To: Uncle Chip
Simple logical common sense should tell you that for over 1400 years of Christianity-Christians believed Peter was Bishop of Rome
If Peter was NOT in Rome there would have been plenty of EARLY Christian writings saying he was not.
Therefor the burden of TRUTH is on you to produce Historical writings from reliable sources to PROVE Peter was NOT in Rome.
I,ll save you the trouble-There is NO reliable sources!
Quoting the Bible is also illogical in regards to this topic!
The Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. Just as the New Testament never says, “Peter then went to Rome,” it never says, “Peter did not go to Rome.” In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension.
120 posted on
10/28/2006 4:19:13 PM PDT by
stfassisi
("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
To: stfassisi
Syriac Fathers say Peter was Bishop of Antioch for 30 years. Can you prove that he was not Bishop of Antioch for 30 years?
127 posted on
10/28/2006 5:58:39 PM PDT by
Uncle Chip
(The first to present his case seems right until another steps up and questions him)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson