True2Ourselves
Already a member? login
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
  
+
Register FAQ A-Z directory Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

True2Ourselves Forums   > Community Topics > Theology  > Where was Peter in AD 42-64 ??

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-31-2012, 07:02 PM
danp's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 352
Default Where was Peter in AD 42-64 ??

Hi to all , and why do many contend , that Peter was in ROME , when there is no bibical proof for that assumption , so let us look at the bibical record .

#1 , And we see that Paul was saved in AD 36-37 , IN aCTS 9:6 .

Paul , writes in Galatians that 3 YEARS AFTER his salvation he went to Jerusalem to see PETER .

Peter is in Jerusalem in AD 40 !! No problems yet !!


#2 , Then , PETER , does a missionary journey to Lydia , Joppa and Caesarea in Acts 9-11 , WHICH IS ALL LOCATED IN WESTERN JUDEA .

THIS IS LATE AD 45 , AND PETER IS STILL IN JERUSALEM .

Now there is a 3 year DISCREPANCY with TRADITION , for PETER is supposed to have ALREADY been in ROME for 3 years .

What is wrong here ??


#3 , Then in Gal 1:18 , Paul goes to Jerusalem to see PETER , and this is AD 48 .


#4 , Then in Gal 2:1 , 14 years LATER , PAUL goes to Jerusalem and this propells the date to 62 AD and the RCC CLAIMS THAT peter was in ROME serving as POPE for over 20 years ??

#5 , There is no scriptual proof that PETER was ever in ROME , and why would PETER even go to Rome when there were but GENTILES , there , because from Gal 2:7 , PETER was to preach to the CIRCUMCISION , which are all JEWS ??

From the evidence present here PETER could not be in 2 PLACES at the same time and is MISSION IMPOSSIBLE !!

DAN P
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-31-2012, 10:07 PM
Linsinbigler's Avatar
Representative Clergy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,150
Default Re: Where was Peter in AD 42-64 ??

Hi Dan. I think that there are about 10 threads on this subject already, and your current one adds nothing to the discussion, but if you insist...
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-01-2012, 06:44 AM
CatholicCrusader's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,258
Default Re: Where was Peter in AD 42-64 ??

There is no Biblical proof that George Washington was president either. So what's your point Dan? You scraping together a few verses and making an unfounded conclusion is ridicluous; your conclusion has nothing to do with history or facts. History says he died in Rome; he was crucified upside down there by Nero and buried there.

In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Further, the early Christians are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero.

This being the case, the historical evidence is unambiguous in declaring that Peter went to Rome, revealing the Fundamentalist claim to the contrary for what it is: an attempt to deny one of the tenets in the doctrine of the papacy, even if truth must be sacrificed to do so. These writings were written before there was even a New Testament:


Dionysius of Corinth

"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).



Irenaeus

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).



Gaius

"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).



Clement of Alexandria

"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).



Tertullian

"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (ibid., 32:2).

"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood" (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D. 210]).



Eusebius of Caesarea

"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).



Peter of Alexandria

"Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome" (Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).



Lactantius

"When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 318]).



Cyril of Jerusalem

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven. And it was nothing to marvel at, for Paul was there—he that was caught up into the third heaven" (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
__________________

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love"
- Saint Pope John Paul II

Last edited by CatholicCrusader : 08-01-2012 at 08:20 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-01-2012, 06:48 AM
CatholicCrusader's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,258
Default Re: Where was Peter in AD 42-64 ??



Even Wikipedia says Peter was in Rome

>> Saint Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Martyrdom

The mention in the New Testament of the death of Peter says that Jesus indicated its form by saying: "You will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."[39] Early church tradition (as indicated below) says Peter probably died by crucifixion (with arms outstretched) at the time of the Great Fire of Rome of the year 64. Margherita Guarducci, who led the research leading to the rediscovery of Peter’s tomb in its last stages (1963–1968), concludes Peter died on 13 October AD 64 during the festivities on the occasion of the “dies imperii” of Emperor Nero. This took place three months after the disastrous fire that destroyed Rome for which the emperor wished to blame the Christians. This “dies imperii” (regnal day anniversary) was an important one, exactly ten years after Nero ascended to the throne, and it was ‘as usual’ accompanied by much bloodshed. Traditionally, Roman authorities sentenced him to death by crucifixion. According to the apocryphal Acts of Peter, he was crucified head down. Tradition also locates his burial place where the Basilica of Saint Peter was later built, directly beneath the Basilica's high altar.

Clement of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 5), written c. 80–98, speaks of Peter's martyrdom in the following terms: "Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death… Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him."

The apocryphal Acts of Peter is also thought to be the source for the tradition about the famous phrase "Quo vadis, Domine?" (or "Pou Hupageis, Kurie?" which means, "Where are you going, Master?"). According to the story, Peter, fleeing Rome to avoid execution, asked the question of a vision of Jesus, to which Jesus allegedly responded that he was "going to Rome to be crucified again." On hearing this, Peter decided to return to the city to accept martyrdom. This story is commemorated in an Annibale Carracci painting. The Church of Quo Vadis, near the Catacombs of Saint Callistus, contains a stone in which Jesus' footprints from this event are supposedly preserved, though this was apparently an ex-voto from a pilgrim, and indeed a copy of the original, housed in the Basilica of St Sebastian.

The ancient historian Josephus describes how Roman soldiers would amuse themselves by crucifying criminals in different positions, and it is likely that this would have been known to the author of the Acts of Peter. The position attributed to Peter's crucifixion is thus plausible, either as having happened historically or as being an invention by the author of the Acts of Peter. Death, after crucifixion head down, is unlikely to be caused by suffocation, the usual cause of death in ordinary crucifixion[citation needed].

A medieval tradition[citation needed] was that the Mamertine Prison in Rome is the place where Peter was imprisoned before his execution. Catholic tradition holds that his inverted crucifixion occurred on the spot now occupied by the Clementine Chapel in the grottoes of Saint Peter's Basilica.[40] In 1950, human bones were found buried underneath the altar of St. Peter's Basilica. The bones have been claimed by many to have been those of Peter.[41] An attempt to contradict these claims was made in 1953 by the excavation of what some believe to be St Peter's tomb in Jerusalem.[42] However along with supposed tomb of Peter bearing his previous name Simon, tombs bearing the names of Jesus, Mary, James, John, and the rest of the apostles were also found at the same excavation—though all these names were very common among Jews at the time.

In the 1960s, some previously discarded debris from the excavations beneath St Peter's Basilica were re-examined, and the bones of a male person were identified. A forensic examination found them to be a male of about 61 years of age from the 1st century. This caused Pope Paul VI in 1968 to announce them most likely to be the relics of Apostle Peter.[43]

Further doubt on finding bones in Rome is cast by Pope Vitalian's letter to King Oswy of the Britons (665 AD), offering him the remains (then called relics) of the apostle Peter and Paul, along with those of the Holy Martyrs Laurentius, John, Gregory and Pancratius as a reward for the emergence of British faith.[44]

Connection to Rome

The See of Rome is traditionally said to be founded by Peter and Paul, see also Primacy of Simon Peter, who had invested it with apostolic authority. The New Testament says nothing directly about Peter's connection to Rome, but an early Catholic tradition supports such a connection.[6]

That Peter was bishop of Rome is corroborated by both positive and negative evidence.[45] However, some historians have challenged this traditional view of Peter's role in the early Roman Church.[46][47][48][49][50] Still, most Catholic and Protestant scholars,[51] and many scholars in general,[52] conclude that Peter was indeed martyred in Rome under Nero. In 2009 Otto Zwierlein (de) concluded in a critical study that "there is not a single piece of reliable literary evidence (and no archaeological evidence either) that Peter ever was in Rome."[53][54]

1 Clement, a document that has been dated from the 90s to the 120s, is one of the earliest sources adduced in support of Peter's stay in Rome, but questions have been raised about the text's authenticity and whether it has any knowledge about Peter's life beyond what is contained in the New Testament Acts.[53] The Letter to the Romans attributed to St. Ignatius of Antioch implies that Peter and Paul had special authority over the Roman church,[6] telling the Roman Christians: "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did" (ch. 4). However, the authenticity of this document and its traditional dating to c. 105–10 have also been questioned, and it may date from the final decades of the 2nd century.[53]

Later in the 2nd century, Irenaeus of Lyons believed that Peter and Paul had been the founders of the Church in Rome and had appointed Linus as succeeding bishop.[55] In Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3), Irenaeus wrote:
Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles…
Tertullian also writes: "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John (the Baptist, by being beheaded)." Dionysius of Corinth also serves as a late 2nd-century witness to the tradition.[6] He wrote: "You (Pope Soter) have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time".[56] Later tradition, first found in Saint Jerome, attributes to Peter a 25-year episcopate (or apostolate) in Rome.[6]

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, there was a Christian community at Rome before either Peter or Paul arrived there:
Even on the Day of Pentecost, "Roman strangers" (advenœ Romani, Acts 2:10) were present at Jerusalem, and they surely must have carried the good news to their fellow-citizens at Rome… according to the pseudo-Clementine Epistles, St. Barnabas was the first to preach the Gospel in the Eternal City.[57]
Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16 (c. 58) attests to a large Christian community already there,[58] although he does not mention Peter.
__________________

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love"
- Saint Pope John Paul II
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-01-2012, 08:15 AM
BishopPaul2's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 363
Default Re: Where was Peter in AD 42-64 ??

I don't think anyone questions the Peter met his end in this life in Rome. From what I read of the OP the question arises as to what span of time Peter was in Rome. It is a valid question and one the deserves a quality answer. Now if all that can be verified is that the last ear of Peter's life was in Rome, great. If maybe Peter went to Rome several times in that span, also great.

We read that there was a Church in Rome that wasn't planted by Paul. Paul doesn't tell us who planted it only that he is happy to interact with them even as a prisoner. Personally I could care less how long Peter was in Rome before he died. I know he died there and I know he made a stand for Jesus in the manner in which he died.

There, curiously enough is no recorded evidence that I am personally aware of that Peter assumed the position of Bishop of Rome during his time there. True that making such a declaration that could reach the ears of Caesar would have been foolish but Peter never seemed particularly concerned with appearances either. For that matter I doubt any of Christ's followers where concerned much in that way.

One thing I am sure of, is that if you apply yourself to the question and maybe with the help of AHJE you could find an answer, if the information is available, from a source a good deal closer to the time in question than 110 a.d.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-01-2012, 08:24 AM
CatholicCrusader's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,258
Default Re: Where was Peter in AD 42-64 ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopPaul2 View Post
I don't think anyone questions the Peter met his end in this life in Rome.......
I am glad to hear that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopPaul2 View Post
.....From what I read of the OP the question arises as to what span of time Peter was in Rome. It is a valid question and one the deserves a quality answer.....
The question may be technically valid, but what is the motivation behind it? Other than to try to discredit the Papacy, there really is no reason to ask it unless one has some unique interest in chronicalling in detail the life and travels of Peter.
__________________

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love"
- Saint Pope John Paul II
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-01-2012, 08:44 AM
BishopPaul2's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 363
Default Re: Where was Peter in AD 42-64 ??

Quote:
The question may be technically valid, but what is the motivation behind it? Other than to try to discredit the Papacy, there really is no reason to ask it unless one has some unique interest in chronicalling in detail the life and travels of Peter.
Whoa there, slow your roll. Remember, I asked this time not the Op. I didn't asks about the papacy, though I did ask abut Peter taking direct leadership of the Church in Rome. You have never posted on that as far as I have seen and neither has AHJE. Now you can read all the conspiracy you want into it but just this once try answering based on face value.

If you know the information then just share it and if you don't then just say you don't. After Paul and John, Peter is my third favorate Apostle so I would really just like to know.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-01-2012, 08:59 AM
CatholicCrusader's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,258
Default Re: Where was Peter in AD 42-64 ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopPaul2 View Post
Whoa there, slow your roll. Remember, I asked this time not the Op. I didn't asks about the papacy, though I did ask abut Peter taking direct leadership of the Church in Rome. You have never posted on that as far as I have seen and neither has AHJE. Now you can read all the conspiracy you want into it but just this once try answering based on face value.

If you know the information then just share it and if you don't then just say you don't. After Paul and John, Peter is my third favorate Apostle so I would really just like to know.
1) I didn't ask what YOUR motivation was, I asked in general what could be the motivation for asking precisely when and where Peter was. Perhaps you could tell me me.

2) I have posted about the Papacy in detail here: The Pope
Why do I need to show Peter taking control when control was already given to him by Jesus. This is one time when we CAN go straight to the Bible to get our answer.
__________________

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love"
- Saint Pope John Paul II

Last edited by CatholicCrusader : 08-01-2012 at 10:05 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-01-2012, 09:18 AM
BishopPaul2's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 363
Default Re: Where was Peter in AD 42-64 ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
1) I didn't ask what YUR motivation was, and asked in general what could be the motivation for asking precisely when and where Peter was. Perhaps you could tell me me.

2) I have posted about the Papacy in detail here: The Pope
Why do I need to show Peter taking control when control was already given to him by Jesus. This is one time when we CAN go straight to the Bible to get our answer.
1. correct you didn't expressly single me out but i was the one asking for the follow up and am still asking. As to where Peter was at any particular point in time during his life, post resurrection, I haven't got a clue other than what the bible tells us and that is one of the things that frusterates me most about the bible, no one had a calender when they wrote. The question in the op simply tickled my fancy and as Catholics regard Peter so highly a catholic seemed to be the best choice to ask. Perhaps I was mistaken.

2. As I tried to explain before, though perhaps not well enough, is the establishment of the church in Rome is a mystery and so is the identity of her Bishop. We Know John was the Bishop of Ephesus, Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch and Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna. Who was the Bishop of Rome before Peter arrived and did that Bishop release Rome to the care of Peter? These are strait forward questions that I don't have the answer to. Setting the papacy debate aside for once do you know the answer or not and if yes then share.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-01-2012, 10:05 AM
CatholicCrusader's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,258
Default Re: Where was Peter in AD 42-64 ??

Wow, I had some bad typos in that one
__________________

"God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love"
- Saint Pope John Paul II
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is Peter Supreme? irondumpty General Discussions 73 05-05-2012 05:56 AM
Peter and Isaiah 53 Unguiscati Spirituality 12 10-13-2010 07:40 AM
1 Peter 4:17 says ElpidioLGagolinan General Discussions 39 07-11-2010 08:37 PM
What are the keys of Peter? NotFinishedYet Bible Chat 148 12-10-2009 11:07 AM
Amessage to peter colin Theology 1 03-05-2009 12:27 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03 PM.


true2ourselves
 
 
 

Flashcoms

You need to upgrade your Flash Player.

Version 8 or higher is required.

download from http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29