Bones of St Peter

exwisehe

exwisehe

Member
Location
none
A very exciting discovery has been made that to me is the most phenomenal since the Shroud of Turin, which I have been following very closely for 30 years.

https://www.christiantoday.com/arti...ch.in.rome.during.restoration.work/113537.htm

This news just broke tonight on the news and all of Christendom is very happy and will be waiting for more DNA tests to be done to prove its authenticity.

Although St Peter is claimed by some to be the "first Pope", I would question that, although I'm not going to dispute it here.

My feeling is that before this earthly sojourn is over for us, all the atheists will be proven wrong, and this is one more step in that direction.

The good news for that group of persons is that the Bible says that eventually the latter days will be like those of Noah. The reason that is good news is that the people of that day still had a chance to repent and get on board the ark, just as persons who are non-believers in latter days have a chance to do the same. I think the evidence will show as discoveries continue to be made by archaeologists and scientists that the bible is true.
 

I think it is very interesting but I would prefer that they let the dead rest and not dig them up for tests.

I also find it troubling that we are searching for proof instead of relying on the teachings, beliefs and faith in our religion.

What will we do if the proof takes us in a different direction?
 
exwisehe said:
A very exciting discovery has been made that to me is the most phenomenal since the Shroud of Turin, which I have been following very closely for 30 years.

https://www.christiantoday.com/arti...ch.in.rome.during.restoration.work/113537.htm

This news just broke tonight on the news and all of Christendom is very happy and will be waiting for more DNA tests to be done to prove its authenticity.

Although St Peter is claimed by some to be the "first Pope", I would question that, although I'm not going to dispute it here.

My feeling is that before this earthly sojourn is over for us, all the atheists will be proven wrong, and this is one more step in that direction.

The good news for that group of persons is that the Bible says that eventually the latter days will be like those of Noah. The reason that is good news is that the people of that day still had a chance to repent and get on board the ark, just as persons who are non-believers in latter days have a chance to do the same. I think the evidence will show as discoveries continue to be made by archaeologists and scientists that the bible is true.
Click to expand...


This sounds very interesting. I can't believe the technology we have today. I don't know a lot about DNA,but how can they determine if it is St.Peter or just someone that came from the same century.
 
Carbon dating can establish the time that the individual died with enough accuracy to pin point the century. Analysis of the bone atoms can indicate the diet of the individual over time and can indicate where they lived. It could show that the individual grew up in Europe rather than Palestine, for example. In reality it is easier to prove that the bones are not those of St Peter than it is to confirm that they are his.

DNA is only likely to show that the bones belonged to someone from Israel/Palestine and not from sub Saharan Africa but would have nothing to say about the identity of the deceased. It would be useful to confirm masculinity though so if the DNA is from a female we could be sure that they do not belong to St Peter.
 
I also don't know much about the technical side of DNA, but I agree with Warri in that I don't understand how DNA could confirm that the bones belong to a particular individual, especially since we don't have any familial DNA, or DNA we know for a fact did belong to St. Peter to compare it with.

How could that work? Seems to me that all they could prove is, as Warri said, that the person was from the same period, lived in the same or similar place as did St. Peter, but how could they determine if the bones actually belonged to St. Peter?
 
exwisehe said:
A very exciting discovery has been made that to me is the most phenomenal since the Shroud of Turin, which I have been following very closely for 30 years.

https://www.christiantoday.com/arti...ch.in.rome.during.restoration.work/113537.htm

This news just broke tonight on the news and all of Christendom is very happy and will be waiting for more DNA tests to be done to prove its authenticity.

Although St Peter is claimed by some to be the "first Pope", I would question that, although I'm not going to dispute it here.

My feeling is that before this earthly sojourn is over for us, all the atheists will be proven wrong, and this is one more step in that direction.

The good news for that group of persons is that the Bible says that eventually the latter days will be like those of Noah. The reason that is good news is that the people of that day still had a chance to repent and get on board the ark, just as persons who are non-believers in latter days have a chance to do the same. I think the evidence will show as discoveries continue to be made by archaeologists and scientists that the bible is true.
Click to expand...

Kentucky spent a billion dollars building a replica of the ark...https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...lical-proportions-ready-open-kentucky-n604381

2016-07-01t22-56-53-7z--1280x720.nbcnews-ux-1080-600.jpg
 
Aunt Bea said:
I think it is very interesting but I would prefer that they let the dead rest and not dig them up for tests.

I also find it troubling that we are searching for proof instead of relying on the teachings, beliefs and faith in our religion.

What will we do if the proof takes us in a different direction?
Click to expand...
The bible says that, "from the dust you came, and to the dust you shall return". That's why I'm getting cremated. Ain't nobody gonna dig my bones up.

When someone dies in Tibet, the Buddhists take their body out for the buzzards to feed on. They pick the bones clean, but I think they are just left out there. I'm all for recycling, but that's too creepy for me, and it doesn't get rid of the bones.
 
Butterfly said:
I also don't know much about the technical side of DNA, but I agree with Warri in that I don't understand how DNA could confirm that the bones belong to a particular individual, especially since we don't have any familial DNA, or DNA we know for a fact did belong to St. Peter to compare it with.

How could that work? Seems to me that all they could prove is, as Warri said, that the person was from the same period, lived in the same or similar place as did St. Peter, but how could they determine if the bones actually belonged to St. Peter?
Click to expand...

Maybe they have his hair brush.
 
Not to throw cold water on this event, but ...

St Peter is believed to have been crucified, upside down, in Rome in the first century AD.

His remains were interred in a tomb on the Vatican Hill, where the Emperor Constantine later built a church, which was replaced by the current basilica in the 16th Century.

After the Second World War, archaeologists discovered a funerary monument there with a casket built in honour of St. Peter and an engraving in Greek that read 'Petros eni' – 'Peter is here'.

The remains were forensically examined in the 1960s, with experts concluding that they belonged to a man in his early sixties who lived in the first century AD. Pope Paul VI declared them the bones of St Peter in 1968.
Click to expand...

First, there is something called "chain of custody" in modern forensic work that is totally absent from this account.

Second, after this long account of the history of the bones and "experts" making their VERY generalized pronouncement, it comes down to Pope Paul making a declaration.

This would never hold up in a court of law.
 
Warrigal said:
I cannot imagine how DNA tests would be able to prove that the bones are those of a particular individual from the first century CE.
Click to expand...

According to the article that was linked, what they are doing is comparing this DNA to the bones that have been kept in the Vatican that are believed to have been Peter's bones. So, none of this will actually confirm that either set of bones actually belongs to St. Peter , all it will do is show if both sets of relics match in DNA, and then they will know that they came from the same individual.
 
It is very much in the best interest of the Vatican to promote the belief that they have the actual bones of St. Peter.

Over the years it has been the livelihood of many religious institutions to claim to have the bones, skeletons, or relics of saints or a splinter from the "true cross". There was a good source of income to be made from the pilgrims who came to pray to these objects, leaving offerings. Churches, monasteries, and convents competed vigorously for this patronage. It wouldn't be beyond belief that a few of these "relics" were fabricated to bring in "business".

Yes, I'm skeptical.
 
Thanks HFL. I confess that I did not read the article before posting but now that I have I am even more confused. Ancient bones found in two pots supposedly from four popes and four martyrs. Only an archaeologist could begin to unravel that assortment.

I suppose it is of interest if some of the bones match the DNA of other bones held in the Vatican but for me it is irrelevant to my appreciation of the biblical man we know as Simon Peter.
 
ewisehe said:My feeling is that before this earthly sojourn is over for us, all the atheists will be proven wrong, and this is one more step in that direction.

You don't understand atheists. As a Atheist my self In have never ever tried to prove or disprove anything having to to do with any religion. I just plain don't believe and never have. It's as simple as that.
 
Lon said:
ewisehe said:My feeling is that before this earthly sojourn is over for us, all the atheists will be proven wrong, and this is one more step in that direction.
You don't understand atheists. As a Atheist my self In have never ever tried to prove or disprove anything having to to do with any religion. I just plain don't believe and never have. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

I think that this is maybe the exact point that Exwisehe is trying to make, Lon. Right now, you don't believe in God, and you have not seen any reason to change your mind. We are all pretty much that way about something that we don't see any proof of; but when we DO see some proof, then we may change our minds and decide that something is true after all.

No one believed that Panda bears existed until late in the 1800's. Stories about a strange black and white bear existed, but no one had ever seen one; so they considered this creature to just be a legend.
Panda bears don't try to hide from anyone; but they did live way up in the high mountains in China, and people didn't go far enough into the mountains to see one.
Eventually, someone did see a panda, shot and killed it, and brought the pelt and head back to show people. Even after they knew it existed, it was still many years before they could actually capture one and put it in a zoo for people to see.
Now, we all believe in panda bears because we have proof they exist.

If someday, you see something that is proof to you that God exists, then you would probably change your mind about being an atheist.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top