Was Peter went to ROME?

[<SMILE>]

---

The International Version:

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Source: Matthew 16 NIV - The Demand for a Sign - The Pharisees - Bible Gateway

[<SMILE>]

Simon was in Rome right?

[%75life4Him]

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.

Sorry bro ha pero the RCC was founded by constantine at around 300AD or more than 250AD after the church was baptized by the Holy Spirit after the apostle Peter preached the gospel at Pentecost. if you read the bible you can know that the day of pentecost in Acts 2 (around 30AD) was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the Lord that Peter would have the key to open of the Lord Jesus' Church which was not even named Roman Catholic Church. This is the Lord Jesus' Church not the church of Peter.

Oh by the way, Peter doesnt have any successor nor the Lord Jesus.

[<SMILE>]

Sorry bro ha pero the RCC was founded by constantine at around 300AD or more than 250AD after the church was baptized by the Holy Spirit after the apostle Peter preached the gospel at Pentecost. if you read the bible you can know that the day of pentecost in Acts 2 (around 30AD) was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the Lord that Peter would have the key to open of the Lord Jesus' Church which was not even named Roman Catholic Church. This is the Lord Jesus' Church not the church of Peter.

Oh by the way, Peter doesnt have any successor nor the Lord Jesus.

Klaro man kaayo sa verse Bro
nga si Simon mao si Peter,
Peter means petrus means rock,
thus we call him Simon Peter.

[%75life4Him]

Klaro man kaayo sa verse Bro
nga si Simon mao si Peter,
Peter means petrus means rock,
thus we call him Simon Peter.

Ayaw sad inana bro. Yes i know Simon means Rock and peter means Pebble(small rock), Claru baya nga it is not Peter referred at that verse to be the foundation of the Church but the Lord Jesus whom Peter has claimed to be the Son of God.

By the way...there are a lot of verses in the bible that says Jesus is the foundation of the Church.

iapas nako ni nga verses ha....

Ephesians 2:


20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

[noy]

mao bitaw sir ni ana ko na secondary basis nako.

Fr.Antonio Ferrua was not entirely sure about the bones found, But was not sure that the bones weren't Peter's either..
so should it sheer negativity on the subject? what about the fact that He was not sure?

apart from Fr.Antonio Ferrua's uncertainty ,the bones on the other hand were also tested and had been verified and declared that of the Saint.
isn't Archeological verification process enough? if so, the case would have been reopened or wouldn't have reached a verdict..

plus early Christian testimonies such as Pope Clement's, so balik tas pangutana nako nimu or anyone who
believes that Peter did not lived nor died in Rome, do you think bakak ra tong tanan gipang suwat sa mga early Christians?nga in the first place sila maoy mas nakahibalo kung unsay nahitabo..

ug kung namakak man gani sila,
unsa man pud ilang reason nganu mamakak man sila? sila ba ang klase nga tao nga bakakon?

[%75life4Him]

Fr.Antonio Ferrua was not entirely sure about the bones found, But was not sure that the bones weren't Peter's either..
so should it sheer negativity on the subject? what about the fact that He was not sure?

apart from Fr.Antonio Ferrua's uncertainty ,the bones on the other hand were also tested and had been verified and declared that of the Saint.
isn't Archeological verification process enough? if so, the case would have been reopened or wouldn't have reached a verdict..

plus early Christian testimonies such as Pope Clement's, so balik tas pangutana nako nimu or anyone who
believes that Peter did not lived nor died in Rome, do you think bakak ra tong tanan gipang suwat sa mga early Christians?nga in the first place sila maoy mas nakahibalo kung unsay nahitabo..

ug kung namakak man gani sila,
unsa man pud ilang reason nganu mamakak man sila? sila ba ang klase nga tao nga bakakon?

Burag ang tubag ani bai noy related sa amo argument ni bai smile.

[%75life4Him]

Manga migo...palihog lang sad tag pamubo sa inyo mga comment ha. Perhaps 2 paragraps max is enough as long as maigo dayun ninyo inyo points. Para dili ta pul an ug basa sa inyo mga comments.

[Breakeven]

Kani unta may hatagan ug value sa Pope kung succesor man galing sya ni Peter.

Jesus requested Peter to feed his sheep and lambs (the believers)…but grabe na ka malnourished ang mga Catholic Christians karon with regards to spiritual life.

[choconagatas]

mura nig bible study dah...hehe.....nindot ni