MovieChat Forums > Apostle Peter and the Last Supper Discussion > Simon Peter was never in Rome...

Simon Peter was never in Rome...

posted 10 years ago by chris3-4
4 replies | jump to latest

Does it not bother some that this movie depicts some events that NEVER occurred? Simon Peter was NEVER in Rome. He was imprisoned in Babylon, or ancient Iraq, by the Romans. The Roman Catholic Church only uses this fallacy to substantiate a false doctrine that Emperor Constantine exploited to start the Universal (aka Catholica) religion in the 4th century CE. The Apostle Peter was NOT the ROCK Jesus spoke of. The Greek word Petros (or Peter) meant pebble or stone. Jesus was referring to himself as the ROCK he would build his congregation on NOT Peter. Hence the Vatican is based on a clever lie.

Also Bruce Marchiano makes a terrible Jesus. Probably looked nothing like him nor acted like him. Jesus was a tanned-skin middle-eastern Jew. The actor Robert Miano's skin color looks more like what Jesus' complexion would have been. He would have probably been average height of 5' 11" or so. Bruce is not that tall. Bruce smiles too much. There was much Jesus had nothing to smile about. Also what's with the Trinitarian confusion about who is Almighty God? Is it Jesus or the Hebrew God Jesus worshipped and called Father? This movie makes it unclear who Simon Peter worshipped when it is clear that he too worshipped the Hebrew God not Jesus himself who is only the Hebrew God's son.

There is no credible evidence that Simon Peter was executed at all. Dionysius and Origen Adamantius said he was but their political motives are suspect. Since God miraculously freed Simon Peter from his first incarceration by Herod Agrippa it stands to reason that he may have died of natural causes this time around. Herod had died mysteriously at least 20 years earlier.

The jailers Processus and Martinianus are also Roman Catholic Church fictional characters in my opinion. A story woven to help establish the RCC in Rome by Constantine (true founder of RCC), who himself was never a real-Christian but a pagan up until his death bed baptism as a so-called Christian.

[–] SEAL412 9 years ago

"He was imprisoned in Babylon, or ancient Iraq, by the Romans"

All historians agree that Babylon was code for Rome. It was the case in Revelations as well. Babylon was pretty much non-existent at the time. It had been destroyed by the Parthians and its water supply had dried up. There is no record of any Church being established in Babylon, at least in early antiquity. The Catholic Church didn't invent this.

Even if it is false, it was established during the early 2nd century that Peter and Paul had lived there. The Bible was not a record of the movements of the disciples. There is more history about that period outside the Bible, than within.

As for the Universal Church, all writings of early Church fathers, prior to Constantine, speak of one Church, not individuals churches with their own doctrine and their own interpretations.

As for the Peter not being the Rock, I have heard this argument again and again it's simply untenable. Yes Christ is referred to as a Rock but the term is a metaphorical application.

The name Peter was given to Simon, as Abram became Abraham. Simon is renamed Peter by Christ. Whether that makes him a "pope" is debatable. But to deny he had leadership in the Church is silly.

There are records of his presence in the catacombs not to mention that his daughter's grave was also identified.

When Paul goes to Rome there is a Church established. Remember the Bible's canon was not established until the age of Constantine. It was never meant to be a guide book for personal interpretation.

It would be like the founding fathers writing the Constitution and mailing everyone a copy and say "here interpret on your own". The NT is a historical record, but partial. When it was compiled there were disputes over James, Peter, Revelations and Hebrews. It was the church that Constantine established and his synods that gave the official cannon that the whole world uses.

" Dionysius and Origen Adamantius said he was but their political motives are suspect."

Based on what? lol, they didn't know about divisions in the Church that would occur. What was insidious about anything they wrote?

[–] chris3-4 9 years ago

"All historians agree that Babylon was code for Rome."

Yes Roman Catholic historians. 1 Peter 5:13 indicates Peter was in Babylon on the Euphrates which is ancient Iraq. Babylon is older than the Bible as it is ancient Assyria, Sumeria, Caldea, Akkadia, etc.

When Jesus renamed Simon to Peter, he did it in Greek language. Petros means "pebble" or "piece of a rock" not ROCK MASS (or petra) which was referring to Jesus himself to establish the Christian Church on NOT Peter.

Origen was just utterly creepy. His beliefs were TOTALLY out of line with Jesus. He mutilated himself - among other things. Jesus would have never approved of that. Dionysius of Alexandria followed some of Origen's teachings as he was his student. So he was out of line with Christ to (or tacitly against Christ)

[–] universaldennis 9 years ago

Nope. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. Lovely, lovely, lovely Catholic film.

[–] BobbyWaggs 8 years ago

Why do Protestants/Evangelicals/Pentecostals all love to rag on the Apostle Peter like he was some kind of ignorant dolt not capable of rational thinking ?

True, Peter was the apostle who Jesus FORETOLD would deny him 3 times and he did ...

But if you ever attend any of the brand of churches listed above on a day it's "Peter" smackdown day then you'd think that's the only thing Peter ever did ...

They usually like to make you think before Christ's resurrection that Peter was just an uncontrollable idiot ...

All of these things are untrue.
If you think of the acts that Peter did (except for the denying of Christ, which was huge) never was he disloyal to Jesus - usually Peter would react in a physically defensive way to protect Jesus (like cutting off the guards ear) and acts of unwavering faith, Matthew 16:18 ---

When Peter walked on water for a bit then took his eyes off Jesus he sank - but the act of walking on the water was pure faith --- the churches mentioned above never seem
To mention that part --- they just like making jokes about faithless he was --- wait a minute --- HOW MANY OTHER APOSTLES EVEN TRIED ???

There is a reason Peter is mentioned 3 times more than any other apostle in the gospel - it's because Christ selected Peter to be his main minister due to his faith and Love for Jesus and his ability to lead the others ---

It seems they like to claim Peter made many disloyal moves against the Messiah --- but in truth it was one - the denial - a fact that Jesus foretold and later used the 3 time denial to restore Peter with his 3 time answer do you love me ---

Peter became the greatest early leader of the Church and along with Paul the most influential ---

Protestants don't seem to think that highly of Peter - maybe because Catholics and Greeks think he was the first Pope --- I don't know --- not sure myself ---

But whenever I hear a Protestant give a sermon about him it makes me feel like they're talking about an ignorant man with very little faith --- not the man that led that very 1st Pentecost --- or the man JESUS himself renamed the Rock for his undying faith ---