Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is there evidence, Biblical or from early church writings, of Apostle Simon Peter being in Rome?
I have been studying this topic for only a short time, but I have not yet found any evidence that he ever went to Rome.
I have learned that Simon the Sorcerer, the pagan high priest (also known as Simon Magus) went to Rome and was teaching his own form of "Christianity", peppered with his Samarian/Babylonian pagan teachings.
My guru in things early Christian believes that there is no evidence of Peter going to Rome in the early 50's and becoming the leader of the roman church.
His rationale is that first of all there was no single "Church of Rome" in the 1st century. Second, that there is other evidence that Peter was a leader of the Church in Antioch (?) and that Nero ordered the rounding up of known Christian leaders in 64-65 and that's how Peter became associated with the Church in Rome.
There are many who have said that the primacy of Peter was something invented in the early medieval period. I buy that argument.
Peter was not a Pope and he did not have the traditional red papal shoes.
However, Peter was the leader of the apostles and Jesus named him the shepherd of his flock.
More importantly Peter is buried in Rome underneath Saint Peters Basilica (Upon this rock I will built my church). Makes sense!
Hey, where can I get a pair of red shoes like that?
There is no mention of a Pope in the bible. Why not? Doesn't it mean "Papa"? I think it goes against the principles of Christ to elevate any man in that way.
The rock that Jesus built his church on was Peter's confession: "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God."
Peter was not a Pope and he did not have the traditional red papal shoes.
However, Peter was the leader of the apostles and Jesus named him the shepherd of his flock.
More importantly Peter is buried in Rome underneath Saint Peters Basilica (Upon this rock I will built my church). Makes sense!
Well,,,, sigh.......
Look, lots of things happened in the 50 years after the death of Jesus. Very early on the Roman officials recognized the early Christians as a threat to their own authority, so powerful was the message of Jesus.
My understanding is that beginning with Nero, lots of Christian leaders were regularly round up and brought to Rome to be interrogated by the various Emperors. That's how Peter ended up there. That's how Paul ended up there.
We need to stop thinking in terms of "THE" Church of Rome. There were many churches there, most likely unawares of each other, since Christians were persona non grata and subject to persecution, and operated in secrecy.
Sure, as a power grab, the established Church of Rome probably faked things like the Gospel of Peter to justify the primacy of Peter. What? No one ever faked documents to justify their own ends? Really?
See, if we keep focused on the message of Jesus, all the rest is irrelevant. The church of Rome no longer dominates us. God continues to inspire all of us.
Hey, where can I get a pair of red shoes like that?
There is no mention of a Pope in the bible. Why not? Doesn't it mean "Papa"? I think it goes against the principles of Christ to elevate any man in that way.
The rock that Jesus built his church on was Peter's confession: "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God."
The NT was written by Jews for Jews. The Jews do not use the term Pope.
No one says Peter was called pope. IN addition the original church of the 1st century was Jewish.
Peter was simply the leader of the apostles and hence the leader of the 1st church.
The titles Brother, Father, Mother, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, Monsignor, Pope, etc came later. It is a bit like the military. The church grew and it needed an army of soldiers and generals. The pope is simply a 5 star general.
The RCC is the largest and most important institution in Western Civilization and therefore it needed organization and structure.
Look, lots of things happened in the 50 years after the death of Jesus. Very early on the Roman officials recognized the early Christians as a threat to their own authority, so powerful was the message of Jesus.
My understanding is that beginning with Nero, lots of Christian leaders were regularly round up and brought to Rome to be interrogated by the various Emperors. That's how Peter ended up there. That's how Paul ended up there.
We need to stop thinking in terms of "THE" Church of Rome. There were many churches there, most likely unawares of each other, since Christians were persona non grata and subject to persecution, and operated in secrecy.
Sure, as a power grab, the established Church of Rome probably faked things like the Gospel of Peter to justify the primacy of Peter. What? No one ever faked documents to justify their own ends? Really?
See, if we keep focused on the message of Jesus, all the rest is irrelevant. The church of Rome no longer dominates us. God continues to inspire all of us.
'Nuff said?
RESPONSE:
>>My understanding is that beginning with Nero, lots of Christian leaders were regularly round up and brought to Rome to be interrogated by the various Emperors. That's how Peter ended up there. That's how Paul ended up there.<<
No. As a Roman citizen with the right to do so, Paul demanded to appeal his arrest to the Roman Emperor (see Acts of the Apostles). The is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, but the real question is was Peter ever the bishop of Rome with authority over Paul.
>>We need to stop thinking in terms of "THE" Church of Rome. There were many churches there, most likely unawares of each other, since Christians were persona non grata and subject to persecution, and operated in secrecy<<
These were not "churches" but communities of Christians. They were subject to persecution because they were disruptive of Roman society claiming that only their God should be worshipped. (The Romans were tolerant of a number of different religions).
>>Sure, as a power grab, the established Church of Rome probably faked things like the Gospel of Peter to justify the primacy of Peter. What? No one ever faked documents to justify their own ends? Really?<<
After the original Christian community in Jerusalem was destroyed in 130 AD, the various outlying communities followed the Pauline model forming their own churches. THe Pauline communities became dominant. There eventually arose five central churches (four outside Rome) which were considered equal. But after the Christian religion became the official Roman religion in the 4th century, the bishop of Rome began to claim primacy over the other four.
Claiming succession from Peter helped his claim which was rejected by the other four central churches who considered all five to be equal.
There is no mention of a Pope in the bible. Why not? Doesn't it mean "Papa"? I think it goes against the principles of Christ to elevate any man in that way.
The rock that Jesus built his church on was Peter's confession: "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God."
Is there evidence, Biblical or from early church writings, of Apostle Simon Peter being in Rome?
I have been studying this topic for only a short time, but I have not yet found any evidence that he ever went to Rome.
I have learned that Simon the Sorcerer, the pagan high priest (also known as Simon Magus) went to Rome and was teaching his own form of "Christianity", peppered with his Samarian/Babylonian pagan teachings.
What have you found in your studies?
You need to study longer, and your sources are quite suspect. But I could guess who or what they are. Every early Church writer agrees that Peter the Apostle was in Rome, even those that refute Papal supremacy,: Peter's Roman Residency | Catholic Answers , Was Peter in Rome? | Catholic Answers , and there is recent archaeological evidence confirming it: The Bones of St. Peter by John E. Walsh It was the fact that Simon Magus was in Rome preaching a bastardized christianity that caused Peter the Apostle to go there in the first place, to confront and refute him: The Acts of Peter. And when you study the teachings of Simon Magus and his followers (the Simoneans) you will see that their teachings have nothing in common with Roman Catholicism: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Simon Magus , CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Simonians .
While most of the sources I quote and link to above are Catholic, they are not any more or less bias than your sources, and they simply quote word-for-word the early Church Fathers....and even the Orthodox Church believes and teaches that Peter the Apostle was in Rome!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
