Was Peter went to ROME?

[Breakeven]

---

hehehe, pero ingon sad lolo ako klasmyt sa una "you cannot the judge d man and d monkey under the mango tree"

sakto man bro.
and we can try to go sa buwangan inig adlawng dominggo and ask them to go to church to hear about the gospel of salvation, diba makasabot ka how depraved is the spirit of man.

[Breakeven]

Sige lang Bro,
basta healthy lang ang sagbot,
mangaon ra man gyud basta gutmon na.

healthy before but now no more...hhehehe.
mao bitaw and rason mostly sa protestants and those nibalhin from catholicism kay they found wanting sa truth and they feel that need nga wala mafill sa church. meaning, dili na green and sagbot bro.

OT naman ta ani bro...hahahah! sorry...

[noy]

healthy before but now no more...hhehehe.
mao bitaw and rason mostly sa protestants and those nibalhin from catholicism kay they found wanting sa truth and they feel that need nga wala mafill sa church. meaning, dili na green and sagbot bro.

nya nalipay ang GInoo aning atong istorya run? murag nagpasikatay naman tag relihiyon ani...
sus! ang yawa ray nagkatawa ani...back to topic ta oi!

[noy]

brothers in christ from another denomination, if you think RCC is struggling then help us! you don't need to talk about purgatory!
and all about the other stuff that divides us! just talk about Jesus..no need to convert...JUST JESUS
if it's really Jesus that matters most. then enough with this religion BASHING crap!

after all, we have our own reasons for our different POVs,practices and beliefs and on top of that none of us can really claim
absolute truth in God's perspective when it comes to the things that differentiates us

[Chubi]

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.

OT:murag mao jud bro kay mostly man gud magsalig ra sa wali di nalang mo tan.aw if sakto ba jud IMO


sorry OT na jud

[machinecult]

@ 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 .

I don't speak for all Protestants and our attitude towards Catholics do vary. In my experience as a former Catholic I have not been in Protestant churches that hold a militant view on Catholic dogma and accuse the Roman Catholic church all sorts of things. I have not been in churches that are like those, I have not encountered pastors or preachers that revolve around exposing Catholicism with a vengeance. These are age-old attitudes that were predominant during the 16th and 17th century and is not the same environment we have today. Despite the disagreements I have not been in a church that is verbally and physically 'protesting'.

Second, I have not yet encountered anyone or read something that deemed the Five Solas as an incitement to protest or to revolt even though later on they were used by countries or individuals as a justification to separate from the Holy Roman Empire. Luther himself was not keen on leaving the church he just meant to reform it, hence the movement was called "Reformation". Just as Aquinas was writing about Christian ethics in war in his "Just War theory" as an example, Luther was writing about returning to the Bible as the the primary source of authority for all Christians in the "Solas" likely based on Galatians 1. The rest of course is history.

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 ?

Yes they are physical evidences of early church history. But these ancient shrines only tell us how early Christians worshiped in the Middle ages, Christians that were already following the traditional view of Peter to begin with thanks to the writings of Marcion, Irenaeus, and Dionysius.

For example. There would be hardly any difference to build an altar of Peter in Rome today and men from the future discovering and claim it as proof. Although it enriches the traditional view it still misses the answer to the question of its origin because its makers did not really know what happened to Peter because they themselves are subjects to tradition.

I just wonder unsa na HISTORICAL TEXT gipasabot nimo ?

Historical texts outside the influence of tradition. And since finding sources void of any religious sympathies are tricky its preferable to cross-examine them instead. I am also asking secular sources on this topic somewhere else.

[TheSunKing]

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.

Asa sa Bible bro nga King James ra jud ang primary basis?

I quote lang ang Chapter og verse para klaro ta ana.

[TheSunKing]

Off topic naman ang mga gipang post diri ui.... Other topics have been discussed in another Roman Catholic thread.
Giganahan naman ta og storya na liki na hinoon.. heheh.

FYI lng mga bro. These are the topics that have been discussed in the Roman Catholic Questions thread, Please visit the link if you want further discussion on these topics.

Roman Catholic -- origins
Sunday worship
The Papacy

Stick lang ta sa topic mga bro: Did Peter go to Rome?


Defender, machinecult please present your evidence para ato ma-discuss.

[TheSunKing]

Off topic lang ko gamay...


The Bible itself proves that the Apostles preached EVERYWHERE.

Does this prove that Peter may have preached to Rome? YES.

- All literary, historical and archaeological sources prove so. Yet, there are """bible-christians""" who deny this fact even if the Apostle himself says he was in Babylon and this fact is written in the bible. Ironic, isnt it?


Where did the Apostles go?

Simon, given the name Peter, worked among the Jews before he eventually reached Rome

Thomas journeyed into Northwest India, east of Persia. (Kerala, India)


Bartholomew travelled to Armenia and a portion of Upper Phrygia in Asia Minor (Turkey)


Jude journeyed to Assyria and Mesopotamia. Modern day Northern Iran and Iraq. Mesopotamia (Iraq and ) is the site of ancient Babylon, now an obscure village.


Philip went to Scythia and Upper Asia (meaning Asia Minor) -- Romania and Bulgaria


James the Just stayed in Israel.


James travelled to Hispania or Finis Terrae, modern day Spain.



More information here:

FATE OF THE APOSTLES

[SioDenz]

I don't care where Peter went, because Jesus told them to spread Christianity NOT religion, Spread the Belief Not the Organization