Replies

We have examined the copy of the Writings of Ignatius all afternoon at the monastery, and we think that we got everything out of it that it knows about Peter in Rome. It was quite forthcoming and confessed all it knew. The words are posted below.

There are other copies at the university. We will now examine those as well to see if they will tell us any more.

I trust that this will be acceptable as evidence in our treatise, though it doesn't say that the commandments Peter and Paul gave were to the Romans. But perhaps in the hands of your rhetorical wizards they can be tortured to confess and tell you what you want them to say.

I trust you are well Adiaireton8. Keep the faith. I hope they let you read this.

THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO

Part I] Evidence From the Holy Scriptures: There is no evidence at all.

Part II] Evidence From the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: (a work in progress by Uncle Chip on Adiaireton8's behalf)

A. Clement of Rome [1st Century] --- No Evidence

B. Justin Martur of Rome [100-165 AD] --- No Evidence

C. Ignatius of Antioch [35-110 AD] --- (still under examination)

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments to you. They were Apostles" [Epistle to the Romans 110 AD]

D. Irenaeus of Lyons [130-200 AD] --- (questionable)

E. Dionysius at Corinth [2nd Century]--- (pending)

F. Tertullian of Carthage [160-230 AD]--- (pending)

G. Hippolytus of Rome [170-236 AD] --- (pending)

THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO..."

As to the question of whether Peter was ever at Rome, the Roman claim is that he suffered martyrdom there with Paul, after a pontificate of twenty five years. This would have to be in the period from A.D. 41 to 66. But let us note the evidence from the Scriptures:-

1. In A.D. 44 he was imprisoned in Jerusalem (Acts 12).
2. In A.D. 52 he was at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
3. In A.D. 53 Paul joined him at Antioch (Galatians 2).
4. In A.D. 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but he does not mention Peter. In Romans 1:11, Paul wants to impart special gifts to the believers in Rome; and in 1:15 he is ready to preach there. In this Roman letter he sends greetings to twenty seven persons, but none to Peter. It is inconceivable that Paul would not have referred to the presence of one who was one of the foremost apostles.
5. In A.D. 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter.
6. When Paul writes to the Galatians, he mentions Peter, but not as having been in Rome, or as having been Pontiff there for twenty years. Indeed, the circumstances in Antioch were such that Peter was sternly rebuked by Paul, whose authority was much greater than Peter's. (Galatians 2:11).
7. The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as being his associates, or sending greetings, Peter is never once mentioned.
8. From Rome also Paul's last letter is written (2nd Timothy). He says, "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me" ((2 Tim. 4:16). So if Peter was in Rome he enjoyed a immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the Great Apostle.
9. And finally, in this very epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, "Only Luke is with me" (2 Tim. 4:11). This is conclusive.
Paul had written to Rome: the last years of his life were spent in Rome: and his last letters are all written from Rome. Not only does he never once mention Peter, but emphatically, at the last moment declares "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome.

Published by "Grace and Truth," 28 Burlington Rd., Sherwood, Nottingham England NG5 2GS Tel. 0115 -962 6346

Simple logical common sense should tell you that for over 1400 years of Christianity-Christians believed Peter was Bishop of Rome
If Peter was NOT in Rome there would have been plenty of EARLY Christian writings saying he was not.

Therefor the burden of TRUTH is on you to produce Historical writings from reliable sources to PROVE Peter was NOT in Rome.

I,ll save you the trouble-There is NO reliable sources!

Quoting the Bible is also illogical in regards to this topic!

The Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. Just as the New Testament never says, “Peter then went to Rome,” it never says, “Peter did not go to Rome.” In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension.

THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO

An interesting aside in Ignatius' writings, he specifically states that Peter could not speak the language and had to use Mark as an interpreter. I sincerely doubt Peter would have felt comfortable living 25 years in a pagan culture, unable to speak the language, and finding their food repulsive while friends and family awaited him back in Jerusalem. Paul, on the other hand was fluent in multiple languages and felt entirely at home in many cultures. Paul also enjoyed traveling while Peter did not. When the Christians were scattered, the apostles stayed in Jerusalem. Ignatius doesn't specific how long Peter was in Rome but, IF he was correct (keep in mind he was going on hearsay), then I think it was a brief visit.

I believe your analysis is completely on target Uncle Chip.