PROOF ONE: We should consider Christ's commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles. "The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8). Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN'T Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.

Here, your author makes a very silly mistake. Yes, Peter (with the rest of the Twelve) was called to be an Apostle to the circumcised, not specifically an Apostle to the Gentiles, which was the ministry of St. Paul.  However, Peter's Papal primacy in the Church has nothing to do with his ministry as an Apostle.  Rather, the Papacy is an ADDITIONAL ministry which was held by Peter IN ADDITION TO his office as an Apostle. An Apostle is someone who is called to preach the Gospel as a first-hand witness of Jesus Christ.  In this, Peter (with the rest of the Twelve) was called to focus primarily on the circumcized (the Jews).  However, his role as visible head and leader of the Church (Christ's ENTIRE flock – John 21:15-19) was an additional, EPISCOPAL ministry; and, in this, we see him serving both Jews and Gentiles. Indeed, right there in Gal 2 (Gal 2:11-14), Paul rebukes Peter for his failure to commune with both Gentiles and well as Jews while Peter is presiding as the Bishop of Antioch (the seat of his Papal ministry before his final sojourn in Rome).  If Peter's episcopal ministry was only to Jews (if that's how Gal 2:7-8 is to be interpreted) then there would be no reason for Paul to get upset at Peter in Gal 2:11-14.

What's more, even as an Apostle, Peter (and, among the Twelve, ONLY Peter) preached to and converted Gentiles as well as Jews.  Indeed, it was Peter who brought the FIRST Gentiles into the Church (Cornelius and his household – Acts 10), and this was done even before the start of Paul's Gentile ministry.  This point Peter makes very clear in Acts 15:7-11.  Therefore, one must be very careful to interpret Gal 2:7-8 correctly.  Since Peter clearly preached to Gentiles as well as Jews, and since Paul clearly preached to Jews as well as Gentiles, it is clear that Gal 2:7-8 is not speaking in an exclusive sense, but is merely referring to the general focus and chief objective of their respective Apostolic ministries, nothing more.  Also, when it comes to the city-church of Rome, our author is apparently ignorant of the fact that the Roman church started out, not as a Gentile church at all, but as a colony of Jewish house-churches founded by the JEWISH pilgrim converts on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:9-10).  It was to this fledgling Jewish-Christian community in Rome that Peter fled from King Herod Agrippa in Acts 12:17, and it was during this first sojourn in Rome (A.D. 42-49) that Peter built up the church of Rome as its first hands-on Apostle, converting both Jews and Gentiles - that was, until he, and all other Jews, were expelled from Rome in A.D. 49 by the Emperor Claudius (see Acts 18:2), which the Roman historian Seutonius tells us was because of a riot over someone named "Chrestus" – clearly, a mishearing of "Christus" ("Christ").  THIS is why, when in A.D. 56, St. Paul writes to the Romans, he speaks to a very large Gentile community WHICH HE (the Apostles to the Gentiles) HAD NO HAND IN CONVERTING …because he had not visited Rome yet.  (More on this below.)  And, in this same Roman Epistle, Paul mentions numerous prominent JEWISH Christians in the church of Rome, such as Priscilla and Aquila and the church in their household (Rom 16:3, 16:5), and Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7), who Paul tells us are his (Jewish) "relatives," and how they were Christians BEFORE Paul …which means that they were among the earliest converts in Jerusalem (again, Acts 2:9-10).  So, properly understood, the Roman church was not merely a Gentile church, but a church composed of both Jews and Gentiles; and it was over this united Roman community that Peter presided as bishop.  So, despite what our author says, we Catholics have nothing to be "embarrassed" about at all.  :-)

PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable"  (Rom. 15:16). How clear!  Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."  PAUL Established the Only TRUE Church at Rome during the apostolic era.

This is more nonsense and a ridiculous distortion of what Paul says in his Epistle to the Romans.  Yes, writing to Christian Gentiles IN Rome, Paul calls himself "Apostle to the Gentiles" (e.g. Rom 11:13), which he was, and which is why he is giving instruction to these Gentiles in Rome too.  However, the same Epistle makes it very clear that Paul had, as yet, never visited Rome and had NOTHING TO DO WITH CONVERTING ANY OF THE GENTILES THAT HE WRITES TO (e.g. Romans 1:13-15, Romans 15:22-24).  Paul also makes it VERY clear that he claims no ***EPISCOPAL*** authority over these Roman Gentiles or over the city-church of Rome.  Rather, he writes:

So, far from claiming episcopal authority over the Gentiles of Rome, Paul merely wants the Roman Christians to help him get to Spain so that he can proclaim the Gospel to other Gentiles who have never heard of Jesus Christ.  As for the establishment of the Roman church itself, Paul clearly says (in Rom 15:20) that he does not wish to build on "another man's foundation" – that is, on the work of the APOSTLE who DID establish the city-church of Rome.  Indeed, for anyone familiar with the language of St. Paul, whenever he speaks of a "foundation," he is always referring to the work of an Apostle (e.g. 1 Corinth 3:10, Ephesians 2:19-20, etc.).  Ergo, any sensible person is forced to conclude that Rome – the biggest and most important city IN THE WORLD at the time (with a population of over a MILLION souls) – was evangelized by one of the Apostles …and it wasn't St. Paul.  :-)  So, who was it?  Whose "foundation" does Paul not wish to "build upon" (Rom 15:20)???  Which Apostle, aside from Paul, converted both Jews and Gentiles?  All the Scriptural evidence, and the universal witness of our ancient Christian forefathers all say that it was the Apostle Peter, which is the only reason why St. Paul would "pass over" the important work of evangelizing Rome (targeting Spain instead).  Clearly, Rome (again, a city with over a million souls and the most important city in the world!) was clearly in capable, Apostolic hands.

PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he – not Peter who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom 1:11).  Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before – in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.

Oh?  :-)  Well, I beg to differ, and I have already illustrated the ridiculousness of this assertion above.  But, as for the other silly things which our author says. First, the idea of 'imparting SOME spiritual gift" (Rom 1:11) is hardly the same as saying "I'm coming to establish you Romans as a church."  :-)  Obviously, Paul never says anything like that.  Rather, all he's going to do is 'enjoy being with [the Romans] for a time' (Rom 15:24) before going on to really establish some churches in Spain.  In this, of course, Paul plans to preach among the Romans and to impart spiritual gifts to them.  But, this has nothing to do with establishing them as a church.  They are already a church.  As for our author's assertion that "NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church!," this is simply a foolish thing to say, since, as the name implies, the Catholic Church is the UNIVERSAL Church as it was manifested in all the Apostle-founded city-churches.  And, as I have shown, Rome was one of these.  Lastly, if it is "nonsense" that Peter was in Rome under Claudius, then show me one piece of ancient evidence that places Peter somewhere else at the time.  In the narrative of Acts itself, Peter disappears between A.D. 42, when he is forced to flee Palestine (Acts 12:17), and A.D. 49 (Acts 15:7), where he mysteriously re-emerges at the Council of Jerusalem.  Where was he during all this time?  And, isn't it interesting that Peter re-appears in the Acts narrative (Acts 15:7) in the very same year that all the Jews were expelled from Rome under Claudius?  :-)  Merely a wild coincidence?  I don't think so.  Again, if not Peter, what Apostle founded the Roman city-church?  It clearly wasn't Paul.  So, what vessel of authority was in place in Rome which led Paul to pass-over the Capital of the Known World and focus his ministry on Spain instead?  Our author's position makes no provision for this.

PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man's foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION" (Rom. 15:20).  If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church. Peter Not in Rome

Clearly, our author is not a very good student of Scripture.  As I already illustrated above, Romans 15:20 takes nothing away from Peter's foundation of the Roman church.  On the contrary, it PROVES it!  The "other man" is Peter himself.  Basically, Paul is saying that he makes no claim to the church in the imperial Capital because Peter is already its founder and shepherd.  Otherwise, Paul's decision to merely pass-through Rome on his way to Spain would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paul's Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 – read the whole chapter!  Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? – Peter simply wasn't there!

That is correct.  Peter wasn't there.  At the time that the Epistle to the Romans was written (c. A.D. 56), Peter was presiding over the city-church of Antioch.  He did not return to Rome until the early 60's A.D.  However, Rome was still considered to be "Peter's church" because Peter founded it, just as Paul continued to shepherd the city-churches that he founded, even when he no longer resided there.  See, for example, 1 Corinth 4:14-17 where, though he is living in Ephesus at the time (1 Corinth 16:8), Paul continued to shepherd the Corinthian church and to serve as its actual bishop.  This was the situation with Rome at the time, and the very reason why Paul took the opportunity to write and offer instruction to the Gentiles living there.

PROOF SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul's arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15).  Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter's meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!

Actually, Peter may well have been in Rome at this point.  We don't actually know either way.  Yet, in any event, our author's "example" is silly and unreasonable, since clearly Acts 28:15 is not saying that absolutely every Christian in Rome came out to meet Paul!  :-)  At the time, this would have consisted of thousands of people; and if that had happened, the Roman soldiers guarding Paul would have reacted violently to the onset of a literal mob!  What's more, even if Peter was in Rome at the time, it is highly unlikely that he himself would come out to greet Paul, given that Peter too was marked for death by his Jewish enemies – a situation which existed since Acts 12:17.   This, by the way, is why Acts becomes very silent about Peter after chapter 12 and why Paul seldom mentions him directly in his Epistles; and, when he does, he calls him things like "Kephas" ("Cephas") instead.

PROOF SEVEN: When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23).  But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that "as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed – the majority didn't.  Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE – how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D.  No Mention of Peter in Paul's Letters.

Here, again, our author reveals his poor grasp of what Scripture specifically says.  First of all, one must keep in mind that these Jewish leaders are recent immigrants to Rome.  Remember, as even Acts 18:2 tells us, Emperor Claudius had expelled all the Jews from Rome back in A.D. 49.  So, the old Jewish rabbinical hierarchy (including Peter, by the way) was not permitted to return during the days of Claudius.  Now, given that most Jewish rabbis were elderly men, it therefore follows that most of them died in exile, and this present Jewish establishment in Rome is composed of newcomers.  What's more, if you read what Acts 28:21-22 actually says, the Jewish leaders in Rome DO NOT say that they are ignorant of 'the basic teachings of Christ.'  That is only our author's "spin" on it.  ;-)  Rather, what the Scripture itself says is that they are not familiar with the POSITIONS OF PAUL – that is, of his "Gentile Christianity."  It reads:

"They answered him, 'We have received no letters from Judea ABOUT YOU, nor has any of the brothers arrived with a damaging report or rumor ABOUT YOU.  But, we should like to hear YOU PRESENT YOUR VIEWS, for we KNOW that this sect is denounced everywhere."  So, the Roman Jewish leaders were familiar with the Christian sect, which was, at the time, primarily the JEWISH expression of Christianity – i.e., the mainstream, and the form of Christianity which predominated in Rome under Peter.  However, what these Jews are specifically interested in are the views of St. Paul – that is, what he himself specifically teaches about Christ.  Here, one must keep in mind that, within the context of Jewish scholarship, different "rabbis" were expected to have different views.  Therefore, these Jews did not expect all Apostles or Christian leaders to agree about the Gospel; and they wanted to know what Paul specifically taught.  What's more, as we know from Acts 21:20-22, the rumor going around among the Jews, both non-believing and Christian Jews alike, was that Paul taught that everyone should abandon Moses and the Torah (a misunderstanding of Paul's doctrine).  So, THIS is what the Roman Jews are talking about.  THIS is what they are unfamiliar with – that is, the specific views of Paul and those of his Gentile followers.  It is not that they are unfamiliar with Christianity itself.  Indeed, non-believing Jews had far less of a problem with the Twelve and the other Jewish Christians who still expressed their Christianity within a Jewish cultural context.  And, at the time, this would have included most of the Christians in Rome.

PROOF EIGHT: After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is – the Apostle to the circumcision wasn't there!

The obvious reason is either that Peter wasn't there YET, or that Paul did not wish to expose Peter to the same kind of danger which he himself faced by calling attention to him or naming him.  Our author constantly fails to appreciate the fact that the Church, at this time, was a persecuted institution and that Peter himself, as the known "ring-leader" of Christianity, was a wanted man.  As for Paul's Epistles, look, for example, at verses like Romans 15:25, which reads …"I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the holy ones." …or, 1 Corinth 16:3, which says …"…I shall send those whom you have approved with letters of recommendation to take your gracious gift to Jerusalem." Now, as Scripture clearly tells us, at this time, the city-church of Jerusalem was presided over by St. James (Acts 21:18, etc.).  So, why doesn't Paul mention him?  Does Paul's failure to mention James imply that James was not there?  :-)  Of course not.  Yet, throughout all of his Epistles, Paul speaks of Jerusalem numerous times and never mentions James presiding there.  Indeed, since our author believes that St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews (something which is debatable), why isn't James cited in that Epistle???  Given that James was unquestionably the leader of the "Jewish faction" within the Church.  But, neither James nor any Jewish-Christian leader is mentioned in places like Hebrews 13:17, which directly speaks about Jewish-Christian leadership.  Ah, but why not?  Following our author's mode of thought, this would imply that the Jewish-Christians did not know the names of the leaders!  :-) …which is obviously a ridiculous assertion.  As is his claim that Peter did not preside in Rome simply because Paul does not tell us that.  Indeed, in what part of Ephesians, or Philippians, or Colossians, or Philemon would Paul have an opportunity to mention who was governing the Roman church at the time???  Clearly, there is no opportunity within these Epistles (since none of them address that point), and so Paul doesn't mention who is shepherding the Roman church.  However, SOMEONE clearly was!  ;-)  So, why is our author so sure it wasn't Peter?

PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Paul's two years imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy.  In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge."  This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter once denied Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul's trial, is untenable!

First of all, Paul's final trial and execution would have been about A.D. 67, not A.D. 65.  As Edmundson proved, the persecutions of Nero didn't go into effect until very late in A.D. 65, and the deaths of the Apostles took place late into the persecution itself.  Secondly, our author (without any Biblical evidence) speaks of a second trial of St. Paul and applies 2 Timothy to that ocassion.  Well, needless to say, we Catholics agree with him when it comes to a second trial; for we know, not from Scripture, but from oral Apostolic Tradition, that there was a second trial in which Paul was found guilty and martyred along the Ostian Way outside Rome.  Yet, this should have no bearing on a "Scripture alone" Protestant like our author, since the Bible itself never tells us about this second trial or about the martyrdom of St. Paul.  Rather, if our author wishes to be true to his "Scripture alone" values, he should conclude that the story of Paul ends in Acts 28:30, while he was still under house arrest in Rome.  :-)  So, on what basis does our author argue otherwise? - unless, of course, he wishes to accept the oral Tradition of the Catholic Church about Paul's second trial and martyrdom.  :-)  And, if he's going to do that, then why accept some parts of our oral Tradition and not others?  For, the same oral Tradition that says that Paul was tried a second time and martyred in Rome also says that Peter was Rome's bishop.  :-) Thirdly, while we Catholics do recognize that Paul was tried a second time and martyred, we do not generally believe that 2 Tim applies to this ocassion, but rather to the Apostle's first trial in Rome.  And the internal evidence of 2 Tim itself shows us how highly unlikely it is that 2 Tim applies to the time of the Neroian persecutions.  For example, in 2 Tim 4:9, Paul tells Timothy to try to join him.  This is not exactly likely at a time when an anti-Christian witch-hunt was taking place in Rome, in which Timothy himself was likely to be killed because of it.  Also, in 2 Tim 4:11, Paul speaks as if his ministry is still going on, requesting that Mark be sent to help him and saying how he has sent Tychicus to Ephesus, etc…  He also, in v. 13, requests the papyrus rolls and parchments that he left in Troas; and again, none of this is consistent with the time of mass executions that signaled the deaths of Peter and Paul, in which the entire Roman church was driven underground and its leaders stripped of all human rights.  Clearly, Paul's Roman captors would not permit him to write and send out letters (spreading the "dangerous Christian superstition") during the Neroian persecution itself.  So, in all likelihood, 2 Tim does not apply to Paul's second imprisonment or trial.  And, lastly, even if we're going to accept that 2 Tim applies to Paul's second trial, then there is a very good reason why Peter does not come to Paul's defense.  :-)  It's because the Apostle Peter was already dead, having been executed a few months before Paul.  This, for example, would be why Paul cites St. Linus – that is, Peter's immediate successor as bishop of Rome in 2 Tim 4:21.  :-)  However, as I said, 2 Tim probably doesn't apply to this time and so that's probably not the reason why Paul mentions Linus.  Yet, all this aside, our author's overall silliness is revealed by the simple realization that, during the Neroian persecution itself, all Christians were marked for death.  So, any way you cut it, neither Peter nor any other Christian could come to Paul's final defense, since they were guilty of exactly the same "crime" that merited Paul's execution.  That should be self-evident, but is apparently something our author never bothered to consider. 

PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. – even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11).

Wrong.  :-)  Not only, as I showed, does 2 Tim most likely not apply to A.D. 65 (but rather to Paul's first trial), but in the Epistle itself, Paul speaks of "Prudens, Linus, Claudia, and the brothers" – all of whom send greetings to Timothy (2 Tim 4:21).  Ergo, "with me" in 2 Tim 4:11 refers only to Paul's incarceration, not to his presence in Rome itself.  In other words, taken in context, what Paul means is that, AMONG HIS DISCIPLES, only Luke is still with him, whereas Tychicus has gone to Ephesus (v. 12), Demas to Thessalonica (v. 10), Crescens to Galatia (v. 10) and Titus to Dalmatia (v. 10).  Luke is the only one among his inner circle who remains to care for him in his captivity. However, as we know from 2 Tim 4:21, Paul is clearly in contact with a great many other members of the Roman church.  Ergo, once again, our author possesses a very poor appreciation of what Scripture actually says and is quick to distort it to suit his own ends.  Sad.

PROOF ELEVEN: Peter'ss death is foretold by Christ himself (John 21:18-19.) "When you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go. Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God." Hmm, it sounds like Christ himself said that Peter would die of old age.

Hummm, it sounds to me like our author is, yet again, revealing his very limited grasp of Scripture.  Does "someone else will stretch out your hands" sound like "dying of old age" to you?  :-)  The reference is to crucifixion.  And, given that he died in A.D. 67, which would make Peter about 70 years old at the time, Peter was martyred in his old age.  But, our author goes on…

Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council.

This, once again, is a very wrong and very faulty assumption on the part of our author which does not take into account the historical context of Acts 12.  In Acts 12, for the first time since Herod the Great, a Jewish king, Herod Agrippa, ruled over, not only Judea, but also over Galilee, Samaria, Perea, Idumea, Gaulatis, and the Decapolis – that is, the entire kingdom of Herod the Great.  What this meant was that Roman law no longer directly applied to this region; and so the new client king, Herod Agrippa, could execute people for religious offenses.  This he did by first killing St. James bar-Zebedee (Acts 12:2).  He was about to do the same with Peter (Acts 12:3-4), when Peter was freed by the angel.  However, as a wanted man, it was simply IMPOSSIBLE for Peter to remain ANYWHERE in Palestine, since Herod Agrippa RULED IT ALL.  What this meant was that Peter could not go home to Galilee or anywhere else in Palestine, nor could he go north to Syria, since that was ruled by Herod's associate, the Roman procurator of Antioch – the Roman official to whom Herod reported and who cooperated with Herod in regard to extradition and other legal concerns.  So, Peter had to GET OUT OF THE COUNTRY.  This is what Acts 12:17 means by "another place."  In other words, and according to the universal testimony of the early Church, this "other place" was Rome.  And Peter got there, no doubt, with the help of his most influential disciple, the Roman centurion Cornelius who, as Acts 10:1 tells us, was a commander in the Cohort ITALICA which was an auxilliary unit of archers recruited from Rome itself.  Having escaped from Jerusalem, Peter's only route out of the country would have been by sea; and that required going to Caesarea, which was the only harbor that Palestine had at the time; and Cornelius and his household were residents of Caesarea.  So, of course Peter was smuggled to Rome.  It would be the only logical choice.  There, he would be well out of Herod's grip; and he could also use influential Christian contacts in Rome to appeal to the Emperor against Herod – a mere client king.  So, needless to say, our author's suggestion that Peter remained in Jerusalem, or even in Palestine itself after Acts 12:17 is unreasonable and ridiculous.

Rather, Peter's presence at the Council of Jerusalem in A.D. 49 HAS TO be recognized as a RETURN to the Holy City, and, as I already pointed out, the Council of Jerusalem took place in the very year that Claudius expelled all the Jews (including Peter) from Rome.  This is not a coincidence.  Rather, the author of Acts (St. Luke) knew and expected his original readers to understand the context of his narrative because most of them had personally lived through it.

About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles.  Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.!

a) As I already pointed out, the church of Rome at the time had predominately been a Jewish-Christian church, and now only had a remnant Gentile population; and b) Peter could not oversee this Gentile remnant directly in A.D. 51 because Claudius (who ruled until A.D. 54) was still Emperor and did not permit ANY Jews in Rome.  Rather, as with Paul in 1 Corinth 4:14-16, Peter governed his Gentile Roman flock REMOTELY from Antioch itself; and this situation continued until the early 60's.

Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13).

Utter nonsense.   As all credible scholars recognize, "Babylon" was the early Christian code-name for pagan Rome:  Rev 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, 18:10, 18:21, etc.  The literal, Mesopotamian city of Babylon was a tiny, half-ruined village in the 1st Century, and there would be no reason for Peter to go there. What's more, in 1 Peter 2:17, Peter tells the Christians of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1) to honor "the king."  Here, the Greek word is "basileus," which refers to the Roman emperor Nero.  However, if Peter was writing from the literal, Mesopotamian village of Babylon, this instruction would be both pointless and treasonous, since Babylon, at the time, was not part of the Roman Empire at all, but outside the influence of Rome and part of the PARTHIAN Empire.  :-)  Clearly, the Parthians would not appreciate one of their subjects (which Peter would be if he lived there) telling Cappadocians to obey and honor the Emperor of Rome, since Parthia had designs on Syria and Cappadocia and had once directly ruled them a generation before.

Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ's time as there were in Palestine.

:-)  There were many Jews in Italy too (Romans 16:3-15).  :-)  What's more, not one shred of ancient evidence ever places Peter anywhere near Mesopotamia.  This includes the witness of all Eastern Churches, both Catholic (i.e., Chaledean Catholic, Melchite Catholic, Syrian Catholic, Syro-Malankar Catholic, Armenian Catholic), Orthodox (i.e., Antiochian Orthodox), and non-Chalcedonian (i.e., Syrian Monphysite, Armenian Monphysite, Asssyrian Nestorian) .  For goodness sake, not even the Mesopotamian Gnostics claimed any association with Peter, but always spoke of him (as an enemy) in the West!  :-)  The first person in history to propose that the "Babylon" referred to in 1 Peter 5:13 might be the literal city was Desiderius Erasmus in the 16th Century, and he only presented it as a tongue-in-cheek comment.  ;-)  Rather, universal witness places Peter in Rome in the A.D. 60's, never in Mesopotamia …whereas that region is strongly associated with the missionary work of the Apostles Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, and Simon the Zealot, who were also, by the way, Apostles to the CIRCUMCISED.  :-)  So, if these other Apostles to the CIRCUMCISED were taking care of Mesopotamia, why would Peter need to go there????

It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter's writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect.

Oh, COME ON!  :-)  As a native of Galilee, Peter grew up speaking Aramaic!  The comment above is our author's silliest "point" yet.

At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere.

Balderdash.  The Bible shows nothing of the sort.

As previously mentioned there are many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome but none of them are first hand accounts and should not be put above the many accounts of The Bible.

:-)  And how do you know that the Bible is a first-hand account???  You know that it is because you BELIEVE the witness of the early Christians who told us that it is.  Well, needless to say, these SAME early Christians – the very ones who passed the Bible down to you – universally declared that Peter was bishop in Rome.  So, if you're going to deny what these early Christians had to say on that subject, then you might was well question the reliability of the Bible as well and doubt that the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, etc., etc., etc.  All is based on the oral witness of the earliest Christians; and if their witness is invalid, then so is the Bible itself.

We know from The Bible that the apostle Peter was not in Rome.

Non sequitur and simply incorrect.

There was a Simon Peter in Rome after the death of Christ but it is not the apostle Peter that was a fisherman from Jerusalem.  Who is this Simon Peter that was in Rome during the middle of the first century? This is how the great false Church of Rome got its start; along with the first leader Simon Peter not the apostle Peter.

Our author's following article about Simon Magus is equally full of historical and Scriptural distortions and other flights of fantasy.  If the Apostle Peter, as our author asserts, was never in Rome 'because the Bible doesn't directly mention it' (ignoring 1 Peter 5:13 of course), then our author has absolutely no basis for asserting that Simon Magus was ever in Rome either, since that too is never directly addressed in the Bible.  Either our author is wed to his concept of "Bible alone" or he is not.  He may not, like John Kerry, change his criteria whenever it suits his argument.  If the oral Tradition about Simon Magus in Rome is to be accepted, then so is the oral Tradition about the Apostle Peter being the Bishop of Rome and refuting Simon Magus in Rome itself …for it is all part of the SAME Catholic Tradition.  Our author cannot pick and choose from Catholic Tradition as he sees fit, but must take either all of it or none of it.  That would be the only honest Christian approach.  However, our author seems to care little about scholarly or Christian honesty.