Did Peter Ever Visit Rome?

[Invicta]

The point is that the Catholic Church is a false church. They teach contrary to Scripture. They teach another gospel, which is no gospel at all. They lead people away from Christ, not to Him.

And the ecumenical movement aids them.

[CPR]

Truely saved people are part of the Bride of Christ, regardless of the denominational title they hold.

Agreed. Very well stated, Rick.

[Brother Rick]

Agreed. Very well stated, Rick.

Thanks CPR.

Has anyone taken a look the article I posted at the begining of this? Just wondering.

[JerryNumbers]

And the ecumenical movement aids them.

So true, its encourages them to stay in their false paths.

[CPR]

Thanks CPR.

Has anyone taken a look the article I posted at the begining of this? Just wondering.

Hi Rick. I've taken a look at the article. I think that it corrOBorates historical evidence that Peter did in fact visit Rome. I've always believed it to be historical fact that he visited Rome. I think the subject of whether or not he was the first Pope is an entirely different issue, and, as ptwild pointed out, has absolutely nothing to do with his physical presence in Rome or lack thereof. Unfortunately, if you mention Peter and Rome in the same sentence it can be a bit of a call to arms and derail the original discussion.

I think the history and the article is interesting. Thanks for posting.

[Brother Rick]

Hi Rick. I've taken a look at the article. I think that it corrOBorates historical evidence that Peter did in fact visit Rome. I've always believed it to be historical fact that he visited Rome. I think the subject of whether or not he was the first Pope is an entirely different issue, and, as ptwild pointed out, has absolutely nothing to do with his physical presence in Rome or lack thereof. Unfortunately, if you mention Peter and Rome in the same sentence it can be a bit of a call to arms and derail the original discussion.

I think the history and the article is interesting. Thanks for posting.

Thanks for reading, I appreciate your imput!

[Kleptes]

I believe Peter was never in Rome. Paul for instance in each epistle never mentions Peter in his closings. Even in 2 Timothy 4 he only says that Luke is with him..... If Peter died not to long after Paul, wouldn't Paul have mentioned him? Paul writing to the romans in the book of Romans says this. Romans 1:1 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end you may be established. If Peter is the one who started the church there why would Paul say that? Wouldn't Peter been qualified to have established them?

[CPR]

I believe Peter was never in Rome. Paul for instance in each epistle never mentions Peter in his closings. Even in 2 Timothy 4 he only says that Luke is with him..... If Peter died not to long after Paul, wouldn't Paul have mentioned him? Paul writing to the romans in the book of Romans says this. Romans 1:1 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end you may be established. If Peter is the one who started the church there why would Paul say that? Wouldn't Peter been qualified to have established them?

Just because Paul doesn't mention Peter being in Rome doesn't mean that he was never there. Like ptwild mentioned and I also said earlier, whether or not he started the church there is a completely separate issue that has nothing to do with him ever being there.

[John81]

I believe Peter was never in Rome. Paul for instance in each epistle never mentions Peter in his closings. Even in 2 Timothy 4 he only says that Luke is with him..... If Peter died not to long after Paul, wouldn't Paul have mentioned him? Paul writing to the romans in the book of Romans says this. Romans 1:1 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end you may be established. If Peter is the one who started the church there why would Paul say that? Wouldn't Peter been qualified to have established them?

There is no evidence Peter started the church in Rome. The church in Rome was established by others long before either Paul or Peter travelled there. The evidence which places Peter in Rome would indicate he arrived shortly before Paul's execution. Peter may have never been able to get to Paul before his execution. Just because two people are in a large city at the same time doesn't mean they would have met, or had a chance to meet, or that both would be aware the other was there.

[Brother Rick]

There is no evidence Peter started the church in Rome. The church in Rome was established by others long before either Paul or Peter travelled there. The evidence which places Peter in Rome would indicate he arrived shortly before Paul's execution. Peter may have never been able to get to Paul before his execution. Just because two people are in a large city at the same time doesn't mean they would have met, or had a chance to meet, or that both would be aware the other was there.

That's so not true, John! Don't you know Peter would have updated his facebook status with, "Heading to Rome today, meet you at the diner by Luigi's, Paul!" Edited July 30, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[John81]

That's so not true, John! Don't you know Peter would have updated his facebook status with, "Heading to Rome today, meet you at the diner by Luigi's, Paul!"

Which actually makes me think of all the things that did occur but God didn't put in Scripture. Even the Apostle John mentions in the Gospel of John that Christ did so many more things that were not recorded.

The Bible isn't meant to be a fully, detailed accounting of everything that happened; it's meant to be exactly what God knows we need to know in order to know Him and live for Him.

[irishman]

did Peter ever visit Rome?

I don't know, maybe I'll ask him some day!