Was Peter went to ROME?

[noy]

---

I didn't come here to debate with "my religion is better than yours" in mind. Notice I don't frequent in religious threads because the issue is too sensitive for many and I don't like to be part in raving, ridiculous and condescending arguments that lead us to no where but further enmity. I may not believe in your ways but I know you hold them dearly - and I will respect that, just as I go well with my neighbors' and friends' in real life. My posts in this thread were (to the best of my ability) free from religious influence, what ever that may be. Nor will I take flame-bait responses and I despise using conspiracies, rumors, "argumentum ad populum" (popular view) as basis for argument. Some of you already know I love history which is simply why I'm here. Obviously religious history is, from now on, some thing I will avoid because of the repercussions it creates resulting in 'ad hominems' and that somehow I am also (or should be) guilty of something because of my association to a particular religious group.

mulike unta kog kadaghan pero kausa raman pwede..Lol ..

[%75life4Him]

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 ?

I tried to back read. None of the claims are convincing. It was just a claim of some RCC pope that became your "fundie".

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

I dare to use it because, because Christ is the only head of the church. None among us.

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

then stop starting to accuse pastors or me as fake then. Wa tay sukananay MOD. Basig nasuko ka kay you are already calling names. like "FAKE"

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

No. you did not answer me my question. I said "I know you are intelligent, now "if" you know the correct interpretation of the following verses, can you please share it with me please?
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 .

I added verse 6 to be sure I am not telling lies or with my own interpretation. I hope you read it yourself and provide me a better interpretation to that.

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

We cannot provide you that because we are not the one who is claiming that Peter had eventually set foot on Rome and died there. But if Peter died in Rome why did he go there when it was not his Lord's command to go there. I hope nakasabot ka MOD sa ako point.

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 .

LOL...mubalik sa church history 101? Exclusive na sya nga course ninyo MOD, kung naka seminary ka.....
SPECULATE? of course, you can speculate but you cannot assume to claim Peter to be the head of the church, this is unbiblical. Peter went to Rome, this is oppose to biblical.

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 .

Ok...do you have DNA matchings that it was actually Peter's bones? If none, then how did the RCC fathers know that it was Peter's?

[%75life4Him]

cge bro, palihug tag butang anang mga verses. thanks

In Matt 10:5-6 Peter was commanded to not to go outside the nation of Israel.
In Galatians 2:8 says Peter was sent as a apostle to the Jews and Paul was to the gentiles.
In 2 Galatians 2:11 Peter feared the jews might see him eating with the gentiles therefore Paul opposed him.

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

Again...even in highschool history books says contantine formed RCC at around 300 AD. Di lang ko mu comment ug daghan ani bai noy.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

I tried to back read. None of the claims are convincing. It was just a claim of some RCC pope that became your "fundie".

Then try harder , your best is not good enough seriously. You even thought that Constantine the Great started nor invented RCC. LOLS !!

then stop starting to accuse pastors or me as fake then. Wa tay sukananay MOD. Basig nasuko ka kay you are already calling names. like "FAKE"

I am not mad. I am not accusing either . I am telling you that you are a FAKE and if you do have a PASTOR , that he is also a FAKE and the basis for that came from your personal interpretation .

No. you did not answer me my question. I said "I know you are intelligent, now "if" you know the correct interpretation of the following verses, can you please share it with me please?
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 added verse 6 to be sure I am not telling lies or with my own interpretation. I hope you read it yourself and provide me a better interpretation to that.

What relevance does it bring to the table to justify your means ? Seriously ? If you insist , ISRAEL means the people/church and not just entirely the ISRAELITES. And if you may also dig deeper , GENTILES and SAMARITANS are only adjectives in the form of nouns. Would that tell you now that St. Peter never went to Rome ?

We cannot provide you that because we are not the one who is claiming that Peter had eventually set foot on Rome and died there. But if Peter died in Rome why did he go there when it was not his Lord's command to go there. I hope nakasabot ka MOD sa ako point.

It was not the Lord's command ? So gahi gyud diay ug ulo si Pedro ?

LOL...mubalik sa church history 101? Exclusive na sya nga course ninyo MOD, kung naka seminary ka.....
SPECULATE? of course, you can speculate but you cannot assume to claim Peter to be the head of the church, this is unbiblical. Peter went to Rome, this is oppose to biblical.

try to be in the same page for once , churhc history was brought up because you have no clue at all what happened to the APOSTLES and their respective fates proclaiming the gospel.

You are now running in circles , try to read more instead of write bai . Basin naga tuo ka na ang word na rock gi sulti sa bibliya kay BATO jud . Need we go down to memory lane again for that ?

Ok...do you have DNA matchings that it was actually Peter's bones? If none, then how did the RCC fathers know that it was Peter's?

Lols bai . Answer me this straight ok . Have you seen the BONES of ADAM and EVE ? What is your proof na sila ang first parents ?

Again ..... I want to see TANGIBLE PROOFS and PHYSICAL EVIDENCES . The people who believed that St. Peter was in Rome already presented these which has a valid and reliable source. Ayaw ko ingna ug dili convincing kay imoha man pod , show me your PROOFS saying that our PROOFS presented are FAKES.

[noy]

In Matt 10:5-6 Peter was commanded to not to go outside the nation of Israel.
In Galatians 2:8 says Peter was sent as a apostle to the Jews and Paul was to the gentiles.
In 2 Galatians 2:11 Peter feared the jews might see him eating with the gentiles therefore Paul opposed him.
.

the verses does not explicitly show He never went to Rome. .
i posted a verse about the resurrected Jesus appeared and commanding the 11 disicples to preach the good news to the ends of earth...
unsay may atong buhaton ato?

ug kung imu pangusgan tung dili pwede mushare sa mga gentiles sa Matt 10:5-6...
makasab.an kang Apostle paul ana..hehehe
ug sa ato pa, kita tanan dili ta angay mahibaw, sa maayong balita kay labaw natang dili Israelites...

kung dili pa ipashare ang good news sa mga gentiles, how was it that paul is assigned for the salvation of gentiles according to your interpretation for Galatians 2:8, ug si paul mahulog bya pud tog gentile ha, kay roman bya to..hehehe

again, pls sa ko share sa imung interpretation ani nga 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. ¹⁵ He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation

Again...even in highschool history books says contantine formed RCC at around 300 AD. Di lang ko mu comment ug daghan ani bai noy.

.[/QUOTE]
i remember as per history class, Constantine tried to unite the Catholic Churches in his convertion through the Roman Church which we now know the CAtholic Church..but the formation of the Catholic church along with its apostolic order precedes even the birth of the emperor himself..
speaking of things taught in school..even human evolution from common ancestor with chimpz is taught in school..
though may be true, but does that disprove that God is the creator of all things?

constantine may have greatly efforted the unity of the Catholic churches through the Roman church..
but it doesn't necessarily mean that He founded the Catholic Church..
you can verify that with History.

[%75life4Him]

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).

Since you quoted verses in Mark 16:14-15 are you trying to say these verses are contradicting to Matthew 10:5-6? Which one is correct then?

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..

"so unsa may tawag nato sa atong mga papa?" binuang man ning pangutana, of course if you are reading a book like a bible you have to use your sentido common and agree what the bible is saying.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

@ %75LIFE4HIM ....

I noticed how you twist a lot of things . Be reminded that I am just waiting for DEFENDERS reply and proofs and this will be locked since it already answers the question . The rest are just OT's of who understand more of the bible verses which has nothing to do in the first place why this thread existed.

Make sure your next reply, talks about PROOFS that St. Peter was not there , mura nako ug guba na plaka ani . If you have questions towards RCC , you know how to get there and do the drill .

[noy]

Since you quoted verses in Mark 16:14-15 are you trying to say these verses are contradicting to Matthew 10:5-6? Which one is correct then?.

ang point bro, is you cant go word for word in interpreting the Bible..often times you'd say
sayop kay wala sa Bible..you were the first one who asserted Biblical proofs that Peter never went to ROme..
so i opted to counter..wa ko muingun nga nag contradict na cla, BUT if we are to use the Bible as our Guide
for Christianity, then we ought to go beyond our personal or denominational POVs and interpretation..

akong pangutana, what do you think that verse means? per your interpretation...
are you still goinf to take Hold that Peter did not went to Rome, 'cause the bible says so?
the Bible did not even state that he never went to Rome.. it was just your perception and interpretation..which is fine as you are entitled to it BUT
please do not use yout own POV in concluding absolutes..

"so unsa may tawag nato sa atong mga papa?" binuang man ning pangutana, of course if you are reading a book like a bible you have to use your sentido common and agree what the bible is saying.

i could say the same to you the very instant you qouted a verse Jesus saying call no man your father to disprove why we call priests father..
i even posted a link to further explain my view as a Catholic, it all then show that you didn't read them.

[akosabni]

kong ako si pedro, mo ad2 gyud ko, sa akong cathedral ug sa akong square, bisan sa akong spiritu

[%75life4Him]

the verses does not explicitly show He never went to Rome. .
i posted a verse about the resurrected Jesus appeared and commanding the 11 disicples to preach the good news to the ends of earth...
unsay may atong buhaton ato?

ug kung imu pangusgan tung dili pwede mushare sa mga gentiles sa Matt 10:5-6...
makasab.an kang Apostle paul ana..hehehe
ug sa ato pa, kita tanan dili ta angay mahibaw, sa maayong balita kay labaw natang dili Israelites...

kung dili pa ipashare ang good news sa mga gentiles, how was it that paul is assigned for the salvation of gentiles according to your interpretation for Galatians 2:8, ug si paul mahulog bya pud tog gentile ha, kay roman bya to..hehehe

again, pls sa ko share sa imung interpretation ani nga 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. ¹⁵ He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation

Na...nagsumpaki na noun ang biblia run....

unsaun man nimo ni pag hubad bai noy?
Galatians 2:8
For the same God who worked through Peter as the apostle to the Jews also worked through me as the apostle to the Gentiles.

i remember as per history class, Constantine tried to unite the Catholic Churches in his convertion through the Roman Church which we now know the CAtholic Church..but the formation of the Catholic church along with its apostolic order precedes even the birth of the emperor himself..
speaking of things taught in school..even human evolution from common ancestor with chimpz is taught in school..
though may be true, but does that disprove that God is the creator of all things?

constantine may have greatly efforted the unity of the Catholic churches through the Roman church..
but it doesn't necessarily mean that He founded the Catholic Church..
you can verify that with History.

Let me just quote what the link below stated...the reason why we chose to seperate from the RCC

"Either as a means to unify his empire, or to make converting to Christianity easier, Constantine sought to blend Christian and pagan traditions."

for further reading please click below.


Emperor Constantine