For the first time, the bones traditionally believed to be the relics of St Peter the Apostle will be on public display for veneration.
Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelisation, said the veneration of the relics at the Vatican was a fitting way to conclude the Year of Faith on November 24.
The bones were discovered during excavations of the necropolis under St Peter’s Basilica in the 1940s near a monument erected in the fourth century to honor St Peter.
No pope has ever declared the bones to be authentic. However, after scientific tests were conducted on the bones in the 1950s and 60s, Pope Paul VI said in 1968 that the “relics” of St Peter had been “identified in a way which we can hold to be convincing”.
Source: The Catholic Herald.
This is recorded by another Roman Catholic webite:
The bones the Vatican archaeologists had discovered in 1942, in the niche at the foundation of the Red Wall, to one side of St. Peter’s grave, remained safely locked in lead-lined chests in the private chambers of the pope for over a decade.
Only a cursory examination had been given to them by the pope’s private physician, who declared that they were the bones of a man in his seventies — the age Peter was expected to have been at his martyrdom.
The pope had made only a brief, uncertain announcement concerning the bones in 1950. The hungry press, a curious academia, and the anxious Church widely wondered about their authenticity, and the frustration only built at the Vatican’s reticence and characteristic slowness.
Source: Lonely Pilgrim
My comment:
The religious fraud comes to us unlimited from the Vatican.
At the height of Fascism in Italy in 1942, the Pope claimed the Roman Catholic Church had found the bones of “St. Peter”. The Vatican is still in desperate need to prove that the Jewish Apostles went to Rome, despite no Biblical evidence can be found to support such claims.
The Apostolic succession of Peter is a crime against Biblical Christianity, built on lies and blasphemy. If Peter never visited Rome, the Petrine theology of Rome is a huge bluff. And the Popes will be left with no honor, and no spiritual authority what so ever.
The largest skull and bone society in the World, is the Roman Catholic Church. The amount of skull, corpses and bones venerated in Catholic Shrines are astonishing. Just take a look at some 50 different articles, by clicking this link.
That the Pope try to convince the World, that he is the successor of Peter, is an obvious and continues maneuver. When the Pope collects bones and declare them “holy” and venerable, he display a grotesque form of religiosity. Only spiritual blindfolded people can claim this to be a part of the true Christian family.
To accept this kind of religious stuff, is surely based up on doctrines taught by demons. In this way the true Messiah is defamed over the entire word. The true followers of Jesus the Messiah must renounce this evil, and expose it.
In 1953, archeological evidence were exposed in Jerusalem, with claim that the tomb of the Apostles Peter was found. On the tombstone it was written: “Simon Bar Jona” in ancient Aramaic.
Mat 16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
To get good marks for exposure of the evils of Roman Catholicism is difficult, because most of the population of the World live in darkness, Man takes pleasure in his life of sin and his evil deeds. Many people simply do not want to know the truth.
You must make a difference.
First published: November 12th, 2013
Written by Ivar
Banjara Origin News 
Hi, thanks for the citation. You have some harsh words here, but did you read my articles? The evidence is pretty solid — not just archaeological, but near-certain historical evidence — that Peter did minister and die in Rome. Whether these are his bones or not, this was without a doubt his grave.
If you read the book Petrus Romanus by Tom Horn and Cris Putnam they make a solid case that Peter was buried in Israel. Chances are that is where he died too. Also there was a couple of hundred years between the life of Peter and Rome becoming Catholic. They would have only documented important romans in the graves. So chances are it was a emperor or even Simon Magus. My money is on Simon Magus because the Romans believed him to be God like.
It’s interesting that there is no ancient tradition that Peter died and was buried in Jerusalem; no idea of it all, in fact, until this supposed discovery in 1953. And yet every ancient source that attests to the life of Peter after the events of the New Testament places his later ministry and martyrdom and burial in Rome. The earliest of these sources can most certainly be dated to the turn of the second century; a strong case can be made for dating it as early as A.D. 70, a mere few years after Peter’s death.
If you haven’t read my articles on the tomb of Peter in Rome, I wish you would. I’ve carefully researched and documented the evidence there, and if you find anything that you don’t think holds muster, please tell me. Peter was an important person in Rome — he was the leader of the Christian community there, a beloved brother and eyewitness to Jesus Himself. Why wouldn’t Christians have remembered his grave? But there was nothing in his grave to mark that of an “important” Roman — it began as nothing more than a plain grave on a hillside. And yet we have testimony dating to the early second century that this is Peter’s grave.
When you will you ever get off your silly high horse, and your pompous comments on stuff, that is just so awfully sad,??
Veneration/worship of a set of bones, and cadavers is disgusting..
It is also pagan, and contrary to sound teaching and common sense.
funny video below.
I don’t think I said anything about venerating bones. My comment was only regarding the truth of this being Peter’s tomb and possibly his remains. If you find my evidence unconvincing, I’d be happy to hear your objections. May His peace be with you, brother!
what difference does his bones make to anyone, surely it is not necessary to have the bones of some christian venerated/worshipped.??
So you acknowledge, then, that these are his bones? Nobody is worshipping bones. The difference, and the reason I am responding here, is that you folks are supposing, without evidence, that the Vatican is not being honest. While I have every evidence to believe that Peter laid down his bones in Rome. I care only about the truth.
May His peace be with you!
I acknowledge no such thing, who cared whose bones they are, is nearer the point that i was making..
I do wish you would stop trying to re- interpret everything i say…
😀
“What difference [do] his bones make to anyone?” I was only taking you at your word.
those bones have no biblical significance, regardless of whose they are.
unless your in to necromancy like your catholic colleagues…
They are, like the grave of any martyr, a visible and tangible reminder of the unbreakable faith in Christ, that could have been inspired only by His true Resurrection, that would bring a simple fisherman from Palestine to travel from his home to the capital of the world and lay down his life for His Lord. Whether the bones are truly Peter’s or not, what matters is the testimony — that is what martyr means, a witness.
why do you need a visible and tangible reminder of the unbreakable faith in Jesus Christ…..??
I say that if you need a visible reminder, that you are not of God, and most certainly not filled with the Holy Spirit,…
The just shall live by faith alone…
You only convince me even more that you are not Christian..
Even you, brother, cling to a visible and tangible reminder, in the Bible. If the just shall live by “faith alone,” why do you even need some crusty old book?
Jesus did not hesitate to show the doubtful Thomas His wounds; he joyfully appeared to the hundreds who witnessed His Resurrection. The Word of God is a tangible witness He gives to every believer. The testimony of the Apostles and martyrs is the next greatest witness we have of the Truth of the Gospel. We all live by faith — but not by blind faith. No one ever believed without being shown His Truth. And Jesus gives us so much in this life to show us that Truth, to inspire our faith.
His peace be with you!
now i’m even more convinced.
a crusty old book you say, people have given their lives to ensure that England got Gods word in their own language, in spite of the attitude of the catholic /babylonian papacy’s efforts to deny us the truth in Gods word..
It is one thing to read a bible,
and another to have the Spirit of God in your life, and then to read it,
If you were truly Christian, you would have nothing to do with the catholic religion,and its demonic, and blasphemous dogmas…
me and you are never going to agree …
pity really,,, I was beginning to think you were intelligent,,,lol…only kidding 😀
Heh. Brother Spook, you should learn about something called sarcasm. In one paragraph I called the Bible a “crusty old book,” and in the next paragraph I said that “the Word of God is a tangible witness He gives to every believer.” I affirm the truth of Scripture as much as you do if not more. But the fact of the matter is, it is a crusty old book, given to us by God — just like the testimony of the Apostles. And you are clinging to that book with far more faith and veneration than any Catholic ever gave to a pile of bones.
His peace be with you!
If you affirmed the truth of scripture more than i do, surely you would not have anything to do with that whore of babylon of the catholic religious system.??
If you affirmed the truth of Scripture as much as I do, surely you would not condemn the Catholic Church as the “whore of Babylon,” or go around with such an unloving attitude to your Christian brothers and sisters. 🙂
His peace be with you, Brother Spook. I really do wish you His peace, and pray you find it. Not the condemnation with which you are so consumed.
i will answer later
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the word of God..
Tangibleness/tangibility is not necessary for true
faith,…I have a book, with God’s
word contained therein,Jesus Christ is the
word, and the word was God,…
The Holy Spirit testifies with my Spirit, that these things are so.
The Holy Spirit brings God’s word to life, acting on my conscience etc
No offence Joseph,
but I still cannot count you as a
brother, whilst you congregate with those of the roman catholic persuasion, and adhere to their dogmas , and false teachings etc
Well, I do call you a brother, despite your often uncharitable comments and attitude. And you know, if you want to convince anybody of his error, it would be helpful if you would provide evidence for your claims, rather than simply make abusive comments. That goes for the gentleman who runs this blog, too. Pointing fingers at “false teaching” does absolutely no good if you can’t show anyone why it is false.
I run this blog. 😀
and if the information on this blog ie on the posts and pages etc, has links to the web pages that the information was gleaned from, i am just making every effort to make sure that as many christians as possible know who is touting false doctrines etc. I get nearly a hundred people a day checking out information on here.
what made you think that this was not my blog.?
what time is it in America where you are then please,, just curious.??
Because you are not Ivar Fjeld, who is Norwegian, a journalist, and a published author. You are Spook, and whatever your real name is, you are a Brit.
It’s 10:30 p.m. But my dad is sick and we’re taking him to the doctor. If you’re the praying sort, please pray for him.
Yes I will pray for your dad… Joseph..
Yes I know I am not Ivarfjeld, I do reblog a lot of his posts though..
I am in agreement with what he says, and the posts that he makes.
Thanks, Spook. Peace be with you.
😀
Well, thanks be to God, my dad is feeling better now and we’re not going to the doctor tonight. Thank you for your prayers. Good night, or good morning.
yes..praise the lord
genuinely glad that your dad is better
its 5:30 a.m here
😀
Dear Joseph Richardson
Shalom, and love in Jesus.
I can agree that the doctrinal errors of the Vatican sometimes are difficult to discern. Because the lie almost look like the Biblical truth. But a lie is a lie, regardless of how close it might be to the truth.
I have a problem debating with Roman Catholics. Because you are not able to focus on one topic at the time, but keep on jumping around and publishing ready made defense of Papal doctrines beside the points, or constantly raise new issues to avoid a deeper look into the concerned topic. You lay out a smokescreen, so the truth gets blurred, and non believers get confused.
One of these issues, it the claimed sinless mother of Jesus. I call her “Catholic Mary”. Since the Bible says that ALL created beings have sinned, it is an impossibility that there is an exception. You overlook, and reject that the mother of Jesus was a Jewish young virgin, a Torah obeying Jewess. She was a sinner who offered a sin offering in the Temple in Jerusalem. Knowing this, you go on, presenting to the World, a copycat, a fiction. You are venerating a damnable pagan goddess. The Queen of Heaven, rebuked in the book of Jeremiah.
It is a sin, and shameful, to defame and blaspheme against the legacy of this Jewish woman, the mother of the Messiah. Being told the truth, you still continue this falsehood, and become antichrists. Please repent, or face the eternal flames of Hell. I loved you enough to warn you. Do not be foolish, and spend eternity i agony and pain, and useless regrets.
Ivar, thanks for your response. It’s late here but I’ll give you a fuller reply tomorrow. Please pray for my dad. Good night, and Christ’s peace be with you.
Thanks again, Ivar, for the response, and for your loving words. I am willing to discuss any matter of Catholic doctrine you would like to talk about, and I will do my best to stay on topic; however, it seems like your judgment is already pretty well set and it probably wouldn’t do either of us a lot of good to have such a discussion.
I especially don’t think discussing any of the Marian doctrines would be very productive. I am surprised that you raise this issue, since it doesn’t have anything to do with this post or with anything I’ve commented regarding. Those doctrines are at best marginal to the truth of the Gospel of Christ, and not central to the Catholic understanding at all. I will say that your charges are based in your own interpretation of Scripture and not anything Scripture actually says (e.g. it never says “ALL created beings have sinned”; you are interpolating that) — just as the Catholic understanding of Mary is based in Scripture, and rooted in the exegesis of the Church Fathers since the earliest centuries.
Also, the “queen of heaven” in Jeremiah is a reference to the Mesopotamian deity Ishtar or Astarte — not to Mary. No one in the Catholic Church worships Ishtar. Mary is called the “queen of heaven” in an entirely different sense, and no one hails her as a deity of any sort — just a highly favored daughter of God, as Scripture itself tells us.
Regarding Peter, the reason why I commented: I’ve written a post providing the clear scriptural evidence of Peter’s ministry in Rome, of which you say there is none. I hope you will read what I’ve written and consider it, and if you still reject it, at least let me know why you find it unconvincing. There is every reason to believe, from Scripture, from history, and from archaeology, that Peter did minister and die in Rome. As I commented to Lars-Thoralf below, the discovery of a tomb marked “Simon bar-Jona” in Jerusalem is not exactly overpowering evidence, when “Simon” and “Jona” are both among the most common Jewish names — especially when nothing in history or popular tradition has ever indicated that Peter died in Jerusalem or was buried there. Nearly all responsible historians conclude, from a multiplicity of sources and evidence, that the Apostles Peter and Paul did both die in Rome. That does not mean, of course, that this proves every other Catholic claim; but this one is on solid ground.
God bless you, and the peace of Christ be with you!
Hello Joseph, you making bold statements again..???
Cephas was never in Palestine, it did not exist until 136 AD, well after he was brown bread, I think you mean Judea or what the Bible calls Israel. As for Peters bones, I don’t see the fuss, they are bones of some dead bloke, Jesus however is alive and nobodys bones interest me certainly not a church full of whitewashed sepulchures and dead mens bones.
Amen…
😀
It is highly unlikely that the bones belong to Peter. It is more likely they belong to Simon Magus.
Also, for what it’s worth: the bones in the photograph at the top are not the bones believed to be Peter’s. They are the ones which testing proved were not. Another collection of bones was discovered in a hidden compartment of the tomb, carefully wrapped in sumptuous purple cloth. Testing revealed it to be the skeleton of a man of sturdy build in his seventies.
May His peace be with you!
You people are so so sad, with your idolatrous practices, and your lies…
God speaks emphatically. Just like he did to the Philistines!
God bless you Lars
😀
Reblogged this on Christian Spook.
The Vatican can never admit to the truth about Peter’s grave. Because the “church” will crumble.
People need to know that the difference between Catholicism and Christianity is that while Christianity is founded upon Yeshua’s empty tomb, the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church is founded upon another empty tomb, a tomb where Peter never was laid, because he was never in Rome.
Friend, the evidence is quite compelling that Peter was in Rome. I don’t think your charge can stand up. Even Scripture itself attests to Peter’s ministry in Rome.
May Christ’s peace be with you.
Actually There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Scripture about Kefa/Peter ever going to Rome.Paul doesn’t even mention him in his letter to the Roman, which he most certainly would have had – if he’d been there.
And my charge is already proven in the same book Ivar refers to. It is indisputable compared to the lies of the Roman Catholic Whore.
As for me, I’d prefer the complete Shalom of the Mashiach, over the false peace of the Roman Catholic “Christ”, any day.
Lars-Toralf,
I presented some pretty strong evidence from Scripture for Peter’s presence in Rome. Do you have any grounds for rejecting it? These are not the lies of the “Roman Catholic Whore,” but my own exegesis. What book are you referring do? (Ivar didn’t refer to a book?)
I should point out that both “Simon” and “Jonah” (or “John”) were both among the most common Jewish names — of which I have no doubt you’re already aware, since you seem well-versed in such things. I count eight Simons and at least Four Johns in the New Testament alone. Finding a tomb marked “Simon bar-Jona” is like finding a tomb marked “Jan Hansen.” There were no doubt hundreds of people named Simon bar-Jona even living at the same time as Peter.
May the peace of Christ be with you!
The arguments you are referring to, which I didn’t see are merely theological speculations.
As I said, Peter’s tomb was undisputably found in Jerusalem in 1952/53, which tears the foundation of your allegations to shreds.
Yes, Yochanan was a common name in Israel. So was Shimon. And they still are. But this is just the beginning of ther argumentative reasoning for the grave of Peter in Jerusalem.
Jerusalem was, btw, labeled “Babylon” at the time – because of the lack of faith there.
Now, there is ample evidence that the ROman Catholic Church neither is nor has ever been a Christian Church. It is so full of erroneous doctrine – that there is no room for correct doctrine. And Yochanan says:
Come out of her! Thus you are warned. You have no excuse on judgment day.
I do not own this book and no not even know what you are referencing (since nobody has actually cited any book). If you have evidence contrary to mine, or any sort of claim you can support, I would be glad to hear it.
I have based my argument on Scripture. Again, if you wish to reject my claims, please do it with evidence. Show me documentation, for example, for first-century Jerusalem being referred to as “Babylon” — in the first century. Because the only other time “Babylon” is mentioned in the New Testament is in clear reference to Rome.
Now, the claim that “the Catholic Church never has been a Christian Church”: that’s quite a claim. And you say there is ample evidence? What ample evidence? If the Church of Rome has never been a Christian Church, then you would be hard-pressed to prove that any ever was. One of the very oldest Christian documents we possess outside of Scripture originates from Rome.
May the peace of Christ be with you. I bear you no ill will, and am only here to offer peace and truth. Let’s have a rational discussion rather than hurling unproven slurs and barb.
You’ll find it here. Online. And btw. It was written by two honest Catholic priests:
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm
That? That’s what all of this is about? All this time I’ve been thinking you had an actual published book, not a pamphlet on the Internet. I have read this before. Remember, I’m the one everybody is coming to about the tomb of St. Peter under the Vatican. I have certainly seen the other top hits for that search term.
Here are just a few problems with this article (and Ivar, please read this too):
1. The article is not written by “two honest Catholic priests.” The article is by F. Paul Peterson. The majority of the text on this page, every allegation, every reported fact, is Peterson’s.
2. This article was never published anywhere. Its origin is a pamphlet self-published by Peterson himself and sold from his own home. See the very bottom of the article.
3. Peterson makes claims about having spoken to a number of well-known authorities in the archaeological field: Nelson Glueck, Bagatti and Milik themselves. These are people to whom the world would have listened were this allegation true. And yet none of these authorities ever published anything about this discovery. All of the speech Peterson attributes to them is based on Peterson’s own report, not anything anyone ever published. Hence, there is no evidence whatsoever that any of this is true.
4. The book by Bagatti and Milik is not what Peterson, or the author of this webpage, claims it is. Bagatti and Milik did indeed discover an ancient necropolis under the Dominus Flevit Church. They excavated it fully and published it about it widely. They even have a mention on Wikipedia for it. This is not some obscure and forgotten research that only Peterson stumbled upon. Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit is an actual book which is well read and well known. But nowhere in this book or in anything else Bagatti or Milik ever published is there any mention of such an earth-shattering discovery as the supposed Jerusalem tomb of St. Peter. Google it; the only source you will find is this webpage and people talking about this webpage. Even google the name of the book, “Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit.” Search for it on Google Books. Many people mention it and cite it. No one besides this page mentions a Jerusalem tomb of the Apostle Peter..
5. This page itself proves its falsehood. The author of the webpage conveniently posts scans of the book — images without their captions, the descriptions of which only he provides. The only two pages of text which he posts make no mention at all of the Apostle Peter. None at all. The very page which he alleges contains “text regarding Peter’s inscription” does not even contain the names “Simon” or “Peter” — in any language. Not Italian, not Greek, not Hebrew. You can check this for yourselves.
I trust you to be truthful people and honest Christians. Please examine this for yourselves and discover its falsehood.
May the peace of Christ be with you!
Dear Joseph Richardson
Shalom.
I have let one of your comments remain in the spam filter. Simply because I do not permit links to other websites. This “Riviero debate” is fruitless, and gave you a chance to change this debate into claims and counterclaims of conspiracies.
Please debate the concerned topic, about the Apostle Peter.
Was Peter ever in Rome?
It is an interesting question, since the whole authority of the Papacy, is built on this claim. If Peter never was in Rome, the Roman Catholic Church is a complete falsehood. It is built on a lie, and have cheated its followers since the day of its formation around 320 A.D.
1. Paul was in Rome. We know this, because the Bible says so. It would have made sense to make Paul the first Bishop of Rome. The problem is that the Pope claims to hold the keys to Heaven. Since Paul never claimed to hold such keys, the Papacy rather wanted to claim a succession of Peter. The Pope claims Peter was the head of the Apostles, and so is the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, supposed to be.
2. Paul wrote the letters to the Romans. It has His apostolic calling to travel west, and to communicate with the believers in Rome. Paul do mention the name of 16 believers in this letter, and a lot of instructions are given. But not a single word about Peter. If Peter was chosen to go to Rome, his calling changed to become an apostle to the gentiles, and if he was chosen to become the leader among the Apostles, surely Paul would have mentioned this, and corrected what would look like an error, in the letter to the Galatians.
Galatians 2:8
For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.
4. Peter was not called to be an apostle among the gentiles. He was called to be an apostle among the Jews. So to claim he traveled to the pagan capital of Rome, is a claim that sets a side the Bible, and gives us a “different gospel””. The Bible expose the Papacy, and all her not Biblical claims.
5. Peter writes one of his letters from Babylonia, a city East of Jerusalem, inside today’s Iraq. There were large numbers of Jews living here, outside of the control of the pagan Roman Empire.
6. Peter was a married man. Either the Apostle, and claimed to be the first Bishop of Rome lived in sin, or all the Bishops after him lived in sin, since they have banned Roman Catholic priests from marrying. Peter was right, the Popes are wrong. Anyhow: The papacy would never have got Peters approval for this not Biblical doctrine, which is built on lawlessness.
7. Peter fell into the sin of hypocrisy after the day of Pentecost, and was rebuked by Paul. In Jerusalem, Peter regretted, and submitted to the correct teachings of Paul. So if there was a leader among the Apostles, it was Paul. Not Peter.
8. Peter was not infallible. He sinned, was married, and even Jesus rebuked him sternly. I wounder what you would have thought, if a pastor or priest had told you: – Get behind me Satan.
I understand that Roman Catholics defend the core doctrine of Catholicism, tooth and nail. But the defense is useless, and will not deceive a single soul, among a remnant of God, who have read and believe in the scriptures, the infallible Word of God.
Ivar,
Peace to you, and thanks again for the reply. In my most recent post, I have already addressed several of your concerns, and presented scriptural evidence supporting Peter’s presence in Rome. Peter was in Rome, as Scripture, ample historical sources, and now archaeological evidence, all attest. From the very earliest historical sources, we find the unanimous testimony of the Fathers of the universal Church — not even all Roman Fathers, but Greek and Carthaginian and Alexandrian Fathers. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyon, Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine of Hippo, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa — all attest that Peter was in Rome. Certainly, if Peter had not been in Rome, it would not have been in their interests to say he was.
Regarding your concerns:
1. That Peter was given the “keys” is explicitly stated in Scripture, from the very words of Christ — as I’m sure you are aware. “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18–19)
2. At the time of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Paul had not yet even been to Rome, and neither had Peter. The fact that Paul does not mention Peter proves only that Peter was not there yet — but that is no more proof that Peter did not go there than it is proof that Paul didn’t go there. From the testimony of Dionysius of Corinth (mid-second century), we know that Peter also spent time in Corinth before coming to Rome.
4(?). Rome had a population of over 7,000 Jews in the first century, so Peter would have had plenty of Jews to minister to there. As the capital of a great empire, it was the center of commerce and travel and would have been the logical hub for a far-reaching evangelical operation, especially since Paul had already brought the Gospel to Asia Minor and Greece, and all efforts were looking west. But we should not think that Peter’s ministry was exclusively to the Jews, any more than Paul’s was exclusively to the Gentiles. In fact Paul preached to Jews everywhere he went; his first stop in any city he visited was always the local synagogue (Acts 13, 14, 17, 18, etc.). Peter likewise ministered to the Gentiles: in fact it was to Peter, not Paul, that Christ gave the definitive revelation that salvation was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and Peter is responsible for the first prominent Gentile converts in the family of Cornelius (Acts 10). To quote Peter himself at the Council of Jerusalem: “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.” (Acts 15:7)
5. The city of Babylon in Mesopotomia was in ruins by the first century, since the Seleucids moved the capital of the territory to Seleucia in the third century B.C. Peter would have had no reason to be in the literal “Babylon.” We have reason to think this is a cryptic reference to Rome (as it was in the Revelation of John), which like Babylon had been its day, was the decadent capital of a great empire. The presence of Mark and Silvanus (Silas) both by Peter’s side confirms that he was in Rome. We know from Paul’s letters that Mark was with him during his first imprisonment in Rome (Colossians 4:10–11, Philemon 23–24) — so clearly Peter and Paul were in the same place.
6. Clerical celibacy only gradually became a norm in the Western Church. It did not become expected of all priests until the third or fourth century. We know that not only Peter was married, but most of the Apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5)! Peter’s marriage is irrelevant to the question of whether he was in Rome.
7. No one ever has ever claimed that either the Apostles or the bishops of the Church were without sin, and none are above rebuke. But regarding the issue of authority in Jerusalem: it was Peter’s voice to which the assembled bishops at the Council of Jerusalem deferred. It was his teaching that the council ultimately adopted:
“And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” And all the assembly fell silent …” (Acts 15:7–12)
8. As I said: no one ever claimed that Peter was without sin; everyone acknowledges that Peter was married. “Infallibility” does not mean that the pope is perfect or that he is not a sinner or that he never makes mistakes or even that everything he says is truth. It means that when he preaches the Gospel, he is guided by the Holy Spirit.
His peace be with you!
Dear Joseph Richardson
Shalom.
You wrote:
….and presented scriptural evidence supporting Peter’s presence in Rome.
My reply:
Lets take this nice and slow:
Give me some few lines from the Bible, supporting the Papal claim that Peter was in Rome.
Ivar,
Again, it’s not just a papal claim. The historical record — all those Church Fathers who weren’t even Roman — attest to it. But as far as Scripture:
1. Peter tells us that he was with “she who is at Babylon” — clearly a reference to the Church somewhere (cf. 2 John 1, 13). But there is no evidence in the New Testament or in the historical record that there was a church in Babylon or Peter took up residence in Mesopotamia. Indeed, it seems an unlikely spot, since that city had been in decline since the foundation of Seleucia and was in ruins.
2. So “Babylon” is a cryptic reference to somewhere else. Based on the clear symbolism in the Revelation of Rome as “Babylon,” there is reason to think Peter might mean the same. Rome, like ancient Babylon had been, was the capital of a great empire, the center of decadence and excess and pagan worship.
3. This is further confirmed by the fact that both John Mark and Silvanus were with him in the writing of the letter (1 Peter 5:12–13). By the testimony of Paul in his letters written during his first captivity in Rome (Colossians 4:10–11, Philemon 23–24), we know that Mark was in Rome. And Silvanus, another close associate of Paul’s, further supports that Peter and Paul were in the same place.
4. The Gospel of John, one of the last-written books of the New Testament, written certainly after Peter’s death, makes reference to his death by crucifixion (John 21:18–19). “To stretch out one’s hands” was an almost explicit reference to crucifixion in early literature, especially in a Christian context. And per John’s own testimony, the statement was meant “to show by what death he was to glorify God.” This supports and confirms the testimony of other early Christian writers who describe Peter’s death in Rome by crucifixion.
And that is just the evidence from Scripture. There is a mountain of historical evidence beyond that. And in order to argue that Peter did not go to Rome, that he went somewhere else, one needs to have some grounds for rejecting that evidence, and some evidence that he went somewhere else. As I described below, this supposed claim of a “Jerusalem tomb of Peter” is not what it claims to be.
Peace be with you!
The book, which is quoted fully at the end, is by two honest catholic priests. And it is a published book. That you refuse to see that, is your problem.
Yes, I agree, the book is by two honest Catholic priests, and it is a published book. But the book makes no mention of Jerusalem tomb of Peter. The book is not “quoted fully at the end.” The author of the web page gives scans of a few pages of the book, mostly photographs without their descriptions. He only gives two pages of text — neither of which mention Peter at all. If you google the title of this book, you will find many people in archaeological circles talking about it — and none of them discussing a Jerusalem tomb of Peter. This is a well-known book in archaeological circles, not something obscure and unknown as the author of the article alleges. If there were any finding of a Jerusalem tomb of Peter, then the whole world would know it. Instead, this one article, copied from a self-published 1960 pamphlet, is the only reference to such a thing — this and other pages that reference this.
Then I gave you the wrong link. I have personally read the whole book on a website, but that is years ago. Maybe 20. My bad. It is out there. You’ll find it if you want to.
Dear Joseph Richardson
Shalom.
It is not possible for Roman Catholics to tell the truth, about the lack of scriptural references to a claimed visit by Peter to Rome. Because it would admitting that this claim is non-Biblical, and will have to be scrutinized by various historians.
The word Babylon, or Babylonia appears 359 times in the Amplified Bible. All of them, refers to an area East of Israel, in today’s Iraq, in the border area with Iran.
In the book of Acts, Babylon is mentioned. The place of the exile is known, the location not to be misunderstood. Babel is still a province in Iraq.
Acts 7:43
You have taken up the tabernacle of Molek and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship. Therefore I will send you into exile” beyond Babylon.
But somehow, since the words of Peter do not fit into the not biblical doctrines of the Vatican, the words of Peter is presented as a code.
1 Peter 5:13
She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.
(end of scriptures).
Babylon was full of Jews. Not only 7.000, like the claims of Jews in Rome. But East of Israel there were probably close to a million Jews. Jesus the Messiah said he ONLY came for the lost sheep of Israel. 10 tribes of the Jews never returned from Assyria, and were scattered all over this area.
Living in Babylonia they were lost, and were in need of hearing the gospel. Peter preached in this area, and greets us all from this area.
But the Pope, has got a “super revelation” that Peter is coding his message. Conveniently, so the written Word of God can be twisted, to fit into the doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion. And not only a simple doctrine, but THE DOCTRINE, which the seat of the Pope is funded on, and the authority of the Papacy is built on. It this doctrines falls, so do the religious system of the Vatican.
I must disagree in part. There are some Roman Catholics that are saved, and trustworthy. But they are an absolute minority, and they are saved not because of the church but despite it.
If there were none, God would never have said: Come out of her!
Dear Lars-Toralf Utnes Storstrand
Shalom.
I have never said, and I do not believe, that there are no Roman Catholic’s who are saved. But I need to ask them some questions, before I am convinced that they are saved.
First of all, they need to explain to me what salvation is, and that they understands who God is, and what He has done for them on the cross at Calvary Hill in Jerusalem.
Second: They need to have a good explanation, why they are still work inside this religious movement.
Then we agree.
Dear Joseph Richardson
Shalom.
You wrote:
But there is no evidence in the New Testament or in the historical record that there was a church in Babylon or Peter took up residence in Mesopotamia. Indeed, it seems an unlikely spot, since that city had been in decline since the foundation of Seleucia and was in ruins.
My reply:
The idea that there was not established proper churches east of Israel, is another not Biblical claim. Such a view on history holds no merits.
On the day of Pentecost it self, Jews from areas East of Israel had come to Jerusalem to celebrate this Jewish feast. Both from the Kingdom of Parthia (parts of todays Jordan, Syria and Iraq), and from Mesopotamia (Today’s Iraq and Iran). They were both Jews, and proselytes, converts to Judaism.
Acts 2: 8-11: (Amplified Bible).
Then how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own (particular) dialect to which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and [the province of] Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and the transient residents from Rome, both Jews and the proselytes [to Judaism from other religions], Cretans and Arabians too—we all hear them speaking in our own native tongues [and telling of] the mighty works of God!
3.000 of them got saved that day. After the great feast they returned home, and established Churches in their township of origin. All the members were either new born Messianic Jews or proselytes to Judaism.
Peter the Apostle surrey went eastwards to guide and help the new Churches. He was a wanted guest, invited by the same people, to whom he had preached, and baptized on the day of Pentecost. Not sending an Apostle Eastwards, would be a failure of the calling that Jesus the Messiah had given the team of Apostles. Peter was an apostle to the Jews. He writes a letter from this area.
Paul and Barnabas traveled westwards. Paul says plainly, that he is called to be an apostle to the gentiles. He is on his way to Rome, to plead his case and be a witness of the risen Messiah. Not to the Jews, but to the pagan Emperor.
This will be ABC for all who are willing to obey the truth.
Rome has twisted this message. You present, and you distribute religious falsehood and fraud.
Ivar,
I do not think this is a productive conversation. I have done my best to present you with evidence in good faith, to be fair and charitable to you. But yet you unjustly and uncharitably accuse me of willful falsehood and fraud. It is your choice if you do not accept the evidence, but do call me a liar. You present a less than Christian attitude to me.
You reject my claims, and yet you can provide no evidence for yours. Yes, there were Christians in Mesopotamia. Yes, Scripture supports that. But nowhere is there evidence in Scripture that Peter went there or even that there was a church in the city of Babylon — which was in ruins. As I said — and as you selectively ignore — the understanding that “Babylon” is Rome is not based on conjecture alone. The presence of Mark and Silvanus there supports this. The unanimous testimony of history, to which you close your eyes, confirms it.
I did not “invent” this understanding. Neither did Rome. This is an understanding as old as the Church, shared by exegetes in all corners of the world, with no interest at all in supporting the Church of Rome — even by most recent Protestant scholars. I will present you with a few quotations, and then I will leave you alone. I have made my case, which is what I came here to do.
“But, to cease from the examples of old time, let us come to those who contended in the days nearest to us; let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted and contended unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good apostles: Peter, who because of unrighteous jealousy suffered not one or two but many trials, and having thus given his testimony (μαρτυρήσας [martyresas]) went to the glorious place which was his due. Through jealousy and strife Paul showed the way to the prize of endurance; seven times he was in bonds, he was exiled, he was stoned, he was a herald both in the East and in the West, he gained the noble fame of his faith, he taught righteousness to all the world, and when he had reached the limits of the West he gave his testimony (μαρτυρήσας) before the rulers, and thus passed from the world and was taken up into the Holy Place,―the greatest example of endurance. To these men with their holy lives was gathered a great multitude of the chosen, who were the victims of jealousy and offered among us (ἐν ἡμῖν [en humin], i.e. among the Romans) the fairest example in their endurance under many indignities and tortures.” (Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, ca. A.D. 70?)
“I do not enjoin you in the manner of Peter and Paul. They were Apostles; I am a condemned man. They were free; I, until this moment, am a slave.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, ca. A.D. 107)
“But a great light of religion shone on the minds of the hearers of Peter, so that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with every kind of exhortation besought Mark, whose Gospel is extant, seeing that he was Peter’s follower, to leave them a written statement of the teaching given them verbally, nor did they cease until they had persuaded him, and so became the cause of the Scripture called the Gospel according to Mark. And they say that the Apostle, knowing by the revelation of the spirit to him what had been done, was pleased at their zeal, and ratified the scripture for study in the churches. Clement [of Alexandria] quotes the story in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes [ca. A.D. 180], and the bishop of Hierapolis, named Papias, confirms him [ca. A.D. 120]. He also says that Peter mentions Mark in his first Epistle, and that he composed this in Rome itself, which they say that he himself indicates, referring to the city metaphorically as Babylon, in the words, ‘the elect one in Babylon greets you, and Marcus my son.'” (Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History 2.15.1–2, quoting sources no longer extant)
“For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” (Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies III.1.1)
“Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Caesar’s equites, and adduced many testimonies to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark.” (Clement of Alexandria, Adumbrationes, ca. A.D. 190)
“Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God’s chief enemies, [Nero] was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.” (Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History 2.25.5, ca. A.D. 290)
“Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority as Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record. Peter also mentions this Mark in his first epistle, figuratively indicating Rome under the name of Babylon ‘She who is in Babylon elect together with you saluteth you and so doth Mark my son.'” (Jerome of Stridonium, Lives of Illustrious Men 8, ca. A.D. 390)
The Bible is only one source. It is an infallible source, but to presume literal readings from Scripture when they contradict all other sources — when they even contradict other evidence within Scripture (e.g. the fact that Mark was known to be in Rome) — is not reasonable. To accuse me of being a liar for merely presenting you with evidence that has been held for nearly 2,000 years, when I have done my best to be patient and fair with you, is the epitome of blind prejudice and hate.
I nonetheless pray that His peace will be with you.
You don’t even know the real name of Peter. Peter is merely a translation of the Hebrew, Keyfa – which is the same as Kaiafah – a very specific condemnation of the fake Idumean High Priest at the temple.
Dear Joseph Richardson
Shalom.
You wrote:
The Bible is only one source. It is an infallible source, but to presume literal readings from Scripture when they contradict all other sources — when they even contradict other evidence within Scripture (e.g. the fact that Mark was known to be in Rome) — is not reasonable.
My comment:
We have reached the core point. You do not believe in the infallibility of the Bible. Regardless of the Bible being crystal clear, that Peter wrote one of his letters from Babylon, you use several sources, in a bid to prove that the Bible is wrong.
There is a bona fide prof in scriptures, that Peter traveled East from Jerusalem. There is not a single Biblical evidence, that Peter ever was in Rome. To the radical opposite. Such a claim goes against both common sense, and the written and confirmed calling of the two key Apostles.
You use the traditions of men, to set a side the Word of God. Even if a million people have distributed a lie, it will still be a lie. Let all men be liars, but God the truth.
The arrogance of Rome, is not new. Both the Thomas Church in India and the Assyrian Church of the East refused to bow before the Papal authority, based on a falsification of history. Rome has always represented a bid to defend a mixture of Christendom and paganism, to please all men who compromise on truth.
Jesus the Messiah was much tougher than me, when he spoke to hypocritical liars. He called them sons of the devil, brood of wipers, and white washed tombs. To make his disciples understand that there are walking dead’s among us, he said: “Let the dead go and bury their own dead”.
Judgment is at you door. If you continue to spread Vatican invented falsehood, you will not escape. Repent, or perish.
BTW. As the only Norwegian journalist who ever interviewed Alberto Rivera, and who still believe his testimony, you have come to the wrong person to try to convert.
The only Norwegian journalist to be hoodwinked? Alberto
Rivera was a liar and a fraud. There is not a single shred of evidence to substantiate a single one of his claims.
I have not come to “convert” anyone, but to offer and defend the truth. Ivar linked to my post. If you object to my being here, take it up with him.
I am not hoodwinked. I am not a part of the great whore of tribulation. And btw: Alberto was not a fraud, there has not been presented a single proof that has been viable as to that.
On the other hand I have seen loads of things that he said happen, through the almost 30 years since I met him at his humble home in California.
As for you being here, I am not objecting to that. Nor am I objecting to you, merely to that criminal organization you belong to, whom claim to be a “church”.
Here is a lengthy quotation of sources as to Rivera’s fraud:
Jack Chick’s Lies: The Real Alberto Rivera (with a letter from an Alberto supporter and counter-reply)
On the other hand, no one can offer any evidence verifying a single one of his claims about his past. In fact, as you can see, quite the contrary.
Again, what are your grounds for supposing that the Catholic Church is “not a church”?
Not sources. Unproven allegations.
I on the other hand, have met him, and I know in my spirit this man was a true brother in the Messiah. I have seen his documents, and they were clearly genuine.
Grounds: Well. Hitler was a catholic. Mussolini as well. And Franco. And Pavelic. Stalin was trained by jesuits. And the Czar family was killed by Jesuits. The “Church” of Rome has murdered at least 72 million people, not including those through her daughter islam, and her daughter socialism.
At this point I consider this debate moot. You clearly won’t listen to the truth, and I am going to bed.
Speaking of unproven allegations: The Czar’s family was killed by atheistic Bolsheviks, not Jesuits. Stalin was raised in a Russian Orthodox school, not Roman Catholic — he has no relations with Jesuits. There is absolutely no evidence that the Catholic Church has killed “72 million” people or anywhere close to that number. If we are going to speak about the truth here, we should only make claims we can back up with evidence.
Of those dictators who were undeniably Catholic: I trust no sinners have ever set foot in your church. To judge the billion Catholics alive today as un-Christian, or the billion others who have lived throughout the ages, let alone the whole Church itself, on the basis of a handful of sinners — monstrous, atrocious sinners, let there be no doubt — is unreasonable. The Church excoriates everything those people have done.
If you want to talk about “listening to the truth,” I am the one in this conversation offering evidence for my claims; you are the one citing wild conspiracy theories with no basis in evidence, alleged by a proven fraud with no basis for his claims. If a single one of his claims were true, don’t you think, somewhere in the hundreds of thousands of Catholic priests in the world, someone else would step forward?
May His peace be with you, brother.
Dear Joseph Richardson
Shalom.
The Mother of Jesus was either a sinner, or she was sinless. She could not have been both. Either “Catholic Mary”, or the Mary (Miriam) of the Bible is a copy of the true woman that birthed the Messiah.
This is not a trivial issue. Since the Bible explain that the Mother of Jesus was a Torah obeying Jewess, who offered a sin offering in the Temple, and the Papacy claim the radical opposite.
I have chosen to obey the Scriptures. Not the Papacy. If you obey the claim of the Pope, you submit to a lie, and worship, venerate and adore stone and wood, made into the likeness of a pagan goddess, holding a son in her arms. Just like Isis did, and Semiramis in Babylon. Just google and look at the pictures of the Egyptian mother of gods, Isis, holding her son Horus.
May be your eyes will be opened, and you can see the Spiritual truth, and start to obey.
Dear Lars-Toralf Utnes Storstrand
Shalom.
I do not want any debate about Riviero, inside this debate on the Apostle Peter, and the Popes claim to be his successor. Do not derail this debate.
LI thilnk that your absolutelly right Lars-Toralf Utnes Storstrand
your five hours ahead of us here in England..
I will pray for you Joseph.
OK. I’ll abide. But actually it is Josephson who debates Rivera. Not me.
does it really matter anyway where Peter was buried, ..it does not affect the clear teachings/doctrines of God, the catholic so called church are always engineering the truth or historical facts, in fact I would not be surprised if they actually brought the bones, or a false bone-set to rome, to keep their followers/adherents glued in to the Cult of the Whore of Babylon !!!
Dear spookchristian
Shalom.
You must not live in ignorance to “Petrine theology”, the doctrine the Roman Catholic Church stand up on. If this is false, than the RCC is doomed.
1. Peter was the head of the Apostles.
2. Peter traveled to Rome.
3. Peter become the first Bishop of Rome.
4 Peter chose his successor, and handed over his authority as the leader of the World Church.
5. Peter was martyred in Rome, crucified on a up-side-down cross.
All of this, is a pack of lies. It have no merits in the Bible, and has been used to build a very wicked and deceptive religion. All the reformers of the Church, called the seat of the Pope, for a seat of an antichrist.
But it matters where Peter was not buried. Because it proves the erroneous claims of the Vatican.
yes I understand that thank you Lars,,
God Bless You Brother,,
I understand the point ,, but it is one of those endless arguments etc,,,
I do agree that it is a point that needs to be made though.
You are much like me, brother, we need to learn the hard way that feeding swine with pearls is moot.
god Bless You Lars.. 😀
I absolutely agree with you Ivarfjeld, was just making the point that the silliness and blasphemies of Rome, are not going to affect sound biblical teaching etc,,, but of course you are absolutely right,,,
The papacy just never stop coming out with this evil rubbish, …I am aware of Petrine theology Ivarfjeld, …I’m just beginning to think that it is more important to defend the faith from scripture…
Trouble is , that Catholics do not even take any notice of god’s word either.
Catholicism is indeed the whore of babyon, as in Revelation 17.
****babylon typo..
Reblogged this on The Iniquitous: Church Crimes.
I love this post! As a former catholic, I know the deception. I am so very thankful that the Lord opened my eyes one morning in particular. So thankful!
Even if they are the real bones of Peter, they are still ‘just bones’ bones of a man. Look to Jesus folks, not some bones.