Has Peter ever visited Rome?

Question

How does it come that the Roman Catholic church states that Peter has established their church in Rome while not one verse in the Bible says that he has ever been there.
First Peter 5:13 says that he was in Babylon to preach to the Jews ( Galatians 2:9)

Answer 1

But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the Church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the Church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome, comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

Also, nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).

Answer 2

Yes that is what is stated.

I think Babylon here means Babylon, although some think it is a figurative name of Rome. I think Simon Peter is too practical to have used a figurative term.

I don't think Peter ever went to Rome. Paul would not have gone to Rome if Peter had already been in Rome preaching the gospel there, because Paul made it clear that he went into places where the gospel had not been preached before. Since Rome was on Paul's itinerary, it seems obvious that Paul; not Peter, founded the church at Rome.

Also in 1 Pet. 1:1, look at the list of places which he addresses. He moves from east to west. This suggest that the writer was in the east at the time of the writing. Asia Minor (Turkey today).

Answer 3

Pastor Billy says: fact is John your question is based on a false assumption. Roman Catholicism doesn't teach the Church was first established in Rome. You have assumed this based on name alone. The title Roman Catholic was coined very much the same way the Baptist name was coined, by the community's opponents in the case of Roman Catholics it was coined by the first Protestant reformers who still saw themselves as Catholics and need to distinguish themselves from the first Church Catholic.

Remember also this, Christianity was born in the geographical region known as ... the Roman Empire not Mongolia or China or the Mayan Empire.

Catholicism teaches the Church starts at Pentecost in Jerusalem with Peter as the head apostle and steward of Christ's Church. Catholics do in fact believe Peter journeyed to Rome and was martyred there after being bishop in Antioch first. Quo Vadis

Bishop Ireaneus of the late second century wrote a list of Roman bishops in his writing it starts with Peter for one example.

Answer 4

Most of what we have of the New Testament personalities is tradition, not supported by external evidence. But then, aside from the religion itself being a major thorn in Rome's side at the end of the first century, there isn't much detail about individuals who were not associated with the Roman hierarchy. Real history concerning common man didn't start until about 500 years or so ago. You're asking about history for around 2,000 years ago. I should add that I'm not Catholic.

Answer 5

The Roman Catholic church believes Peter was their first pope, so therefore give him the credit. Actually, Paul preached in Rome under house arrest for years before he was beheaded.

Answer 6

Only fools believe so. And catholics are of that type.
The bones in the Vatican belong mostly to field animals, as proved by an analysis made in the '60s.
But just how can you say Peter never made it to Rome?
There is the skull of the saint buried underneath the vatican.
LOL
And there is the second skull of Peter held in the St. John Church, in Rome too. Two skulls, several legs and arms, isn't it strong evidence that Peter was a monster?

Answer 7

am pretty sure. His bones are right below the Vatican Church, called St. Peter's Cathedral. Not all recorded information are in the bible. Some are just synopsis. But they are other records that are kept and sealed at the Vatican Archives.

Answer 8

They referred to Rome as Babylon because it was a city of sin and paganism like ancient Babylon. So he was in Rome, but he wasn't there to be a pope, he was there preaching the gospel.

Answer 9

I think he did - apparently his tomb is in the vatican.You would have to read up a bit more though

Answer 10

yes