Was Peter went to ROME?

[defender_1611]

---

We believe that Saint Peter was our first Pope,
then why is it that there's a need to argue?

layo ra man kas topic sir. hehehehe......murag lahi na pod na discussion imoha sir. Stick lang sa ta diri later on buhatan tana or lain thread.

[noy]

To enrich what THESUNKING posted , here is also a summarized explanation .

Take note, these are gathered from TRADITIONAL , HISTORICAL and ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES . From the source also , do not relate TRADITIONS to LEGENDS because they are not . If you only rely frome BIBLE text , it will only make you sound like a FUNDIE because it is nothing but of INTERPRETATION rather of an EXPLANATION.

Was Peter in Rome? | Catholic Answers

On a personal level of answer , YES , ST. PETER went to Rome . As a tourist who went to one of the popular tourist attractions late last year.

Mamertine Prison - Rome, Italy

Archeologists find evidence of St Peter's prison - Telegraph

guys, please read the links posted by Master Spring.
kay i believe the links indeed provide info and even strong arguments that the Apostle Peter did go and even died in Rome.

you don't have to believe the things you'd read from the links posted, BUT for the sake of the topic and argument
and with Humility in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, hope we can see that the links posted earker does indeed offer considerable things about what happened to the great Saint.

if we can believe that Paul died in Rome as how Pope Clement stated in His writings about the Roman Church History(since we do not see Paul's death written on the Bible well in fact we can not see anywhere written in the Bible about how Jesus' apostles died except for Judas Iscariot.

how come we can easily deny His writings about St. Peter's martyrdom in Rome?

and not just St. Clement's testimony, how about other Church Fathers who wrote and testified about St.Peter?

[defender_1611]

What the Bible Says

Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

Source: Was Peter in Rome? | Catholic Answers

again ako lang e requote ang akong tubag ani.

There is no evidence that Rome was ever called "Babylon" until after the Book of the Revelation was written. The Revelation was written about 95 A.D., many years after the death of Simon Peter. If I Peter 5:13 refers to Rome, then Simon Peter did not write the letter and we have a forgery in the Bible.

Peter's method and manner of writing are in no sense apocalyptic. He is direct and matter-of-fact. That this man Peter, plain of speech almost to bluntness, should interject into the midst of his personal explanations and final salutations such a mystical epithet, with no hint of what he means by it, is beyond credulity. Peter says the elect in Babylon send greetings to the Jews of the Dispersion in Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. "Babylon" is no more cryptic than "Pontus," "Asia," or the rest. He means what he says. His "Babylon" is the Babylon on the Euphrates. It is a part of that eastern world where Peter lived his life and did his work.

[<SMILE>]

layo ra man kas topic sir. hehehehe......murag lahi na pod na discussion imoha sir. Stick lang sa ta diri later on buhatan tana or lain thread.

Adto man gihapon na padulong di ba,
Unsa man diay purpose anang pangutanaha,
nganong gi-question man kung present ba si
Saint Peter ana nga era sa Rome.

[defender_1611]

Adto man gihapon na padulong di ba,
Unsa man diay purpose anang pangutanaha,
nganong gi-question man kung present ba si
Saint Peter ana nga era sa Rome.

ato lang gi cite sir if tinuod ba gyud na si peter ni abot or ni adto bah gyud sa ROME.

[mj.pocholo]

daghan npud tah ma pupu dri ai...

[noy]

so are we gonna discredit many of the Church Father's testimony about how St. Peter died?

[<SMILE>]

ato lang gi cite sir if tinuod ba gyud na si peter ni abot or ni adto bah gyud sa ROME.

Yes, I believe that he did,
as I believe in Lord Jesus Christ,
as I believe that Saint Peter was the one chosen to pursue the church that Jesus Christ established.
The Roman Catholic Church.

[machinecult]

Actually the link
Archeologists find evidence of St Peter's prison - Telegraph

The article summarizes early practitioners sincerity to tradition during the 7th century (a time ALREADY in Middle Ages, 700 years after the death of Christ and the apostles including Peter). The only history there are the structure of a early Christian worship that illustrates the traditional view of Peter.

It been a place of Christian worship since medieval times, but after months of excavations, Italian archaeologists have found frescoes and other evidence which indicate that it was associated with St Peter as early as the 7th century. Dr Patrizia Fortini, of Rome's department of archaeology for Rome, said: "It was converted from being a prison into a focus of cult-like worship of St Peter by the 7th century at the latest, maybe earlier.

"It was a very rapid transformation. We think that by the 8th century, it was being used as a church. It would have been wonderful to find a document with his [St Peter's] name on it, but of course that was always going to be extremely unlikely."

St Peter and St Paul are said to have been incarcerated in the jail by the Emperor Nero. The two apostles are said to have caused an underground spring to miraculously rise up from the ground so that they could baptise their guards and their fellow prisoners.

Peter was then crucified, upside down, in AD64. He was buried on a low hill on which, 250 years later, the Emperor Constantine built the first Basilica of St Peter.

These last sentence, also a traditional view of Peter's later life and reputation is mostly taken from Irenaeus of Lyons, an early church father from around the 2nd century - that is some 200 years later from the actual events. His writings are used as a basis or primer for traditional view and the accuracy of his writings is subject to speculation. Scripture does not say how Peter died and it does not state Peter and Paul being martyred at the same time. The story of Peter being crucified upside down is based on the Gospel of John - and is understood as a prophetic vision of Peter's fate not a record of an actual event, but obviously the early Catholic writings uses this as as something actually took place.

[<SMILE>]

It's quite difficult to gather scientific facts
to such a source as a very profound faith.
But I do believe Saint Peter was in Rome.