Was Peter went to ROME?

[%75life4Him]

---

OT:
karon pasad ko ani bro. Pwede baya unta Christian Catholic no?
Thanks and sorry bro @noy and others from diverting sa topic.

We can simply be called christians and a church.

[tsunade]

OT: but you cannot be a true Muslim if you don't believe in Jesus

They do believe in Jesus but in different perspective.

[<SMILE>]

Since you mentioned according to Alberto Rivera jim jones was a jesuit....

Alberto Rivera – The Jesuit Priest Who Told The Truth

OT:
Yes one of the astrays,
we should stay in the flock shall we.

[%75life4Him]

OT: but you cannot be a true Muslim if you don't believe in Jesus

Right..because muslim means believer.

[%75life4Him]

OT:
Yes one of the astrays,
we should stay in the flock shall we.

Well, we can respect on another's beliefs...but there are just those who cannot follow the flock blindedly.

[<SMILE>]

OT: but you cannot be a true Muslim if you don't believe in Jesus

OT:
For them Jesus Christ is a Messenger of God and the Messiah.
Siurce:Jesus in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[<SMILE>]

Well, we can respect on another's beliefs...but there are just those who cannot follow the flock blindedly.

OT:
And I think you are as well.
It's the power of believing.

[machinecult]

Well who are building altars for St. Peter today ?

For the record , it doesnt work that way . You made it look like , it is as simple as A-B-C . Bai , it undergoes critical studies and research . Dili na siya sama sa imohang pag tuo cguro na naay nakawtan na antiquity and right there and then announces its certainty. Heck it would probably even go for decades of study before concluding on it.

That is the same thing in modern times gi unsa nila pag arrive sa conclusion that Pedro Calungsod should be canonized as an example . It goes through the eye of the needle .

Which yielded you to what ? Dont you think it would be absurd of you to say that when you already professed the reliability and accuracy of the bible ?

That must have been a very large needle eye.

The Shroud of Turin, the "Holy Lance" a spearhead found in Jerusalem during the Crusades said to be the one used to pierce Christ during the crucifixion (to name a few relics) have no basis on facts but objects well-known not because of authenticity but by claims made by the Church's elaborate wishful thinking. Sure, they may not have use the same method for Calungsod (they've always been secretive in their methods) but I'm not so certain they did not apply the same treatment for Peter's supposed 'bones' found in the basilica in Rome. How were they able to tell which set of bones to find amidst thousands of others in what was originally a Roman necropolis? And how is this particular set of bones any different to other 'Peter bones' already on display?

Excavations in the1950's (source:- Roger T. O'Callaghan, "Vatican Excavations and the Tomb of Peter", The Biblical Archaeologist)

St. Peter's tomb is near the west end of a complex of mausoleums that date between about AD 130 and AD 300.The complex was partially torn down and filled with earth to provide a foundation for the building of the first St. Peter's Basilica during the reign of Constantine I in about AD 330. Though many bones have been found at the site of the 2nd-century shrine, as the result of two campaigns of archaeological excavation, Pope Pius XII stated in December 1950 that none could be confirmed to be Saint Peter's with absolute certainty

Later in 1968 (source: St. Peter's Basilica)

In the summer of 1968 it was announced by Pope Paul VI that the skeletal remains of St. Peter had at last been found and satisfactorily identified. The revered bones had been unearthed some time before, he said, from the tangle of ancient structures that lay deep beneath the magnificent high altar of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Paul was careful to explain that his statement rested on long and intensive study by experts, but then he deliberately went further, adding the weight of his own prestige. In light of the archaeological and scientific conclusions, he said, "the relics of St. Peter have been identified in a manner which we believe convincing … very patient and accurate investigations were made with a result which we believe positive." Firmly persuaded as he was, he had felt it nothing less than a duty to make "this happy announcement" at the earliest possible moment.

Announcement by the Pope (1968 ) (source: Text of Announcement by Pope Paul VI Concerning the Relics, The New York Times, 27 June 1968 )

[W]e believe it our duty, in the present state of archaeological and scientific conclusions, to give you and the church this happy announcement, bound as we are to honor sacred relics, backed by a reliable proof of their authenticity… In the present case, we must be all the more eager and exultant when we are right in believing that the few but sacred mortal remains have been traced of the Prince of the Apostles, of Simon son of Jonah, of the fisher-man named Peter by Christ, of he [sic] who was chosen by the Lord to found His church and to whom He entrusted the keys of His kingdom … until His final glorious return.

A tremendous discovery for the church but this takes a lot of faith (blind faith, mind you) to readily believe the Pope's 'infallible' and extraordinary claims. One does not have to be in any particular religious group to see the discrepancies and the slyness at work here (one only has to be honest with himself) to see that once again the same attitude is applied all too familiar in declaring inanimate objects and turning them into sacred and holy at the Church's whim.

Here's another from 1968. It seems the claim was already in the Church earlier but chose not to declare it for a few years later. (source: Text of Announcement by Pope Paul VI Concerning the Relics, The New York Times, 27 June 1968 )

According to officials the reason for keeping the discovery secret is that the Pontiff, before making the announcement which, they said, will certainly be of tremendous interest for both Roman Catholics and non-Catholics, wants his archaeological experts to gather proofs so incontrovertible that no one will be able to challenge their authenticity. Accordingly, tests were said to have been made, the nature of which was not disclosed.

How are we going to know what proof and evidence they have gathered and how it was used in examining its authenticity if it is not disclosed?

Even the findings from the Society of Jesus, a Roman Catholic order are not so adamant in concluding the bones are of St. Peter's. (source: http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content...7.1/27.1.4.pdf)

If the bones wrapped in purple and gold in the marble-lined recess of Wall were not those of St. Peter, some unknown person enjoyed the singular privilege of sharing his tomb; and the graffito "Peter is here" was allowed to stand just where it ought not to be, if real confusion was to be avoided. If, on the contrary, the graffito was intended as an identification, then these were the bones of Peter, or believed to be such, transferred from the earthen vault to a more fitting position. Independently of the inscription, there is much in favor of this suggestion.

A final question may be considered. Could the bones from Wall properly be venerated as authentic relics of St. Peter? In the strictest sense, it would seem impossible to assert it. A larger view, however, seems justified. The bones are from the tomb of St. Peter. Are they not entitled to lie once more under the pontifical altar, as they lay for centuries, as they lay beneath the Constantinian shrine, and in Wall before it? A prudent reserve would stand in the way of a categorical judgment of authenticity. There is a positive, serious probability, however, that these are the bones of St. Peter.

In the end, the decision to believe overpowers reality ("I chose to believe it therefore it's true") reasoning. There is serious grounds here for a hard explanation because as Christians we consider these extraordinary claims of our history and heritage. And as the saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and not all of us are convinced and ready to compromise.

[Breakeven]

OT:
What other truth do we need if we truly believe in God and Jesus Christ,
mga hinubad sa tawo.hmmmmm
maorag dili na ko motuo ana, naa ra ba na sa prophesy
Bro, beware.....

OT:
Our Christian life doesnt stop there. if we are a concerned, we should be able to know the activities within the church also.
coz we lead our family to the church and those things is what shapes their thinking.

[defender_1611]

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?

I can give you 10 Biblical Facts that Peter was not in ROME.