Paul excludes greeting to Peter, proving he was not in Rome?


#1

A Protestant friend argues that if Peter were really in Rome as Catholics believe, then why did Paul not include him in the list of 26 people he greets by name? (Rom 16:1-16)

Was this an oversight? Was the letter written only to Paul’s converts only so that even if Peter were there he would not need to be addressed in this particular letter? Is it possible that the letter to the Romans was written before Peter went to Rome?

What say anyone here about this quirky issue?


#2

It’s an argument from silence, and it is possible that Peter was not currently in Rome at the time. The argument from silence can succinctly be put as the Bible neither confirms nor denies Peter’s presence. Thanks and God Bless.


#3

Isn’t this one of the dangers of Sola scriptura? Its adherants tend to pick apart the bible to a point that it is almost silly.

The letter of Romans starts out simply: ** To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints **Wouldn’t that include everyone in Rome? Including Peter. .


#4

**So, all the historical documents that Peter was in Rome, died there, are lies?
Answer that question, or bow to Christian as well as no-Christian antiquity! Let’s hear your answer!
** **Were they just written in anticipation of protestant bull-oney one thousand four hundred years later?
**Give us a name of any valid document of antiquity before 600ad that said where Peter died outside of Rome!

A short content of Romans regarding the Church Of Rome:

  1. that the Roman Church’s faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world;
  2. that the Roman Church is filled with all knowledge;
  3. that she is respected and saluted by all the local churches of Christ;
  4. that her obedience (in the Faith) is known to all;
  5. that under the feet of the Church of Rome God will crush Satan;
  6. that the Roman Church is the apostolic center for the world-wide (i.e., Catholic) Church, and
  7. that it is from the Rome where the Gospel reached the ends of the earth.

**[size=3]Finally, WHO exactly set up the Church of Rome? After all it could not have been Paul. He wrote in Romans that he was longing to someday go there. So, who was it, exactly, that built up a church that Paul praises so exclusively! Paul does not mention any Apostle that set it up, therefore, according to the Sola Scriptura, NO ONE did. It just hatched from nothing.

**

[/size]


#5

Wake up. The Romans hunted down Christians like they were vermin. They hunted for St. Peter too.

Peter didnt want to be caught. It would be absolutely stupid for Paul to write a letter that was to be sent out of town ( and possibly intercepted by the Romans tell everyone that Peter was “in town”)

THINK.


#6

Couldn’t you just see a Muslim cleric writing to a community of Muslims in a major city of Afghanistan, saying "And I greet Osama Bin … who is the leader of us all and is with you there…"
Right.

Bigotry finds its grotesque life in historical revision.


#7

[quote=TNT]**So, all the historical documents that Peter was in Rome, died there, are lies?
Answer that question, or bow to Christian as well as no-Christian antiquity! Let’s hear your answer!**One of the Coptic Orthodox Christians on the Forum has offered the views of her own Pope Shenouda of Alexandria on this question. His views are quite fascinating…

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=640667&postcount=100

Also see her two or three messages which precede this one.
[/quote]


#8

In all the letters to Congressman that I have written and have known others to write, I’ve never seen anyone mention the current president is in Washington as well. So what. The most likely reasons were mentioned above. Paul knew that Peter was not in Rome at the time. Perhaps visiting another apostle somewhere, or Perhaps Paul didn’t want to identify people with his letter who might know where Peter was.

One guy on another board actually went so far as to say that Paul wrote all of his letters to other places while in Rome. I asked him to prove it. He could not of course. These rigid sola scripturists cannot remain consistent with their own doctrine. See my thread on Altar Calls.

Blessings


#9

The most obvious answer to this question of why Peter is not addressed by Paul is this:

WHO WAS PAUL TO BE PREACHING TO PETER?


#10

My understanding is that Peter was in Antioch before going to Rome. He was the first bishop of Antioch, later becoming the first bishop of Rome. When he left Antioch, he left two bishops in charge, one for Jewish Christians, another for Gentile Christians.


#11

[quote=spectre49]A Protestant friend argues that if Peter were really in Rome as Catholics believe, then why did Paul not include him in the list of 26 people he greets by name? (Rom 16:1-16)

[/quote]

Was Paul trying to greet every single Christian in Rome, and only came up with 26? Well that’s a pretty sorry state of affairs!


#12

1Peter 5.13 “She who is at Babylon , who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does my son Mark”. Isn’t Babylon a codeword for Rome? Oops! I forgot. Babylon signifies Rome only when referring to the Catholic Church as the “Whore of Babylon”.
Sorry for interupting. Now, babble on.


#13

Let’s see. Roman persecuted Christians, and especially the church leaders. Peter was the earthly leader of the Church so was especially of Roman interest.

Paul writes a letter and greets the 2nd in command of the Church and the letter is intercepted. Guess how fast soldiers would be there?

In Peter’s epistle, he greets fellow Christians in code. Paul’s greeting was probably in code as well.

“So say hi to Joe Schmoe over there” :slight_smile:


#14

[quote=spectre49]A Protestant friend argues that if Peter were really in Rome as Catholics believe, then why did Paul not include him in the list of 26 people he greets by name? (Rom 16:1-16)

Was this an oversight? Was the letter written only to Paul’s converts only so that even if Peter were there he would not need to be addressed in this particular letter? Is it possible that the letter to the Romans was written before Peter went to Rome?

What say anyone here about this quirky issue?
[/quote]

Suppose Catholicism is one great big fat lie. How does Peters absence from Rome make your friends choice of religion THE one that we should go running to?


#15

So when I saw the remains of St. Peter, which were carbon dated to be correct age and were of a man with a stocky build who had his feet cut off at the ankles, from being cut down from his cross, it was a big hoax?


#16

One of the Coptic Orthodox Christians on the Forum has offered the views of her own Pope Shenouda of Alexandria on this question. His views are quite fascinating…

forums.catholic.com/showpost…7&postcount=100

I believe you are doing a great disservice to Pope Shenouda by wrongly attributing that article to him, Fr. Ambrose, since the only thing “fascinating” about it is it’s ineptitude.

  1. Peter was imprisoned in Jerusalem at 44 AD so how was he present in Rome at that time?!

Correction: Peter was in prison in Jerusalem, for a very brief time, in A.D. 42 (not A.D. 44), being released by an angel soon after. Acts 12 is very clear: The imprisonment of Peter and the execution of James bar-Zebedee took place when Herod Agrippa came to the throne, and was an attempt by him to ingratiate himself which the Jewish hierarchy (Acts 12:1-3). This would have been either in A.D. 41, or A.D. 42 at the latest. Thereafter, Peter was forced to flee Judea, in fact all of Palestine (since Herod Agrippa had succeeded to the full territory of his grandfather, Herod the Great) and went to “another place” (Acts 12:17). Universal tradition has always identified this “other place” as Rome. And, if you consider the historical scenario, one of Peter’s most influential disciples was the Roman Centurian Cornelius. Peter would have fled immediately to him. Now, Cornelius had been based in Caesarea and was a Centurion for the Cohort Italica (Acts 10:1), an auxiliary unit recruited, as the name implies, from central Italy. With someone like Cornelius to support him, it was no great effort to transport Peter out of Judea to Rome, where a number of Jewish disciples (converts from the day of Pentecost) had already established house churches that answered to Peter and the Apostles at Jerusalem: Acts 2:9-10, Romans 16:7.

  1. Clodius Caesar exiled all the Jews and the Christians from Rome at 45 AD, and the book of Acts made reference to this event (Acts 18:2). So it is again impossible for Peter to be in Rome then.

I beg to differ. :slight_smile: First of all, the Emperor referred to was named Claudius, not Clodius. And, according to the Roman historian Seutonius, Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome in A.D. 49, not A.D. 45. Funny enough, A.D. 49 is the very year in which Peter reappears in the Acts narrative, being present at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. This is one of those cases in which the silence of Acts is deafening. Having Peter flee to “another place” in Acts 12:17 (A.D. 42), the Book makes no mention of Peter’s whereabouts until he reappears (mysteriously) at the council in Acts 15:7. But, is it really so mysterious? Not to Acts’ original readers, who would have been well acquainted with where Peter was during the unmentioned seven years! He was building up the church of Rome and establishing it as an Apostolic see. Then, in A.D. 49, he was expelled from Rome with all the other Jews. Why? Seutonius tells us: Because of a riot over someone named “Chrestus” - a mishearing of “Christus,” the Latin form of “Christ.” As Seutonius puts it:

“…at the instigation of one Chrestus [Christ]”, Claudius expelled Jews from Rome. (See Seutonius, Claudius 25.4; cf Acts 18:2).

In other words, Peter’s Roman ministry had stirred up a hornet’s nest, and Claudius solved the problem by expelling all Jews, both believers in Christ and non-believers, from the imperial capital.

continued. . .


#17

continuing. . .

  1. In 50 AD, he attended the apostles council in Jerusalem, so it was impossible for him to be in Rome then.

Again, it was A.D. 49; and no one is saying that Peter was in Rome then. He was expelled from Rome with all the other Jews by Claudius, he participated in the Jerusalem council, and he thereafter settled in Antioch for a few years, only returning to Rome in the reign of Caesar Nero, where he was martyred atop Vatican hill in A.D. 67 – which the preceding part of the article does get right.

  1. St. Paul wrote to the Romans in 57-58 AD asking to be given a chance to reach them and teach them about God. This is a proof that Peter did not preach the Romans in Rome, otherwise Paul wouldn’t have asked to be given a chance to go.

The author of the article is overlooking a few things from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. First of all, Romans was written between A.D. 56 and A.D. 58 (Acts 20:2-3).

Second, Peter was almost certainly not in Rome when the Epistle was written. As previously noted, all of the Jewish Christians had been expelled from the capital under Claudius; and, by A.D. 56 (the second year of Emperor Nero), a few of them were just beginning to return (Romans 16:3).

Third, the Christians in Rome are already aware of who Paul is and have been in contact with him for some time (Romans 1:13, 15:22, 16:3-16).

Fourth, Romans is written to give instruction to the GENTILE Christians of Rome, not to the Jewish Christians. Paul teaches them because he is the “Apostle to the Gentiles” (Romans 1:5-6, 11:13-14). But, even though it is Paul who is the Apostle to the Gentiles, these Roman Gentiles were not converted by Paul. Indeed, Paul has never even been to Rome (Romans 1:13, 15:22, etc.). What’s more, Paul directly tells these Roman Gentiles that, now that he has finished preaching in the East, he needs their help to reach, not Italy, but Spain (Romans 15:24). This very same verse (Rom 15:24) tells us that Paul merely hopes to meet the Roman Gentiles “in passing” as he sets out for Spain. Now, think about this: Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, is going to visit the most important Gentile city in the world - the capital of a world-wide (Gentile) Empire, with over 1 million inhabitants! Yet, he is not going to focus his ministry there, but merely asks for the Roman church’s help to get to Spain. Why would that be? Paul himself tells us, for in Romans 15:20, he writes:

“Thus I aspire to proclaim the Gospel, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build ON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION.”

So, who is this “other man”? Who is Paul talking about? Again, we are talking about the most important and populous city in the world - the place where “all roads” lead. So, who is responsible for shepherding the church in this most crucial proving ground for the Gospel? If you read the rest of Paul’s writings, whenever he speaks of someone “laying a foundation,” this always refers to the work of an Apostle: Eph. 2:19-20, 1 Cor. 3:10-11, etc… So, what Apostle was associated with Rome? Simon Peter. Remember, Paul admits that he was never in Rome; nor are any of the other Apostles associated with it. Indeed, Rome is a church composed mostly of Gentiles; and, all throughout Scripture, there is only one Apostle who converted Gentiles as well as Jews. Again, this was Simon Peter.

So, if Peter was not in Rome (until close to the time of his martyrdom); if he did not establish the Roman church and hold the status of its bishop (as did Paul in churches like Corinth, even when he was not physically present there -see: 1 Cor 4:15), then what the author is asking people to believe is that Rome - the most important and populous city in the world at the time - was passed over and ignored by all the Apostles, and entrusted to people with no Apostolic authority. :confused: If you want to talk about something being unbelievable, that is about as unbelievable as it gets.

continued. . .


#18

[quote=spectre49]A Protestant friend argues that if Peter were really in Rome as Catholics believe, then why did Paul not include him in the list of 26 people he greets by name? (Rom 16:1-16)

Was this an oversight? Was the letter written only to Paul’s converts only so that even if Peter were there he would not need to be addressed in this particular letter? Is it possible that the letter to the Romans was written before Peter went to Rome?

What say anyone here about this quirky issue?
[/quote]

All of the evidence indicates, and authorative sources agree, that Peter was not only in Rome, but was Martyred there in about 67 AD.


#19

continuing. . .

  1. In 58 AD when Paul sent his epistle to Rome, he greeted 20 people, and 2 families, and the name of Peter was not among them which means that he (Peter ) was not there at that time.

Yes, we are agreed on that. In A.D. 56, Peter was based in Antioch.

  1. When St. Paul reached Rome at 60 AD, the Book did not tell us that he met with Peter, but rather Paul met the leaders of the Jews… thus proving that Peter did not preach them with the Lord Jesus.

The author is forgetting the historical scenario. The Jews who Paul meets in Acts 28 are not the same people who were expelled from Rome (a decade earlier in A.D. 49), but a newly-established Jewish community in Rome. Of course these people had never encountered Peter, since they would not have been there when Peter was there in the 40’s.

  1. St. Paul stayed in Rome for two years after preaching the Romans, (62/63 AD) meaning that if Peter reached Rome then, the church of Rome was founded, established and was strong by the works of the Holy Spirit and Paul.

Again, the author is ignoring the details of the Epistle to the Romans, in particular the fact that an organized Roman church existed before Paul ever showed up in Rome, and also Paul’s admission that this Roman church was founded by “another man.” What’s more, Acts 28 tells us that Paul was under house arrest for the two years that the author is referring to (Acts 28:30). Therefore, he was not the leader (the bishop) of the Roman church during those years, but merely someone who was consulted by Christian visitors and others who were interested in hearing the Gospel.

  1. Therefore we acknowledge what Origen said, that, St. Peter came to Rome before he died, about 65 AD, to chase Simon the sorcerer, who offered money to him (Peter) and John for the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:9-24), and Peter was crucified there and died.

I find it very funny that the author accepts what Origen says based on his reading of an apocalyptic book (the Acts of Peter), but does not pay attention to what canonical books (i.e., Acts and Romans) convey. What’s more, Origen did not exist in a vacuum but is referring to the common Tradition of all the city-churches of his day; and of this Tradition, we also have the witness of several of Origen’s contemporaries:

Dionysius of Corinth (c. 166):

“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similariy in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time.” (Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome, in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:8).

Clement of Alexandria (c. 190):

“The circumstances which occasioned the writing of Mark (the Gospel) were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who knew his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.” (Sketches, in a fragment of Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 200):

Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonianss, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood." (Against Marcion, 4, 5:1).

Gaius of Rome (c. 198):

“It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign of the emperor Nero. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. …I can point out the trophies of the Apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican hill (Peter’s grave site) or to the Ostian Way (Paul’s), you will find the trophies of those who founded thischurch.” (Disputation with Proclus, in a fragment found in Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:5).

continued. . .


#20

continuing. . .

We also have the venerable witness of Ireneaus of Lyon (180 A.D.), who makes it very clear that Peter did not merely show up in Rome and die, but that both he and Paul founded the Roman church and established its teaching authority. He writes:

“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” (Against the Heresies 3, 1:1)

And also:

“Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness or wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper (i.e., renegade heretics), by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles.” (Against the Heresies, 3, 3:2).

He then goes on to list the succession from Peter’s successor Linus to the Pope of his day.

Likewise, as early as 107 A.D., we have Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of Peter himself, writing to the Romans and saying …

“Not as Peter and Paul did do I command you. They were Apostles, and I am merely a convict.” (Epistle to the Romans, 4:3)

  1. St. Mark and the Church of Rome: Mark works with Paul:
    A. "Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions If he comes to you, welcome him, and Jesus who is called Justus. These are my only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are of the circumcision, they have proved to be a comfort to me (Colossians 4: 10,11). St. Paul was telling the Colossians that Mark was present with him in Rome.

Yes he was. Does the author know why? - because Mark was Peter’s go-between - his messenger between Antioch and Rome. At this time, Peter was still in Antioch. He had sent Mark to Rome, just as Paul (when based in one city) would send his disciples to check things out in other cities where he (Paul) had established churches. All of the Apostles did this, and, since Mark also had a close association with Paul, he helped in Paul’s Gentile ministry and served as his go-between as well delivering messages for Paul in central Anatolia (which is where Colossae is located), since it was on the way to Antioch, that is, when Mark would return to Antioch to report to Peter. Indeed, later on, once Peter is based in Rome itself, he sends this same Mark to Alexandria in order to be the first bishop there, that is, Peter’s representative in Alexandria. And this is how Alexandria became the 2nd See of the universal church - because of its ties of discipleship (through St. Mark) to Petrine Rome. That is what ALL the fathers say.

continued. . .


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.