for Christians & Messianic Jews

Forum index page

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16

Pro Rege (For the King)


Log in | Register
Forgot your password?





Was Saint Peter buried in Rome or in Jerusalem? (archeology)


The archeological proof of the existence of St. Peters tomb under St. Peters basilica in Rome.

"Nero...publicly announcing himself as the first among God's chief enemies, he 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. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome [about 200 AD.]. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: "But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church." And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: "You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth." [Eusebius, [A.D. 303] (Church History 2:25:5-8)]

On Wednesday 26th June 1968, Pope Paul VI, conducting an audience in the basilica of Saint Peter in Rome, departed from his normal routine to issue a statement of enormous significance to the Holy See, Roman Catholics and Christians throughout the world: the Pope declared that the mortal remains of Peter, foremost of the Apostles of Jesus Christ, had been found beneath
the great church in which he was speaking. The statement marked the culmination of one of the most famous and important archaeological investigations of recent times; a vast undertaking which had engaged the talents of scientists, historians and linguists for a quarter of a century.



Among the more than 30,000 Greek and Latin inscriptions have been discovered in the catacombs of Rome, is this marble slab above is from about the year 313 A.D. The slab sealed the tomb of a little boy named Asellus and the inscription goes on to tell us that he had lived 5 years, 8 months and 23 days. To the left we see the images of the Saints Peter and Paul, with the monogram of Christ above the name of Peter. The fact that the Gospel of Jesus brought to Rome by St. Peter and St. Paul was clearly professed by the early Christian community there.

The Archaeologists found the early Christian Monogram used for the name of St. Peter over two dozen times, on and around the tomb of the Apostle.

But when Kirschbaum looked more carefully inside the cavity, he noticed that right at one end, where the grave stretched underneath the Red Wall, there was a small pile of bones. The Vatican excavators summoned the Pope immediately and shortly after the closing of the basilica Pius XII seated himself on a stool beside the cavity and watched Englebert Kirschbaum slowly hand out the fragments of bone to his colleagues. Most of the fragments were small but some were larger. Part of a breastbone was handed out, and then half of a shoulder blade. There was no skull. This absence of the remains of Peter's head did not disturb Pius XII or the excavators, on the contrary, it actually confirmed one of the great traditions of the medieval church. All those present, the Pope and the excavators, knew that a skull in the basilica of Saint John Lateran since at least the ninth century, was widely believed to be that of Peter. Obviously, the skull had been taken from this grave at some stage in the early medieval period to adorn the parish church of the Pope himself.

Dr Galeazzi-Lisi reported back on the remains discovered beneath the aedicula. They were the bones of a powerfully built man who had been 65 or 70 years of age at the time of his death. But it is a tribute to the professionalism of the excavators and the caution of Pius XII himself that the Pope reported the discoveries to the world in the following terms in his Christmas broadcast on 23rd of December 1950:

Has the tomb of Saint Peter really been found? To that question the answer is beyond all doubt yes. The tomb of the Prince of the Apostles has been found. Such is the final conclusion after all the labor and study of these years. A second question, subordinate to the first, refers to the relics of Saint Peter. Have they been found? At the side of the tomb remains of human bones have been discovered. However, it is impossible to prove with certainty that they belong to the apostle. This still leaves intact the historical reality of the tomb itself.

Read more about this archeological search in Rome: HERE



Was Peter's real tomb discovered in Jerusalem in 1953?


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:

In Jerusalem the writer 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 foundthe 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".

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.

When Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary to be an article of faith in 1950, the Catholic Church in Jerusalem then quickly sold the tomb of Mary to the Armenian Church. Ex-priest Lavallo told me personally that there is another tomb of St. Mary in Ephesus. But the tomb of St. Peter is altogether different for they would rather that it never existed, and to buy or sell such a site would be out of the question. It fell upon them in this manner, as I was told by a Franciscan monk of the monastery of "Dominus Flevit". One of their members was spading the ground on this site in 1953, when his shovel fell through. Excavation was started and there, a large underground Christian burial ground was uncovered. The initial of Christ in Greek was written there which would never have been found in a Jewish, Arab or pagan cemetery. By the structure of the writings, it was established by scientists that they were of the days just before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D. On the ossuaries were found many names of the Christian of the early Church. It was prophesied in the Bible that Jesus would stand on the Mount of Olives at His return to earth. You can see then, how the Christians would be inclined to have their burial ground on the Mount, for here also, had been a favorite meeting place of Jesus and His disciples. In all the cemetery, nothing was found (as also in the Catacombs in Rome) which resemble Arab, Jewish, Catholic or pagan practices. Dr. Glueck, being Jewish, is not fully aware, no doubt, that such a discovery is very embarrassing since it undermines the very foundation of the Roman Catholic Church. Since Peter did not live in Rome and therefore was not martyred or buried there, it naturally follows that he was not their first Pope.

Read more about this archeological search in Jerusalem:



Charlotte, NC,

@ bibleprobe

Was Saint Peter buried in Rome or in Jerusalem?

I highly doubt this discovery in Jerusalem is authentic, otherwise scripture would be in error. Jesus clearly sets Peter as the foundation of His Church.

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 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. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, F32 and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Besides I thought creationists didn't believe in the science of archeology.
You have many good articles here, but some of your sources are questionable, especially your references to the Bayside prophesies. You admonish people to beware of apparitions of the Virgin Mary by claiming that most of them are satanic in origin, yet you have managed to quote from the very one that is truly satanic. These apparitions were soundly denounced by the Vatican because they are doctrinally in error. When I first read these messages, I was spiritually disturbed by the harsh tone of the alleged messages. Mary and Jesus actually accuse and condemn many people, like Franklin D. Roosevelt, and claim that they are in hell. Remember John 3:17: For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Also, the messages are a direct attack on the second Vatican council reforms, claiming that Latin is the original and only language of the liturgy. This is a lie, of course, because Greek is the first language used by the Apostles, and even the Byzantine Rite is a valid rite of the Catholic Church. Not all of the eastern Churches joined in the schism of 1054, and they are still in communion with Rome and have always used the Byzantine Rite. These messages are clearly aimed at the traditionalists who reject any reforms to the liturgy.

May the Holy Spirit open your mind and your heart, that you may be able to discern what is true and what is false. In the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, amen.

We must obey God rather than men



(edited by bibleprobe, 10.29.2006)

@ Lorenzo

Lorenzo - my post was about the bones! Only the bones.


This post was ALL ABOUT the "bones". Where are the bones of Saint Peter? Who is right? Is the Vatican covering something up? I can see nowhere in this post where I indicated that I questioned that the Apostle Peter was the chief among the Apostles, or that Jesus handed him the "keys". I am merely questioning whether Pope Pius XII issued a hasty message to the world in 1950. Pope Pius XII said in his Christmas radio message on Dec. 23, 1950: The essential question is as follows has the tomb of St. Peter really been found? The final conclusion of the work and studies answers that question with a most clear yes. The tomb of the Prince of the Apostles has been found."

We can begin a talk about whether "1st Bishop" equates in any way whatsoever with the "Papacy System" either now or later. But this was not the intent of my post. We can even morph that discussion into saying all bishops up to certain ones were legitimate, by the laying on of hands. What happens to the link when a "political appointee" becomes pope? Or what happens when the office of pope is bought and sold. Is any pope after this one legitimate?

Where is the legitimacy when we have two Anti-Popes in 687 A.D. (Theodore & Pascal) and again in 767 A.D. (Constantine & Philip)? Well there were 41 Anti-Popes from 200 A.D. - 1449 A.D.

And what about the 18 Year old political appointed Pope? The younger Alberic, after the downfall of his mother, Marozia (932 A.D.), was absolute ruler at Rome. Before his death he administered an oath (954 A.D.) to the Roman nobles in St. Peter's, that on the next vacancy of the papal chair his only son, Octavius, should be elected pope. After the death of the reigning pontiff, Agapetus II, Octavius, then eighteen years of age, was actually chosen his successor on 16 December, 955 A.D., and took the name of John XII (12th). According to Holy Roman Emperor Otto I (Great), Christian pilgrim women were afraid to go to Saint Peters because the Pope (John 12th) was known as a womanizer. This Pope also had illegitimate children.

Holy Roman Emperor German Otto III established his 24 year old cousin Bruno (1st German pope) in the vacant papacy as Gregory V (996 A.D.) and restored him (998 A.D.) after his expulsion by a Roman revolt. After Gregory's death (in 999 A.D.), Otto installed his tutor, the first French pope, Gerbert of Aurillac as pope (see Sylvester II).

What I think people should see in this post is that either the bones have been found on Vatican Hill, or they have not. Or, have they been found in a Jerusalem ossuary, labeled with his name? Or, is this find a fake? Or is the Vatican Hill find a fake, or wishful thinking? Who is right? We know that Paul went to visit Peter in Jerusalem in about 40 A.D.(Gal 1, 18-20).

Why didn't anyone even bring up the possibility that Peter left Rome perhaps to visit Jerusalem, and actually did die in Jerusalem. Or, he did die in Rome, but his bones were shipped to Jerusalem to be buried on the Mount of Olives, a place he had a great connection to?

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, in 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 (Galatians 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," (Galatians 2:11).

Now, what would be the motive for the Vatican playing down the Jerusalem find? It needs legitimacy? It definetely needs and wants to show a bishopric connection between Peter and the Congregation in Rome. An "at large" Peter, like an "at large" Paul would be a deathblow to the legitimacy of the "papal system".

What you need to realize Lorenzo is that the chief issue for the Protestant Reformation was the corrupt "Papal System" itself. The bad thing is that Protestants distanced themselves from the "Apostolic traditions" by breaking away. One often hears Protestants speaking against the "apostolic tradition" as "traditions of man". Yet their is a wealth of Christianity in the writings of the early Church Fathers, and in the true stories of the early Church martyrs. These belong to both Protestants and Catholics.

There is NO evidence that Jesus, or even Peter ever established, or had in mind any "God on earth/Vicar of Christ" type papal system. What is not of God bears bad fruits. And, the papacy is the cause of much "bad fruit", all through what we call the "dark ages", from 583 A.D. to 1798 A.D.

Knowing that the Lord thought badly about the religious "systems"; whoever dreamed that after the prophecized (Daniel's) "retainer" (Roman power) was removed that the Lord's Church would morph from a "head shepherd/bishop/teacher" system to the "all powerful" papacy? The Easter Synod of 680 A.D. called by Pope Agatho was the first ecclesiastical body that asserted the primacy of Rome over the rest of the Church, but this was not an ecumenical council of the entire Church, so its decision was not generally accepted.

But to create a "good ole boy" system of "professional clerics", such as the Jews had is a bit too much I think. I don't think either Jesus or Peter had any "all powerful" papacy in mind. The Papacy is often politically appointed professional clerics always choosing other clerics as Pope. In theory any Catholic can be Pope, but it is never likely to happen.

We do have evidence from Paul that Christian men were to pass along what they learned to others (teachers). But what should we have knowing what the Lord thought of any Priesthood? Priests? or Teachers? Paul says; "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2:2

On the other hand, Baptists and some other Protestant denominations have a much closer "system" to the early church system. The people themselves hire and fire, cloth and feed their ministers and pastors. The people own the building/church. One thing that particularly discussed me here in Massachusetts after many church closings following the sex abuse scandals involving priests here --was that all the money from the sale of Church properties went into Catholic Church coffers. Who was it that paid to buy the land and build the churches in the first place? It was the people/the parishoners.

The remarkable thing, however, about Peters alleged bishopric in Rome is that the New Testament has not one word to say about it. Unless, and I am not discounting this. Most probably, "codewords" were needed/used because Rome was searching out Christian leaders, especially Peter & Paul. So, what if we interpret the word "Babylon" as a codeword for Rome in 1 Peter 5:13, which says; "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus (Mark) my son." Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that It is said that Peters 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.

Only Rome and Jerusalem can probably be thought of as "Babylon". The city in Iraq does not make sense. Most likely it refers to pagan Rome who "drunk the blood" of the martyred saints. Another angel, a second, followed, saying, And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. (Rev. 14:8). And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. (Rev. 16:19). And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. (Rev. 17:5-6). And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. (Rev. 18:2). Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. (Rev. 18:10). ...Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down... (Rev. 18:21).

Again, I point to the importance of the writings of the early Church Fathers, to help us "piece" things together. The 2nd bit of evidence that we have other than 1 Peter 5:13 is this from Tertullian. In his The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), Tertullian wrote about Rome, How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like Johns [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].

The word Rome occurs only 10 times in the New Testament, and never is Peter mentioned in connection with it. Pauls journey to the city is recorded in great detail (Acts 27 and 28). Yet, very little is said about where Peter, or any of the apostles other than Paul went in the years after the Ascension of the Lord.

We have evidence from both History and Scripture of an Apostolic tradition. We know that the Apostles appointed successors. Peter was originally bishop or patriarch of Antioch, and appointed Evodius as bishop there in his place, well before he died. Evodius died in 68 A.D. and was replaced by Ignatius of Antioch as bishop. Eusebius, (Historia Ecclesiastica, II.iii.22) records that Ignatius (born: around 50 A.D.)(aka: Also called Theophorus) who died a martyrs death in Rome succeeded Evodius. Theodoret (Dial. Immutab., I, iv, 33a) states that Peter himself appointed Ignatius to the see of Antioch. Does this mean that Peter must have been in Antioch in 68 A.D. on the death of Evodius, and he either returned to Rome or was never killed in Rome. Or was he? Could Ignatius have travelled to Rome? Or, was Ignatius in Rome when word reached there that his bishop (Evodius) had died? Writing in his Letter to the Romans, one of the seven epistles (all 7 survived) Ignatius wrote us a clue about Peter's bishopric in Rome, as he was being taken under guard from Antioch to Rome (to be martyred in the Flavian Amphitheatre) in about 110 A.D.. Ignatius of Antioch remarked in one of his epistles that "he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did."

The passage by Irenaeus of Lyons (died about 202 A.D.) (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:

"The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes.

In Liber Pontificalis it was claimed that Linus was buried on the Vatican Hill. In the 7th century an inscription was found near the confessional of St Peter, which was believed to contain the name Linus.

Pope Clement I (80 A.D.) wrote:

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:45, 44:13 [A.D. 80]).

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

In fact, it is not the Catholic Church who is in apostasy right now, it is many of the Protestant churches who are, as they are allowing Satan to infiltrate them, and erode biblical truths. The Catholic Church, unlike very many Protestant denominations --is actually standing fast against abortion, ordination of women priesteses, and against homosexuals in the clergy. Catholics were infiltrated by Satan via homosexuals in their clergy and nunneries. But, they are removing them from their clergy and nunneries following the recent priest abuse scandals which was due to them having let down their guard; unknowingly allowing homosexuals into their clergy since the 1970's. All the while many Protestant churches are now welcoming homosexuals into their clergy. Catholics also do not allow any of its members into satan's fan club, known as Masonry. Whereas, Protestants and Protestant clergymen fill the ranks of masonry.


There have been numerous Marian appearances every century since the first.

In her life, Mary was "Blessed among woman", because she was chosen to give birth to Jesus Christ. As Christians we rightly hold Mary in high esteem, as the Lord most certainly did/does. Mary deserves our utmost respect and gratitude. But nowhere in the Bible do we find that Mary is a goddess, or that she resides in Heaven today honored as the Queen of Heaven. Although, I can think of nobody more worthy of such an honor than Mary.

History has shown that this humble servant has made quite a difference though, and she just may have a very important mission. Her apparitions have been in the thousands since the First Century.

Shortly after her apparition in Guadalupe, Mexico in the 1500's, over 6 million Mexicans were converted to the Christian Faith. Wherever in the world today, where there had been a pagan shrine or pagan worship, we find nearly always a shrine or church dedicated to Mary and the Lord Jesus.

That having been said, I always include something like the following Caveat before I give a link to any Marian Appearance:

Extreme Caution: Bible Probe thinks that not all apparitions of Mary occurring around the world are actually Godly. Most are probably demons come to lie and deceive.

Satan could be counterfeiting these apparitions, just as He is probably doing with UFO's. Any message such as a recent Marian apparition in Yugoslavia; that the world's religions are to unite, or that all religions "are equal" have to be thought of as Satanic New Age lies. Another lie was perpetrated when a so-called Mary told a girl in Marienfried, Germany that "only through her (Mary) could you find intercession with her son, Jesus". We read in 1 Timothy 2: 5 - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

The Bible commands us to "test the spirits" whether they be Godly or Satanic. When exploring the messages at the below links, always keep this in mind. No apparition of Mary can be considered Godly if any Scripture teaching is violated.

Lorenzo, I need to ask you about the following comment you made regarding the St Peter bones post: "Besides I thought creationists didn't believe in the science of archeology." Now, I need to ask you, how can anyone be a Christian and not be a creationist?

And yes, even as a creationist I follow archeology. I await my monthly copy of Biblical Archeology Review. It has done nothing but strengthen my faith in the Bible.

As to Franklin Roosevelt. I don't even want to go there. I do know he could have acted much quicker, and done a lot more to help the Jews that were dying in the Nazi holocaust. In 1939, the State Department under Roosevelt did not allow a boat of Jews fleeing from the Nazis into the United States. When the passenger ship St. Louis approached the coast of Florida with nearly a thousand German Jews fleeing persecution by Hitler, Roosevelt did not respond to telegrams from passengers requesting asylum, and the State Department refused entry to the ship. Forced to return to Antwerp, many of the passengers eventually died in concentration camps.

After 1942, when Roosevelt was made aware of the Nazi extermination of the Jews by Rabbi Stephen Wise, the Polish envoy Jan Karski and others, he told them that the best solution was to destroy Nazi Germany.

And he did deceive people by hiding his polio. Beyond that. I make no judgments on this man, who history seems to show as having been a good man. I think he was an Episcopalian. A church-going man.

Franklin did say this:
I do not believe in communism any more than you do but there is nothing wrong with the Communists in this country. Several of the best friends I have got are Communists.



Charlotte, NC,

@ bibleprobe

Lorenzo - my post was about the bones! Only the bones.

My point is that you shouldn't always believe everything you read, except for scripture. It was not uncommon back then to exhume the remains of saints and transport them elsewhere. The article even states that St Peter's skull was taken to St John Lateran. This is symbolically significant since this is the actually Cathedral of the Bishop of Rome, the head of the Catholic Church. I'm sure part of his remains even ended up in Jerusalem. Incidentally, did you know that even Christopher Columbus is buried in two different places? My real concern, though, is your references to the Bayside prophesies. These are truly satanic messages, and you would be best to avoid them. I have a difficult time reading your posts when you make reference to them, because I can actually feel the hatred of the devil in them.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

We must obey God rather than men


Homepage E-mail


@ bibleprobe

Very Interesting Here!

Hello world! I'm from Latvia, I now have a computer and Internet! It's so interesting here! But on some forums I see strange posts, they offer to buy some pills or something and they look very stupid. It is robots posting? I thought moderators should delete such posts. Maybe somebody will explain me what's going on? But at all it is very interesting to speak to all you people!
Kisses! :)



Charlotte, NC,

@ Lorenzo

Lorenzo - my post was about the bones! Only the bones.

We must obey God rather than men

for Christians & Messianic Jews | Admin contact                   
14153 Postings in 4317 Threads, 163 registered users
[ Home ] [ Rules ] [ Gospel ] [ World News ] [ Israel News ] [ Online Bible ] [ Gays ] [ Abortion ] [ Masons ]

[ Jesus ][ Islam ][ Miracles ][ Near Death ][ Creationism ][ Bible Codes ] New Age ][ Israel ]

Christian Music ] [ Israel Video News ] [ [ Funny clips ] [ Games ]

other interesting sites:

(Apocalypse Board) (Answers in Genesis) (Spirit Daily) (Mallett Blog) (Parable of Lazarus) (23 min video in Hell) (Amil Imani) (1 hr Video on Hell) (Israel Travel Guide)  ( ( (Israelitybites) [Jesus paid for our debt] [26 End times signs]

Above hits since 19 April 2011
(red dots show where visitors are from)