Why did Saint Peter build the church at Italy?

He did not.

Peter was never a Pope of the Catholic Church

Can it be confidently said that this long line of popes began with the apostle Peter? According to Catholic theology, four popes, Linus, Anacletus, Clement I, and Evaristus, are said to have succeeded Peter up to the year 100 C.E. The Bible does mention a Christian named Linus who lived in Rome. However, there is nothing to suggest that Linus, or anyone else, was a papal successor to Peter. The apostle John, who penned five books of the Bible in the last decade of the first century, made no reference to any of the above so-called successors of Peter. Indeed, if there was a successor to Peter, would not the logical choice have been John himself?

As to the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, there is no proof that he even visited that city. In fact, Peter himself states that he wrote his first letter from Babylon. (1 Peter 5:13) The Catholic argument that Peter used “Babylon” as a cryptic reference to Rome is groundless. The real Babylon existed in Peter’s day. Furthermore, Babylon had a sizable Jewish community. Since Jesus assigned Peter to concentrate his preaching on the circumcised Jews, it is altogether reasonable to believe that Peter visited Babylon for this purpose.

Note, too, that Peter never referred to himself as anything more than one of Christ’s apostles. (2 Peter 1:1) Nowhere in the Bible is he addressed as “Holy Father,” “Supreme Pontiff,” or “Pope”. Instead, he humbly adhered to Jesus’ words at Matthew 23:9, 10: “Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for your Leader is one, the Christ.” Peter did not accept veneration. When Roman centurion Cornelius “fell down at his feet and did obeisance to him, Peter lifted him up, saying: ‘Rise; I myself am also a man.’” Who was the rock that Jesus indicated at Matthew 16:18, Peter or Jesus? The context shows that the point of the discussion was the identification of Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” as Peter himself confessed. (Matthew 16:16, RS) Logically, therefore, Jesus himself would be that solid rock foundation of the church, not Peter, who would later deny Christ three times.

How do we know that Christ is the foundation stone? By Peter’s own testimony, when he wrote: “Coming to him as to a living stone, rejected, it is true, by men, but chosen, precious, with God . For it is contained in Scripture: ‘Look! I am laying in Zion a stone, chosen, a foundation cornerstone, precious; and no one exercising faith in it will by any means come to disappointment.’” Paul also stated: “And you have been built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone.”

There is no evidence in Scripture or history that Peter was regarded as having primacy among his peers. He makes no mention of it in his own letters, and the other three Gospels, including Mark’s do not even mention Jesus’ statement to Peter.

There is not even any absolute proof that Peter was ever in Rome. (1 Peter 5:13) When Paul visited Jerusalem, “James and Cephas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars,” gave him support. So at that time Peter was one of at least three pillars in the congregation. He was not a “pope,” nor was he known as such or as a primate “bishop” in Jerusalem

That is the direction Peter was sent forth to spead the word of the Lord...He was the Vicar of Jesus's Church The rock on which the Church was to be Built, There for all Questions refered to Peter as the Authority Responsible for the Care Of The Holy teachings of Jesus .He began Building the first house of worship In the Heart of the Pegan empire and replaced it with the Heart of the Devine Mercy Jesus.

Rome was the undisputed "center" of the western world at that time.

Jerusalem was a backwater ... and hostile to Christianity, at that.

Why risk death to convert a relative handful of stiff-necked Jewish yokels, when you could go to Rome, and taking the very same risk, convert thousands for Christ every week ... and eventually ... convert the whole world?

But the simple answer is ... the Holy Spirit sent Peter to Rome.

As for those who claim there's no evidence in the Bible showing that Peter ever went to Rome ... what does that prove? The Bible was never intended to be a definitive history of the world.

Those guys lie by cleverly ignoring the facts ... facts that any history book in the world will tell you are absolutely true.

There's no doubt whatsoever that Peter went to Rome, that he was the undisputed leader of the Church, that he was martyred there, and that his office was passed along to his successors ... some 265 of them to date.

Here's the link to the amazing, irrefutable, archeological evidence that St. Peter did indeed go to Rome, and that Jesus wasn't kidding when he said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build by Church."

http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org/Necropolis/Scav...

Besides the debate over historical evidence whether Peter was ever in Rome or not, I doubt there were any churches as such at that time. The Christians of that time were a hated and persecuted group, as any honest historian will tell you. Even Tacitus said they were worthy of death but people felt sorry for them because of the executions!

So if Peter ever made it to Rome, he didn't build a church. Our Roman Catholic friends believe he did come to Rome, and that Peter is the prince of the apostles and other things. But none of that is in the Bible itself. Besides, Peter wanted the unbelievers to be saved, and the believers to be strengthened in the faith. His two letters or epistles should be crystal clear in that regard.

I am pretty sure Peter died in Rome, crucified upside down at his request, and I believe Rome to be in Italy. However, unless you are talking about the spiritual church, the bride of Jesus Christ, then you are wrong.

Peter was not the product of, nor was he the first pope or head apostle of the catholic church. Peter was beholden to no man made religion, his message was pure...the gospel of Jesus Christ. Why in the world would he want anything to do with the long flowing pomp and pagentry of a pagan Rome?

Except to obey Jesus by spreading the salvation message that Jesus died on the cross, bearing our sins, to pay in full for. The deal was sealed when Jesus resurrected and Peter was witness to a resurrected Christ.

Peter was among the first of many brothers of Jesus Christ. A Judas type would have had involvement in atrocities like the crusades but not Peter...although Peter was quick of temper and with the sword (cover your ears). Those people were catholics, the non-violent brothers of Jesus Christ are called christians. We may be in a denomination but our church is the church of Jesus Christ sans the LDS.

The real deal. Shame on you all who think otherwise. God would not allow one denomination to hog such a wonderful free gift to all those who would seek it. And for the record, I personally, have known not just pentecostal catholics but also charismatic catholics in the past. They stay in the church to bring others along the path, to share insights like John 3:3 and Romans 10: 8-10.

So which church do you think Peter built?

What I examine on your question is desperation to make some connection to a fraudulent prophecy from centuries in the past. there's no longer something new concerning the Pope being referred to as the "Bishop of Rome", in view that's what he's. Peter is a very uncomplicated call. So are George, James and Edward. the actual shown fact that I even have kin with those names would not propose they have any connection with English kings For the previous 3 years I in general stayed on the Astronomy & area pages the place I observed desperate tries by using believers to justify their concept in doom on 21 December 2012. The desperation got here from the actual shown fact that their deadly planet Nibiru / planet X became failing to take place. each minor disaster everywhere became interpreted as a "sign". each meteorite became meant to be a area of those non-existent planets while it became reported to them that the Maya made no prophecy of doom, some got here returned returned and returned with claims that this or that historical civilisation had envisioned it. in lots of situations the chinese language. those tries grew to alter into very almost hysterical at situations and lined using dissimilar debts to report solutions by using people who knew the data concerning the entire fraud. 3 person purchasers who actual knew what they have been writing approximately lost debts, 2 of them extra advantageous than as quickly as. That taught me 2 issues. do no longer enable every physique get right of entry to to your checklist of questions or solutions and on no account have self assurance any prophecy.

There is no evidence in the Bible that Peter was ever in Italy.

Or that he built a church anywhere.

The Bible says that Jesus will build His church.

Pastor Art

There's no evidence that Peter was ever in Italy.

It is Roman Catholic mythology. Not Scripture.

why not, all those that died in the lions den for entertainment of the romans?

What scripture and verse ?