Ten Proofs That Peter Was Never in Rome
May 9, 2015 15:19:35 GMT -5
Post by Berean on May 9, 2015 15:19:35 GMT -5
TEN PROOFS THAT PETER WAS NEVER IN ROME
Robert J. Thomas
PROOF ONE:
We should consider Christ's commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles. "The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8). Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN'T Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.
PROOF TWO:
Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed." PAUL Established The Only TRUE Church at Rome.
PROOF THREE:
We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter -who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Roman Church would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense!
PROOF FOUR:
We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man's foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church – because Peter was not in Rome.
PROOF FIVE:
At the end of Paul's Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn't there!
PROOF SIX:
Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul's arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter's meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
PROOF SEVEN:
When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ``as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn't. Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. There is no mention of Peter in Paul's Letters.
PROOF EIGHT:
After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn't there!
PROOF NINE:
With the expiration of Paul's two year's imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Romanist Church, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter thrice denied Christ, but that was before he was indwelt by the Spirit at Pentecost. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul's trial, and FORSOOK Paul as he forsook Christ, is absolutely untenable. Peter did not forsake Paul; PETER WAS NOT IN ROME.
PROOF TEN:
The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though The Romanist Church says he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!
Like · Comment
Seen by 38
Carrie Washburn-Donnelly, Nick Bevilacqua, Phil Wipperman and 3 others like this.
View previous comments
Kevin Fox Robert J. Thomas, do you deny the fact that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome?
16 hrs · Like
Arlene Michelle Another Catholic fairy tale - Peter was never in Rome. Even the Vatican guards at his supposed tomb will tell you there's no evidence that the body there is Peter - it has to be "taken on faith."
16 hrs · Like · 3
Robert J. Thomas YES!!
16 hrs · Unlike · 2
Catherine Brown Wow, who knew?
16 hrs · Like
Bobby Johnson Timothy, go ahead and quote that 1st century father who said Peter was in Rome. I want to see it.
8 hrs · Like · 1
Scott Metzelfeld So do I Timothy Donahoo! As per the rules of this page, please provide the source to back up your "personal opinion'. You've been caught in several lies in the past few days, and you must now prove everything you say with fact. You are on the clock.
8 hrs · Like · 2
Bobby Johnson And remember Timothy, 1st century is 0-100 AD.
8 hrs · Like · 2
Robert J. Thomas Yes Timothy Donahoo I too am waiting to see your quote from a 1st century father stating that Peter was in Rome.
6 hrs · Like · 1
Bobby Johnson Two problems Timothy, & this shows how desperate tippy are to grasp at any silly thing feed to you. Neither quote is 1st century. Second, neither quote says that Peter was in Rome. You also left out much of the Ignatius quote.
6 hrs · Like · 3
Bobby Johnson Oh, I might add how you guys in the Dionysius quote added (pope Soter). Guarantee you that Dionysius did not say "pope Soter."
6 hrs · Like · 3
Kathleen Maria So you will ONLY take a first century father's word? Not a second century father's word? Question for you all again.
Do you deny that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome?
6 hrs · Like
Bobby Johnson Yes, there is no historical evidence for that myth, Kathleen.
6 hrs · Like · 3
Bobby Johnson And Kathleen, you don't even have a 2nd century source. But 2nd century sources are not infallible & in 2 centuries many fairy tales get invented. 2nd & third century sources are not as reliable as 1st century sources, and as you well know a quote from a single individual does not mean that view was generally accepted.
6 hrs · Like · 3
Kathleen Maria What I like about the quote from Ignatius is this. He says
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]). ...See More
6 hrs · Like · 1
Bobby Johnson It proves neither one of those things. It proves nothing more about Peter than it does about Paul.
6 hrs · Like · 2
Robert J. Thomas There you go again Kathleen Maria. You must have a reading comprehension problem. I answered Kevin Fox last night about Peter being crucified in Rome. Once again NO HE WAS NOT CRUCIFIED IN ROME BECAUSE HE WAS NEVER IN ROME.
6 hrs · Like · 2
Bobby Johnson Ask that quote proves Kathleen, is that Peter &
Paul issued commands.
6 hrs · Like
Phil Wipperman So which do the papists hate more? The word of God or men like Lorraine Boehner who don't eat the cracker and speak the truth about their cult from their writings and the word of God that they hate?
5 hrs · Like · 1
Robert J. Thomas Phil Wipperman they actually hate anyone who exposed the false teachings of their cult.
5 hrs · Like · 1
Kathleen Maria We don't hate anyone Phil Wipperman. Scripture commands us to love all.
5 hrs · Like
Kathleen Maria Do you believe that Peter was crucified upside down Robert J. Thomas?
5 hrs · Like
Kathleen Maria And we Loooooooooooooove Scripture!
5 hrs · Like
Robert J. Thomas Who cares Kathleen Maria? As I said above however he died, it was NOT IN ROME.
5 hrs · Like
Kathleen Maria "Who cares" says Robert J. Thomas. It that what you say when you don't want to answer a question?
5 hrs · Like
Robert J. Thomas Look very carefully Kathleen Maria. this is now the 3rd time I answered your question and I will not answer again. NO, PETER WAS NOT CRUCIFIED IN ROME BECAUSE HE NEVER WAS IN ROME. What are you not understanding? Now bring your stupid merry-go-round to a complete stop as I am getting dizzy.
5 hrs · Like · 1
Bobby Johnson Again Timothy, not one of those quotes day that Peter was in Rome.
You don't even have the Dionysius letter, that came from Eusebius centuries letter. But no matter, you still haven't provided a quote saying Peter was in Rome.
5 hrs · Like · 1
Bobby Johnson You don't have a quote from 110 saying that Peter was in Rome.
5 hrs · Like · 1
Robert J. Thomas Timothy Donahoo the question was asked if I believed that Peter was crucified in Rome upside down, was it not? My answer is NO. Now why is that not an answer you foolish man?
5 hrs · Like
Bobby Johnson It's funny how the Ignatius letter doesn't even mention or address a Bishop in Rome at all.
5 hrs · Like · 3
Robert J. Thomas Scott Metzelfeld this is the last straw with Timothy Donahoo. He is an unregenerate bozo. I am going to block him after I am sure he has read this.
5 hrs · Like · 2
Bobby Johnson Point out in the Dionysius letter where it says Peter was in Rome. I think you are seeing things that aren't there.
5 hrs · Like · 1
Bobby Johnson By the way, I would be more inclined to believe it if you actually had the letter & not a fragment quote from centuries later.
5 hrs · Like · 2
Bobby Johnson Read the Bible Timothy. You will find my church there starting in Genesis with Adam & Eve.
5 hrs · Like · 3
Phil Wipperman This statement is so stupid, I don't even know where to start: "We don't hate anyone Phil Wipperman. Scripture commands us to love all."
First of all deceiver, who are "we"? If you are referring to your "church", that is a bold faced lie! Please start with the "love" you showed Wycliffe and Tyndale.
4 hrs · Edited · Like · 4
Robert J. Thomas Amen Phil Wipperman. I wonder how much loved was shared with all those who were tortured and slaughtered by papal Rome during the Spanish and Italian Inquisitions?
4 hrs · Like · 3
Phil Wipperman I think we can even show their "love" more recently Robert. I believe that there was a group of catholics called the Ustashi in the Ukraine during WWII, under the leadership of that good catholic named Hitler, that showed their "love" to others by slitting their throats and having contest to see who could slit the most in one night. There's the "love" of this satanic cult of whoremongers and pedophiles...
4 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
Bobby Johnson If this is the best evidence that Timothy has, then we can be certain, Peter was not in Rome.
3 hrs · Like · 2
Robert J. Thomas The fact of the matter is Phil Wipperman that if the Roman Catholic church had the same political power thy once had, every one of us would either convert of be slaughtered. In that respect, they are much like the Muslims.
3 hrs · Like · 4
Kathleen Maria Robert J. Thomas, what I asked you was whether or not you believed that Peter was actually crucified upside down, NOT whether it was done in Rome. Do you believe that this is the way in which Peter died? What about you Bobby Johnson, do you believe that this is how Peter died?
3 hrs · Like
Bobby Johnson Kathleen, offer your best evidence that Peter was crucified upside down. I hope it is better than the evidence offered by Timothy that Peter was in Rome.
2 hrs · Unlike · 4
Robert J. Thomas
PROOF ONE:
We should consider Christ's commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles. "The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8). Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN'T Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.
PROOF TWO:
Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed." PAUL Established The Only TRUE Church at Rome.
PROOF THREE:
We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter -who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Roman Church would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense!
PROOF FOUR:
We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man's foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church – because Peter was not in Rome.
PROOF FIVE:
At the end of Paul's Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn't there!
PROOF SIX:
Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul's arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter's meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
PROOF SEVEN:
When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ``as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn't. Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. There is no mention of Peter in Paul's Letters.
PROOF EIGHT:
After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn't there!
PROOF NINE:
With the expiration of Paul's two year's imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Romanist Church, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter thrice denied Christ, but that was before he was indwelt by the Spirit at Pentecost. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul's trial, and FORSOOK Paul as he forsook Christ, is absolutely untenable. Peter did not forsake Paul; PETER WAS NOT IN ROME.
PROOF TEN:
The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though The Romanist Church says he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!
Like · Comment
Seen by 38
Carrie Washburn-Donnelly, Nick Bevilacqua, Phil Wipperman and 3 others like this.
View previous comments
Kevin Fox Robert J. Thomas, do you deny the fact that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome?
16 hrs · Like
Arlene Michelle Another Catholic fairy tale - Peter was never in Rome. Even the Vatican guards at his supposed tomb will tell you there's no evidence that the body there is Peter - it has to be "taken on faith."
16 hrs · Like · 3
Robert J. Thomas YES!!
16 hrs · Unlike · 2
Catherine Brown Wow, who knew?
16 hrs · Like
Bobby Johnson Timothy, go ahead and quote that 1st century father who said Peter was in Rome. I want to see it.
8 hrs · Like · 1
Scott Metzelfeld So do I Timothy Donahoo! As per the rules of this page, please provide the source to back up your "personal opinion'. You've been caught in several lies in the past few days, and you must now prove everything you say with fact. You are on the clock.
8 hrs · Like · 2
Bobby Johnson And remember Timothy, 1st century is 0-100 AD.
8 hrs · Like · 2
Robert J. Thomas Yes Timothy Donahoo I too am waiting to see your quote from a 1st century father stating that Peter was in Rome.
6 hrs · Like · 1
Bobby Johnson Two problems Timothy, & this shows how desperate tippy are to grasp at any silly thing feed to you. Neither quote is 1st century. Second, neither quote says that Peter was in Rome. You also left out much of the Ignatius quote.
6 hrs · Like · 3
Bobby Johnson Oh, I might add how you guys in the Dionysius quote added (pope Soter). Guarantee you that Dionysius did not say "pope Soter."
6 hrs · Like · 3
Kathleen Maria So you will ONLY take a first century father's word? Not a second century father's word? Question for you all again.
Do you deny that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome?
6 hrs · Like
Bobby Johnson Yes, there is no historical evidence for that myth, Kathleen.
6 hrs · Like · 3
Bobby Johnson And Kathleen, you don't even have a 2nd century source. But 2nd century sources are not infallible & in 2 centuries many fairy tales get invented. 2nd & third century sources are not as reliable as 1st century sources, and as you well know a quote from a single individual does not mean that view was generally accepted.
6 hrs · Like · 3
Kathleen Maria What I like about the quote from Ignatius is this. He says
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]). ...See More
6 hrs · Like · 1
Bobby Johnson It proves neither one of those things. It proves nothing more about Peter than it does about Paul.
6 hrs · Like · 2
Robert J. Thomas There you go again Kathleen Maria. You must have a reading comprehension problem. I answered Kevin Fox last night about Peter being crucified in Rome. Once again NO HE WAS NOT CRUCIFIED IN ROME BECAUSE HE WAS NEVER IN ROME.
6 hrs · Like · 2
Bobby Johnson Ask that quote proves Kathleen, is that Peter &
Paul issued commands.
6 hrs · Like
Phil Wipperman So which do the papists hate more? The word of God or men like Lorraine Boehner who don't eat the cracker and speak the truth about their cult from their writings and the word of God that they hate?
5 hrs · Like · 1
Robert J. Thomas Phil Wipperman they actually hate anyone who exposed the false teachings of their cult.
5 hrs · Like · 1
Kathleen Maria We don't hate anyone Phil Wipperman. Scripture commands us to love all.
5 hrs · Like
Kathleen Maria Do you believe that Peter was crucified upside down Robert J. Thomas?
5 hrs · Like
Kathleen Maria And we Loooooooooooooove Scripture!
5 hrs · Like
Robert J. Thomas Who cares Kathleen Maria? As I said above however he died, it was NOT IN ROME.
5 hrs · Like
Kathleen Maria "Who cares" says Robert J. Thomas. It that what you say when you don't want to answer a question?
5 hrs · Like
Robert J. Thomas Look very carefully Kathleen Maria. this is now the 3rd time I answered your question and I will not answer again. NO, PETER WAS NOT CRUCIFIED IN ROME BECAUSE HE NEVER WAS IN ROME. What are you not understanding? Now bring your stupid merry-go-round to a complete stop as I am getting dizzy.
5 hrs · Like · 1
Bobby Johnson Again Timothy, not one of those quotes day that Peter was in Rome.
You don't even have the Dionysius letter, that came from Eusebius centuries letter. But no matter, you still haven't provided a quote saying Peter was in Rome.
5 hrs · Like · 1
Bobby Johnson You don't have a quote from 110 saying that Peter was in Rome.
5 hrs · Like · 1
Robert J. Thomas Timothy Donahoo the question was asked if I believed that Peter was crucified in Rome upside down, was it not? My answer is NO. Now why is that not an answer you foolish man?
5 hrs · Like
Bobby Johnson It's funny how the Ignatius letter doesn't even mention or address a Bishop in Rome at all.
5 hrs · Like · 3
Robert J. Thomas Scott Metzelfeld this is the last straw with Timothy Donahoo. He is an unregenerate bozo. I am going to block him after I am sure he has read this.
5 hrs · Like · 2
Bobby Johnson Point out in the Dionysius letter where it says Peter was in Rome. I think you are seeing things that aren't there.
5 hrs · Like · 1
Bobby Johnson By the way, I would be more inclined to believe it if you actually had the letter & not a fragment quote from centuries later.
5 hrs · Like · 2
Bobby Johnson Read the Bible Timothy. You will find my church there starting in Genesis with Adam & Eve.
5 hrs · Like · 3
Phil Wipperman This statement is so stupid, I don't even know where to start: "We don't hate anyone Phil Wipperman. Scripture commands us to love all."
First of all deceiver, who are "we"? If you are referring to your "church", that is a bold faced lie! Please start with the "love" you showed Wycliffe and Tyndale.
4 hrs · Edited · Like · 4
Robert J. Thomas Amen Phil Wipperman. I wonder how much loved was shared with all those who were tortured and slaughtered by papal Rome during the Spanish and Italian Inquisitions?
4 hrs · Like · 3
Phil Wipperman I think we can even show their "love" more recently Robert. I believe that there was a group of catholics called the Ustashi in the Ukraine during WWII, under the leadership of that good catholic named Hitler, that showed their "love" to others by slitting their throats and having contest to see who could slit the most in one night. There's the "love" of this satanic cult of whoremongers and pedophiles...
4 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
Bobby Johnson If this is the best evidence that Timothy has, then we can be certain, Peter was not in Rome.
3 hrs · Like · 2
Robert J. Thomas The fact of the matter is Phil Wipperman that if the Roman Catholic church had the same political power thy once had, every one of us would either convert of be slaughtered. In that respect, they are much like the Muslims.
3 hrs · Like · 4
Kathleen Maria Robert J. Thomas, what I asked you was whether or not you believed that Peter was actually crucified upside down, NOT whether it was done in Rome. Do you believe that this is the way in which Peter died? What about you Bobby Johnson, do you believe that this is how Peter died?
3 hrs · Like
Bobby Johnson Kathleen, offer your best evidence that Peter was crucified upside down. I hope it is better than the evidence offered by Timothy that Peter was in Rome.
2 hrs · Unlike · 4