Exactly, then couple this in with the tomb of Peter was found in JERUSALEM decades ago which the RCC refuses to acknowledge, though the monks and priests there in Jerusalem will quietly concede to this reality. Inside the ossuary are full bones, the ossuary itself has "Simon Bar Jonah" inscribed in Aramaic on it and it's among other names lake Mary, James, Lazarus, etc. Apparently, the name "Simon Bar Jonah" was an extremely unique name for that time period in Israel. It can't be another. The ossuary is located within a known, 1st century, Judeo-Christian burial ground. Whereas the supposed tomb of Peter in Rome is located in a very popular and sacred PAGAN burial ground (which was Vatican Hill)! Surrounded by rooms filled with images and statutes of pagan gods and even one room literally has Satan on a wall fresco! Even IF Peter was in Rome, AND the supposed "first pope"...WHY would they bury Peter in such a demonic place!? There's only two options here. Either Peter was in Rome, was the "first pope", etc and when he was supposedly martyred there, they moved his body or bones afterwards back to Jerusalem to be buried there. Which makes the Catholic Church a liar. OR....Peter was never in Rome. It was just Paul. Then you start the rabbit hole of the "first pope Simon Peter" actually having been....Simon MAGUS! (yes, just a far out there theory but if you look into it deeply it starts making alot of things add up). Certainly, Simon Magus, Rome's favorite "god-man" of the day, would have been proudly buried at the pagan Vatican Hill reserved only for Rome's highest seers, etc.....which still makes the Catholic Church a liar. I'm a lifelong Catholic, BTW, and am getting fed up with the lies and secrets. Let's not even talk about the Vatican Secret Archives. Truth fears no censorship. If there's nothing to hide than there should be full transparency in all things.
@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 Do you remember where you found this info?, I'm trying to make sense with the RCC historically. In the meantime... the Bible says Peter went to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. No way Peter went to the capital of the Gentiles. If he did he only stayed for a short while. In any case he most definitely did not start the one and only church of Christ that has authority over all others. Authority over others sounds a lot more like geopolitical power grab than brotherly Christianity. And proof is the subsequence where the rcc became a mini kingdom that used Christianity as its means of influence.
@@orestislazanakis4960 I keep attempting to post all the links and YT keeps auto-deleting my comment...😡 All I can say is do a simple search for "Peter's tomb in Jerusalem" and stuff should come up.
Unless we create a time machine and go back to 1st century Rome as see if St. Peter was there, then we can only deal in probabilities. We have people from the earliest centuries on Christianity claiming that Peter died in Rome, and not until the 20th century did we have anyone claiming he died anywhere else. So based on all this evidence we believe that Peter died in Rome.
The church of Rome itself (which started out as a Jewish church) was established by Jewish pilgrims who converted to Christianity on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:9-10), and had Jewish ministers belonging to it that were converted long before St. Paul (see Romans 16:7). What's more, St. Peter's first sojourn in Rome took place between A.D. 42 (when he flees Judea --Acts 12:17) and A.D. 49, when Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome because of a riot over someone who the Roman historian Suetonius calls "Chrestus" --a clear mis-hearing of "Christus" ("Christ"). This is why Peter is back in Jerusalem in Acts 15 for the Council of Jerusalem, which took place in A.D. 49. It was only AFTER the council of Jerusalem (see Gal 2) that Peter settled in Antioch and became the first Bishop of Antioch. But, once Jews were permitted to return to Rome, Peter returned there, and this is where he and St. Paul confronted the arch-heretic Simon Magus, and where they together built up the Roman church as the synthesis of the Jewish Church and the Gentile Church, and where they ended their lives as martyrs. But, Peter himself was the primary authority there --that is, Rome's actual bishop. So, his bishopric in Rome was longer than (and before) his bishopric in Antioch. All the fathers (e.g. Hippolytus, Eusebius, Jerome, etc.) say this. And, as Damasus says above, this is where the three original (Apostolic) patriarchates came from. In about A.D. 60, Peter left Antioch and returned to Rome. In doing this, he left his disciple St. Evodius in charge of Antioch. St. Evodius was succeeded by St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then, while at Rome, Peter sent his chief disciple St. Mark to Alexandria, to be the first bishop (and his own "legate") there. And, in doing this, Peter, in essence, "triangulated" the known world. His own see of Rome held the primacy and was the final court of appeal, while administering Europe (and N. Africa) directly. Alexandria would hold the second place and be primate in the East, while administering Eastern Africa, Ethiopia, Arabia, and part of Palestine directly. And Antioch would hold the third place after Alexandria, and would directly administer Asia and the Orient. (Catholic Bridge)
Good summary. Another point you could ask about is "Where else did he die, then?" because all of the Early Church writers, if they speak of Peter, are unanimous that it was in Rome where he died.
Not only is it unanimous that he died in Rome, but unanimous, as far as I can tell, that he was there for a long time prior to his death also. We just don't know exactly how many years Peter spent in Rome, but he was there.
@Lord Raglan What you believe doesn't particularly matter, historical fact is historical fact. Who do you suppose founded the Church in Rome, which St Paul addressed in his letter to the Romans? St Paul literally says he hasn't been able to go there himself, so it must have been someone else, and we know St Peter was himself there, and stayed there for years before he died. Acts 2:10 also directly refutes your idea that there were no Jews, nor converts, in Rome. And how exactly do you arrive at the idea that there are no lost sheep in Continental Europe (which is where Rome is), but rather in Britain instead? Truly, the anti-Catholic bias has blinded you further than I've seen in a long while
Peter seems to know FIRST HAND what Paul writes in his own letters. 2 Peter 3:14-16 indicating that both Apostles were in the same location at some point. This location might just be Babylon=the city of 7 hills=Rome(Revelation 14:8; 1 Peter 5:13). Notice the underline approval attitude of Peter concerning Paul's letters. He gave his stamp of approval like the Chief he is. "Like Paul writes to you in all is letters about these end of time things which some can't understand and twist". Peter is referring to Paul writing as a subordinate writing on the same subject he is!
We need to remember that the Roman Catholic Church has a strong interest in placing Peter in Rome prior to his execution. Traditionally, they attempt to establish Peter’s episcopate in Rome for the years A. D. 41 to 66; a span of 25 years. But let’s take a look at some of the evidences of scripture. The dates for these ancient events are only approximate but they are interesting. Around A. D. 44 Peter was imprisoned in Jerusalem (Acts 12). In 52 he attended the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). In 53 Paul opposed Peter “face to face” in Antioch (Galatians 2). Around A. D. 58, Paul writes to the Roman church. He sends greetings to about 27 individuals at Rome but never mentions Peter!! At Rome, Paul writes Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. He does mention other brethren with him … but not Peter. Finally, in Paul’s last letter, 2 Timothy (A. D. 67), Paul makes a number of startling statements: “At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me.” (2 Tim 4:16). “Only Luke is with me.” (2 Tim. 4:11) Where is Peter???? I believe that Scripture leads us to believe that Peter, the Apostle to the Circumcision never went to Rome, a Gentile Church, but stayed in the Jerusalem area. Peter, after all had a wife and family. Jerusalem, based upon Biblical references seems to have a greater claim for "Babylon" that Rome. After all, Jerusalem was where our Lord was slain.
Quote: "Traditionally, they attempt to establish Peter’s episcopate in Rome for the years A. D. 41 to 66; a span of 25 years." This number 25 is not written in stone, it could have varied several years as the early church fathers were far from unanimous on how many years Peter was in Rome, but he was there. Quote: “Only Luke is with me.” (2 Tim. 4:11) Where is Peter???? This certainly does not mean that Peter was not in Rome, he just wasn't with Paul and Luke. Quote: "I believe that Scripture leads us to believe that Peter, the Apostle to the Circumcision never went to Rome, a Gentile Church, but stayed in the Jerusalem area." Where was Peter martyred then? Your opinion doesn't hold up. Many, many early church fathers say that Peter was in Rome. You have to understand, Holy Scripture tells us that the Roman Emperor Claudius (41-54) ordered all Jews to leave Rome (Acts 18:2). But we do not know exactly when in that time range the order actually was given, some scholars feel that it was closer to 49-50 AD, but it is not conclusive by anyone. This does not mean Peter left Rome even when the order was given, because the Church was basically an underground Church during that time, and Christians secretly practiced the faith for fear of being discovered, we know all this from early historical records. Look at what the early church fathers had to say about Peter being in Rome, and then you will see how wrong you are.
WPB Director “At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me.” (2 Tim 4:16). “Only Luke is with me.” (2 Tim. 4:11) Where is Peter???? If Paul wrote 2 Timothy in about 67 AD, then there is a good chance that Peter was already martyred, because many scholars think it happened in 64 AD, but could have been a couple years later.
@@morelmaster it is pretty compelling that Paul never mentions Peter being in Rome particularly as Paul was imprisoned there and died there and knew the church pretty well there.
If Peter was crucified there by Rome, his body would likely be buried nearby, but this does not prove that he was the first Pope. Christianity was not legalized in Rome until the edict of Milan issued AD 313 by Constantine, and Peter died centuries prior... So... things are not lining up.
1 Peter 5 verse 13, in no way suggests that Peter was actually in babylon writing the epistle. He merely states, the church that is in babylon, elected together with you. Kjv. Gnb, states your sister church. Peter is writing a letter. He was most likely writing from Jerusalem, to other churches, and mentions that the church at babylon, also salutes you. This is the worst proof of Peter being in rome.
First of all, if you read Galatians 2:7 it clearly states Peter was commissioned to go to the Hebrews (the circumsized), and Paul was commissioned to go to the Gentiles (the uncircumsized). Based on that alone it doesn't make any sense for Peter to go to Rome, a city of gentiles. Second, Paul wrote six books while he was IN ROME. Nowhere in any of them does he mention Peter being with him. Even in Romans chapter 16 where he is acknowledging those who have helped him he doesn't mention Peter. Why would he leave out the prince of the apostles if Peter was in fact in Rome? This would be a serious disrespect. Third, if you track Mark (Peter's son) through the new testament you'll find that not only is it seriously unlikely that "Babylon" is a code word for Rome (it's more likely a reference to Jerusalem), but you'll also find more evidence that Peter more than likely never went to Rome. In Acts 15, Mark is with Paul and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas have a disagreement and split up, so Barnabas takes Mark with him and Paul takes Silas with him. In Colossians 4:10 (written by Paul in Rome) Mark is with Paul here. So, they are both in Rome at this point. In 2 Timothy 4:11-13 Paul is in Rome, but Mark isn't with him as he is asking to have Mark brought to him. In 1 Peter 5:13 Mark is with PETER in "Babylon." Read the salutation in the verse. The point is, if Mark is in "Babylon" with Peter, and you're saying Babylon is Rome, yet we know for sure Paul is in Rome and he's asking for Mark, it seems pretty clear that they are in completely different cities. There isn't even good evidence that Peter is buried in Rome. Yeah, read about the archaeological excavations Trent mentioned that essentially turned up nothing. All the Roman Catholic church has are desperate attempts to make some link between Rome and Peter, but there aren't any. Even Eusebius isn't good proof of Peter in Rome. Read about the additions and translations and how they're problematic. There is no serious proof that Peter was the bishop or local ecclesiastical officer of the Roman church, a claim not made until the 3rd century. No proof that he was the original missionary to bring Christianity to Rome, and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome.
"Paul was commissioned to go to the Gentiles (the uncircumsized). Based on that alone it doesn't make any sense for Peter to go to Rome" Have you EVER read ACTS of the Apostles? PETER also went to the gentiles and Paul to the JEWS on Sabbath. Jesus you are clueless. Also yes PETER was in ROME. First POPE, and Pope Linus and Pope CLEMENT were mentioned too by PAUL.
Although evidence for the identification of Babylon with Rome may initially appear convincing, upon careful examination it becomes clear that Babylon cannot mean Rome. Those who propose that Babylon be understood as a code name for Rome often point to evidence of such use in early extra-biblical writings: 1Pe. 5:13 as well) Rome is called Babylon.]”6 However, such evidence is inconclusive because these other writings date much later than the book of Revelation: “Often supporters of the symbolic view use the Sibylline Oracles (V. 143, 159, 434) and the Apocalypse of Baruch (11:1; 67:7) to prove that Babylon was a code name for Rome (Swete, Charles, Ladd), but the composition of these two works came in the second century, quite a while after John wrote Revelation.”7 Some assert that Peter’s use of the term Babylon (1Pe. 1Pe. 5:13) must point to Rome. But this is an argument from silence. It is also possible to take Peter’s mention of Babylon as denoting the city on the banks of the Euphrates, which served as a center of Jewry beyond the time of Peter’s writing (see Babylon’s Historic Fall).8 The Babylon is Rome view also fails to explain passages in the OT which designate Babylon as the place of final judgment. Identifying Babylon as Rome implies that God gave numerous prophecies utilizing a code name which would not obtain its true meaning until hundreds of years later. Thus, the prophecies given to the original recipients could not be understood using the normal meaning of terms with which they were familiar. Such a view violates the rules of historical-grammatical interpretation and turns the interpretation of prophetic passages into a guessing game. See The Importance of Meaning. The mention of “seven mountains” (or hills) in conjunction with the Harlot (Rev. Rev. 17:9+) is often seen as an allusion to seven hills known to be associated with Rome:
When Peter said " Her in Babylon" He most Likely was in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was also a city referred to as "Babylon" It also says that in the book of Revelation. Also, by 67-70AD, Josephus wrote how how incredibly wicked the people of Jerusalem was at that time. Even the Romans were shocked at what the Jews did to each other. So the name Babylon does fit.
@@jzak5723 No...scripture says "Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence, and shall be found no more" . Rome never was defeated in a short period. Jerusalem was the greatest city in east Roman empire. It was a huge trading hub. The sailors would have seen the smoke from the Mediterranean just as scripture stated.
@@jzak5723 Jerusalem was the "whore" in Revelations. She rode the beast (Rome). Jews had a dispensation and did not have to worship the Emperor. The Jews were hated in Rome. She (Whore)...drank the blood of the prophets and martyrs. That would be Jerusalem.
@@jzak5723 Believe what you want. Rome never fell in that period.Took hundreds of years. Revelation said it would be no more in a day. That is Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jerusalem was the whore who rode the back of the beast (Rome). The beast ended the Whore. The Jews has special dispensation so they did not have to worship the emperor. One more reason they hated the Jews. Good luck to your beliefs.
Yes, but he was crucified there by Rome, but this does not prove that he was the first Pope. Christianity was not legalized in Rome until AD 313 by Constantine, and Peter died centuries prior... So... It is confusing.
So you're just going to Ignore the multiple quotes from Protestant scholars and the writings of st. Ignatius, and st. Ireneaus that wrote Peter was in Rome. [107AD, 185AD]. Also, Ignatius was diciple of John and Ireneaus was taught by Polycarp another diciple of John.
@@thecrusaderofchrist Please quote the Biblical scripture that says Jesus instructed Peter to go to Rome? Christ sent Paul to do His Work in Rome. There is zero evidence that Paul wrote letters to Peter in Rome at any time. Why do you lie?
@@thecrusaderofchrist You can't be serious? Since when has the City of Rome been Babylon? When the Jews were captured by king Nebuchadnezzar and hauled to Babylon, are you suggesting these Jews were carted off to Rome?? Are you even serious? I have studied this subject for 40 years Champ. You'd better provide better evidence than 1 Peter 5.13.
So if Peter was in Rome around 60ad I wonder if he ever crossed paths with Pliny. Pliny noted very early Christians around 90ad. Fun information but the text flashing was kinda annoying.
Peter did not want to go to Rome in the first place. Once there, after 9 months and Christians being killed in the arena or decapitated(if they were Roman citizens like Paul) He saw Jesus in a vision and turned around to be taken stretched his arms and being crucified upside down. Seems that Peter died just months after Paul was decapitated.
He couldn't have been in Rome in 60. If you take the texts of the NT and just start writing down names places and dates, you can account for Peter's whereabouts for his entire life up through 65. It is said he died in 67. 2 Peter was his last known writing and that was a consolation to the churches under Paul's charge in Asia Minor after Paul was executed. His last known position was Babylon in Shinar. And at the time, 2 Timothy makes clear he was not in Rome, period. Paul sent a runner 1800 miles to Ephesus to Task Timothy with fetching Mark the scribe from Peter and bring him to Rome. You don't do that if the guy is just across town. The Universalists were ignorant of the scriptures when they tried standing up Peter as a leader. They did so because Simon Magus was known as Simon Petr in Rome. Petr being a title - priest of the mysteries. If they could pass off Magus as the Apostle Peter by dropping his last name and calling him Simon Petr, the you can defraud a whole lot of people into Magus' self titled religion 'Universalism' aka 'catholicism'.
Paul was in Rome for years, never mentioned Peter. And when writing to those in Rome, listed a bunch of people, but not Peter. Fact is that, like the book of Acts describes, Peter and the 11, who were Law-keeping, Temple-going JEWS who believed Jesus was THEIR Jewish Messiah and King agreed on a handshake with Paul when he met with them in Jerusalem (where actually James was the head of their assembly and not Peter), that they the apostles would ONLY minister unto the CIRCUMCISED (Jews), and Paul would CONTINUE to minister to the heathen (GENTILES). Of course, the apostles' gospel of the kingdom message (repent, be baptized, and believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and King) which is ONLY what even Jesus Himself preached unto Jews ONLY during His Earthly ministry(only unto the House of Israel), was temporarily set aside, as Paul's gospel of grace: Christ and Him crucified and that alone for salvation is the ONLY GOSPEL for the church age, which ends at the rapture - then during the Tribulation (Daniel's 70th week of the Jews), a 7 year period that follows the rapture, THEN the Gospel of the Kingdom is TAKEN UP AGAIN and preached unto the ends of the Earth by the 144,000 Jews, as Jesus as King and Messiah most certainly returns after that 7yr Tribulation at Armageddon when He destroys this corrupt world system and He Himself rules from Jerusalem.
Peter was never in Rome when Rome says he was. That's just something pushed as "fact" by the Roman Catholic church. First of all, if you read Galatians 2:7 it clearly states Peter was commissioned to go to the Hebrews (the circumcized), and Paul was commissioned to go to the Gentiles (the uncircumcised). Based on that alone it doesn't make any sense for Peter to go to Rome, a city of gentiles. Second, Paul wrote six books while he was IN ROME. Nowhere in any of them does he mention Peter being with him. Even in Romans chapter 16 where he is acknowledging those who have helped him he doesn't mention Peter. Why would he leave out the prince of the apostles if Peter was in fact in Rome? This would be a serious disrespect. Third, if you track Mark (Peter's son) through the new testament you'll find that not only is it seriously unlikely that "Babylon" is a code word for Rome (it's more likely a reference to Jerusalem), but you'll also find more evidence that Peter more than likely never went to Rome. In Acts 15, Mark is with Paul and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas have a disagreement and split up, so Barnabas takes Mark with him and Paul takes Silas with him. In Colossians 4:10 (written by Paul in Rome) Mark is with Paul here. So, they are both in Rome at this point. In 2 Timothy 4:11-13 Paul is in Rome, but Mark isn't with him as he is asking to have Mark brought to him. In 1 Peter 5:13 Mark is with PETER in "Babylon." Read the salutation in the verse. The point is, if Mark is in "Babylon" with Peter, and you're saying Babylon is Rome, yet we know for sure Paul is in Rome yet he's asking for Mark, it seems pretty clear that they are in completely different cities. There isn't even good evidence that Peter is buried in Rome. Read about the archaeological excavations that turned up nothing. All the Roman Catholic church has are desperate attempts to make some link between Rome and Peter, but there aren't any. Some people (Roman Catholics) also try to use Eusebius as proof of Peter in Rome, but this is also flawed and would take some time to get into. But, if you're looking to get closer to the truth you can read about the additions and translations and how they're problematic. There is no serious proof that he was the bishop or local ecclesiastical officer of the Roman church, a claim not made until the 3rd century. No proof that he was the original missionary to bring Christianity to Rome, and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome.
YOU: Peter was never in Rome when Rome says he was. That's just something pushed as "fact" by the Roman Catholic church. First of all, if you read Galatians 2:7 it clearly states Peter was commissioned to go to the Hebrews (the circumcized), and Paul was commissioned to go to the Gentiles (the uncircumcised). Based on that alone it doesn't make any sense for Peter to go to Rome, a city of gentiles. ME: LOL. With a drop of research, you would find that there were tens of thousands of Jews living in the City of Rome during the 1st century, so for Peter to be there ministering to them is a no brainer. Now what do you have to say?
@@jzak5723 except the bible precludes Peter ever being in Rome. Don't take my word for it. Read the NT and make a timeline of his travels. Paul was in Rome and never mentioned Peter there. Paul also wrote to the Romans that he would not go where another had already proclaimed Christ. If Peter was in Rome as you say, then Paul wouldn't have gone. If Peter was in Rome as you say, then Paul would have mentioned him among those that he mentioned in Romans 16:1-16. By your reasoning, Paul never stayed in Judea to proclaim the gospel to the thousands of gentiles that lived there. Sorry but your knowledge appears to be nothing but opinion and your assumptions based on the Catholic church's claims that don't hold up to scrutiny. History does not support the claims and scripture denies them.
Whether Peter was in Rome or not it doesn’t matter. Mathias succeeded Judas through the casting of lots by the 11 apostles and that he fulfills the following requirements: 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism until the day Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” Acts 1:21-22 Linus could not have succeeded Peter because there is no record of a successor by the 11 remaining apostles nor does he met the requirements of acts 1:21-22.
Why would there need to be a record given by the 11 Apostles for you to believe it??? Why didn't John record the death of the other 11 Apostles??? I guess the Holy Spirit didn't feel it was something that it wanted to inspire John to write, that's why. Linus didn't need to meet the requirements of an Apostle, since he wasn't one of them, he was the bishop of Rome.
UH, maybe because Christianity was being persecuted by the Romans. "Hi, my name is Peter, I'm an Apostle of Jesus Christ, can I please visit Paul who is in prison for preaching Jesus Christ also." Yea right.
@@MATEO22.31 I never said that Peter was always in Rome when Paul was there, he could have come some time after Paul, nobody really knows the exact dates that Peter was there. But we do know that Peter was martyred in Rome according to many ancient manuscripts, so obviously he was in the city during some period of time. I can provide multiple documents by early church fathers who say Peter was in Rome establishing the Church with Paul. Can you provide ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT that says that Peter was not ever in Rome??? I didn't think so.
@@jzak5723 God bless john, in the end, salvation belonges to God, if you end me end up in heaven, it will be because of God, not me or anything in me... no works, may the LORD keep your heart safe 🙏
4 Baruch was written in the 2nd century AD long after John penned the term "Babylon the Great". 4 Baruch is a pseudepigraphical text of the Old Testament. Looks like Babylon in 4 Baruch was actually Babylon. Can you name ANY written material in the 1st century AD that uses Babylon as a code or replacement for Rome? Anything prior to 62BC would not be acceptable. Peter describes himself as an elder in one of his epistles. How can he be an elder in a church and the "pope"? Paul gives his greeting to many people in Rome in his letter to the Romans but never mentions Peter. Why?
The word elder is not found in Scripture either, because that is an English rendering of the Greek, just as pope is Latin for father. Paul called himself a father to those who he preached the Gospel to.
@@wfqsfg James may have been the leader of the Jerusalem Church from what we see in Scripture. However, just because we don't see Scripture saying Peter was a "leader" of any specific church certainly doesn't mean that he wasn't at some point. That would be an argument from silence. It can be argued that Jesus did have some particular role in mind for Peter, when you look at Matt. 16:18-19, John 1:42, John 21:15-19. When looking at some of the writings of the early church fathers, it is clear that Peter did have an important role in the new Church, such as helping to found the Roman Church along with Paul. I can provide multiple quotes from various ECF's that Peter was in the Rome Church, and was martyred there along with Paul. Of course if you are a strict Sola Scriptura adherent, you probably won't accept anything I have to show you anyways.
A TESTIMONY ON THE ROCK BEING THE CHRIST YESHUA The most compelling evidence is that the Gospel of Matthew was written PRIMARILY for the Chosen peoples of YAHWEH who are the JEWS and NOT addressed for the Gentile world. In this proposition, was the writer of Matthew declaring to the JEWS that PETER, only a small stone like any other disciples of YESHUA, was the PROMISED ONE as mentioned in the BOOK of ISAIAH, Chapter 53??? IF I was alive at that time..., as an ELECT Jew, predestined for ETERNAL salvation, would I have even envisaged that Peter, the Sanguine who DENIED knowing and FOLLOWING the "man" whom the rest of the Jews (except for His ELECT/own..) REJECTED as their PROMISED HaMashiach, and who (Peter) CURSED himself for even being a disciple of YESHUA / JESUS?? Should I have believed the ROCK to be Peter the Sanguine (who was deemed a "TRAITOR" to his Lord and Messiah by even CURSING himself for knowing Him as such???) to be my PROMISED Messiah instead of YESHUA/JESUS?? The prophet John the Baptist and all the other Disciples of YESHUA / JESUS (even including that brigand son of the devil called Judas the Iscariot...) believed YESHUA / JESUS to be the ROCK of SALVATION. Didn't they all STUDY the Old Testament Bible where the LORD YAHWEH is mentioned more than DOZEN times as the ROCK of AGES?? Search the BOOK Of Psalms and count how many times the phrase "The LORD God is my ROCK" was written therein (the Psalms). Are you absolutely SURE that all the writers who mentioned the word "ROCK" were actually designating that phrase to the a mere man and a "hopeless" one who DENIED knowing and following his "ROCK of Salvation" YESHUA 3 TIMES?? I think that PETER, the Sanguine, deserved to be CAST out from the Team for his belligerent denial of YESHUA / JESUS to the Jews (what more the fact that he even DENIED YESHUA . JESUS as his MASTER!!!). The ONLY reason WHY the ROMAN CATHOILIC religion of the popes of Pagan Rome CANNOT and WOULD NOT remove their age-old belief and institutionalized such a FALSE belief system from their CATECHISM is that...IF THEY DID SO.., THAT WOULD MEAN THE DESTRUCTION OF THEIR RELIGION! Because...., the religion of pope(s) of ROME has its FOUNDATION bases SOLELY upon their BELIEF that PETER (the Sanguine who CURSED himself if he ever KNEW the Son of man called YESHUA...) was the "ROCK" of their SALVATION and NOT the YESHUA of Nazareth whom His FOLLOWERS who were alive at that time (when He referred to Himself as the ROCK of SALVATION...)! NONE of the Disciples / Apostles (including Peter himself) would have even believed that YESHUA was referring to Peter as the ROCK of Ages, the ROCK of SALVATION and the Elohim of David, Moses, and particularly the Prophet Isaiah who dedicated his Book on CHAPTER 53 for the TRUE Messiah of the JEWS and the ROCK of their SALVATION! READ all the other VERSES in the OT and NT that clearly AFFIRMED that there is NO ONE that can hold the TITLE of the ROCK except the TRUE Elohim Himself, YAHWEH and the Son of YAHWEH named YESHUA (affectionately called by more than 90 % of GENUINE Christians today as JESUS the CHRIST, not the ISA of the Koran of Mohammed)!
Scripture is breath by the Holy Spirit. Apostles are sons. She who is in Babylon is Blessed Mary. HAGAR represents Babylon. Galatians 4: 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because Hagar is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
I was just in Rome and went through the Scavi, the tomb under the basilica. Peter's bones are there. They found them----the bones of a man of his age missing the feet bones which would match Peter since they cut off his feet to get him down from the cross.
There is No historical evidence that he was in Rome. Paul who took the gospel to the known world at that time talked about how he, a Rome citizen, longed to journey to Rome. He finally did be fore his death and was execution by Nero. You see Peter was a preacher to the Jews while Paul was a preacher to the Gentiles. And we all know how the Rome converted to Christianity to only pervert and infiltrate it with their Roman Gods. They than throw out the real Christians, many were Jewish Christians. Nothing in the Catholic bible is biblical.
@@carmentartaglia7709 The reason Peter went to Rome was because there was a large population of Jews in that city. He had reason to be there just as much as Paul.
@@carmentartaglia7709 Read about the Edict of Claudius and the eviction of Jews from Rome. Look at Acts 18:2 Look at 1 Peter 5:13 Then you will reconsider what you previously thought.
Gal_2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; Gospel of the circumcision, so no, he went to the Jews in literal Babylon.
Exactly. Jesus commissioned all the Apostles save for Paul to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.. not to gentiles. They could later minister to gentiles if they were present while accomplishing their directed task; but, the house of Israel was paramount. So they were chased to the ends of the earth to have the message presented to them. Shinar is where the Assyrians deported the people of the northern kingdom after they took it in war. It remained settled by israelites and others up through the 7th century if memory serves.
@@alanx4121 It could be anything except that we have testimony from the earliest centuries of Christianity saying that Peter died in Rome. I can give you sources if that's what you want.
@@alanx4121 I offered to give you sources that Peter was in Rome. So that I will do. "For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter." -Tertullian (Prescription against Heretics 32) "As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier." -Eusebius (Church History 3:4:9-10) "But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honor the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome..." -Council of Sardica (Canon 3) "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy." -Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:3) Also, once Christianity became legal Constantine gave the Roman christians money to build a basilica at St. Peter's grave, which became old St. Peter's basilica.
Peter was in Rome for 8 months before captured and martyred. That is why he writes about Paul writings because he has seen Paul writings first hand. They were in Rome together at some point . Note that Mark writes for Peter. Mark is Peter's secretary in Rome.
@@joshford3478 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20) This verse is speaking of Truth's about the existence of God, but these Truth's which Paul is talking about are not found in the Bible alone, or are they revealed by the Holy Spirit, but they are visible in creation by man.
@@joshford3478 Why are you evading my question, we're talking about the existence of truth and facts about anything apart from Scripture? I asked you if you know for sure who your mother and father are?
Wrong. The Babylon in those days of Peter was Caesarea Philipi or in modern day name Istanbul in Turkey. You shouldn't be making videos on Christianity if you don't understand church history. Rome is not just western Rome in Italy. The eastern portion of Rome was actually much larger and powerful and ruled over Jerusalem. Seriously, please don't be so naive and make foolish videos like this.
1. No one has ever referred to Caesarea Philipi as Babylon. And if someone has, you need to present the evidence. 2. In the 4th century Rome was just the Rome in Italy it wasn't until the 4th century when Constantine moved the Capital to Constantinople (modern Istanbul). There was no separation between the eastern and the western Roman empire at that time.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
"It is *probable* that the grave is authentic."
"It is *probable* that Peter went to Rome."
Meaning: We don't know!
Exactly, then couple this in with the tomb of Peter was found in JERUSALEM decades ago which the RCC refuses to acknowledge, though the monks and priests there in Jerusalem will quietly concede to this reality.
Inside the ossuary are full bones, the ossuary itself has "Simon Bar Jonah" inscribed in Aramaic on it and it's among other names lake Mary, James, Lazarus, etc. Apparently, the name "Simon Bar Jonah" was an extremely unique name for that time period in Israel. It can't be another.
The ossuary is located within a known, 1st century, Judeo-Christian burial ground.
Whereas the supposed tomb of Peter in Rome is located in a very popular and sacred PAGAN burial ground (which was Vatican Hill)! Surrounded by rooms filled with images and statutes of pagan gods and even one room literally has Satan on a wall fresco!
Even IF Peter was in Rome, AND the supposed "first pope"...WHY would they bury Peter in such a demonic place!?
There's only two options here. Either Peter was in Rome, was the "first pope", etc and when he was supposedly martyred there, they moved his body or bones afterwards back to Jerusalem to be buried there. Which makes the Catholic Church a liar.
OR....Peter was never in Rome. It was just Paul. Then you start the rabbit hole of the "first pope Simon Peter" actually having been....Simon MAGUS! (yes, just a far out there theory but if you look into it deeply it starts making alot of things add up). Certainly, Simon Magus, Rome's favorite "god-man" of the day, would have been proudly buried at the pagan Vatican Hill reserved only for Rome's highest seers, etc.....which still makes the Catholic Church a liar.
I'm a lifelong Catholic, BTW, and am getting fed up with the lies and secrets. Let's not even talk about the Vatican Secret Archives. Truth fears no censorship. If there's nothing to hide than there should be full transparency in all things.
@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 Do you remember where you found this info?, I'm trying to make sense with the RCC historically.
In the meantime... the Bible says Peter went to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. No way Peter went to the capital of the Gentiles. If he did he only stayed for a short while. In any case he most definitely did not start the one and only church of Christ that has authority over all others. Authority over others sounds a lot more like geopolitical power grab than brotherly Christianity. And proof is the subsequence where the rcc became a mini kingdom that used Christianity as its means of influence.
@@orestislazanakis4960 I keep attempting to post all the links and YT keeps auto-deleting my comment...😡
All I can say is do a simple search for "Peter's tomb in Jerusalem" and stuff should come up.
Unless we create a time machine and go back to 1st century Rome as see if St. Peter was there, then we can only deal in probabilities. We have people from the earliest centuries on Christianity claiming that Peter died in Rome, and not until the 20th century did we have anyone claiming he died anywhere else. So based on all this evidence we believe that Peter died in Rome.
that's why you look for more supporting evidence and there's a lot more not shown in this video
The church of Rome itself (which started out as a Jewish church) was established by Jewish pilgrims who converted to Christianity on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:9-10), and had Jewish ministers belonging to it that were converted long before St. Paul (see Romans 16:7). What's more, St. Peter's first sojourn in Rome took place between A.D. 42 (when he flees Judea --Acts 12:17) and A.D. 49, when Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome because of a riot over someone who the Roman historian Suetonius calls "Chrestus" --a clear mis-hearing of "Christus" ("Christ"). This is why Peter is back in Jerusalem in Acts 15 for the Council of Jerusalem, which took place in A.D. 49. It was only AFTER the council of Jerusalem (see Gal 2) that Peter settled in Antioch and became the first Bishop of Antioch. But, once Jews were permitted to return to Rome, Peter returned there, and this is where he and St. Paul confronted the arch-heretic Simon Magus, and where they together built up the Roman church as the synthesis of the Jewish Church and the Gentile Church, and where they ended their lives as martyrs. But, Peter himself was the primary authority there --that is, Rome's actual bishop. So, his bishopric in Rome was longer than (and before) his bishopric in Antioch. All the fathers (e.g. Hippolytus, Eusebius, Jerome, etc.) say this. And, as Damasus says above, this is where the three original (Apostolic) patriarchates came from. In about A.D. 60, Peter left Antioch and returned to Rome. In doing this, he left his disciple St. Evodius in charge of Antioch. St. Evodius was succeeded by St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then, while at Rome, Peter sent his chief disciple St. Mark to Alexandria, to be the first bishop (and his own "legate") there. And, in doing this, Peter, in essence, "triangulated" the known world. His own see of Rome held the primacy and was the final court of appeal, while administering Europe (and N. Africa) directly. Alexandria would hold the second place and be primate in the East, while administering Eastern Africa, Ethiopia, Arabia, and part of Palestine directly. And Antioch would hold the third place after Alexandria, and would directly administer Asia and the Orient. (Catholic Bridge)
It’s so funny watching the protestants cope with denial
Good summary. Another point you could ask about is "Where else did he die, then?" because all of the Early Church writers, if they speak of Peter, are unanimous that it was in Rome where he died.
Not only is it unanimous that he died in Rome, but unanimous, as far as I can tell, that he was there for a long time prior to his death also. We just don't know exactly how many years Peter spent in Rome, but he was there.
Good quastion
Early writers.. 2-3 centuries late on no authority isn't early and isn't authoritative.
@Lord Raglan What you believe doesn't particularly matter, historical fact is historical fact. Who do you suppose founded the Church in Rome, which St Paul addressed in his letter to the Romans? St Paul literally says he hasn't been able to go there himself, so it must have been someone else, and we know St Peter was himself there, and stayed there for years before he died. Acts 2:10 also directly refutes your idea that there were no Jews, nor converts, in Rome. And how exactly do you arrive at the idea that there are no lost sheep in Continental Europe (which is where Rome is), but rather in Britain instead? Truly, the anti-Catholic bias has blinded you further than I've seen in a long while
Peter seems to know FIRST HAND what Paul writes in his own letters. 2 Peter 3:14-16 indicating that both Apostles were in the same location at some point. This location might just be Babylon=the city of 7 hills=Rome(Revelation 14:8; 1 Peter 5:13). Notice the underline approval attitude of Peter concerning Paul's letters. He gave his stamp of approval like the Chief he is. "Like Paul writes to you in all is letters about these end of time things which some can't understand and twist". Peter is referring to Paul writing as a subordinate writing on the same subject he is!
We need to remember that the Roman Catholic Church has a strong interest in placing Peter in Rome prior to his execution. Traditionally, they attempt to establish Peter’s episcopate in Rome for the years A. D. 41 to 66; a span of 25 years. But let’s take a look at some of the evidences of scripture. The dates for these ancient events are only approximate but they are interesting.
Around A. D. 44 Peter was imprisoned in Jerusalem (Acts 12).
In 52 he attended the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
In 53 Paul opposed Peter “face to face” in Antioch (Galatians 2).
Around A. D. 58, Paul writes to the Roman church. He sends greetings to about 27 individuals at Rome but never mentions Peter!!
At Rome, Paul writes Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. He does mention other brethren with him … but not Peter.
Finally, in Paul’s last letter, 2 Timothy (A. D. 67), Paul makes a number of startling statements:
“At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me.” (2 Tim 4:16).
“Only Luke is with me.” (2 Tim. 4:11)
Where is Peter????
I believe that Scripture leads us to believe that Peter, the Apostle to the Circumcision never went to Rome, a Gentile Church, but stayed in the Jerusalem area. Peter, after all had a wife and family. Jerusalem, based upon Biblical references seems to have a greater claim for "Babylon" that Rome. After all, Jerusalem was where our Lord was slain.
Quote: "Traditionally, they attempt to establish Peter’s episcopate in Rome for the years A. D. 41 to 66; a span of 25 years."
This number 25 is not written in stone, it could have varied several years as the early church fathers were far from unanimous on how many years Peter was in Rome, but he was there.
Quote: “Only Luke is with me.” (2 Tim. 4:11)
Where is Peter????
This certainly does not mean that Peter was not in Rome, he just wasn't with Paul and Luke.
Quote: "I believe that Scripture leads us to believe that Peter, the Apostle to the Circumcision never went to Rome, a Gentile Church, but stayed in the Jerusalem area."
Where was Peter martyred then?
Your opinion doesn't hold up. Many, many early church fathers say that Peter was in Rome.
You have to understand, Holy Scripture tells us that the Roman Emperor Claudius (41-54) ordered all Jews to leave Rome (Acts 18:2). But we do not know exactly when in that time range the order actually was given, some scholars feel that it was closer to 49-50 AD, but it is not conclusive by anyone. This does not mean Peter left Rome even when the order was given, because the Church was basically an underground Church during that time, and Christians secretly practiced the faith for fear of being discovered, we know all this from early historical records.
Look at what the early church fathers had to say about Peter being in Rome, and then you will see how wrong you are.
WPB Director
“At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me.” (2 Tim 4:16).
“Only Luke is with me.” (2 Tim. 4:11)
Where is Peter????
If Paul wrote 2 Timothy in about 67 AD, then there is a good chance that Peter was already martyred, because many scholars think it happened in 64 AD, but could have been a couple years later.
Very good points thank you
@@morelmaster it is pretty compelling that Paul never mentions Peter being in Rome particularly as Paul was imprisoned there and died there and knew the church pretty well there.
@@morelmaster but no mention by Paul at any time about Peter when Paul was so intimate with that church and the city? It is very troubling
Seems prophetic surely in 2023 the Vatican is sounding more and more like Babylon.
If Peter was crucified there by Rome, his body would likely be buried nearby, but this does not prove that he was the first Pope. Christianity was not legalized in Rome until the edict of Milan issued AD 313 by Constantine, and Peter died centuries prior... So... things are not lining up.
1 Peter 5 verse 13, in no way suggests that Peter was actually in babylon writing the epistle. He merely states, the church that is in babylon, elected together with you. Kjv. Gnb, states your sister church. Peter is writing a letter. He was most likely writing from Jerusalem, to other churches, and mentions that the church at babylon, also salutes you. This is the worst proof of Peter being in rome.
First of all, if you read Galatians 2:7 it clearly states Peter was commissioned to go to the Hebrews (the circumsized), and Paul was commissioned to go to the Gentiles (the uncircumsized). Based on that alone it doesn't make any sense for Peter to go to Rome, a city of gentiles.
Second, Paul wrote six books while he was IN ROME. Nowhere in any of them does he mention Peter being with him. Even in Romans chapter 16 where he is acknowledging those who have helped him he doesn't mention Peter. Why would he leave out the prince of the apostles if Peter was in fact in Rome? This would be a serious disrespect.
Third, if you track Mark (Peter's son) through the new testament you'll find that not only is it seriously unlikely that "Babylon" is a code word for Rome (it's more likely a reference to Jerusalem), but you'll also find more evidence that Peter more than likely never went to Rome.
In Acts 15, Mark is with Paul and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas have a disagreement and split up, so Barnabas takes Mark with him and Paul takes Silas with him.
In Colossians 4:10 (written by Paul in Rome) Mark is with Paul here. So, they are both in Rome at this point.
In 2 Timothy 4:11-13 Paul is in Rome, but Mark isn't with him as he is asking to have Mark brought to him.
In 1 Peter 5:13 Mark is with PETER in "Babylon." Read the salutation in the verse.
The point is, if Mark is in "Babylon" with Peter, and you're saying Babylon is Rome, yet we know for sure Paul is in Rome and he's asking for Mark, it seems pretty clear that they are in completely different cities.
There isn't even good evidence that Peter is buried in Rome. Yeah, read about the archaeological excavations Trent mentioned that essentially turned up nothing. All the Roman Catholic church has are desperate attempts to make some link between Rome and Peter, but there aren't any.
Even Eusebius isn't good proof of Peter in Rome. Read about the additions and translations and how they're problematic.
There is no serious proof that Peter was the bishop or local ecclesiastical officer of the Roman church, a claim not made until the 3rd century. No proof that he was the original missionary to bring Christianity to Rome, and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome.
"Paul was commissioned to go to the Gentiles (the uncircumsized). Based on that alone it doesn't make any sense for Peter to go to Rome" Have you EVER read ACTS of the Apostles? PETER also went to the gentiles and Paul to the JEWS on Sabbath. Jesus you are clueless. Also yes PETER was in ROME. First POPE, and Pope Linus and Pope CLEMENT were mentioned too by PAUL.
@@MPIO2023keep lying to yourself.
👏
@@christopherestrada2474 Lying is a protestant middle name.
Although evidence for the identification of Babylon with Rome may initially appear convincing, upon careful examination it becomes clear that Babylon cannot mean Rome. Those who propose that Babylon be understood as a code name for Rome often point to evidence of such use in early extra-biblical writings: 1Pe. 5:13 as well) Rome is called Babylon.]”6 However, such evidence is inconclusive because these other writings date much later than the book of Revelation: “Often supporters of the symbolic view use the Sibylline Oracles (V. 143, 159, 434) and the Apocalypse of Baruch (11:1; 67:7) to prove that Babylon was a code name for Rome (Swete, Charles, Ladd), but the composition of these two works came in the second century, quite a while after John wrote Revelation.”7 Some assert that Peter’s use of the term Babylon (1Pe. 1Pe. 5:13) must point to Rome. But this is an argument from silence. It is also possible to take Peter’s mention of Babylon as denoting the city on the banks of the Euphrates, which served as a center of Jewry beyond the time of Peter’s writing (see Babylon’s Historic Fall).8 The Babylon is Rome view also fails to explain passages in the OT which designate Babylon as the place of final judgment. Identifying Babylon as Rome implies that God gave numerous prophecies utilizing a code name which would not obtain its true meaning until hundreds of years later. Thus, the prophecies given to the original recipients could not be understood using the normal meaning of terms with which they were familiar. Such a view violates the rules of historical-grammatical interpretation and turns the interpretation of prophetic passages into a guessing game. See The Importance of Meaning. The mention of “seven mountains” (or hills) in conjunction with the Harlot (Rev. Rev. 17:9+) is often seen as an allusion to seven hills known to be associated with Rome:
There were multiple cities at that time supposedly built on seven hills, Jerusalem is one of them.
When Peter said " Her in Babylon" He most Likely was in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was also a city referred to as "Babylon" It also says that in the book of Revelation. Also, by 67-70AD, Josephus wrote how how incredibly wicked the people of Jerusalem was at that time. Even the Romans were shocked at what the Jews did to each other. So the name Babylon does fit.
Rome was paganly wicked also. It was this city that was being referred to.
@@jzak5723 No...scripture says "Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence, and shall be found no more" . Rome never was defeated in a short period. Jerusalem was the greatest city in east Roman empire. It was a huge trading hub. The sailors would have seen the smoke from the Mediterranean just as scripture stated.
@@jzak5723 Jerusalem was the "whore" in Revelations. She rode the beast (Rome). Jews had a dispensation and did not have to worship the Emperor. The Jews were hated in Rome. She (Whore)...drank the blood of the prophets and martyrs. That would be Jerusalem.
@@NormBaker.
No. Rome meets all the qualifications.
@@jzak5723 Believe what you want. Rome never fell in that period.Took hundreds of years.
Revelation said it would be no more in a day. That is Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jerusalem was the whore who rode the back of the beast (Rome). The beast ended the Whore. The Jews has special dispensation so they did not have to worship the emperor. One more reason they hated the Jews. Good luck to your beliefs.
Peter died in Rome where "your ⛪" is found, read Galatians (not just for Jews)
Yes, but he was crucified there by Rome, but this does not prove that he was the first Pope. Christianity was not legalized in Rome until AD 313 by Constantine, and Peter died centuries prior... So... It is confusing.
"PROBABLE THAT THE TOMB IS AUTHENTIC " that's where the deception kicks in.
So you're just going to Ignore the multiple quotes from Protestant scholars and the writings of st. Ignatius, and st. Ireneaus that wrote Peter was in Rome. [107AD, 185AD]. Also, Ignatius was diciple of John and Ireneaus was taught by Polycarp another diciple of John.
@@thecrusaderofchrist Please quote the Biblical scripture that says Jesus instructed Peter to go to Rome? Christ sent Paul to do His Work in Rome. There is zero evidence that Paul wrote letters to Peter in Rome at any time. Why do you lie?
@@yabbadabbadoo8225 1 Pet. 5,13 Peter greets from Babylon which is Rome. Also, we have a mountain of evidence, why do YOU lie?
@@thecrusaderofchrist You can't be serious? Since when has the City of Rome been Babylon?
When the Jews were captured by king Nebuchadnezzar and hauled to Babylon, are you suggesting these Jews were carted off to Rome?? Are you even serious? I have studied this subject for 40 years Champ. You'd better provide better evidence than 1 Peter 5.13.
So if Peter was in Rome around 60ad I wonder if he ever crossed paths with Pliny. Pliny noted very early Christians around 90ad. Fun information but the text flashing was kinda annoying.
Peter did not want to go to Rome in the first place. Once there, after 9 months and Christians being killed in the arena or decapitated(if they were Roman citizens like Paul) He saw Jesus in a vision and turned around to be taken stretched his arms and being crucified upside down. Seems that Peter died just months after Paul was decapitated.
He couldn't have been in Rome in 60. If you take the texts of the NT and just start writing down names places and dates, you can account for Peter's whereabouts for his entire life up through 65. It is said he died in 67. 2 Peter was his last known writing and that was a consolation to the churches under Paul's charge in Asia Minor after Paul was executed. His last known position was Babylon in Shinar. And at the time, 2 Timothy makes clear he was not in Rome, period. Paul sent a runner 1800 miles to Ephesus to Task Timothy with fetching Mark the scribe from Peter and bring him to Rome. You don't do that if the guy is just across town. The Universalists were ignorant of the scriptures when they tried standing up Peter as a leader. They did so because Simon Magus was known as Simon Petr in Rome. Petr being a title - priest of the mysteries. If they could pass off Magus as the Apostle Peter by dropping his last name and calling him Simon Petr, the you can defraud a whole lot of people into Magus' self titled religion 'Universalism' aka 'catholicism'.
Very useful summary on this issue, thank you!
The Catholic problem is not what 'some people say'. It's what we can prove.
GOD Blessed Saint Peter
Prince of the apostles
The Bishop of Rome
Do you have to live in a place to be it's bishop?
No you don't. But Peter still went to Rome and died there.
Paul was in Rome for years, never mentioned Peter. And when writing to those in Rome, listed a bunch of people, but not Peter.
Fact is that, like the book of Acts describes, Peter and the 11, who were Law-keeping, Temple-going JEWS who believed Jesus was THEIR Jewish Messiah and King agreed on a handshake with Paul when he met with them in Jerusalem (where actually James was the head of their assembly and not Peter), that they the apostles would ONLY minister unto the CIRCUMCISED (Jews), and Paul would CONTINUE to minister to the heathen (GENTILES).
Of course, the apostles' gospel of the kingdom message (repent, be baptized, and believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and King) which is ONLY what even Jesus Himself preached unto Jews ONLY during His Earthly ministry(only unto the House of Israel),
was temporarily set aside, as Paul's gospel of grace: Christ and Him crucified and that alone for salvation
is the ONLY GOSPEL for the church age, which ends at the rapture - then during the Tribulation (Daniel's 70th week of the Jews), a 7 year period that follows the rapture, THEN the Gospel of the Kingdom is TAKEN UP AGAIN and preached unto the ends of the Earth by the 144,000 Jews, as Jesus as King and Messiah most certainly returns after that 7yr Tribulation at Armageddon when He destroys this corrupt world system and He Himself rules from Jerusalem.
His tomb being in rome does not prove he was in Rome or died in Rome. There is no biblical proof peter was in Rome.
Your claim that something must be in the Bible to be true is unbiblical.
@@fantasia55 so everything goes? Anybody can claim or teach anything and it's ok?
Peter was never in Rome when Rome says he was. That's just something pushed as "fact" by the Roman Catholic church. First of all, if you read Galatians 2:7 it clearly states Peter was commissioned to go to the Hebrews (the circumcized), and Paul was commissioned to go to the Gentiles (the uncircumcised). Based on that alone it doesn't make any sense for Peter to go to Rome, a city of gentiles.
Second, Paul wrote six books while he was IN ROME. Nowhere in any of them does he mention Peter being with him. Even in Romans chapter 16 where he is acknowledging those who have helped him he doesn't mention Peter. Why would he leave out the prince of the apostles if Peter was in fact in Rome? This would be a serious disrespect.
Third, if you track Mark (Peter's son) through the new testament you'll find that not only is it seriously unlikely that "Babylon" is a code word for Rome (it's more likely a reference to Jerusalem), but you'll also find more evidence that Peter more than likely never went to Rome.
In Acts 15, Mark is with Paul and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas have a disagreement and split up, so Barnabas takes Mark with him and Paul takes Silas with him.
In Colossians 4:10 (written by Paul in Rome) Mark is with Paul here. So, they are both in Rome at this point.
In 2 Timothy 4:11-13 Paul is in Rome, but Mark isn't with him as he is asking to have Mark brought to him.
In 1 Peter 5:13 Mark is with PETER in "Babylon." Read the salutation in the verse.
The point is, if Mark is in "Babylon" with Peter, and you're saying Babylon is Rome, yet we know for sure Paul is in Rome yet he's asking for Mark, it seems pretty clear that they are in completely different cities.
There isn't even good evidence that Peter is buried in Rome. Read about the archaeological excavations that turned up nothing. All the Roman Catholic church has are desperate attempts to make some link between Rome and Peter, but there aren't any.
Some people (Roman Catholics) also try to use Eusebius as proof of Peter in Rome, but this is also flawed and would take some time to get into. But, if you're looking to get closer to the truth you can read about the additions and translations and how they're problematic.
There is no serious proof that he was the bishop or local ecclesiastical officer of the Roman church, a claim not made until the 3rd century. No proof that he was the original missionary to bring Christianity to Rome, and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome.
YOU: Peter was never in Rome when Rome says he was. That's just something pushed as "fact" by the Roman Catholic church. First of all, if you read Galatians 2:7 it clearly states Peter was commissioned to go to the Hebrews (the circumcized), and Paul was commissioned to go to the Gentiles (the uncircumcised). Based on that alone it doesn't make any sense for Peter to go to Rome, a city of gentiles.
ME: LOL. With a drop of research, you would find that there were tens of thousands of Jews living in the City of Rome during the 1st century, so for Peter to be there ministering to them is a no brainer. Now what do you have to say?
@@jzak5723 except the bible precludes Peter ever being in Rome. Don't take my word for it. Read the NT and make a timeline of his travels. Paul was in Rome and never mentioned Peter there. Paul also wrote to the Romans that he would not go where another had already proclaimed Christ. If Peter was in Rome as you say, then Paul wouldn't have gone. If Peter was in Rome as you say, then Paul would have mentioned him among those that he mentioned in Romans 16:1-16.
By your reasoning, Paul never stayed in Judea to proclaim the gospel to the thousands of gentiles that lived there. Sorry but your knowledge appears to be nothing but opinion and your assumptions based on the Catholic church's claims that don't hold up to scrutiny. History does not support the claims and scripture denies them.
Whether Peter was in Rome or not it doesn’t matter. Mathias succeeded Judas through the casting of lots by the 11 apostles and that he fulfills the following requirements:
21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism until the day Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” Acts 1:21-22
Linus could not have succeeded Peter because there is no record of a successor by the 11 remaining apostles nor does he met the requirements of acts 1:21-22.
Why would there need to be a record given by the 11 Apostles for you to believe it??? Why didn't John record the death of the other 11 Apostles??? I guess the Holy Spirit didn't feel it was something that it wanted to inspire John to write, that's why. Linus didn't need to meet the requirements of an Apostle, since he wasn't one of them, he was the bishop of Rome.
Archeologist discovered his tomb in Jerusalem. Under the name Simon Bar Jonah. Don't fall for these Roman lies.
Source?
Fake. Just like "James brother of Jesus" box that was found years ago.
@@mx_moi1964 The Discovery of Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem -1953 by F. Paul Peterson.
John 21:18-19
@@joshford3478 Look at the evidence Trent has provided :)
if peter was in rome, why ne never visit paul in prison? 🤔 shame on you tren
UH, maybe because Christianity was being persecuted by the Romans. "Hi, my name is Peter, I'm an Apostle of Jesus Christ, can I please visit Paul who is in prison for preaching Jesus Christ also." Yea right.
@@jzak5723 🤣🤣 that would be you, you just don't get the point... point is, Paul is traying to say that peter was never in rome.. see yaa ✌️
@@MATEO22.31
I never said that Peter was always in Rome when Paul was there, he could have come some time after Paul, nobody really knows the exact dates that Peter was there. But we do know that Peter was martyred in Rome according to many ancient manuscripts, so obviously he was in the city during some period of time. I can provide multiple documents by early church fathers who say Peter was in Rome establishing the Church with Paul. Can you provide ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT that says that Peter was not ever in Rome??? I didn't think so.
@@jzak5723 God bless john, in the end, salvation belonges to God, if you end me end up in heaven, it will be because of God, not me or anything in me... no works, may the LORD keep your heart safe 🙏
4 Baruch was written in the 2nd century AD long after John penned the term "Babylon the Great". 4 Baruch is a pseudepigraphical text of the Old Testament. Looks like Babylon in 4 Baruch was actually Babylon. Can you name ANY written material in the 1st century AD that uses Babylon as a code or replacement for Rome? Anything prior to 62BC would not be acceptable. Peter describes himself as an elder in one of his epistles. How can he be an elder in a church and the "pope"? Paul gives his greeting to many people in Rome in his letter to the Romans but never mentions Peter. Why?
The word elder is not found in Scripture either, because that is an English rendering of the Greek, just as pope is Latin for father. Paul called himself a father to those who he preached the Gospel to.
@@jzak5723 elder is translated from presbyter or presbyteros.
@@wfqsfg
Yeah, its a translation, so what's your point? A pope needed to be an elder first, don't you think?
@@jzak5723 James was the leader and I've heard he was the bishop of Jerusalem. No proof Peter was the leader of the Christian movement.
@@wfqsfg
James may have been the leader of the Jerusalem Church from what we see in Scripture. However, just because we don't see Scripture saying Peter was a "leader" of any specific church certainly doesn't mean that he wasn't at some point. That would be an argument from silence. It can be argued that Jesus did have some particular role in mind for Peter, when you look at Matt. 16:18-19, John 1:42, John 21:15-19. When looking at some of the writings of the early church fathers, it is clear that Peter did have an important role in the new Church, such as helping to found the Roman Church along with Paul. I can provide multiple quotes from various ECF's that Peter was in the Rome Church, and was martyred there along with Paul. Of course if you are a strict Sola Scriptura adherent, you probably won't accept anything I have to show you anyways.
Catholic preachers proudly calling the seat of his leader Babylon 😂
I feel sad for you.
Omg what ignorance can do
1st Peter 5:13 someone's been reading there Bible
Lol, and then they claim, mystery babylon is not them. Lol
Rev. 17!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A TESTIMONY ON THE ROCK BEING THE CHRIST YESHUA
The most compelling evidence is that the Gospel of Matthew was written PRIMARILY for the Chosen peoples of YAHWEH who are the JEWS and NOT addressed for the Gentile world. In this proposition, was the writer of Matthew declaring to the JEWS that PETER, only a small stone like any other disciples of YESHUA, was the PROMISED ONE as mentioned in the BOOK of ISAIAH, Chapter 53???
IF I was alive at that time..., as an ELECT Jew, predestined for ETERNAL salvation, would I have even envisaged that Peter, the Sanguine who DENIED knowing and FOLLOWING the "man" whom the rest of the Jews (except for His ELECT/own..) REJECTED as their PROMISED HaMashiach, and who (Peter) CURSED himself for even being a disciple of YESHUA / JESUS?? Should I have believed the ROCK to be Peter the Sanguine (who was deemed a "TRAITOR" to his Lord and Messiah by even CURSING himself for knowing Him as such???) to be my PROMISED Messiah instead of YESHUA/JESUS??
The prophet John the Baptist and all the other Disciples of YESHUA / JESUS (even including that brigand son of the devil called Judas the Iscariot...) believed YESHUA / JESUS to be the ROCK of SALVATION. Didn't they all STUDY the Old Testament Bible where the LORD YAHWEH is mentioned more than DOZEN times as the ROCK of AGES?? Search the BOOK Of Psalms and count how many times the phrase "The LORD God is my ROCK" was written therein (the Psalms). Are you absolutely SURE that all the writers who mentioned the word "ROCK" were actually designating that phrase to the a mere man and a "hopeless" one who DENIED knowing and following his "ROCK of Salvation" YESHUA 3 TIMES??
I think that PETER, the Sanguine, deserved to be CAST out from the Team for his belligerent denial of YESHUA / JESUS to the Jews (what more the fact that he even DENIED YESHUA . JESUS as his MASTER!!!). The ONLY reason WHY the ROMAN CATHOILIC religion of the popes of Pagan Rome CANNOT and WOULD NOT remove their age-old belief and institutionalized such a FALSE belief system from their CATECHISM is that...IF THEY DID SO.., THAT WOULD MEAN THE DESTRUCTION OF THEIR RELIGION! Because...., the religion of pope(s) of ROME has its FOUNDATION bases SOLELY upon their BELIEF that PETER (the Sanguine who CURSED himself if he ever KNEW the Son of man called YESHUA...) was the "ROCK" of their SALVATION and NOT the YESHUA of Nazareth whom His FOLLOWERS who were alive at that time (when He referred to Himself as the ROCK of SALVATION...)!
NONE of the Disciples / Apostles (including Peter himself) would have even believed that YESHUA was referring to Peter as the ROCK of Ages, the ROCK of SALVATION and the Elohim of David, Moses, and particularly the Prophet Isaiah who dedicated his Book on CHAPTER 53 for the TRUE Messiah of the JEWS and the ROCK of their SALVATION!
READ all the other VERSES in the OT and NT that clearly AFFIRMED that there is NO ONE that can hold the TITLE of the ROCK except the TRUE Elohim Himself, YAHWEH and the Son of YAHWEH named YESHUA (affectionately called by more than 90 % of GENUINE Christians today as JESUS the CHRIST, not the ISA of the Koran of Mohammed)!
Why did Jesus changed Simon's name to (Cephas) "rock" in John 1:42?
Eustathius , bishop of Antioch presided over the council of nicea.
NOPE. He was there, but not in a presiding role.
😇🙏
Scripture is breath by the Holy Spirit. Apostles are sons. She who is in Babylon is Blessed Mary. HAGAR represents Babylon.
Galatians 4: 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because Hagar is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
change your damnable profile picture
I was just in Rome and went through the Scavi, the tomb under the basilica. Peter's bones are there. They found them----the bones of a man of his age missing the feet bones which would match Peter since they cut off his feet to get him down from the cross.
There is No historical evidence that he was in Rome. Paul who took the gospel to the known world at that time talked about how he, a Rome citizen, longed to journey to Rome. He finally did be fore his death and was execution by Nero. You see Peter was a preacher to the Jews while Paul was a preacher to the Gentiles. And we all know how the Rome converted to Christianity to only pervert and infiltrate it with their Roman Gods. They than throw out the real Christians, many were Jewish Christians. Nothing in the Catholic bible is biblical.
@@carmentartaglia7709
The reason Peter went to Rome was because there was a large population of Jews in that city. He had reason to be there just as much as Paul.
Who told you that. The Catholics. Historical evidence?
@@carmentartaglia7709
Read about the Edict of Claudius and the eviction of Jews from Rome.
Look at Acts 18:2
Look at 1 Peter 5:13
Then you will reconsider what you previously thought.
@@morelmaster It was Paul who went to Rome! Where does it say Peter. Spirit and truth. The Catholic church has neither if these.
Gal_2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Gospel of the circumcision, so no, he went to the Jews in literal Babylon.
Exactly. Jesus commissioned all the Apostles save for Paul to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.. not to gentiles. They could later minister to gentiles if they were present while accomplishing their directed task; but, the house of Israel was paramount. So they were chased to the ends of the earth to have the message presented to them. Shinar is where the Assyrians deported the people of the northern kingdom after they took it in war. It remained settled by israelites and others up through the 7th century if memory serves.
Like he said in the video. The literal Babylon no longer existed in the 1st century.
@@alanx4121 It could be anything except that we have testimony from the earliest centuries of Christianity saying that Peter died in Rome.
I can give you sources if that's what you want.
@@alanx4121 Oh really? What sources have you seen?
@@alanx4121 I offered to give you sources that Peter was in Rome. So that I will do.
"For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter." -Tertullian (Prescription against Heretics 32)
"As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier." -Eusebius (Church History 3:4:9-10)
"But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honor the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome..." -Council of Sardica (Canon 3)
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy." -Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:3)
Also, once Christianity became legal Constantine gave the Roman christians money to build a basilica at St. Peter's grave, which became old St. Peter's basilica.
Nothing for sure.
Peter was in Rome for 8 months before captured and martyred. That is why he writes about Paul writings because he has seen Paul writings first hand. They were in Rome together at some point . Note that Mark writes for Peter. Mark is Peter's secretary in Rome.
@@joshford3478
What anti-Catholic propaganda was that which told you Peter was never in Rome?
@@joshford3478
Are there any truth's or facts that can be known about anything apart from Scripture? Yes or No?
@@joshford3478
So you're not even sure who your mother and father are?
@@joshford3478
For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)
This verse is speaking of Truth's about the existence of God, but these Truth's which Paul is talking about are not found in the Bible alone, or are they revealed by the Holy Spirit, but they are visible in creation by man.
@@joshford3478
Why are you evading my question, we're talking about the existence of truth and facts about anything apart from Scripture? I asked you if you know for sure who your mother and father are?
The Bishop Of Rome🕊
Rome is Babylon in Revelation.
Wrong. The Babylon in those days of Peter was Caesarea Philipi or in modern day name Istanbul in Turkey. You shouldn't be making videos on Christianity if you don't understand church history. Rome is not just western Rome in Italy. The eastern portion of Rome was actually much larger and powerful and ruled over Jerusalem. Seriously, please don't be so naive and make foolish videos like this.
1. No one has ever referred to Caesarea Philipi as Babylon. And if someone has, you need to present the evidence.
2. In the 4th century Rome was just the Rome in Italy it wasn't until the 4th century when Constantine moved the Capital to Constantinople (modern Istanbul). There was no separation between the eastern and the western Roman empire at that time.