Where was Peter buried?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zach_dunn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy_Carson said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Randy:

Most Protestants know that because they have been calling the Church of Rome the Whore of Babylon since Luther’s day. I find it ironic that suddenly Rome isn’t Babylon if its being Babylon proves that Peter was there. That has got to be proof that God does indeed have a sense of humor.
 
ralphy said:
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
Click to expand...
Ralph, I know you’re a Protestant, but for goodness sake lighten up. Even the Puritans had a sense of humor.
 
phes3 said:
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?
Click to expand...
You got me wrong. I believe all statements from the catholic church, for I belong to the catholic church, (the born again christians who belong to the body of Christ). I just doubt the statements coming from the RCC, for I have been there. Ralph
 
ralphy said:
I am not sure what that little story was meant to show.
Click to expand...
OK. You didn’t get the point.:rolleyes:
The point is: Some fly-by-night site that claims to have a new revelation about where Peter was buried, when all of Christendom KNOWS he was buried in Rome, and has known he was buried in Rome, since before the Bible was compiled… That site is a wee bit, shall we say (ahem, cough, cough) a wee bit http://bestsmileys.com/silly/18.gif…
40.png
ralphy:
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.
Click to expand...
Ok…just as soon as you tell me where you got the table of contents for your Bible.
http://bestsmileys.com/clocks/5.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/bored/2.gif
40.png
ralphy:
I must say that your “animation” is rather childish. Ralph
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
:slapfight:😃
 
ralphy said:
Sounds to me like the same situation about the “shroud of Tourin”, a little smelly. Ralph
Click to expand...
The shroud has not been authenticated and current testing shows it cannot be from the time of Christ. The Church has not recognized it as an authentic relic.
 
ralphy said:
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
Click to expand...
Ralph,

You may consider what you wish. I, for my part, am more than content that St Peter’s remains are under the Basilica in Rome that bears his name to the Greater Honour and Glory of God.

Why don’t you ask the Holy Spirit to lead you into the Church founded by Jesus.

Please would you advise where the authority for the Sacraments is to be found for the church of England? Not founded by the Lord and created by Henry V111 following his break with Rome.

Regards
 
hello all.

Yes Peter is burried under the basilica in Rome.

God bless
 
ralphy said:
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
Click to expand...
On what basis do you believe that the Bible is the word of God?

–
Bill
 
ralphy said:
I was wondering if you accept the “shroud of Turin” as authentic, seeing that you have doubts about the article about Peter. Ralph
Click to expand...
What do you mean by authentic here? Is the Shroud the burial cloth of a crucified man from 2000 years ago? Maybe. Certainly if it is a forgery from the 13th century, it suggests that the forger had a surprisingly good understanding of crucifixion (The nail marks are in the wrist as opposed to the hands)…

My doubts about the article in question are based on the fact that it is turned into a blatent attack on the Catholic Church where all sorts of arguments are made that are unrelated to the “grave of Peter” and that its arguments supporting it actually being Peter’s grave are rather weak.

–
Bill
 
Well, I have my own little technological way of looking at this:D
I have this add on for Firefox called Web of Trust. People use it to rate sites on things like privacy, child safety, etc. One of these criteria is trustworthiness. The site is listed as being halfway down the scale. That already sets off some bells in my head. Also, from the sounds of things there IS evidence that St. Peter is buried under the Basilica. I would rather trust that than a random website whose trust rating is right in the middle of the scale:p
 
ralphy said:
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
Click to expand...
Have you ever read the Church Fathers? There are dozens of citations about Peter dying in Rome in their writings. There has never been a source that said otherwise from the ancient world. Even the anti-Catholic propaganda tract Foxe’s Book of Martyrs acknowledges that Peter the Apostle went to Rome and was martyred there.
 
Zooey said:
OK. You didn’t get the point.:rolleyes:
The point is: Some fly-by-night site that claims to have a new revelation about where Peter was buried, when all of Christendom KNOWS he was buried in Rome, and has known he was buried in Rome, since before the Bible was compiled… That site is a wee bit, shall we say (ahem, cough, cough) a wee bit http://bestsmileys.com/silly/18.gif…

Ok…just as soon as you tell me where you got the table of contents for your Bible.
http://bestsmileys.com/clocks/5.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/bored/2.gif
:rolleyes:
:slapfight:😃
Click to expand...
 
40.png
ralphy:
I am not sure what you mean; “where did I get the table of contents for my bible”?. Please clarify. Thanks. Ralph
 
Ralphy, you ignored my post, so I’m going to try again:

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.

The Church can first, and THEN the Bible. The Church produced the Bible - which did not exist until almost 400 years after Christ! Christians were dying for Christ for decades before even the first (real) gospel was written!

And the Catholic Church gave you this Bible. You trust that the Church produced a correct Bible from the hundreds of non-inspired documents out there - you trust that the Church was infallible at that time. Why was it infallible then but not now?

So, you can see that to assert that Peter was not in Rome because you do not see that written in Scripture makes no sense at all.

God bless you, Ralphy.
 
Marsha_Adams said:
How do you know which books should be included in the Bible?
Click to expand...
This is a good question Marsha. I have never looked to find out why some books are not in the KJ bible, but I will attempt to find out. I understand that the “eliminated” books were only “history” books, and probably not wtitten under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Ralph
 
ralphy said:
Because it was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as directed by God. Ralph
Click to expand...
Well, it is self evident that the Bible was written by men (though I would include the possibility that some of it might have been written by women as well). The question, however is, how do you know they were inspired by the Holy Spirit?

–
Bill
 
ralphy said:
This is a good question Marsha. I have never looked to find out why some books are not in the KJ bible, but I will attempt to find out. I understand that the “eliminated” books were only “history” books, and probably not wtitten under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Ralph
Click to expand...
Ralph:

No, not all of the books that Luther eliminated were “history” books, some were “wisdom” books. Did you know that Luther also wanted to throw out several New Testament books? Did you know that until the 1800s the intertestimental writings were included in the King James Version? But ignoring the books that Luther removed, what about other books? What about other letters that Peter and Paul wrote, or any of the other apostle’s letters that were not included. How do you know what books should be included and what books should be left out? Or in other words, where did you get the Table of Contents in your Bible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top