Was Peter went to ROME?

[noy]

---

The link is not entirely about proofs but holds the water on why NON CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS argues the presence of St. Peter in Rome.

Was Peter ever in Rome?

Again .... another form of an ATTEMPT to DISCREDIT the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH .

uu master, padung ni dispute sa apostolic succession..

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

master lock hehehehe ...

It is obvious and makes sense that if they can establish which they never did that St. Peter indeed was never in Rome , it only follows that the succession was only an invention lol.

[phoqscofield]

hahaha.. trending.. ayaw lagi pataka TS

[vmanigos]

Saw in one documentary entitled "Christianity - A History" - in one episode, the Protestants (Martin Luther's followers) at one point tried to use this as a black propaganda to discredit the legitimacy of the Pope as not biblically grounded.

[LadyAerith]

I think the construction of the title is incorrect. The correct format could be Did peter went to Rome or Was peter sent to Rome?

ONT: I don't know. No scriptures or physical documents states that he was/wasn't in Rome.

[defender_1611]

I think the construction of the title is incorrect. The correct format could be Did peter went to Rome or Was peter sent to Rome?

ONT: I don't know. No scriptures or physical documents states that he was/wasn't in Rome.

OT: hehehehe.....lage sayop wala nako ma bantayi kay kawat2x ra man gud ako pag access sa istorya.

[defender_1611]

OK bro.. let's see the evidence. On the stone fragment, they have seen these letters:

PETR (OS) ENI === which literally means Peter is here.

PETR (OS) ENDEI would have a different spelling if that is what to be seen on the stone fragment. It would have contained a delta (d). instead the greek inscription contains an iota (i).

walay mas realistic tan.awn aside ani sir? kay dili nako siya ma compare sa evidence na document na naa nako.

[defender_1611]

Mao lage ni ang gina ingon na dont take TRADITIONS as LEGENDS for they are not the " legends " as sotrya storya lang.

Naa na gani link gi provide which SCIENCE partakes in proving that indeed ST. PETER ni adto gyud si ROME .

Would you guys put more leverage on the " ASSUMPTIONS " of personal interpretation of the bible or EXCAVATIONS by ARCHAEOLOGIST's ?

Naa lang ko question to both of your MACHINE CULT and DEFENDER ....

Other than not being mentioned in the bible literally , word for word that St. Peter ever stepped on Roman soil , unsay laing basis ninyo ? Just wondering . Thanks.

master spring ang akong ra jud gikuhaan ug basi is the King James Bible mao na ako primary basis pero kaning uban na akong gi present is secondary basis nalang ni siya.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

@ DEFENDER ...

Thank you for your reply .



Naa man gud excavations and findings ni surface out and these are PHYSICAL EVIDENCES of the presence of St. Peter in Rome . ANg iyahang shackles , tomb , prison , documents from early hurhc hsitorians and fathers , etc.

Kung purely bible based ta does not at all cover the entirety of beliefs because unlike RCC , we hold equal authority on HOLY SCRIPTURES and TRADITIONS . They go hand in hand for the scriptures are inspired by God and based on traditions. So it now makes sense that mas lig-on ang basis kung apilan na to ug tradition . Dili pa na apil ang personal interpretation of the bible nato so samot jud ka libog. By the way , ang secondary basis nato is what ? Opinions or factual testings pod ?

Mind you , ARCHAEOLOGY is a scientific field which is obviously a NEUTRAL GROUND for results . They not only yielded with clues or hints but proofs .

[defender_1611]

@ DEFENDER ...

Thank you for your reply .



Naa man gud excavations and findings ni surface out and these are PHYSICAL EVIDENCES of the presence of St. Peter in Rome . ANg iyahang shackles , tomb , prison , documents from early hurhc hsitorians and fathers , etc.

Kung purely bible based ta does not at all cover the entirety of beliefs because unlike RCC , we hold equal authority on HOLY SCRIPTURES and TRADITIONS . They go hand in hand for the scriptures are inspired by God and based on traditions. So it now makes sense that mas lig-on ang basis kung apilan na to ug tradition . Dili pa na apil ang personal interpretation of the bible nato so samot jud ka libog. By the way , ang secondary basis nato is what ? Opinions or factual testings pod ?

Mind you , ARCHAEOLOGY is a scientific field which is obviously a NEUTRAL GROUND for results . They not only yielded with clues or hints but proofs .

usa sa akong gikuhaan ug basi sir nganu dili confirmed ug dili sure nga si peter gi lubong sa ROME is kani si Antonio Ferrua usa ka Jesuit Archaelogist. Mismo siya sir ni confirmed na dili sure kung didto ba gyud gilubong si peter try lang ug backread sa akong mga post sir spring tua didto ang statement ni Reverend Antonio Ferrua.