And we still have in Galatians 2: 9 that James, Peter and John were commissioned to preach to the circumcised, that is to say to the Jews. In this way it would be irrational to define that Peter would be the founder of a church for the Gentiles, and if he would be grounded for the uncircumcised, as described to Paul. So only Paul with dual nationality, Roman Jewish, could be someone important to the church in Rome, never Peter.
Second to Timothy 1:11, we have the same conclusion, that Paul was made a preacher to the Gentiles. In fact, the term would be to preach the nations. So Paul would be the commissioned preacher to non-Jewish nations.
We can also see that it was Paul who wrote the letter to the Romans, and not Peter. In this letter we can see some of Paul's texts. In Romans 15:16 we see that Paul was a minister to the Gentiles, being commissioned by Christ.
We can also see in Romans 1:11 Paul defines the desire to go to church in Rome. Clearly defining that Paul ran the church in Rome, not Peter.
It is historically defined that the Church in Rome was established in 55 or 56 after Christ, which makes it impossible for Peter to be involved.
In fact, we have that Paul in Romans 15:20 clearly defined that the foundation of the church was Christ and never Peter. Which shows that the church in Rome could not have Peter as a foundation.
In Romans 16, Paul greets several Christians from Rome, but none of them bears the name Peter. Which clearly defines that Peter was not in Rome.
In Acts 28:15 to 17 Paul arrives in Rome, and does not quote Peter in Rome. Thus generating an exponent of Christianity like Peter, he was not in Rome.
After the Jewish Elders denied Paul, Paul remained in Rome for two years, and wrote the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon and Hebrews. But he never mentioned that Pedro was in the region.
After that period, Paul spent several periods of risk of imprisonment and death, until he was condemned to death, and Paul said so. In second Timothy 4:16, he says that no one defended him, which would define that the church in Rome did not have one. organized formation in which a Pope could defend Paul not to be killed. But Paul says that nobody was there to defend him.
So we have that there is no definition that Peter went to Rome, but the opposite, that Peter did not go to Rome, and that the church in Rome was helped by Paul, and not by Peter.
Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
Papacy, church of Rome, Peter the first Pope, Paul, Ten proofs that Peter was never in Rome