Posted on 07/15/2016 7:12:08 PM PDT by marshmallow
The ancient Roman prison where Sts. Peter and Paul were once confined has been re-opened to visitors after a year-long renovation.
The Mamertine prison, also known as the Carcer Tullianum, is a 3,000-year-old structure, located near the Roman Forum. The church of San Giuseppe dei Falegnami now stands above it, and in the prison itself there is an altar so that Mass can be celebrated at the site where the apostles were jailed.
The renovations to the prison include the introduction of a multimedia tour, which allows visitors to learn more about any facet of the building and its history by selecting items on a touch-pad screen.
Ancient prison which housed St Peter re-opens in Rome (The Local)
PS But the Norman holes were a lot worse. Not enough room to swing a cat by the tail.
Yes He did...
Romans 3:23
bump
So according to your own, personal interpretation of Romans, Jesus Christ also sinned?
If not, do you think He was born of an Immaculate Mother or a sinful mother.
Jesus Christ is this according to the HOLY BIBLE, not my “interpretation”:
John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Jesus is God, God in the Flesh, Fully Man, Fully God. Born of the Virgin Mary. She was not “immaculate” in any way. The Bible doesn’t call or refer to her as that, she was a sinner in need of salvation just like all the rest of us.
What was immaculate was her conception of Christ. I’m not trying to demean Mary. She was certainly favored among women (Luke 1:28)and Jesus loved her (John 19:27), but she was just another sinner in need of Salvation as far as God is concerned (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5)
Nowhere does the Bible claim to tell you everything that happened to the apostles and everything they did even during the time it was being written, to say nothing of afterwards. It doesn't tell you St. John went to Ephesus, but he did. It doesn't tell you St. Thomas went to Iraq and then to India, but he did.
But it's not clear that the Bible knows nothing about Peter being in Rome. 1 Peter 5:13 refers to "she" (the church) "in Babylon". Babylon the city was a ruin when 1 Pt was written, and there's no memory or tradition of Peter going to Mesopotamia in any case. If the people there had been evangelized by Peter, they would not hesitate to tell you so. But the apostle who preached in there country was Thomas, not Peter.
So is "Babylon" a code word for "Rome"? Maybe.
But this same God who was Mary's son was simultaneously her creator. He was obligated to honor her in her creation just as much as everywhere else. Creating someone in a state of sin is not honoring them in any way, shape, or form.
Just like in Star Wars, at Jabba the Hut’s place.
And Obey It!
The BVM was a sinner just like you? The Arc of the Covenant, the Tower of David, The Mystical Rose, the Gate of Heaven, the House of Gold was just like you?
I see not reason to reinvent the wheel, the following is clipped from a similar discussion by Walid Shoebat.
***************
“Mary was a sinner saved by grace, just like me. She has no special place in heaven.”
Where is that statement in the Bible? The Bible says that Mary was “FULL OF GRACE”.
And if you are the same as Mary, are you:
A) Full Of Grace
B) Full of crap
Remember, there are only two choices to choose from. You said that you are “like Mary”. So you then must choose A which will make you sound like B.
And do me a favor, don’t respond. In my experience with fools like you is that they NEVER respond to anything. They simply play the same record.”
*************
Is this where prisoners were held before they were thrown from the Tarpeian rock?
This is not something to even budge an inch over. The only reason people are saying Peter *wasn't* in Rome is because they a priori refuse to accept the importance of the Roman See, and they think denying Peter was ever there is the easiest way to accomplish that.
If "Babylon" in 1 Peter means Mesopotamia and not Rome, then how come the two people with Peter there have Roman names? Silvanus σιλουανοῦ and Marcus μᾶρκος. Pure Roman through and through. Some people say, well, they came from the Roman Empire with Peter. Well ok, where did he get them? If he went to Mesopotamia from Antioch, a Syrian city, or Jerusalem, a Jewish city, then where did he get two Roman companions? If these are just Gentile nicknames for Jews (Silvanus is supposed to be the same person as Silas), then why is Peter using their Roman names and not their Hebrew names in this epistle?? Luke, a Gentile, calls Silas "Silas" in Acts....then all of a sudden, when Peter gets to Mesopotamia he switches to using a *Roman* name? How does that make any sense? Of course if Peter is in Rome, it makes perfect sense.
Second of all, we have the evidence of the Gospel of Mark. Mark, as we know from Eusebius, was the companion of Peter, and wrote down his teaching. It has long been known that Mark's Gospel is full of Latinisms: he uses direct transcriptions of Latin words to a greater degree than any other Gospel. So where did those Latinisms come from, if Peter was in Babylon at the time?
Finally, I see some people are still on that old tired argument about unreliable "tradition". "Tradition", in this case, is not some disconnected, mostly oral theories about where Peter went.
"Tradition" in this case means the entire corpus of Christian literature from the Epistle of Clement (AD. 90s) on. It was unanimously asserted by those sources that Peter was in Rome.
*If* the "Babylon" of the epistle is ambiguous (and I don't think it is as much as people say), then you then consult the subsequent writings, of Irenaeus, of Eusebius, of the presbyter Gaius, and of the certain archaeological fact that Constantine leveled an entire hill to orient the altar of St. Peter's basilica on top of a 1st century grave and a mid-2nd century monument that that may well be the "monument" (tropaion) of the Apostles that the presbyter Gaius talks about visiting in Rome.
The entire body of evidence points to Peter in Rome unless you are theologically predisposed to deny the Roman See her prerogatives.
Which is a horrendous line of argumentation, in my opinion, because earlier generations of Protestant scholars had no problem rejecting the authority of the Roman See but yet accepting quite naturally that Peter was in the city. To wit: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
Vercingetorix, the commander of the Gauls defeated by Julius Caesar, spent six years in a prison like that, perhaps even the same cell.
Cool Old Stuff, extra-creepy type.
Because it was Christmas, not many people were out and about. We were very surprised the prison was letting in visitors on this day, but they were.
The day was cloudy and solemn, rather than sunny-bright and airy as Rome usually is. As we walked down the deep, winding staircase we came to a spot that legend said the guards, while pushing Peter down the staircase, pushed his face into the rock wall. The rock is supposed to have yielded, putting a human head-sized depression into it that has lasted even until today. At least that's the legend today's Romans tell.
The depths got darker and darker, only lit by faint electrical lights. In those days long ago, even dimmer torches would have been used.
Finally we came to the chambers that were cells. Originally the whole place was a series of natural caves, and these cells were the original cavern chambers. It was so quiet you could hear a distant "plop, plop, plop" of water, dripping somewhere. I could even imagine hearing a faint, repetitive, prayer going on somewhere, like ancient times for the unfortunates housed here.
It was just a powerful and awesome experience, to see the wretchedness of the place, and to know both Saint Peter and Paul were kept in it for following the Lord.
As He said:
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Yes, getting back to the OP....thank you for sharing your experience (and getting back to the OP).
Why is that "strange"?
It's "strange" only if one is working on the false premise that the Bible is a comprehensive record of everything which happened during the apostolic era. It isn't and the New Testament itself says so. See the end of John's Gospel.
Furthermore, the writers and compilers of the New Testament were not directing their thoughts and words to a group of skeptics who would appear 1500 years later. IOW, there was no compelling need to prove to anybody that Peter went to Rome because it was not a contentious issue in the first century AD....nor for another one and a half millenia!
The phrase..."it's not in the Bible" has to be one of the most vacuous and history-ignorant cliches in religious apologetics.
I disagree. The Bible states man is not to add to nor take away from Holy Scripture three times! See Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:5,6 and rev. 22:18, 19. So I can believe you and your denomination OR I can believe the Word of God. I'll choose God.
Why is there no record of Mary being baptized in your Bible?
Do you believe the Mother of God is thus in Hell?
What utter nonsense!
I don’t play silly “two choices” nonsensical games. LOL!
Mary won’t save you from you sins.
If that’s what you think, you’ve been duped just like every Muslim.
Remember, the only one here in this discussion using real Biblical Scripture is me.
All the rest of you go on what’s been written by your so-called “clergy” or what you’ve been taught. I go straight to the Holy Word of God.
Too bad you’re too closed minded to do that yourself. (not sarcasm).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.