Was Peter went to ROME?

[%75life4Him]

@ %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 .

Well...that is your our discretion. After all you are the MOD here. Unsa may mabuhat namo. I tried to answer you according to what the bible says since Peter is a biblical name but you still call it OT.

[Breakeven]

Share lang ko ha

Was Peter Ever In Rome?

Why man dili magminyo ang Pope nga si Peter minyo man?
This man, the Apostle Peter, was a man that the Bible speaks of as being married. He had a mother-in-law [MAT 8:14]. Then in 1 Corinthians 9:5, which Paul wrote around 58 AD, we see that Peter was traveling with his wife. He was an itinerant missionary travelling from place to place. Much of the time, apparently he took his wife along with him.

And why we call the pope, Holy Father nga even the Lord called him simply by his name Peter?
Pwede ra tingali tawgon taning santo papa nato ug Jorge noh?

[noy]

Share lang ko ha

Was Peter Ever In Rome?

Why man dili magminyo ang Pope nga si Peter minyo man?
This man, the Apostle Peter, was a man that the Bible speaks of as being married. He had a mother-in-law [MAT 8:14]. Then in 1 Corinthians 9:5, which Paul wrote around 58 AD, we see that Peter was traveling with his wife. He was an itinerant missionary travelling from place to place. Much of the time, apparently he took his wife along with him.

And why we call the pope, Holy Father nga even the Lord called him simply by his name Peter?
Pwede ra tingali tawgon taning santo papa nato ug Jorge noh?

OT bro, you know where you should have posted this, however your question has been answered naman ngadto sa RCC thread pud
so back read lang ka didto...

[noy]

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.





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

bro, you may wanna check Catholic sites to see the other side of the coin regarding anang pagan2x..

the link regarding constantine you posted was not a history site,which was fine BUT we were talking about History when you said
that Constantine built founded the Catholic Church. i was expecting to see something more Science based.

i don't believe that the Bible contradicts itself...for Yes God is the same yesterday,today and tomorrow
what i object is how we interpret the bible verses...
since your way of interpreting the Bible is more of its literal side...
what specific verse that says Peter never did go to Rome...

you never gave your insights about the verse i qouted earlier..Mark 16:14-15 by the way

[noy]

to direct the discussion back to the Topic.

akong balikon, tangible proofs have been presented that Peter went to Rome...
those who say he didn't what are your tangible proofs? (biblical verses are fine as long as its direct to the point and is not matched up with personal interpretations) otherwise it is not tangible.

[%75life4Him]

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



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 .



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 ?

LOL....now you have your own personal interpretation.

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

Sorry MOD, pero burag wa ka kabasa sa imo bible. Paul was not one of the 12 apostles.

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 ?

Mag kantyawanay nalang ta ani MOD?

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.

Ok. if you believe blindedly what your church fathers has told you, I respect you on that. I hope you understand, we cannot agree whatever teaching contrary to what we have received in the bible.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Well...that is your our discretion. After all you are the MOD here. Unsa may mabuhat namo. I tried to answer you according to what the bible says since Peter is a biblical name but you still call it OT.

Lol ... dont get me wrong here . I am referring to your presentations as saying "PETER DID NOT GO TO ROME" which as this moment none so far was presented. That is not BIBLICAL at all . We can talk about peter being the first bishop , the first pope , the one who holds the keys , the appointed by JC etc but case in point , it is not about St. Peter's presence in Rome .

Again for the nth time , we have presented our proofs . How about you guys ?

[noy]

Ok. if you believe blindedly what your church fathers has told you, I respect you on that. I hope you understand, we cannot agree whatever teaching contrary to what we have received in the bible.

please state your proofs that the Church Fathers( who wrote accounts about Peter's life and death in Rome which are dated back to the 1st and 2nd century.. were blind guides of the Catholic faith.

2 of them were St. ignatius of antioch and St. Clement..meaning bakak ra to ila gipangsulat diay?
ako ra gikuha sa imu gisulti nga "if you believe blindedly what your church fathers has told you."

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

LOL....now you have your own personal interpretation.

That is because you have your own personal interpretation . I might have mine . Others may differ also . Now show me that yours are the TRUTH and the CORRECT one.

Sorry MOD, pero burag wa ka kabasa sa imo bible. Paul was not one of the 12 apostles.

Intawn nimo oi . We can discuss about PAUL in another thread . Quote where I said he was one of the 12 . Si paul na lang gyud ? You cant even get your church history straight karon si Paul na pod ang sudlan nimo ?

Mag kantyawanay nalang ta ani MOD?

If you think it will lead thee , so be it. Last time I checked , I have my stuff straight and squared away . Are you ?

Ok. if you believe blindedly what your church fathers has told you, I respect you on that. I hope you understand, we cannot agree whatever teaching contrary to what we have received in the bible.

Why would you insist that it is BLIND OBEDIENCE ?

Are you saying that you know more than the HISTORIANS ? WRITERS ? ANTHROPOLOGY PEOPLE ? THEOLOGIANS ? CHURCH DOCTORS ?

Ikaw ra gani ga sulti na soo flight ra ka , you are only bound to the personal understanding and biases . Sorry to say this but you disappointed me.

[noy]

chit-chat is good but we need facts.