorant of the covenants of God are without God and without hope in this world.
When the Israelites joined themselves in covenant with God it was required for them to know the terms of that covenant and to agree to it.
When an Israelite realizes his inability to live up to the terms of the covenant it forces him to seek another covenant whereby he might gain the same promise given by God in the covenant.
Well, those same promises God gave to Abraham long before the covenant made with the Israelites at Sinai.
They therefore only needed to rest on those promises rather than joining themselves to something new.
Abraham is saved by faith and not by the works of the law given to Moses and the Israelites.
It therefore takes a knowledge of the covenants to gain the promises of God.
This does not mean the law is not good and right, it simply means that neither Jew or Gentile can be saved by it. If they could, there would be no need for Christ or the promises God made to Abraham which became effective by Christ.

Not accurate. Tyre, Nineveh and Babylon are called harlots:

15 Now it shall come to pass in that day that Tyre will be forgotten seventy years, according to the days of one king. At the end of seventy years it will happen to Tyre as in the song of the harlot:
16 "Take a harp, go about the city, You forgotten harlot; Make sweet melody, sing many songs, That you may be remembered."
17 And it shall be, at the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre. She will return to her hire, and commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world on the face of the earth. (Isa. 23:15-17 NKJ)

4 Because of the multitude of harlotries of the seductive harlot, The mistress of sorceries, Who sells nations through her harlotries, And families through her sorceries....
7 It shall come to pass that all who look upon you Will flee from you, and say,`Nineveh is laid waste! Who will bemoan her?' Where shall I seek comforters for you?" (Nah. 3:4-7 NKJ)

5 And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. (Rev. 17:5 NKJ)

Metaphorically it can apply to any organized city or religion that "prostitutes" itself for money or fame.

One thing to consider, I'm sure every Protestant wondered about this at least once: "If Catholicism is the Mother of Harlots, then what is her Protestant child?"

While I do not interpret Rome as Babylon the Great Mother of Harlots who was born in the "Tower of Babylon" (Babel) and her spiritism spread throughout the earth when God confused the languages; its obvious many churches in Christendom have prostituted themselves in the End Time apostasy "falling away":

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away (646 ἀποστασία apostasia) comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, (2 Thess. 2:3 NKJ)

646 ἀποστασία apostasia {ap-os-tas-ee'-ah}
Meaning: 1) a falling away, defection, apostasy
Origin: feminine of the same as 647; TDNT - 1:513,88; n f
Usage: AV - to forsake + 575 1, falling away 1; 2

Notes:

1 NU-Text reads [lawlessness]. }