Was Peter went to ROME?

[Xian120]

experts mismo ang nag confirm bro... that is why your argument does not hold water anymore.
whatever your sources are (definitely anti-catholic) has been proven wrong again in the light of scientific and intellectual truths.

ya all catholic sites agree with you on that, but experts read it otherwise.. you cannot say with certainty as i am with what i say.. therefore people have reason to believe that it is the tomb of Simon Peter himself.. just because people found bones in the vatican that doesnt mean it's already Simon Peter's, there's no way for them to test that now would they?..

[SioDenz]

The religion did able to convert
a very fearsome emperor before inot the folds
of christianity by way of the cross itself.
Eventually he grasp that life as a christian
thus it was named after the kingdom where he is reigning,
The roman empire,He was converted and thus the Roman Catholicism
was born, and did start in Rome and continued through the administration
of the papacy.
The religion was started because of christianity and continued
because of christianity, then why is the question?
and of course through even valid scientific proof Saint Peter was there
as Simon Peter starting the established faith of Jesus Christ.

Can we invalidate something made by a converted person
who diverted and believe towards Jesus Christ?
censuring such a gesture is the same as questioning
our very faith for Jesus Christ and thus for me really a not so good
an idea, for we should have that total faith without question or fault
finding to make our belief absolute.

Anything created by Man is NOT immune to Mistakes that's why we need to search.

[path]

murag need nko mg google da.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

ya all catholic sites agree with you on that, but experts read it otherwise.. you cannot say with certainty as i am with what i say.. therefore people have reason to believe that it is the tomb of Simon Peter himself.. just because people found bones in the vatican that doesnt mean it's already Simon Peter's, there's no way for them to test that now would they?..

XIAN120 ....

What does NON CATHOLIC sites also has to say on it ?

To start , it would be ridiculous to actually ask them and demand proof / physical evidences because it would contradict SOLA SCRIPTURA .

Mao bitaw hantod karon walay mahatag na PROOFS / PHYSICAL EVIDENCES si DEFENDER , BREAKEVEN and LIFE but rather argue on BIBLE VERSES rooted from personal interpretations . Yes , on POV's , they would make sense on a literal basis but kagawsan ana contradictions mao di siya anay sabton literally.

Now , going back to the topic .... contrary to non Catholics , we have already presented PROOFS , WRITTEN DOCUMENTS , HISTORICAL and TRADITIONAL WRITINGS , ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS .... that indeed St. Peter set foot in Rome . If you think it wont reconcile because a tomb was discovered in Mt. Olives presumed to be St. Peter's then let the experts reconcile it for us for we are not in the position but still bible based gihapon siya so it does not at all hold water.

The more newer and later discoveries of excavations will otherwise present and results in a more dramatic basis and foundations of the evidences that St. Peter was in Rome . The bibe doe snot even talk about how / method on St. Peter died , much more where he died.

Again .... this is a CATHOLIC SITE utilizing refrences that are non Catholic or neutral grounds .

Was Peter in Rome? | Catholic Answers

And this link reminds me of the entire brouhaha here , please take time to read .

Was St. Peter Ever in Rome? Refuting a Protestant Prejudice against the Papacy PhilVaz Phil Philip Phillip Porvaznik

[Xian120]

XIAN120 ....

What does NON CATHOLIC sites also has to say on it ?

To start , it would be ridiculous to actually ask them and demand proof / physical evidences because it would contradict SOLA SCRIPTURA .

Mao bitaw hantod karon walay mahatag na PROOFS / PHYSICAL EVIDENCES si DEFENDER , BREAKEVEN and LIFE but rather argue on BIBLE VERSES rooted from personal interpretations . Yes , on POV's , they would make sense on a literal basis but kagawsan ana contradictions mao di siya anay sabton literally.

Now , going back to the topic .... contrary to non Catholics , we have already presented PROOFS , WRITTEN DOCUMENTS , HISTORICAL and TRADITIONAL WRITINGS , ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS .... that indeed St. Peter set foot in Rome . If you think it wont reconcile because a tomb was discovered in Mt. Olives presumed to be St. Peter's then let the experts reconcile it for us for we are not in the position but still bible based gihapon siya so it does not at all hold water.

The more newer and later discoveries of excavations will otherwise present and results in a more dramatic basis and foundations of the evidences that St. Peter was in Rome . The bibe doe snot even talk about how / method on St. Peter died , much more where he died.

i said the term catholic sites merely to point out a biased proposition that newbie presented..

but anyway i didnt question if Peter did went to Rome or not, i just presented a little something that might be of relevance to this argument, it could be that he went in Rome to preach despite the Empire's prosecution of his teachings, prosecuted and whose body later returned to Jerusalem which is very unlikely 'coz Romans don't give a damn about burials, or buried along with martyrs in Rome, unfortunately the latter cannot also be proven for there is no direct evident document whatsoever to prove this.. which now leads us to the point that maybe that he didnt went to Rome at all, which would be unaccounted for and to your perspective irrelevant and untrue, but still possible nonetheless..

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

i said the term catholic sites merely to point out a biased proposition that newbie presented..

but anyway i didnt question if Peter did went to Rome or not, i just presented a little something that might be of relevance to this argument, it could be that he went in Rome to preach despite the Empire's prosecution of his teachings, prosecuted and whose body later returned to Jerusalem which is very unlikely 'coz Romans don't give a damn about burials, or buried along with martyrs in Rome, unfortunately the latter cannot also be proven for there is no direct evident document whatsoever to prove this.. which now leads us to the point that maybe that he didnt went to Rome at all, which would be unaccounted for and to your perspective irrelevant and untrue, but still possible nonetheless..

I know your stand on the issue , you are only here for the discussion , mao I presented a CATHOLIC SITE that contains NON CATHOLIC PROOFS except for the WRITINGS of TERTULIAN and ORIGEN .

The latter part you are talking was about the how and where St. Peter died that has no direct evidences ?

[<SMILE>]

Anything created by Man is NOT immune to Mistakes that's why we need to search.

Is goodness impossible to achieve
if it's guided by the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ?

[Xian120]

The latter part you are talking was about the how and where St. Peter died that has no direct evidences ?

about Peter's whereabouts and upto his demise in the latter part of his life to be exact.

[TheSunKing]

ya all catholic sites agree with you on that, but experts read it otherwise.. you cannot say with certainty as i am with what i say.. therefore people have reason to believe that it is the tomb of Simon Peter himself.. just because people found bones in the vatican that doesnt mean it's already Simon Peter's, there's no way for them to test that now would they?..

the link provided by newbie is NOT a Catholic site per se....

I noticed you easily accept rumors and false information to be "FACTS", as long as it contradict Catholic claims.

i said the term catholic sites merely to point out a biased proposition that newbie presented..

INDEPENDENT, NON CATHOLIC scholars and experts have confirmed that your proposition of is FALSE.

Unsa pa man jud imong lalison??

[Xian120]

the link provided by newbie is NOT a Catholic site per se....

I noticed you easily accept rumors to be "FACTS", as long as it contradict Catholic claims.



Independent scholars and experts have confirmed that your proposition of is FALSE.

Unsa pa man jud imong lalison?

The University of the Holy Land :: Whose son is Simon? - i dont know about you but that site looks Christian to me.. see for yourself

i dont know if i said something that im claiming my recent posts here as facts.. please backread, you know what let me just do it for you,

you cannot say with certainty as i am with what i say .. that's what i said..