Where was Peter buried?

[ralphy]

Mother Church agrees that St Peter is buried under the High Altar in St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. That is good enough for me.

Thank God for Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magestirium.

God bless us all.

I consider the statement “that is good enough for me” as easy believeism. Why would you not search out the real truth rather than accept what someone else tells you, regardless of position or power in the church. I thank God for scared scripture also, however I do not find anything in scripture indicating that Peter was ever in Rome. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

This article shows all the signs of being standard anti-Catholic garbage. For example, it gets decidedly off point when it starts talking about the alleged affairs of many Popes including Pius XII (Some Popes undoubtedly did have affairs… but to mention it in this article is silly unless the author is attacking Catholicism as opposed to a specific belief).

It also makes silly statements such as that Simon Bar Jona would be so uncommon as to make it unlikely that it could be anyone other than Peter. We know that Simon was a fairly common name during the period, and Jonah probably wasn’t uncommon either. Jerusalem was hardly a small city in the first century AD.

I also find it amusing that the Author claims that the style of writing on the tomb can be dated to just before the destruction of Jerusalem. I agree that writing styles tend to change over time, but I doubt that anyone can date writing based on its style much closer than about a century in time.

–
Bill

I was wondering if you accept the “shroud of Turin” as authentic, seeing that you have doubts about the article about Peter. Ralph

 

[Thing]

Does Scripture say he was never in Rome?

 

[PaulF2]

I consider the statement “that is good enough for me” as easy believeism. Why would you not search out the real truth rather than accept what someone else tells you, regardless of position or power in the church. I thank God for scared scripture also, however I do not find anything in scripture indicating that Peter was ever in Rome. Ralph

Hey Ralph, what does Scripture tell you about World War II? Are you sure you believe it happened?

Obviously, Scripture’s revelations ENDED at a specific point.

Also, quite obviously, Scripture itself tell us that it is NOT a “be all end all manual for the faith”. Have you read it?

John tells us that there were many things that Christ said and did that were NOT written down.

Paul told his disciples to obey the ORAL teachings of the apostles. Are you familiar with any?

Scripture tells us that it is the CHURCH that is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

In the writings of the early Fathers there are over 300 references to Peter (and Paul) teaching and being martyred in Rome.

Please start an honest search for truth.

 

[ralphy]

Does Scripture say he was never in Rome?

Scripture did not say that he was not in Rome, nor did it say that he was not in America either, was he here? I suppose if the RCC said he was in Rome and America you would believe that he was in both places, right. Check it out for yourself, see what you can find. Don’t be gullible, do the smart “thing”. Ralph

 

[dnelson0001]

…

I apologized to everyone on this thread. I am trying to get in contact with MarshaAdams and just did not know how to. Please forgive my interference.
This is from a thread that was active until this morning. You can find it hear: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=358944&page=23

Post from
Posted by: zach dunn
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.

Originally Posted by dnelson001
i have a statement and a question for you. lets see if you or anyone else will answer.

God said: the soul that sinneth, it shall sorely die.
The serpent said: you shall not sorely die.

Now can you please tell me what the CC teaches? How long will the wicked live in hell fire?
Don’t be shy, just say the truth, now after you tell the TRUTH tell me who is she repeating? God or the Serpent (the Devil)?

So that settles it. The CC teaches that you shall never die. Because if hell is burning eternally and you are burning eternally. Then that means you have eternal life too. Right.
So what you are telling me is that God has give the sinner internal life.
Sin will never be done away with. It and the sinner will live for ever.

I just would like every one to know that if I don’t answer any more Questions or ask any more questions it is because my account has been band from the site.

I was band because I ask tough questions about your faith. And when you could not answer then I was band. This is the way it has always been, if you can’t beat them kill them.

This is a shame. I really wonted to tackle MarshaAdams with her question. Honestly I did not see her post. There have been a lot of people posting, I just could not keep up with you all. I post one and ten minutes tater there are 10 – 15 post in reply.
For that I apologize. But I have things to do too.

So most likely after this post this account will be band too after this post.
So this goes to tell you that I have won the debate and you don’t know what you believe.
I asked a simples question that every Catholic knows or should know anyway and no one could give a strait answer.
The answer to the question is the sinner will live for ever in hell just like the serpent said. You can try to shake, move or twist that any way you want but the bottom line is the same. You believe what the serpent said.

So I guess all your hard work to the administrator has paid off. If some simple questions can shake your faith, your faith that is founded on the unmovable Rock, the infallible Rock. It makes me wonder just how solid that rock is.

Well since you band me from asking and answering questions. In a debate that would crown me winner of the debate.

So if you want to have another shot at the debate ask the admin to activate my original account (dnelson001) again.
But we all know that none of you want that. So I guess that make me the winner.

One more thing greggy53
In Genesis 2:17 the word that was translated surely is: “oo-lawn” and it can be translated as: but, howbeit, in very deed, surely, truly, wherefore.
Now if you can explain how you get “thou shalt die the death” then please do so. You surely did not use the word “oo-lawn” oh I forgot. You have the power to change even the Hebrew old testament.
And in Genesis 3:4 guess what word is uses again? “oo-lawn” in your translation you seamed to translated oo-lawn as “the death”. Now if you can explain how you got “the death” out of oo-lawn I would like to hear it.

Now to MarshaAdams do you have a site that we can go and talk about what you asked me. Because it seams we can’t do it here.
I will answer your question and also like to ask you some questions. If God is with you who can stand againt you. But if he is not then all you say will come to nothing.
So this is my challenge to you MarshaAdams. Lets see if you are afraid of me too.
If God is with you… You should not have any problems defending what you believe and teach.
Since you were an ex-Adventist then I can come with every thing on the table. I should not have to explain anything to you say that you know.
Lets just see what you know about Adventist and what you know about CC. you said that you studies religion in Andrews and I guess that turn you off. Let me tell you something. If you wanted to study religion you should have gone to the bible.
I don’t live in the USA but I did study in an Adventist institution. And let me tell you that I don’t believe what they the say if I cant prove it from the bible. I asked a professor a question one day and I was shocked at his replay. I don’t know where he got that from or how he came to that conclusion. When I question him he wanted to get upset. We as a people have the right t question anything we don’t understand and after we get our answer from the bible the we can accept it after we have understood it and proved it.
Now this was a preacher in his 80’s I guess and he was teaching this garbage to our students of theology. They will have a lot to answer to when God comes.
If you have something to tell me I will listen and take notes so that I can study it for my self. That was the way the Bereans did it.

Acts 17:11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Do you think they believe what paul said just because He said it? No. they received the good news with all readiness. But when they when home the studied the scriptures for their self to see if he was telling the truth. When they verified it then they believed Him.
Paul words had to verify the Old Testament. And what was all the disciples preaching? They were preaching that Jesus was the Messiah. And were do we verify that? In the Old Testament Right?
In what part of the old testament? The books of prophecy.
The scriptures that all of the disciples used were the Old Testament. Not the New Testament.
Now tell me what scripture were they using to verify what Paul was preaching? It sure was not the New Testament. None of the disciples used the New Testament.

[continue in next post]

 

[dnelson0001]

[continue from last post]

…

I apologized to everyone on this thread. I am trying to get in contact with MarshaAdams and just did not know how to. Please forgive my interference.
This is from a thread that was active until this morning. You can find it hear: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=358944&page=23

If I was to come to you and say that Jesus give me the keys to heaven and you have to do what I say or else you will go to hell would you believe me? Why not? I just told you that Jesus said it?
But this is what the CC believes in essence.
Before I can claim any authority you must find out were I got my authority and were did the person that give me authority get his authority. This is simple and common reasoning.
But the CC want me to believe that the Jews of all people did not have any reasoning what soever.
Peter came up out of the blue and said:” I am lord over you” and the jews just said “OK”
First of all now one knew who Jesus was. If every one knew that he was the Messiah the disciples would not have needed to preach that he was, right?
How could they proved that Jesus was the Messiah? By the old testament. They proved it by the same 2300 day prophecy that you say is a jock that is found in Daniel 8:14.

In Daniel 9:24 – 26. KJV
24: Seventy weeks (or 490 days) are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25: Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks (49 days), and threescore and two weeks (62 weeks or 434 days; 49+434 = 483 days): the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26: And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off (62 weeks or 434 days), but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week (7 days): and in the midst of the week (3 ½ days) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

This prophecy tells you when the Messiah would die (verse 26).
When does the 2300 days starts? It starts in verse 25.
When did this decree go out? In 457 BC by Artaxerxes king of Persia. Look it up please.
I think we can all agree that Jesus did not come in Daniel days. So it is not a literal day or weeks that he is talking about.
Now lets re-cap as MarshaAdam said.

We have the decree in 457 BC by Artaxerxes king of Persia.
We have 434 days, after these days the messiah would be cut off. (notice that the messiah is not cut of on that date, but after that date)
We have that the Messiah will come in 483 days.
We have 7 days. The covenant is confirm with the Jews.
We have 490 days that is determined on the people and the holy city.
We have 2,300 days (Daniel 8:13) the sanctuary will be trodden under foot.

Now let’s see what happen if we put the day/year principle on this?

The starting date is: 457 BC
If you sum 434 year to 457 BC what date do we have? 23 BC right. What happen on that year?
The first “augustus” (and first man counted as a Roman Emperor) was Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, who was given that name by the Roman Senate on January 16, 27 BC;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_(honorific

if you sum 483 years to 457 BC what date do we have? 27 after the birst of Jesus. Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist.

How long did the ministry of jesus last? 3 ½ years. How many more years until death of Steven? 3 ½ years. In total 7 years. When was jesus to be cut off? In the middle of the week. How long did jesus preach the gospel before he was crucified? 3 1/3 year. How long was jesus to confirm the covenant with Israel? 7 years.

If you sum 490 years to 457 BC what date do we get? 34 after the birth of Jesus. What happen on this date? Steven is stoned. This is 7 years after the baptizim or anointing of the holy Ghost.

Now if you sum 2,300 years to 457 BC what date comes up? 1844. what happen on thin date? The sevent day Adventist day church had it start, preaching the sanctuary doctrine and the Sabbath. What was suppose to happen on that date?
Daniel 8:14.
14: And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
What sanctuary was going to be cleansed? It is definitely not the one that was on earth. That one did not exist long before 1844. Great disappointment was because they thought that the earth was the sanctuary. That was a common belief throughout Christendom at the time.
This is the bible interpretation not man say say. This is what set seventh day Adventist apart from every other movement. What we teach is reasonable and factual. It can stand up to opposition. So now you know where the 1844 movement came from. And what is its purpose
If you want to save verify what I have showed you here I suggest that you copy past this post to your computer because I doubt it will be here the next time you come back.
God Bless and keep you.
Your friend Dnelson001.

 

[brb2]

Buried in the Rock. Buried in Christ, and risen to newness of life.

 

[PaulF2]

Scripture did not say that he was not in Rome, nor did it say that he was not in America either, was he here? I suppose if the RCC said he was in Rome and America you would believe that he was in both places, right. Check it out for yourself, see what you can find. Don’t be gullible, do the smart “thing”. Ralph

Can’t wait to see your reply to my post, Ralph. By the way, how old are you, if we may ask?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

I apologized to everyone on this thread. I am trying to get in contact with MarshaAdams and just did not know how to. Please forgive my interference.
Your friend Dnelson001.

sda2rc.blogspot.com/

Dnelson:

feel free to come over and visit this blog.

 

[Barry_Gabriel]

Peter died in Rome and was buried in Rome. His tomb is under the floor of St. Peter’s, which is the main reason it has that name. Period.

Like the tomb of Our Lord in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, there are many who believe that His tomb is in a garden in Jerusalem somewhere, based on nothing more than a British general’s (General “Chinese” Gordon) comment that it must be in this garden and cannot be in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher because a rock there looks like a skull (never mind 2,000 years of erosion and tradition). Such rubbish is a tactic to discredit the Catholic Church. Peter not being buried in Rome would destroy Papal supremacy over Christianity. Therefore, the Catholic Church lacks authority. Our Lord’s tomb not being in Church of the Holy Sepulcher again makes the Church look to be in error. Also, being in that church doesn’t make it Christian enough, whatever that means. Apparently too many “smells and bells” makes the location a little too Papist for their liking.

On a personal note, I believe it is a forgery, which some time in the not too distant future will come to light. It stinks all the way here to Canada. Naturally there will be some who believe it’s true, not because it IS true (it isn’t), but because it is “proof” that discredits Catholicism. Stay tuned, it will be proven a fake.

 

[Thing]

Scripture did not say that he was not in Rome, nor did it say that he was not in America either, was he here? I suppose if the RCC said he was in Rome and America you would believe that he was in both places, right. Check it out for yourself, see what you can find. Don’t be gullible, do the smart “thing”. Ralph

St. Peter lived a long life. Was every place he visited during his life written down in Scacred Scripture?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi everyone,

Recently I’ve been discussing the Papacy with an anti-Catholic, and their last message put me in somewhat of a bind, but I have faith in the Catholic Church and continue to believe she is the one faith established by Christ.

Now to my problem, I haven’t read the whole thing yet but I was wondering what you guys make of this article (I think that’s what it is)

aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

I thought St. Peter was buried under the Basilica?

Thanks for the help!
Zach

**The Bones of St. Peter
The First Full Account of the Search for the Apostle’s Body
**by John Evangelist Walsh
saintpetersbasilica.org/Necropolis/JW/TheBonesofStPeter-1.htm

 

[ralphy]

St. Peter lived a long life. Was every place he visited during his life written down in Scacred Scripture?

Like Paul’s travels, I assume that Peters travels (being a prominent figure) would also be recorded if he went to Rome, after all, if he was the first pope, then absolutely he should be shown to have been there, this seems obvious to me. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

Peter died in Rome and was buried in Rome. His tomb is under the floor of St. Peter’s, which is the main reason it has that name. Period.

Like the tomb of Our Lord in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, there are many who believe that His tomb is in a garden in Jerusalem somewhere, based on nothing more than a British general’s (General “Chinese” Gordon) comment that it must be in this garden and cannot be in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher because a rock there looks like a skull (never mind 2,000 years of erosion and tradition). Such rubbish is a tactic to discredit the Catholic Church. Peter not being buried in Rome would destroy Papal supremacy over Christianity. Therefore, the Catholic Church lacks authority. Our Lord’s tomb not being in Church of the Holy Sepulcher again makes the Church look to be in error. Also, being in that church doesn’t make it Christian enough, whatever that means. Apparently too many “smells and bells” makes the location a little too Papist for their liking.

On a personal note, I believe it is a forgery, which some time in the not too distant future will come to light. It stinks all the way here to Canada. Naturally there will be some who believe it’s true, not because it IS true (it isn’t), but because it is “proof” that discredits Catholicism. Stay tuned, it will be proven a fake.

Sounds to me like the same situation about the “shroud of Tourin”, a little smelly. Ralph

 

[Zooey]

Please note the origin of the linked article!! biblelight.net/

I think the bible is the word of God. It was written by men through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that is all I follow. Ralph

Ummmmm…So, Ralphy,just where did you get the table of contents in your Bible?
Because, unless it fell from the sky onto King James’ uch:head, you have some ‘splainin’ to do…

Now, for my actual contribution to this thread:
If you all were here in my home at this moment, we could climb into the Mercury, toodle on down the road until we come to the local cemetary. And we could drive up on the hill, and when we stopped & got out, I would show you the tombstone with my name on it**. (And yet, :coffeeread:I breathe…:juggle
And then, we could spend the next :yawn: 16 or 17 years, with the anti-Catholic who is on OP’s case trying to make everybody believe that I must be buried there…but I would still be the only one with a car to get us all safely back again.

In other words:
A name on a stone is only a name on a stone.
A burial place is a burial place.
Peter’s burial place is in Rome. Under St Peter’s Basilica.

 

[ralphy]

Please note the origin of the linked article!! biblelight.net/

Ummmmm…So, Ralphy,just where did you get the table of contents in your Bible?
Because, unless it fell from the sky onto King James’ uch:head, you have some ‘splainin’ to do…

Now, for my actual contribution to this thread:
If you all were here in my home at this moment, we could climb into the Mercury, toodle on down the road until we come to the local cemetary. And we could drive up on the hill, and when we stopped & got out, I would show you the tombstone with my name** on it. (And yet, :coffeeread:I breathe…:juggle
And then, we could spend the next :yawn: 16 or 17 years, with the anti-Catholic who is on OP’s case trying to make everybody believe that I must be buried there…but I would still be the only one with a car to get us all safely back again.

In other words:
A name on a stone is only a name on a stone.
A burial place is a burial place.
Peter’s burial place is in Rome. Under St Peter’s Basilica.

I am not sure what that little story was meant to show. However I still do not see any documentary indicating that Peter was ever in Rome. Maybe you can find something on the subject that we can talk about. I must say that your “animation” is rather childish. Ralph

 

[Thing]

Like Paul’s travels, I assume that Peters travels (being a prominent figure) would also be recorded if he went to Rome, after all, if he was the first pope, then absolutely he should be shown to have been there, this seems obvious to me. Ralph

Why absolutely, Rome was just another city, a mostly pagan city. Do you think there is some scriptural prophesy that Popes have to come from Rome, or something. Why would he record that he was in Rome. When he wrote is was about the Faith and addressed to the church. He did however write from ‘Babylon’, widely believed to mean Rome.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Like Paul’s travels, I assume that Peters travels (being a prominent figure) would also be recorded if he went to Rome, after all, if he was the first pope, then absolutely he should be shown to have been there,

Why?

Is it necessary for the Bible to declare that Peter went to Rome in order for it to be true?

Of course not.

The Bible records some of the places that Jesus and Paul went but not all of them. The Book of Acts records some of the acts of the Apostles, but not all of them.

However, the Bible does record that Peter went to Rome…you just have to know what to look for…

From the Bible:

“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.”

 

[phes3]

For Ralphi:
you did not answer my question. since you doubt mostly all statements of the Catholic Church, you should doubt also the Bible because was preserve by our Church, and under your pont of view could not be the word of God …right?