LIES the Roman Catholic Church , Gets Away With
I don't think most people fully understand the LIES the Roman Catholic Church ,
gets away with . Saint Peter was not " nail upside down " nor { Died } in Rome .
Peter’s Tomb Recently Discovered In Jerusalem
by F. PAUL PETERSON
Saint Peter's Tomb
The Discovery of Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem
1953
In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though
reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in
Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where
Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The
pictures show the story. The first show an excavation where the names of
Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The
names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with
the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found
on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within
twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were
foundâ€"the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside
of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".
I talked to a Yale professor, who is an archaeologist, and was director of the
American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. He told me that it would be
very improbable that a name with three words, and one so complete, could refer
to any other than St. Peter.
H3124 H1247 H8095
But what makes the possibility of error more remote is that the remains were
found in a Christian burial ground, and more yet, of the first century, the very
time in which Peter lived. In fact, I have a letter from a noted scientist
stating that he can tell by the writing that it was written just before the
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D
I talked to priest Milik, the co-writer of this Italian book, in the presence of
my friend, a Christian Arab, Mr. S. J. Mattar, who now is the warden of the
Garden Tomb, where Jesus was buried and rose again. This priest, Milik, admitted
that he knew that the bones of St. Peter are not in Rome. I was very much
surprised that he would admit that, so to confirm his admittance, I said, to
which he also agreed, "There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was
buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." This was something of an understatement, for
he knew as I know that there is absolutely no evidence at all that Peter was
buried in Rome.
I also spoke to a Franciscan priest in authority at the priest’s printing
plant within the walls of old Jerusalem, where their book on the subject was
printed. He also admitted that the tomb of St. Peter is in Jerusalem. Then when
I visited the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, I encountered a Franciscan
monk. After telling him what I thought of the wonderful discovery the
Franciscans had made, I asked him plainly, "Do you folks really believe that
those are the remains of St. Peter?" He responded, "Yes we do, we have no choice
in the matter. The clear evidence is there." I did not doubt the evidence, but
what surprised me was that these priests and monks believed that which was
against their own religion and on top of that, to admit it to others was
something out of this world. Usually a Catholic, either because he is
brainwashed or stubbornly doesn’t want to see anything only that which he has
been taught, will not allow himself to believe anything against his religion,
much less to admit it to others. But there is a growing, healthy attitude among
many Catholics, to "prove all things, hold fast to that which is good" as the
Master admonished us all.
Then I asked, "Does Father Bagatti (co-writer of the book in Italian on the
subject, and archaeologist) really believe that those are the bones of St.
Peter?" "Yes, he does," was the reply. Then I asked, "But what does the Pope
think of all this?" That was a thousand dollar question and he gave me a million
dollar answer. "Well," he confidentially answered in a hushed voice, "Father
Bagatti told me personally that three years ago he went to the Pope (Pius XII)
in Rome and showed him the evidence and the Pope said to him, ‘Well, we will
have to make some changes, but for the time being, keep this thing quiet’." In
awe I asked also in a subdued voice, "So the Pope really believes that those are
the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes," was his answer. "The documentary evidence is
there, he could not help but believe."
The Catholic Church says that Peter was Pope in Rome from 41 to 66 A.D., a
period of twenty-five years, but the Bible shows a different story. The book of
the Acts of the Apostles (in either the Catholic or Protestant Bible) records
the following: Peter was preaching the Gospel to the circumcision (the Jews) in
Caesarea and Joppa in Palestine, ministering unto the household of Cornelius,
which is a distance of 1,800 miles from Rome (Acts 10:23, 24). Soon after, about
the year 44 A.D. (Acts 12), Peter was cast into prison in Jerusalem by Herod,
but he was released by an angel. From 46 to 52 A.D., we read in the 13th chapter
that he was in Jerusalem preaching the difference between Law and Grace. Saul
was converted in 34 A.D. and became Paul the Apostle (Acts 9). Paul tells us
that three years after his conversion in 37 A.D., he "went up to Jerusalem to
see Peter" (Galatians 1:18), and in 51 A.D., fourteen years later, he again went
up to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1, 8), Peter being mentioned. Soon after that he met
Peter in Antioch, and as Paul says, "Withstood him to the face, because he was
to be blamed," Gal. 2:11. The evidence is abundant, the truth is clear from the
Scriptures which have never failed. It would be breathtaking to read of the
boldness of Paul in dealing with Peter. Very few, if any, have withstood a Pope
and lived (except in these days when everybody seems to withstand him). If Peter
were Pope it would have been no different. Paul does not only withstand Peter
but rebukes him and blames him of being at fault.
First of all, it could not refer to a relative before St. Peter for the
Christian burial ground could only have come into being after Jesus began. His
public ministry and had converts; and therefore, could not belong to a relative
before Peter’s time, since only those who were converted through Christ’s
ministry were buried there. Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and left it
desolate. Therefore, it is impossible that the inscription could refer to a
relative after Peter’s time. One encyclopedia explains the destruction in
these words, ‘‘With this event the history of ancient Jerusalem came to a
close, for it was left desolate and it’s inhabitants were scattered abroad."
From all evidence, Peter was about fifty years old when Jesus called him to be
an Apostle, and he died around the age of 82, or about the year 62 A.D
This ancient Christian burial ground shows that Peter died and was buried in
Jerusalem, which is easily understandable since neither history nor the Bible
tells of Peter’s having been in Rome. To make matters more clear, the Bible
tells us that Peter was the Apostle to the Hebrews. It was Paul who was the
Apostle to the Gentiles, and both history and the Bible tells of his being in
Rome. No wonder that the Roman Catholic Bishop, Strossmayer, in his great speech
against papal infallibility before the Pope and the Council of 1870 said,
"Scaliger, one of the most learned men, has not hesitated to say that St.
Peter’s episcopate and residence in Rome ought to be classed with ridiculous
legends."
Eusebius, one of the most learned men of his time, wrote the Church history up
to the year 325 A.D. He said that Peter never was in Rome. This Church history
was translated by Jerome from the original Greek, but in his translation he
added a fantastic story of Peter’s residence in Rome. This was a common
practice in trying to create credence in their doctrines, using false
statements, false letters and falsified history. This is another reason why we
cannot rely on tradition, but only on the infallible Word of YHWH.
I don't think most people fully understand the LIES the Roman Catholic Church ,
gets away with . Saint Peter was not " nail upside down " nor { Died } in Rome .
Peter’s Tomb Recently Discovered In Jerusalem
by F. PAUL PETERSON
Saint Peter's Tomb
The Discovery of Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem
1953
In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though
reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in
Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where
Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The
pictures show the story. The first show an excavation where the names of
Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The
names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with
the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found
on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within
twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were
foundâ€"the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside
of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".
I talked to a Yale professor, who is an archaeologist, and was director of the
American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. He told me that it would be
very improbable that a name with three words, and one so complete, could refer
to any other than St. Peter.
H3124 H1247 H8095
But what makes the possibility of error more remote is that the remains were
found in a Christian burial ground, and more yet, of the first century, the very
time in which Peter lived. In fact, I have a letter from a noted scientist
stating that he can tell by the writing that it was written just before the
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D
I talked to priest Milik, the co-writer of this Italian book, in the presence of
my friend, a Christian Arab, Mr. S. J. Mattar, who now is the warden of the
Garden Tomb, where Jesus was buried and rose again. This priest, Milik, admitted
that he knew that the bones of St. Peter are not in Rome. I was very much
surprised that he would admit that, so to confirm his admittance, I said, to
which he also agreed, "There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was
buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." This was something of an understatement, for
he knew as I know that there is absolutely no evidence at all that Peter was
buried in Rome.
I also spoke to a Franciscan priest in authority at the priest’s printing
plant within the walls of old Jerusalem, where their book on the subject was
printed. He also admitted that the tomb of St. Peter is in Jerusalem. Then when
I visited the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, I encountered a Franciscan
monk. After telling him what I thought of the wonderful discovery the
Franciscans had made, I asked him plainly, "Do you folks really believe that
those are the remains of St. Peter?" He responded, "Yes we do, we have no choice
in the matter. The clear evidence is there." I did not doubt the evidence, but
what surprised me was that these priests and monks believed that which was
against their own religion and on top of that, to admit it to others was
something out of this world. Usually a Catholic, either because he is
brainwashed or stubbornly doesn’t want to see anything only that which he has
been taught, will not allow himself to believe anything against his religion,
much less to admit it to others. But there is a growing, healthy attitude among
many Catholics, to "prove all things, hold fast to that which is good" as the
Master admonished us all.
Then I asked, "Does Father Bagatti (co-writer of the book in Italian on the
subject, and archaeologist) really believe that those are the bones of St.
Peter?" "Yes, he does," was the reply. Then I asked, "But what does the Pope
think of all this?" That was a thousand dollar question and he gave me a million
dollar answer. "Well," he confidentially answered in a hushed voice, "Father
Bagatti told me personally that three years ago he went to the Pope (Pius XII)
in Rome and showed him the evidence and the Pope said to him, ‘Well, we will
have to make some changes, but for the time being, keep this thing quiet’." In
awe I asked also in a subdued voice, "So the Pope really believes that those are
the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes," was his answer. "The documentary evidence is
there, he could not help but believe."
The Catholic Church says that Peter was Pope in Rome from 41 to 66 A.D., a
period of twenty-five years, but the Bible shows a different story. The book of
the Acts of the Apostles (in either the Catholic or Protestant Bible) records
the following: Peter was preaching the Gospel to the circumcision (the Jews) in
Caesarea and Joppa in Palestine, ministering unto the household of Cornelius,
which is a distance of 1,800 miles from Rome (Acts 10:23, 24). Soon after, about
the year 44 A.D. (Acts 12), Peter was cast into prison in Jerusalem by Herod,
but he was released by an angel. From 46 to 52 A.D., we read in the 13th chapter
that he was in Jerusalem preaching the difference between Law and Grace. Saul
was converted in 34 A.D. and became Paul the Apostle (Acts 9). Paul tells us
that three years after his conversion in 37 A.D., he "went up to Jerusalem to
see Peter" (Galatians 1:18), and in 51 A.D., fourteen years later, he again went
up to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1, 8), Peter being mentioned. Soon after that he met
Peter in Antioch, and as Paul says, "Withstood him to the face, because he was
to be blamed," Gal. 2:11. The evidence is abundant, the truth is clear from the
Scriptures which have never failed. It would be breathtaking to read of the
boldness of Paul in dealing with Peter. Very few, if any, have withstood a Pope
and lived (except in these days when everybody seems to withstand him). If Peter
were Pope it would have been no different. Paul does not only withstand Peter
but rebukes him and blames him of being at fault.
First of all, it could not refer to a relative before St. Peter for the
Christian burial ground could only have come into being after Jesus began. His
public ministry and had converts; and therefore, could not belong to a relative
before Peter’s time, since only those who were converted through Christ’s
ministry were buried there. Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and left it
desolate. Therefore, it is impossible that the inscription could refer to a
relative after Peter’s time. One encyclopedia explains the destruction in
these words, ‘‘With this event the history of ancient Jerusalem came to a
close, for it was left desolate and it’s inhabitants were scattered abroad."
From all evidence, Peter was about fifty years old when Jesus called him to be
an Apostle, and he died around the age of 82, or about the year 62 A.D
This ancient Christian burial ground shows that Peter died and was buried in
Jerusalem, which is easily understandable since neither history nor the Bible
tells of Peter’s having been in Rome. To make matters more clear, the Bible
tells us that Peter was the Apostle to the Hebrews. It was Paul who was the
Apostle to the Gentiles, and both history and the Bible tells of his being in
Rome. No wonder that the Roman Catholic Bishop, Strossmayer, in his great speech
against papal infallibility before the Pope and the Council of 1870 said,
"Scaliger, one of the most learned men, has not hesitated to say that St.
Peter’s episcopate and residence in Rome ought to be classed with ridiculous
legends."
Eusebius, one of the most learned men of his time, wrote the Church history up
to the year 325 A.D. He said that Peter never was in Rome. This Church history
was translated by Jerome from the original Greek, but in his translation he
added a fantastic story of Peter’s residence in Rome. This was a common
practice in trying to create credence in their doctrines, using false
statements, false letters and falsified history. This is another reason why we
cannot rely on tradition, but only on the infallible Word of YHWH.
RSS Feed