Did the Apostle Peter ever go to Rome?

Question

Peter never went to Rome. He stayed on the southeast shore of the Great Sea.
Jesus was talking about himself when he said upon this rock. Jesus was the rightful Chief Cornerstone of the Christian Faith. He did not have any part in Catholicism. He does not condone the pagan rituals of the Catholics. He did not forbid men to marry or abstain from foods like meat on Fridays. He is no part of the world of politics as so many Catholics are. He did not condone war. He said if you live by the sword you die by the sword and his kingdom was not from this source. The pope is not Christ representation on earth. He is just a fallable man. Christ said do not be calling anyone father on the earth. For only one is our father, Jehovah

Answer 1

Not according to the Bible...
"In order to assert its supremacy over other Christian denominations, the Catholic Church has sought to accredit the ‘late and less reliable’ tradition that states that Peter resided for some time in Rome. Strangely, though, other ancient traditions would have his burial site, not in the Vatican, but elsewhere in Rome. Yet, why not stick to the facts recorded in the Bible, the only source of firsthand information about Peter? From God’s Word it is clear that, in obedience to the directions he received from the governing body of the Christian congregation in Jerusalem, Peter carried out his work in the eastern part of the ancient world, including Babylon.—Galatians 2:1-9; 1 Peter 5:13; compare Acts 8:14.

When writing to Christians in Rome, about 56 C.E., the apostle Paul greeted about 30 members of that congregation without even mentioning Peter. (Romans 1:1, 7; 16:3-23) Then, between 60 and 65 C.E., Paul wrote six letters from Rome, but Peter is not mentioned—strong circumstantial evidence that Peter was not there. (Compare 2 Timothy 1:15-17; 4:11.) Paul’s activity in Rome is described at the end of the book of Acts, but once again, no reference is made to Peter. (Acts 28:16, 30, 31) Consequently, an objective examination of the Biblical evidence, free of all preconceived ideas, can lead only to the conclusion that Peter did not preach in Rome.

The “primacy” of the pope is based on unreliable traditions and twisted application of scriptures. Jesus, not Peter, is the foundation of Christianity. ‘Christ is the head of the congregation,’ says Paul. (Ephesians 2:20-22; 5:23) It was Jesus Christ whom Jehovah sent to bless and to save all those who have faith.—John 3:16; Acts 4:12; Romans 15:29; see also 1 Peter 2:4-8.

All those, then, that make their way to what they sincerely believe to be Peter’s tomb in order to ‘meet his successor’ are faced with the problem of whether to accept ‘unreliable traditions’ or to believe the trustworthy Word of God. Since Christians want their worship to be acceptable to God, they ‘look intently at the Perfecter of their faith, Jesus,’ and at the perfect example that he left for us to follow.—Hebrews 12:2; 1 Peter 2:21.


About the years 60-61 C.E., Paul wrote his letters to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and the Hebrews; about 65 C.E., he wrote his second letter to Timothy.

The question “Was Peter Ever in Rome?” was considered in The Watchtower, November 1, 1972, pages 669-71. (Published by Jehovah's Witnesses)


“The excavation has revealed no certain traces of a grave beneath the Aedicula; nor indeed can there be any certainty that St. Peter’s body was ever recovered from the executioners for burial by the Christian community. In the normal course of events, the body of one who was an alien (peregrinus), and in the eyes of the law a common felon, might well have been hurled into the Tiber. . . . There would, moreover, not have been the same interest in the preservation of bodily relics at this early date as there was later, when belief in the imminent end of the world had faded and the cult of martyrs had begun to make its appearance. The possibility, therefore, that St. Peter’s body was, in fact, not recovered for burial is a real one.”—The Shrine of St. Peter and the Vatican Excavations, by Jocelyn Toynbee and John Ward Perkins."

Answer 2

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).

In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.

Answer 3

According to the gospels

Peter help establish the Jerusalem church, but James 3 the brother of Jesus assumed the leadership of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15). Though Peter was active in the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11-12), Paul became "the apostle to the Gentiles" (Acts 14; 16-28, Rom. 11:13). Peter became the apostle "to the circumcised" (Gal. 2:8), preaching throughout Palestine.

According to 1 Clement 5:1-6:1

Peter died a martyr in Rome under Nero, probably in A.D. 64 or 65. 1 Clement cannot have been written before the last decades of the 1st century. Also, there were no eye witnesses to this account of Peter's death happening in Rome. Probably tradition of the Roman Catholic church. handed down.

Answer 4

Of course he was. Here is some of the testimony from the first christians: •Irenaeus - (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [AD 189])"... since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree" •Tertullian - (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32 [AD 200]) "...For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" •Eusebius of Cesarea ((Ecclesiastical History - Book 2, 14.6) (c. AD 300)) - ...during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. All scholars (including protestant) admit these writings as true and admit that Peter was in Rome, but some people like House Speaker will deny that. The only thing they achieve in that way is to show their ignorance and their fanatic hatred of Christ´s true Church, the Catholic Church. In so doing , they go against the same Jesus who said " And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build MY church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18 )

Answer 5

In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. It has also been documented by various early Church fathers. He was later martyred there under the pagan emperor, Nero. It isn't just Biblical, but also an historical fact. Hope this helps, God bless...

Answer 6

There is no place in the New Testament where there is any record of any kind that Peter was in Rome. Babylon mentioned in 1 Peter 3;15 was most likely referring to the actual city, not Rome. However there are extra-biblical sources which said he was but they are not considered all that accurate and written hundreds of years after the fact.

Answer 7

Ever heard of St Peter's Bacillica? The tomb of St Peter?The home of the Pope? Why do you think that Rome is the seat of the Catholic Church?

Answer 8

The Bible did not mention that he went to Rome...unlike Paul, his presence in Rome was backed up with Bible verses..

Answer 9

Debbie: I'm curious as to why you ask this? Do you have a problem with Peter going to Rome?

Answer 10

Yes, the tradition that Peter was Bishop of Rome and killed and buried there is very strong and opposition to it is usually ideologically driven.