THE DISCOVERY OF PETER'S TOMB IN JERUSALEM - 1953 by F. Paul Peterson

While visiting a friend in Switzerland, I heard about what I believe is one of the greatest discoveries since the time of Christ: that Peter was buried in Jerusalem and not in Rome.  The source of this uncontrolled news, written in Italian, was not clear, and left considerable room for doubt or rather questioning. Rome was the place where I could investigate the matter, and if that experience was encouraging, a trip to Jerusalem might be necessary in order to gather valuable first-hand information on the subject.

I then went to Rome. After speaking to many priests and checking various sources of information, I was eventually greatly rewarded in learning where I could buy the only recognized book on the subject which was also written in Italian. Its title is: "The excavations of Dominus Flevit." Printed in 1958 at the PP Franciscan printing house in Jerusalem.

It was written by PB Bagatti and JT Milik, both Roman Catholic priests. There was the story of the discovery, but it seemed to be purposely forgotten as if it were not there. I accordingly decided to go to Jerusalem myself if possible, as it seemed almost unbelievable, especially since those priests had come, who of course due to the existence of the tradition that Peter was buried in Rome, would be the only ones to welcome such a discovery to bring it to the attention of the world.

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests, who in the end had all read, albeit reluctantly, that the bones of Simone Bar Jona (St. Peter) had been found in Jerusalem, on the site of the Franciscan monastery called "dominus flevit" (where Jesus is believed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The images tell the story. The first shows an excavation on which ossuaries (vessels of bones) where names of biblical Christian characters were found. On a container were found the names of Maria and Martha and nearby there was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. In other containers other names of early Christians were found. In any case,of greatest interest was the one found just over 3 meters from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found: the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on which was written clearly and beautifully in Aramaic: SIMONE BAR JONA.

I talked about it to Professor Yale, who is an archaeologist and was director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. He told me that it would be very unlikely that a name of three words and so complete could not refer to anyone other than St. Peter.

But what dispels any possibility of error is that he found himself in a Christian burial place, and moreover in the first century, from the same period in which Peter lived. In fact, I have a letter from a well-known scientist who claims to be able to say about the writing that was written just before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD.

I spoke to the priest, the one who collaborated in writing this Italian book, in the presence of a friend of mine, an Arab Christian, Mr. SJ Mattar who is now the keeper of the 'Sepulchral Garden', where Jesus was buried and resurrected. This priest, Milik, admitted that he knew that the bones of St Pyrethrum are not found in Rome. I was very surprised that he admitted it, so much so that to confirm his admission, I said that I too agreed: "It is a hundred times more evident that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." This was like a modest statement, as he knew as well as I know that there is absolutely no evidence that Peter was buried in Rome.

I have spoken of the subject to many Franciscan priests who were or had been in Jerusalem, and they all agree that Peter's tomb and remains are in Jerusalem. There was just one interesting exception that just proves the point. The Franciscan priest Augustus Spykerman, who was partly in charge of the museum within the walls of Old Jerusalem, from the site of the Franciscan Church of the Flagellation, was the exception. When I asked him to see the museum, he showed it to three of us, to Mr. Mattar, who in addition to being the guardian of the Tomb of Christ, had been the manager of the English bank in Jerusalem, to a professional photographer and to myself. But he didn't tell us anything about the discovery. I knew there was evidence of Peter's burial, because the priests had told me that the remains from the Christian cemetery had been preserved within this museum. The people who lived in Jerusalem and everyone who lives there and the official guides who are meant to know every inch of the city, anyway,they knew nothing of this discovery, which had also been hidden from the public.

I had asked the elderly official guide where Peter's tomb was. He replied in a really deep and majestic tone of voice: "The tomb of St. Peter has never been found in Jerusalem". "Oh," I said, "but I saw the burial site with my own eyes!" He turned to me with a pride that is very common among Arabs. "Thing?" he replied: "Do you, a foreigner, want to tell me where the tomb of St. Peter is when I have been the official guide for 35 years and I know every inch of land in Jerusalem?" I was afraid it would jump on my neck. I managed to calm him down because I said: "But sir, here are the photos and you can see among others the ossuary with the name of Peter in Aramaic. You can also see it for yourself on the Mount of Olives on the Franciscan convent on the point called 'Dominus Flevit '".

When I finished, he slowly turned around in amazement. A person who has seen this Christian burial ground and knows the circumstances surrounding the case could never doubt that this is indeed the burial place of St. Peter and other Christians. I, too, acted like a stunning dream for at least a week because I could hardly believe what I had seen and heard. Since this article came out, they have not allowed anyone to see this burial site.

Before things eased, I was almost discouraged because I couldn't get any information from so many priests I had talked to. In any case, I continued to ask questions of all those priests that happened to me. Eventually a priest let out a piece of information. Knowing that, I confronted another priest who asked me aggressively where I had acquired that information. I told him that a priest had told me. Then he admitted the point and let slip another little piece of information. I continued like this for a while until the picture was complete and in the end I went where I myself could see the evidence. Getting to the bottom of the story made me feel like I grabbed a bull by the tail and was trying to get it through the keyhole. But when I had collected all the relevant data,the priests could not deny the discovery of the tomb, and although reluctantly they confirmed it. In fact, I have the recorded declaration of a Spanish priest on the Mount of Olives for that effect.

But here we talked about it to this Franciscan priest who is in charge of the museum, asking questions that he was trying to escape but who couldn't because of the information I had already gathered from the many priests with whom I had spoken. Finally, after the photos that proved it were taken, it was nothing more than a miracle that allowed us to do it, I congratulated the Franciscans on the wonderful discovery of the tomb of St. Peter in Jerusalem. He was clearly nervous to the point that he exclaimed: "Oh, no! Peter's tomb is in Rome!" But as he said this, his voice hesitated, a fact that my friend, Mr. Mattar, had also noted. Then I looked him straight in the eye and said firmly: "No! St Peter's tomb is in Jerusalem!" He looked at me like a schoolboy caught out and fell silent.There is no doubt that he was put there to hide the facts, but his actions and words spoke with more conviction about the discovery that those priests had finally admitted the truth.

I also spoke to an authoritative Franciscan priest at the  "priestly printing plant" within the walls of Jerusalem, where the book on the subject had been printed. He also admitted that the tomb of St. Peter is in Jerusalem. When I then visited the church of the nativity in Bethlehem, I met a Franciscan monk. After telling him what I thought of the wonderful discovery that the Franciscans had made, I asked him clearly: "Do you really believe that those are the remains of Peter?" He replied: "Yes, we believe it, we have no other choice. There is clear proof there." I did not doubt the evidence, but what surprised me was that those priests and monks believed that this was against their own religion and above all that admitting it to others was something out of this world.A Catholic usually either because of brainwashing or stubbornness do not want to see anything other than what they have been taught and will not allow themselves to believe something that is against their own religion, the more they will admit it. with others. But among so many Catholics there is an increasing healthy habit of trying everything in order to believe what is good, as Paul warned us all.

So, to the one who had collaborated in the drafting of the book in question in Italian and an archaeologist, I asked: "Father Bagatti, do you really believe that those are the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes I believe it!" was the reply. I then asked: "But what does the pope think of all this?"

That was a thousand dollar question and he gave me a million dollar answer! "Well," he replied in confidence, in a low voice: "Father Bagatti told me personally that he went to Rome three years ago (it was Pius XII) and that he showed him the proof and the pope said to him: 'Well , we will have to make some changes but for the moment we continue to silence this fact '".

Even in a low voice I asked: "So does the pope really believe that those are the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes," was his reply. "The documented evidence is there, he couldn't help but believe."

I visited several renowned archaeologists on the subject. Dr. Albright, of the John Hopkins University of Baltimore, told me that he personally knew the priest Bagatti and that he was a very competent archaeologist. I also spoke to Dr. Nelson Gluek, archaeologist and president of Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Ohio. I showed him the photos, but by only chatting with him for a few minutes I couldn't show him the abundance of material that you have in front of you in this article. However, he admitted that the Aramaic words were "Simon Bar Jona". Aramaic is very similar to Hebrew. I asked him to give me a statement for that effect. He told me that doing so would cast a shadow on the competence of the priest JT Milik who knew he was a very skilled scientist,but he added that he wanted to write the comment I report:

"I regard JT Milik as a first-rate scholar in the Semitic field". He continues: "I don't consider the names on the ossuaries to be the definitive proof that they belong to the apostles." Nelson Glueck.

I quote this letter from Dr. Gluech as it proves that the priest Milik is a competent archaeologist. As I already mentioned, I was only able to be with him for a few minutes and was unable to show him more than a fraction of the evidence. Everyone, including myself, would have agreed with Dr. Glueck that if all the evidence that was available had been only the name Simon Bar Jona on the ossuary, it would not have been the definitive evidence that it was the apostle Peter, although was undoubtedly a strong indication. The story of the cave and ossuaries and the usual cemetery just outside the convent site is this: it was Roman custom that when a person died, after about ten years from the body decomposing, the tomb would be opened.The bones would be placed in a small ossuary with the person's name carefully written on the outside. These ossuaries would be placed in a cave in case of this Christian burial ground, to make room for others. But in this cave that is, in the burial place, the ossuaries were found that were created and completed in the natural and selfless sequence of events, and there is no reason to change facts and circumstances, which would have been a greater testimony than if testimony had been given in a statement that Peter was buried there. And despite everything, this too is unmistakably recorded in three Aramaic words of the ossuary: Simone Bar Jona.These ossuaries would be placed in a cave in case of this Christian burial ground, to make room for others. But in this cave that is, in the burial place, the ossuaries were found that were created and completed in the natural and selfless sequence of events, and there is no reason to change facts and circumstances, which would have been a greater testimony than if testimony had been given in a statement that Peter was buried there. And despite everything, this too is unmistakably recorded in three Aramaic words of the ossuary: Simone Bar Jona.These ossuaries would be placed in a cave in case of this Christian burial ground, to make room for others. But in this cave that is, in the burial place, the ossuaries were found that were created and completed in the natural and selfless sequence of events, and there is no reason to change facts and circumstances, which would have been a greater testimony than if testimony had been given in a statement that Peter was buried there. And despite everything, this too is unmistakably recorded in three Aramaic words of the ossuary: Simone Bar Jona.and there is no reason to change facts and circumstances, which would have been a greater testimony than if testimony had been given in a statement that Peter was buried there. And despite everything, this too is unmistakably recorded in three Aramaic words of the ossuary: Simone Bar Jona.and there is no reason to change facts and circumstances, which would have been a greater testimony than if testimony had been given in a statement that Peter was buried there. And despite everything, this too is unmistakably recorded in three Aramaic words of the ossuary: Simone Bar Jona.

Here is the greatest proof that Peter was not a pope and that he never was in Rome, because if he had been, that would certainly have been mentioned in the New Testament. At the same time, history should not be silent on this subject, as it has not been silent in the case of the apostle Paul. Even Catholic history would have claimed it as a fact and not as an uncertain tradition. Omitting that Peter was pope and that he was in Rome (in the papacy) would be like omitting the Law of Moses or the Prophets or the Acts of the Apostles from the Bible.

Dr Glueck, who is Jewish and who has been to Jerusalem, is no doubt fully aware that for centuries the Catholic Church has proposed what were considered sacred places, some of which were not reflected in the biblical description. For example, the priests say that Jesus' tomb is located within the walls of Old Jerusalem, in a hole in the ground, while the Bible states that the tomb where Jesus was laid was carved out of rock and that a stone was rolled away. on the front and not above. The garden in which the tomb is located at the foot of Golgotha, outside the walls of Jerusalem, corresponds perfectly to the biblical description. In fact, all those who were hated by the Jewish leaders, as was Jesus,they would never have been allowed to be buried within the walls of the Holy City. The tomb where Jesus was laid was created for Joseph of Arimathea. His entire family was stout and short in stature. At this burial site you can see today where someone carved deep into the wall to make room for Jesus who was said to have an approximate height of 1.80 centimeters.

When Pope Pius XII declared that the Assumption of Mary in 1950 was an article of faith, the Catholic Church in Jerusalem immediately sold Mary's tomb to the Armenian church. The former priest Lavallo personally told me that in Ephesus there was another tomb of St. Mary, but for the tomb of Peter it is completely different because for them it did not even exist and buying or selling such a site would have been out of the question. . It was for this reason that they found themselves in difficulty, as I was told by a Franciscan monk of the monastery of "Dominus Flevit". One of their members was working the soil on this site with a spade in 1953, when his shovel dropped. Excavation began and a large Christian burial ground was discovered there. There was written the initial of Christ, which had never been found in a Jewish, Arab or pagan cemetery. From the type of writing it was established by scientists that these were the days just before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 BCMany names of Christians of the early church were found on the ossuaries. It was prophesied in the Bible that Jesus would be on the Mount of Olives upon His return to earth. You can then see how the Christians would have been inclined to make the Mount their burial place, because here, too, it had been the favorite meeting place of Jesus and His disciples. In the whole cemetery, as well as in the catacombs in Rome, nothing resembling Arab, Jewish, Catholic or pagan practices was found. Dr. Glueck, who was a Jew, is not fully aware, no doubt, that such a discovery is very embarrassing as it blows up the very foundation of the Roman Catholic Church. Since Peter did not live in Rome and was therefore not martyred or buried there, it naturally follows that he was not their first pope.

The Catholic Church says that Peter was the first pope of Rome from 41 to 66 AD for a period of 25 years, but the Bible shows a different story. The book of the Acts of the Apostles (both of the Catholic and Protestant Bible) mentions the following: Peter preached the gospel for circumcision (to the Jews) in Caesarea and Joppa in Palestine, ministering in the house of Cornelius, at a distance of about 2,700 kilometers from Rome. (Acts 10: 23,24) Soon after, around the year 44 AD (Acts 12), Peter was thrown into prison in Jerusalem by Herod, but he was released by an angel. From 46 to 52 AD, we read in chapter 13 that he was in Jerusalem to preach the difference between the Law and Grace. Saul was converted in 34 AD and became Paul the Apostle (Acts 9). Paul tells us that three years after his conversion in 37 d. C., went up to Jerusalem to see Peter (Galatians 1:18), and in AD 51, 14 years later, went up to Jerusalem (Galatians 2: 1,8) and Peter is mentioned.Immediately after meeting Peter in Antioch, Paul says: " I resisted him in the face because he was to be condemned" . (Galatians 2:11).

There is vast evidence, the truth is evident from the scriptures that they have never failed. It would be amazing to read with what boldness Paul deals with Peter. There are very few, if any, who have opposed a pope and have lived (except in these days when everyone seems to oppose him). If Peter was pope there would have been no difference. Paul not only opposes Peter but reproaches him and accuses him of being guilty.

This reminds me of my visit to Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome. This castle, which is a very strong fortress, is joined to the Vatican by a path of elevated arches about a kilometer and a half in length from which the popes fled in moments of danger. The Roman Catholic guide showed me a prison cell inside which was a nearly airless dressing room. He told me that a cardinal who had argued with a pope over doctrine had been thrown into this airless room for about two hours until he nearly suffocated. Then he was taken to the guillotine a few meters away and was beheaded. Another thing stuck with me. The guide showed me the apartments of the various popes who had found refuge there. He showed me the apartment of the mistresses of each of the popes.I was surprised that he made no attempt to hide anything. I asked him, "Aren't you Catholic, are you?" He replied humbly: "Oh yes, I am a Catholic, but although I am ashamed of the history of many popes, I hope that our modern popes are better." Then I asked him: "You will certainly be aware of the relationship between Pope Pius XII and his governess". Many in Rome said that you ran the affairs of the pope and the Vatican as well. He bowed his head blushing and said sadly: "Yes, I know."You will certainly be aware of the relationship between Pope Pius XII and his housekeeper. "Many in Rome said that she managed the affairs of the Pope and also of the Vatican. He bowed his head, blushing and said sadly:" Yes, I know. "You will certainly be aware of the relationship between Pope Pius XII and his housekeeper. "Many in Rome said that she managed the affairs of the Pope and also of the Vatican. He bowed his head, blushing and said sadly:" Yes, I know. "

All of this explains why the Catholic Church has been so careful to keep this discovery unknown. They managed to do it right from 1953 , when there was the discovery of the Franciscans on the site of their convent, until  1959 . Having been so successful in keeping silent about this for so long, as the pope had warned, they had let their guard down when a person who seemed harmless but insistent showed up. Few realized that this person would spread the news almost everywhere. Their position in the world is quite unstable without this finding having wide resonance.

As I mentioned, I had a very pleasant conversation with the priest Milik, but I had not had the opportunity to see the priest Bagatti while he was in Jerusalem. In any case, on March 15, 1960 I wrote him the following: "I have spoken to many Franciscan priests and monks and they have told me about you and the book you helped to write. , but time did not allow it. I heard a lot about her, who is an archaeologist (with evidence in hand), I was convinced of her, regarding the ancient burial place that the remains found in the ossuary with the name on it: 'Simon Mar Jona', written in Aramaic, were those of Peter ". It was not indifferent that in his reply he did not contradict my statement,which he certainly would have done if he could have done it sincerely. "You really convinced me that the remains of the ossuary were those of St. Peter". This confirms the speech I had with the Franciscan monk in Bethlehem and the story he told me about the priest Bagatti who went to the pope with the evidence of the bones of St. Peter in Jerusalem. In his letter it is possible to see that he pays attention to the Pope's admonition to keep silence on this discovery. He therefore wrote to me that he leaves all the explanation of the Aramaic words "Simon Bar Jona" to the priest Milik. This is a familiar way out of such a situation. In the letter from the priest Bagatti it can be seen that he is in a difficult position.It cannot go against what he had written in 1953 at the time of the discovery of this Jewish-Christian burial ground, nor with what he had told the Franciscan monk about his visit to the pope. However, he raises the issue that helps him get out of the situation without contradicting himself completely and at the same time casts a smokescreen on the truth. He wrote:

"It is assumed that 'Jona' (on the ossuary) as I believe, may be another relative of St. Peter, because the names had passed from one family to another. To propose identification with St. Peter would go against a long tradition, which has its own value. In any case, soon there will be another volume which will prove that the cemetery was Christian and of the first and second centuries AD. Most devoted greetings in God. PB Bagatti CF M ".

As I have shown, after the pope's admonition to silence this thing, Father Bagatti leaves the interpretation of the whole subject to Father Milik who offers several suggestions, but in the end he affirms that Father Bagatti's original statement may be true, because the inscription and the remains were of St. Peter. It is also very interesting and extremely significant that Father Bagatti, in his attempt to neutralize his original statement and the consternation that the discovery had, and would have had if it had been known universally, says in reference to the name Simon Bar Jona (Saint Peter) " It may be another relative of St. Peter, because the names continued to be passed from generation to generation ". In other words he says that Peter's name, Simon Bar Jona,it could have been given to a relative of the same name in the generations before him, or, which might have belonged to a relative, generations after St. Peter. Both speculations go beyond the realm of the possible. First of all, he could not refer to a relative before St. Peter because the Christian burial ground could have come only after Jesus began his ministry in public and had converts, and consequently, he could not belong to a relative before the Peter's time, when only those who had converted through Christ's ministry were buried there.could not refer to a relative before St. Peter because the Christian burial ground could have come only after Jesus began his ministry in public and had converts, and consequently, could not belong to a relative before the time of Peter, when only those who had converted through Christ's ministry were buried there.could not refer to a relative before St. Peter because the Christian burial ground could have come only after Jesus began his ministry in public and had converts, and consequently, could not belong to a relative before the time of Peter, when only those who had converted through Christ's ministry were buried there.

Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and left it desolate. Hence, it is impossible that the inscription could have referred to a relative after the time of Peter. An encyclopedia explains the destruction in these terms: "With this event the history of ancient Jerusalem comes to a conclusion, because it was left desolate and its inhabitants were dispersed." It is quite evident that Peter was about 50 years old when Jesus called him to be an apostle, and he died around the age of 82, that is, around the year 62 AD. From these figures there were only eight years left from the time of Peter's death to the destruction of Jerusalem, so it was impossible that the inscription and the remains belonged to generations following Peter.In those days the names continued to change to another only after a lapse of many years. But let's say that immediately after the death of St. Peter, a child was named "Simon Bar Jona", the inscription still could not have been of this child because the remains were of an adult and not of an eight-year-old child who had died just before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, at the time of which "the history of ancient Jerusalem came to a conclusion, for it was left desolate and its inhabitants were scattered".the inscription still could not have been of this child because the remains were of an adult and not of an eight-year-old child who had died just before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, at which time "the history of ancient Jerusalem reached to a conclusion, because it was left desolate and its inhabitants were dispersed. "the inscription still could not have been of this child because the remains were of an adult and not of an eight-year-old child who had died just before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, at which time "the history of ancient Jerusalem reached to a conclusion, because it was left desolate and its inhabitants were dispersed. "

This ancient Christian burial site shows that Peter died and was buried in Jerusalem, which is easily understood as neither history nor the Bible says Peter was in Rome.  To clarify the matter, the Bible tells us that Peter was the apostle of the Jews. It was Paul who was the apostle to the Gentiles, and both the story and the Bible tell us that he was in Rome. It is not surprising that the Catholic Bishop Strossmayer, in his important speech against papal infallibility before the pope and the council of 1870, says: "Scaliger, one of the most prepared men, did not hesitate to say that the episcopate of St. Peter and his residence in Rome should be classified as ridiculous legends ".

Eusebius, one of the most educated men of his time, who wrote the history of the church up to the year 325 AD, claimed that Peter was never in Rome. This history of the church was translated by Jerome from the original Greek, but in his translation he added the made-up story of Peter's residence in Rome. This practice was common for trying to create faith in their doctrines, using false statements, false letters and falsifying history.  This is another reason why we cannot rely on tradition, but only on the infallible Word of God.

The secrecy surrounding this case is astounding, and yet understandable, since Catholics largely base their faith on the assumption that Peter was their first pope and that he was martyred and buried there. But I am somewhat of the opinion that Franciscan priests, those who are sincere, would be glad to see the truth proclaimed, even if it displeased those who are their superiors. While visiting with Father Milik, I told him about the highly educated priest I had spoken with just before I went from Rome to Jerusalem. He admitted to me that the remains of Peter are not in the tomb of St. Peter at the Vatican. I asked him what had become of them. He replied: "We don't know, but we think the Saracens stole it." To begin with, the Saracens never reached Rome, but even if they did, what would they need Peter's bones for? But they never arrived in Rome, so this concludes it.We had a good laugh, however, when I told him about my discussion with a brilliant American priest in Rome. I asked this American priest if he knew that Peter's bones were not in Peter's Tomb at the Vatican. He admitted they weren't there. Either way, he said that a good friend of his, an archaeologist, had been excavating under St Peter's basilica for St Peter's bones for a number of years and found them five years ago. Now, a man can be identified by his fingerprints but never by his bones. So I asked him how he knew it was Peter's bones. He hesitated and tried to change the subject, but at my insistence he finally explained that he had taken the bones to a chemist, they were analyzed and it was judged that the bones were from a man who had died at the presumable age of 65,and that therefore it must have been Peter. How ridiculous can people be?

Note that all the priests agreed that the Vatican and St. Peter had been built on a pagan cemetery. This place was very appropriate to build it, as Cardinal Newman also admitted, there are many pagan practices in the Roman Catholic Church. You will certainly agree that Christians would never have buried their dead in a pagan cemetery, and you can be equally certain that pagans would never have allowed a Christian to be buried in their cemetery. So even if Peter had died in Rome, which is out of the question, no doubt the pagan cemetery under Peter's basilica would have been the last place he would have been buried. Furthermore, by every indication, Peter must have lived beyond eighty and not until 65. The pope was right, to return to the burial ground of the first Christians, changes must be made, many of which are fundamental.But I fear that Pope Pius XII's admission about the discovery on the presentation of the proof of Bagatti's documentary was to satisfy Bagatti but at the same time to admonish him to silence the information, hoping that the truth of the discovery would fade. But they said that after all these years of excavations under the Vatican, they discovered some Greek words that read: "Peter is buried here", and the date is given as 160 AD. C. First of all, the very structure of the sentence immediately gives the impression that recently or a long time ago, someone has put the writing hoping that it will be taken as authentic in order to be able to establish it and what then and even now, which is not never been demonstrated. There is therefore a discrepancy in the date, because Peter was martyred around the year 62 AD and not in 160 AD Thirdly,why don't they mention anything about finding the bones under or around the sign? While visiting the catacombs, you see some things that are not suitable for Christians, but which tend to indicate that Christians had pagan practices similar to those of Rome today. Nothing is said about them and only after having insistently asked the Roman Catholic priest, who acts as a guide, does he tell you that those things, images and everything else were arranged there centuries after the first Christian era.Nothing is said about them and only after having insistently asked the Roman Catholic priest, who acts as a guide, does he tell you that those things, images and everything else were arranged there centuries after the first Christian era.Nothing is said about them and only after having insistently asked the Roman Catholic priest, who acts as a guide, does he tell you that those things, images and everything else were arranged there centuries after the first Christian era.

In 1950, just a few years before the discovery of the Christian burial site in Jerusalem, the pope made the strange declaration that the bones of St. Peter were located under St. Peter in Rome. The strange thing was that since the construction of the church had begun in 1450 (completed in 1626), they had erected the Tomb of St. Peter under the large dome and sinuous columns by Bernini. Since then the millions who were deceived into believing that the remains of St. Peter were there multiplied, which the hierarchy had learned not to be true, as evidenced by the Pope's latest statement. The following was published in Newsweek of July 1, 1957:

"In 1950 Pope Pius XII in his Christmas message announced that the tomb of St. Peter had indeed been discovered, as tradition handed down, under the immense dome of the cathedral (although there was no evidence that the bones discovered there belonged to the body of the martyr)". The brackets are from Newsweek.

Making an announcement of this magnitude when there is absolutely no evidence is quite absurd as is also reported in Time magazine of October 28, 1957 (as above, we quote the article word for word).

"A full report in English of the discoveries under St Peter, by British archaeologist Jocelyn Toynbee and John Ward Perkins is now available. The authors were not members of the excavation team, but the scholars Toynbee (a Roman Catholic) and Perkins (Anglican) they disseminated the official Vatican reports and scrupulously examined the excavations. Their careful independent conclusions did not take into account the pope's precise declaration. " (The pope's statement that the remains of St. Peter had been found under St. Peter in Rome). The excavation under St. Peter for the remains of St. Peter is still proceeding secretly, despite the Pope's 1950 declaration.

Then in 1965, an archaeologist from the University of Rome, prof. Margherita Guarducci, speaks of a new group of bones that belonged to Pietro. The story was fantastic but lacked common sense and bordered on childishness, but like the drowning man grabs hold of a speck, this was a speck to many. But the "Palo Alto Times" (California), of May 9, 1967, came out with an article on the subject which I quote: "Other experts, and among them Msgr. Joseph Ruysschaert, deputy prefect of the Vatican library is not convinced of the proof of Miss Guarducci. "There are too many dark spots," she told reporters on a recent tour of the Vatican caves, "There are no unbroken traces of bones. We lack historical evidence. It could be someone else's bones."The Vatican seems to be on Monsignor's side because so far it has not taken a step to officially recognize the bones as those of Peter ", the article continues.

The clever priest I mentioned said that the bones of Peter that were found were from a man who died at about 62 as indicated by the evidence. Pope Pius XII declared that these bones were the bones of St. Peter in his 1950 Christmas message. These were the same statements in Newsweek: "There is however no evidence that the bones discovered there belonged to the body of the martyr (Peter). ", as well as the statements of the archaeologists working on the case are beyond doubt. The pope, however, was delighted at the thought that they had found the bones of St. Peter until further examination showed that these bones were those of a woman. This fact was published in an article on the subject in the "San Francisco Chronicle" of June 27, 1968.

To continue, the story of another case in which they were wrong: In spite of the claims of the papal high authority and the resulting lesson that should have been learned, the pope, a year later, claimed the bones of prof. Margherita as if they were those of St. Peter's. When the bones were found, little importance was given and they were filed as such. But when the first set of Peter's bones was rejected so tragically, a void remained and something had to be done. Again they turned their thoughts to the archived bones, the only hope they had of success. In them there was a glimmer of hope for the bones of the supposed skull of St. Peter which for centuries had been kept in the church of San Giovanni Laterano in Rome. From a generous mixture of ideas, assumptions, theories and greedy thought,a fair and logical story emerged. It was then declared by Pope Paul as the truth of the Gospel, that these, therefore, were the authentic bones of St. Peter, and was accepted as such by most of the faithful. For a while everything went well until another obstacle presented itself. This time, as happened, the bones joined to the skull that had been kept for centuries like those of St. Peter, were found not compatible with the more recent bones of St. Peter. The dilemma was terrible. They stood between the devil and the vastness of the blue sea. They played dirty with the skulls of St. Peter causing confusion. It was chosen to claim these bones claimed by prof. Margherita as false, or claiming as false the skull accepted by hundreds of popes as that of St. Peter.They rejected the past rather than exposing themselves to the ridicule of the present. The teacher. Margaret argues in this article that appeared in the Manchester Guardian in London, as well as in the San Francisco Chronicle of June 27, 1968, that it concerned the long-accepted skull of St. Peter as a forgery. Then the article continues: "The hundreds of popes and millions of Roman Catholics who accepted and venerated the other skull were innocent victims of another primitive tradition."The hundreds of popes and millions of Roman Catholics who accepted and venerated the other skull were innocent victims of another primitive tradition. "The hundreds of popes and millions of Roman Catholics who accepted and venerated the other skull were innocent victims of another primitive tradition. "

But the most surprising statement in the long article found in the newspaper mentioned above, is: "The scholar did not subject (the bones of Peter?) To modern scientific tests, which would have determined the approximate age, because she feared that the procedure would reduce them. in powder". How could any scientific study of bones be done without first scientifically determining the age of the person or the bones? This would have been of greater interest and more important for further research. Every scientist and chemist alike knows that the entire skeleton does not have to be tested to determine age. A part of the shin bone or a rib would have been enough. It is evident that she was protecting "Peter's bones" from another possible disaster, which another wrong age would cause.The Vatican and others have calculated from all the existing evidence that Peter lived around 80 - 82, and died around AD 62 or 64.These figures fit perfectly, as does all the rest of the case, with the remains who found themselves on the Christian burial ground of the Mount of Olives and in the ossuary on which it was clearly and beautifully written: Simon Bar Jona in Aramaic. The following was taken from the book: Races of Mankind, on page 161:with the remains that were found on the Christian burial ground of the Mount of Olives and in the ossuary on which it was clearly and beautifully written: Simon Bar Jona in Aramaic. The following was taken from the book: Races of Mankind, on page 161:with the remains that were found on the Christian burial ground of the Mount of Olives and in the ossuary on which it was clearly and beautifully written: Simon Bar Jona in Aramaic. The following was taken from the book: Races of Mankind, on page 161:

"The strenuous attempts to bring Peter, the apostle of the Eastern Jews, to Paul's territory in Rome and to martyr him there are unworthy of serious consideration in the light of any contemporary evidence.  At his age (eighty-two) it would not have been feasible. . In none of Paul's writings is there the slightest hint that Peter had ever been in that city. All the contrary claims were made in the following centuries and are fanciful and unfounded. The papacy was organized only in the second half of the '8th century. It split from the Eastern church (from the Encyclopedia Britannica 13th edition, volume 21, page 636) under Pepin III, also the papacy, by Abby Guette ".

The great historian Schaff, affirms that the idea that Peter was in Rome is incompatible with the silence of the Scriptures, and also with the pure fact of Paul's epistle to the Romans. In the year 58, Paul wrote his epistle to the Roman church, but does not mention Peter, although he appoints 28 leaders of the Roman church (Romans 16: 7). Finally, it must be concluded that if the whole subject is treated with detached objectivity, the inevitable conclusion must be drawn that Peter was never in Rome. It was Paul who lived and wrote in Rome, but declared that: " Luke alone is with me". (II Timothy 4:11)