Saint Peter’s bones on display for first time!!

st.peter

Vatican City (AFP) 24th Nov 2013- Bones believed to belong to Saint Peter, one of the founding fathers of the Catholic Church, went on display for the first time Sunday, as Pope Francis held a ceremony to end the “Year of Faith”.

Tens of thousands of pilgrims gathered to catch a glimpse of the remains, eight fragments of bone between two and three centimetres (around one inch) long displayed on an ivory bed within a bronze chest on a pedestal in St. Peter’s Square.

The chest, given to pope Paul VI in 1971 and usually kept in the tiny chapel of the papal apartments, was decorated with a carving of Peter, who was a fisherman before becoming the Church’s first pope, casting his nets into the sea.

At the start of the solemn ceremony, Francis prayed before the chest, bordered by white and yellow roses, before blessing the bones with incense.

The bones have long been the object of controversy between historians and archaeologists: they were first discovered in a 1940 dig next to an ancient monument honouring Saint Peter, but ended up gathering dust in a storage box.

It was not until archaeologist Margherita Guarducci discovered graffiti near the excavated tomb reading “Petros eni”, which could mean “Peter is here”, that she requested tests on the fragments.

She found they belonged to a robust man who died aged between 60 and 70 and had been buried in a purple, gold-threaded cloth — enough to convince Paul VI to say in 1968 that Peter’s bones had been identified “in a convincing manner.”

With no DNA evidence to support the find, the debate over whether they really do belong to one of Jesus Christ’s apostles is likely to continue, but the Vatican has said it “has no intention of opening up any argument.”

“Faith, the people of God, have always believed these to be the relics of the apostle Peter, and we continue to venerate them in this way,” Rino Fisichella, head of the pontifical council for evangelisation, said in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano.

The ceremony brought to an end the Vatican’s “Year of Faith”, a Benedict XVI initiative which began on October 11, 2012 to mark the 50th anniversary of the start of the Vatican II Council, which approved key Catholic Church reforms.

The project’s principle aim was to tackle the decline of religious practice in the developed world, particularly in Europe.

The Vatican said the “Year of Faith” had attracted 8.5 million pilgrims to Rome.

–Yahoo

27 thoughts on “Saint Peter’s bones on display for first time!!

  1. SIKUFURAHI NILIPOIONA BIBLIA ILIYOSAINIWA NA KIONGOZI MKUU WA DINI HII INCHINI TANZANIA INAYOWADANGANYA NDUGU ZETU KUWAOMBA WATU WALIOKUFA, WAKIWA WAMEBADILI MANENO HAYA.

    WAMEWEKA MANENO HAYA ILI WATU WAAMINI KUNA MIZIMU NA MAHOKA/WATU WALIOKUFA LAKINI WANAISHI MITAANI, SHETANI NAE ATUMIA SINEMA ZIITWAZO ZOMBIE KUHALALISHA TAMKO LAKE LA EDENI KUWA HAMTAKUFA HAKIKA, KUMPINGA MUNGU ALIVYOSEMA MTAKUFA HAKIKA.

    WALIVYOBADILI;
    “…WALA MTU AWAOMBAYE MAHOKA,MIZIMU.” KUMB 18:11

    MANENO SAHIHI KATIKA BIBLE SOCIETY OF TANZANIA;
    “ASIONEKANE KWAKO MTU AMPITISHAYE MWANAWE AU BINTI YAKE KATI YA MOTO, WALA MTU ATAZAMAYE NYAKATI MBAYA, WALA MWENYE KUBASHIRI, WALA MSIHIRI, WALA MTU ALOGAYE KWA KUPIGA MAFUNDO, WALA MTU APANDISHAYE PEPO, WALA MCHAWI, WALA MTU AWAOMBAYE WAFU.” KUMBUKUMBU LA TORATI 18:10-11

    WAMEBADILI MAFUNGU YOTE YANAYOHUSU SANAMU NA KUYALEMBA ILI IONEKANE WAKO SAWA KUABUDU SANAMU ZA WAFU, NA WATU WANAOWAITA WATAKATIFU.

    BADALA YA MUNGU KUWAFANYA WATAKATIFU, BINADAMU MWENZAO ANAWATANGAZA WATAKATIFU KANA KWAMBA ANAIJUA MIOYO YAO KAMA WALIKUFA WAKIWA SAFI AU YEYE NDIO MWENYE REHEMA.

    UKIWA MASKINI HUWEZI TANGAZWA MTAKATIFU,KWA KUWA HUNA PESA YA KUKUFANYIA UTAFITI WA KIBINADAMU KAMA NI MTAKATIFU AU LA.

    MUNGU ANAWAJUA WATAKATIFU WAKE NAO WAMJUA BWANA WAO. AU “PAPA”? NI MUNGU.

    PETRO AMELALA ANASUBIRI UFUFUO TUACHE KUWAOMBA WAFU.

  2. Dittu,
    Usipende kuongea UONGO WA WAZI. Aliyekuambia mimi ni mfuasi wa Ellen G.White ni nani?
    HEBU THIBITISHA ILI WATU WAJUE.
    Kama huna taarifa, PAPA na ELLEN.G.WHITE wanamwabudu Mungu mmoja.WAKATOLIKI na WASABATO Wanamwabudu Mungu wa NAFSI TATU.
    Kumkataa PAPA NA UKATOLIKI NDIO KUTOUISHI UKRISTO AU AMEFILISIKA KIMAWAZO?
    MIMI NI MKRISTO WA KIBIBLIA wala si MDHEHEBU ambao wanaoruhusu wanawake kuwa WAHUBIRI WANAOSIMAMA MADHABAHUNI KUWAHUBIRI WANAUME.
    MASWALI AMBAYO HUKUJIBU NI HAYA HAPA;
    1. Kama Petro alikuwa papa wa kwanza (japo hilo ni uongo),mbona Petro alioa na Papa wa Vatican haoi?-MBONA PAPA HAOI NA PETRO ALIOA?
    2.UNAWEZA KUNIPA ANDIKO KWENYE BIBLIA LENYE KUSEMA “KATOLIKI” NI KANISA?
    3.“BABA MTAKATIFU, KWA JINA LAKO ULILONIPA UWALINDE HAWA ILI WAWE NA UMOJA KAMA SISI TULIVYO.” YOHANA 17:11
    Je PAPA ndiye BABA MTAKATIFU AU MUNGU kama YESU ALIVYOITA?
    4.UNANUKUU MANENO YA PAPA,YEYE KAMA NANI KATIKA BIBLIA?
    5.NENO “Arcbishop” lipo kwenye Biblia?
    Vipi kuhusu kupalizwa,Mapadri,Masista, kupalizwa bikira Maria, ubatizo wa watoto?
    Rafiki Biblia ya KIEBRANIA INA VITABU 66 TU.
    HIYO NI YA VITABU 77 NI PAPA NA WAKATOLIKI NDIO MAANA SIKU HIZI MMEANDIKA ” Biblia Takatifu Ya Kanisa Katoliki”
    Hiyo BIBLIA YENU NA LESSON NI KITU KIMOJA.
    Kwa sababu umeniambia nikuoneshe Katoliki inapopatikana Kwenye Biblia ngoja nikujibu LAKINI usichukuie.
    Katoliki inapatikana KWENYE BIBLIA (UFUNUO 17:3-18)
    Katoliki KIBIBLIA Inaitwa ” BABELI MKUU, MAMA WA MAKAHABA NA MACHUKIZO YA NCHI”
    Madhehebu YOTE NI WATOTO WA KATOLIKI ndio maana wanaitwa MAKAHABA na Katoliki ni MAMA YAO.
    Ndio maana ninyi wenywewe huwa mnadai ” Sisi Ni kanisa mama” Wala hamjakosea isipokuwa SI MAMA MZURI
    Ukipata “support” ya Wasabato na Madhehebu MENGINE Unakaribishwa.
    ***MADHEHEBU YOTE SHETANI***

  3. Pendaeli,
    Ni aibu kujisingizia mkristo ilhali huuishi ukristo. Ukristo ulianza mapema siku ya pentekoste wala siyo hicho kilichoanzishwa na mwanamke (E. White) karne ya19. Kama ukatoliki ulianzishwa na papa kama unavyodai ni bora mara mia kuliko iman yako ambayo doctrine yake ni matusi kwa kanisa katoliki iliyoanzishwa na mwanamke ambaye amezuiliwa na Mungu asiliongoze kanisa wala kumtawala mwanamume.
    -Unataka nijibu maswali yako, yepi nisiyoyajibu?
    -unataka unioneshe katoliki kwenye biblia, biblia ipi yenye vitabu 66 au leson?

  4. Dittu,
    KATOLIKI ILIANZISHWA RUMI NA KIONGOZI WAKE NI PAPA.
    UKRISTO ULIANZISHWA NA BWANA YESU NA YEYE NDIYE KIONGOZI.
    Huoni ni kama Kaskazini na Kusini wala HAZIKUTANI KAMWE?
    UNASEMA, “Kuhusu ushahidi wa “katoliki” ni kanisa kwenye biblia just google on the meaning of catholic, kwani huenda ulikua hufaham kuwa hata wewe ni MKATOLIKI.
    Hii inatokana na ukweli kwamba ukiwa mkristo tu tayari u-mkatoliki wewe.
    Pole kwa kuwa binadam asiyefikiri kama unavyojieleza katk hitimisho lako hapo juu.”
    HIIVI NDIVYO ULIVYODANGANYWA? HATA HOJA ZANGU HUJASOMA VIZURI KWANI USINGENIHUSISHA NA UKATOLIKI.
    HUJUI KATOLIKI NDIYE KIONGOZI WA ALAMA YA MNYAMA (BARAZA LA MAKANISA ULIMWENGUNI)?
    HIVI KUNA MKRISTO MKATOLIKI?
    MKRISTO ni MFUASI WA YESU KRISTO (MATENDO 11: 26) na MKATOLIKI ni MFUASI WA DHEHEBU LA KATOLIKI.
    Rafiki jibu MASWALI au kama UMESHINDWA NIAMBIE NIKUSAIDIE NA NITAKUONESHA MAHALI KATOLIKI INAPOPATIKANA KATIKA BIBLIA.

  5. WATU WA MUNGU KATIKA BIBLIA HAWAKUPENDA UBOSI KAMA ILIVYO KWA
    SASA KWA MFUMO WA UPAPA

    PETRO HAKUJIITA PAPA ILA KANISA LA RUMI LIMEMPACHIKA KUPATA MAHALI PA KUSIMAMIA MATAKWA YAO

    1. PETRO ALIJIITA HIVI;

    2 PETRO 1:1
    “SIMONI PETRO, MTUMWA NA MTUME WA YESU KRISTO, KWA WALE WALIOIPATA IMANI MOJA NA SISI.”

    2. YAKOBO ALIJIITA HIVI;

    YAKOBO 1:1
    “YAKOBO, MTUMWA WA MUNGU, NA WA BWANA YESU KRISTO,”

    3. PAULO ALIJIITA HIVI;

    FILEMONI 1:1
    “PAULO,MFUNGWA WA KRISTO YESU”

    TITO 1:1
    “PAULO, MTUMWA WA MUNGU,”

    WAPENDWA TUACHE TABIA ZA KUPANGA FOLENI NA KUANZA KUBUSU PETE ZA WATU,TUKIINAMISHA VICHWA KUWASUJUDIA TUNAPOBUSU PETE HIZO, NAO HUINAMISHA MIKONO YA CHINI ZAIDI ILI TUNAPOBUSU PETE TUINAME ZAIDI.

  6. “KWA JILI YA HAYO, BWANA MUNGU, ASEMA HIVI TAZAMA, NAWEKA JIWE KATIKA SAYUNI,LIWE MSINGI,JIWE LILILOJARIBIWA, JIWE LA PEMBENI LENYE THAMANI,MSINGI ULIO IMARA; YEYE AAMINIYE HATAFANYA HARAKA.”
    ISAYA 28:16

  7. Pendaeli,
    Nianze kwa kukunukuu “UNAWEZA KUNIPA
    ANDIKO KWENYE
    BIBLIA LENYE
    KUSEMA
    “KATOLIKI” NI
    KANISA?
    Kanisani kuna watu
    wafuatao;
    MITUME,MANABII,WAINJILISTI,
    WACHUNGAJI na
    WALIMU (SOMA
    WAEFESO 4:11)
    *Mchungaji pia
    ndiye ASKOFU
    (Mwanagalizi)
    Pia kuna
    Mashemasi (Soma
    1 TIMOTHEO
    3:1-13) na hata
    PAULO
    anawazungumzia
    Wazee wa KANISA.
    (MATENDO 20:17)
    Haya papa
    anapatikana WAPI?”.
    Ndugu yangu umenena vema, ila inastaajabisha kudai kila kitu kifanyikacho ktk masuala ya kiimani ati ni lazima kiwe kibiblia.
    Usnichoshe niskuchoshe, wapi pathfinder/adventurer, vyeti vya ndoa, risiti za sadaka/zaka nk kwenye biblia?
    Kuhusu ushahidi wa “katoliki” ni kanisa kwenye biblia just google on the meaning of catholic, kwani huenda ulikua hufaham kuwa hata wewe ni MKATOLIKI.
    Hii inatokana na ukweli kwamba ukiwa mkristo tu tayari u-mkatoliki wewe.
    Pole kwa kuwa binadam asiyefikiri kama unavyojieleza katk hitimisho lako hapo juu.

  8. Dittu,
    Bado hujaelewa nilichokuandikia. SINA UKAKIKA KAMA UNATOFAUTISHA MAMBO YA KIROHO NA YA KIMWILI AU UNAYACHAANGANYA PAMOJA.
    NIMEKUAMBIA KATIKA MAMBO YA KIROHO “BABA NI BWANA YESU KRISTO” SI FARNCIS.
    Mzazi wangu wa kiume anaitwa baba. Kanisani hakuna MWENYEKITI labda kwenye Vyama vya siasa Na kwenye MADHEHEBU. Kuna tofauti kubwa kati ya KANISA na DHEHEBU.
    Dhehebu la Katoliki ni mchanganyiko wa siasa na Dini, ndio maana Unamwita kiongozi wako MWENYEKITI kwa sababu ya asili ya Katoliki ‘kuwa ni ya Dunia yote’.
    UNAWEZA KUNIPA ANDIKO KWENYE BIBLIA LENYE KUSEMA “KATOLIKI” NI KANISA?
    Kanisani kuna watu wafuatao; MITUME,MANABII,WAINJILISTI, WACHUNGAJI na WALIMU (SOMA WAEFESO 4:11) *Mchungaji pia ndiye ASKOFU (Mwanagalizi)
    Pia kuna Mashemasi (Soma 1 TIMOTHEO 3:1-13) na hata PAULO anawazungumzia Wazee wa KANISA. (MATENDO 20:17)
    Haya papa anapatikana WAPI?
    HIVI HUJUI KUTUMIA LUGHA KULINGANA NA MAZINGIRA? SI kila mahali unatumia neno baba.Kwa Mfano kama baba yako ni “mwalimu” shuleni unamwita baba?
    Baba yangu wa kimwili hata Biblia, “AGANO LA KALE NA AGANO JIPYA” imegusia sana kwamba yupo.Soma WAEFESO 6:1-4.
    JIBU MASWALI NILIYOKUUULIZA USIKATE KONA.WEKA WAZI ILI WATU WAIJUE KATOLIKI.
    Pia jibu swali la samileander.
    I’m not a thinker but a CHRISTIAN.

  9. KATIKA Mathayo 23.8-12 Bwana Yesu
    anawaambia wafuasi wake; Bali ninyi
    msiitwe Rabi maana mwalimu wenu ni
    mmoja. Nanyi nyote ni ndugu; wala
    msimuite mtu baba duniani kwa maana
    baba yenu ni mmoja aliye wa mbinguni.
    Wala msiitwe viongozi maana kiongozi
    wenu ni mmoja; naye ndiye Kristo. Naye
    aliye mkubwa wenu atakuwa mtumishi
    wenu; na yeyote atakayejikweza;
    atadhiliwa. Na yeyote atakayejidhili,
    atakwezwa.
    Je, baba, Rabi na viongozi
    anaowazungumzia Yesu ni akina nani?
    Ndugu Pendaeli, tukumbuke sura ya 23 ya
    Mathayo kwamba ni sura maarufu sana
    kwa maneno makali dhidi ya Mafarisayo
    na Waandishi wao.
    Anayoyasema Yesu hatuwezi kuyaelewa
    vema bila kuingia ndani ya Injili
    yenyewe.
    Yaani hatuwezi kuyaelewa au kuyaeleza
    vyema nje ya uwanja wa wasikilizaji
    wenyewe au wasikilizaji wa kwanza. Jina “Baba” nalo lilikuwa na hadhi
    maalumu kabisa.
    Baba inayoongelewa na Yesu hapa; ni
    jina lililorejea kwa wazee fulani fulani
    wa Israeli; wazee kama Ibrahim na Isaka
    walikuwa wanajulikana kama Mababa,
    Ayubu kadhalika.
    Baba alikuwa ni alama rejeo katika
    utendaji na maisha yote ya kiyahudi.
    Hatahivyo wewe ndugu yangu,
    mzazi wako wa kiume unamuitaje?
    Mwenyekiti wako wa kanisa si kiongozi huyo?
    Think “BIG”.

  10. JINA PETRO LINATOKANA NA NENO PETROS, KIGIRIKI NI CEPHAS =KEFA AU JIWE DOGO
    JINA PETRA NI JIWE KUU, KUBWA AU MWAMBA (YESU)

    KANISA LIMEJENGWA JUU YA PETRA AMBAYE NI YESU, PETRO ALIAMBIWA SENTENSI HIYO KUTOKANA NA UDHAIFU WAKE KUDHANI KUWA YEYE NDIYE MKUU,

    “SENTENSI HIYO KIINGEREZA KILICHOTAFSIRIWA VEMA KUTOKA KIGIRIKI ILIPASWA KUSOMEKA
    “YOU ARE PETROS, ON THIS PETRA I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH”
    WEWE NI PETRO/KEFA (JIWE DOGO), JUU YA MWAMBA HUU (JIWE KUBWA /MWAMBA/YESU) NITALIJENGA KANISA LANGU

    PETRO YUPO KATIKA MSINGI WA KANISA PAMOJA NA MITUME WENGINE

    “MMEJENGWA JUU YA MSINGI WA MITUME NA MANABII, NAYE KRISTO YESU MWENYEWE NI JIWE KUU LA PEMBENI” WAEFESO 2:20

    JIWE KUU LA KANISA NI YESU

    PETRO YUKO KABURINI AKISUBIRI YESU MWENYE FUNGUO ZA MAKABURI/UFUFUO AMFUNGULIE KAMA LAZARO ALIVYOFNGULIWA NA YESU KUTOKA MALANGO HAYO.

    MALANGO HAYO YESU ALIPITA BILA KIKWAZO WALA HAYAKUMSUMBUA,TENA KWA KISHINDO NA JIWE LA KABURI KURUSHWA.

  11. Kwako;
    samileander.
    UBARIKIWE KWA UFUNUO ULIOPEWA.
    SIJUI KAMA WAKATOLIKI WATAJIBU HILO SWALI.
    NI KWELI KUWA PAPA WA VATICAN ANAKAA KAMA YULE MTU WA KUASI, ( 2 WATHESALONIKE 2:3-4,…..)
    MATHAYO 23:9, “Wala msimwite mtu baba duniani ; maana Baba yenu ni mmoja aliye wa mbinguni.”
    Kwa habari ya kiroho hata KANISANI, tunaye BABA mmoja tu naye ni BWANA YESU KRISO.
    MUNGU AMESEMA MSIMWITE MTU BABA (Papa) duniani.
    Shalom.

  12. Dittu,
    KWANZA, NILIKUOMBA UWE UNATAFSIRI KWA LUGHA YA KISWAHILI ILI UWAPE NAFASI WACHANGIAJI WENGINE WACHANGIE.
    USIAMINI SANA HISTORIA KWA SABABU KUNA HISTORIA ZINGINE ZA UONGO ZIMEANDIKWA KUHALALISHA UONGO WA IBILISI.
    UNANUKUU MANENO YA PAPA,YEYE KAMA NANI KATIKA BIBLIA?
    MAELEZO YAKO MAREFU YAMEJAA KILE MNACHOWADANGANYA WATU KUWA FUMBO LA IMANI.
    NENO “Arcbishop” lipo kwenye Biblia?
    Unaelewa MAANA halisi ya ANDIKO HILI “Mathayo 16:18 , Nami nakuambia,wewe ndiwe Petro,na juu ya mwamba huu nitalijenga kanisa langu; wala milango ya kuzimu haitalishinda.”?
    Je, PETRO ni mwamba? HAPANA.
    NGOJA NIKUSAIDIE KAMA UTAAMINI.TWENDE PAMOJA. ALAMA ZA UANDISHI KAMA VILE ( nukta, mkato nk,zina maana kubwa katika sentensi na ndio inayobeba maana ya hiyo sentensi”
    “Wewe ndiwe Petro,- Hii ni sehemu ya pili ya hiyo sentensi inayomtambulisha PETRO.
    “na juu ya mwamba huu……”- HUU NI UFUNUO.
    BWANA YESU ANAREJELEA UFUNUO ALIOPEWA PETRO.
    KILICHOMFANYA PETRO AMTAMBUE YESU KUWA NI NANI NI UFUNUO KUTOKA KWA MUNGU NA SI MAPOKEO YA WANADAMU. SOMA,MATHAYO 16:17,” Yesu akajibu,akamwambia, Heri wewe Simoni Bar-yona; kwa kuwa mwili na damu havikukufunulia hili, bali baba yangu aliye mbinguni”
    KINACHOZUNGUMZWA HAPA RAFIKI HAPA NI “UFUNUO KUTOKA KWA MUNGU” SI ETI PETRO NI MWAMBA.
    Papa na mwamba?
    KANISA LA BWANA YESU KRISTO LIMEJENGWA JUU YA UFUNUO WA NENO LA KWELI.
    UNASEMA “….. kuhusu Petro kuoa, kupalizwa bikira Maria, ubatizo wa watoto, baba mtakatifu na mengineyo; nadhani hayahusiani na mjadala huu hivyo haitakua busara kuyajibia hapa…”
    HAYO HAYAHUSIANI NA MADA AU UMEBANWA?
    TAREHE 10/11/2014 at 3:47 PM, ULIANDIKA HIVI,
    ” Dear Pendaeli,
    shame is upon your face. Eti wakatoliki wanaamini nini? ni vema kuuliza kama hujui au kukaa kimya kuliko kuongopa”
    SASA NANI MWONGO? UNANIAMBIA NI VEMA KUULIZA KAMA SIJUI, NIKIULIZA UNANIAMBIA HAIHUSIANI NA MADA!!
    HUONI WEWE NI MWONGO?
    Shame is upon your CREEDS.

  13. Pendaeli et al,
    siyo makusudi yangu kukuchosheni na machapisho marefu kias hicho. Lengo langu ni kujaribu kubainisha kile nnachoamini, kuhusu Petro kuoa, kupalizwa bikira Maria, ubatizo wa watoto, baba mtakatifu na mengineyo; nadhani hayahusiani na mjadala huu hivyo haitakua busara kuyajibia hapa. Badala yake tuyatafutie sehemu husika ili tuendelee kuelimishana. (Pendaeli) “Lakini katoliki itakuongoza machinjioni” Naona umekaimu mamlaka ya kuhukumu. Laudetu yesus kristus

  14. Part 3.
    The supposed visit in Rome by the
    Apostle Peter, as well as the founding
    and the administration of the local
    Church on which –as well all know –
    the papists have based their dogma
    regarding the pope’s primacy, cannot
    be supported by any testimonies in the
    New Testament. But even if we did
    accept as true the so-called
    “roman” (not ecclesiastic) tradition,
    which regards the foremost Apostle as
    the founder and first Bishop of the
    Church of Rome, is the pope really
    entitled to claim any primacy as the
    supposed successor of the Apostle
    Peter? Did Peter himself have such
    ideas about his person? Did he actually
    set himself apart from the other
    Apostles? A very brief look at the
    abundant scriptural testimonies will
    suffice to show us what the Apostle
    Peter’s place was, among the group of
    twelve Apostles. These testimonies, as
    perceived and interpreted by our
    Patristic tradition, do not ascribe –
    objectively- any kind of primacy to the
    Apostle Peter.
    The extremely sympathetic, heroic and
    enthusiastic son of Jonas, brother of
    Andrew the “first-summoned”, must
    have been the eldest among the
    disciples of Christ. As an expressive
    and dynamic character, we can feel him
    move us and he quite often expresses
    us also, with the mood shifts that
    characterize him. He is discerned
    among his co-disciples for his
    spontaneity and his zeal. He often
    hastens to express something that all
    the others have in mind. But, we do not
    notice anywhere that the Lord had
    given him any special jurisdictions, just
    as He had not given any to the others
    of the twelve Apostles. All of them are
    “spiritual noblemen, ordained by God,
    not acquiring various nations and
    cities, but all of them being commonly
    entrusted with the entire world” as the
    blessed Chrysostom had said. The Lord
    had assigned to all of them in common
    the teaching and the ministering of the
    entire world, when He sent them forth
    with the instruction: “journey forth, and
    teach all the nations” (Matth.28:19).
    When, at some point, Peter confessed
    the Lord’s divinity, he received the
    following, grand promise: “….and I say
    to you that you are Peter, and that on
    this rock shall I build My Church… and
    I shall give to you the keys to the
    kingdom of heaven and whatever you
    shall bind on earth shall be bound in
    heaven, and whatever you shall unbind
    on earth shall be unbound in
    heaven …” (Matth. 16:18-19) This
    excerpt, which was also quoted by
    pope Benedict in Constantinople, has
    been inscribed in gold letters by the
    Latins, on the dome of the basilica of
    Saint Peter in Rome: « Tu es Petrus, et
    super hanc petram aedificabo
    Ecclesiam meam… et tibi dabo claves
    regnis caelorum». But it is not the
    person of Peter that is being lauded
    here; what is being highlighted is
    Peter’s confession (revealed to him by
    God Himself), that Jesus Christ is God.
    A similar revelation had been given to
    Nathanael, who had likewise confessed:
    “… You are the Son of God…” (John
    1:50), as had Lazarus’ sister, Martha:
    “… 27 She said unto him, Yea, Lord: I
    believe that thou art the Christ, the
    Son of God …” (John 11:27).
    The “rock” is that precise faith in the
    divinity of Jesus Christ ; in other words,
    the “rock” upon which the Church is
    built – whose unique and irreplaceable
    foundation is the Person of the God-
    Man, our Lord – is NOT Peter, or any
    other person . “For no-one can place
    another foundation next to the existing
    one, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor.3:11,
    cf Ephes. 2:20), as the Apostle Paul will
    come to write. But even Peter himself
    was to proclaim that Jesus Christ is
    the “living stone” (1 Pet.2:4) and also
    stress that the faithful would be edified
    upon that very cornerstone, thus
    forming the spiritual edifice of the
    Church.
    Obviously, other disciples also
    possessed Peter’s kind of faith. That is
    why the Lord assigned the exact same
    authority to them also: “Verily I say
    unto you, anything that you bind on
    earth shall be bound in heaven, and
    anything that you unbind on earth shall
    be unbound in heaven ” (Matth.18:18).
    In fact, the Lord is observed repeating
    this same assignation and making it
    even more specific, after His
    Resurrection. He bestowed the Holy
    Spirit on ALL of His disciples, in order
    that that they be able to forgive sins,
    as ones directly commissioned by Him
    (John 20:22).
    Without making any discrimination , the
    Lord promised all twelve disciples
    equally that during His Second Coming,
    “when the Son of Man will seat Himself
    upon the Throne of Glory, you also
    shall be seated upon twelve thrones,
    judging the twelve tribes of
    Israel ” (Matth.19:28). The Lord did
    NOT make any special discrimination in
    favour of Peter, to whom these words
    were actually addressed. The same
    promise is repeated in the prophecy
    regarding the celestial city described in
    the Book of Revelations, where we can
    see that “… the wall of the city with its
    twelve foundation-stones, and upon
    those are the twelve names of the
    twelve Apostles of the
    Lamb ” (Rev.21:14).
    The Apostle Peter himself was never
    conscious that he was superior to any
    of the other Apostles. This is why in the
    life of the first Church he decides
    nothing on his own. He introduces the
    issues to the corpus of the twelve, as
    do the others, and decisions are
    reached in common. We can observe
    this in the election of Matthias, who
    replaced Judas (Acts 1:15-26); in the
    settlement of the complaints by the
    Hellenists, over the election of the
    seven deacons (Acts 6:1-7); in the
    Apostolic Synod (Acts 15:6-29) and in
    numerous other instances that are
    described in the Acts of the Apostles.
    Peter’s awareness of his equality to the
    other disciples is confirmed by the
    humility with which he unprotestingly
    accepted Paul’s admonishment in
    Antioch. Given that Peter’s behaviour
    was the cause of arrogance among the
    Christians originating from Judeans, “I
    confronted him to his face”, as Paul
    narrates. (Galat.2:11-14) “Paul berates
    and Peter tolerates and complies with
    the suggestion ” says John the
    Chrysostom in admiration. That is how
    sanctity and the awareness of one’s
    sacred mission should be!
    We observe the same kind of
    awareness in the Apostle Peter’s
    epistles, where he introduces himself as
    “a servant and apostle of Jesus
    Christ ” (2 Pet.1:1). He introduces
    himself to his subordinate presbyters
    as “co-presbyter ” (1 Pet.5:1). He
    acknowledges in the flock of the Church
    – in the simple Christians – that they
    “have obtained the faith that is
    equivalent to ours ” (2 Pet.1:1) and he
    exhorts them: “… garb yourselves with
    humility …” (1 Pet.5:5).
    This trust, of humility, is what the
    foremost apostle has bequeathed to the
    entire Church. He comprehends it fully,
    and our ecclesiastic tradition upholds it
    with precision, as eloquently said in the
    6th century by a saintly and wise
    leader, Saint Anastasios I, Archbishop
    of Antioch, who indicated that this
    foremost shepherd, who tends to the
    lambs of Christ, is not based in Rome,
    or in Constantinople, or in Jerusalem,
    or in any other place – only in sacrifice
    and love. And that is what the following
    words of the Lord demand: “Do you
    love Me? Look after My sheep ” (John
    21:16). (see the book by S.N.Sakkos,
    “Περί αναστασίων Σιναϊτών”,
    Thessaloniki 1964, pages 85-86).
    Whosoever embraces humility,
    according to the trust left by the
    Apostle Peter, is recognized as “great”
    by the Lord: The shepherd and the
    teacher prove themselves to be worthy
    successors and continuers of the
    Apostle’s history and genuine disciples
    of the Lord Jesus Christ. The faithful
    are blessed and sanctified, and the
    Church reigns triumphant.

  15. Part 2.

    Going back to the beginning of events,
    to the apostolic era during which the
    Apostle Peter must have presumably
    gone to Rome, we will continue to
    research the New Testament. We have
    already seen how, in the Acts of the
    Apostles, in the Epistles to Galatians, to
    1 Corinthians, to Romans as well as in
    the 1st and 2 nd so-called Epistles of
    the Captivity, there is no mention
    whatsoever of a visit to Rome by Peter.
    In our continuation of this browsing
    through the pages of the New
    Testament, we now arrive at the texts
    by the disciple of love: John the
    Evangelist.
    There have been certain interpreters
    who have assumed that in John’s Book
    of Revelations – and specifically in the
    excerpt Rev.11:3-13 and 18:20 – there
    is supposedly a prophetic reference to
    the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter
    and Paul in Rome. As I have shown in
    my special study, “Peter and Rome –
    Part A – The Testimony of the New
    Testament”, Thessaloniki 1989, pages
    75, 78, these assumptions are entirely
    unfounded. Throughout the entire Book,
    as stated from the very beginning, the
    evangelist expresses everything
    symbolically. The places mentioned
    therein – both “Sodom” and
    “Egypt” (Rev. 11:8) as well as “Babylon
    the Great” (Rev.18:2) – are symbolisms
    that do not relate exclusively to Rome.
    John does not refer to the deaths of
    Peter and Paul in Rome per se, but is
    more broadly implying the martyrdom
    of the Church, which perpetuates the
    crucifixional sacrifice of Her leader
    throughout the ages.
    It is in John’s Gospel that we find
    preserved the original testimony
    regarding the end of the Apostle Peter.
    In one of the most idyllic appearances
    – on the Sea of Galilee – and pursuant
    to the restitution of Peter’s triple
    denial, the resurrected Lord informs him
    as follows: “Amen, amen I say to you,
    when you were younger, you girded
    yourself and walked wherever you
    wanted; but when you grow old, you
    shall stretch out your arms and
    another will gird you and will take you
    where you do not want. This, ( John
    explains to us ) He said, indicating the
    manner in which he was destined to
    glorify God.”
    (John 21:18 -19). A similar prophecy
    regarding the manner of Peter’s death
    is also found in John 13:36. The only
    thing that both these excerpts reveal is
    that Peter was to die a violent and
    tortuous death, for the glory of God. As
    to where this execution was to take
    place, there is not even a hint;
    therefore, we have no reason to assert
    that Peter’s martyrdom took place in
    Rome.
    I have left for last a testimony by the
    Apostle Peter himself. In closing his 1st
    Catholic Epistle, the apostle greets the
    recipients of the epistle, thus: “The
    church in Babylon greets you”. (1
    Pet.5:13). Many theologians, and in
    fact papists, insist that “Babylon” is the
    Apostle Peter’s symbolic name for
    Rome, where he had supposedly written
    this epistle. This claim has also proved
    to be unfounded for many reasons,
    inasmuch as it makes no mention of
    the Apostle Paul’s name, even though
    the epistle is addressed to the
    Churches of Asia Minor which Paul had
    founded or had under his jurisdiction
    (see above book, pages 60-74). But
    also in the 2nd epistle which Peter had
    written in the same place and very soon
    after his 1st epistle, where he does
    mention Paul’s name and confirms his
    kerygma (2 Pet.3:16), it is not a
    notably warm mention. Now, given that,
    at the time Peter was writing his
    epistles the Apostle Paul had already
    undergone martyrdom in Rome, would
    it have been possible for Peter to be
    writing from Rome also , yet not
    addressing a single comforting word of
    consolation to them, for the loss of
    their teacher, who was so badly needed
    by those Christians of Asia Minor?
    This unjustified silence has been
    evaluated as testimony that rules out
    the possibility that Peter’s 1st Epistle
    was written in Rome.
    The “Babylon” referred to is the ancient
    Babylon of Egypt, which was located in
    the region of modern-day Cairo. This
    city, as I have shown (in my study,
    “The Babylon of the Apostle Peter – 1
    Pet.5:13 – The Babylon of Egypt”,
    Thessaloniki 1993), was indeed a
    political, military, but also a Judean
    centre. It in fact possessed sufficient
    Christian tradition, which rightfully
    allowed the Apostle Peter’s “Babylon”
    to be acknowledged as being the
    Babylon of Egypt.
    From this brief look at the pages of the
    New Testament it becomes obvious
    that the Apostle Peter had not visited
    Rome; not before, nor after, the so-
    called Apostolic Synod, neither during
    the time that Paul had written his
    epistles to the Romans, nor even when
    he had been brought to Rome in
    bondage, or during his imprisonment in
    Rome, until the time he wrote his last
    epistle.

  16. Nimeikopi pahala
    Part 1.
    The Vatican’s recent communicatory
    rapprochements, both towards our
    Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate –
    which the pope had visited on the
    occasion of the Patriarchal Throne’s
    celebration of Saint Andrew’s Day
    (30 th November 2006) – as well as
    towards the Church in Greece – whose
    archbishop had visited the pope
    (between the 13 th to 16th December
    2006) – have both brought to the
    forefront once again the fundamental
    papist claim which had led to their
    original secession from the Orthodox
    Church : the papist dogma regarding
    the primacy of the pope. This is
    supported by papists, on the basis of
    the decision of the 1st Vatican Council
    (1870), according to which, the pope is
    acknowledged as the vicar of Christ
    and His sole representative on earth;
    the leader and the visible head of the
    Church, in whose person the entire
    Church is summarized!
    Judging by everything that the current
    pope (Benedict) said in Constantinople,
    he has made it evident that he has not
    in the least deviated from this decision.
    With the conviction that he is the
    successor of the Apostle Peter and in
    his desire obviously to project his
    prestige as the planet’s religious leader,
    pope Benedict said the following of the
    foremost Apostle who is regarded by
    the papists as founder of the Church of
    Rome and consolidator of papal
    primacy:
    «Simon, before becoming an apostle
    and despite his human weakness, was
    named Peter, the rock upon which the
    Church was built. To him were also
    given the keys of Heaven».
    Now, with God’s help, we shall be
    examining just how scripturally based
    these claims are, further along.
    For the moment, I would like to inform
    our beloved readers that the papist
    view regarding the founding of the
    Church of Rome by the Apostle Peter is
    not merely ambiguous, but altogether
    unsupported historically. By the grace
    of God, I have been researching this
    topic for decades. I have studied it with
    due care and attention, and have
    studied it from its related sources as
    well as from international bibliography.
    To the theologians and all those who
    have a specific interest, I would
    recommend my two studies “Peter and
    Rome – Part A – The Testimony of the
    New Testament”, Thessaloniki 1989
    and “The Babylon of Apostle Peter (1
    Pet.5:13) – Part A – The Babylon of
    Egypt”, Thessaloniki 1993. It is my
    belief that in these difficult times that
    we are living in, all Christians should
    have some knowledge of the matter,
    given that the fullness of the Church of
    the Living God is the “pillar and the
    base of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). It is to
    this end that I am presenting here a
    summary of the conclusions that the
    above studies have reached.
    Of course, on the detail of the Apostle
    Peter’s transition to Rome, hundreds of
    articles and books have been written.
    Nevertheless, the immovable basis on
    which this should be examined is the
    testimony of the New Testament, given
    that it was written at the time that the
    Apostle lived. Let us therefore browse
    briefly through these pertinent
    testimonies.
    Starting from the Book of Acts of the
    Apostles, we notice that, apart from the
    Lord’s explicit reassurance to Paul that
    “… just as you have given witness of me
    in Jerusalem, thus must you also give
    witness in Rome ….” (Acts 23:11), there
    are also other testimonies regarding
    Paul’s arrival in Rome (Acts 19:21-28,
    13-16, 17-19, 30-31). We find no direct
    and positive witness however that Peter
    had gone to Rome. In fact, there are
    quite a few indications that – at least
    up to the time that the Book of Acts
    was written – it was impossible for
    Peter to have visited Rome; Rather, this
    Book’s testimony is indicative that from
    the very beginning, Rome was more
    likely to have been in Paul’s jurisdiction
    and care.
    As for the activities of the Apostle Peter
    beyond Palestine, the Book of Acts
    informs us that , following his
    miraculous release from prison, the
    foremost Apostle appeared before the
    congregation of the brethren, who
    “upon opening the door, saw him and
    were amazed. Waving his hand at them
    to be silent, he narrated to them how
    the Lord had extracted him from the
    prison, and he said to them: ‘tell these
    things to James and the brothers’, and
    departing thence, he travelled to
    another place.” (Acts 12:17). The
    “other place” appears to have been
    most likely Egypt, which was the place
    that Jews always found refuge (see
    Gen12:10e, 46:5-7, Kings III 11:40,
    Jer.33:26, 21, Jer. Chapt.48-50,
    Matth.2:14).
    From the words that the Apostle Paul
    had written in his Epistle to Galatians
    (2:7-9), it is made clear that a smooth
    collaboration existed between the
    Apostles Peter and Paul, as well as a
    mutual agreement between them that
    the former would work mainly in
    regions where the Jewish element
    prevailed, while the latter –Paul- would
    focus on “the gentiles” (2:9). A little
    further down (v.11-14), it clearly states
    that after the Apostolic Synod, Peter’s
    activities were in the climes of Syria
    and Palestine and therefore not
    possible that Peter had gone to Rome
    at that point in time.
    Three times has the Apostle Paul
    mentioned Peter’s name in his 1st
    Epistle to Corinthians (1:12, 3:22 and
    9:5). All three were merely honorary
    and friendly references. However, other
    details in this Epistle rule out the
    possibility that the Apostle Peter had
    actually visited Corinth, a stopover that
    would have logically facilitated his
    course towards Rome. Besides, when
    combining the information in 9:5 that
    Peter, like the other apostles, “walked
    about with his wife-sister (=sister in
    the faith)”, with the testimony of Gal.2:
    7-8 (… 7 but quite the opposite, seeing
    that I was entrusted with the gospel of
    the uncircumcised, just as Peter was
    with the circumcised, 8 Peter worked
    on the mission of the circumcised, and
    myself with the gentiles… ), we can see
    that Peter at the time was itinerating
    through the regions of the Near East; in
    other words, Palestine, Syria and Egypt,
    therefore he was NOT in Rome.
    A close study of the Epistle to Romans
    will completely refute the hypothesis
    that the Church of the imperial capital
    was linked to the Apostle Peter. The
    Apostle Paul’s admission that he was
    willing to “evangelize, where Christ had
    not been named ” (Rom.15:20) is a
    powerful testimony that before him, no
    other apostle had ever preached in
    Rome.
    By combining the contents of the
    Epistle with the relative testimonies in
    Acts, we are given to understand that
    the first germs of the faith were
    brought to Rome by the Apostle Paul’s
    disciples, from Asia and Hellas. They
    were the ones who propagated the faith
    among the gentiles and especially
    among the proselytes of Rome. This is
    how the local Church developed, which,
    however, was organized by the Apostle
    Paul’s collaborators, Aquilas and
    Priscilla, given that the Jews of Rome
    who had heard Peter’s kerygma during
    the Pentecost do not appear to have
    returned to their homeland afterwards.
    In the so-called 1st and 2 nd Epistles of
    the Captivity (Ephesians, Philippians,
    Colossians, Hebrews, Philemon and
    Timothy 2) which, as we all know, were
    written in Rome, we encounter no
    mentions whatsoever of Peter and his
    association to the local Church. This
    inexplicable silence justifiably also
    becomes testimony that the Apostle
    Peter had never gone to Rome.
    But, we have not exhausted all the
    testimonies of the New Testament. God
    willing, we shall continue with them, in
    Part 2.

  17. Dittu,
    Aibu kwako wewe uliyedanganyika Kwa Kuamini MAPOKEO YA WAZEE!!
    Kwa faida ya wachangiaji wengine jaribu KUTUMIA lugha ya KIswahili Ili nao waone uongo wako na wapate kuchangia/
    Hebu nithibitishie niliyoyasema KIBIBLIA kuwa ni UONGO ndipo nitaamini Katoliki WAKRISTO.
    Haya ndio niliyoyasema ” Kweli hizi ni Ibada za kipagani AU ibada za mizimu!!
    Petro HAJAWAHI KUKANYAGA RUMI. Hebu watuthibitishie ni lini Mtume Petro alikwenda Rumi.Labda ni Petro mwingine wa Katholiki si Petro aliyeachiwa
    Funguo na Bwana Yesu Kristo.
    Kama Petro alikuwa papa wa kwanza (japo hilo ni uongo),mbona Petro alioa na Papa wa Vatican haoi?
    UONGO WENU WA BARAZA LA NIKEA MUNGU AMEUWEKA WAZI. Mfano;Kujiita papa(baba),ubatizo wa watoto,ekaristi,komunio,liturigia,Ibada za wafu…..nk”
    Je,KATOLIKI ipo KWENYE BIBLIA?
    MAFUNDISHO YA BIBLIA YENYE VITABU 66 INALINGANA NA MAFUNDISHO YA KATOLIKI?
    MBONA PAPA HAOI NA PETRO ALIOA?
    KUNA MTU ANAYEKAA BADALA YA MWANA WA MUNGU?
    UMENIAMBIA KUWA ” Eti wakatoliki wanaamini nini? ni vema kuuliza kama hujui au kukaa kimya kuliko kuongopa.”
    BASI NAOMBA MAJIBU YA HAYO MASWALI RAFIKI.
    ***NI HERI UMTETEE BWANA YESU KULIKO KUITETEA KATOLIKI,BWANA YESU ATAKUTETEA SIKU YA MWISHO UKIMTETEA LEO,LAKINI KATOLIKI ITAKUONGOZA MACHINJONI***

  18. moja ya hoja za kweli za leo ni kuwa jina “BABA MTAKATIFU” limetajwa mara moja katika biblia wakati Yesu anamwita Mungu pale Getsemane

    “BABA MTAKATIFU, KWA JINA LAKO ULILONIPA UWALINDE HAWA ILI WAWE NA UMOJA KAMA SISI TULIVYO.” YOHANA 17:11

    Je PAPA ndiye BABA MTAKATIFU AU MUNGU kama YESU ALIVYOITA

  19. Dear Pendaeli,
    shame is upon your face. Eti wakatoliki wanaamini nini? ni vema kuuliza kama hujui au kukaa kimya kuliko kuongopa.

  20. Ndugu Lwembe,
    Bwana Yesu Kristo akubariki.
    Ni kweli kwamba mtu akiisha kupofushwa hawezi kuhoji uongo wowote kisa “fumbo la imani”.
    Kweli wametumia ufunguo huo wa uongo kuwafungia wengi nje ya ufalme wale ambao hawapo katika KITABU CHA UZIMA CHA MWANAKONDOO.Ndio maana wakatoliki wanaamini Papa ni “badala ya Yesu”!!!Haya si zaidi ya mafundisho ya mashetani.
    Shalom.

  21. Dittu,
    Religious lies are as old as Satan!

    Hebu fikiria kupalizwa kwa “Bikira Maria”; they all come from the same source, and people swallow them whole!

    Kwa kumfanya Petro kuwa papa wa kwanza, spiritually walilenga kumiliki ule Ufunguo aliopewa Petro, kwahiyo wameuchukua kutoka kwa wote waliouamini Uongo huo, na kwa ‘Ufunguo huo wa Uongo wamewafungia nje ya Ufalme wote walioumeza uongo huo!
    It’s a vicious game!!!

  22. to the form of his death in John
    chapter 21, in which Jesus told Peter, “I assure
    you: When you were young, you would tie your
    belt and walk wherever you wanted. But when
    you grow older, you will stretch out your hands
    and someone else will tie you and carry you
    where dou don’t want to go.” John reported,
    (probably after Peter died) “He said this to signify
    by what kind of death he would glorify God.” So
    the idea that Peter was crucified (stretch out your
    hands) came from John, but this does not include
    the location or the physical position of his
    crucifixion.
    Eusebius (AD 325) claimed in his Ecclesiastical
    History that all the apostles were martyred except
    for John . The evidence for some of these is very
    spotty, but the number, variety and quality of
    testimony to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in
    Rome is sufficient that I think we can reasonably
    say that most likely this is how they died.
    The early church fathers are unanimous in
    claiming that Peter died in Rome, by crucifixion,
    during the persecution of Nero in AD 64. As for
    crucifixion upside down, that is also testified to,
    but the evidence is weaker for this particular form
    of crucifixion. The apocryphal Acts of Peter is the
    earliest reference to crucifixion of Peter upside
    down. The earliest reference to the martyrdom of
    Peter comes from the letter of Clement of Rome
    (about AD 90). He said, in his Letter to the
    Corinthians, “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.” Not much there as to the
    means or location of his death, but that it was an
    execution is clearly implied. Ignatius, in his
    Letter to the Romans about AD 110 claimed that
    Peter was bishop of Rome. Irenaeus of Lyon,
    about AD 180, agrees that Peter served in Rome.
    Tertullian, about AD 195 declared “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, ie.
    by being beheaded). Dionysius of Corinth, also
    about AD 200 “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” When Eusebius
    reported the crucifixion of Peter and the
    beheading of Paul in Ecclestiacial History, he was
    simply passing along a tradition which has been
    the unanimous opinion of the church for two
    hundred years.
    Tradition has that Peter’s body is contained in a
    crypt below St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. This is
    actually not all that far-fetched a claim. In fact,
    when the sarcophygous claimed to contain his
    body was studied in the 1960’s (Margherita
    Guarducci, 1963-1968) the evidence supported
    that it was of a man about 60 years old who died
    in the first century AD. I certainly would not base
    my faith on this being his body, and besides, it is
    not clear the significance to a Christian to have
    the actual remains of Peter.
    In conclusion, we can reasonably conclude that
    Peter was in fact crucified in Rome. As for his
    crucifixion upside down, this is much more weakly
    attested to in only one ancient source which is
    probably much less reliable that Clement,
    Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius and many
    others.

  23. Kweli hizi ni Ibada za kipagani AU ibada za mizimu!!
    Petro HAJAWAHI KUKANYAGA RUMI. Hebu watuthibitishie ni lini Mtume Petro alikwenda Rumi.Labda ni Petro mwingine wa Katholiki si Petro aliyeachiwa
    Funguo na Bwana Yesu Kristo.
    Kama Petro alikuwa papa wa kwanza (japo hilo ni uongo),mbona Petro alioa na Papa wa Vatican haoi?
    UONGO WENU WA BARAZA LA NIKEA MUNGU AMEUWEKA WAZI. Mfano;Kujiita papa(baba),ubatizo wa watoto,ekaristi,komunio,liturigia,Ibada za wafu…..nk.
    WAKRISTO IKIIMBIENI GHADHABU YA MUNGU INAYOKUJA.TOKENI MADHEBUNI. RUDINI KWENYE IMANI YA MITUME (MATENDO 2:38-39)
    *****…..TOKENI KWAKE (KWENYE HAYO MADHEHEBU),ENYI WATU
    WANGU,MSISHIRIKI DHAMBI ZAKE,WALA MSIPOKEE MAPIGO YAKE (UFUNUO 18:4, 2WAKORINTHO 6:14-18)*********
    SHALOM.

  24. Ndiyo! inawezekana ikawa ni sahihi kwa kila mmoja kutoa mtazamo wake binafsi lakini si kila mtazamo wa mtu upo sahihi! Kitu kimoja wanadamu na walimwengu tunapaswa kuwa makini nacho ni KUHUKUMU! Tusihukumiane tusije nasi tukahukumiwa.Siku zote kinachotoka ndani ya nafsi ya mtu ndicho kinamtia Unajisi, basi na tujiepushe sana na unajisi huu maana tutakuwa najisi kupitia maneno tunayonena, Mahubiri tunayohubiri kwa watu wa Mungu kwa nia zetu binafsi, ambayo msingi wake ni Upotoshaji……
    Ninachoweza kusema mimi, kwa kukusaidia na ili swali la “Bones of Peter the Apostle? so what?” lipate kujibika kwa jitihada zako na mwongozo wa Roho mtakatifu naomba ukasome kitabu chote cha Matendo ya Mitume si kwa kutaka kupinga haya bali kwa kutaka kujua ukweli wa yaliyomo.
    Baada ya kusoma ningeomba ujikumbushe swali dogo bwana Edwin, Imani ni nini? Baada ya hapo naomba unambie, Je, wanasayansi wanaopinga na kudai Mungu hayupo kabisa kwa kudai hakuna “Empirical evidences of His presence”
    wanakosa kitu gani cha msingi ili waseme “God is present”
    Mwisho kabisa kwa kuunganisha na Mifupa ya Mtume Petro, Tujikumbushe ukweli wa kitabu cha Ufunuo. Kitabu hiki ni maono ya Yohana, ambaye ni miongoni mwa hao mitume,viongozi wa mwanzo wa kanisa, Kwanini hakuna aliyetoa comment juu ya ufunuo huu; Je viongozi wa kanisa la leo wanapungukiwa na kitu gani kupokea Ufunuo huo; Je huoni kwamba mitume na manabii wa leo ni hawa viongozi wetu wa kiroho?
    Kanisa linaongozwa kwa misingi hii na hakuna mwenye uwezo wa kuwahukumu na kukana mambo haya ambayo Kwa Imani tunaamini ni Ufunuo wa Roho mtakatifu, zaidi tutakuwa tunampiga Roho Mtakatifu!! Basi katika kunena kwetu tuombe mwongozo wa huyo Roho tusitoe comments kama picha za Facebook katika mambo ya Kiroho maana tutakuwa sawa na watu wasiotambua uwepo na kazi ya ROHO MTAKATIFU!!!

  25. Bones of Peter the Apostle? so what? what for as far as going to heaven is concerned? Do we see such practice in the Bible? I can waste no time to utter this…THIS IS NONE THAN WITCHCRAFT IN THE NAME OF God.

    When JESUS in not the Lord and savior IN ITS STRICT SENSE to any person/organization/faith or religious groupings, big or small, nothing will amount into meaningful Godly practice.

    Press on

  26. Mmh,
    Mie sikubaliani na ninyi.
    Kwanza, Petro hakuwa mwanzilishi wa kanisa la Rumi na siyo papa wa kwanza wa kanisa hilo kama wao wanavyodai.
    Pili Ukristo haukuanzishwa na Petro wala mtume yeyote. Hao waliendeleza tu kazi ya utume.

  27. Jambo,

    It is true to say St. Peter was one of the founding fathers of the Catholic church, nevertheless, it is true that he is one of the founding fathers of Christianity, that means anybody who is a christian. One should take cognition that there was only one church then and Peter was it’s head.

Andika maoni yako

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s