Did Peter Ever Visit Rome?

[Brother Rick]

What brought this up was I reading Schaff last night, and he said that tradition has it that both Peter and Paul were tried together, and then executed separately. Pretty amazing story, if it's true.

Here's an article on the subject. It's certainly not pro-Catholic, and it says that the first pope was actually Simon the Sorcerer from Acts 8. I'd like your guy's thoughts on it.

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/petrome.htm

[JerryNumbers]

It really makes no difference, even if he visited Rome he is still not the 1st pope as the RCC claims. There is no office in a church such as a pope, the pope is teachings of a man made church, its not found in the pages of the Bible.

[Brother Rick]

I agree.

Most people who are anti-catholic are very OBstinate that Peter did not visit Rome. I don't think it matters either way. Even if he did visit Rome, I don't see any evidence that he stayed there a long time and built a work.

Anyone know who started the church in Rome that Paul wrote to? Is there a verse that says Paul did?

[JerryNumbers]

I agree.

Most people who are anti-catholic are very OBstinate that Peter did not visit Rome. I don't think it matters either way. Even if he did visit Rome, I don't see any evidence that he stayed there a long time and built a work.

Anyone know who started the church in Rome that Paul wrote to? Is there a verse that says Paul did?

Was not Paul perhaps murdered in Rome? I've read stuff on that, but my memory if fuzzy.

[Invicta]

It really makes no difference, even if he visited Rome he is still not the 1st pope as the RCC claims. There is no office in a church such as a pope, the pope is teachings of a man made church, its not found in the pages of the Bible.

I agree with that Bro Jerry.

Rome says that Peter was Pope from AD 33 to 67. The scripture does not put him in Rome in AD 33 even if he was there later.

[Brother Rick]

Hey guys, I just wanted to bump this thread back up again. I always presupposed that Peter never set foot in Rome. After reading this article, I'm reevaluating that position because of the number of historical sources he cites and the fact that he is anti-Catholic so his agenda is not to prop up the papacy.

I know we all live busy lives, but I thought I'd bump it again. I'd really appreciate anyone's thoughts on the article itself when/if you have the chance to read it.

[JerryNumbers]

One thing is, you have to be careful with sources, if its not in the Bible, it may or may not be true. I know that the RCC has destroyed information that puts them in a bad light and or changed information.

[irishman]

"Foxes Book of Martyrs" says that Peter did visit Rome, and that he died there.

[ptwild]

Just as a point of reference, it would not matter whether Peter was ever in Rome or not. A bishop (the Pope is merely the title of the Bishop of Rome) does not have to be physically present, or even have ever visited, a dioceses which he oversees. Many of the conservative Anglican dioceses in the U.S. have came under the bishohpric of Gregory Venables, the Archbishop of the Southern Cone (South America), despite the fact that Bishop Venables has never even visited these dioceses. However, I believe that the historical record at least suggests that Peter was martyred in Rome.

[John81]

I've looked over several sources online and it seems most likely Peter did visit Rome but at a much later date than Catholics tend to claim. Most believe Peter did indeed die in Rome, likely not that long after Paul.

There is no evidence Peter started the church in Rome or that he was ever pope or bishop of Rome.

[Brother Rick]

I've looked over several sources online and it seems most likely Peter did visit Rome but at a much later date than Catholics tend to claim. Most believe Peter did indeed die in Rome, likely not that long after Paul.

There is no evidence Peter started the church in Rome or that he was ever pope or bishop of Rome.

I think that's the conclusion I'm coming to as well.

[JerryNumbers]

This is the verse that the RCC tries so hard to prove Peter was the first pope, that Jesus built His church on Peter yet it only proves that Jesus built His church on Himself, not Peter.

Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Even if Peter started a church in Rome, that in itself would not make him a pope, for there is no position of pope described in the bible.

[ptwild]

This is the verse that the RCC tries so hard to prove Peter was the first pope, that Jesus built His church on Peter yet it only proves that Jesus built His church on Himself, not Peter.

Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Even if Peter started a church in Rome, that in itself would not make him a pope, for there is no position of pope described in the bible.

I could be mistaken in this regard, but I don't believe there is such a thing as a "position of pope." It's just what the Bishop of Rome is referred to and I believe it's literal translation is "father." It's kind of like how we refer to the U.S. President as the "head of state." There is no such position as "head of state," it's just what we sometimes refer to the president as. When the college of cardinals elects a new pope, they are only electing the new Bishop of Rome, the same way other cardinals elect their bishops. According to Roman Catholicism, the Bishop of Rome is the "first among equals" of all other bishops, hence the majority of the attention and focus is heaped upon him. This has more to do with the media then anything else. He only has authority over other bishops (and thereby their dioceses) when he acts "ex cathedra," which as I understand it, has only happened a handful of times. The majority of the pope's power and influence comes from his position as the head of state of Vatican City which, as history shows us, was once a mighty principality in and of itself. Today, the Bishop of Rome is in essence only a figure head in all but a limited capacity, much the same as the Archbishop of Canterbury is to Anglicanism.

[DennisD]

Most Catholics might not admit it but as a former Catholic we were taught the Pope is in fallible when it comes to spiritual matters and that he was basically God on Earth or God's Ambassador to Earth. I've also heard some Catholics say he is Jesus reincarnate but I was never taught that.

The position of Pope or "Bishop of Rome" if that makes people feel more comfortable about it, is heresy and is straight from hell. The Pope has much more power then you give him credit...he has the power over people's emotions and minds, which is very dangerous. Can you break away? Sure, but look at how many Catholics are around the world...

[Invicta]

Some believe that 1 Peter 5:13 refers to Rome.