Was Peter went to ROME?

[noy]

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

10 biblical facts with your denominational/personal interpretation? lisud na lalison bro kay imu man nang pagsabut..

how about archeological proof that Peter never went to Rome and established Christ's Church?
how about proven Historical writings about early Christians that Peter didn't die in Rome?

[%75life4Him]

10 biblical facts with your denominational/personal interpretation? lisud na lalison bro kay imu man nang pagsabut..

how about archeological proof that Peter never went to Rome and established Christ's Church?
how about proven Historical writings about early Christians that Peter didn't die in Rome?

Lets wait and see if there is no denominational bias iyang i post. Actually, I am not a defender of 1611. So let us give him a chance.

[noy]

Thanks for the article bro. An except says The earliest form was the noun "Romanist" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. . I am sorry bro but this is a name created by tradition. The bible says that the church was called just a church. People within the church are called christians. Not roman catholics. Those biblical names are ordained already in the bible and no one should have the right to alter it even the pope himself.

i'm not sure why or how we call our church and ourselves is such a big deal..

the link tells about how RCC got her name, since you asked for it.
there were other Catholics who didn't tie up with the Roman Church. just to have a distinction.

the term Catholic is the term used for believers of Christ Jesus.
so it should follow that the church in Rome should be called Roman Catholics. is there something wrong with that?
Protestants have more or less 33,000 denominations each having their own church name.
Regarding Catholicism and Apostolic order in general:

The earliest recorded evidence of the use of the term "Catholic Church" is the Letter to the Smyrnaeans that Ignatius of Antioch wrote in about 107 to Christians in Smyrna. Exhorting Christians to remain closely united with their bishop, he wrote: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
source: History of the term "Catholic" - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ignatius of Antioch: Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

of course you cannot see the word Catholic in the Bibles we have today
as Catholic is not an english word, the term is derived from Greek
which how originally biblical accounts were written.

Catholic simply refers to the whole believers of Jesus, the whole Christian church,
Roman Catholicism simply points out to the Catholic Church in Rome
through the apostolic succession, believed to have been established by Jesus in commanding St. Peter.

I am sorry but those list are just presumptions.

Discrediting the Roman Catholic Church's Apostolic Succession is a huge claim bro, can you at least prove it?

I love to discuss further with you about this if you want....

OT man ni bro gud..
the topic has been discussed and answered na in the RCC Questions thread..i'm not sure if ok ra pud na ipost adto 'cause the thread was for questions not debates and arguments.
unless you want to make a thread about it..though not sure if ok ra ba pud...due to existing somewhat similar threads...

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

That must have been a very large needle eye.

Taking that into consideration , you are now implying about LAPSES . The suggestion of another "PROTEST" . Lets all get real here.

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?

Its called tradition .

The family heirloom has more than 50 plus class A relics of antiquities , saints and even from the protomartyr , Justin. More than what you can imagine what OAD of TABOR HILLS can hold when it comes to sacredness and collection , This must be another BIG EYE of a NEEDLE when it comes to the authority , capability and crdibility of the POSTULATOR who authenticated it.

That is the process which I dont know but one thing is certain , it is not SECRETIVE nor BIAS as what you implied. So the moment we label it as a CLAIM would sync to being an ATTEMPT .... for the nth time , to discredit RCC . Again lets all get real here . These are not mine , but of experts in the field of sociology and anthropology .

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.

Are these your take ? Surely not of the people who are involved in the studies and research. Again , dont make it sound like it is aa easy as A-B-C .

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?

In relation to this , ty to research more about St. Philomena and it directly brings you to your question and indirectly answers your confusion .

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.

Dont be so concluding to label it as claims lage . The proof of the presence of St. Peter in Rome carries PHYSICAL EVIDENCES that are TANGIBLE and not only about faith which is what you are trying to imply.

Again .... we are OT but if its related to St. Peter in Rome then it is ok .

[noy]

i never thought that the saying" no proof is needed to those who believe but no proof will ever be valid to those who dont" can also be applied to us Christians,
with different denominations.. Lol

[%75life4Him]

Bai noy, dili ra nako tas on ako tubag para dili ta pul an ug basa.

i'm not sure why or how we call our church and ourselves is such a big deal..

the link tells about how RCC got her name, since you asked for it.
there were other Catholics who didn't tie up with the Roman Church. just to have a distinction.

the term Catholic is the term used for believers of Christ Jesus.
so it should follow that the church in Rome should be called Roman Catholics. is there something wrong with that?
Protestants have more or less 33,000 denominations each having their own church name.
Regarding Catholicism and Apostolic order in general:

The earliest recorded evidence of the use of the term "Catholic Church" is the Letter to the Smyrnaeans that Ignatius of Antioch wrote in about 107 to Christians in Smyrna. Exhorting Christians to remain closely united with their bishop, he wrote: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
source: History of the term "Catholic" - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ignatius of Antioch: Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

of course you cannot see the word Catholic in the Bibles we have today
as Catholic is not an english word, the term is derived from Greek
which how originally biblical accounts were written.

Catholic simply refers to the whole believers of Jesus, the whole Christian church,
Roman Catholicism simply points out to the Catholic Church in Rome
through the apostolic succession, believed to have been established by Jesus in commanding St. Peter.

Yes.. Its true Catholic means universal according to merriam webster. I have no problem with that. Just like Martin Luther, we love the RCC, but we dont love it doctrines and practices because it does not continue with the bible, but rather it opposes what has been biblically ordained.

Discrediting the Roman Catholic Church's Apostolic Succession is a huge claim bro, can you at least prove it?

Example: Matthew 23:9: And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Pope means father. Peter was never a successor of Christ. nor was Paul. Christ was the only Pope of Christians. I guess I dont need further explaination, you know this already.

Pope a vicar of Christ? The bible says "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" 1 Timothy 2:5.

Adding...
Heb 7:24
But He, because He abides forever, has His priesthood unalterable.

His being the only pope is unalterable...

OT man ni bro gud..
the topic has been discussed and answered na in the RCC Questions thread..i'm not sure if ok ra pud na ipost adto 'cause the thread was for questions not debates and arguments.
unless you want to make a thread about it..though not sure if ok ra ba pud...due to existing somewhat similar threads...

That is why nangutana ko nimo kung ganahan ba ka hisgutan nato. Anyway, since ot man ayaw nalang.

[Breakeven]

OT: If we claim to be christians, ang insakto unta nga atong depensaan ang kamatuoran ni Ginoong Hesukristo and the bible, not the religion where we belong kay masayop man jud tanang taw, way exemption even the pope/pastor.

[%75life4Him]

OT: If we claim to be christians, ang insakto unta nga atong depensaan ang kamatuoran ni Ginoong Hesukristo and the bible, not the religion where we belong kay masayop man jud tanang taw, way exemption even the pope/pastor.

Maayo untag inana ato prinsipyo bro.

[noy]

Bai noy, dili ra nako tas on ako tubag para dili ta pul an ug basa.


Yes.. Its true Catholic means universal according to merriam webster. I have no problem with that. Just like Martin Luther, we love the RCC, but we dont love it doctrines and practices because it does not continue with the bible, but rather it opposes what has been biblically ordained.


Example: Matthew 23:9: And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Pope means father. Peter was never a successor of Christ. nor was Paul. Christ was the only Pope of Christians. I guess I dont need further explaination, you know this already.

Pope a vicar of Christ? The bible says "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" 1 Timothy 2:5.

Adding...
Heb 7:24
But He, because He abides forever, has His priesthood unalterable.

His being the only pope is unalterable...



That is why nangutana ko nimo kung ganahan ba ka hisgutan nato. Anyway, since ot man ayaw nalang.

i respect and understand your views,
however such RCC practices you find opposing biblical teachings only because of your orientation,perspective and interpretation as a protestant. unless you can look at them from a Roman Catholic's perspective then you would never understand.
i'm not asking you accept the explanations, but at least you can educate yourselves with the explanation..
you can visit Catholic Answers, feel free to make follow up researches...all things you need to know about the hows and whys on the Catholic practices and doctrines are available on the net, as long as its a catholic website..normally you should find the same explanation.
i hope you won't take this negatively but the unison in our explanations and reasons despite of the physical barriers...
shows that we have based our teachings(esp the ones you disagree with) from something solid down to the very core of Christianity
as the apostolic succession suggests.

call no man on earth your father.... the bible did not say biological fathers are exempted...
should we not call our biological fathers "Father" already?

when we say succession, if we mean taking over, replacing...of course no one in this world can take Christ's position over
nor replace Him...but if succession means to continue the preaching the earthly work, etc...
we know what Jesus said to Peter about building His church through him
and to His dfirst isciples...he even gave them authority to forgive or retain sins..
was that authority given to any disciples? what happend after Jesus gave them the authority, He breathed on them(ordaination) ..
and the very disciples following the examples of Jesus himself had to pass on their priesthood, shepherding task
as they too shall pass on this earth.

again, unless you look at things from a Catholic's POV, you will always have those thoughts towards us..
as your Catholic brother, at least take my words for it, how you see us and our practices is not right.


"our Love for one another will prove that we are Jesus' disciples"
we are Christians, regardless of what denominations we are the body of Christ.

[noy]

OT: If we claim to be christians, ang insakto unta nga atong depensaan ang kamatuoran ni Ginoong Hesukristo and the bible, not the religion where we belong kay masayop man jud tanang taw, way exemption even the pope/pastor.

are you not depending on what your denomination/pastor/personal interpretation suggests towards your Catholic brothers and sisters as well?
otherwise you wouldn't say that Catholicism is a non-biblical religion.