for Christians & Messianic Jews
Non-denominational
Home

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?





   

Lorenzo - my post was about the bones! Only the bones. (archeology)

posted by bibleprobe(R) Homepage, Mass., 10.29.2006
(edited by bibleprobe on 10.29.2006)

Lorenzo:

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".

NOW, IN DEFENSE OF THE PROTESTANT OPINION:
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.

TEACHERS VERSUS CLERICS:
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.

NOW, IN DEFENSE OF THE CATHOLIC OPINION:
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.

MARIAN APPEARANCES:

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.

 


Complete thread:

                                                                              
                                                      
for Christians & Messianic Jews | Admin contact                   
13801 Postings in 4296 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)  (TraditionalValues.org) (FakeMessiah.com) (Israelitybites) [Jesus paid for our debt] [26 End times signs]
 

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