[OMEGA]

Peter's Tomb found on the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

Catholicism holds that the Pope is the sole successor to the 'supremacy' of
Peter By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent12:01AM GMT 23 Mar
2008106 Comments St Peter's journey to Rome led to the spread of Christianity in
the West and the foundation of Roman Catholicism, so the Church has always
taught.
Have your say: Is St Peter part of a conspiracy?
But a new documentary will challenge the link as nothing more than a "conspiracy
of faith". In it, prominent academics accuse the Vatican of misleading the world
over the fate of the man regarded as Jesus Christ's closest disciple. In
allegations likely to spark controversy, they accuse the Church of fabricating a
connection with the apostle to validate giving ultimate power to the papacy.

Catholicism has taught for centuries that Peter was martyred and buried in Rome
and that all popes succeed him, but the documentary will challenge this by
asserting that he never reached the Italian city. Instead, it will accuse the
Church of ignoring the discovery of a tomb in Jerusalem that archaeologists
believe contains the bones of Peter.

Leading theologians said that these views were an "attempt to smear Catholicism"
and criticised Channel 4 for allowing such "outlandish" claims to be broadcast.

They expressed concern that they would appeal to people who are easily persuaded
by conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Jesus had a child with Mary
Magdalene, as proposed in Dan Brown's best-seller The Da Vinci Code.

Dr Robert Beckford, a theology lecturer at Oxford Brookes University, who
presents the documentary, denied that this was an attempt to attack the Catholic
Church. "This is about looking at what the pillars of power are founded on and
examining the scholarship that most Catholics take for granted," he said.
"We found that there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that Peter
was buried in Rome, but yet the rival theory has not got out because it
challenges the Church.
Related Articles
Da Vinci poll shocks Church 17 May 2006
"If you undermine its basis for power you undermine the Church. It's tragic that
the faith gets reduced to manipulating the facts and to one Church trying to
make itself superior to others."
As Christianity spread following the crucifixion of Jesus, it became important
for the new churches to claim a link with the disciples and led the Catholic
Church to establish a connection with St Peter.
Catholics believe the proof that Christ constituted St Peter head of His Church
is found in the two Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17. In
Matthew, the office is solemnly promised to the apostle as Jesus addresses him:
"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it
to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter;
and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
Roman Catholicism holds that the Pope, also known as the Bishop of Rome, is the
sole successor to the "supremacy" or primacy of Peter and is thus the "Vicar of
Christ" for the world.
It is traditionally believed that he was crucified in Rome and buried where the
Basilica of St Peter was later built, beneath the high altar.
In 1939, the Vatican announced that the bones of Peter had been found in Rome
during an archaeological dig. But the documentary casts doubt on this,
questioning why the dig was carried out "in total secrecy", and led by a
"personal friend" of the Pope.
"The Pope's authority over the world's one billion Roman Catholics derives from
the belief that Peter died and was buried here almost 2,000 years ago," said Dr
Beckford.
The documentary, The Secrets of the Twelve Disciples *(Channel 4 today at
5.45pm), suggests it that is much more likely that St Peter was buried in an
ossuary found in Jerusalem with the inscription Shimon Bar Jonah - Simon son of
Jonah - the Hebrew name for Peter.

[Robert Pate]

How could Peter establish a church in Rome when they were killing Christians as fast as they could find them?

Paul made one trip to Rome. They threw him in prison and beheaded him at a later date.

Rome is Satan's capitol.

[OMEGA]

I think that Simon Magus the Magician went to Rome and became a

strong influence and also changed his name to Simon Peter and became a Priest there.

[Nick M]

Somebody went there sometime and proseltyzed them to Judaism. That is who Paul was trying to bring to the body of Christ.

[Cruciform]

For genuinely interested and honest readers, see here, here, here, and here.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Spitfire]

You're supposed to say "Simon Peter never went to Rome" when copying and pasting the same things that have been refuted dozens of times before.

[Stuu]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

For genuinely interested and honest readers, see here, here, here, and here

I guess there's one thing the Vatican can't be accused of: they've never let the facts get in the way of their bald and absolute assertions of doctrinal mythology.

Can you please remember your post here for possible future reference. It highlights your hypocrisy in claiming others only ever post "anti-Catholic propaganda". In regards to the question Omega is raising, where are your sources that are not "pro-Catholic propaganda"?

And by the way, you've committed the No True Scotsman fallacy. But being an expert you will know that already.

Stuart

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Stuu

...your hypocrisy in claiming others only ever post "anti-Catholic propaganda".

Yet another Straw Man for you, since I've never suggested any such thing.

...where are your sources that are not "pro-Catholic propaganda"?

You're suggesting that Catholics should cite anti-Catholic sources to communicate the Catholic position? Brilliant.

And by the way, you've committed the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Pot, meet Kettle. Don't even bother.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[keypurr]

Originally Posted by OMEGA

I think that Simon Magus the Magician went to Rome and became a

strong influence and also changed his name to Simon Peter and became a Priest there.

I've heard this before.

Just because there is no scripture of Peter in Rome, and he was working with the Jews does not mean he never went to Rome.

However I agree with you, I doubt that he did, he is really buried in Jerusalem.

[Stuu]

Stuu: ...your hypocrisy in claiming others only ever post "anti-Catholic propaganda".

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Yet another Straw Man for you, since I've never suggested any such thing.

How long did your nose grow when you typed that? Isn’t there a commandment against mendaciousness? Perhaps you have paid indulgences that get you off that rap.

Stuu: ...where are your sources that are not "pro-Catholic propaganda"?

You're suggesting that Catholics should cite anti-Catholic sources to communicate the Catholic position?

No, we are not asking for the “Catholic position”, we are asking for verifiable facts. I am suggesting that Catholics should respect the intelligence of the people they are trying to convince. Threats of torture and hell are less effective these days.

I recommend convincing, logically secure argument. Who gives a donkeys what Catholics are baldly asserting, in their logically fallacious way? You haven’t convinced me, and there is plently of evidence on TOL that I can be convinced even though I set high standards: the point is that I have not been unreasonable with anyone who is convincing.

More to the point, I have no religious belief that conflicts with yours, and I claim to respect evidence. I am not a protestant christian, but I am interested in what is true. I have corrected mistaken claims others have made against your church in the interest of fairness. It is a matter of my integrity that I should change my mind in the face of unambiguous evidence. Not sure if you have an equivalent integrity claim.

So, what is convincing? Well, people who are recognised experts in their field (this is not the appeal to authority, by the way) who proclaim findings that are against their own interest can be very convincing. The Israeli archeologists from the University of Tel Aviv, for example, who scoured the stretch of land between Israel and Egypt in search of evidence to support the story of the exodus found none of the evidence that would be consistent with that story. They concluded, against the interest of their country, that actually the exodus story is not literally true. That seems quite convincing to me. It’s not necessarily the end of the matter, but I see no reason to doubt their findings.

On the other hand, I see every reason to laugh at your references to Catholic apologists. From what I have read of your cited sources it is all self-serving right-wing religious propaganda. There is no intent on the part of anyone to write in a scholarly manner, impartially seeking the best explanation from the points of view of history, archeology, textual analysis and forensic science. Especially there is no dissenting view that acknowledges your point as worthy against the run of a counter-argument. Where are the references to those who write against the Vatican position in general but nevertheless concede the point you are making, based on their own research? They exist, the reasonable journalists and investigators, but you ignore them. And please remember the times I have quoted the Vatican website at you.

Perhaps you don’t seek to convince. Not sure why you post what you do in that case. I’m still not sure why you post at all.

Stuu: And by the way, you've committed the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Pot, meet Kettle. Don't even bother.

Either show how I have done the equivalent, or retract and apologise.

I forget, that is not in the culture of Catholicism, is it. Rape the children and run, and damn the inconvenience of the secular authorities when they catch you, is the standard the Vatican has set for its Useful Idiots, the apologists of TOL and elsewhere. You are more moral than they, only just.

Stuart

[elisabeth e]

Funny, when I called him on his No True Scotsman fallacy he said the exact same thing to me.

Of course, I have never claimed that my church is the only correct church and solely Christ-appointed while deeming all others to be "man-made/false."

I've never made a special case for my beliefs, calling myself and only people who follow the way that I do "True believers."


"Pot meet kettle" is such a non sequitor it really is just a way of hand waving so that he doesn't actually have to try explain why his position isn't a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Of course, if he had a successful argument on why that isn't the case, no doubt he would present it. But he won't, since he doesn't and instead, informs us that his position is so weak, that he will not even engage a discussion about it. ("Don't even bother")

[freelight]

~*~*~

We've already hashed this out with plenty of research links in Omega's earlier thread - "Simon Peter Never Went to Rome".

A few of my research posts Here & Here

Each can investigate the claim on their own which may dovetail into other subjects of interest.

That Peter did or did not go to Rome may bear little significance beyond actual historical reference or physical evidence, but those with a religious investment in believing such might be more apt to support it.



pj

[freelight]

Originally Posted by Spitfire

You're supposed to say "Simon Peter never went to Rome" when copying and pasting the same things that have been refuted dozens of times before.

Again, each researcher can decide on the matter for himself, whatever historical or actual physical evidence exists on the matter, besides it coming down to a matter of 'faith'. Naturally a pro-catholic view would support such with its ties to Rome and Peter as 'holding the keys'.


pj

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by keypurr

Just because there is no scripture of Peter in Rome, and he was working with the Jews does not mean he never went to Rome.

Actually, quoting from Cruciform's first link:

"Boettner is also wrong when he claims 'there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.' There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: 'The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark' (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that 'It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.'"

Cruciform's first link. I was actually going to link it myself, but I saw that Cruciform had already done so. It's worth reading.

[keypurr]

Originally Posted by Traditio

Actually, quoting from Cruciform's first link:

"Boettner is also wrong when he claims 'there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.' There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: 'The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark' (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that 'It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.'"

Cruciform's first link. I was actually going to link it myself, but I saw that Cruciform had already done so. It's worth reading.

Thank you Trad. I gave Crux site a quick look. It really does not say Peter was in Rome with authority. Peter was in Jerusalem with James and James seems to be the head of the church there. As far as the Pope goes, I do not accept any man as the "vica of Christ", so it does not matter to me if Peter ws in Rome or not.
However Rome has been called "Babylon" in scripture, but you don't want to know where.

Bablyon is falling, get out of her. ??????