Is the Pope the successor of Peter?

[jhenTux]

348. Is there any indication in Scripture that St. Peter was ever in Rome?

Yes. St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son Mark.” Pagan Rome was called Babylon by the early Christians; and St. Peter was writing from that city.

MORE HERE

[NickHassan]

Hi JH,
You must be reborn of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom.
These self appointed men have not been through that gate.

[Elizabeth]

Jesus called 12 apostles, one killed himself, and so Jesus added Paul in later.
There are no “successors” of the apostles, only overseers, elders, and deacons, who were put in charge.

Georg

[david]

Quote

348. Is there any indication in Scripture that St. Peter was ever in Rome? Yes. St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son Mark.” Pagan Rome was called Babylon by the early Christians; and St. Peter was writing from that city.

Or, even more possibly, “Babylon” actually means “Babylon.”

A comment in The New Encyclopædia Britannica is enlightening:
“The chief centres of Jewish population outside Palestine were in Syria, Asia Minor, Babylonia, and Egypt, each of which is estimated to have had at least 1,000,000 Jews.”

Since Peter was assigned to preach particularly to the Jews, it was reasonable for him to travel to an enclave of Judaism—Babylon. (Galatians 2:9)

The Encyclopaedia Judaica, when discussing the production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism’s “great academies of Babylon” during the Common Era.–Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 15, col. 755.

Also, nowhere does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome. Since Peter addressed his letter to those in literal Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, it logically follows that his reference to Babylon was to the literal place of that name. (1:1)

The inspired Scriptures, including the two letters written by Peter, make no mention of his going to Rome. Paul speaks of being in Rome but never refers to Peter’s being there. Although Paul mentions 35 names in his letter to the Romans and sends greetings by name to 26, why does he fail to mention Peter? Simply because Peter was not there at the time! (Rom. 16:3-15)

All the ACTUAL evidence points to Peter never being in Rome.  There is no ACTUAL evidence he was.  Rather, there is evidence AGAINST IT.  
If calling Babylon “Rome” constitutes evidence, then there is “evidence” for a lot of imaginary things.

[jhenTux]

Quote

Although Paul mentions 35 names in his letter to the Romans and sends greetings by name to 26, why does he fail to mention Peter? Simply because Peter was not there at the time! (Rom. 16:3-15)

from the same link:
No such mention was necessary, and it would have been positively inexpedient. The most ordinary prudence would make St. Paul avoid

[jhenTux]

Quote

Although Paul mentions 35 names in his letter to the Romans and sends greetings by name to 26, why does he fail to mention Peter? Simply because Peter was not there at the time! (Rom. 16:3-15)

from the same link:
No such mention was necessary, and it would have been positively inexpedient. The most ordinary prudence would make St. Paul avoid

[jhenTux]

Quote

Although Paul mentions 35 names in his letter to the Romans and sends greetings by name to 26, why does he fail to mention Peter? Simply because Peter was not there at the time! (Rom. 16:3-15)

from the same link:
No such mention was necessary, and it would have been positively inexpedient. The most ordinary prudence would make St. Paul avoid mentioning St. Peter as Bishop of Rome in written documents which might fall into the hands of the enemies of the Church. The Christians were most careful not to allow the movements and official acts of their Bishops to become known to the authorities of pagan society. Any hint that the head of the Church had taken up his abode in Rome, or was founding his See in the very heart of the Roman Empire would be disastrous if it came into the hands of enemies. St. Paul's remark that he was not going to build on “another man's foundation” was sufficient reference for those to whom he was writing.

just for the sake of discussion

[david]

Although Paul mentions 35 names in his letter to the Romans and sends greetings by name to 26, why does he fail to mention Peter? Simply because Peter was not there at the time! (Rom. 16:3-15)

All the ACTUAL evidence points to Peter never being in Rome. There is no ACTUAL evidence he was. Rather, there is evidence AGAINST IT.
If calling Babylon “Rome” constitutes evidence, then there is “evidence” for a lot of imaginary things.

[Elizabeth]

In the introduction to 1 Peter of my Bible it states that Peter lived the last decade of his life in Rome, and was martyred in about 67 AD.
Not until 533 AD was there an official “POPE”. It was Justinian who decided that “ONLY” the bishop of Rome should hold that title, and, that he should be the “head” over all the clergy.
To say, or claim, that Peter was the first pope is pure nonsense.

Georg

[barley]

Quote (david @ April 27 2010,18:29)

Quote 348. Is there any indication in Scripture that St. Peter was ever in Rome? Yes. St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son Mark.” Pagan Rome was called Babylon by the early Christians; and St. Peter was writing from that city. Or, even more possibly, “Babylon” actually means “Babylon.” A comment in The New Encyclopædia Britannica is enlightening: “The chief centres of Jewish population outside Palestine were in Syria, Asia Minor, Babylonia, and Egypt, each of which is estimated to have had at least 1,000,000 Jews.” Since Peter was assigned to preach particularly to the Jews, it was reasonable for him to travel to an enclave of Judaism—Babylon. (Galatians 2:9) The Encyclopaedia Judaica, when discussing the production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism’s “great academies of Babylon” during the Common Era.–Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 15, col. 755. Also, nowhere does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome. Since Peter addressed his letter to those in literal Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, it logically follows that his reference to Babylon was to the literal place of that name. (1:1) The inspired Scriptures, including the two letters written by Peter, make no mention of his going to Rome. Paul speaks of being in Rome but never refers to Peter’s being there. Although Paul mentions 35 names in his letter to the Romans and sends greetings by name to 26, why does he fail to mention Peter? Simply because Peter was not there at the time! (Rom. 16:3-15) All the ACTUAL evidence points to Peter never being in Rome.  There is no ACTUAL evidence he was.  Rather, there is evidence AGAINST IT.   If calling Babylon “Rome” constitutes evidence, then there is “evidence” for a lot of imaginary things.

Well done.

I have started with these websites only a few months ago,  I have found it a great time saver to agree with posts that say what I would have written from the scriptures.  You have done that.

Thanks.

I was delighted in your line,” even more possibly, “Babylon” actually means “Babylon.””  Truth is always simple.

[Author]

Posts