Hi
Rome Has Lost The Plot While Trying to Deceive The World on The Bones of Peter!
There is no getting away from it the papacy had the best propaganda machine in the world, which would be the envy of any rogue nation. Yet, its past popes have been found wanting when it comes to things outside of doctrinal matters and those about the church. Things such as geography, places, people and the way the world works outside the church. Pope Gregory I (590-604) was a brilliant church scholar, however, he had no idea according to Bede, where Britannia and who its people were. Yet, for nearly four centuries Romans had occupied the Island, raping it of its mineral and agriculture wealth to feed the citizens of Rome. Just over fifty years after Gregory I, Pope Vitalian (657-72 CE) was none the wiser as he believed that King Oswy (642–670) of Northumbria was the king of all of Britain. The time in question was before the start of the Germanic Heptarchy (seven kingdoms) as there were about twenty (20) Germanic nations vying for possession of Prydain/Britain by committing genocide and ethnic cleansing of the native Brythons.
§
While conversing for the last few days with another commentator on Catholic Christianity becoming the sole religion of the Roman Empire on February 27th 380CE. Not many people including most Catholic’s are aware of that date. However, everything before 380 CE is papal propaganda. We are told by Vatican sources that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. However, it was not until the end of the 2nd-century or even the 3rd-century that tradition started to place Peter in Rome.[JND Kelly (1986), The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 6, Oxford University Press, Oxford – New York.] Not forgetting that Antioch had a prior claim as the See of Peter. On Peter being buried in Rome. Jerusalem has also a claim since the discovery of an ossuary in 1953, containing the bones of one “Shimon bar Yonah” buried in a tomb within the old City of David. http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm Also, in 1953 the archaeology dig for the tomb of Peter, which was started in 1939, on the orders of Pope Pius XII (1939-58) came to an end. A set of bones belonging to a man aged between 60-70 years of age which were said by a female archaeologist to be the remains of Apostle Peter. However, the leading archaeologist on the excavation disagreed, as the bone had been removed without his and his team’s knowledge.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-may-29-me-passing29.1-story.htm Could this have been Papal sleight of hand or is it skulduggery on the part of the church?
In 2013 Pope Francis publicly unveiled 9 bone fragments of Peter (?), however, Federico Lombardi, the then Vatican spokesman, said there was a “serious possibility” that the bones were from St Peter, “but we don’t go beyond that.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/11/bones-attributed-st-peter-found-chance-1000-year-old-church/, In other words, is the Vatican being deceitful by twisting the truth—making a fabrication look factual?
However, in 2017 an Italian construction worker, involved in routine restoration at the 1,000-year-old Church of Santa Maria in Capella in Trastevere, Rome, has stumbled across what could be the bones of St. Peter. In helping to repair the structural problems around the altar, the worker lifted a heavy marble slab and discovered two Roman-era pots. The inscriptions on the pots indicate they contain bone fragments of four early Christian martyrs, three early Popes (Cornelius, Callixtus, and Felix), and St. Peter himself. The bones of the first Pope would be an important discovery.[Ibid] To date, that story has gone quiet with nothing more has been said.
What is more, is that the only information placing Peter in Rome if we are to take the name Babylon as the code for Rome comes from 1 Peter 5:13—a known forgery as is 2 Peter.
With scholars citing a date for their writing of 1 and 2 Peter as between the years of the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian (81-96 CE), with other scholars dating then as 112 CE with the writings of Pliny the Younger. One only needs to read Acts 4:13 to see that both Peter and John were illiterate Aramaic fishermen. The Book of Revelations also mentions Babylon, however, the author of Revelations has taken the Babylon phrases from the Hebrew Old Testament. Ancient and modern scholars agree that it was not John the Apostle son of Zebedee that wrote Revelations. Like 1 and 2 Peter, Revelations has also a question mark hanging over it as a pseudepigrapha text.
One would also think that the proof shown above was enough evidence to disprove Rome’s claim. However, there is much more! The monarchical bishop of Rome did not come into being until the latter half of the 2nd-century, as I have shown above. So, how could Peter and Paul establish the bishopric of Rome in a time it did not exist!
Many scholars through history have had concerns over the authenticity of the Liber Pontificalis aka Book of Popes, and in the late 19th century the Breton-born scholar and Catholic cleric, Fr. Abbe (Abbot/bishop) Louis-Marie Olivier Duchesne (1843-1922) published his theses on the Liber Pontificalis in 1887. He followed his theses with the first critical edition of the Liber Pontificalis, which said that the first six or seven centuries of the book of popes was the work of one hand (a single author). Even the title Liber Pontificalis is an anachronism, as the first Catholic pope received the title in 606 CE. There were certainly no popes until the 3rd-century CE, and they were not Catholic!
Then we come to the coup de grâce
The Venerable Bede (673-735) himself a Northumbrian Angle writing on the epistle from Pope Vitalian (657-672) to his late king, Oswy (642–670) of Northumbria in 665 CE, some sixty years earlier wrote:
…We have received the presents sent by your highness to the blessed prince of the apostles, for an eternal memorial, and return you thanks, and always pray for your safety with the clergy of Christ. But he that brought these presents has been removed out of this world and is buried at the church of the apostles, for whom we have been much concerned because he died here. However, we have ordered the blessed gifts of the holy martyrs, that is, the relics of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and of the holy martyrs, Laurentius, John, and Paul, and Gregory, and Pancratius, to be delivered to the bearers of these our letters, to be by them delivered to you…[Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, bk. III, ch. 29] Pope Vitalian wrote his epistle along with the religious gifts to the Northumbrian king in 665 CE, which was not sent from the goodness of his heart, he had an ulterior motive. That was he wanted the whole Island of Prydain to be converted to Catholicism.
1,355 years ago a pope gave the relic bones of Peter and Paul and other saints to a Germanic Angle king in what is northern England today. Yet, the Church of Rome still states that they have the relics of Peter!
What do you say, has the papacy lost the plot on the bones of Peter?
Cofion
Jero Jones
Article URL : https://breakingnewsandreligion.online/discuss/