Peter went to Rome in 43 A.D., wrote his Epistles from there and was

martyred there. His bones were found under the Vatican. This forms the

basis for the claim that the Pope is successor to Peter and Head of the


A Roman Catholic in the Shrine Bookstore in Necedah, Wisconsin told me that

one of the proofs he had for the validity of Roman Catholicism is that he

saw a faded painting in the catacombs of Naples, and he was told this was

an original painting of St. Peter saying Mass on his way to Rome, where he

ruled as Pope.


Peter was apostle to the Circumcision (Galatians 2:7-8) and the people whom

Paul salutes as Christians in Rome (60 A.D.) are all of Gentile name

(Romans 16:3-15). At about this same time, Peter wrote his first epistle

from Babylon.

In 52 A.D., 9 years after he was supposed to go to Rome, Peter is in

Jerusalem, telling of his experience with the Gentile Cornelius, but not

breathing a word about any Gentile ministry in Rome. In Romans 16, Paul

greeted 26 Christians in Rome. If Peter were Bishop of Rome, why was he

left out? (Romans 16:3-15).

If Peter's being in Rome is so important, why does the scripture point away

from any connection of Peter and Rome? Even if there were, there is no

scriptural link between Peter in Rome and a Papacy in Rome.

These documents are free from , providing free webcontent for websites around the world!. copy freely with this link intact.