Was Peter went to ROME?

[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 .

mao bitaw sir ni ana ko na secondary basis nako.

[machinecult]

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 .

(OT)
I don't want the topic to derail into another Catholic vs. Protestant thread filled with ad hominems (attacking the argumentor and not the argument) I don't hold anything against the Catholic church even though I disagree with many of its practices - that is not a good reason enough for me to go out and bad mouth it. I believe bashing religion is more detrimental than helpful and it alienates people away from God (this is why many Protestants prefer to be called Evangelicals because a great deal of us are no longer 'protesting').

(Back to the subject)
Those who are interested in the subject and history in general can take both sides of the argument and will see there is no reliable proof of Peter going to Rome aside from the established writings of the early Church fathers - something many historians consider 'traditional explanations'. You can provide ancient ruins, relics and artifacts but these 'physical evidence' ironically only support the fact that people were already following a practice back in the day that people today continue to believe - which does not truly answer the thread's question.

Before the Edict of Milan 300 years after the death of Christ and the apostles Peter and Paul, Christianity was not a united religion, from Anatolia, Syria, Iraq (Babylon), Ethopia, Egypt, Greece, Italy and Rome etc. you will find different sects and cults of Christianity, some have deteriorated away and are indistinguishable from the original Christianity Peter and Paul taught. These groups have made up their own gospels and teachings. When Constantine's regime united these people (under the unifying factor that they all believe in Jesus Christ) they needed to organize and establish a belief system that will lessen their differences - this is when they saw it appropriate to fill up the void with traditions and unfounded stories unacceptable as historical fact. These maybe considered historical but not historical proof of this claim.

Lastly, the Bible is a reasonable source of material for information and normally when people study Christian history they use the Bible and other historical texts for cross reference to see whether they match. If a Biblical figure (like Peter) is mentioned somewhere else doing something extraordinary there needs to be solid evidence, but when the most trusted source does not even mention that it just literary takes the foundations of that claim away. Case in point, the heretical "Gospel of Judas".

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

@ DEFENDER ....

An opinion cant be in the same sentence with FACTS . What the Jesuit archaeologist presented was what he thought , not the actual findings. Kung mo ingon ka na secondary basis nimo is ARCHAEOLOGY , gi prove na man sa nakawtan nila na indeed St. Peter was in Rome. I just dont know unsya gipasabot nimo kay gi highlight man nimo pod.

@ MACHINECULT ....

It is funny to say that EVANGELICALS care to elaborate more being not a protestant anymore when in fact , SOLA SCRIPTURA is a PROTEST in itself. The only tie i consider that just like how the rest o the church doctors would agree also is the consideration of omission of the heresy. Can you guys do that ?

Other than that , it remains an ATTEMPT to DISCREDIT the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH .

Back to the topic ...

Unsay tawag sa excavations and findings nila sa Rome? SPOOFS or PROOFS ? There are no gray lines here @ MACHINE , just PHYSICAL EVIDENCES conforming to the modern day reliability of research. Basing entirely in the bible with tradition doe snot at all hold water . You know why ? You might have a different interpretation from DEFENDER himself and that is why . Dont know you know that there are 35K plus Christian denomination in existence today all over the world and still counting ? That is a manifestation in itself that there is no unity in people who only rely in the bible with your own respective interpretations over the very people who compiled the holy books that holds the explanation .

I just wonder unsa na HISTORICAL TEXT gipasabot nimo ?

SO if I may ask you again , what are your sources other than the BIBLE that made you think St. Peter never made it to Rome ?

[Gjhone]

"Was Peter went to Rome?" ok raka TS?

[%75life4Him]

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.

I dont think so. Because there has never been a biblical ground of papacy. For what reason would Martin Luther's followers use black propaganda? I know OT ni siya bro but....DO you know?

[vmanigos]

I dont think so. Because there has never been a biblical ground of papacy. For what reason would Martin Luther's followers use black propaganda? I know OT ni siya bro but....DO you know?

OFF topic: It's an eight-part series and fifth episode featured about the reformation. Try youtubing it. It was not produced on RCC's point of view but examines Christianity's( Catholic, Protestants, Orthodox) roots, history, evolution. A born again friend gave it to me.

[<SMILE>]

I dont think so. Because there has never been a biblical ground of papacy. For what reason would Martin Luther's followers use black propaganda? I know OT ni siya bro but....DO you know?

I don't think that the papacy is unbiblical,
for the bible did not deny it.
OT: Is Martin Luther mentioned in the bible?

[%75life4Him]

OFF topic: It's an eight-part series and fifth episode featured about the reformation. Try youtubing it. It was not produced on RCC's point of view but examines Christianity's( Catholic, Protestants, Orthodox) roots, history, evolution. A born again friend gave it to me.

I know you are trying to convince me, but I am not the "born again" you think I am. Would you mind to site just one verse USING the authorized version bible? Makasabot ra man sad kug simple explaination.

[%75life4Him]

I don't think that the papacy is unbiblical,
for the bible did not deny it.
OT: Is Martin Luther mentioned in the bible?

Does papacy mentioned in the bible?

[<SMILE>]

Does papacy mentioned in the bible?

Matthew 16:17-19 states:

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The Catholic Church believes the Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.

The Pope is the senior pastor of 1.1 billion Catholic Christians, the direct successor of Simon Peter.

The Pope’s main roles include teaching, sanctifying, and governing.