Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals: Apostle Simon Peter buried in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem

Jerusalem Christian Review ^ | 11-23-2003 | OP

[Uri’el-2012]

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

[Loyalist]

PING.

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

[Land of the Irish]

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

Exactly!

[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?

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

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

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>

[dangus]

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

--Cheers.

[dangus]

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?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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).

Also, see my Essay "Yaakov Ha Tsedek", referenced in the commentary immediately following the above Article.

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

[TheCrusader]

"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

[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 AM PST by dangus

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

Oops... back to formulating my responses.

[american colleen]

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.

[TheCrusader]

"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)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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.

[TheCrusader]

"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).

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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…

• The alleged “Bones of Peter” in Rome are not those of Simon Bar-Jona, but rather those of two men in their 50s (wrong age) a woman in her 70s (wrong gender) and several animals (wrong species).
  In response to mounting demand, however, Pius finally permitted rigorous scientific examination of the bones in 1956. It emerged that the remains were actually bones of three different people, along with scores of animals. Of the humans, two were men in their 50s, and one was a woman in her 70s. Clearly, these were not the fisherman’s bones.
  http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200105052a.html

• So which “Peter” (if any) WAS buried in the Vaticanus Cemetery for high-ranking Pagan Magicians? Well, to put it bluntly -- probably a Pagan Magician. This is because the greatest of Pagan Magicians were often called “Pators” or “Peters”.
  The pagan priests of the mystery religions were called PATORS or PETERS. They had the power to interpret the heathen mysteries. This is further brought out by Bunson in his Hieroglyph, page 545, where he shows that the Egyptians -- as The Bible also indicates -- called their "interpreters" or priests: PETR, that is, PETER. Notice some references to these sacred PETRAS found throughout the pagan world. At the temple of Delphi in Greece, the chief object in the ritual was the PETRA (Pausanius, Bk. 10). At the Acropolis in Athens, Euripides tells us, the niches which held the idols were called the PETRAE (verse 935). It is well known that even the sacred book which was used in the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries, was entitled "Book PETROMA," PETER-ROMA -- PETER'S BOOK (see Potter's Antiquities, vol. 1, p. 356). Remember that the pagan temples were also called after the PETERS. The temple at Elis in Greece was called PETRON Lycophron, verse 159). Pytho at Delphi was called PETRAessa (Olymp. Ode 6). The oracle temple dedicated to Apollo in Asia Minor was called the PATARA and the oracle there was called PATAReus ("Eus" means "person who, one") -- (Lempriere's Classical Dictionary, p. 438). Also PATRAE -- an ancient town where DIANA had a temple (p. 438), and the oracle in Achaia was called PATRA (Jones, Proper Names of the Old Testament, p. 296). Examples are too numerous to mention, but this should be enough to show that the name PETER, or its variants, figured very high in every phase of pagan worship. These PETER stones and temples were found all over the ancient world. "There is in the history of every oracular temple some legend about a stone; some reference to the word PETRA" (Bryant, p. 362). The world and history is littered with many example of the term PETER used as a title for a god.
  (see the “Sword of the Spirit” link, posted above)

  It’s entirely likely that there was a “Petrus” (or several) buried in the Vaticanus Cemetery; the Vaticanus Cemetery was reserved for high priests and soothsayers of the Pagan Mystery religions, and “Pator” or “Petr” was a title given to such Pagan Magicians. What is extremely unlikely is that a Jewish Christian, who directly attacked the Pagan Mystery religions as did Simon Peter Bar-Jonah, would be granted burial in the Vaticanus Cemetery for Pagan Magicians!!

  On the other hand -- a Jerusalem cemetery for Jewish Christians? Now that’s the sort of place which would (certainly) admit Apostle Simon Peter Bar-Jonah for burial.... just as the archaeological evidence confirms.

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

best, OP

[xzins]

Yep.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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

[Jerry_M]

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

Paul as the author of Hebrews?

[TheCrusader]

"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.

[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.)

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).

“Before I conclude this section, I must take notice of a passage in Josephus, which not only confutes all notions of a spiritual or mystical Babylon, but throws a great light on our present inquiry; and this passage is of so much the more importance, because Josephus was a historian who lived in the same age with St. Peter; and the passage itself relates to an event which took place thirty-six years before the Christian era, namely, the delivery of Hyrcanus, the Jewish high priest, from imprisonment, by order of Phraates, king of Parthia, with permission to reside in Babylon, where there was a considerable number of Jews. This is recorded by Josephus, Antiq. xv. c. 2, in the following words: dia touto desmwn men afhken, en babulwni de katagesqai pareicen, enqa kai plhqov hn ioudaiwn. Josephus then adds, that both the Jews in Babylon, and all who dwelt in that country, as far as the Euphrates, respected Hyrcanus, as high priest and king.
(http://www.geocities.com/arwoodco/1PETER.html)

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.

Revelation 16: 17-18 -- And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done. And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, [and] so great.

Josephus, the Jewish Wars -- Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one-and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence".
Revelation 16:19-20 -- And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
Josephus, The Jewish Wars -- And now there were three treacherous factions in the city, the one parted from the other... Accordingly, it so came to pass, that all the places that were about the temple were burnt down, and were become an intermediate desert space, ready for fighting on both sides of it; and that almost all that corn was burnt, which would have been sufficient for a siege of many years. So they were taken by the means of the famine, which it was impossible they should have been, unless they had thus prepared the way for it by this procedure.
Revelation 16: 21 -- And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, [every stone] about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.
Josephus, The Jewish Wars -- The engines, that all the legions had ready prepared for them, were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion: those that threw darts and those that threw stones were more forcible and larger than the rest, by which they not only repelled the excursions of the Jews, but drove those away that were upon the walls also. Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space. As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was of a white color, and could therefore not only be perceived by the great noise it made, but could be seen also before it came by its brightness; accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, "THE SON COMETH!"
Revelation 18:2 -- And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

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