But not in that pagan cemetery on top of Vatican Hill, right?
Well good. One would expect to find Paul's burial place there in Rome as he died there, and his burial place somewhere other than in a pagan cemetery where the likes of Simon Magus would be buried.
And it is a fact that neither Peter's tomb nor his bones have been found in Rome, under the basilica that bears his name, or anywhere there. Isn't that right?
And in fact Peter's bones are in an ossuary with others on the grounds of a Franciscan monastery on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, right? and that is documented in a book called , "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit", printed in 1958 at the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem. P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, both Roman Catholic priests, wrote it, right?.
The excavation on the site of this monastery named Dominus Flevit uncovered ossuaries with the names of many, including "Simon Bar Jona", and Mary and Martha, and Lazarus, their brother, and other names of early Christians who would have wanted to be buried where Jesus would first set foot when he returns to Jerusalem.
Isn't it high time to "bone" up on the facts that the Vatican is even aware of?
Gee, didn't realize you were such a fan of the Divinci Code!
I consider "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit" as I do Luther's Theses, and anything by Menno Simons or Ulrich Zwingli.
I think that your premises are a little shaky here, when you have to interject into what might be a reasonable debate with "One would expect to find Paul's burial place there in Rome as he died there, and his burial place somewhere other than in a pagan cemetery where the likes of Simon Magus would be buried. "
I think rather that the dedicated anti-Catholic crowd is still at its heart extremely unsure of its position, and only in the fire of battle against us can you ignore that little voice that is telling you that apostacy is still apostacy and heresy is still heresy. I mean, let's face it; why would you believe the Bible? It is because the Catholic Church has told people the truth for 2000 years. Taking a shallow two dimensional copy of the magnificent Christian religion, abridging and editing it further, and making it the heart of your very beliefs is astounding to me.
Other than the arrogance of self-made religion and the convenience of beliefs that are alterable on the spot, what good is it? You don't have the whole Bible. You don't have the Magisterium. You don't have the Apostolic Succession and therefore the authority to teach and interpret. What do you have other than what the Bible itself warns against in the most grave of terms? Priding one's self on strict Biblical interpretation is aginst Biblical teachings.
And for good reason. Even the Devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes. Are you made in God's image or is God made in your image?