Prior to the late 2nd or early 3rd-century, there was no documentation referring to Peter being in Rome, let alone Peter being the bishop of Rome. The Church in Rome at this time, wanted power and prestige, they wanted Rome to mimic the great cities of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, with their apostolic sees. They chose Peter, whom they could counterfeit Peter into Rome, however; the timeline does not work. As the City of Antioch had prior claim to being the see of Peter. Rome’s claim is that Peter’s episcopate lasted for 25 years, well, if Peter was executed in 64 CE as per the Oxford Dictionary of popes. That would mean that Peter started his Roman episcopate in 38/9 CE. That is five or six years after the death of Jesus. Yet, Antioch claims that Peter held their apostolic see for seven years. One must remember that in the time stated that there were no planes, trains, and automobiles, to get around the ancient world. It took time for someone to get from A to B. All the evidence held by Rome is said to be Tradition, and tradition has nothing to do with Proof or Factually?
On the Monarchical Bishop of Rome.
The academic Patristic scholar and theologian Kelly, in his work, wrote: … In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. The tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid 2nd cent [sic]… In addition, a mass of literature connected with his name [Peter], notably the Apocalypse of St. Peter, the Acts of St. Peter, and the Gospel of St. Peter, sprang up in the 2nd cent.; but while full of interest and attesting the Apostle’s prestige in the early church, it is all entirely apocryphal….[JND Kelly (1986), The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 6, Oxford University Press, Oxford—New York.]
Evidence!
Jero Jones
Article URL : https://breakingnewsandreligion.online/discuss/