I've been thinking about this for years, and this explains so much... Many
Protestants idealise Peter and turn towards the RCC, quoting the pope,
become ecumenical, boasting of having visiting Rome and the Vatican 'in
awe', having seen the pope, etc. What I've noticed is that and it's almost
always founded on a claim (a dogged insistance) thatPeter was the first
pope, bishop of Rome, 'the rock' (petra), the foundation of the church,
etc...Even the most ardent Reformed scholars and ministers I know do this in
one way or another...
Yet, "There is no early textual evidence for Peter in Rome"...
SeeWilliam Marrion Branham (2005),An Exposition of the Seven Church
Ages,
http://download.branham.org/pdf/ENG/BK-AGES An Exposition Of The Seven
Church Ages VGR.pdf
Quote:"They claim that Peter was their first pope, and that he resided in
Rome when there is ABSOLUTELY NO HISTORICAL FACT FOR IT"(Branham,
p. 121)
See Nicola Denzey Lewis (8 May 2019),The Apostle Peter in Rome: Jesus’ chief
disciple examined,https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...eople-in-the-
bible/the-apostle-peter-in-rome/
