Was Apostle Peter ever the Bishop of Rome?

[Lily of Valleys]

What evidence is there to support that Apostle Peter had ever been the Bishop of Rome?

In all letters Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome, there was not a slight mention that Peter had ever been at Rome.

Throughout the book of Acts, we can see that Peter traveled to different regions to preach the gospels, but with his base mainly in Jerusalem. There has not been any mention of Peter ever been to Rome, not to even mention him staying there and be the bishop:

Church began in Jerusalem, not Rome:

He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised (Acts 1:4 NASB)

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away. When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. (Acts 1:12-13 NASB)​

Peter went to Samaria then returned to Jerusalem:

Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John (Acts 8:14 NASB)

So, when they had solemnly testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they started back to Jerusalem, and were preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans. (Acts 8:25 NASB)​

Churches built up throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria as Peter traveled through those regions:

So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase. Now as Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda. (Acts 9:31-32 NASB)​

Peter visited Joppa:

And Peter stayed many days in Joppa with a tanner named Simon. (Acts 9:43 NASB)​

Peter entered Caesarea:

On the following day he entered Caesarea. (Acts 10:24 NASB)​

Peter returned to Jerusalem:

Peter came up to Jerusalem (Acts 11:2 NASB)
​

Peter took part in the Council at Jerusalem:

Peter stood up and said to them (Acts 15:7)​

St Peter was not the first Pope and never went to Rome, claims Channel 4

 

[Another Lazarus]

Church began in Jerusalem, not Rome:

He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised (Acts 1:4 NASB)​

Your statement will definitely shock them.

 

[1stcenturylady]

What evidence is there to support that Apostle Peter had ever been the Bishop of Rome?

In all letters Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome, there was not a slight mention that Peter had ever been at Rome.

Throughout the book of Acts, we can see that Peter traveled to different regions to preach the gospels, but with his base mainly in Jerusalem. There has not been any mention of Peter ever been to Rome, not to even mention him staying there and be the bishop:

Church began in Jerusalem, not Rome:

He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised (Acts 1:4 NASB)

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away. When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. (Acts 1:12-13 NASB)​

Peter went to Samaria then returned to Jerusalem:

Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John (Acts 8:14 NASB)

So, when they had solemnly testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they started back to Jerusalem, and were preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans. (Acts 8:25 NASB)​

Churches built up throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria as Peter traveled through those regions:

So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase. Now as Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda. (Acts 9:31-32 NASB)​

Peter visited Joppa:

And Peter stayed many days in Joppa with a tanner named Simon. (Acts 9:43 NASB)​

Peter entered Caesarea:

On the following day he entered Caesarea. (Acts 10:24 NASB)​

Peter returned to Jerusalem:

Peter came up to Jerusalem (Acts 11:2 NASB)
​

Peter took part in the Council at Jerusalem:

Peter stood up and said to them (Acts 15:7)​

St Peter was not the first Pope and never went to Rome, claims Channel 4

No, Peter was an apostle, but he was not a relative of Jesus. His brother, James, was the first head of the Church. After that cousins and other relatives headed the Church. They were called the Desposyni. In later centuries, Rome hunted down the Desposyni to kill them. The last one died in the 6th century.

 

[Another Lazarus]

In later centuries, Rome hunted down the Desposyni to kill them. The last one died in the 6th century.

Why did they kill them ?

 

[1stcenturylady]

Why did they kill them ?

Dispute over head of the church. The Desposyni were the rightful heirs and not Rome.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

No, Peter was an apostle, but he was not a relative of Jesus. His brother, James, was the first head of the Church. After that cousins and other relatives headed the Church. They were called the Desposyni. In later centuries, Rome hunted down the Desposyni to kill them. The last one died in the 6th century.

Sorry, where did you get this information that they were killed off? Or that the last one died in the 6th century? I have never heard of a concerted effort to kill them off. As far as I know, their importance dwindled as the Jewish element in Church leadership did.

As far as I know, Sextus Africanus mention the Desposyni in the 3rd century, even mentioning some as leaders of the Church in the 2nd century, but he records Domitian as letting them go. What is your source for this?

 

[1stcenturylady]

Sorry, where did you get this information that they were killed off? Or that the last one died in the 6th century? I have never heard of a concerted effort to kill them off. As far as I know, their importance dwindled as the Jewish element in Church leadership did.

As far as I know, Sextus Africanus mention the Desposyni in the 3rd century, even mentioning some as leaders of the Church in the 2nd century, but he records Domitian as letting them go. What is your source for this?

I've known about this for about 30 years and had a book on it back then. Sorry, I don't know if I even have it anymore. I wouldn't have thrown it away, but it could have been left behind when I moved from Arizona.

 

[com7fy8]

@Lily of Valleys

Galatians 2:11-13

To me, this means that Peter at times met with the church in Antioch.

In Acts 15, we see how there was an issue. And Peter was the first to say what helped to set things straight; God used the one who was in charge of the church as a whole. Then James recommended what to do. So, I see that Peter was the head leader, but in close communion and communication and cooperation with James who was in charge of Jerusalem.

But because Peter's authority was not limited to Jerusalem, he also had headship influence in Antioch . . . though he abused this, at least once, and then Paul rescued the situation > Galatians 2:11-13.

Even though Paul is our apostle to us Gentiles > Galatians 2:8 > God used Peter to get started the ministry of the Holy Spirit to Gentiles > Acts 10 . . . even though Paul was already saved > Acts 9. But Paul with his gift of apostleship to Gentiles was present in the church so this gift could by faith help Peter, I consider

 

[ViaCrucis]

Peter in Rome, and having ordained Clement as bishop there:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, ch. 3:2-3

"Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,— a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. 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 the Heretics, ch. 32

"Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!" - Tertullian, ibid., ch. 36

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've known about this for about 30 years and had a book on it back then. Sorry, I don't know if I even have it anymore. I wouldn't have thrown it away, but it could have been left behind when I moved from Arizona.

Do you think it might be possible the book you read was wrong? The claim you are making is exceptionally bold, and deserves being backed up by something substantial.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Dispute over head of the church. The Desposyni were the rightful heirs and not Rome.

The Church has no Head but Christ. The claim that Peter was the chief of the apostles and earthly head of the whole Church and his successors are, therefore, the rightful temporal head of the Church is false; but so is any notion that the Church is a dynasty ruled by a divine nepotism. In fact the latter is even worse than the former.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[1stcenturylady]

The Church has no Head but Christ. The claim that Peter was the chief of the apostles and earthly head of the whole Church and his successors are, therefore, the rightful temporal head of the Church is false; but so is any notion that the Church is a dynasty ruled by a divine nepotism. In fact the latter is even worse than the former.

-CryptoLutheran

Eusebius claims James, the brother of Jesus and a Desposyni, was the first bishop of the Church at Jerusalem. He was succeeded by another Desposyni, Simeon, a cousin of Jesus.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Do you think it might be possible the book you read was wrong? The claim you are making is exceptionally bold, and deserves being backed up by something substantial.

-CryptoLutheran

Other than it, I only have Eusebius' claims. I hope to find the original book and see what his references are.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Eusebius claims James, the brother of Jesus and a Desposyni, was the first bishop of the Church at Jerusalem. He was succeeded by another Desposyni, Simeon, a cousin of Jesus.

Yes, and that is true. And was true until the Bar Kochba Revolt which led to Hadrian ejecting the Jews from Jerusalem, including possibly the last of the Desposyni, St. Judah Kyriakos. Hadrian's ejection of the Jews and establishing Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina placed it under the influence of Caesarea, the church there still needed pastoral care, and so a Greek, Marcus, was appointed bishop of Jerusalem.

Best as I can tell Eusebius, Julius Africanus, Heggisippus, Epiphanius all (with Eusebius and Epiphanius quoting/referring to Africanus and Heggisippus) mention these facts: that the Disposyni were persecuted under Domitian, many died under Trajan, and that Judah Kyriakos was ejected by Hadrian, but lived a few more years until the time of Antionius Pius. I am unable to find any information about the Disposyni beyond this period.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[1stcenturylady]

Yes, and that is true. And was true until the Bar Kochba Revolt which led to Hadrian ejecting the Jews from Jerusalem, including possibly the last of the Desposyni, St. Judah Kyriakos. Hadrian's ejection of the Jews and establishing Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina placed it under the influence of Caesarea, the church there still needed pastoral care, and so a Greek, Marcus, was appointed bishop of Jerusalem.

Best as I can tell Eusebius, Julius Africanus, Heggisippus, Epiphanius all (with Eusebius and Epiphanius quoting/referring to Africanus and Heggisippus) mention these facts: that the Disposyni were persecuted under Domitian, many died under Trajan, and that Judah Kyriakos was ejected by Hadrian, but lived a few more years until the time of Antionius Pius. I am unable to find any information about the Disposyni beyond this period.

-CryptoLutheran

I do know through Eusebius that when asked about this Kingdom the emperor had heard of, and was told it was a heavenly kingdom and not on earth, the martyrdom of the Christians stopped and they were freed. Also their lands were returned to them. I found it funny that Eusebius said Domitian was a mean emperor but had more sense than Nero. LOL

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Thanks for everyone's responses so far.

According to Bible scholars, the book of Romans were written by Apostle Paul to the believers at Rome in about 58-60 A.D. At the time Paul had never visited Rome:

For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established (Romans 1:11)

I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles. (Romans 1:13)
​

It doesn't seem like Peter or any apostle had ever been there at the time of writing (58-60 A.D.) for Paul was eager to preach the gospel to them.

So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. (Romans 1:15)​

Instead of one large church, the believers in Rome seem to have been made up of five household churches at the time (58-60 A.D.):

also greet the church that is in their house. (Romans 16:5)

Greet those who are of the household of Aristobulus. Greet Herodion, my kinsman. Greet those of the household of Narcissus, who are in the Lord. (Romans 16:10-11)

Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the brethren with them. Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. (Romans 16:14-15)​

 

[Alithis]

Thanks for everyone's responses so far.

According to Bible scholars, the book of Romans were written by Apostle Paul to the believers at Rome in about 58-60 A.D. At the time Paul had never visited Rome:

For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established (Romans 1:11)

I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles. (Romans 1:13)
​

It doesn't seem like Peter or any apostle had ever been there at the time of writing (58-60 A.D.) for Paul was eager to preach the gospel to them.

So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. (Romans 1:15)​

Instead of one large church, the believers in Rome seem to have been made up of five household churches at the time (58-60 A.D.):

also greet the church that is in their house. (Romans 16:5)

Greet those who are of the household of Aristobulus. Greet Herodion, my kinsman. Greet those of the household of Narcissus, who are in the Lord. (Romans 16:10-11)

Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the brethren with them. Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. (Romans 16:14-15)​

Yes quite right.
According to scripture .

Not accordingly to long winded opinions of old dead guys.

But acording to scripture... Your quite right.
Peter was never what they mangle scripture to say he was.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

The Church has no Head but Christ. The claim that Peter was the chief of the apostles and earthly head of the whole Church and his successors are, therefore, the rightful temporal head of the Church is false

Agreed. That is not how Jesus taught His disciples:

Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42-45 NASB)​

Not how Paul taught the believers at the church of Corinth either:

So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God. (1 Corinthians 3:21-23 NASB)​

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Galatians 2:11-13

To me, this means that Peter at times met with the church in Antioch.

In Acts 15, we see how there was an issue. And Peter was the first to say what helped to set things straight; God used the one who was in charge of the church as a whole. Then James recommended what to do. So, I see that Peter was the head leader, but in close communion and communication and cooperation with James who was in charge of Jerusalem.

But because Peter's authority was not limited to Jerusalem, he also had headship influence in Antioch . . . though he abused this, at least once, and then Paul rescued the situation > Galatians 2:11-13.

Even though Paul is our apostle to us Gentiles > Galatians 2:8 > God used Peter to get started the ministry of the Holy Spirit to Gentiles > Acts 10 . . . even though Paul was already saved > Acts 9. But Paul with his gift of apostleship to Gentiles was present in the church so this gift could by faith help Peter, I consider

But it was James who made the final judgment after everyone spoke in the council at Jerusalem, not Peter:

After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me.
...
Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. (Acts 15:13, 19-20 NASB)​

According to Paul, James, Cephas and John were reputed to be pillars. Note that James was named first before Peter (Cephas):

But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (Galatians 2:7-9 NASB)
​

Paul and Barnabas were entrusted with the gospel to the Gentiles, while James, Peter (Cephas) and John were entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.

 

[gordonhooker]

I've known about this for about 30 years and had a book on it back then. Sorry, I don't know if I even have it anymore. I wouldn't have thrown it away, but it could have been left behind when I moved from Arizona.

I had a book 55 years ago that told the story of how Biggles learns to fly, by W. E. Johns it doesn't mean it is factually correct though.