What is the evidence of Peter in Rome

[Yarddog]

So?

Have you studied the ECF's? It is big evidence that none of them deny that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there.
Peter being considered one of the main Apostles, by all of the early Church, would have been a big piece of evidence for one section or another to dispute Rome's claims for the Chair of Peter. There are no ECF's that deny Peter was martyred there or any other area of the Church which claims the place of Peter and Paul's deaths.

Yarddog

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Have you studied the ECF's? It is big evidence that none of them deny that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there.
Peter being considered one of the main Apostles, by all of the early Church, would have been a big piece of evidence for one section or another to dispute Rome's claims for the Chair of Peter. There are no ECF's that deny Peter was martyred there or any other area of the Church which claims the place of Peter and Paul's deaths.

Yarddog

Nope, I leave that for others. I am strictly a SOLO SCRIPTURA heretic

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

....The "evidence" presented is AMAZINGLY weak and late - of a nature generally not accepted at all.....

1) There are writings from 110 AD, ten years after "Revelation" was written, in 100 AD. That is not "late"

2) It is actually accepted by all mainstream theologians - Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. There are extremely few who do not.

So both of your staments absolutely incorrect

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

1) There are writings from 110 AD, ten years after "Revelation" was written, in 100 AD. That is not "late"

2) It is actually accepted by all mainstream theologians - Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. There are extremely few who do not.

So both of your staments absolutely incorrect

That is pure speculation, as John could have visioned Revelation any time after the cross and ascension of our Lord JESUS.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Nope, I leave that for others. I am strictly a SOLO SCRIPTURA heretic

I'm curious: Why don't you prove to us that the Bible is the word of God based on the Bible alone?

And while you're at it, why don't you prove to us that the canon of the Bible is correct based on the Bible alone?

If Sola Scriptura is the way to go then you should have no problem answering my two little bitty questions, should you.

This should be interesting

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'm curious: Why don't you prove to us that the Bible is the word of God based on the Bible alone?

Why don't you prove Peter was in Rome based on the Bible alone, as solo and sola Scripture are discussed on other threads.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7231168&page=65&highlight=sola
Sola Scriptura IS..... Sola Scriptura is NOT....

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Thats what I thought.

Sola Scriptura is bogus. It can't even provide you with an answer to the most basic question, which is: Why you believe in the book you believe in.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thats what I thought.

Sola Scriptura is bogus. It can't even provide you with an answer to the most basic question: Why you believe in the book you believe in.

Well SS is what I go by and if ya don't like it, tough

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

My my, getting a little sensitive, arent we.

Okay, here's another question: How does the Bible teach you about history which occured AFTER the Bible was written?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Okay, here's another question: How does the Bible teach you about history which occured AFTER the Bible was written?

I leave that for the Christian historians on this forum

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=84
Christian History

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6730673&page=7
Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

....Okay, here's another question: How does the Bible teach you about history which occured AFTER the Bible was written?

I leave that for the Christian historians on this forum....

For a person that wants answers to all kinds of questions, you sure don't like answering any, do you

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

For a person that wants answers to all kinds of questions, you sure don't like answering any, do you

I am watching the answers from others. And as I have stated before, I do not believe Peter was ever in Rome and I do NOT have to prove it.......

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Come on; in order to "support" this you need to attack Christianity? Really? It reminds me of the "proof" sometimes offered for some UNIQUE RCC dogma that "well, it's gotta be dogmatic fact because you can't prove the dogma of the Trinity is true! So there!" Come on, my friend...


The RCC makes this claim as a foundation to all the remarkable, self-serving, accountability-evading claims of itself for itself. Alone. When I claim that God's Scriptures are reliable, I'm making NO CLAIMS for myself. Nor am I making an exclusive claim within Christianity.


Now, let's return to the issue before us: What EVIDENCE is there that Peter was in Rome and that thus the remarkable claims of the RCC alone for itself alone are historically proven?





.

Hi Josiah,

I believe you have misunderstood Thekla's point. I think she was implying that the entire Christian belief is all based on faith and not hard evidence. This also includes Peter being in Rome and being crucified upside down. We believe it because we have faith in tradition similar to how you have faith in your Lutheran tradition.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Hi Josiah,

I believe you have misunderstood Thekla's point. I think she was implying that the entire Christian belief is all based on faith and not hard evidence. This also includes Peter being in Rome and being crucified upside down. We believe it because we have faith in tradition similar to how you have faith in your Lutheran tradition.

But in this case we also have evidence that Peter was in Rome. Its more than tradition

 

[ToxicReboMan]

True, it's more than just tradition. Other evidence is there to see as well, but not all will agree that early church history is even evidence.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Here you guys go: From a non-bias source:

Fast forward to the 7 min 20 sec mark of this video by "National Geographic":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmOPoL1emOM&feature=channel


Next, fasforward to the 2 min 40 sec mark of this video (part of the same Nat Geo video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hno13cylmic&feature=channel

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

At the very least you should watch the first one (@ 7 min 20 sec mark):

Here you guys go: From a non-bias source:

Fast forward to the 7 min 20 sec mark of this video by "National Geographic":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmOPoL1emOM&feature=channel


Next, fasforward to the 2 min 40 sec mark of this video (part of the same Nat Geo video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hno13cylmic&feature=channel

 

[bbbbbbb]

Wow! It's deja vu all over again!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Wow! It's deja vu all over again!

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50414706&postcount=56

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Wow! It's deja vu all over again!

Well, when people keep starting threads on the same exact subject, they are likely to get the same material presented to them. My question is: How many thread does it take before someone will actually view the material?