GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-11-2011, 14:17   #1
achysklic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,228
Peter's Tomb

With the discovery of Peter's tomb in Jerusalem in 1953 why does the Catholic church still hold onto the lie that Peter was the first pope, that he died in Rome when all evidence in the Bible never places him in Rome.

The Catholic Church says that Peter was Pope in Rome from 41to 66 A.D., a period of twenty-five years, but the Bible shows a different story.

So why and how can anyone believe out right lies?

Please lets try to keep this civil.. I will do my best and if it gets out of hand I will just quit responding. The reason I ask questions like this is to bring to light the truth because I feel many simply are followers and believe whatever a priest or someone with authority tells them.

Hopefully with facts laid upon a table people can choose whether they want to follow truth or tradition.

achysklic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 14:32   #2
nmstew
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by achysklic View Post
With the discovery of Peter's tomb in Jerusalem in 1953

Got a link to substantiate this?
nmstew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 15:04   #3
achysklic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,228
Here ya go

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Anci...ters-tomb.html
achysklic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 15:16   #4
kjm1016
Senior Member
 
kjm1016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
Posts: 563
"out right lies"

Yet you want us to keep it civil? You violate what you ask for before you even ask it. I read the article. Very interesting, but probably irrelavant. There's a difference between outright lies and being wrong, especially about something that happened that long ago. And besides religious faith is FAITH, with fact having little to do with it. That isn't just Catholics either. In summation, Sir, spare me the subtle Catholic-bashing. Where's Schaschabert whan we need him.
__________________
"Not much of a war as I recall, but a damn sight better than no war at all!"
Anonymous American Officer, WWI

"It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it."
R.E. Lee at Fredericksburg
kjm1016 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 15:29   #5
achysklic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjm1016 View Post
"out right lies"

Yet you want us to keep it civil? You violate what you ask for before you even ask it. I read the article. Very interesting, but probably irrelavant. There's a difference between outright lies and being wrong, especially about something that happened that long ago. And besides religious faith is FAITH, with fact having little to do with it. That isn't just Catholics either. In summation, Sir, spare me the subtle Catholic-bashing. Where's Schaschabert whan we need him.
call it what you want but when they base their belief on it and state it as FACT without support then it is a lie.Did you read the article close enough the church was presented the evidence in 1953 the covered it up, isn't that telling a lie? Sorry if that word pushed your buttons. That is not what I wanted to do. The bible supports peter never being in Rome anything outside of that is against Gods word ie: a lie.

Let's just discuss facts presented here and leave tradition out of it.

Last edited by achysklic; 05-11-2011 at 15:32..
achysklic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 15:41   #6
kjm1016
Senior Member
 
kjm1016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
Posts: 563
You want to have a religious dicussion and only deal with fact????!!!! Are you really that naive? Let's face it, if a document was uncovered, authenticated and proven 100% true, and this document undermined everything about Christianity, it wouldn't matter. The Catholics and the Protestants and every other little sect would just ignore it and have Faith. I'm betting you think you've found a smoking gun that will really zing the Catholics, and you're trying to control the debate so you can make them admit that YOU are right. Good luck. You'll need it. It should be entertaining.
__________________
"Not much of a war as I recall, but a damn sight better than no war at all!"
Anonymous American Officer, WWI

"It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it."
R.E. Lee at Fredericksburg
kjm1016 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 16:02   #7
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by achysklic View Post

You could file this in the same place as the "discovery" of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" as aired (or is that erred) by the Discovery Channel in 2007. Totally fictitious and discredited by anyone with serious credentials.

St. Peter's bones have been buried under St. Peter's Basilica.
Saint Peter's tomb

achy, you've GOT to start building up a little credulity for the garbage you've been reading. You're too easily swayed by lies that meet with your template that the Church that Jesus started is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by achysklic View Post
With the discovery of Peter's tomb in Jerusalem in 1953 why does the Catholic church still hold onto the lie that Peter was the first pope, that he died in Rome when all evidence in the Bible never places him in Rome.

The Catholic Church says that Peter was Pope in Rome from 41to 66 A.D., a period of twenty-five years, but the Bible shows a different story.
Where, pray tell, does the Bible show a different story?

Yes, he went back to Jerusalem for the Jerusalem Council to pronounce to one and all that your beliefs, achysklic, are indeed wrong, as St. Paul contended; he wasn't nailed down in Rome (actualy, he may have been circa 67AD, but that's a different story ).

Quote:
So why and how can anyone believe out right lies?

Please lets try to keep this civil.. I will do my best and if it gets out of hand I will just quit responding. The reason I ask questions like this is to bring to light the truth
You're some piece of work, my friend. Using incivility at the same time asking for civility from others.
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 16:24   #8
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by achysklic View Post
call it what you want but when they base their belief on it and state it as FACT without support then it is a lie.
Oops, then by your very own definition, you've been caught in another lie.

Here's a good book documenting the actual discovery:

The Bones of St. Peter
The First Full Account of the Search for the Apostle's Body
by John Evangelist Walsh
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 16:30   #9
Ramjet38
SONS OF LIBERTY
 
Ramjet38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wilderness of Life
Posts: 3,562


I think he quit posting as he said...go figure.
__________________
"Illegitimi non carborundum"
VFW Life Member; NRA Life Member
Ramjet38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 16:37   #10
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramjet38 View Post
I think he quit posting as he said...go figure.
Well, he's not on-line, but you could be right.
After all, it is obvious that according to the Orwell-achysklic dictionary, © 1984, being confronted by inconvenient factual evidence is the same as incivility.
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 16:38   #11
achysklic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,228
Bert i will give uthe benefit of doubt and read the book u posted when i get home later. To hard to do anything on cell phone given ur resonses to me u havent read the article i posted as it addresses your claims. I request u reread it.
achysklic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 16:47   #12
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by achysklic View Post
Bert i will give uthe benefit of doubt and read the book u posted when i get home later. To hard to do anything on cell phone given ur resonses to me u havent read the article i posted as it addresses your claims. I request u reread it.
I read it. Had a hard time holding down a chuckle, though.

The "evidence" for this was primarily that the name on the tomb was "Shimon Bar Yonah."

Interestingly enough, the "evidence" for the universally-discredited "Lost Tomb of Jesus" was the name on the tomb: "Yeshua bar Yehosef' "

See the correlation?

Actually, while the names Yeshua and Yehosef were fairly common, the names Shimon and Yonah were even MORE common.

The rest of the "evidence" is even more laughable, like Pope Pius XII supposedly "admitting" to some priest that St. Peter's bones are not in Rome.

You can't really believe this article has any credibility at all, can you??? Really???
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 17:48   #13
achysklic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,228
Bert lets keep it simple. Since you got a chuckle from the article I posted and I could say the same about the one you posted but I won't. Let's leave all books and articles out of this. Let's let the NEW TEST speak for itself. Surely if something as important as Peter being in Rome and being the first pope this must be recorded in the NT. So use the NT present your claims, don't inject your opinion. I will do the same.
achysklic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 18:25   #14
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by achysklic View Post
Bert lets keep it simple. Since you got a chuckle from the article I posted and I could say the same about the one you posted but I won't.
This goes to your aforementioned credulity for really ridiculous claims, just so long as they denigrate the Church that Jesus started.

Quote:
Let's leave all books and articles out of this.
History is pretty important. And since it speaks pretty unanimously in favor of Peter being in Rome, I can see how you'd want to exclude it.

Quote:
Let's let the NEW TEST speak for itself. Surely if something as important as Peter being in Rome and being the first pope this must be recorded in the NT.
Sorry, but your premise is very flawed.

St. Peter, as head of the Church, was a wanted man for much of his life, and Rome would be "behind enemy lines."

Despite the absolutely ludicrous claim in your cited article that "Very few, if any, have withstood a Pope and lived," the fact was that many, many popes throughout history were hunted, martyred, persecuted, kidnapped, threatened, and perhaps even assassinated. But hey, your cited article makes an assertion to the contrary, so we should believe THAT over all the history and historians, right?

As Karl Keating says in Catholicism and Fundamentalism:
Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters could be intercepted easily by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt?
Quote:
So use the NT present your claims, don't inject your opinion. I will do the same.
This was hashed out in recent past, and it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence in the NT either for or against Peter's presence in Rome. Unless you have some text that was recently added to the NT, I don't see that as having changed.
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 18:33   #15
WS6
Senior Member
 
WS6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by achysklic View Post
[ ... ] Let's let the NEW TEST speak for itself. Surely if something as important as Peter being in Rome and being the first pope this must be recorded in the NT. [ ... ]
Why must it be?
WS6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 20:32   #16
jokeruh
Senior Member
 
jokeruh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjm1016 View Post
And besides religious faith is FAITH, with fact having little to do with it.
False
__________________
"At root, belief preservation is the tendency to make evidence subservient to belief, rather than the other way around. Put another way, it is the tendency to use evidence to preserve our opinions rather than guide them." -Tim van Gelder
jokeruh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 23:58   #17
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by jokeruh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjm1016
And besides religious faith is FAITH, with fact having little to do with it.
False
You are correct here, jokeruh.
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 03:20   #18
TreverSlyFox
Senior Member
 
TreverSlyFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Monroe, Georgia
Posts: 507
Even though I sort of cringe every time I hear the term "Pope" used in reference to Peter (It's strictly a personal prejudice from my Catholic upbringing) . It is pretty hard to dispute that Peter was the first leader of the church. Especially after the passage:

Quote:
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ....
I don't see anywhere in the Bible the title of "Pope" being used, so it is a title that Catholics use and comes along later somewhere between the early 4th and 6th century and taken from the Patriarchs of Alexandria that used it much earlier. Going by Jewish tradition I figure he would have been called a "High Priest" or maybe "Bishop" if anything as both titles are mentioned in scriptures.
__________________
Be polite, be courteous, be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
If you did it all over again with what you know now. You'd just make different mistakes.

Last edited by TreverSlyFox; 05-12-2011 at 03:44..
TreverSlyFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 06:50   #19
achysklic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,228
Bert you answered as you always do. On every thread all you do is give your opinion, post a couple of catholic inspired books, and hardly ever use scripture to prove a point. This is not acceptable to me. If it is to you and the other catholics in here so be it.

Let's examine a few things.
The Catholic Church says that Peter was Pope in Rome from 41 to 66 A.D
The book of the Acts of the Apostles (in either the Catholic or Protestant Bible) records the following: Peter was preaching the Gospel to the circumcision (the Jews) in Caesarea and Joppa in Palestine, ministering unto the household of Cornelius, which is a distance of 1,800 miles from Rome (Acts 10:23, 24).

Soon after, about the year 44 A.D. (Acts 12), Peter was cast into prison in Jerusalem by Herod, but he was released by an angel. From 46 to 52 A.D., we read in the 13th chapter that he was in Jerusalem preaching the difference between Law and Grace. Saul was converted in 34 A.D. and became Paul the Apostle (Acts 9).

Paul tells us that three years after his conversion in 37 A.D., he "went up to Jerusalem to see Peter" (Galatians 1:18), and in 51 A.D., fourteen years later, he again went up to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1, 8), Peter being mentioned. Soon after that he met Peter in Antioch, and as Paul says, "Withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed," Gal. 2:11.

In the year 58, Paul wrote his epistle to the Roman church, but does not mention Peter, although he does name 28 leaders in the church at Rome (Rom. 16:7). It must, therefore, be concluded that if the whole subject is faced with detached objectivity, the conclusion must inevitably be reached that Peter was never in Rome. Paul lived and wrote in Rome, but he declared that "Only Luke is with me." (1 Tim. 4:11)

The catholic church has their dates all wrong the say Peter dies 160 AD when history shows he was killed around 62 AD.

If you choose to ignore scripture and believe what man has taught you that's ok.

Just please spare us the short comments you always post giving your opinion or others that contradict the Bible.

Also please I really would like you to respond with biblical proof and prove what I say is wrong, but do so without your little slurrs and name calling.

This could be a great discussion if you leave personal opinion out of it.

As for the rest of the people who like to make little comments that have nothing to do with the topic and are only attacks why even bother?

Peace all
achysklic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 08:12   #20
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by achysklic View Post
Bert you answered as you always do.
Yes, with honesty and factual information.

Quote:
On every thread all you do is give your opinion, post a couple of catholic inspired books,
Sorry if historical facts are indistinguishable to you from opinion. You need to work on that.

Quote:
and hardly ever use scripture to prove a point.
Absolutely false. I've shown you time and time again where your interpretation of scripture is flawed using scripture.

Quote:
Let's examine a few things.
The Catholic Church says that Peter was Pope in Rome from 41 to 66 A.D
Really? Who told you that?
Oh, I get it ... one of your "sources" told you that this what the Church teaches.

If you can indeed find an official statement from the Catholic Church that says any such thing, I'll gladly apologize. But since you won't be able to, I'm hoping that you'll admit that this is a strawman concocted by a source that you in your ever-so-great credulity for things anti-Catholic wrongly believed.

Even when any series of ranges of approximate dates are postulated, none are so overly-simplistic as your posting which assumes that he couldn't have left for short missionary journeys in their midst, which is what your "evidence" (I have to chuckle calling it that even with the quotation marks) purports. It's like "proving" that Obama isn't president, since the Democrats claim that he was in DC from 2009 to 2013 (please, God, no longer than that!), and you know for a fact that he was in Indiana last week.
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:43.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 814
219 Members
595 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31