Was Peter went to ROME?

[necrotic freak]

---

^^case dismissed. wa gihapoy proof nahatag.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

I am only asking for proofs other than the basis of the bible that it does not say that St. Peter never set foot in Rome . Machinecult has explained his side , Though no proofs were delivered , Hoping DEFENDER will lay down on the table the 10 proofs that St. Peter never went to Rome.

[%75life4Him]

I am only asking for proofs other than the basis of the bible that it does not say that St. Peter never set foot in Rome . Machinecult has explained his side , Though no proofs were delivered , Hoping DEFENDER will lay down on the table the 10 proofs that St. Peter never went to Rome.

Boss, wala man jud maka prove nga si Peter ni adto sa Rome kay wala man syay relatives nga niangkon nga katong giangkon ninyo nga "bones" ni Peter are actually his. Kay wa pa man saunay DNA matching to prove that.

On our side (biblically) there was a command from the Lord that the disciples including Peter that they will not go to other countries except Israel to preach.

Hear what the bible says....

Matthew 10:5

These twelve Jesus sent forth, charging them, saying, Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into any city of the Samaritans.

Now, if He eventually went to Rome to preach, did he not disobey this command from the Lord?

[%75life4Him]

yes i agree that the Bible is the source for the truth of Jesus Christ
however biblical accounts and teachings are not free from Human and Personal interpretations...
with us being capable of having each POV,without apostolic roots..
How do you suppose we take the biblical teachings?

Because the bible says it. I can cite you some verses that that denies Peter coming to Rome.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Boss, wala man jud maka prove nga si Peter ni adto sa Rome kay wala man syay relatives nga niangkon nga katong giangkon ninyo nga "bones" ni Peter are actually his. Kay wa pa man saunay DNA matching to prove that.

Naa ba diay gi angkon ? Lahi baya ang angkon sa IDENTIFIED . Dili lang kay bukog ang basehan sa proof na si St. Peter ni adto sa Roma .

On our side (biblically) there was a command from the Lord that the disciples including Peter that they will not go to other countries except Israel to preach.

If that is the case of another LITERAL UNDERSTANDING , then you and your PASTOR are FAKES . Pilipinas baya ni not Israel.

Hear what the bible says....

Matthew 10:5

These twelve Jesus sent forth, charging them, saying, Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into any city of the Samaritans.

Do you know where the APOSTLES ended up and died ? Who were martyred and who died of old age ? Nahh mo balik ta ug church history na pod ani.

Now, if He eventually went to Rome to preach, did he not disobey this command from the Lord?

It would be funny to ponder why there is a parable that talks about THE GOOD SAMARITAN and a verse in the form of 3:6 from the Letter to the Ephesians.

Like I said , what other PROOFS do you ( BIBLE GUYS ) have other than St. Peter is not mentioned travelling to Rome ?

[%75life4Him]

[QUOTE=SPRINGFIELD_XD_40;14656462]Naa ba diay gi angkon ? Lahi baya ang angkon sa IDENTIFIED . Dili lang kay bukog ang basehan sa proof na si St. Peter ni adto sa Roma .[QUOTE]
Ok. So its change my question then; how did you identified its Peter's.

If that is the case of another LITERAL UNDERSTANDING , then you and your PASTOR are FAKES . Pilipinas baya ni not Israel.

excuse me...We dont have a pastor in our church...

I am using a free thinkers mind here in interpreting the bible..dagko naman ta para sultian ug pastor or pari sa unsay angay tuohan

If you know the correct understanding, and I know you are a intelligent man, how would would interpret that then? let me quote it again..

Matthew 10:

5 These twelve Jesus asent forth, charging them, saying, Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into any city of the Samaritans.
6 But go rather to the lost asheep of the house of Israel.

Do you know where the APOSTLES ended up and died ? Who were martyred and who died of old age ? Nahh mo balik ta ug church history na pod ani.

Well...we can speculate where they died and how they died, but our speculations still are not conclusive. Therefore, one must not claim certain things regarding the apostles' whereabouts specially if it is contracdicting to what the bible has said. Nevertheless, how they died and where they died are not important, expecially if none of them are appointed as successor of the Lord.

It would be funny to ponder why there is a parable that talks about THE GOOD SAMARITAN and a verse in the form of 3:6 from the Letter to the Ephesians.

Like I said , what other PROOFS do you ( BIBLE GUYS ) have other than St. Peter is not mentioned travelling to Rome ?

1st...Like what I also have said, your uncertainty of the claim are equivocal, hence unreliable. 2nd...Peter must have been also a "bible guy", he must have followed the Lord's command in Matt 10:5-6.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Ok. So its change my question then; how did you identified its Peter's.

We are going in circles here . TANGIBLE PROOFS and PHYSICAL EVIDENCES were presented numerous times already that St. Peter indeed was in Rome.

Dont you think it would be better off if you backread ?

excuse me...We dont have a pastor in our church...

Then dont use the word CHURCH if it does not at all consist of a HEAD and a BODY .

I am using a free thinkers mind here in interpreting the bible..dagko naman ta para sultian ug pastor or pari sa unsay angay tuohan

Wrong , PRIEST or PASTORS does not solely limit their duties as telling people which ones are the true and which ones are not.

If you know the correct understanding,

" IF " is a word the waives your certainties . Remove the word IF so we can see if it is a FACT or a CLAIM .

and I know you are a intelligent man, how would would interpret that then? let me quote it again..

Matthew 10:

5 These twelve Jesus asent forth, charging them, saying, Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into any city of the Samaritans.
6 But go rather to the lost asheep of the house of Israel.

I am not a FUNDIE , that equates to being a BIBLE GUY armed with my personal interpretations . But the last time I checked , you only quoted Matthew 10:5 and not Matthew 10: 5-6 .

Again .... we are going in circles here . Whar are your TANGIBLE and PHYSICAL PROOFS / EVIDENCES that St. Peter never set foot in Rome ?

Well...we can speculate where they died and how they died, but our speculations still are not conclusive. Nevertheless, how they died and where they died are not important, expecially if none of them are appointed as successor of the Lord.

Lol .... you can always SPECULATE because the sources of these are not BIBLICAL . It is HISTORICAL written by the early CHURCH FATHERS . Like I said , mo balik ba ta aug church history 101 ani ?? Ug ngano ma abot man intawn ka sa successor of JC when we are dicussing here about the APOSTLES which St. Peter is one of them .

1st...Like what I also have said, your uncertainty of the claim are equivocal, hence unreliable. 2nd...Peter must have been also a "bible guy", he must have followed the Lord's command in Matt 10:5-6.

My UNCERTAINTY ? Sure ka ? Last time I checked , I am just a lowly forumer , I am not an EARLY CHURHC FATHER , an ARCHAEOLOGIST nor a CHURCH DOCTOR . Tell that to them na UNRELIABLE sila and not to me .

Again ... thats what happens when you interpret the bible verses according to the belief you want to believe , by being selective and not accounting for other books that existed and partly composes the library of books which is the HOLY BIBLE .

In short and unsay gusto ipagawas nimo , si Pablo bakakon kay gi disregard man nimo ang Letter to the Ephesians ug si Pedro buotan kuno kay wala man ni mahitabo ang John 18:10 .

Again ... dont bring the discussion somewhere else , just provide the PROOFS that wala nia dto si Pedro sa Roma . Other than that , it will only show that walay proof mapagawas but of PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS from the BIBLE lang ang gi kuptan therefore the SUCCESSION of POPES of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH are genuine and inspired by the Holy Spirit .

[noy]

Because the bible says it. I can cite you some verses that that denies Peter coming to Rome.

cge bro, palihug tag butang anang mga verses. thanks

and unsa may atong buhaton atong archeological proofs? ug mga writing sa mga 2nd generation of Christians in the 1st century?

[noy]

On our side (biblically) there was a command from the Lord that the disciples including Peter that they will not go to other countries except Israel to preach.

Hear what the bible says....

Matthew 10:5

These twelve Jesus sent forth, charging them, saying, Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into any city of the Samaritans.

Now, if He eventually went to Rome to preach, did he not disobey this command from the Lord?

what are we going to do about this Bible verse bro?

Mark 16:14-15
Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
He said to them, “Go into ALL the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

di kaha nasayop lang ka pag interpret sa imung bible verse nga gipresent?
having it your way(literally from the bible)

"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation".

punto really bro, is we should not take biblical accounts Literally, otherwise, you'll find contradictions...
you might ask, how are we suppose to interpret the bible then?
with each of us being capable of having personal interpretation and point of view...
lisud kaayo kung mag bible alone ta...duha ray padulngan nato, either ma abli ug maayo atong huna-huna ug kasing2x and makasabut jud ta pag maayo or bali, ma priso na hinuon ta sa Literal nga pagsabut(fundamentalism).

sama ato imung giingun nga the bible says "call no man your father" unya wala man gibutang sa Bible way labut atong mga biological fathers...
so unsa may tawag nato sa atong mga papa? if we are to have it your way of interpreting Biblical accounts..

mao nang sa RCC, we place importance in the church's sacred tradition as well..
as it serves our guide in the Absolutes of the Christian faith..

[cool_romar]

*DID

Yes he did.