Posted on 06/07/2007 4:07:42 AM PDT by markomalley
These artifacts are under the control of the Israeli Antiquities Authority --- or did you forget that already???
You wrote:
“These artifacts are under the control of the Israeli Antiquities Authority -— or did you forget that already???”
No, I didn’t forget and nothing I posted suggested I did either so I don’t know why you’re even asking.
When you were in Rome did you get down to St John Lateran Cathedral to see the supposed bones of the skull of St Peter?
I was at St. John Lateran, but didn’t see anything about the skull of St. Peter. It would surprise me that it was there, however, since St. Peter’s tomb had no skull in it and the skull you refer to at St. John Lateran had been there since at least the ninth century.
Why do you ask?
Well that would be curious since visitors to St John Lateran from the 1860's onward went there to venerate the supposed skull of Peter, but it doesn't match any of the bones that turned up under St Peter's Basilica.
So then which bones are they now claiming to be Peter's: the skull bones at St John Lateran or those skeletal bones under St Peter's Basilica??? They can't have it both ways especially in this age of DNA analysis. Well, I guess you can though if you're the Vatican magisterium.
You wrote:
“So then which bones are they now claiming to be Peter’s: the skull bones at St John Lateran or those skeletal bones under St Peter’s Basilica???”
Who is “they”? Is there any official Catholic teaching about any of these bones? No, none. So who is “they”?
“They can’t have it both ways especially in this age of DNA analysis.”
Again, who is “they”?
“Well, I guess you can though if you’re the Vatican magisterium.”
There’s no such thing as the Vatican magisterium. It’s just the magisterium. If you’re going to attack something wouldn’t help if you knew what you were talking about?
Several posts back you were trying to pawn off on us Walsh's book about the bones --- Now you are backpedalling as fast as a Vatican retreat. LOLOL!!!!!
I repeat “You have wishful thinking and imagination, nothing else.”
You wrote:
“Several posts back you were trying to pawn off on us Walsh’s book about the bones -— Now you are backpedalling as fast as a Vatican retreat. LOLOL!!!!!”
I told you to read Walsh’s book. How is Walsh a “they”? Who is “they”? Why are you evading that simple question?
You wrote:
“Yes, you mentioned you saw Peter’s bones. You offered no verifiable proof.”
I saw the bones that were in his tomb. Those would be Peter’s bones. You offered no evidence at all to the contrary.
You wrote:
“What is perfectly obvious is that you have no answers to my questions.”
What questions?
“Rather, you make a feeble attempt to personalize it as to whether I believe or accept Ecumenical Councils.”
No, you claimed you would believe in ecumenical councils when we both know you don’t believe in ecumenical councils. That isn’t personalizing anything except on your part.
“I repeat “You have wishful thinking and imagination, nothing else.””
No, I repeat, we have the Church, history, the early Church fathers, and Peter’s tomb. You have nothing except a hard heart.
How about Pope Paul VI and one out of four archeologists that I posted to you earlier. Don't you remember:
"Guarducci presented her theory to Paul VI in 1964. After additional tests, the pope was convinced, despite dissent from three of the original four archaeologists. Paul announced that the bones of Peter had been identified 'in a manner which we believe convincing.' On June 27, 1968, Paul reinterred them, stored in 19 Plexiglas cases, in Peter’s tomb."
[http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200105052a.html]
Is two enough for a "they" or should I add Walsh and all the church clergy who have been making the claim to the gullible for years as if it came from an infallible Pope's mouth.
But how do you know that??? How do you know that that was his tomb??? Was his name carved on the tomb anywhere or stamped on the bones???? Hmmmm???
Did the Bones of Peter you saw with your own eyes contain Peter's skull or significant parts of it?
Did this skull or fragments match Peter's skull kept at St. John Lateran since the 9th century?
Since you refuse or are unable to present evidence of your claim I will help with Three citations for you. One rather sympathetic, the second negative, and the third, from an athiest site, very negative. It might be fun for you to read what the "other world" has to say.
The Bones of Saint Peter?
Peter's Bones and Rome's Truth
SAINT PETER AT THE VATICAN
You wrote;
“How about Pope Paul VI and one out of four archeologists that I posted to you earlier. Don’t you remember:”
I do remember and that still doesn’t work. Paul made no infallible statement about Peter’s relics. None.
“Is two enough for a “they” or should I add Walsh and all the church clergy who have been making the claim to the gullible for years as if it came from an infallible Pope’s mouth.”
That still doesn’t work. You wrote: “So then which bones are they now claiming to be Peter’s: the skull bones at St John Lateran or those skeletal bones under St Peter’s Basilica???”
Who is they? Did Paul VI EVER make an official statement about Peter’s bones that all Catholics are supposed to believe? No.
And who made the claim that the skull at St. John Lateran was St. Peter’s? Who EXACTLY?
You wrote:
“But how do you know that???”
They were in St. Peter’s tomb. How do you know the Gospel of St. Matthew was written by St. Matthew when the text doesn’t say so?
“How do you know that that was his tomb???”
That was the inscription, the history, the tradition for the entire history of the Church. Again, how do you know the Gospel of St. Matthew was written by St. Matthew when the text doesn’t say so?
“Was his name carved on the tomb anywhere or stamped on the bones???? Hmmmm???”
Yes, his name was carved into the wall. Again, how do you know the Gospel of St. Matthew was written by St. Matthew when the text doesn’t say so?
After quoting me (when I was quoting you; “There are no “all of its Peter bones” floating around.”) you wrote:
“Are you certain?”
Do I have reason to not be. Did you even notice the word “ALL”?
“Did the Bones of Peter you saw with your own eyes contain Peter’s skull or significant parts of it?”
By definition, the word ALL would end this line of questioning. You should have chosen a better or more precise word if you didn’t mean it as you wrote it. Try again.
It’s irrelevant who determined that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew once it is determined.
At that point, he is an apostle, and his words are more relevant than anyone else’s words. We are subject to the apostles, not to Cardinal Joe Blow some 2000 years later.
And we have Matthew’s words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.