Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pope Francis unveiled the bone fragments of the Apostle, Saint Peter, for the the first time since their founding in 1939 and the Catholic Church's verification in 1968.
Peter, of course, traveled to Rome where he preached the gospel to those who would become the Roman Catholic Church. Nero, at Peter's request, crucified him upside down. He was buried in Rome in 67 AD.
Pope Francis unveiled the bone fragments of the Apostle, Saint Peter, for the the first time since their founding in 1939 and the Catholic Church's verification in 1968.
Peter, of course, traveled to Rome where he preached the gospel to those who would become the Roman Catholic Church. Nero, at Peter's request, crucified him upside down. He was buried in Rome in 67 AD.
"CNN's Vatican analyst John Allen says that like so much concerning religion, the belief that the bones are those of the disciple comes down to faith."
There really is no evidence that these are indeed the bones of St. Peter.
Obviously, he can't be in two places. Why would he be in Jerusalem if crucified in Rome about the same time Paul was beheaded there? For in Acts of Peter and Paul it states,
Quote:
Nero said: By what fate, then, shall they die? Agrippa answered and said: As seems to me, it is just that Paul's head should be cut off, and that Peter should be raised on a cross as the cause of the murder. Nero said: You have most excellently judged.
Then both Peter and Paul were led away from the presence of Nero. And Paul was beheaded on the Ostesian road.
And Peter, having come to the cross, said: Since my Lord Jesus Christ, who came down from the heaven upon the earth, was raised upon the cross upright, and He has deigned to call to heaven me, who am of the earth, my cross ought to be fixed head down most, so as to direct my feet towards heaven; for I am not worthy to be crucified like my Lord. Then, having reversed the cross, they nailed his feet up.
If anyone ever goes to the holy land or other Christian historical sights... you'll intimately rediscover Biblical history via relics and historical sights. People like to see things, touch them, relate to them. It (Museums and such) help us connect to the past and reinforces our Christian roots. I sat in the Moses Seat, walked the stations of the cross, been the the Church of the Nativity, prayed there, cried there and felt moved but never worshiped any of it. Emotions show and come out... nothing wrong with that, in fact I think it's cool.
Abraham Lincoln said "God must love ordinary people, 'cause He made a lot of them".
Relics may bring a point of contact for faith in God to receive from God , and can be a blessing for God to bring a blessing .... Still If these bones are of Apostle Peter then Peter is not there as he is now in Heaven with the Lord and these bones would only be the earthly remains
If one examines the evidence especially that of the first century some contemporary with St. Peter, one concludes that Peter was never a bishop of Rome and probably not in Rome (except maybe to visit but even that is very doubtful).
The Peter in Rome story began toward the end of the second century with St. Irenaeus (189 AD) and was repeated and grew as traditions do.
Last edited by ancient warrior; 11-30-2013 at 07:22 AM..
Reason: typo
1. Thee is not a lot of evidence that Peter ever went to Rome, much less that he was Bishop of Rome, or that he was crucified there.
2. There isn't a lot of evidence that this was Peters bone.
3. Even if this is his bone, why the need to worship it?
Relics were a big part of early Christianity. The bones of people that were considered saints and have been martyred were venerated as a memorial. I this is foreign to to modern Christians but this is the legacy of early Christianity.
Furthermore been martyred was a big deal and Saint Peter asked to be crucified upside down. If you read the letters of Saint Ignatius, a disciple of Peter you will see how he also longs to be martyred. The writings of that era give Paul and Peter a lot of credit for being martyrs.
Whether these are the bones of Saint Peter or not is moot as long as people continue to become the best Christians they can be.
If one examines the evidence especially that of the first century some contemporary with St. Peter, one concludes that Peter was never a bishop of Rome and probably not in Rome (except maybe to visit but even that is very doubtful).
The Peter in Rome story began toward the end of the second century with St. Irenaeus (189 AD) and was repeated and grew as traditions do.
The only things that matters is that Peter was the leader of the Apostles and Matthew 16:18-19. Being hand picked by Jesus is what really matters. The origin of these bones is a moot point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
