Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Enfield · 04-12-2004, 12:41 PM

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nbasilica.html

Are these the remains of St.Peter? If so, then has the bible correctly told the story and therefore was it written during the time of Paul?...

I always thought that there was no evidence that the apostles were killed as they were said to have in the bible?...

Interesting stuff nonetheless.

Spanky · 04-12-2004, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Are these the remains of St.Peter? If so, then has the bible correctly told the story and therefore was it written during the time of Paul?...

I was just there and it pissed me off that there are people that think this is true. Just like in Jeruslm where they say the Garden is, or this is where he is buried is just all BS. :banghead: :banghead:
These are just like the shroud or other relics the church comes up with. They are just trying to make a myth seem real

funinspace · 04-12-2004, 01:14 PM

I wonder how many lies can fit on a proverbial pin head? This is an old story. If I remember right, the original Catholic archeologist saw lots of problems with what people wanted it to be, and got side lined. A more dogmatic team took over, and found what they wanted to find.

Secondly, the Bible says nothing of Peter's ending in life, just like Paul. No one really knows. Even if it was correct on the deaths, it wouldn't really mean any more than that. And would only tell that the relevant books weren't written before then. What we have is RC folklore. The site below may have something in it's archives. I think they try to stay somewhat neutral, but they are a Xian source, so let the buyer beware.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/

Maybe someone else around here will have a better source for more neutral information.

DK

funinspace · 04-12-2004, 01:29 PM

http://www.atheists.org/church/bones.html

This is quoted out of the obove link.

Quote:

A rather surprising answer to this question was given by Venerando Correnti,7 <> an anthropologist hired by the Vatican in 1956 to study the pope’s prized bones — the ones found in what Pius had certified to be the genuine tomb of St. Peter. Correnti first suspected that something was amiss when he pulled a third fibula from the pile of bones the pontiff had been hoarding for so long. Normal humans, of course, have only two fibulas — one in each leg. Then he discovered five tibias to supplement the three fibulas. This meant that he was dealing with five to eight legs! Although Peter was noted for his aquatic exploits — both as a fisherman and a water-walker — he was never mistaken for an octopus. And so, Correnti quickly must have realized the pope had been guarding the remains of more than one person: two men and an old woman, he finally decided. The men were adjudged to have been in their fifties when they died, the woman in her seventies.
In addition to the human remains, Correnti’s collaborator Luigi Cardini identified bones that once galumphed around as hogs, sheep, and goats — and some that scratched around as chickens. Perhaps a fourth of the bones extracted from the alleged authentic grave of Peter — fifty or sixty fragments altogether8 <> — came from a Roman barnyard instead of from the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Unlike the bones said to have been found inside the graffiti-covered wall, the bones actually taken from the “true tomb of the Prince of Apostles�? are not venerated. Quietly, they have been stored away in some secret location.

Enfield · 04-12-2004, 02:47 PM

So we can safely say that those arent the bones of Peter?

Like, what does science say?

spin · 04-12-2004, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spanky

I was just there and it pissed me off that there are people that think this is true. Just like in Jeruslm where they say the Garden is, or this is where he is buried is just all BS.

The tour guide is a crafty soul whose interest in the job he or she does is principally to make as much money as possible from the tourist that will only ever be seen once. This is done by telling the tourist as closely as possible what is perceived to be the desired information sought. This is turned into routine for certain information is more popular than other kinds and the tour guide builds up a patter for the audience which is assumed to be functionally uniform in needs. That routine may in fact contain information which to the tour guide is known to be gross misrepresentation of the facts, but what is more important to the tour guide is the performance, for, if it is good, the tourist goes away happy and the guide with extra tips. It's a good example of the happiness principle in the marketplace, as is bargaining in bazaars. If everyone goes away happy then there are no problems. (This is also the case with those who administer the site, though in a slightly less commercial way.)

Smartasses are not appreciated because they impinge on the task at hand of extracting denarii from the tourist. Two possible choices are first avoid the tour guide and miss the spectacle, or join the guide and take everything with a grain of sand.

spin

Bernard Muller · 04-12-2004, 03:09 PM

I found that Christian but not Catholic web site, which is very skeptical about the tomb of Peter below the altar of St Peter church in Rome

:
http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/...-23-2002.shtml
And then this web site, which says there are 100 more evidence Peter was buried in Jerusalem

:
http://www.biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

I note also there were millions of people in antiquity (among them many famous ones) whom we do not know where their tomb might be.

Best regards, Bernard

04-12-2004, 12:41 PM	#1
Enfield Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 30	Proof of St.Peters existance as told in the bible? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nbasilica.html Are these the remains of St.Peter? If so, then has the bible correctly told the story and therefore was it written during the time of Paul?... I always thought that there was no evidence that the apostles were killed as they were said to have in the bible?... Interesting stuff nonetheless.

04-12-2004, 02:47 PM	#5
Enfield Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 30	aye So we can safely say that those arent the bones of Peter? Like, what does science say?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-12-2004, 01:14 PM	#3
funinspace Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: North West usa Posts: 10,245	I wonder how many lies can fit on a proverbial pin head? This is an old story. If I remember right, the original Catholic archeologist saw lots of problems with what people wanted it to be, and got side lined. A more dogmatic team took over, and found what they wanted to find. Secondly, the Bible says nothing of Peter's ending in life, just like Paul. No one really knows. Even if it was correct on the deaths, it wouldn't really mean any more than that. And would only tell that the relevant books weren't written before then. What we have is RC folklore. The site below may have something in it's archives. I think they try to stay somewhat neutral, but they are a Xian source, so let the buyer beware. http://www.bibleinterp.com/ Maybe someone else around here will have a better source for more neutral information. DK

04-12-2004, 03:09 PM	#7
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	I found that Christian but not Catholic web site, which is very skeptical about the tomb of Peter below the altar of St Peter church in Rome : http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/...-23-2002.shtml And then this web site, which says there are 100 more evidence Peter was buried in Jerusalem : http://www.biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm I note also there were millions of people in antiquity (among them many famous ones) whom we do not know where their tomb might be. Best regards, Bernard

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.