Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: OLD REGGIE
I probably couldn't handle Havoc either. He posts so much stuff it would be necessary to spend hours doing research in order to refute him.

LOL. I'm a little tough to keep up with at times, I'll have to admit. I hadn't really thought about it that much. I just expect sometimes that amongst this crowd some of what I present if not much of it would be known. And when I make a statement, I'm generally quite capable of backing it up and showing from whence it comes - perhaps not as fast sometimes as it takes certain among us to flood me with a flurry of posts protesting that I haven't answered him in 5 minutes while I was at work. I'm happy with my record so far. Sometimes I'd like to do more; but, we all work within the constraints we have - well, most of us anyway. I'm still waiting for a single solid piece of evidence that irrefuteably shows Peter was ever in Rome. And 2 years or more later, it still hasn't been produced. I didn't ask for proof of how long he was their or who he ministered to or anything like that - just a single piece of irrefutable evidence that he'd been there. A single bit of solid archeological fact - not conjecture. If Peter were there for 25 years, there would at a minimum have to be some legal record of it - lord knows there is for Paul - though after all this time I'd have to go hunting the specifics again that I referenced way back when.

50,208 posted on 04/29/2003 8:29:26 PM PDT by Havoc (If you can't be frank all the time are you lying the rest of the time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49437 | View Replies ]


To: Havoc
I'm still waiting for a single solid piece of evidence that irrefuteably shows Peter was ever in Rome. And 2 years or more later, it still hasn't been produced. I didn't ask for proof of how long he was their or who he ministered to or anything like that - just a single piece of irrefutable evidence that he'd been there. A single bit of solid archeological fact - not conjecture. If Peter were there for 25 years, there would at a minimum have to be some legal record of it - lord knows there is for Paul - though after all this time I'd have to go hunting the specifics again that I referenced way back when.

How can you be so insistent Peter was never in Rome? His bones have been found several times in Rome and in different locations in Rome. Isn't that enough proof for you?

The most precious of Peter's bones found in the Graffiti Wall are the 29 fragments of the Apostle's skull. Note: the 29 pieces of Peter's skull found in the Grafitti Wall are not to be confused with Peter's other skull, which is stored in the Cathedral of St. John Lateran. The Graffiti Wall bones of Peter and Peter's other skull are not the only true relics of the "Prince of the Apostles" found in and around the Vatican. In a page one article in the August 22, 1949 edition of the New York Times, Camille Cianfarra revealed that Vatican archeologists had discovered another of Peter's skeletons in the Red Wall, yards away from the place where the plastic boxes of Peter's bones are worshipped today. Pope Pius XII is reported to have kept these bones in his private apartment for 14 years, during which time he had his personal physician, Dr. Galeazzi-Lisi, and several medical experts, examine them. The consensus of the authorities was that the bones were those of a powerfully built male who died in the seventh decade of his life. That just had to be Peter, didn't it?

Peter's Bones

(Smirk).

50,342 posted on 04/30/2003 8:12:02 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE ((I am a cult of one! UNITARJEWMIAN))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50208 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson