Was Peter went to ROME?

[TheSunKing]

---

Quite true. The traditional view of Peter in Rome is valuable for historians and especially for the entire Christendome. But whether it answers the question, "Was the apostle Peter ever in Rome and died there etc." is left ambiguous and it doesn't have to be scientifically accurate - there's just too little information behind it that it shouldn't even be an issue until claims made by certain Christian writers and iconographers 200 years later especially during the Christianization of the Roman empire by the emperor Constantine. The information gathered are from early Christian sects, cults and relics, some even Catholics find heretical sources. Even if these people were sincere in their belief does not make it historical evidence.

Therefore if you find an explanation, an article, or study of Peter being in Rome, it usually implies to a traditional premise. Just as 25 December is not actually the day Jesus is born but by tradition it is.

Also eyewitness accounts bro, especially the testimonies of Christians in Rome, writings of the next bishop and even a confirmation by a hostile pagan emperor.

[defender_1611]

OT: noy & TheSunKing : In touch lang ko ninyo balik ha? naa pako office gud. Work pako....reply lang ko later inig uli nako.

[TheSunKing]

Hence, one of the earliest Catholic writings attempting to demonstrate that Rome had a series of early bishops/popes states that Peter was NOT originally buried in Rome. There would be no point in moving Peter's body if people actually had believed that the Tropaion Gaii marked the spot.

Interestingly the conclusion of the one who supposedly identified the body of Peter in Vatican Hill was that he was not convinced it was Peter:

"Antonio Ferrua ...was the Jesuit archaeologist responsible for uncovering what is believed to be the tomb of St Peter in the grottoes under St Peter's Basilica in Rome…Ferrua's discovery came, however, quite by chance. In 1939 Pope Pius XI died and plans were made to bury him beside Pius X in the crypt below the basilica. But when workmen began to dig under St Peter's they came upon the floor of Constantine's original basilica, beneath which was a necropolis, a street of Roman tombs dating from the 2nd century AD…Under the supervision of Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, the Administrator of St Peter's, the Vatican appointed four archaeologists, including Ferrua, to investigate the tombs…Ferrua's discovery was shrouded in controversy; in 1953, after the death of Monsignor Kaas, it was revealed by a workman that he had discovered some other bones which Kaas had ordered to be removed from the repository and stored at the Vatican. When these were later identified as the remains of an elderly man, it was concluded that these were the bones of the saint. "The relics of St Peter," announced Pope Paul VI on June 26 1968, "have been identified in a manner which we believe convincing"; the following day, after a ceremony in front of the aedicula, the remains were restored to the repository.

Ferrua was more circumspect. Aware of the scepticism that surrounded even the analysis of the Greek fragment - which others had read as Petros endei or "Peter is not here" - he recently told the Italian Catholic newspaper L'Avvenire that he was "not convinced" that the saint's bones had been found…A man of deep faith, Ferrua was a rigorous scholar, much admired for his refusal to allow his beliefs to compromise his work (The Rev Antonio Ferrua. Telegraph, London - May 29, 2003 The Rev Antonio Ferrua - Telegraph viewed 07/20/09)."

OK bro.. let's see the evidence. On the stone fragment, they have seen these letters:

PETR (OS) ENI === which literally means Peter is here.

PETR (OS) ENDEI would have a different spelling if that is what to be seen on the stone fragment. It would have contained a delta (d). instead the greek inscription contains an iota (i).

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Mao lage ni ang gina ingon na dont take TRADITIONS as LEGENDS for they are not the " legends " as sotrya storya lang.

Naa na gani link gi provide which SCIENCE partakes in proving that indeed ST. PETER ni adto gyud si ROME .

Would you guys put more leverage on the " ASSUMPTIONS " of personal interpretation of the bible or EXCAVATIONS by ARCHAEOLOGIST's ?

Naa lang ko question to both of your MACHINE CULT and DEFENDER ....

Other than not being mentioned in the bible literally , word for word that St. Peter ever stepped on Roman soil , unsay laing basis ninyo ? Just wondering . Thanks.

[NAN_WEN]

.....kinsa nga peter TS? amung silingan? o kadtugn naa sa juan and pedro nga jokes?? hahahahah ^____^

[noy]

@bai defs, ok ra..chicka ta later...Lol

[noy]

.....kinsa nga peter TS? amung silingan? o kadtugn naa sa juan and pedro nga jokes?? hahahahah ^____^

Peter nga anak ni Tersing bah...Lol

[Ferrari 430 Scuderia]

Naa nasad ni akong idol nga sige ug post ay. Unya nana i tackle nga subject, pag English 1 sa, i pa drop tika sa inyong maestro ron

ont:
adto man siya gi martyr.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

The link is not entirely about proofs but holds the water on why NON CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS argues the presence of St. Peter in Rome.

Was Peter ever in Rome?

Again .... another form of an ATTEMPT to DISCREDIT the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH .

[Chubi]

i think the purpose of this is to enlighten us.