Peter in Rome?

A series of 3 messages answering various claims about Peter.
Copyright © 2000-2008 by Richard Clark for non-commercial use.

1. Let GOD be true!
2. Followers
3. Apostleship


Let GOD be true!

From a message by a Curious Questioner--
re: Peter in Rome, NO

>>RC> The ONLY "church" in Rome mentioned is that in the house of Priscilla and Aquilla. No other church is mentioned in Rome. And NO MENTION of Peter ever being in Rome, anywhere in the Bible.

>CQ> Are you implying that because something is NOT specifically mentioned in the Bible that it never happened?

My statement is clear, and the word of God is clear on this matter.

>CQ> Now there is other evidence that Peter lived for a number of years in Rome, and died there: there are inscriptions in the catacombs...

The word of God is still clear in these matters.

>CQ> Mark (John Mark) was in the service of Paul for a while, but later is called the "interpreter of Peter." (Papias d.135;

In the word of God, John-Mark ministered unto and with Paul as late as the time of Paul's "departure." (2Tim.4:6,11) John-Mark was the son of Barnabas' sister Mary, that is, his nephew. (Acts.12:12; Col.4:10) Peter, on the other hand, was at Babylon and mentions "Marcus my SON." (1Pet.5:13p) IF that "Marcus" is the same as John-Mark, then it would have been necessary for Peter to have been married to that Mary.

>CQ> It is understood that Mark's audience was Gentile from the lengthy explanations of Jewish customs and geography, and so it can be suggested strongly that he was writing from Rome, to the Roman converts there using the memoirs of Peter, thereby putting him there, too.

John-Mark was with Paul in Rome. (Col.4:10; Philemon 1:24) There is no mention of Peter ever being in Rome, anywhere in the Bible. Remember that Jesus is the Lord and let God be true.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be unto you. Amen. --Richard


Followers

From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: followers

>>RC> "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (--The apostle Paul, Gal.2:14)

>>RC> "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:" (--Paul to the ROMANS, 11:13)

>>RC> All indications in the Bible are that Peter NEVER got much further west than the seashore of Joppa. Paul was the apostle who evangelized Rome. Peter's primary concern was evangelizing Jews in Asia: And the last location given for Peter was with the Jews eastward in Babylon.

>CQ> Any GOOD biblical scholar would know that Babylon ceased to be a power and that Rome was referrred to as Babylon in apostolic times...

The power of Babylon passed to Media-Persia and then to Grecia and ended up with the Roman papists, but history shows that there were in fact Jews in Babylon in Peter's day, and the Bible is clear that Peter was there with them as a "minister of the circumcision."

Peter deferred to Paul's authority, and Paul said to Gentiles:
"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." (1Cor.11:1)

In Paul's epistle to "All that be in Rome", he said:

"That 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, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost." (Rom.15:16, and Rom.15:20--)

"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:"

Paul said that, many years after the date that was claimed by the papal church for Peter to supposedly be in Rome. According to Paul's own statement, he wouldn't have gone to Rome to start a Church if Peter had been there and had started one already.

In Romans chapter 16, Paul sends greetings to quite a number of saints, by name, in Rome, and does not mention Peter at all. The only time Paul mentions Peter by the name of Peter in any of his epistles, is in the letter to the Galatians, where he mentions the fact that he publicly rebuked Peter, "because he was to be blamed."

There is no evidence in the scriptures that Peter was ever in Rome a day in his life! Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles, not Peter.

"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." (--Paul)

Grace be to them that receive the love of the truth. Amen. --Richard


Apostleship

From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: Pre-eminance of Peter

>CQ> The election to choose a successor to Judas Iscariot is conducted by Peter WITHOUT the presence and GUIDANCE of the Holy Spirit- The Holy Spirit had not yet come!!!

Dear Friend, He had not yet come "upon" (Acts 1:8p) them with power, but he was certainly present though, for in John 20:22, the Lord Jesus breathed on them and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

>CQ> Matthias was apparently a good man who met the requirements of an apostle and apparently was an apostle.

IF he "apparently was an apostle", then the Lord would had to have "chosen" (Acts 1:24p) him, as the other apostles supposed. When the Lord took 1 of the 12 ribs from Adam's side, he closed up the flesh instead thereof. (Consider that the church is the body of Christ.)

>CQ> The Holy Spirit however ignored him, for he is never mentioned again in the Scriptures.

Most of the apostles are never mentioned again by name after Acts 1. [The Holy Ghost refers to the apostles, including Matthias, as "the twelve" in Acts 6:2p. :]

>CQ> I believe the successor to Judas Iscariot was Saul of Tarsus, chosen personally by the Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:!)

Barnabas is listed as an apostle before Paul in Acts 14:14. The twelve apostles were chosen as ministers of the circumcision, but Paul/Saul was chosen as the apostle of the Gentiles. Paul was the minister to (and wrote the epistle to) the Romans.

"And when James, Cephas[Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace 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)

With so many passages that indicate that Peter ministered unto the circumcision, how can anyone be so deluded as to believe the nonsense put out by the devilish cult of catholicism with their absurd claim that Peter was a gentile pope? Obviously Paul was the apostle that went to Rome and preached the gospel to the Gentiles.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. --Richard


URL of this page: http://www.avbtab.org/rc/read/peterome.htm