Catholicism vs Protestantism

[maryjohanna]

Where do they differ and why?
Do both lead to salvation? Why or why not?
How should we treat each other?

This is my first time on the thread and I haven't read most to all of it, but this has always been a really touchy issue for me. My mom's family is of Catholic background, I was raised Catholic, but have not been "confirmed"...and there is a reason for that. I don't identify myself as a Catholic at all, even though I was raised in that atmosphere. I don't like to identify with any denomination; I just call myself a Bible-loving follower of Jesus. But practically all of my opinions align with those of a Protestant.

I am in NO place to say whether or not Catholics are saved. I really do believe that some can be, but only God truly knows the heart and can make that judgment. I just have many issues with their doctrine and the heart of their functioning as a Church; I have concerns over their esteem of man-made tradition, their perception of the role of works in salvation, their [appeared] denial of grace as a means of salvation, praying to Mary and saints, carved images, the idea of a pope who is called "Holy Father," and is seen as an authority not to be questioned [people literally call the pope the "vicar" of Christ, which means instead of or in place of], confession/absolving of your sins to/by a priest....there are many things that the Church practices that I believe are not Scriptural, BUT I go back and forth on whether or not they are matters that jeopardize ones salvation. Because at the end of the day, Romans 10:9 tells us that "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." So, I bet there are many Catholics who have done this, and from the outside looking in they are "saved," but I cannot seem to feel okay with the fact that these same people practice/DO things that seem to go against what we are told is okay and Godly in the Scriptures. I encourage everyone to read through the Catechism and compare it to Scripture. Compare it to the word of God. See for yourself if you think it is okay.

I don't mean to offend anyone, and I do not want to argue with anyone at all - I just wanted to share my first impression! I am looking forward to reading the rest of the thread and fellowshipping with you all. God bless!

 

[Dan_473]

Either You assuming or change the bible my brother.

It doesn't say you worship true God, It say You worship that you don't know, It doesn't even mention God

well, let's look at the background

2 Kings 17:27 Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land. 28 Then one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD.

John 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

the priests taught them about the true God.

to me it's obvious they were worshipping the true God, but not in Jerusalem.

like you say, we have to calculate the end result, not interprate letter by letter.

 

[Jackson123]

well, let's look at the background

2 Kings 17:27 Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land. 28 Then one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD.

John 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

the priests taught them about the true God.

to me it's obvious they were worshipping the true God, but not in Jerusalem.

like you say, we have to calculate the end result, not interprate letter by letter.

1 how do you know the priest taught about true God

2 say the priest taught about true god, is that nessacery mean they worship true God?

 

[Roughsoul1991]

This is my first time on the thread and I haven't read most to all of it, but this has always been a really touchy issue for me. My mom's family is of Catholic background, I was raised Catholic, but have not been "confirmed"...and there is a reason for that. I don't identify myself as a Catholic at all, even though I was raised in that atmosphere. I don't like to identify with any denomination; I just call myself a Bible-loving follower of Jesus. But practically all of my opinions align with those of a Protestant.

I am in NO place to say whether or not Catholics are saved. I really do believe that some can be, but only God truly knows the heart and can make that judgment. I just have many issues with their doctrine and the heart of their functioning as a Church; I have concerns over their esteem of man-made tradition, their perception of the role of works in salvation, their [appeared] denial of grace as a means of salvation, praying to Mary and saints, carved images, the idea of a pope who is called "Holy Father," and is seen as an authority not to be questioned [people literally call the pope the "vicar" of Christ, which means instead of or in place of], confession/absolving of your sins to/by a priest....there are many things that the Church practices that I believe are not Scriptural, BUT I go back and forth on whether or not they are matters that jeopardize ones salvation. Because at the end of the day, Romans 10:9 tells us that "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." So, I bet there are many Catholics who have done this, and from the outside looking in they are "saved," but I cannot seem to feel okay with the fact that these same people practice/DO things that seem to go against what we are told is okay and Godly in the Scriptures. I encourage everyone to read through the Catechism and compare it to Scripture. Compare it to the word of God. See for yourself if you think it is okay.

I don't mean to offend anyone, and I do not want to argue with anyone at all - I just wanted to share my first impression! I am looking forward to reading the rest of the thread and fellowshipping with you all. God bless!

Great perspective and observation!

 

[Jackson123]

Why make an an argument you can't prove or win?
Whether it is true or not the Roman Church does have a claim to Peter's grave being under St. Peters Basilica. If you do your homework the Old St. Peter's Basilica was a temple and a shrine to Peter. They have made Peter as their god. But you don't understand this.

I say let them have their god Peter!!


Prove this too!

The problems surrounding the residence, martyrdom, and burial of Peter are among the most complicated of all those encountered in the study of the New Testament and the early church. The absence of any reference in Acts or Romans to a residence of Peter in Rome gives pause but is not conclusive. If Peter did write 1 Peter, the mention of “Babylon” in 5:13 is fairly reliable evidence that Peter resided at some time in the capital city. If Peter was not the author of the first epistle that bears his name, the presence of this cryptic reference witnesses at least to a tradition of the late 1st or early 2nd century. “Babylon” is a cryptic term indicating Rome, and it is the understanding utilized in Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5, 6 and in the works of various Jewish seers.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Peter-the-Apostle/Tradition-of-Peter-in-Rome

I don't think history always correct, base on the Bible, Paul was the apostle that start church in Rome, Babylon in revelation refer to rome but it was after the year 70 when Rome destroyed temple like what was Babylon did.

But catholic say Peter in Rome since AD 32 to AD 67, act 28 when Paul in Rome invite Jews community there, Luke the writer of act not mention Peter et all. And the way Oaul preach there indicate Peter not there.
Every where in act if apostle visit a town where there is Christian, they always stay at Christian family house
Paul rent a house in Rome, indicate Peter not there.

 

[maryjohanna]

Great perspective and observation!

Thank you! It is the Holy Spirit who has led me to feel this way. I pray that He will lead me down a path of truth in this matter. There are just certain aspects of Catholicism that I truly feel are dangerous and more ungodly than people truly realize. But, God is the Judge. Plain and simple. I cannot sit here and say a Catholic who firmly believes in Christ, His death, the Resurrection, His sacrifice, and His position as Savior is not saved. But, I ask myself, are their practices godly? Do they bear good fruit? If they follow through with my list of issues with Catholicism, I don't think so. Does this change things for them? I guess that starts to get into a different issue, but this is a question the Holy Spirit has yet to fully convince me of on either side. Thank you for your encouragement!! God bless.

 

[Dan_473]

I think you may be mixing metaphor and literal.

The Church is both visible and invisible.

Jesus founded a visible Church with a structure. It has one faith, (Eph 4:5) that is one set of doctrines, not many. I believe that is the Catholic Church which has the fullness of Christ. (Eph 1:23)

Paul likens the Church to Christ's body with Jesus as the head. We are not physically part of his body but spiritually. The Catholic Church calls this the Mystical Body of Christ which incorporates all those validly baptised even through they are not actual members of the Catholic Church.

Those who reject the Pope as the visible head of the Church on earth and reject fundamental doctrines cannot be members although through baptism they are related to it.

I think I follow what you're saying.

1 Corinthians 12:21 The eye can't tell the hand, "I have no need for you," or again the head to the feet, "I have no need for you." 22 No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.

in your view, is Paul talking about the mystical body here?
would you agree that none of us, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, can say to another, "we don't really need you in the body"?

does it make sense that we would all adhere to this
Ephesians 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to walk worthily of the calling with which you were called, 2 with all lowliness and humility, with patience, bearing with one another in love; 3 being eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

 

[Dan_473]

I think you may be mixing metaphor and literal.

The Church is both visible and invisible.

Jesus founded a visible Church with a structure. It has one faith, (Eph 4:5) that is one set of doctrines, not many. I believe that is the Catholic Church which has the fullness of Christ. (Eph 1:23)

Paul likens the Church to Christ's body with Jesus as the head. We are not physically part of his body but spiritually. The Catholic Church calls this the Mystical Body of Christ which incorporates all those validly baptised even through they are not actual members of the Catholic Church.

Those who reject the Pope as the visible head of the Church on earth and reject fundamental doctrines cannot be members although through baptism they are related to it.

but also, just another thought,

if a person is in the body of Christ, are they in the church?

 

[Bede]

I don't see in this chapter say Jesus want Peter go to Rome

2. Act 12 didn't say Peter go to rome

3 Paul didn't say Peter build Rome church et all in contrary it prove Rome build by Paul indicate in this verse

20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

Paul not preach on the church that another man's build

The fact that Paul preach in this letter more than 15 chapter prove that he the one that build that church

You believe the president of apostle/Peter was the boss there, do you think Paul wrote this letter without mention boss Peter?

If Peter bishop there and Peter is paul supervisor than this letter is impolite

I believe Paul is polite and claim Peter in Rome is wrong, my brother.

4. Babylon is not Rome.

There is much evidence that Peter was in Rome. No scholaar seriously doubts that. Here are some early quotes about that.

Ignatius:
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Epistle to the Romans, 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus:
"Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the [local] churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles" (Against Heresies, 3, 3:2 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus:
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 180]).

Gaius:
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cata-phrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: 'I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church'" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:5).

Dionysius of Corinth:
"You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Epistle to Soter of Rome [A.D. 166] in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:8).

Tertullian:
"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood" (Against Marcion, 4, 5:1 [A.D. 207]).

Clement of Alexandria:
"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).

 

[Bede]

I don't think history always correct, base on the Bible, Paul was the apostle that start church in Rome, Babylon in revelation refer to rome but it was after the year 70 when Rome destroyed temple like what was Babylon did.

But catholic say Peter in Rome since AD 32 to AD 67, act 28 when Paul in Rome invite Jews community there, Luke the writer of act not mention Peter et all. And the way Oaul preach there indicate Peter not there.
Every where in act if apostle visit a town where there is Christian, they always stay at Christian family house
Paul rent a house in Rome, indicate Peter not there.

Here is a timeline for Peter in Rome. It's always difficult constructing a timeline because exact dates are often not given. Also different dating systems may be used.

The Liber pontificalis says Peter was bishop of Rome for 25 years. As he died in 67AD that makes him arrive in Rome around 42AD It Also says he was Bishop of Antioch for 7 years.

St. Jerome says Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius (which would be 42AD) and was bishop there for 25 years until he died in the 14th year of Nero.

It seems unlikely that Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome. The dates don't fit.

Taylor Marshall points out that in the book of Acts Peter is absent from about (in Rome) from 42 AD until 49 AD at the Council of Jerusalem.

If that is so then why was he in Jerusalem in 49 AD? The answer is that in 49 AD Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome.

In 55AD Claudius died and the following year (56 AD) Jews returned to Rome en masse. It was probably during this time of 7 years that Peter was Bishop of Antioch until he returned to Rome.

 

[Jackson123]

There is much evidence that Peter was in Rome. No scholaar seriously doubts that. Here are some early quotes about that.

Ignatius:
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Epistle to the Romans, 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus:
"Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the [local] churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles" (Against Heresies, 3, 3:2 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus:
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 180]).

Gaius:
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cata-phrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: 'I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church'" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:5).

Dionysius of Corinth:
"You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Epistle to Soter of Rome [A.D. 166] in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:8).

Tertullian:
"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood" (Against Marcion, 4, 5:1 [A.D. 207]).

Clement of Alexandria:
"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).

I a man from Indonesia, in 1965 there was tragedy
, 7 generals killed and they death body found in a well at a town Lubang Buaya.
Official story say, communist killed them and that is what history say.
Professor Bend Anderson from one of USA university investigate, and say, it was lie, CIA behind that killing because CIA want to replace President Sukarno.

History is uP to who ever in power, to serve they agenda.

I believe professor Bend Anderson investigate from internstional news, not depend on Indonesian news that was control by government, under CIA influence. They make it look like communist did it, they make some false document to support their lie.

My experience with what happen to my country, make me not believe with the document above, I compare to the real document by Luke in act

Luke never mention Peter in Rome when he wrote about Paul in Rome.
History about Peter being in Rome since AD 32 look odd.
Paul in Rome was about AD 60 or 61
Paul say he don't want to preach the gospel to a place where other already start the church
If catholic correct. Peter had been ther for 28 years and when Paul came he invite Jews community and preach to them.

To me, it make Paul like a liar.

Remember also the verse that you give to me in Rome 15
To me it prove Peter not a bishop in Rome.

If I was a pastor and Peter was the leader, my letter will go to zpeter

Dear bishop Peter

As one of your helper, I, Paul want to see you if the Lord willing, greeting to all member etc

He that say not to preach to the church start by other, lie in this very letter where he say not to.

 

[Jackson123]

Here is a timeline for Peter in Rome. It's always difficult constructing a timeline because exact dates are often not given. Also different dating systems may be used.

The Liber pontificalis says Peter was bishop of Rome for 25 years. As he died in 67AD that makes him arrive in Rome around 42AD It Also says he was Bishop of Antioch for 7 years.

St. Jerome says Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius (which would be 42AD) and was bishop there for 25 years until he died in the 14th year of Nero.

It seems unlikely that Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome. The dates don't fit.

Taylor Marshall points out that in the book of Acts Peter is absent from about (in Rome) from 42 AD until 49 AD at the Council of Jerusalem.

If that is so then why was he in Jerusalem in 49 AD? The answer is that in 49 AD Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome.

In 55AD Claudius died and the following year (56 AD) Jews returned to Rome en masse. It was probably during this time of 7 years that Peter was Bishop of Antioch until he returned to Rome.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

According to this link, Peter was in Rome from AD 32 to AD 67

Say Peter in Rome AD 42 to 67

Why when Paul there in AD 60 preaching, I understand if Peter ask him to preach, but the way Luke wrote seem no Peter involvement
Last Sunday in my church there was ex pastor that lead my church 6 years ago, my pastor ask him to say something before sermon, he will not talk if my pastor not ask.
Act 28 say, Paul conduct bible study for 2 years on the city where his Boss Peter there as a bishop?

If so, act will say something about Peter being bishop there.

 

[Benadam]

Maybe it was better to not broadcast where Peter was. Nero was ruling then.

 

[Jackson123]

Maybe it was better to not broadcast where Peter was. Nero was ruling then.

Nero ruling from AD 37 to AD 68, Paul was preaching there in about AD 60 to AD 62, and he not kill paul

 

[Benadam]

Nero ruling from AD 37 to AD 68, Paul was preaching there in about AD 60 to AD 62, and he not kill paul

Paul didn't preside over a diocese. You don't hear of Paul first Bishop of.........

Until the 800's Bishops never left the area they were appointed. It would be seen as adulterous.

 

[Jackson123]

Paul didn't preside over a diocese. You don't hear of Paul first Bishop of.........

Until the 800's Bishops never left the area they were appointed. It would be seen as adulterous.

And the Bible never say Peter bishop of Rome.
But Bible say Paul preach in Rome for 2 years

 

[Benadam]

And the Bible never say Peter bishop of Rome.
But Bible say Paul preach in Rome for 2 years

The bible doesn't record his martyrdom either. It doesn't record his death at all. So what are you going to believe? That he didn't die and was taken up? That he was beheaded? That his death was of no consequence? Or was it not recorded by anyone anywhere even though he was surrounded by a multitude of people that considered him father of their faith?

 

[Bede]

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

According to this link, Peter was in Rome from AD 32 to AD 67

Say Peter in Rome AD 42 to 67

Why when Paul there in AD 60 preaching, I understand if Peter ask him to preach, but the way Luke wrote seem no Peter involvement
Last Sunday in my church there was ex pastor that lead my church 6 years ago, my pastor ask him to say something before sermon, he will not talk if my pastor not ask.
Act 28 say, Paul conduct bible study for 2 years on the city where his Boss Peter there as a bishop?

If so, act will say something about Peter being bishop there.

The link you gave doesn't say Peter was in Rome from 32 AD. It says he was Pope from 32 AD.
The historical evidence suggests Peter was first in Rome about 42 AD.

The reference to Paul's letter to the Romans (15:21-22) says he was to visit Rome but does not want to build "on another man’s foundation". Only an apostle could lay a foundation for a church and Peter is the only apostle known to have been in Rome at that time.
Therefore Peter was in Rome before Paul.

A little understanding of why Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome is important here - and why Paul wrote his letter. This is from Taylor Marshall's book The Eternal City. There would have been Jews from Rome that heard Peter preach at Pentecost and Peter would have converted more Jews. But also he would have preached to, and converted, Gentiles. The issue of Gentiles was a big issue at the time. Remember this is before the Council of Jerusalem but after Peter's understanding of preaching to Gentiles from his episode with Cornelius.
The Roman historian Suetonius provides us with an understanding of why Claudius took the drastic step of expelling Jews from Rome.
Taylor Marshall writes Suetonius records that the Roman Jews engaged in continual riots insinuated by "Chrestus their ringleader". There is no other record of a Roman Jew named "Chrestus". The Roman authorities knew only that some Jews united around "Chrestus" and some Jews were bitterly opposed to "Chrestus". The debate had become publicly dangerous! If Peter had been in Rome at this time, it would explain why the Jews became so riotous - not over the a controversial Roman Jew named Chrestus but over a resurrected Jew named Christus. So Claudius expelled every known Jew from Rome, which would have included Peter. The riots disappeared. Prisca and Aquila turn up in Corinth (Acts 18:2).

Then when in 56AD the Edict of Claudius was rescinded the Jews went back to Rome (including Peter). But Taylor Marshall suggests during this 7 years the Gentile Christians would have grown and there would have been tensions between the Gentile and returning Jewish Christians. It was this tension that Paul was addressing in his letter to the Romans.

 

[Jackson123]

The bible doesn't record his martyrdom either. It doesn't record his death at all. So what are you going to believe? That he didn't die and was taken up? That he was beheaded? That his death was of no consequence? Or was it not recorded by anyone anywhere even though he was surrounded by a multitude of people that considered him father of their faith?

Bible writer not write how he die, mean not important, the writer know what people need to know, his teaching, not how he die, what kind of shoes he wear etc

 

[Jackson123]

The link you gave doesn't say Peter was in Rome from 32 AD. It says he was Pope from 32 AD.
The historical evidence suggests Peter was first in Rome about 42 AD.

The reference to Paul's letter to the Romans (15:21-22) says he was to visit Rome but does not want to build "on another man’s foundation". Only an apostle could lay a foundation for a church and Peter is the only apostle known to have been in Rome at that time.
Therefore Peter was in Rome before Paul.

A little understanding of why Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome is important here - and why Paul wrote his letter. This is from Taylor Marshall's book The Eternal City. There would have been Jews from Rome that heard Peter preach at Pentecost and Peter would have converted more Jews. But also he would have preached to, and converted, Gentiles. The issue of Gentiles was a big issue at the time. Remember this is before the Council of Jerusalem but after Peter's understanding of preaching to Gentiles from his episode with Cornelius.
The Roman historian Suetonius provides us with an understanding of why Claudius took the drastic step of expelling Jews from Rome.
Taylor Marshall writes Suetonius records that the Roman Jews engaged in continual riots insinuated by "Chrestus their ringleader". There is no other record of a Roman Jew named "Chrestus". The Roman authorities knew only that some Jews united around "Chrestus" and some Jews were bitterly opposed to "Chrestus". The debate had become publicly dangerous! If Peter had been in Rome at this time, it would explain why the Jews became so riotous - not over the a controversial Roman Jew named Chrestus but over a resurrected Jew named Christus. So Claudius expelled every known Jew from Rome, which would have included Peter. The riots disappeared. Prisca and Aquila turn up in Corinth (Acts 18:2).

Then when in 56AD the Edict of Claudius was rescinded the Jews went back to Rome (including Peter). But Taylor Marshall suggests during this 7 years the Gentile Christians would have grown and there would have been tensions between the Gentile and returning Jewish Christians. It was this tension that Paul was addressing in his letter to the Romans.

I believe Christian historian Luke who wrote tha book of act
Act 28 when Oaul in Rome he invite Jews and preach there for 2 years

Rome 15
20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

He don't want preach to Rome church if Peter start that church

You change the word preach into build the church.

And letter of Rome is a preaching

Act 28

30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Paul preaching 2 years in Rome, it prove he/Paul start that church

Let build deductive logic

Paul not preach to the church build by other

Paul preach In Rome for 2 years

Therefore Church of Rome start by Paul, not Peter