I no longer support the supposed Simon Ossuary found at Dominus Flevit being Peter

To be clear, I still believe Peter was never actually in Rome, or at least not in the way traditionally thought.  And I still believe the First Century Ossuaries found at Dominus Flevit were Early Christians and that this Simon could be one of the Simons mentioned in The New Testament.

First of all I believe even if Peter’s remains wound up in this style of Ossuary the name of Cepha or Petros would also be on it, that isn’t just presented as Nick Name in The Bible but a full on New Name. 

Second, I do not believe Peter’s father was actually named Jonah.  Sometimes in The Bible a “Son of” designation is poetic rather than literal. The only time Simon Peter is called Simon son of Jonas is in John 21 in the same narrative where Jesus prophesies Peter’s fate saying he’ll be taken to a place he didn’t want to go, like what happened to the Prophet Jonah. 

If the alternate reading of the name on this Ossuary as “Simon Bar Zilla” is correct, that could perhaps most likely refer to Simon Zealots who I do not believe was called that because he was a member of the Zealot sect.  But another candidate could be Simon The Leper (Jar Maker in the Peshita) who lived in Bethany and seems to be part of the same household as Mary, Martha and Lazarus (the Bethany sisters being the Biblical character I'm most certain  are among the Dominus Felivtt Ossuaries), some even argue he’s the same person as Lazarus.  A third option is Simon of Cyrene.  I rule out the half-brother of Jesus only because his patronym would have been Bar Yosef or Ben Yosef. 

One current theory I have on Peter's fate is that he was among the Jews who were burned at the stake in Antioch in AD 67 after being falsely blamed for a plot to burn the city down as recounted by Josephus in Wars of The Jews Book VII Chapter 3. So perhaps his burial place should be looked for there. But there probably wasn't a grave or tomb in that scenario since only ashes were left. 

Seleucia on The Tigris is Babylon of 1 Peter 5:13.

Seleucus Nicator founded Seleucia in 305 BC, in order to quickly make it a Metropolis he forced most of the population of Babylon to resettle there, there is a tablet dated to 275 BC recording this.  It spent very little time as the actual Capitol of the Seleucid Empire, but it did spend most of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC as a larger city then Antioch.

Diogenes of Babylon was a Stoic Philosopher commonly referred to as being "of Babylon" but he was actually born in Seleucia and neither city is where he spent most of his life, he was educated in Athens and obviously mostly lived there during his time as head of the Stoic School based in Athens until he died around 150-140 BC.

1 Maccabees 6:4 and 2 Maccabees 8:20 call a City in Mesopotamia Babylon even though it's population is Macedonian.

In 141 BC the Parthian Empire took Seleucia from the Seleucids and made it their western capital, but it remained a fully Hellenistic city.

Josephus's references to the city confirm that even the remaining Jewish diaspora of Babylon were in fact mostly living in Seleucia during the first century.  In Antiquities of The Jews Book 18 Chapter 9 he records further migrations from Babylon to Seleucia during the time Pilate was Governor of Judea.

The Jews of Seleucia and other northern Mesopotamian cities revolted during the Kitos War. That of course was a factor in Trajan destroying the City in it's original form in 117 AD.

Hadrian gave Babylonia back to Parthia however and they then quickly rebuilt Seleucia in a Parthian style.  That version of the city was destroyed by Avidius Cassius during another war between Rome and Parthia in 165 AD.  It then became a Sassanian city commonly called Seleucia-Ctesiphon.  This city became the seat of the leading Bishop of the Ancient Church of The East who was formally called the Patriarch of Babylon.

If people really find it so unlikely Peter was in actual Babylon when he wrote his First Epistle simply because some first century sources make it sound like it was a mostly abandoned ruin already, then Seleucia is probably where he was.  It was home to an important Jewish population and Paul calls Peter the Apostle to The Jews in Galatian 2:8.

The idea that Peter said "Babylon" in place of "Rome" to fool Roman officials who might read the letter is stupid.  

1. He doesn't actually say anything bad about where he is, it's only the negative connotations the name of Babylon often has in the Judeo-Christian mind that makes it seem that way.

2. Roman customs officials would have known where the letter was actually mailed from.  So using an easy to interpret as insulting name instead of the real name would have only caused problems.

If Peter meant by Babylon a city other then the exact same city where Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar ruled, it would have been the one other similar Greek texts were calling Babylon during the Greco-Roman Era due to being the regional capital and largest city of the region called Babylonia.

I don't think Nero Persecuted Christians

Few Extra-Biblical traditions of Early Church History seem as unquestionable.  Nero's supposed Persecution of Christians is treated as the next chapter of Church History right after the narrative of Acts ends.  Hollywood movies depicting it are called Biblical Epics, and I will continue to enjoy those movies in-spite of how fictional I now view them to be, but there were also certain things I always felt they got wrong.

The thing is, the closer to Biblical History a tradition is, the more likely it is evidence in The Bible itself could work against it.  I already did a post arguing that Peter never went to Rome, which included my deconstructing the assumption that the Ascension of Isaiah was talking about Nero at all.  (And now I have this follow up post.)  I even already there questioned the assumption that Paul was Martyred in Rome, though he certainly did go there.

Here is a fact that is somewhat little known, the trail before Caesar (we know Nero was Caesar at the time because it's after Felix's time as Governor of Judea ended) Paul was awaiting when the narrative of Acts ended, is kind of recorded in Scripture elsewhere.  2 Timothy 4 verses 16-18, often considered the last of Paul's Epistles to be written.

At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.  Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.  And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The implication of these verses is clearly that Paul was acquitted.

Now plenty of scholars are aware of this.  But some insist Paul returned to Rome a second time later and was killed then, by the very same Emperor who had acquitted him before.  Sometimes specifically saying 2 Timothy 1:16-17 refers to this second imprisonment, but to me the context of the letter clearly makes that the same imprisonment he records the resolution of quoted above.

Now some have interpreted the above verses as being about Paul's escapes recorded in Acts. But the way he says "out of the mouth of the Lion" makes me think he's referring to The Seat of Caesar, to the Beast that yes I do still view as being in a sense the Roman Government.  I've also seen it argued that what Paul said elsewhere in that chapter is implying he's about to die.  Well he could have been dying of old age, but I don't necessarily think that verse is implying immanent death.

The only authentic Epistle of Clement of Rome says in chapter 5 that Paul went to the "Extremity of The West" (or "limits of the west" in Bart Ehrman's translation).  Many strangely quote this passage as backing up Paul being martyred in Rome when in my view it does not, it seems on it's own without bringing our assumptions into it, to be saying the "Extremity of the West" is where Paul met his fate.

Now "extremity of the west" is an expression used in Secular Pagan Roman writings to refer to Spain, so this can be read as just confirming Paul fulfilled his stated desire to go to Spain from Romans 15:24&28.  

Maybe if Paul was martyred by a Roman Emperor it was a later one.  The second Emperor tradition says persecuted Christians was Domitian.  And sometimes people use against the Domitian persecution the same argument I'll bring up later against Neronian persecution, that Christians and Jews weren't distinguished in Roman law yet.  However that ignores that Suetonius records Jews being persecuted under Domitian, and unlike many other things Suetonius talks about this he was an eye witness to.

An overarching theme of the Book of Acts is that the Roman Governmental authorities under Claudius and Nero are the good guys during this era, Christian Persecution came from local mobs, which in Judea were often riled up by the Sadducees, but were Pagans in Pagan cities.  Tradition has chosen to vilify a Caesar that Paul was confident would rule in his favor.  

Also while Nero still ruled the Christians hiding in Pella were protected by Nero's ally Agrippa II according to Remigius, Bishop of Reims (437 – 533 AD) [Thomas Aquinas (1841). Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels; Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Matthew. (J. H. Newman, Ed.) (Vol. 1, p. 799-816)].  Epiphanius of Salamis agrees with Perea also being part of where the Early Christians fled.

Under the Flavians, as well as the following emperors, it served the new Dynasty to vilify Nero for the same reason it served the Tudors and Stuarts to vilify Richard III during the time of Shakespeare.  And meanwhile during this same era and later many "Early Church Fathers" were trying to appeal to these same Roman Emperors (or their successors) and the people who supported them, often addressing their Apologies to them directly.  So at some point I think Christians like Tertullian wanted to pin the blame on Nero for the illicit legal status they had, and then Suetonius and (a redactor of )Tacitus listed persecuting Christians among the things they attributed to Nero because Christians were saying it, it was just another story going around.

Though maybe part of the desire of later Christians to see Nero as their Enemy came from how much they inherited from certain Stoics.  In the first century AD Musonius Rufus sounds like a modern American Evangelical on Sexual Morality more so then any New Testament author.  He was part of the Stoic opposition to Nero but later the only Philosopher Vespasian allowed to stay in Rome.  And Stoic criticism of Nero was continued by Epicetus.

The villainous reputation of Nero largely comes from Roman Historians of the Senatorial Class (chiefly Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio), who loved to slander the Julio-Claudians as depraved because of their semi-Plebian origins, but loved Vespasian-Titus and the "Five Good Emperors" because they came from their class and so were good to them.  Thing is the common people of the Empire were oppressed by heavy Taxes under those Senatorial Emperors.

There is plenty of evidence however that the common people were happy under Nero.  Even the Christian source John Chrysostom acknowledged that.  Plutarch in his allusions to Nero is also more favorable, as well as Lucan.  The biography of Appolonius of Tyana also records how Nero was loved by the Greeks in the Eastern Provinces.  And the Talmud has a favorable memory of Nero also.  In fact one reason many later Christians started thinking the Antichrist would be Nero resurrected somehow was because before then those who liked Nero had started believing he would come back to save them from Flavian oppression, he became Greco-Rome's King Arthur.

One purely modern detail of the traditions about Nero's persecution is the tying it into the bad reputation of Poppaea Sabina his second wife, it seems the Hollywood versions feel they need a Jezebel/Delilah figure.  Poppaea was depicted as a scheming Femme Fatale by those senatorial sources.  But Josephus who actually knew her personally paints a very different picture in his autobiography.  Josephus depicts her as practically a Proselyte and mentions among her Jewish friends an actor Nero was a fan of.

Now some have suggested Poppaea's Jewish associations are why her influence would have been against Paul.  But that would be the case only if the Jews who had her ear were Sadducees.  But based on Josephus being a Pharisee, and that I think his shipwreck was the same as Paul's, I doubt that. Plus Gentile Proselytes might have been inclined to like Paul's message even if they didn't fully become believers in Jesus and The Gospel.

Some histories are confused by how Josephus could possibly be talking about the same woman the other sources are, even if one or both is exaggerated to suit their bias.  I say just look at Anne Boleyn, to the Catholics of Tudor England she was explicitly compared to Jezebel, but Protestants sometimes paint her as a saint in for example the film Anne of the Thousand Days.

Acte was a mistress of Nero, archaeology has shown there were Christians in her household as either slaves or freedmen, leading some to speculate she herself may have been one.  Modern fictionalizations often place her in conflict with Poppaea, wanting to make her the Betty to Poppaea's Veronica.  But they were actually on the same side when trying to influence Nero, both being pro-Seneca and anti-Agrippina.  So for all we know they could have had a threesome.

Also the Gallio in Acts 18 was Seneca's brother, so that's further evidence Senaca's influence would have been against persecuting Christians or convicting Paul.

Some secular scholars have already questioned the historicity of the Neronian persecution.  But in a way they're not going as far as I am here, as they do think something happened, but distinguish it from a systemic persecution.

One of the arguments they do bring up is the lack of legal distinction between Jews and Christians before the time of Trajan. The early second century correspondence between Pliny and Trajan clearly show there was no prior policy on what to do about Christians, surely the Neronian persecution and accusation they tried to burn Rome would have been relevant to bring up here?  And the Roman persecution they did face before was a product of persecutions the Jews suffered under Domitian.  But since the evidence from the Talmud and Josephus show The Jews in Rome had it good under Nero, there is no reason to think Nero killed any Christians.

And these Secular critics have also pointed out that Tacitus account must be derivative of something he heard from Christians and not Roman legal records since he got the kind of Governor Pilate was wrong (he said Procurator when Pilate was a Prefectus).  And Suetonius was certainly willing to record things based on pure rumor.  His account of the death of Caligula and Claudius becoming emperor is clearly based on Josephus's account (he mentioned Josephus so was aware of him) but the differences are all the tabloid style scandals he spices it up with.

This effects Preterism because Nero is the only of the first century Emperors where any plausible way to make their name's Gemetria equal 666 exists, and even that is tortured since it uses Aramaic not Greek (read 666 cannot be Nero).  But also the assumption that Nero persecuted Christians is necessary to make it possible that John's exile to Patmos was under Nero, yet even the traditional view of the Neronian persecution makes it local in Rome only.  All the facts I laid out above make John's exile far more plausible under Domitian's Jewish persecution (if it was an Exile at all). 

Persecuting Christians isn't the only evil thing attributed to Nero that I think is slander.   But he is someone who became ruler of the world at a young age, and so could have cracked under the pressure a few times and certainly perfect. 

I think Poppaea probably died of a miscarriage and the claim Nero kicked her to death was probably another of Suetonius's tabloid rumors.  

I don't think Sporus was actually Castrated agaisnt their will (if at all), I suspect they were in fact what we'd today call a Trans Woman. The part about them resembling Poppea and Nero calling them by her name doesn't show up till Casisus Dio, even Suetonius doesn't report that and he certainly would have if the story was already around.

If the rumors of the Incest with Agrippina were true, he'd be the victim in that case, he was probably still a minor by modern standards when that started since he was only 17 when he became Emperor (and I think the Age of Consent should be raised to 20 at least).  However a book called Women of the Caesars (I'm not sure which book on Amazon with that title was the one I read, it came in Red) argues for a more positive portrayal of Agrippina and thus agaisnt such rumors, but it did so supporting the negative portrayal of Poppaea which I view as wrong.

So I feel there is a lot of evidence to re-evaluate how we view Nero.

I became aware of this Article thanks to Religion For Breakfast on Twitter.
https://www.academia.edu/26841558/The_Myth_of_the_Neronian_Persecution
There are differences between his view and mine, he does still think Paul was executed in Rome in the 60s, I think regardless of where Paul died he lived into the 90s and had been to Spain before then.  And arguing the term "Christian" didn't exist yet I view as wrong since I believe Acts to be true History. But it's still an interesting article.

The History for Atheists Blog has a post defending the authenticity and reliability of Tacitus accounts of the Fire and Persecution in which context he makes his reference to Jesus.
https://historyforatheists.com/2017/09/jesus-mythicism-1-the-tacitus-reference-to-jesus/
That defense of Tacitus remains the main weakness to my thesis here.  Though uncritically accepting Tacitus still doesn't change that we can't prove Paul was martyred in Rome, in fact it becomes odd that Tacitus didn't mention Peter or Paul if there were prominent leaders of this new religion killed here.

Still as much as I agree with this blog on many subjects regarding the Historicity of Jesus, I still view Tacitus as problematic.  The issue of being dependent on one very late manuscript and getting the kind of Governor Pilate was wrong I can't so easily write off.  And O'Neill's argument that people who just assumed Nero set the fire wouldn't mention Scapegoats I can't really buy either, his falsely blaming others for it would only make his tyranny look worse. I mean I get why Christian sources maybe wouldn't want to remind people they were accused of this, but the Pagan Roman sources shouldn't be leaving out such a vital detail.  And in my opinion the early Christians would not have been that afraid of it.  

Here is another Article from an Atheist Website deconstructing the arguments in defense of the Tacitus account.

https://vridar.org/2022/01/13/rome-burning-the-christian-problem-in-the-annals-of-tacitus/

The traditional dates for Paul and Peter's martyrdom also predate them ever being linked to the fire since they were AD 67.  Which interestingly is a year in which Nero wasn't even in Rome, he was touring Greece at that time.

Thersities the Historian has talked about how many Roman Persecutions are exaggerated.  Saying only the Diocletian (really Galerian's) persecution was as extreme as the Christians imagined the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century persecutions to be.  Many Emperors were labeled persecutors when really it was local persecutions that happened during their reign.  Tertullian who was a contemporary says Septimius Severus was well disposed to the Christians.

And the thing is, it's possible even the idea of Christian persecution being linked to being blamed for a fire has it's origins in the Galerian persecution because there was a fire in Nicomedia (which was Diocletian's capital in the east) that Galerius blamed on the Christians.

No account of the Neronian Persecution that can be proven to have existed before the 300s links it to the Fire of 64 AD.  Tacitus is the only one really even claimed to have existed that far back which does, and our oldest manuscript for Tacitus is Carolingian, and all younger manuscripts are known to go back to that one.

Here's a link where you can read Lactantius's Of the Manner in which The Persecutors Died. 

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0705.htm

The text in the later part of chapter 2 asserts that Nero persecuted Christian, I still believe that idea emerged in the 2nd Century maybe even late first, but he doesn't tie it to the Fire or anything like a Fire.  

Later in chapter 14 and 15 he is one of our main contemporary sources on the role the Fire in Nicomedia played in the Diocletian Persecution, he was a contemporary and had been in Nicomedia.  If the idea that Nero's Persecution was tied to Christians being blamed for that Fire already existed you'd think he's mention it, the Biblical way he's trying to present all this would be well served by pointing out ways in which History was repeating itself, but he doesn't.

When discussing Persecutions that can be blamed on Roman Emperors Lacantius skips right from Domitian to Decius meaning there was no Imperial Persecution under Marcus Aurelius or Septimius Severus or Maximinus Thrax either.

Even Eusebius still knows of no connection to a Fire in Rome when discussing the Neronian Persecution in Book II chapter 25 of Church History, in fact he doesn't cite any source older then Tertullian who says he's basing it on Roman Records but that could honestly just be Suetonius, but it's also the same text where Tertullian is claiming Tiberius tried to have Jesus added to the Roman Pantheon, a claim no historian takes seriously.  And Eusebius also records the Nicomedia fire in Book VIII chapter 6.

Update October 27th 2024: I've discovered another similar incident that could have inspired the Christians being blamed for the Fire of Rome Narrative.  Josephus in Wars of The Jews Book 7 Chapter 3 Section 3 talks about events in Antioch in AD 67 which include a persecution of the city's Jews based on accusing them of plotting to burn down the city.

You'd think if something similar had happened to what was then still a sect of Judaism in Rome only 3 years earlier it'd also be something Josephus would have noted somewhere.

Since Antioch is the other City that Peter is traditionally the first Bishop of and since his martyrdom was traditionally dated to AD 67, maybe he was actually Martyred as part of this Jewish Persecution?

That being the inspiration would allow the Tacitus account to be an authentic original part of that text with him simply already hearing a muddled version of the story that confused the two fires.

AD 67 as the original traditional date for the year of Peter's Martyrdom comes from The Liber Pontificalus which places the Martyrdom of Peter in the 38th year from the Passion which at the soonest was AD 30.  

It also fits a theory some scholars have that Peter was burned alive rather then Crucified, since that's what happened to certain Jewish leaders at Antioch according to this story.

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/ch156-peters-fate

Update January 8th 2025: Here's a YouTube Video attempting to provide some Nuance to the discussion of Nero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1SlvWCjvk

Update August 2025: And now he has a follow up on Sporus.  Looks like there is more evidence for them being associated with Poppea then I originally thought, but I'm still skeptical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WMlJ00aK4Y

Update January 2026: Here's a newer post i made on Peter.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2025/10/i-no-longer-support-supposed-simon.html

A Reforming Reformer

I was raised Catholic but have spent most, maybe technically all, of my adult life being a Protestant of some form.  I have never been as pathologically anti Catholic as many Protestants, especially ones who were formerly Catholics, but I did used to have conspiracy theory tendencies that have waned over the last couple of years.

I'd have to say I'm probably still a Protestant, on most of the core issues upon which the Reformation was based I still side with the Protestant position.  The very title of this Blog references a Pillar of the Reformation and I haven't changed my mind on that, it's only gotten stronger the more unconventional interpretations of Scripture I accept.  And in terms of Church hierarchy I'm to a Catholic or Orthodox POV worse then mainline Protestants, I'm even more Anarchical then the Independent Baptists and even more Democratic then the Presbyterians.  And I recently made a post on how I don't regard the Ecumenical Councils even if I do think some of them were right on some things.

However I no longer believe in accusing people of not being true Christians no matter how wrong I think their views are.  1 John 4:15, 1 Corinthians 12:3 and Romans 10:9 tell me all Christians are true Christians.

Sometimes when Protestants, Evangelicals, Baptists and Torah Observant Christians are arguing with each other they will use a view being like a doctrine Catholics have been associated with as an inherent argument against it.  Like when someone tries to explain a view on the After Life or the Coming Judgment that has even the vaguest similarity to Purgatory they'll get shouted down with "That's Purgatory, a Catholic doctrine".

And I've come to realize that is also a violation of Sola Sciprtura, saying "if the Catholics taught it, it must be wrong" is adding to Scripture just as much as blindly following their tradition does.

The Catholic Church also Believes Jesus is The Son of God, and The Word Made Flesh, and born of a Virgin, and was Crucified and died for our Sins and rose again on the third day, and contrary to what you may expect the Catholic Encyclopedia even stresses that the General Resurrection of The Dead is of the Flesh.  And they believe in The Trinity.  Heck most issues behind the 1054 Great Schism are ones mainline Protestants still take the Western Position on,  (as for me I understand the Orthodox issue with the Filioque but have to raise my eyebrow at saying it's "Jewish" to use unleavened bread in communion).

So when you start saying the Pope must be wrong on everything you're opening a pretty awkward can of worms.

The problem with the Medieval Purgatory doctrine was how it was a form of Spiritual Extortion, the Church getting Peasants to pay them money to do special masses to shorten their loved ones time there.  Obviously I'm not arguing anything like that is valid.  And even what the modern Catholic Church teaches on the issue isn't really the same as anything I believe.  However there are Bible verses they cite in support of the doctrine that are also verses I have cited in support of my ideas throughout the history of this blog.  It's the simplistic idea that "good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell" that comes from Plato and Zoroastrianism not The Bible.

I still mostly hold a Baptist position on Baptism.  However contrary to popular assumption the Catholic Church does not officially definitively state that all babies who die unbaptized go to Hell.  Support for the idea of doing something like an Infant Baptism comes from the comparison of it to Circumcision in Collisions 2:11-12, and Acts 2:38-39 implying a link between Baptism and vowing to raise your children to be Believers, and undetailed references to entire households being Baptized.

The thing is, there are two Water Baptisms in the New Testament.  There is the Baptism of John that was for Repentance, and then the Baptism Apollos still hadn't had when he joined The Church at Ephesus.  For someone raised a Christian the Baptism of Repentance is what happens second, that is only for adults.  If you join the Church as an adult normally one Baptism covers both.  But people who came out of John's movement were in a unique position.

I've noticed that Protestantism is more susceptible to Nationalism, a product of seeing Spiritual Allegiance to someone who's technically a foreign head of state as potentially treasonous.  In Italy it's different since The Pope isn't so far away, yet in the 19th Century the Popes still opposed Italian Unification.  The history of Religion in Nazi Germany is complicated but generally the Lutherans were more willing to work with Hitler then the Catholics.  And it's mostly among Protestants you'll find people who try to make whatever tribe they were born into a Lost Tribe of Israel.  Catholics are a lot less susceptible to forgetting that The Gospel is not Ethno-Centric.

I agree with the Catholic view that The Church is the real Nation we should be loyal to.  But I disagree that that means we need a highly organized Church institution. The Holy Spirit and The Bible should be the source of our Unity not a man made hierarchy.

But what about my Soterology?  Am I still Sola Fide?  Well I now believe in Universal Salvation, and there are supporters of some form of that Soterology among Protestants and Evangelicals and Catholics and the Orthodox and Nestorians.  No major denomination is willing to label Gregory of Nyssa a heretic, so there is room for the True Gospel everywhere.

Polycarp & Ignatius and False Apsotalic Succesions.

Polycarp and Ignatius have come up a lot when I talk about Heresies of Asia Minor and questioning alleged Apostolic Succession from John.  I want to further make clear here that I do not mean to demonize them, they both died Martyrs and for that they will be rewarded regardless of how wrong I feel they were on certain doctrines.

First and foremost, in their own writings they never claim to be students of John or to have known him, none of the authentic Epistles of Igantius or Polycarp make any references to knowing John.  Even the personal letter Ignatius wrote to Polycarp does not mention their alleged important common mentor.  In fact Ignatius never even quotes any book attributed to John.  The claim they were students of John came later.  Papias, who was contemporary with them in near the same region, explicitly distinguishes the John he knew from the Apostle referring to him as John the Elder.  Ireneaus and Tertullian are our oldest sources on either of them knowing John and they only mention Polycarp not Ignatius, and in Irenaeus it's clarified the John who Polycarp knew was the same one Papias knew.  Polycarp interestingly doesn't seem to support the Monarchical Church structure popularized by Ignatius and later supported by Irenaeus and Tertullian, since he identified himself as one of a group of Presbyters not a Bishop.

Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch was also an Apostolic Successor of Peter (if you believe in Apostolic succession), but claims Peter personally chose him are a much later tradition.  Unlike Rome, The Bible supports Peter having been in Antioch.  Ignatius was martyred in Rome, so what if he appointed some Bishops or Deacans while he was in Rome and that was the origin of Rome having an alleged Apsotalic Succession from Peter?

I still firmly believe Peter was never in Rome, but I'm not as invested in the Simon Magus conspiracy theory as I once was.  I now desire to explain the origins of these wrong traditions as having more to them then just people lying.  This theory about Ignatius in Rome is one such possibility.

Another has to do with Mark.  The basis for claims of Peter in Rome are tied to claims about the origin of Mark's Gospel being him writing down what Peter preached.  Papias did not give any clue where Peter preached or where Mark wrote, it's later writings referencing him that want to read that into Papias.

I disagree with the desire of Eastern Traditions to separate all the Marks of the New Testament.  The John Mark of Acts 12-15 has close connections to Peter and Banabas, so I think he is also both the Cousin of Barnabas and the Marcus referenced in 1 Peter.

Some references to Mark in Paul's Epistles do have Mark with Paul in Rome.  But again if Peter was there at the same time why isn't Paul mentioning him?  Over half the Latin words in the New Testament are in Mark's Gospel, some have even theorized the Gospel of Mark was originally in Latin.  So it could be Mark published his Gospel in Rome based on what Peter had preached in Antioch and Mesopotamia.

BTW I don't think Mark was actually ever in Alexandria, I think that tradition is just as shaky as the ones about Peter in Rome and John in Ephesus.

There is solid evidence the Roman Church was not originally Monarchical, but had many Elders who were all Bishops(Overseers) the Monarchical system emerged over the course of the Second Century probably from the influence of Ignatius.

I think the traditional succession of Bishops of Byzantium between Andrew and the founding of Constantinople were probably also Bishops in Rome.  Andrew was never associated with Byzantium prior to Constantine, the 2nd Century Acts of Andrew places his Martyrdom in Patras west of Corinth.  Byzantium is mentioned briefly in the Acts of Andrew, but only as a place he stopped at on the way to Thrace, like Paul stopping at Samothrace on the way to Macedon. 

Constantine is known to have taken many people (including Senators) from Rome to Constantinople when he founded it.  The Bishop of Constantinople who was at Nicaea was a native of Calabria in Italy.  Castinus a supposed Bishop of Byzantium from the 3rd Century was also said to have been a Roman Senator.  Meanwhile the supposed second Bishop of Byzantium is Stachys a name also mentioned in Romans 16 as someone in Rome.  And the third is Onesimus who could be the same as the Onesimus of Philemon who we know was also in Rome.

As far as John Son of Zebedee goes, I've been considering the possibly that maybe he was Martyred at the same time his brother was in Acts 12, since Papias arguably implies that.  The last explicit reference to him is in Acts 12 when identifying James as his Brother, maybe that verse meant to say both brothers were killed then?  For James this is viewed as fulfilling what was prophesied of the Sons of Zebedee in Matthew 20:20-23 and Mark 10:35-40.  Galatians 2 mentions a James, Cephas and John when giving his account of the Acts 15 council, but this isn't referring to the usual big three since we know this James can't be the Son of Zebedee.  I think John Mark could be the John who Paul was referring to here.

So that would make all extra-biblical traditions about either of them traveling to other lands invalid.

Christianity was firmly established in Africa before Catholicism as we know it was fully formed.

 The earliest date I'm going to give for the start of "Catholicism as we know it" is the Bishopric of Gregory I (590-604).  He is frequently considered the first truly civilly powerful Pope by some historians, and the "Last good Pope" by some Protestants including John Calvin (but according to Roman Catholic scholar Jean-Guy Vaillancourt, the Pope did not become the head of the Roman Church until 752 CE.).  But still don't forget I like to point out how many aspects of Catholicism were already forming even before Constantine, which is why I added "as we know it".

This is something easy to overlook due to the Western bias in how we Westerners look at History, including Christian History.

And I feel I can document this Independent of The New Testament's own claim of a Eunuch of Candace of "Ethiopia" becoming a Christian in Acts 8 (Amantitere was probably the Kandake at that time) within the first few years of the Church's existence.

And I can also say It's still true even if you don't count Roman Occupied North Africa (including Egypt), where it's difficult to be certain of anyone's exact ethnicity.  I'm confident the Christian Communities of those provinces included representatives of all their Ethnic groups (I did a post on Perpetua and Felicity already, and I do like to note how Athanasius of Alexandria was called by his enemies the "Black Dwarf"), but I'm gonna stick to indisputably Black Africa for this post.

The first Christian King in Africa was King Ezana of Axum. Since he lived in the 320a-360 AD he's post Constantine but still before Christianity became fully Rome's state Religion under Theodosius I.  It's safe to say Christianity must have existed among the population in some capacity already before then.

King Ezana was also the first Christian King to use a Cross on his coins.  Constantine's preferred Christian symbol was the Chi-Rho.  Ezana was also fairly Nicene, the Arian Emperor Constantinus II wanted to question him and his brother on matters of doctrine, but they ignored that request.

That Branch of Christianity still exists to this day.

Lesser known then that however is the history of the Church in Nubia.  Here is one interesting YouTube video on the subject.  This guy also wrote a Book Roots of Nubian Christianity Uncovered: The Triumph of the Last Pharaoh.

The Classical Kushite Civilization ended when it was conquered by Axum around 350 AD.

The king being refereed to in a very non literal sense as the Last Pharaoh here is King Silko who reigned in the 5th century. There is some information about him here Temple of Kalabsha.

The last phase of the establishment of Nubian Christianity was three Kingdoms becoming officially Christian in the 6th Century AD.  Nobatia in 543 AD, and then Makuria, and then Alodia in 580 AD.  Two of those three Kingdoms lasted nearly a Thousand Years into the 1500s AD.

I could just as easily have called this "Christianity was firmly established in Africa before Islam existed".  But it's not my intent to attack African American Muslims, or even the Nation of Islam which I do like to say is to Islam what Mormonism is to Christianity.  The specific tribes who were enslaved by the Trans-Atlantic slave trade were neither Muslim or Christian before being enslaved, they were predominantly taken from a totally different part of Africa.

But I do sometimes feel like if African Americans want to reject the Faith their Slave masters forced on them, but remain Monothestic/Abrahamic, they should maybe consider converting to Miaphysite or Nestorian Christianity.  Most of these early African Christians I just talked about were Miaphysite, and the Nestorians of East Asia are known to have rejected Slavery.  The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade however was created and run by Catholics and Anglicans, who are all Chalcedonian.

Deutercanonical books

A claim often made to undermine the logic of Sola Sciptura, especially towards KJV proponents, is that the KJV "originally had 12 extra books".

Leaving aside that the KJV translators and publishers clearly didn't intend to endorse them as canonical since they were put in a separate section titled "The Apocrypha", not Canon is what "Apocrypha" means.  They were the 1611 equivalent of DVD bonus features.

It is not the KJV itself I consider God's preserved Word but the Masoretic Text for the Hebrew Bible and Textus Receptus for the Greek New Testament.  The Deuterocanonical books are part of neither of those but are preserved for us mainly via Septuagint manuscripts, which I don't trust.

The desire to make it sound like Protestants and Evangelicals are the ones picking and choosing I find annoying because the Catholic Bibles do NOT keep all 12 of those books, only some of them.

The first time one of them was quoted by a Catholic while debating Martin Luther, he responded "since when is that in The Bible?"  While these books were around, they were never considered of equal authority.  It was in response to the Reformation some started being propped up more.

The Catholic Church choose to keep in their Bible ones that they could take as supporting their positions on issues like Prayer for the Dead, but rejected ones that contradicted their views on those issues.  If Protestants were also picking and choosing you'd think they'd have kept the ones the Catholic Church rejected.

While the books of Maccabees are most interesting to us today for being our oldest historical source on the origins of Hanukkah, and the Hasmonean revolt.  I suspect the Catholic Church kept them because of parts like First Maccabees chapter 8 that really praised Rome.  I personally think chapter 8 is where the Hasmoneans started going wrong.

2 Esdras (also called 4th Esdras by languages that call the Canonical Ezra and Nehemiah 1 and 2 Esdras).  Is infamous for the Prophecies it gives, some of which I have and will in the future mention for the sake of curiosity on my Prophecy Blog.  But the book is dangerous because of a strong Anti-Semitic tone it has.

Judith and Tobit are interesting historical oddities that often come up in talks on Revised Chronology and also Lost Tribes speculation (which one of the 2nd Esdras Prophecies is also a part of).  If they ever were reliable histories the versions we have are clearly corrupt, being filled with confusing geographical contradictions and historical anachronisms.

There are three more books also grouped with the Deutrcanonical books though they are not among the 12 included in the 1611 KJV, or in any Catholic Bibles, but they are popular in the Eastern Churches.  They are 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151.

Psalm 151 doesn't seem to say anything particularly interesting.  But it's amusing to me that it makes the Psalms like the original Pokemon.  150 are all you need, but there is also an extra.

4 Maccabees is a poetic elaboration on a story found in 2 Maccabees.

3 Maccabees however is not about the history it's title would make you think.  It is clearly a work of Prose Fiction written by Alexandrian Jews during the time of Caligula about Alexandrian Jews during the time of Ptolemy IV Philopater.

It has an attempt to do an Abomination of Desolation qualifying event but gets thwarted.  Then later Ptolemy tries to massacre the Alexandrian Jews with drunk elephants.

Something similar to the latter is mentioned by Josephus in Against Apion as being tried by Ptolemy VIII Psycon.  I find it amusing how Ussher and many others since think Josephus must be mistaken on which Ptolemy did this, since 3 Maccabees is clearly a literary narrative, and Jospehus goal in Against Apion was documenting things the Greek Alexandrians could verify from their own (now lost to us) historical records.  Now it's possible similar incidents could have been tried by both Kings since History does repeat itself, but if only one is true it's Ptolemy VIII.

So those are my thoughts on this collection of Apocrypha.  They're interesting sources of information, but not Inspired Scripture.

Update August 13th 2018: The Nazarene Judaism Website wants to affirm the Apocrypha via apparent quotations of Wisdom of Solomon in Romans.  However many Scholars who see that connection see it as Paul quoting the ideology reflected in Wisdom of Solomon in order to then refute it.
http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/07/romans-118-32-and-wisdom-of-solomon.html
http://www.realdevil.info/dig2.htm
http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/god-grace-righteousness-in-wisdom-of-solomon-and-paul-jonathan-linebaugh
This is a subject I've spoken on before, like in the Romans part of The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality.  Romans 1:18-32 use of "Para Phusis" as if it's inherently Bad is refuted by Paul's using "Para Phusis" in Romans 11 to describe what God does grafting Gentiles into Israel.

Update November 2018: Early Christian Canons

The earliest source on what Christian viewed as Canon for the Old Testament is the Bryennios List.   It was possibly written in the late first or early second century.  The only thing in that list viewed as a possible endorsement of a Deuterocanonical book is "2 of Esdras" but in Greek Nehemiah was often called 2 Esdras, and in Hebrew Ezra and Nehemiah were often the same scroll, so this reference is very likely just to those two books.  Likewise Lamentations is probably only missing because it shared a Scroll with Jeremiah.

 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Jesus Nave, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Judges, Ruth, 4 of Kings (Samuel and Kings), 2 of Chronicles, 2 of Esdras, Esther, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Minor prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel.

Melito's Old Testament Canon is the other oldest Christian one and is also pretty much ours but with Esther neglected.  Again Nehemiah and Lamentations are missing due to their sharing scrolls with Ezra and Jeremiah.  The only possible reference to a Deuterocanonical book there is Wisdom, but again that is disputed, it's possible he was still talking about Proverbs which is also largely about Wisdom.

Melito's list, as cited by Eusebius, as follows:

    Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.

The Murtarian Canon mentions Wisdom of Solomon but strangely does so in a New Testament canon list.  Wisdom seems to be the most popular for Christians to accept, and I think it was because many missed how Paul's use of it in Romans was to refute it.

It's with Origen that we begin seeing Christians treat Deuterocanonical Septuagint books as Scripture, with him even saying Christians accept books the Jews do not.  I like Origen in some areas, but it's with him and his mentor Clement we begin seeing a massive escalation in the Hellenization of Christianity.

Paganism is about what you Believe not what you do

I've spent much of my time as a believer listening to a lot of the Occult exposing Christians of the world.  I myself have in the past been guilty of some of the same thinking I'm going to criticize in this post.  I find listening to them a lot of fun, and I know most of them mean well.  But I've grown annoyed at how many oppose the occult in the context of believing what the occultists claim.

Paganism is in believing what the Pagans believe, not in doing things superficially similar to pagan customs.  Pagans are not bad people, God loves them just as much as anyone else, but those of us in a covenant relationship with God are instructed to believe and behave differently then Pagans.

So this is not me saying all the casual paganism in the secular and even much of the Christian world is fine.  Trying to talk to the dead is divination regardless of if you do it with an authentic Quigi board or one of the commercial knock offs sold in the board games section of Toys R Us.  Or something else entirely.

1 Corinthians 8:1-8

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.  For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)  But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.  Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.  But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

1 Corinthians 10:25-

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.  If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.  But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

In both chapters Paul explains the context of when we shouldn't eat food offered to Idols as public contexts.

He clearly does not believe food offered to Idols is in any way inherently physically or spiritually corrupt or he would not have instructed us to not ask.

This is not me claiming Paul didn't believe in Demons or the Supernatural, he cast out demons.  But some superstitions are indeed based on nothing.

Now certain people trying to say we're still under The Law will try to make this issue about dietary laws.  They will say "food offered to Idols" is code for Pork because they allege it's well known that the ancient Pagans used pigs in pagan sacrifices more then any other animal because they "knew" that pigs were the ideal animals to house demons.

That is clearly entirely nonsense.  But putting aside how factually wrong it is, they are believing categorically the opposite of what Paul said by arguing that whatever food is being discussed here has something spiritually different about it from other food.

And again with the whole anti-Christmas movement that is growing every year we see the same thing.

When someone points out that Jeremiah is actually talking about carving the wood of a Tree into an Idol, not decorating it with the green still intact.  The anti-Christmas people will just respond "It's still clearly an Idol".

Yes I agree Idols are not always literal statues/pictures.  But Idolatry still requires belief that the object of worship is either a god, a vassal of a god, or some special thing that allows them a connection to the divine they wouldn't have without it.

The Catholic Church is guilty of idolatry, but that has less to do with the literal statues (how seriously they're taken depends on the individual catholic).  And more to do with believing that the Priest is closer to God then the average believer is.  And because they believe the communion cracker and wine literally become the Body and Blood of Jesus.

I accuse them of worshiping Mary and the Saints regardless of their denial that that word is accurate because they believe that praying to them matters.  Only Praying to God matters.

That is not what goes on with Christmas trees, they're just a fun decoration.  Now I will see people giving a seminar on the subject go into this whole "you bow down to put the gifts under it, and bow down again to pick it up.  That's WORSHIP!!!".  And I become genuinely embarrassed as a Christian that every Christians in that room just accepts that laughable argument.  No, that is not worship, and if you think that's enough to qualify as worship then I have to question if the Real God is receiving any real worship from you.

I agree with the Anti-Christmas people on at least one thing, we should not deceive our children into believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy or any other such modern folk deities.

But as long as no one believes anything incorrect all the customs are harmless.  Since I reject Augustinian sexual morality I'll say that even goes for kissing under the Mistletoe.  The Pagan custom that derives from is about a superstition that that plant can increase fertility.  So I would suggest that when two people of the same gender are kissing under the Mistletoe there is a 0% chance that that is a concern of theirs.

Now some people in this Anti-Christmas movement have made it clear even IF you removed all the superficially Pagan things, if all you did was sing the Jesus centric hymns and read The Bible, they still feel the assumption that the date is wrong makes it all wrong.

I've seen one even express unapologetically that hearing someone reading from The Nativity Gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke under the pretense of it being Christmas makes them uncomfortable.  Not one single verse of God's word is meant to be read only on the accurate anniversary of when it first happened, if so you'd have to be real careful reading Ezekiel which dates each revelation to a specific day.  And not all of the Nativity story was on the Birthday anyway, (every plausible theory I've seen makes the Kislev/Tevet time frame when some part of it happens).  If some spirit is ever making you feel like it's wrong to read God's Word, that Spirit is not the Holy Spirit.

The Bible does not clearly state when Jesus was born, I feel it can be deduced and have indeed come to the conclusion against what I used to think that Jesus was born around December 25th of 2 BC.  But regardless the fact that it's not clearly stated means God doesn't care if we commemorate that at all, much less do it on the wrong date.

Whether it's Christmas or any other holiday, I reject the notion that any day is owned by any pagan god.  God created everything.  And I think days we know the Pagans are doing things are days we should be engaging in Spiritual Warfare.

I see these people when complaining about behavior in The Church they don't like saying "the Pagans know this stuff, the occultists know it, the Freemasons know it".  And I'm just thinking regardless of if I agree with their overall point "The Pagans and Ocultists are wrong according to The Bible, try reading it."  So what they think they know we should immediately suspect to be wrong.

And the Golden Calf is one of their favorite stories.  Somehow that is comparable to celebrating a birthday on the wrong day or whatever their focus is in the current rant.  The issue with the Golden Calf was that they declared that Calf to be Yahuah and worshiped it as Yahuah.  Nothing in the Golden Calf narrative suggests Yahuah's anger would be the same over decorating a pine tree.

Isaiah 60:13 says the Messianic Temple well be decorated with Pine Trees.  Now I've seen this objected to by saying this is about the wood of Pine trees being used in construction.  No it clearly says they will "beautify His Sanctuary".  I believe this is the New Heaven and New Earth where there will be no more destruction of plant life other then maybe for food, not the Millennium.  Verse 14 clearly alludes to New Jerusalem.  This is describing a recreation of the Garden of Eden.  It will be more like the original Tabernacle which may not have been shaped how we assume it was.  Isaiah 41:19 foretells that these Trees will one day grow in the now barren wilderness.  Ezekiel 41:18-26 makes clear there will be standing Palm Trees in Ezekiel's Temple.

Romans 14 is clear, you shouldn't do anything if you feel it'd be wrong to do it.  But don't go around judging others.

There is something I do consider an Idol that a lot of Evangelical Christians are guilty of worshiping.  The American Flag, and other symbols of Patriotism.  Why is it more legitimate to view The Flag as an Idol then a Christmas Tree?  Precisely because far more people are offended by that suggestion.  Because a significant portion of the population acts like you've offended the Divine when you disrespect the Flag or refuse to take part in it's worship ceremonies like the Pledge of Allegiance.  People who treat the Christmas Tree that way are very rare, my family stopped doing it simply out of economic necessity, but they'll never stop worshiping The Flag.

And among fellow Conspiracy Theorists it only gets worse.  I mean think about it, how many are selling their seminar or YouTube video or book on the premise that they're going to reveal the secret of freemasonry, (with the secret being different each time).  The idea that these mystery schools guard some deep esoteric secret that it would empower us to learn is the entire gist of what Gnosticism is.

And setting that aside, they have this tendency to just accept the Masonic version of History as true besides the required tweaks to make it fit a Literal interpretation of The Bible.  And that includes all the comparative mythology stuff Zeitgeist promotes, but just instead of saying Jesus ripped off all these gods, they say all these gods are based on Nimrod.  But new ager David Icke then puts those two narratives together saying all pagan mythologies were based on Nimrod and Semiramis and Tammuz and then Jesus was based on all of them.  Why Jesus alone gets to be both Nimrod and Tammuz at the same time isn't really explained.  And some Anti-Christian Jewish authors do the same.

Instead what I recommend you do is watch Chris White's videos on YouTube debunking all of this "all mythologies are the same" nonsense.  He has videos on Zeitgeist, David Icke and Jordan Maxwell to get started.  His one mistake is conceding December 25th as a birthday when he shouldn't have.

A lot of us seem to base our moral and political positions on what we perceive the "Illuminati" to be promoting or opposing, not on The Bible.

The Bishops of Alexandria were called Popes before the Bishops of Rome were.

The first use of the term "Pope" is in reference to Heracles of Alexandria (232-248). And he's refered to as such by the Bishop of Rome of all people.

I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed Pope, Heraclas

According to Eusebius Church History Book 7 Chapter 7.4.

Then his successor Pope Dionysus.

Saint Dionysius of Alexandria, named "the Great," 14th Pope of Alexandria & Patriarch of the See of St. Mark from December 28, 248 until his death on March 22, 264 after seventeen years as a bishop. He was the first Pope to hold the title "the Great" (before aBishop of Rome even). Dionysius' large surviving correspondence provides most of our information about him. Only one original letter survives to this day; the remaining letters are excerpted in the works of Eusebius.

Very interesting considering Alexandria was the Hot Bed of Gnosticism, and what I've observed about some earlier Bishops of Alexandria.

Catholicism took a long time to become what we know it as.  But the Seeds of it were there even in Pre-Nicean Christianity.

Jesus said to "call no man Father".

Was Simon Peter of Rome really Simon Magus?

[Update February 2023: This theory is one I no longer support]

The Apostolic Fathers and the tradition of Peter in Rome

I've had a theme on this blog of addressing the error of appealing to the Church Fathers as an authority.  Whether doing so for or against Catholic dogma.

I want to talk specifically about the so called "Apostolic Fathers" these are often considered distinct from the other Church Fathers, they were supposedly the direct successors of The Apostles, the 2nd, 3rds and 4th of the various Bishoprics.

Their period is sometimes arbitrarily dated as ending in 125 AD.

There should be at least 20 (each of the 12 plus Paul and Barnabas, plus the half siblings of Jesus, and Nicodemus and Lazurus, and Cleopas, at the very least all held Apostolic rank, and that is with me reluctantly conceding to those who would deny the rank to the Female Eyewitnesses of the Resurrection) individuals to hold such a rank, but really a lot more since they each brought The Gospel to many cities, and founded many churches, and it can be shown Biblical church government was not originally monarchical.  There is also the 70 Disciples to consider.  There were actually 100s of people in the upper room at Pentacost.

But only a handful are preserved as having written or said anything for us to quote.  Since history is written by the winners, and it was the scribes of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions who decided what works to preserve, it's safe to assume that they were very selective.  Some of those other supposed successors we have traditions about, but not writings or sermons they preached.

Most of that handful we have are from being quoted by later Church Fathers. It's Clement of Rome and Ignatius alone who left significant writings behind that we still have, and of the many works attributed to Clement only First Clement (aka The Epistle of Clement to The Corinthians) is genuine.  And it's valid to question if those writings were even preserved accurately.  God promised to preserve his Word, not anything ever written by a Christian.

Other works affiliated with this era are unnamed authors like Shepherd of Hermas or the Didachae (which I glibly call the first Baptist Constitution).  The Didachae is often considered the oldest extra Biblical Christian writing.  It has nothing majorly objectionable, but does add to Scripture like saying you need to fast for a day before Baptism.  It doesn't seem to address Faith Alone or Eternal Security either way.

Of all the supposed Apostolic Fathers who left writings behind.  Only Clement of Rome is identified by tradition with a person named in the NT, the Clement Paul mentioned in Philippians.  Contrary to how Catholics try to twist it First Clement definitely teaches Salvation by Faith Alone, but doesn't address Eternal Security one way or the other.  But he's a problem because the whole motive behind the letter was thinking he had authority to tell the Corinthians what to do, the root of Papal authority was kind of there already.

Yet when he refers to Peter only once in the Epistle, he is very vague, and does not say where he was when he died or confirm him having been to Rome at all, or claim to be a successor of Peter or to have been appointed by Peter as Tertullian claimed Clement was.  He talks about Paul far more but doesn't confirm he was a student or associate directly of him either.

He also never mentioned Philipi or the Philippians.  So is this really the same Clement?  It was a not uncommon Roman name (Philipi was a city where everyone had Roman Citizenship).  Later Clementine traditions would seek to say he was Titus Flavius Clemens, a member of the Flavian family.  There is reason to suspect Titus Clemens might have become a Christian, but given his age and biography no way he was ever in Philipi, or prominent at all while Paul was alive.

Many Protestant and Evangelical Christians have grown accustomed to accepting the Catholic Tradition linking Peter to Rome.  Often arguing based on Irenaeus and the Apostolic Constitutions that it was Paul not Peter who appointed Linus to be Bishop of the Roman church.  But still believing Peter had been there.  I myself in the past had accepted it, saying based on Eusebius that Peter had came to Rome twice, in 42 AD and later in the 60s when he died.

Sometimes extra-Biblical traditions can seem universal but still be false.  Like the whole Nimrod masterminded Babel thing.

The oldest source on Peter in Rome is really the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah, but that doesn't even name the one of the 12 it says Nero Martyrded.  The author could have considered Nero responsible simply for it being done by the Roman government, even if there was no direct personal involvement from Nero.  Andrew was traditionally held to be martyred in Achaia Greece, the city of Patrae in the northern Peloponnese, by the order of the Roman Governor.  Traditional date is November 30th 60 AD.

But also maybe the assumption that the Ascension of Isaiah was identifying Nero is wrong.  It never says anything about Rome, the main identifier with Nero besides supposedly killing one of the 12 is having killed his mother.  But certainly others throughout history have killed their mothers.  The Ascension of Isaiah is the product of a time when the trendy thing was to identify The Antichrist (who this killer of one of the 12 is supposed to be) as a Jewish False Messiah.  Also if the author wanted readers to think of Nero and Agrippina, the incest angle would have been much better to lead with.

The only one of the 12 who's martyrdom is documented in Scripture was James the Son of Zebedde.  He was killed by Herod Agrippa, there are reasons in Acts 12 to see Agrippa as a type of The Antichrist, especially if you have Ezekiel 28 in mind.

Agrippa's mother was Berenice, the daughter of Herod The Great's sister Salome.  We don't know what happened to her, she's last mentioned retiring to Rome well before her son becomes King.  Our main source on Agrippa's life is Jospehus who was a friend of his son Agirppa II and tended to portray Agrippa very positively.  If he had for some reason murdered his mother Josephus would have concealed it.  In the 2nd century other sources on the 1st century AD were around that haven't survived, like the other 3 of Philo's 5 books about Jewish persecutors contemporary with Caligula, and Justus who had an antagonistic relationship with Josephus and Agrippa II.

I don't want to accuse Agrippa of anything, but it's highly possible a critic of the Agrippas like Justus could have slandered them.  And then that slander influenced the author of the Ascension of Isaiah.

But it could also simply be that the author meant something allegorical rather then literal with "Slayer of his Mother", like being a slayer of his own people.  If he had Gnostic heresies in mind (for or against them) he could have been thinking of the relationship between Sophia and the Ialdobath in Gnostic cosmologies.  It also certainly could be he meant this to allude to The Beast killing the Whore of Babylon in Revelation 17.

How did The Gospel come to Rome?

From The Bible, we know in Acts 2 some Jews who lived in Rome were present right at Pentecost, wouldn't surprise me if Priscilla and Aquilla were among those.  Later Cornelius was a Centurion from Italy, it's safe to say he wound up spending some time later back in Italy.  Rome didn't need an Apostolic mission to plant the initial seed of The Gospel there.

From Romans 16 we know Peter wasn't in Rome when Paul wrote to them.  Same with Paul's later Epistles written when he was in Rome and occasionally references people there with him, no Peter. Peter has still never left the Near East the last time we see him in Acts.

Romans 1:11 says that while there were Christians there The Church wasn't really established in Rome yet, and it was Paul's mission to go there and establish it.  In Romans 15 Paul said he wouldn't be building on another man's foundation.

In Galatians 2:11 Paul mentioned having an encounter with Peter in Antioch.  The Christians of Antioch had local traditions of Peter being their "first bishop" also.  In fact there were people in Antioch who claimed to be descended from Peter, in fact to this day certain families still claim it.  Peter like all of the 12 did have a wife and possibly children.

And then there is First Peter where he clearly says he was in Babylon.  I'm amused by those Protestants and Evangelicals who want to use the "Babylon is code for Rome" argument to back up their view of Revelation 17 when the whole origin of that argument was made by the Catholic Church to twist 1 Peter 5:13 into supporting their tradition.  Rarely is it acknowledged that there is equally strong regional tradition among Mesopotamian Christians that he meant exactly what he said.

Some people will claim Peter called himself The Apostle to The Gentiles in Acts 15 and use that as evidence he clearly wouldn't have not gone to the capital of the world.  But in the KJV, I don't see that in Acts.  In 15:7 he refers back to the events of 10-11.  But in general the 12's mission was to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.  Matthias who replaced Judas traditionally went to Ethiopia where there were Jews.

"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).  Another Galatians passage calls Cephas, John and James the Apostles of the Circumcision.

Recent investigations of Hellenistic Mesopotamian records have even challenged the view that Babylon shrank in the shadow of Seleucica during the Greeco-Roman period.  It was a city with many Jews and Gentiles.  Antioch too we know had a strong Jewish population.  And he wrote 1 Peter to areas in Turkey, and clearly refereed to the exiles of the dispersion (translated strangers in the KJV) those who were still scattered abroad from the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles.

In addition to the City of Babylon itself there were other Jewish populations in Mesopotamia, the city of Seleucica also had a Jewish Population.  As did Nisibis which is a key modern Kurdish capital.  As well as Edessa the capital of Osroene.  All three of those were among the ones were Jewish uprisings happened during the Kitos War decades later in the reign of Trajan.  There was also a Jewish kingdom in Mesopotamia at this time ruled by a proselyte, Adiabene, I don't know whether Peter's letter would have been written during the reign of Izates II or Monobaz II, but it was likely one of those.  Some have even speculated that it was specifically Christianity they converted to but that Josephus and the Talmud obscured that fact.

Rome had a Jewish population, but it was not nearly as significant.

Papias statement about the origin of Mark's Gospel does not mention Rome btw, that is just something constantly read into it when later people have referenced it.  But even how Eusebius quotes it is unclear about where they were when Mark wrote it.

There is a rarely talked about alternative fate for Peter's Body.

What I feel like noting here is being buried on the Mount of Olives doesn't mean he died near there, Jewish Tradition has often said that is where the Resurrection will begin so being buried on the Mount of Olives is something many Jews have desired.  And it's importance in the New Testament means early Jewish Christians could have shared it.

But I find it unlikely that from Italy anyone would have risked trying to transport his body there.  There was always a risk traveling the Mediterranean Sea.  But from Antioch or Babylon I could find it being fairly plausible.  This also hurts the traditions about Lazurus, Martha and Mary of Bethany traveling to southern France, those were always late traditions.

Even a lot of the early sources that do support linking Peter to the Roman church fail to support the entirety of the traditional narrative.  Tertullian as I said before says Clement was appointed by Peter, unaware of Linus or Cletus it seems.  But he is also our oldest Christian source on Nero persecuting Christians, and doesn't mention Peter or Paul.  Eusebius was the first to say that both Peter and Paul were martyred by Nero.

In Tetullian's Apology quoted by Eusebius he doesn't mention Peter or Paul talking about Nero  He is cited as backing up the tradition with what he says in his Poscription Against Heretics 34.

"Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood; where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's[the Baptist]; where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile."

The problem is we know John's being plunged into oil according to every other source on it happened in Asia not Italy.  It looks like copiers may have corrupted something that was originally merely about Rome being responsible for martyrdoms.   It's really starting to seem to me like even Paul dying there is questionable.  First Clement says nothing of where Paul died, but says he took the Gospel to the extremity of the West.

Eusebius cites a Caius who worked for Bishop Zephyinus of Rome as referring to Apostles being buried on Vatican Hill.  The Vatican Hill was a cemetery of Rome's pagan priests, the idea that Peter or Paul would have been buried there is absurd.  Even Catholic sources admit it was a pagan cemetery.

"On the night of his death on the cross Peter’s followers BURIED his body. As in the case of Jesus on the hill of Calvary it was wrapped in linen  and secretly taken to a PAGAN BURIAL GROUND on the Via Cornelia, behind the stone structure of the arena. This PAGAN CEMETERY lay on a knoll called VATICANUS: the Latin word ‘vatis’ means a ‘prophet’ or ‘SOOTHSAYER’. In days gone by there had been an Etruscan oracle on this spot" (Keller’s comment – the official comment of the Roman Catholic Church p. 368).

In addition to Caius being likely an official propagandist for the Roman Bishop.  Eusebius says he said this disputing a Proclus who was advocating the "Phyrgian Hersey" which is what he called the Montanists.  So there were early Christians disputing this tradition.  I'm not sure how I feel about the Montanists, but dispute did exist Pre-Constantine about Peter being buried in Rome.  Phyrgia was in one of the regions 1 Peter was written to, Asia, so they might have known more then most about where it came from.

It's also entirely on Eusebius word that Dionysus of Corinth (around 171) said what Eusebius says he said.  Dionysus is the earliest witness that Peter and Paul were in Rome together, something none of even the highly fictionalized and illogical Apocryphal acts of the Apostles claimed.

Peter being in Corinth however briefly is more Bibliclally supportable then being in Rome, Given how he comes up in the Corinthian Epistles.  But even that is unclear.

Another early source on Peter in Rome  (but later then Dionysus or Caius) was Lactantius.  His account of it is awkwardly expressed.

Hippolytus of Rome was a Bishop of Rome, so he had a clear bias for wanting to promote such a false idea.

Apparently that's a lot that's textual confusing about the Apocryphal Acts of Peter, the explicit reference to Nero at the end is theorized to have been added later, and the Agrippa said to be responsible for Peter Martyrdom is sometimes identified with Herod Agrippa II who in 67 AD was in Judea not Rome.  I think it's possible this story was originally events set in Judea and/or Galilee that got moved to Rome later, the Albinus mentioned could have originally been the Lucceius Albinus who was governor of Judea.

Also Justin Martyr was the first to mention Simon Magus going to Rome and he doesn't mention Peter being there at the time.  And maybe even he never actually went to Rome.