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

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

[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!

PROOF ONE:
We should consider Christ's commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles. "The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8). Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN'T Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.

PROOF TWO:
Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed." PAUL Established The Only TRUE Church at Rome.

PROOF THREE:
We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter -who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Roman Church would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense!

PROOF FOUR:
We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man's foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church – because Peter was not in Rome.

PROOF FIVE:
At the end of Paul's Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn't there!

PROOF SIX:
Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul's arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter's meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!

PROOF SEVEN:
When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ``as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn't. Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. There is no mention of Peter in Paul's Letters.

PROOF EIGHT:
After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn't there!

PROOF NINE:
With the expiration of Paul's two year's imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Romanist Church, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter thrice denied Christ, but that was before he was indwelt by the Spirit at Pentecost. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul's trial, and FORSOOK Paul as he forsook Christ, is absolutely untenable. Peter did not forsake Paul; PETER WAS NOT IN ROME.

PROOF TEN:
The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though The Romanist Church says he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!

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

THE VATICANUS -- Keller ought to have better logic to know that this Peter buried in this cemetery, of all places, could NOT be the Apostle Peter. In the first place, Peter was a Jew, and they had to be buried in their own cemeteries. This is quite a big step from not even being able to eat with gentiles to be buried is the special cemeteries reserved for the chief pagans and self-proclaimed Gods or "Pators". And even if by a happen-chance a Jew could be buried in a Roman cemetery, it is most unlikely that a Jew -- especially one who attacked the Roman religion as the Apostle Peter did -- would ever have been allowed into the most holy of pagan cemeteries! This cemetery was reserved for prophets, soothsayers and the great ones of pagan Rome. I personally think that the apostle Peter would not be caught dead in a pagan cemetery.

---

"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

[SoothingDave]

All you can do is compile the evidence and counter-evidence and see how compelling is your case.

Yep. If you have no one to trust, you must rely on your own judgment. You must keep in mind though, that any evidence found, in history, is but a piece. Years from now we could unearth hundreds of copies of the NY Times and conclude a quite different reality than the one we all know and love.

SD

[TheCrusader]

"Gee Dave I thought you were on vacation. I knew if you had been reading this thread you would have taken TheCrusader to task for his filthy lies."

What 'filthy lies' might these be? I will tell you and your idiotic friend othrodoxpresbytarian right now that I could care less whether his particular denomination of Presbytarians followed their 'mother church' into the abyss of homosexual "holy unions". What I care about is that this apostate anti-Christ is spreading disgusting lies and trying to revise well documented Christian history. So be it, he got his lying little orthdoxpresbytarian behind kicked in the debate anyway. On with the next heretic.

[dangus]

>> I didn't get that sense (James the Righteous doesn't really come across as a mobster in Acts 15, but to each his own), but your point that he feared the Men of James come to Antioch frankly makes the matter worse... now we have a supposed "Pope" who is genuflecting not just to a mere bishop, but to the bishop's itinerant subordinates.>>

I don't mean to imply Peter feared James would beat him up or anything! By a "bit of a mob," I didn't mean mob of gangsters, just that they were quite several in number. I was thinking more of a teacher who refers to a "mob" of students, or a Mom to the "mob" of children taking over her living room.)) Discord among the apostles would be a terrible thing, which Peter would obviously strive to avoid. I picture Paul saying something along the lines of, "Peter, you tell me to baptise gentiles, than you allow James to forbid this in Jerusalem. Don't you see this is causing confusion and turmoil among the assemblies?"

Perhaps "mob" was a strange choice of words, but I didn't even imagine one faction of apostles warring with another; these were people who loved one another, and were intimate friends who had shared experiences of the sort you and I could scarecely imagine!

[SoothingDave]

The truth is that God can spread His gospel any way He chooses.

Yes, pretty much so. But the idea that God came to this world and started a church to spread His message, got Himself Crucified and such all so this message would be hidden seems counter to the idea of Revelation in the first place. Didn't Jesus Himself say you don't light a lamp and then put it under a basket?

Sometimes one needs to look beyond one's own prejudices. Why would God start a Church to spread His messgae if all that was needed was a Book?

SD

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I've got some long posts to which I need respond, so I'm gonna skip ahead a bit and make a short point concerning post #91 before I get back to the long posts in the #60s and #70s.

"The easiest thing of all is to deceive one's self; for what a man wishes he generally believes to be true." ~~ Demosthenes 91 posted on 11/24/2003 9:31 AM PST by eastsider

This is actually a great quote -- but not for the reason eastsider thinks. Lemme 'splain...

The fact of the matter is, I'm not "married" to the absolute certainty that Simon Peter was buried in the region of Jerusalem -- if I were, I'd be "newly-married" at best, as I've never been particularly bothered by the traditions which claim Peter was buried in Rome (for me, the claim of Peter's burial in Rome is orthogonal to the legitimacy of the Papacy in any event, so it's not a critical issue to me). I've never presumed as a certainty that these traditions, not being directly supported by the Bible, were unquestionably true; but neither have they troubled me.

On the other hand, if Peter was in fact buried in the region of Jerusalem, that doesn't bother me either. I just never gave it much thought until I came across some articles regarding the ossuary of Simon bar-Jona, together with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, within this Christian cemetery in the Jerusalem area.

So let's try a little thought exercise... and see if we can find some double-standards at play.

SUPPOSE that the untampered Ossuary of Simon bar-Jona had been discovered... underneath the Vatican.
• Likely response from OP? "Hmm. This appears to be good archaeological evidence for the arguments of those who claim that Peter was buried in Rome. I find that of interest."
• Likely response from Roman Catholics? "Yes, indeedy!! Well, that cinches it... not to say we told you so, but -- oh, now you're gonna tell us it's not the Simon bar-Jona? Well, me oh my, you can lead a horse to water... I tell you, some people."

Tell me I'm wrong.

Now, on the other hand....

SUPPOSE that the untampered Ossuary of Simon bar-Jona has been discovered... in the region of Jerusalem. (as it has been)
• Likely response from OP? Well, posted above, but in essence -- "Hmm. This appears to be good archaeological evidence for the arguments of those who DISPUTE that Peter was buried in Rome. I find that of interest."
• Likely response from Roman Catholics? "FRAUD!! Certainly a fraud!! What... not one Roman Scholar has ever contested the authenticity of the burial cave, or the untampered ossuaries therein? Well, then, it obviously can't be the Simon bar-Jona... it must be some other Simon bar-Jona! And some other Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, too! And while we're at it, you're a creep for even bringing this up and probably a latent homosexual."

Hmmm. Howzabout that.

You might say.... The easiest thing of all is to deceive one's self; for what a man wishes he generally believes to be true.

[xzins]

Granted.

And,yes, we understand that we must trust our own judgment on many matters. We are taught, "study to show yourself approved" AND "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

This is different than trusting one's church as the final say.

[OLD REGGIE]

Well, duh. Whom do you trust to tell you what is "accurate" is the question. Web sites full of obvious lies and slander do not seem, to me personally, to be good sources to "check" the "accuracy" of anything.

Interesting. Let's see a quote from Hermann in defense of using information from the writings of "heretics".

"Men like Tatian, Tertullian, Origen, and Theodore are honored for their orthodox contributions, while their heresies are passed over and ignored."

Well, duh. Who do you trust? Are there no truths in the writings of these men?

[Quester]

Peter claims Christ told him not to force gentiles to be circumcised. He backs down and James continues the practice. Paul tells Peter to do what's right. Peter tells James he's wrong; James changes his mind and agrees with Peter and Paul.

Who's in charge here? Sure as heavens looks like Peter to me!

Actually ...

Paul and Barnabas travel to Jerusalem to submit the question of the necessity of circumcision to the Jerusalem council, at which ...

Peter testifies ...

Paul testifies ...

James makes a judgement and directs those present to disseminate his judgement throughout the churches.

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

...

6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

...

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

[SoothingDave]

This is different than trusting one's church as the final say.

Not entirely. One should certainly study and even "work" out one's own salvation. But one should also take into account the historical teaching of the Church. It is almost the height of vanity to imagine oneself as a new source of revelation that others throughout the generations have missed.

SD

[Quester]

... idiotic friend ...

Seems to be a pattern of behaviour with this one.

[dangus]

If I may pile on, I found the "Sword of the Spirit" web page to seem downright Satanic! Mixing images of pagan weapons (i.e., a throwing star) with sacred symbols (i.e, the cross)! And we're not talking "Cross and the switchblade" here; the weapons are presented as allied with the cross.

Meanwhile a Lucifer-style dragon lords over the web page, and on some subpages lurks in the shadows, truly menacing and obviously Satanic; but he doesn't seem defeated or even at war, as would be appropirate, but triumphant and cunning.

On the main page, the dragon's head swaggers side-to-side, as if surveying his voctory, proudly venting his fire. Under him, UNDER HIM!, is the phraise "The Virgin Mary," a diabolical reversal of the imagery of Revelations, which depicts the Virgin as Queen of Heaven, standing on the head of the defeated dragon.

Certainly, defenders would assert that this is not at all what was intended, but the themes are so blantantly evil that I must appeal to what is known as the "intentional fallacy." Thousands of years older than Freud (even Plato speaks of it in other words), the intentional fallacy states that art reveals more than the artist intended. Why doesn't the author of the web page realize how Satanic his page looks?

[TheCrusader]

"It would seem TheCrusader was ignorant about the difference between OP's "orthodox" Presbyterian and the garden-variety Presbyterians we all know so well."

Thanks for the post Dave. Actually, these guys are carping on the homosexual issue to escape the inescapable conclusions of the original debate; OrthodoxPresbytarian lost on every single point he tried to make regarding his insinuation that Peter never went to Rome. He even stated that certain of the early Chruch Fathers did not comment on Peter, when in fact, of course, they did. This is the real outrage, burying history with lies. All these guys have left is to carp on the homosexual comment I threw out there, smile.

The Presbytarian 'church' in my city holds homosexual seminars to indoctrinate the public into this abomination, where they show videos of homos cavorting and "loving" each other. This Presbytarian 'church' also performs 'holy unions' to bless homosexual sin. Guess I'll just have to buy one of those 75 pound Protestant Church Reference Books, with the 25,000 different denominations, and read about the 25,000 opposing doctrines and teachings so I can get up to date. A Crusader's work never ends, sigh. :o)

[OLD REGGIE]

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;

An article by one of those terrible people, an ex-Priest, which raises some points worthy of debate. (I promise you, you won't like it.)

Peter's Bones and Rome's Truth

[TheCrusader]

Thanks for this post Hermann, very enlightening.

[Quester]

Sometimes one needs to look beyond one's own prejudices. Why would God start a Church to spread His messgae if all that was needed was a Book?

I don't believe I said that only a Book is needed (even if 'the Book' contains the very words of God).

But, tell me, ... if the Church is to teach ... are you telling me that it doesn't teach from 'the Book' (i.e. that 'the Book' is not the basis of it's teaching) ?

[SoothingDave]

What's funny is that you make the case for having the Church around to sort these things out, when you think you are making the opposite case.

SD

[Quester]

The Presbytarian 'church' in my city holds homosexual seminars to indoctrinate the public into this abomination, where they show videos of homos cavorting and "loving" each other. This Presbytarian 'church' also performs 'holy unions' to bless homosexual sin. Guess I'll just have to buy one of those 75 pound Protestant Church Reference Books, with the 25,000 different denominations, and read about the 25,000 opposing doctrines and teachings so I can get up to date. A Crusader's work never ends, sigh. :o)

Fortunately, ... we all know what goes on behind closed doors in the One Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, ... some of it is pretty ugly.

[SoothingDave]

I don't believe I said that only a Book is needed (even if 'the Book' contains the very words of God).

It's the rallying cry, remember?

But, tell me, ... if the Church is to teach ... are you telling me that it doesn't teach from 'the Book' (i.e. that 'the Book' is not the basis of it's teaching) ?

The Church wrote the Book. It teaches using it, and the understanding of what it has written, that is lacking when you divorce the words written from their context and historical millieu of understanding.

SD

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Simon was renamed Peter by Jesus. He is named as Peter throughout the rest of the Gospels and Epistles. There is no way he would have been buried under his old name. That defies logic.

[Quester]

What's funny is that you make the case for having the Church around to sort these things out, when you think you are making the opposite case.

Why would the burial place of Peter make any difference to one's faith ?

Reminds me of what Jesus said of the Pharisees ...

Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.