Was The Apostle Peter ever in Rome?

Question

how do you know?

Answer 1

First off I want to note that Adolph Harnack a protestant theologian and historian had to say this and I quote: "to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is NOT BLIND. The martyr death of peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice."

In the bible Peter rites in his letter

“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Peter 5:13)

Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.

Babylon is mentioned in apocalypse of st. john plenty of times since the ancient babylon is no more it is referring to Rome.
thats only the biblical proof
early christian writers, write
How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” - Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200) ... mostly everyone admits paul died in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

In Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
Hippolytus (225 AD) claimed peter to be the first bishop of rome.

I say whoever doubts peter was in rome just fears that the catholic doctrine of apostolic succession and papacy may be correct so they rubuke peter being in Rome, which is so false.. may I add though I know through faith peter was the first pope and past down his succession just because he was in rome this didn't have to be true, right? but some protestants still deny he was ever in rome :s

Answer 2

Are you kidding me???? It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.

Answer 3

Pope St. Peter died in Rome by crucifixion. Peter asked to die upside down since he did feel himself worthy to die like Jesus did.
He and St. Paul were both martyred and were buried there.

Answer 4

Supposedly he's buried beneath St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican.

Answer 5

Yes. I know from the historical evidence.