Thursday, December 5, 2013

Crazy Church of God Beliefs: Peter Buried on Bricket Wood Campus?



Every once in a while a new story will pop up that tells of another Church of God legend that is completely bonkers in reality.

The other day this was sent to me:

Many years ago there was an article in the PT or possibly the Good News that stated that the Vatican way way back  sent what they said were the remains of Peter to England. The article claimed that they were buried on what became the AC campus at Bricket Wood. Does anyone else remember this?  This was a long time ago so I don't remember the details of how this took place.

I have never heard this and I have to say this is the stupidest thing I have heard in ages.  They lengths people go to to try and legitimize the beliefs of Armstrongism is amazing.  I guess this was to further solidify the British Israelism malarkey that the church used to believe.

Its no wonder people fall for the lies of David C. Pack, Gerald Flurry and others. If they believe these kind of stupid stories they will believe anything these fraudulent "ministers" tell them.

Will Gerald Six-Pack Flurry now uses this to try and buy the Bricket Wood campus?  So far he has failed to buy anything. Will he now lie to his members and tell them that he is seeking to preserve the burial place of Peter?

18 comments:

Corky said...

Well, if they weren't thinking that, now they are...

James said...

Great Caesar's Ghost!
Let's build another monument to Herbie!

RSK said...

I recently read an old Hoeh article where he claimed the remains of Peter (and Paul, I believe) were indeed sent to Britain. Nothing in that article about Bricket Wood though.

Anonymous said...

I did a quick google search and came across this Q&A on wikianswers Where is Saint Paul buried? that seems to give the source of this belief that Peter and Paul's remains were transferred to England. The source is supposedly bk 3 ch 29 of Bede's "Ecclesiastical History" though I haven't confirmed if this is an accurate quote.
It's interesting to note that the person who answered this Q&A must hold some form of BI belief since s/he goes on to claim that UK and US are of the lost tribes.
I recall reading FP Peterson's book "Peter's tomb recently discovered in Jerusalem" years ago. IMO though I have no idea where they're buried. I doubt the alleged relics of Peter are buried under the Vatican, but only Heaven knows.

RSK said...

No wait, I found it.

http://www.originofnations.org/books,%20papers/where_did_the_twelve_apostles_go.htm

"In the year 656 Pope Vitalian
decided the Catholic Church was not interested in the remains of
the apostles Peter and Paul. THE POPE THEREFORE ORDERED THEM SENT
TO OSWY, KING OF BRITAIN!...About a century and a half earlier Constantius of Lyons took
the relics of all the apostles and martyrs from Gaul and buried
them in a special tomb at ST. ALBANS IN BRITAIN. (Life of St.
Germanus.) Is it significant that the work of God and God's
College in Britain are in St. Albans? Think that over!

Anonymous said...

From an article by Dr. Hoeh entitled "Where Did the Twelve Apostles Go?":

"WHERE ARE PETER AND PAUL BURIED?

For centuries the Christian world has taken for granted that Peter and Paul are buried in Rome. No one, it seems, has thought to question the tradition. Granted, Paul was brought to Rome about A.D 67. He was beheaded, then buried on the Ostian Way But are his remains still there? Granted, too, that universal tradition declared the apostle Peter was also brought to Rome in Nero’s reign and martyred about the same time. Many pieces of ancient literature - some spurious, some factual - confirm that both Simon Magus, the false apostle, who masqueraded as Peter, and Simon Peter himself died at Rome. The question is - which Simon is buried today under the Vatican? Is there proof that the bones of the apostles Peter and Paul were moved from Rome, and are not there now? YES!

There is a reason the Vatican has been hesitant to claim the apostle Peter’s tomb has been found! They know that it is Simon Magus, the false Peter, who is buried there, not Simon Peter the apostle. Here is what happened. In the year 656 Pope Vitalian decided the Catholic Church was not interested in the remains of the apostles Peter and Paul. THE POPE THEREFORE ORDERED THEM SENT TO OSWY, KING OF BRITAIN! Here is part of his letter to the British king: “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” - (Bedes “Ecclesiastical History”, bk. III, ch. 29). Could anything be more astounding? The bones of Peter and Paul (termed “relics” in the Pope’s letter) sent by the Pope from Rome to Britain - to the land of Israel! About a century and a half earlier Constantius of Lyons took the relics of all the apostles and martyrs from Gaul and buried them in a special tomb at ST ALBANS IN BRITAIN. (Life of St Germanus.) Is it significant that the work of God and God’s College in Britain are in St Albans? Think that over!"

RSK said...

I am not sure Bricket Wood was actually located within the old St Albans parish though. It is in the borough now, but that was founded over a thousand years after the pope's supposed sending of the relics to Oswy.

Britain W. Stevenson said...

"Oh Brother!"

Anonymous said...

Still seems a little thready to me. "Relics" as we understand it today doesn't usually mean an entire corpse/skeleton, no? It means a sliver of so-and-so's finger or a skull from so-and-so. Bede is venerated by the Church now, its not like he's a no-name who wrote way after the fact.

Joe Moeller said...

What a ridiculous idea that Peter's bones are buried on the Bricket Wood Campus!

I know for a fact, based on a private secretive conversation that I had many years ago with a Mafia insider, that his bones are buried in the END ZONE at the New York Giants football stadium.

Them are the facts Jack!

Luv,
Joe Moeller
Cody, WY

Homer said...

Great! We know where the bones of Peter and Paul are. Now if we could just find Mary's bones and put them at the same place. When they are resurected they could sing folk songs about Jesus.

Homer said...

Great!! Now we know where the bones of Peter and Paul are. If we could just find the bones of Mary and put tem with the bones of Peter and Paul, then when they are resurrected, they could sing folk songs about Jesus.

Head Usher said...

This is just another case of sorting through the discredited ashes of fabled legends and deciding which ones can be conveniently put to good use supporting other discredited ideas that are convenient to my receiving a paycheck for the indefinite future.

How likely is it that the Catholic church would send away anything they though was a relic of Jesus or the 12 apostles? It's a lot more likely they would cover it with gold and encrust it with gemstones. How likely is such a story to be true? Not likely at all.

How likely is it that Armstrongists would believe a dubious story about Bricket Wood having been purchased by Herbert due to some divine influence connected in some mystical way to the supposed presence of relics of St. Peter on the property? Very likely. How likely is such a story to be true? Not likely at all.

Since we're rooting around in the ash heap, I'd point out that I'm not at all surprised that "venerable" Bede would make BI claims, since BI goes way back in the folklore of Britain. In fact, the intertwined royal houses of Europe have long subscribed to family trees tracing back to none other than Priam of Troy based upon old legends collected in English by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century, although they go back at least as far as the epic poetry of Virgil and Homer. However, simply because a story has emerged out of the mists of antiquity, such pedigree and bona fides do nothing to establish it's veracity, although many down through the ages have felt otherwise. Supposedly, after Troy was sacked, Priam's descendants scattered through Europe, founding all the royal houses of Europe. Britian itself is supposedly named after Priam's descendant, Brutus. Herbert & Herman long hung their hats on such stuff, as though, just because high-status "royal" people believed such stuff that made it more likely to be true. Though Monmouth and his BI folklore have long been put out to pasture in any verifiable history of Britain, when such legends have been accepted by royalty for so long, they die hard, regardless of the DNA evidence against it. Especially in circles like Armstrongism where verifiable things are automatically cast in a suspicious light.

Corky said...

You kind of have to keep in mind what a bunch of liars those early church fathers were. Hell, they made up stuff more than Pat Robertson does. Totally unreliable, like the Phoenix bird that lives for 300 years and the priest who rode his cape across a river without even getting his feet wet. Nothing in their writings but pure unadulterated bullshit.

Anonymous said...

The letter says "gifts" and "relics." It does not say "bones." Is there a corroborating document that would lead one to believe there is evidence of bones having been transferred? Or that "gifts" and "relics" means "bones?" If not -- then it is just more re-interpretation of the sort we are accustomed to witnessing from those with a special agenda.

Byker Bob said...

Whatever happened to the remains, it still can't possibly validate Herbert W. Armstrong as an apostle, or prove that the British are one of the lost half tribes. If the Catholic Church mistook Simon Magus for Peter, as Armstrongism has speculated (doubtful), then it would likely be the remains of Simon Magus that would be buried on the Bricket Wood campus. Now, considering what we here all know, wouldn't that be fitting???

BB

James said...

Anon wrote the following: "There is a reason the Vatican has been hesitant to claim the apostle Peter’s tomb has been found! They know that it is Simon Magus, the false Peter, who is buried there, not Simon Peter the apostle."

How did they tell the difference between the two? A photograph?

Just plain bullshit Anon!

Byker Bob said...

James,

That is the real problem with many of the HWA pronouncements of the past; how do you confirm them? If someone were to substitute the remains of Simon Magus for those of Simon Peter, that would constitute a conspiracy. Therefore, suggesting this becomes a conspiracy theory, for which further evidence would be required to elevate it to the level of historical fact. In the past 20 years, our standards for evidence have risen.

Photos would be nice. As we know, DaGuerre hadn't been born yet. But, if we had the actual remains of both individuals, dna testing might be informative. At least we would know which racial group of today exhibited similar makeup.

What we've found, time and time again, though, is that in some peoples' minds, "Mr. Armstrong said..." is taken as the highest level of evidence or proof as to whether something is "the truth".

Well, let's play their same game, and turn it around on them. Mr. Armstrong says the bones were switched. Dr. Hoeh says the bones the Catholics knew as those of St. Peter were sent to England, and reinterred in St. Albans. That is enough for me to conclude that Simon Magus is actually buried somewhere on the old Bricket Wood campus, hopefully on the parcel that Flurry is buying.

BB