| 1. Galatians 2:7-9 |
Peter was the Apostle to the circumcised (Israelites and Jews) not to the uncircumcised(Gentiles) as was the Apostle Paul. Remember that Rome was primarily a Gentile city. |
|
| 2. C.R.-Romans 15:15-16 |
Paul again was the Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter! |
|
3. C.R.-Romans 1:13-15 |
Paul first brought the Gospel to Rome, not Peter. The Epistle of Romans was written about 66-67 AD . According to so called "Church tradition" Peter had come to Rome about 42 AD and became Rome's first Bishop. If Peter was in Rome at this time as some contend, this would have been a great insult to Peter! |
|
| 4. C.R.-Romans 15:20 |
Paul did not seek to build on another man's foundation at Rome! If Peter were there already, as some contend, this could not have been possible! |
|
C.R. |
|
| 5. C.R.- Romans 16 |
Paul sends greets to 35 individuals, but not once is Pete mentioned. This would have been incredible if he was the Bishop at Rome! |
|
| 6. C.R.-Acts 28:14-15 |
When Paul arrived back in Rome about 61 AD there is no mention of Peter. This would bave been extraordinary if Peter had been there since Luke always mentions the Apostles in his narratives. |
|
| 7. C.R.-Acts 28:17-24 |
The chief of the Jews in Rome knew NOTHING about the sect of Christianity; only that is was spoken against. This is about 61 AD ; almost 20 years since Peter was supposed to have been there. Obviously, Peter was not in Rome. |
|
| 8. C.R.- Acts 28:30-31 |
Paul dwells two years in his own hired house as a prisoner however. It is about 61 AD. During this two year imprisonment he writes what are called the "Prison Epistles"; Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians and Philemon. He mentions many others but never Peter. For example, study Colossians 4.
|
|
| 9. C.R.- 2 Timothy 4:10-11-
|
It is about 66-67 A.D. during Paul's second imprisonment in Rome, shortly before his execution. Only Luke is with Paul. Where was Peter? |
|
| 10. 2 Timothy 4:16 |
It is about 66-67 A.D. shortly before Paul's death. He said that "all men forsook me". It would have been unthinkable that Peter would have failed a second time after his denial of Jesus Christ. The only CONCLUSION could be was that Peter was NEVER Bishop of Rome. It is pure myth and falsehood! |
