Mikey
October 22nd 2003, 09:41 PM
Hello all,
I just had a question for any Roman Catholics out there that I've been wondering about for some time. Obviously, Catholic tradition teaches that Peter was the first pope (ie. the first bishop of Rome). This would suggest that Peter ended up in Rome sometime between the period described in Acts and his death. However, I am aware of no historical evidence (and by historical evidence I do not mean church tradition. Theological matters are one thing but this is a historical matter which must be proved with evidence, not a doctrine) that this ever happened (ie. in the Book of Acts, Paul's epistle to the Romans or the epitles of Peter).
What evidence, then, does the RCC present for Peter's time in Rome? Anyone (not just catholics) who can shed some light on this, please respond.
I just had a question for any Roman Catholics out there that I've been wondering about for some time. Obviously, Catholic tradition teaches that Peter was the first pope (ie. the first bishop of Rome). This would suggest that Peter ended up in Rome sometime between the period described in Acts and his death. However, I am aware of no historical evidence (and by historical evidence I do not mean church tradition. Theological matters are one thing but this is a historical matter which must be proved with evidence, not a doctrine) that this ever happened (ie. in the Book of Acts, Paul's epistle to the Romans or the epitles of Peter).
What evidence, then, does the RCC present for Peter's time in Rome? Anyone (not just catholics) who can shed some light on this, please respond.