A Rebuttal!

A Rebuttal!
“The Catholic (Universal) Church was founded in 33AD, the moment that Jesus gave St. Peter the keys. Marcionism, on the other hand, dates from 144-650AD.   They had some strange beliefs.” These were the words commented on my post, “Christianity Today Usurped the Title from Another Christian Sect!”  To the commentator, I am rebutting, yes, even Christianity today has strange beliefs!

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.]


There is no solid evidence—textual or even archaeological—that Peter died in Rome.  In the late 2nd or early 3rd-centuries.https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-rome/the-apostle-peter-in-rome/  
The infamous book of popes aka Liber Pontificalis (6th century) mentions Peter as having served as bishop of Antioch for seven years, and potentially leaving his family in the Greek city before his journey to Rome.
The Acts of the Apostles do not mention Peter’s presence in Rome.
Paul’s letter to the Romans, written around 57 AD, does not mention Peter’s presence in Rome.  One would think Peter, as the bishop of Rome, would have been on the top of Paul’s list to tell his converts, but the epistles, and Acts are silent.
Paul never mentioned Peter as the Bishop of Rome, at least the two times Paul was in Rome!  However, Paul actually and unwittingly supplies the evidence that Peter was still in Antioch in the year, 54 CE, with Paul’s tirade/rebuke against Peter in Galatians 2:11-13.  Now Peter cannot be in two places at the same time, Rome was some 2,130 km or more away in the west as the crow flies.  As I stated earlier, the Papacy claims that Peter’s episcopate lasted 25 years, yet he was still in Antioch ten years before his death in 64 CE.  What do you say?
Jeanne, J.E. pp. Jero Jones.

Jero Jones

Article URL : https://breakingnewsandreligion.online/discuss/