I will show from history and scripture that Simon Peter NEVER went to Rome.
And that the first pope was Simon Magus, called Simon the Magician.
I present the bible study, followed by a Message Manuscript suitable to use in your Home Sabbath Gathering.
And end with a Timeline Chart: Scripture vs. Tradition
Alright—this is a serious claim, so let’s do it carefully, text-first, then history, then put the pieces together without Catholic assumptions baked in.
I’ll show you two things distinctly:
- Scripture never places Peter in Rome—and strongly implies he was not there
- Early historical evidence shows the Roman church’s foundations align far more closely with Simon Magus than with Simon Peter
I’ll keep Scripture and history separate, then draw conclusions.
PART I — SCRIPTURE: Peter Is NEVER Shown Going to Rome
1. The Book of Acts Tracks Peter Closely—Then Stops
Acts follows Peter in detail through Acts 1–12:
- Jerusalem (Acts 1–7)
- Samaria (Acts 8)
- Lydda & Joppa (Acts 9)
- Caesarea (Acts 10)
- Jerusalem again (Acts 11–12)
Then suddenly:
Peter disappears from Acts entirely after Acts 12:17
If Peter were headed to Rome—the capital of the empire—Luke’s silence is unthinkable.
Luke:
- Carefully records Paul’s arrest
- Names Roman officials
- Describes Paul’s journey to Rome in detail (Acts 27–28)
But for Peter?
➡️ Nothing. Zero.
2. Paul Writes to Rome—And Never Mentions Peter
Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (c. AD 57):
- Lists many believers by name (Romans 16)
- Greets leaders, teachers, helpers
Yet:
Peter is never mentioned—not once
This is devastating for the Rome claim.
If Peter were:
- Bishop of Rome
- Founder of the Roman church
- Or even present there
Paul’s silence would be inexplicable.
3. Paul Explicitly Says He Would NOT Build on Another Man’s Foundation
Romans 15:20:
“I have made it my aim to preach the gospel not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation.”
Yet Paul did write to Rome, correct doctrine there, and planned to visit.
Conclusion:
➡️ Peter did not found the Roman church
4. Peter’s Own Epistles Do Not Place Him in Rome
1 Peter 5:13:
“She who is in Babylon… greets you”
Catholic claim: “Babylon” = Rome
Problem:
- Scripture never calls Rome “Babylon” while Jerusalem still stood
- Peter was apostle to the circumcision (Gal. 2:7–9)
- Literal Babylon (in Mesopotamia) still had a large Jewish population
- Peter’s ministry direction fits the East, not Rome
Symbolic “Babylon = Rome” appears after AD 70, especially in Revelation—not earlier.
5. Paul Alone Is Explicitly Taken to Rome
Acts 28:16:
“And when we came to Rome…”
Paul:
- Is imprisoned there
- Writes multiple epistles from there
- Is executed there (historically)
Peter?
➡️ Never mentioned in Rome by Scripture
PART II — HISTORY: The Peter-in-Rome Story Appears Late
1. Earliest Christian Writers Do NOT Say Peter Was Bishop of Rome
Writer | Date | Says Peter was Bishop of Rome? |
Clement of Rome | c. 96 | ❌ No |
Ignatius | c. 110 | ❌ No |
Polycarp | c. 110–135 | ❌ No |
Papias | early 2nd c. | ❌ No |
If Peter had been the first pope, this silence would be impossible.
2. The Claim Begins With Irenaeus—Late 2nd Century
Irenaeus (c. AD 180) is the first to strongly link Peter to Rome.
But:
- He was not an eyewitness
- He relied on Roman tradition
- His aim was anti-Gnostic authority-building
This is the beginning of apostolic succession theology, not apostolic history.
3. No First-Century List of Roman Bishops Exists
The early lists:
- Differ
- Contradict each other
- Are retroactively harmonized
Rome did not have a single bishop until the mid–late 2nd century.
Early churches were led by plural elders, not monarch bishops.
PART III — SIMON MAGUS AND ROME
1. Simon Magus Is Explicitly Linked to Rome
Acts 8 introduces Simon Magus as:
- A miracle-worker
- A deceiver
- One who sought authority and power
Early historical witnesses say he went to Rome:
Justin Martyr (c. AD 150)
“Simon… came to Rome… and was honored as a god.”
Justin was:
- A Samaritan (Simon’s homeland)
- Writing within living memory of the events
He says Rome erected a statue to Simon.
2. Simon Magus Is Called the Father of Heresy
Church fathers unanimously state:
- Simon Magus founded Gnosticism
- He claimed divine authority
- He blended Christianity with mystery religion
This matches Roman religious syncretism, not apostolic simplicity.
3. The Roman System Mirrors Simon Magus—Not Peter
Compare:
Simon Magus | Roman Church |
Claimed spiritual authority | Papal supremacy |
Sought power & status | Political church |
Mixed pagan elements | Ritual syncretism |
Taught salvation through hierarchy | Sacramental control |
Used “Christian” language | Non-apostolic theology |
Peter, by contrast:
- Warned against lording over God’s flock (1 Peter 5:3)
- Rejected personal glory
- Was rebuked publicly by Paul (Gal. 2)
PART IV — SCRIPTURAL CONTRADICTIONS TO THE PAPACY
If Peter were the first pope, Scripture contradicts it:
- Peter never claims supremacy
- Peter is corrected by Paul
- James leads the Jerusalem council (Acts 15)
- Christ forbids hierarchical domination (Matt. 20:25–28)
Peter calls himself:
“A fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1)
Not a pope.
CONCLUSION
From Scripture:
- Peter is never shown in Rome
- Paul explicitly operates independently of Peter in Rome
- Apostolic authority is not centralized
From History:
- The Peter-in-Rome tradition appears late
- Early witnesses connect Simon Magus to Rome
- Roman Christianity shows marks of syncretism, not apostolic purity
Final Assessment:
Peter was not the first pope.
Rome’s earliest dominant influence aligns far more with Simon Magus’ legacy than Simon Peter’s.
——————
Peter, Rome, and the Rise of Tradition
Message Manuscript
Title: Peter, Rome, and the Rise of Tradition
Key Texts: Acts 8; Acts 12; Romans 1; Romans 15–16; Galatians 2; 1 Peter 5
Introduction
Beloved brethren, today we examine a claim so widely repeated that many assume it must be biblical—that Simon Peter went to Rome and became its first bishop, the foundation of papal authority. Yet repetition does not equal truth. As people committed to sola Scriptura—Scripture first, Scripture final—we must ask a simple question:
Does the Bible actually say this?
And if not, where did the claim come from?
I. The Silence of Scripture
The book of Acts follows Peter closely—from Jerusalem to Samaria, Joppa, Caesarea, and back again. Then, after Acts 12, Peter disappears from the narrative entirely.
Meanwhile, Luke meticulously records Paul’s arrest, trials, voyage, and arrival in Rome. If Peter—the supposed bishop of Rome—had gone there, Luke’s silence would be inexplicable.
Scripture records Paul arriving in Rome. It never records Peter doing so.
II. Paul’s Letter to the Romans
Paul writes an epistle addressed to the believers in Rome. In Romans 16 he greets many by name—but never Peter.
This omission is devastating to the Roman claim. Paul explicitly states he would not build on another man’s foundation (Romans 15:20). Yet he corrects doctrine, plans to visit, and establishes authority with the Roman believers.
The conclusion is unavoidable: Peter was not the founder or overseer of the Roman church.
III. Peter’s Own Testimony
Peter never claims supremacy. He calls himself a fellow elder (1 Peter 5:1) and warns against lording authority over God’s people.
His reference to “Babylon” cannot be assumed to mean Rome. Scripture never applies that symbolic name to Rome prior to Jerusalem’s destruction, and Peter’s ministry focus was toward the circumcision—toward the East, not the imperial West.
IV. Apostolic Authority Was Not Centralized
At the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, it is James—not Peter—who delivers the final judgment. Paul publicly rebukes Peter in Galatians 2, something inconceivable under papal supremacy.
Christ Himself forbade hierarchical domination among His servants.
V. Simon Magus and the Roman Connection
Scripture introduces Simon Magus in Acts 8 as a man seeking power, authority, and spiritual prestige.
Early historical witnesses—especially Justin Martyr—testify that Simon Magus went to Rome and was honored there as a divine figure. He is universally identified by the early fathers as the fountainhead of heresy and syncretism.
Rome’s later religious structure reflects Simon’s legacy far more than Peter’s humility.
Conclusion
Scripture never places Peter in Rome. History introduces the claim generations later. The authority structure attributed to Peter mirrors Simon Magus, not the fisherman from Galilee.
When Scripture is silent and tradition speaks loudly, God’s people must choose whom to believe.
Timeline Chart: Scripture vs. Tradition
Period | Scripture Record | Later Tradition |
AD 30–44 | Peter ministers in Jerusalem, Samaria, Judea (Acts 1–12) | — |
AD 49 | Jerusalem Council led by James (Acts 15) | — |
AD 57 | Paul writes Romans; Peter absent | Peter supposedly bishop of Rome |
AD 60–62 | Paul imprisoned in Rome (Acts 28) | Peter allegedly present |
1st century | No Roman bishop listed | Retroactive bishop lists |
c. AD 150 | Justin Martyr places Simon Magus in Rome | Peter-Rome link not yet dominant |
c. AD 180 | Irenaeus asserts Peter-Rome tradition | Papal succession theology emerges |
Did Peter Go to Rome? Scripture vs Tradition
Left Column — Biblical Record
- Acts traces Peter’s movements—Rome never mentioned
- Paul writes Romans with no reference to Peter
- Peter calls himself a fellow elder
- Authority shared among apostles
Right Column — Later Tradition
- Peter named first bishop of Rome (2nd century claim)
- Retroactive succession lists
- Centralized authority structure
- Rome-based supremacy doctrine
Bottom Panel — Simon Magus
- Explicitly goes to Rome (Justin Martyr)
- Seeks power and spiritual authority
- Founder of syncretistic heresy
- Pattern matches Roman system
Footer Verse: “Test all things; hold fast what is good.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:21
