There's no fact to it...It's a fallacy...
PROOF ONE: We should consider Christs commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles.
"The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8).
Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASNT Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.
PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."
PAUL Established the Only TRUE Church at Rome during the apostolic era.
PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.
PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another mans foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MANS FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church. Peter Not in Rome
PROOF FIVE: At the end of Pauls Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didnt he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasnt there!
PROOF SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Pauls arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peters meeting with Paul.
Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
PROOF SEVEN: When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didnt.
Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. No Mention of Peter in Pauls Letters
PROOF EIGHT: After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasnt there!
PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Pauls two years imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter once denied Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Pauls trial, is untenable!
PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!
PROOF ELEVEN: Peters death is foretold by Christ himself (John 21:18-19.) . When you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go. Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Hmm, it sounds like Christ himself said that Peter would die of old age. Why would Peters death in old age glorify God? Peter was the one that ran from Christ the night of his trial and crucifixion. This exchange is after Christ rose from the tomb and Peter was forgiven three times, just as he denied his master three times before the cock crowed that fateful night of Christs trial.
Where was Peter the apostle of Christ? At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows that he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By paying attention to Gods own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldnt sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christs time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peters writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect.
At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. As previously mentioned there are many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome but none of them are first hand accounts and should not be put above the many accounts of The Bible.
We know from The Bible that the apostle Peter was not in Rome. There was a Simon Peter in Rome after the death of Christ but it is not the apostle Peter that was a fisherman from Jerusalem. Who is this Simon Peter that was in Rome during the middle of the first century? This is how the great false Church of Rome got its start; along with the first leader Simon Peter not the apostle Peter.
You are sad. I will PRAY for you.
Because, these good Christians who are very smart and very Catholic, love to skip the next portion of the story when Jesus tells Peter “Get thee behind me, Satan”!
Wow. So in a few quick minutes Peter hears from Heaven and answers Jesus in a revelatory manner, and Jesus basically bequeaths on Peter the authority given to Moses when Moses had to delegate to others the task of adjudicating religious matters for the Hebrews because it was too tiring for him, (Thus is the Jewish meaning of binding and loosing as things are done in Heaven) and then, Peter (who had just heard from God the Father in order to answer Jesus) then speaks for Satan!
Upon this rock of heavenly revelation has Christ built His Church.
There is no Bible proof Peter was ever in Rome.
Thanks again Iscool and I also pinged PastorBillRandles in case I am off the mark but i have done a lot of study on the binding and loosing business. It is essentially authority.
Finally for Ann Archy, I do have to say that Protestants do sometimes miss the importance of the 12 Disciples. Their significance as first hand witnesses to the time between the Old Covenant and the New, to Jesus Christ in the flesh, is well documented in scripture and I take offense, as I know Pastor Randles does to any group that considers themselves on par with the Apostles.
The church is a building built upon the Foundation of the Old Testament Prophets and the New Testament Apostles, with Christ as Chief Cornerstone, and no other foundation can be laid for the church.
Blessings on all FReepers in Christ.
Peter's Confession of Christ
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?
14 So they said, Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.
15 He said to them, But who do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.
Jesus Predicts His Death and Resurrection
21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!
23 But He turned and said to Peter, Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:13-23&version=NKJV
“PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community”
ridiculous, you are being silly.