Tweet
Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!
Very well, I won't copy-paste, but that article does a pretty exhaustive job of explaining why Peter was most definitely in Rome. Allow me one quote from it at least, though: “Here’s a point on which we can point to the lies of Catholic claims,” they say. “Catholics trace the papacy to Peter, and they say he was martyred in Rome after heading the Church there. If we could show he never went to Rome, that would undermine—psychologically if not logically—their assertion that Peter was the first pope. If people conclude the Catholic Church is wrong on this historical point, they’ll conclude it’s wrong on the larger one, the supposed existence of the papacy.” Such is the reasoning of some leading anti-Catholics.
How about this - the Bible itself actually says Peter was in Rome:
1 Peter 5: 13The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
At the end of his first epistle, Peter mentions he is at the church in Babylon. In the New Testament, Babylon is a codeword for Rome. The ancient city of Babylon had been destroyed by this point.
How about all those writings by early Christians that state Peter went to Rome and was martyred there, and that he appointed the Bishop of Rome as his successor?
Tertullian wrote in 200AD that Peter died in Rome, and that Clement, a priest Peter ordained, succeeded him as the head of the church of Rome (Clement was the fourth pope).
Clement wrote in a letter from 70AD that Peter died in Rome.
Ignatius of Antioch wrote in 110AD that Peter had been the leader of the church in Rome.
Irenaeus wrote in 190AD that Peter evangelized and founded the church in Rome, and that Linus (the second Pope) succeeded him, and then Anacletus (the third pope) and the Clement of Rome.
In the beginning of the third century, Clement of Alexandria wrote that Peter preached in Rome.
Lactantius wrote in 318AD that Peter went to Rome and founded the church there.
This is just a sampling. There is no evidence of any early writings that tell of Peter dying anywhere else. Every known early writing that refers to the location of his death cites it as being in Rome.
In the mid-20th century, an excavation of St. Peter's Basilica on Vatican Hill discovered a tomb, the inscription stating the remains of the person there was indeed the Apostle Peter.
Biblical evidence, historical testimony, actually physical proof of his tomb in Rome, what more do you want?
Very well, I won't copy-paste, but that article does a pretty exhaustive job of explaining why Peter was most definitely in Rome. Allow me one quote from it at least, though: “Here’s a point on which we can point to the lies of Catholic claims,” they say. “Catholics trace the papacy to Peter, and they say he was martyred in Rome after heading the Church there. If we could show he never went to Rome, that would undermine—psychologically if not logically—their assertion that Peter was the first pope. If people conclude the Catholic Church is wrong on this historical point, they’ll conclude it’s wrong on the larger one, the supposed existence of the papacy.” Such is the reasoning of some leading anti-Catholics.
How about this - the Bible itself actually says Peter was in Rome:
1 Peter 5: 13The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
At the end of his first epistle, Peter mentions he is at the church in Babylon. In the New Testament, Babylon is a codeword for Rome. The ancient city of Babylon had been destroyed by this point.
How about all those writings by early Christians that state Peter went to Rome and was martyred there, and that he appointed the Bishop of Rome as his successor?
Tertullian wrote in 200AD that Peter died in Rome, and that Clement, a priest Peter ordained, succeeded him as the head of the church of Rome (Clement was the fourth pope).
Clement wrote in a letter from 70AD that Peter died in Rome.
Ignatius of Antioch wrote in 110AD that Peter had been the leader of the church in Rome.
Irenaeus wrote in 190AD that Peter evangelized and founded the church in Rome, and that Linus (the second Pope) succeeded him, and then Anacletus (the third pope) and the Clement of Rome.
In the beginning of the third century, Clement of Alexandria wrote that Peter preached in Rome.
Lactantius wrote in 318AD that Peter went to Rome and founded the church there.
This is just a sampling. There is no evidence of any early writings that tell of Peter dying anywhere else. Every known early writing that refers to the location of his death cites it as being in Rome.
In the mid-20th century, an excavation of St. Peter's Basilica on Vatican Hill discovered a tomb, the inscription stating the remains of the person there was indeed the Apostle Peter.
Biblical evidence, historical testimony, actually physical proof of his tomb in Rome, what more do you want?
Comment