Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals: Apostle Simon Peter buried in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem
Jerusalem Christian Review ^ | 11-23-2003 | OP

Posted on 11/23/2003 3:39:24 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian

Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals:
Names, Testimonies of First Christians

by Jean Gilman

JERUSALEM, Israel - Does your heart quicken when you hear someone give a personal testimony about Jesus? Do you feel excited when you read about the ways the Lord has worked in someone's life? The first century catacomb, uncovered by archaeologist P. Bagatti on the Mount of Olives, contains inscriptions clearly indicating its use, "by the very first Christians in Jerusalem."

If you know the feeling of genuine excitement about the workings of the Lord, then you will be ecstatic to learn that archaeologists have found first-century dedications with the names Jesus, Matthias and "Simon Bar-Yonah" ("Peter son of Jonah") along with testimonials that bear direct witness to the Savior. A "head stone", found near the entrance to the first century catacomb, is inscribed with the sign of the cross.

Where were such inscriptions found? Etched in stone - in the sides of coffins found in catacombs (burial caves) of some first-century Christians on a mountain in Jerusalem called the Mount of Olives.

An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".

Like many other important early Christian discoveries in the Holy Land, these major finds were unearthed and the results published many decades ago. Then the discoveries were practically forgotten. Because of recent knowledge and understanding, these ancient tombs once again assume center stage, and their amazing "testimonies in stone" give some pleasant surprises about some of the earliest followers of Jesus.

The catacombs were found and excavated primarily by two well-known archaeologists, but their findings were later read and verified by other scholars such as Yigael Yadin, J. T. Milik and J. Finegan. The ossuaries (stone coffins), untouched for 2,000 years, as they were found by archaeologist P. Bagatti on the Mt. of Olives.

The first catacomb found near Bethany was investigated by renowned French archaeologist Charles Clermont-Ganneau. The other, a large burial cemetery unearthed near the modern Dominus Flevit Chapel, was excavated by Italian scholar, P. Bagatti.

Both archaeologists found evidence clearly dating the two catacombs to the first century AD, with the later finding coins minted by Governor Varius Gratus at the turn of the millenium (up to 15/16 AD). Evidence in both catacombs indicated their use for burial until the middle part of the first century AD, several years before the New Testament was written.

The first catacomb was a family tomb investigated by archaeologist Clermont-Ganneau on the Mount of Olives near the ancient town of Bethany. Clermont-Ganneau was surprised to find names which corresponded with names in the New Testament. Even more interesting were the signs of the cross etched on several of the ossuaries (stone coffins).

As Claremont-Ganneau further investigated the tomb, he found inscriptions, including the names of "Eleazar"(="Lazarus"), "Martha" and "Mary" on three different coffins.

The Gospel of John records the existence of one family of followers of Jesus to which this tomb seems to belong: "Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick)..." (11:1,2)

John continues by recounting Jesus' resurrection of Lazarus from the dead. Found only a short distance from Bethany, Clermont-Ganneau believed it was not a "singular coincidence" that these names were found.

He wrote: "[This catacomb] on the Mount of Olives belonged apparently to one of the earliest [families] which joined the new religion [of Christianity]. In this group of sarcophagi [coffins], some of which have the Christian symbol [cross marks] and some have not, we are, so to speak, [witnessing the] actual unfolding of Christianity." A first-century coffin bearing cross marks as it was found by archaeologist P. Bagatti in the catacomb on the Mt. of Olives. The Hebrew inscription both on the lid and body of the coffin reads: "Shlom-zion". Archaeologist Claremont-Ganneau found the same name followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."

As Claremont-Ganneau continued to investigate the catacomb, he found additional inscriptions including the name "Yeshua" (="Jesus") commemoratively inscribed on several ossuaries. One coffin, also bearing cross marks on it, was inscribed with the name "Shlom-zion" followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."

While these discoveries were of great interest, even more important was another catacomb found nearby and excavated by archaeologist P. Bagatti several years later.

One of the first-century coffins found on the Mt. of Olives contains a commemorative dedication to: "Yeshua" = "Jesus". Bagatti also found evidence which clearly indicated that the tomb was in use in the early part of the first century AD. Inside, the sign of the cross was found on numerous first-century coffins.

He found dozens of inscribed ossuaries, which included the names Jairus, Jonathan, Joseph, Judah, Matthias, Menahem, Salome, Simon, and Zechariah. In addition, he found one ossuary with crosses and the unusual name "Shappira" - which is a unique name not found in any other first-century writtings except for the Book of Acts (5:1).

As he continued his excavations, Bagatti also found a coffin bearing the unusual inscription "Shimon bar Yonah" (= "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah").


An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".

Copyright © 1998 Jerusalem Christian Review


A Consideration of the Apostolate of Saint Peter

Below are Ten major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. These Biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice what God tells us! The truth IS conclusive!

Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ's time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East…. scholars say Peter's writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Peter was accustomed to their Eastern dialect.

At the times the Romanists believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. There are, of course, many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome -- but none of them are first-hand accounts, and none of them should be put above the many accounts of The Bible.

The Sword of the Spirit: On the Apostles Peter and Paul



"There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." ~~ Rev. Father J.T. Milik, Roman Catholic Priest and archaeologist

"Well, we will have to make some changes... but for the time being, keep this thing quiet." ~~ Pope Pius XII, the Bishop of Rome


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Theology
KEYWORDS: godsgravesglyphs; ossuary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-523 next last
Submitted for discussion. This Article is a complement to my Ya'akov Ha Tsedek and the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.

Enjoy. Best, OP

1 posted on 11/23/2003 3:39:25 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: the_doc
Article of interest.

Best, OP

2 posted on 11/23/2003 3:40:07 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; CCWoody; drstevej; Jerry_M
submitted for discussion.
3 posted on 11/23/2003 3:41:50 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CARepubGal; Jean Chauvin; Dr. Eckleburg; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Alex Murphy
submitted for discussion.
4 posted on 11/23/2003 3:42:49 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Early-morning Sunday, Early-Christian history ping.

Photographic and Archaeological evidence, delivered hot and fresh from the Book of Acts. Thought you might find of interest.

Best, OP

5 posted on 11/23/2003 3:44:24 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarMema; TexConfederate1861; The_Reader_David
Simon Bar-Jonah buried in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

Eastern Orthodox ping.

6 posted on 11/23/2003 3:45:50 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
submitted for discussion
7 posted on 11/23/2003 3:47:29 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Thanks, OP. I'll read them and send them far and wide after discussion. It's fascinating stuff and testimony that Christians should heed.
8 posted on 11/23/2003 4:58:02 AM PST by xzins (Proud to be Army!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; Revelation 911; The Grammarian; SpookBrat; Dust in the Wind; JesseShurun; ...
ping
9 posted on 11/23/2003 5:35:24 AM PST by xzins (Proud to be Army!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; OrthodoxPresbyterian
Thanks for the ping. Heard mention of this I think on Paul Harvey (?). Bookmarked to read later.
10 posted on 11/23/2003 5:42:30 AM PST by Corin Stormhands (All we got left in the Hobbit Hole is spam, pride and arrogance. / www.wardsmythe.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xzins
graffiti.......

(The Temple Scroll...)

Yet,......

(The 'sign' of the O.T. Prophet 'Jonah'.)

(Romans 10:17)

11 posted on 11/23/2003 6:32:11 AM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; NYer; Salvation; narses; ninenot; Desdemona; Canticle_of_Deborah
Hate to put a damper on this, but his remains (believed, no way to be 100%) were found in Rome a few decades ago. It had long been tradition that Peter was buried beneath St. Peter's Basilica. Of Course, the first basilica was erected many years after his death (couple hundred) so it was always tradition. However during WWII, when excavations were being done beneath St. Peter's to create more room for crypts for deceased Popes they stumbled upon an amazing discovery. Directly below the High Altar (just as tradition has held), a necropolis was discovered, directly beneath the altar was a little stone that had the name PETRUS written on it and the "Fish." Furthermore, when they dug up the body, it was a body of someone who had been crucified. Later archaeology and historical research revealed that the Necropolis dated from the time of Nero. Thus, making it likely, but sadly, not 100% that this was Peter's resting spot. Just thought I would share, if you are ever in Rome, contact the Vatican Office about the SCAVI, they do tours down there everyday, but it is unadvertised, since they want to do as little disturbance as possible, but the historical value is so vital. God Bless
12 posted on 11/23/2003 7:04:47 AM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy; Land of the Irish
Ping !!!!!!!!!!!
13 posted on 11/23/2003 7:06:08 AM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Thank you, Mr. Chick. A Delightful read (rolling the eyes). God Bless
14 posted on 11/23/2003 7:09:02 AM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Now tell me about Peter in Antioch, please?
15 posted on 11/23/2003 7:11:42 AM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
There's so much nonsense, I don't even know where to start. I can't begin to refute every single claim, there are so many made, so I'll start wit the main points.

Peter was certainly not in Babylon. Babylon had long since been destroyed, and the area it once stood on was no longer called Babylon. As Anti-Catholics so often love to point out, Babylon is used in many places in Revelations to signify Rome. So, yes, Peter writes that he's in Babylon, that is the biblical proof that the sola-scriptura types need to establish he's in Rome. (incidentally, non-biblical Jewish and Christian sources also routinely identify Rome as Babylon, including 4 Esdras, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Sibellyne Oracles.)

Other odd claims include that since Paul was "apostle to the gentiles," this means that He and not Peter left Palestine. It would also mean that none of the other disciples left Palestine, which would have been a direct refutation of the command given them by Jesus.

>>Below are Ten major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. >>

Actually, these proofs *DO* succeed in doing that fairly well; they at least make a strong case. But Peter is thought to have been in Rome about 3 times, totalling about 7-10 years during his 25 year reign as Bishop of Rome. Each apostle was actually given authority over patriarchates throughout the ancient world, although they're travels through different lands are well documented, yes, including in the bible. None stayed put; the most stationary was John who scarcely travelled far from Asia minor.

OP's article does concede that there is non-biblical, historical evidence to suggest that Peter was in Rome. This is somewhat of an understatement. Often Catholics say "the unanimity of the Church Fathers." This often means that certain Church Fathers have written on a subject without being opposed, or, if opposed, having shown that they had settled the matter with authority. In this case, however, when I looked it up, I was surprised to find that all of the most ancient church historians that I most commonly came across had specifically mentionned Peter in Rome: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Gaius, Origen, Eusebius, etc.

By now, I'm actually amused be the way certain Protestants expect that the entirety of the church, even the popes and church fathers, would be so ignorant of the bible as to not notice Peter's presence in Antioch recorded in Acts!

And that closing quote is a beaut... an unsourced "secret" quote from a Pope... "Don't tell anyone this, but it was dem critters from Roswell that killed Jack in Dallas!" -- President Lyndon B. Johnson. Even the UFO wierdos would at least make up a story for the source of such a quote.

As for Peter not wishing to be buried in a cemetary... After Peter was executed, his bones were unceremoniously dumped across the River Tiber, outside Rome, as a deliberate sign of disprespect. And it is there, outside Rome, where the Chair of St. Peter has remained to this day; The Vatican can never be identified as "Babylon," for it is not in Rome, but in exile across the Tiber.

As for the Article which deceptively headlined this screed:
Is it the assertion of the article that this cave is the burial place of Peter, son of John, and also of Mary, Martha, Lazarus, Mathew, Jude, and Salome? Given
1. the uproar of James' ossuary last year*, and
2. the presence of 1st-century attestations of Peter's death in Rome,
3. the weak source and lack of review
I'm not impressed.

(*For those of you who do not remember, within the past year, every major newspaper across the country ran sensational headlines about an ossuary which was found, saying, "James, son of Joseph, and brother of Jesus." What it actually said was "James of Joseph, of Jesus" which would imply nothing of the sort. The whole matter was quickly rendered moot when it was discovered that although the ossuary was 2,000 years old, the scratchings were fresh.)
16 posted on 11/23/2003 7:17:56 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
O, and if you really want a discussion, why ping only the people who will believe anything that is printed and contradicts Catholic belief? Why not ping someone who will defend Catholic belief? Or are you really just passing anti-Catholic screeds around?
17 posted on 11/23/2003 7:20:03 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
How many Simon-bar-Jonahs were in Israel in the first century? (Even if this isn't just another phoney ossuary.)


"and the unusual name "Shappira" - which is a unique name"

Judging from the number of folks with the name "Shapiro" in the New York City phone book, this "unique" first century guy did one heck of a job spreading his seed.
18 posted on 11/23/2003 7:47:20 AM PST by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Thanks for the ping!
19 posted on 11/23/2003 8:36:08 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dangus; OrthodoxPresbyterian
Actually, to be honest with you, I did the majority of the pinging. My list is pretty comprehensive.

And I pinged a fairly lengthly list of the strongest Catholics.

I didn't ping my mormon list because I didn't think OP would want the discussion to become about those kind of issues.
20 posted on 11/23/2003 10:10:31 AM PST by xzins (Proud to be Army!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; xzins
OrthodoxPresbyterian;xzins

ping


9 posted on 11/23/2003 6:35 AM MST by xzins (Proud to be Army!)


Interesting; but we have a more sure Word of G-d so says Peter!

NAsbU 2 Peter 1:19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

a bondslave to the Christ

chuck

21 posted on 11/23/2003 10:13:07 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al; Alberta's Child; Andrew65; AniGrrl; Antoninus; apologia_pro_vita_sua; Askel5; ...
PING.

St. Peter's bones have already been found in Rome, but what does evidence matter when trying to discredit Matthew 16:18?
22 posted on 11/23/2003 10:28:18 AM PST by Loyalist (Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Amchurch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
but what does evidence matter when trying to discredit Matthew 16:18?

Exactly!

23 posted on 11/23/2003 10:41:06 AM PST by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dangus; xzins
O, and if you really want a discussion, why ping only the people who will believe anything that is printed and contradicts Catholic belief? Why not ping someone who will defend Catholic belief?

Because I had every confidence that interested members of the FR Roman Catholic Caucus would find their way here on their own accord.

After all -- you did, didn't you?

I don't say that disrespectfully, mind you... I just think it's a perfectly rational expectation on my part to suppose that any Roman Catholics who are browsing the "Latest Posts" page and think an article on the burial of Simon Peter to be of interest, are perfectly able to join the discussion without any need for me to hand-deliver an embossed invitation. Wouldn't you agree?

That said, I appreciate your comments and shall try to address them shortly. best, OP

24 posted on 11/23/2003 10:49:20 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NWU Army ROTC
Not to mention that all the NT players were the only ones who ever existed with those names.

Amazing how they all managed to be buried in the same place in Jerusalem despite preaching and dying in foreign lands.

</sarcasm>
25 posted on 11/23/2003 11:04:19 AM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah (National health care gives the government the means to kill you when you become too expensive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
OK, that's a good answer.. I hafta admit that maybe I've gotten a bit touchy.

--Cheers.
26 posted on 11/23/2003 11:22:29 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Well, OP made the first two pings; that's what I responded to... I didn't pay as much attention to your later ping (maybe I didn't even see it).

Is there really a fair-sized Mormon contingency?
27 posted on 11/23/2003 11:24:40 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MarMema; xzins
Now tell me about Peter in Antioch, please? 15 posted on 11/23/2003 7:11 AM PST by MarMema

Well, we know that Peter travelled to Antioch (in about 51AD or so), wherein Galatians 2:11-21 relates the record of Paul's rebuke of Peter.

It is occasionally argued by some Protestants (and some Eastern Orthodox) that Paul's rebuke of Peter constitutes evidence against the doctrine of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility -- but it doesn't (this is really a poor logical argument). Strictly speaking, neither hypocrisy or cowardice on Peter's part nor the rebuke thereof by a fellow Apostle (Paul), would itself comprise particularly strong evidence against Papal Supremacy and Infallibility (assuming such a dogma for the sake of discussion).

The real argument against Papal Supremacy and Infallibility found in Galatians 2 is much stronger when we consider just WHY Peter fell into hypocrisy concerning the Gentile Christians -- Galatians 2:12 explicitly tells us that it was because Peter feared James.

Now, if Peter was supposedly "Pope" -- then Peter's fear of James is quite an awkward square peg for one to fit into the hollow circle of Papal Supremacy. Instead, what we see in Scripture is the administrative supremacy of James the Righteous, the half-brother (or, according to the Eastern Orthodox view, the step-brother) of Jesus Christ and Bishop of Jerusalem. Peter reported to James (Acts 12:17); It was James, not Peter, who passed Judgment at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13-22); James is accounted as the foremost of the Bishops (Acts 21:18); and as noted above, Peter himself feared the authority of James (Galatians 2:12).

A Jerusalem-centered Early Church under the general administration of James the Righteous thus accords much better with the actual record of Acts than any supposed Roman Papacy -- and better explains the Galatians 2 happenings in Antioch, as well. I think Xzins might have some thoughts on the matter (if he wants to add any comments).

Does that pretty well cover it, or had you further questions? Best, OP

28 posted on 11/23/2003 11:29:55 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
"An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".

Yeah right, just like they found the bones last year of "James the brother of Jesus". It turned out to be a fraud, just like this will be.

But there is some very good news in the find, because it PROVES beyond any doubt that the early Christians did indeed engrave, venerate and use the sign of the Cross, just as Catholics do to this day; which almost certainly means they venerated other holy representations, icons and paintings as well.

pax Christi

29 posted on 11/23/2003 11:36:09 AM PST by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
OK, that's a good answer.. I hafta admit that maybe I've gotten a bit touchy. --Cheers. 26 posted on 11/23/2003 11:22 AM PST by dangus

It didn't come off that way. It was a fair question.

Oops... back to formulating my responses.

30 posted on 11/23/2003 11:43:09 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Amazing how they all managed to be buried in the same place in Jerusalem despite preaching and dying in foreign lands.

If I am not mistaken, in this collection of burial boxes, one bears the inscription "Jesus Christ Lord" --- so much for the resurrection or at the very least, the biblical citations regarding the burial place of Jesus.

31 posted on 11/23/2003 11:49:50 AM PST by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
"PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community."

This very old Protestant claim is no longer believed even by modern Protestant scholars, as the evidece that Peter went to Rome is historically incontrovertibe. Many of the early Church Fathers and historians wrote of Peter living and dying in Rome. Here is just one such proof of Saint Peter's residence in Rome:

"But since it be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by point out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and faith which comes down to us after been announced to men by the Apostles"

written circa 180 A.D. by Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 'Adversus Haereses' - Against Heresies)

32 posted on 11/23/2003 11:50:23 AM PST by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader; xzins
the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul,

Just to be clear on the subject, I'm not actually arguing herein against the possibility that Peter visited Rome (once, or more than once).

The main point of the Article is that according to the evidence of the Bible, he didn't spend much time in Rome (throughout the 40s, 50s, and 60s AD, he's sojourning in Jerusalem, Antioch, etc., but not Rome); and according to the evidence of Archaeology, he was not buried in Rome.

33 posted on 11/23/2003 12:20:14 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rogator
"How many Simon-bar-Jonahs were in Israel in the first century?"

If Jerasulem had phone books back then you'd probably have found more Simon-bar-Jonahs than you'd find Chins in a Chinatown cafe.

Here are some Simons mentioned in the Bible, use your imagination to figure out how many others had the name, and then took the name after Saint Peter's death:

Simon Peter (the Apostle)

Simon the Cyrenian (Mark 15)

Simon Niger (Acts 1)

Simon Magus (Acts )

Simon the Leper (Mathew 26)

Simon the high priest (1 Maccabees)

Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7).

Simon the Zealot (Luke 6).

Simeon the Prophet - (Luke 2 ~ Simeon is Greek for Simon).

34 posted on 11/23/2003 12:20:31 PM PST by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NWU Army ROTC; Loyalist; xzins; Corin Stormhands
Hate to put a damper on this, but his remains (believed, no way to be 100%) were found in Rome a few decades ago. It had long been tradition that Peter was buried beneath St. Peter's Basilica. Of Course, the first basilica was erected many years after his death (couple hundred) so it was always tradition. However during WWII, when excavations were being done beneath St. Peter's to create more room for crypts for deceased Popes they stumbled upon an amazing discovery. Directly below the High Altar (just as tradition has held), a necropolis was discovered, directly beneath the altar was a little stone that had the name PETRUS written on it and the "Fish." Furthermore, when they dug up the body, it was a body of someone who had been crucified. Later archaeology and historical research revealed that the Necropolis dated from the time of Nero. Thus, making it likely, but sadly, not 100% that this was Peter's resting spot. Just thought I would share, if you are ever in Rome, contact the Vatican Office about the SCAVI, they do tours down there everyday, but it is unadvertised, since they want to do as little disturbance as possible, but the historical value is so vital. God Bless ~~ NWU Army ROTC

St. Peter's bones have already been found in Rome, but what does evidence matter when trying to discredit Matthew 16:18? ~~ Loyalist

And now, as Paul Harvey would say, The Rest Of The Story…

And now you know…. The rest of the Story.

best, OP

35 posted on 11/23/2003 12:44:03 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Yep.
36 posted on 11/23/2003 12:50:33 PM PST by xzins (Proud to be Army!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader; xzins
Here are some Simons mentioned in the Bible, use your imagination to figure out how many others had the name, and then took the name after Saint Peter's death:

Actually, "after Peter's death" is not in the cards here, as the usage of burial cave in question is dated prior to AD70 -- not thereafter.

Which doesn't, of course, alter the fact that there were lots of Simons running around prior to AD70; what narrows the matter down to the proverbial eye of a needle is the fact that we have a Mary, Martha, and Lazarus together with a Simon Bar-Jonah all together in a cemetery specifically reserved for Jerusalem-area Jewish Christians.

If the Apostle Simon Peter bar-Jonah died amongst the company of the Jerusalem Christian Church, then this is about what we would expect to find.

And this is what was, in fact, found.

Best, OP

37 posted on 11/23/2003 12:52:29 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Good article, but one "nit" (see Proof 8):

Paul as the author of Hebrews?
38 posted on 11/23/2003 12:58:05 PM PST by Jerry_M (I can only say that I am a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation. -- Gen. Robt E. Lee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
"The real argument against Papal Supremacy and Infallibility found in Galatians 2 is much stronger when we consider just WHY Peter fell into hypocrisy concerning the Gentile Christians -- Galatians 2:12 explicitly tells us that it was because Peter feared James."

This is not a 'real argument' at all, it's a flimsy personal intrepretation that falls like a stone to the ground in the face of correction. Here are the verses you claim prove that Peter was not head of the Apostles:

"But when Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed. For before some men came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabus was also led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that THEY were not walking uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, live after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how doest thou compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews?" (2 Gal. 11-15)

You claim that Peter "feared" James, but the Bible says that he feared the entire "circumsion party". The fear spoken of here regarding Peter, Barnabus, and the entire party, probably refers to their human pride. It could easily have been that Peter and the rest didn't want the righteous 'circumcision party' from James to see them "mingling with the rabble", as it were.

We know from Peter's three denials of Christ, his momentary loss of faith and falling into the sea, and his taking up his sword at Gethsemene that he was prone to fear. All this means is that he was human, but his fear was conquered when he kept his faith to the end and was martyred for it at Rome.

But far more importantly, the verses tell us that when Peter acted insincerely the entire Jewish party, including Barnabus himself, then followed his error. Unless Peter were clearly the Head, they would not have followed him; which also rasies the question "why would Paul choose to rebuke only Peter even though the entire Jewish party, (surely consisting of elders and leaders), including Barbabus himself, all fell into the same error"? Paul didn't correct them all because he corrected the entire Church by correcting Peter, the head of the Church.

The Catholic Church is rife with examples of the Saints 'rebuking' (correcting) Popes in non-doctrinal matters. Your example of Peter being rebuked is not even the first we know of, for Jesus had to correct Peter several times when He still walked amongst the Apostles. I will wager that even Peter's mother-in-law corrected him a few times, :o)

Nobody ever claimed that the Popes were perfect, we only claim that that when they teach matters of Christian faith and morals, (matters directly affecting salvation), to the Church that their teachings cannot err.

39 posted on 11/23/2003 1:25:41 PM PST by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dangus; George W. Bush; xzins; XeniaSt
There's so much nonsense, I don't even know where to start. I can't begin to refute every single claim, there are so many made, so I'll start wit the main points. Peter was certainly not in Babylon. Babylon had long since been destroyed, and the area it once stood on was no longer called Babylon. As Anti-Catholics so often love to point out, Babylon is used in many places in Revelations to signify Rome. So, yes, Peter writes that he's in Babylon, that is the biblical proof that the sola-scriptura types need to establish he's in Rome. (incidentally, non-biblical Jewish and Christian sources also routinely identify Rome as Babylon, including 4 Esdras, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Sibellyne Oracles.)

Actually, Josephus makes reference to the city of Babylon as an urban center for Judaism at least as late as 36BC, within a century or so of Peter's Epistles (I don't make any claim that the city had been rebuilt into as great a metropolis as its former days).

So, when Peter says that he is writing from Babylon, the simplest read on the matter is that Peter... was writing from Babylon. After all, when Paul wrote from Rome, he stated "I'm writing from Rome".

That said, if one supposes that Peter was writing from a "metaphorical Babylon", that doesn't necessarily lead us to Rome. While Rome could be seen as a "metaphorical Babylon", we find another Christian writer speaking of a "metaphorical Babylon" within the pages of Scripture -- referring to Jerusalem.

Now, to reiterate: the simplest read on Peter's Epistles would be to understand that when he claims to be writing from Babylon -- he's writing from Babylon. HOWEVER, if one believes that Peter is writing of a "metaphorical Babylon", the most obvious candidate would be the "metaphorical Babylon" recorded in the pages of the New Testament -- that is, Jerusalem.

So that'll hafta be my response to the first part of your Post; it's late afternoon, and I have to run. But, while I don't expect to have time tonight, I'll try to address the remainder of your Post on the morrow.

Best, OP

40 posted on 11/23/2003 1:46:05 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
"Which doesn't, of course, alter the fact that there were lots of Simons running around prior to AD70; what narrows the matter down to the proverbial eye of a needle is the fact that we have a Mary, Martha, and Lazarus together with a Simon Bar-Jonah all together in a cemetery specifically reserved for Jerusalem-area Jewish Christians."

Don't you, dear readers, find it quite amusing that a man such as OrthodoxPresbyterian, who so rabbidly trumpets the Bible to be the source and end of all Christian teaching and tradition, is now attempting to commingle a case for his personal "Christian" beliefs with anthropology, presumption, and a matter the Bible is silent on? Anyone else thinking "Piltdown Man", or "James, the 'brother' of Jesus" in a jar??? LOL

41 posted on 11/23/2003 1:48:10 PM PST by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; american colleen
If I am not mistaken, in this collection of burial boxes, one bears the inscription "Jesus Christ Lord" --- so much for the resurrection or at the very least, the biblical citations regarding the burial place of Jesus.

Oops.

42 posted on 11/23/2003 1:58:27 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah (National health care gives the government the means to kill you when you become too expensive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
If you know the feeling of genuine excitement about the workings of the Lord, then you will be ecstatic to learn that archaeologists have found first-century dedications with the names Jesus,

I mean, what are the odds?? Thank goodness we have proof now that some of the posters here who deny the Messiah are actually correct. Whew!

43 posted on 11/23/2003 2:00:58 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah (National health care gives the government the means to kill you when you become too expensive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
"the fact that we have a Mary, Martha, and Lazarus together with a Simon Bar-Jonah all together in a cemetery specifically reserved for Jerusalem-area Jewish Christians."

Are you really so naive as to believe this crock of crap?

I suppose in the tomb nextdoor they found the bones of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary as well!!! Not to mention Moses, Elijah and King David.

FYI the largest population of Jews outside of Jerusalem was in Rome - not surprising really, it being the capital of the empire. It would be only natural for those taking the gospel to the circumcision to end up in Rome.

This is why there was already a community of Christians in Rome before either Peter or Paul got there. The point isn't that Peter and Paul established the Church in Rome, but that they consecrated it with their blood poured out in martyrdom.

Do you really think that Paul could have written a letter to "the Romans" if there wasn't already an established Church there?

Do you really think that the Romans would have executed Peter anywhere other than Rome, considering that he was the leader of the new sect?

As for the impossibility of St. Peter preaching the gospel to the gentiles, who do you think received the revelation from God to baptise the gentiles?

The likelihood of there being any truth at all to this article is about as much as there was for that recent thread about the manna appearing again in Egypt. Looks like you've been had by the Onion!
44 posted on 11/23/2003 2:16:48 PM PST by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
"Actually, "after Peter's death" is not in the cards here, as the usage of burial cave in question is dated prior to AD70 -- not thereafter"

Two little facts that you "overlook".

(1). As I have shown, there were clearly a great many other 'Simons' who lived and died in Jerusalem during St. Peter's generation. Mary was the most common female name of all, Lazarus was such a common name that Jesus used it in His parable of the rich man, (Luke 16), and Martha was also a very common Hebrew/Aramaic name that meant "Lady". Cemetaries at the time of the Apostles were literally chock full of these names. It would be like modern cemetaries containing tombstones with the epitaph "Here Lies Bill", or "Here Lies Jane". Your pale little case could not even withstand the legal standard of "reasonable doubt", let alone the infinitely clearer proof required to controvert the writings of so many early historians, bishops and saints.

(2). At least five Early Church Fathers, historians and Bishops wrote of Peter's death in Rome. Testimony of his martyrdom in Rome is extensive, including writings by Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Clement I of Rome, St. Ignatius, and St. Irenaeus.

Now, whom do we believe, the writings of the early Christian historians and Saints, or a man whose "orthodoxy" is from a 'church' that blesses homosexual unions in formal ceremonies and call the abomination of sodomite activity "Holy Unions"? I'm curious to know how much Mr OrthodoxPresbytarian's loafers weigh. :o)

45 posted on 11/23/2003 2:17:07 PM PST by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
"Anyone else thinking "Piltdown Man", or "James, the 'brother' of Jesus" in a jar??? LOL"

Exactly so!!! Any burial tomb of Peter would more likely have the name "Simon son of John" rather than "Simon son of Jonah", and the fact that the latter inscription has been found also indicates forgery. OP is going to be selling relics before you know it!

BTW have you heard about the most recent archaeological evidence about John Calvin that they've found in Geneva....?

;)
46 posted on 11/23/2003 2:36:27 PM PST by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Thank you Mr. Chick.
47 posted on 11/23/2003 2:37:00 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
"If I am not mistaken, in this collection of burial boxes, one bears the inscription "Jesus Christ Lord""

Yes, and we all know Jesus Christ was burried in a sepulchre with a large stone closing it, and His body was not there when they went to annoint It, (Mathew 28:1), (Mark 16:1), (Luke 24:1), (John 20:1). So much for the burial box schtick.

48 posted on 11/23/2003 2:38:34 PM PST by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
"BTW have you heard about the most recent archaeological evidence about John Calvin that they've found in Geneva....? ;)"

No, I stopped reading about exhumed bodies after I heard the lyrics "John Brown's body lies a' moldin in the grave". LOL

pax Christi

49 posted on 11/23/2003 2:42:21 PM PST by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; Tantumergo; Canticle_of_Deborah
So...no tomb is attributed to Mary the mother of Jesus? How interesting.

OP, this sort of posting is really unworthy of you.
50 posted on 11/23/2003 2:55:56 PM PST by Romulus (Nothing really good ever happened after 1789.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-523 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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