Quote:
Originally Posted by Godsgrace
Why do catlicks claim that Peter was ever in Rome?
|
It's complicated. But I've researched the topic.
First point is that catolick are in league with Satan. Now El Diabalo being an angel of the highest order, though a fallen one, knows things about the future.
He knew about Joseph Smith and his eventual founding of the heathen Mormon Church. Now around 325 CE
(I'm sure you recognize the significance of that date) Satan told some bishops of Rome about Joseph Smith's plans. The catolicks in an enterprise of one-upmanship decided to invent a founder for their church and backdated its establishment.
About that time comes that prevaricator Eusebius, a corrupt catolick if ever there was one, who decides to write an invented history with imaginary popes starting with Peter. I doubt seriously whether Peter himself was amused sitting up in heaven. The end result is that we have a heathen church that pretends to have gotten the rights to tell every other Christian what to do, and they palter by asserting that Baby Jesus himself established their church.
But it all boils down to what you implied in your question -- there is no scriptural evidence that Peter was in Rome. He was in Galilee, Capernaum. Jerusalem, Joppa, Antioch, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia and a few other places in Judea/Israel region.