Ah, but don’t you know? That’s just a belief, not a “proof.” For the last 2000 years, Catholics have been snookered. Hey–even Constantine was fooled. Granted, the vast majority of people, Catholic or not, have believed it, scholarship has shown it, tradition has maintained it, but no, a few internet cranks deny it so it must be one big mistake.
Anyone can erect a tomb for anyone, but this does not mean that the body of that person lies within that tomb. The tomb could either be empty or have the remains of someone else lying inside it. How can you be so sure that Peter’s remains are lying within that tomb?How about his tomb in the Vatican Hill, directly below St Peter’s Basilica, for a starter?
It is not unprecedented. At one time, most of the people believed that the world was flat. But the crank known as Christopher Columbus thought differently. And guess what? He was right. At one time, most of the people believed that the sun orbited the Earth, but a crank discovered that the Earth actually orbits the sun. This kind of situation has happened throughout history, so why should I be convinced that Peter’s remains lie in the tomb built for him just because most people believe that it’s true. If this is an indisputable fact, I want to see indisputable evidence. Your reasoning will not prove it to me.Ah, but don’t you know? That’s just a belief, not a “proof.” For the last 2000 years, Catholics have been snookered. Hey–even Constantine was fooled. Granted, the vast majority of people, Catholic or not, have believed it, scholarship has shown it, tradition has maintained it, but no, a few internet cranks deny it so it must be one big mistake.
you know, we could turn the same demand over the Mormon’s claims that do not have insiputable evidences whatsoever
– likt “the tablet of gold” or what have you… the claim that Am. Indians were Jewish or what have you
What you are missing is that I have never said that there is indisputable proof to back up my claims or the claims of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. On the other hand, the Catholic Encyclopedia boldly states that Peter being in Rome and being buried in Rome is an indisputable fact. When someone claims that something is an indisputable fact, they put themselves on the spot. They must provide indisputable evidence to support their claim or admit that the alleged fact is not indisputable. You could try to turn the tables on me, but it would be a pointless exercise, because I have not claimed anything I believe about the origins of my church to be an indisputable fact.you know, we could turn the same demand over the Mormon’s claims that do not have insiputable evidences whatsoever
Really? What made the body identifiable as Peter? How did these men come to the conclusion that the body they found was indeed Peter?aha! half of what you said is true, they erected the Basilica, believing there was a tomb of St Peter’s down below (a maintained tradition).
But don’t you know that recently (well, not *that * recent – Pope Pius XII or XIII, which one was it?) discovered a new subterranean area under the Vatican and ordered an excavation.
And what did they find? not just a tomb, but a huge Necropolis of the dead, at the center of which is a body identified as St. Peter! Funnily enough, the position on the tomb correspond accurately below the memorial on the basilica above! So, there you have it!
I don’t think anything could be indisputable proof, unless I would have been present when something happened.
Not indisputable proof. I was not there at the time.
Not indisputable proof. I was not there at the time.
Not indisputable proof. I was not there at the time.
Simon’s surname was already Peter, which means rock. How was Simon’s name changed to “rock” if his surname already meant “rock”? Also, in that verse you refer to, Jesus never said, “Peter, you are the rock I am going to build my church upon.” The Catholics misinterpret that verse to say what they want it to say.
It has been shown that Peter spoke frequently. This is not proof that he was the leader of the apostles. Being the first to convert large numbers of people is not proof that he was the leader of the apostles either.
Sigh. Nice red herring there, but I wasn’t saying that was the only reason he was head of the Apostles, and I think you know that. If you didn’t, then I understand your difficulty even hearing us. You’re not just having a hard time seeing the forest for the trees, you’re denying the trees and telling us to believe in the forest you can only argue exists from your own imagination.
Speaking of which, if you can’t believe Napolean existed, why Christ? I think I know your answer–“I can’t prove Christ existed, I take it on faith.”
I never said that I can’t believe Napoleon existed. I said that I cannot indisputably prove that he existed. There’s a big difference. As for Christ, I cannot indisputably prove that He exists, but I can believe He exists. You are confusing the two terms.
Not at all. Perhaps, I have the belief (call it naive if you will) that Catholics, when they realize that there is no basis for many of their beliefs, will search out and find the truth.
I didn’t say that. I said that you cannot know something to be indisputably factual unless you are there to witness it. But I must amend that statement to say that you can also know that something is indisputably factual if it has been revealed to you through the power of God, namely by the Holy Spirit. The pride seems to come forth when the Catholic church boldly and proudly boasts that Peter being in Rome and dying there are indisputable facts. If that fact could not be disputed, why am I able to dispute it?
That seems to be the premise of the Catholic church. It claims that Peter being in Rome and dying there are indisputable facts, yet you cannot provide the indisputable evidence that led the church to that conclusion. You are saying, “You must accept what the church teaches even though the church can’t prove it.” I could likewise ask why you persist.
I never said that things cannot be known. You are putting words into my mouth. If you witness something for yourself, you will indisputably know it. But you can learn about things and know about them without witnessing them. I know that Australia exists, but I do not indisputably know where it is located because I have never been there. I knew that St. Petersburg, Russia, existed, but I did not know indisputably until I spent a week there on a trip I took a decade ago.
But believing something and knowing something are mutually exclusive ways of thinking. Both cannot be true at the same time.
Rod,
You are correct in that. There are a lot of Catholics seeking the truth. So far there has been more convincing evidence that the Catholic Church is the True Church and Bride of Christ.
If you want to find the Truth, look for consistency in teaching the doctrine since the times of the apostles. This clearly points to a single source for all Christian teaching: The Catholic Church. :bible1:
Im a non denominational Christian. Jesus founded my church.ROI:
There is only one church :tsktsk: that Jesus founded and instituted, there is only one church that Jesus and the Father sent the Holy Spirit to on the day of Pentecost, there is only one church that Jesus said would not fail, even against the forces of Hell, and any other church aside from this one would fall under the title of “apostate” and “false prophet”.
This one church is the Catholic Church, the only genuine, 100% Catholic, Holy, and apostolic. I have seen more than enough evidence just in this threat alone that proves that.
Jorge.
Sure Jesus founded my church. By you saying He did not does not make it so.