Was The Apostle Peter Ever In Rome?. Qoute a Scripture to Support a Yes..?

Answer 1

Peter was never a Pope of the Catholic Church
Can it be confidently said that this long line of popes began with the apostle Peter? According to Catholic theology, four popes, Linus, Anacletus, Clement I, and Evaristus, are said to have succeeded Peter up to the year 100 C.E. The Bible does mention a Christian named Linus who lived in Rome. However, there is nothing to suggest that Linus, or anyone else, was a papal successor to Peter. The apostle John, who penned five books of the Bible in the last decade of the first century, made no reference to any of the above so-called successors of Peter. Indeed, if there was a successor to Peter, would not the logical choice have been John himself?

As to the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, there is no proof that he even visited that city. In fact, Peter himself states that he wrote his first letter from Babylon. (1 Peter 5:13) The Catholic argument that Peter used “Babylon” as a cryptic reference to Rome is groundless. The real Babylon existed in Peter’s day. Furthermore, Babylon had a sizable Jewish community. Since Jesus assigned Peter to concentrate his preaching on the circumcised Jews, it is altogether reasonable to believe that Peter visited Babylon for this purpose.

Note, too, that Peter never referred to himself as anything more than one of Christ’s apostles. (2 Peter 1:1) Nowhere in the Bible is he addressed as “Holy Father,” “Supreme Pontiff,” or “Pope”. Instead, he humbly adhered to Jesus’ words at Matthew 23:9, 10: “Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for your Leader is one, the Christ.” Peter did not accept veneration. When Roman centurion Cornelius “fell down at his feet and did obeisance to him, Peter lifted him up, saying: ‘Rise; I myself am also a man.’” Who was the rock that Jesus indicated at Matthew 16:18, Peter or Jesus? The context shows that the point of the discussion was the identification of Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” as Peter himself confessed. (Matthew 16:16, RS) Logically, therefore, Jesus himself would be that solid rock foundation of the church, not Peter, who would later deny Christ three times. Matthew 26:33-35, 69-75.

How do we know that Christ is the foundation stone? By Peter’s own testimony, when he wrote: “Coming to him as to a living stone, rejected, it is true, by men, but chosen, precious, with God . For it is contained in Scripture: ‘Look! I am laying in Zion a stone, chosen, a foundation cornerstone, precious; and no one exercising faith in it will by any means come to disappointment.’” Paul also stated: “And you have been built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone.” 1 Peter 2:4-8; Ephesians 2:20.
There is no evidence in Scripture or history that Peter was regarded as having primacy among his peers. He makes no mention of it in his own letters, and the other three Gospels, including Mark’s do not even mention Jesus’ statement to Peter. Luke 22:24-26; Acts 15:6-22; Galatians 2:11-14.
There is not even any absolute proof that Peter was ever in Rome. (1 Peter 5:13) When Paul visited Jerusalem, “James and Cephas [Peter] and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars,” gave him support. So at that time Peter was one of at least three pillars in the congregation. He was not a “pope,” nor was he known as such or as a primate “bishop” in Jerusalem

Answer 2

RE: Did Apostle Peter ever reach Rome according to Scriptures? If not, Peter was never the Bishop of Rome. That means Peter was not the first Bishop in Rome. If then, what do you think of Papacy?

Answer 3

Actually 1Pet 5:13 is probably referring to Rome since Babylon was already destroyed long before the writing of this epistle. Rome had many of the same characteristics of ancient Babylon and thus Peter's analogy. This creates a little bit of a problem for some faiths as it might infer Peter (called the first pope) being somewhere that we are called to come out of: see Rev. 18:4. Interesting thought, don't you think. Otherwise, Peter was never in Rome.

Answer 4

The question did not ask anything about the Pope. The Bible has nothing about Peter in Rome. Traditions originated in or recorded in the apocryphal Acts of Peter, one of the earliest of the apocryphal acts of the apostles. It was written about 100 years after his death.

Answer 5

Ever in Rome? Very likely he did go to Rome.

Does it matter? Not really.

This is yet another feigned question to discredit the Papal lineage. Church tradition has Peter being buried in Rome. The tomb of "Shimon bar Yonah" at Dominus Flevit on Mount Olives is still in question of authenticity so it's not a landmark argument.

There is many churches, historically attributed to Phillip, but no verse to say he went there. Doesn't mean he didn't. Sometimes history is complimentary to scripture.

Good Luck

Answer 6

I'm not sure if the scripture ever mentions him going to Rome, but umm, he died in Rome on an upside-down cross. I think it is safe to say that he was in Rome at some point.

Answer 7

Do you think he ever went to the bathroom? That is not recorded in Scripture either. His martyrdom in Rome is in the Sacred Tradition of the Church which He founded with Christ.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 8

:Yes.
Acts 29 through 32