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

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

[Quester]

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.

The last time recorded in Scripture. No more "Peter". It is now "Simon".

His name was Simon. To bury him under any other name defies logic.

I believe that Old Reggie is being a bit facetious here, ... though, of course, ... I could be wrong.

[OLD REGGIE]

This is one of your sillier arguments. It's not the last time in history, just the last time in the Book. Be real.

Let me repeat what I said with emphasis on the key words.

The last time recorded in Scripture. No more "Peter". It is now "Simon".

Please stick with what I said, not with your imaginative straw man.

If this was really Jesus changing Peter's name back to Simon, then we would all know him as Simon to this day.

What a stupid argument. I'm surprised. Theodore Roosevelt, known as "Teddy", is still Theodore. Simon, known as "Peter", is still Simon. Be real.

[Quester]

Sorry ... ping to #181 ;^)

[OLD REGGIE]

According to Institutionalized Presbytarian Doctrine they engaged in a 'holy union'.

Gee, I looked for this on Google and couldn't find it. Can you give me a link?

[eastsider]

Tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong: )

[dangus]

What the RCC is horrified and shamed by, the church which represents the vast, nearly overwhelming majority of Presbyterians promotes and blesses.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

That was cute. Ignoring the entire passage, the entire Gospel particularly John 1:42, Jesus' renaming of Simon, Acts, the Epistles of Peter, all to score one point. Congratulations, you scored one and lost ten.

Here is the entire passage. I'm sure your failure to include the other verses was an innocent mistake.

John 21:15 Peter the Shepherd.

When they had eaten their meal, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." At which Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
A second time he put his question "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" "Yes, Lord," Peter said, "you know that I love you." Jesus replied, "Tend my sheep."
A third time Jesus asked him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because he had asked a third time...................
What he said indicated the sort of death by which Peter was to glorify God...........

Why does John keep identifying Simon as "Peter"? Why is Simon referred to as Peter or Simon Peter in Acts, The Epistles of Peter, etc? Do you have a Bible? Have you read any further than the Gospel of John?

[dangus]

>>The Apostles wrote the canonized testimonies of the teachings of Christ as part of their foundation ministry.>>

No, less than 1/2 of the NT is written by apostles. The largest number of books are written by second-generation Christians, such as Paul and Luke. Plus, who decides whether to include the Didache or 2 Peter? Yup, the church.

[dangus]

>> There was no Roman Catholic Church at the time. There was a catholic Church.

... as distinguished from the hundreds of heretical cults which called themselves Christians, while denying the authority of the catholic Church. Sorta like today's protestants.

[OLD REGGIE]

I believe that Old Reggie is being a bit facetious here, ... though, of course, ... I could be wrong.

Yes, a little. He wouldn't have been buried under his nickname though. Would he have been?

[Quester]

No, less than 1/2 of the NT is written by apostles. The largest number of books are written by second-generation Christians, such as Paul and Luke. Plus, who decides whether to include the Didache or 2 Peter? Yup, the church.

Paul was an Apostle. Not one of the original 12, of course, ... but one by commission of Jesus Christ, Himself. He (Paul) testifies to this.

The other few NT writers are considered to be Apostles (in that they were foundational) as well.

[Quester]

What the RCC is horrified and shamed by, the church which represents the vast, nearly overwhelming majority of Presbyterians promotes and blesses.

As I have said, I (fortunately) have no need (or desire) to defend either aberration.

Although I must also add ... I have no evidence of what has been alleged of this branch of the Presbyterian church ... other than what was alleged by Crusader.

[OLD REGGIE]

Why does John keep identifying Simon as "Peter"? Why is Simon referred to as Peter or Simon Peter in Acts, The Epistles of Peter, etc? Do you have a Bible? Have you read any further than the Gospel of John?

Have you read any Gospel, later than that recorded in John, where Jesus speaks directly to Peter?

Is John Jesus? Why should I care what any other person than Jesus calls Simon Peter?

[Quester]

Ping to #181.

[Quester]

Yes, a little. He wouldn't have been buried under his nickname though. Would he have been?

Good point!

That hadn't occurred to me.

[dangus]

Yup... the other apostles decided to trust in Paul and make him one of their number. And that's still how they do it to this day.

[NYer]

Bump to an interesting discussion on St. Peter!

Kudos to Hermann the Cherusker for an excellent defense of catholic doctrine - hands clapping! NYer

[OLD REGGIE]

Yup... the other apostles decided to trust in Paul and make him one of their number. And that's still how they do it to this day.

Really? They claim appointment by a direct revelation from Jesus? Wow!

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

You should care because Jesus renamed Simon as Peter in John 1. That fact is in evidence as the other Apostles call him Peter as instructed by Jesus. Paul calls Peter, Cephas (Greek for Peter). Do you read the Scriptures as written by Jesus' Apostles and disciples? Do you care what Scripture instructs?

Furthermore, take a look at Acts 10. Peter has a vision where the voice from heaven, the Holy Spirit, calls him Peter. In at least two other verses he is referred to as Simon known as Peter.

If this isn't enough for you I don't know what is.

[Quester]

Yup... the other apostles decided to trust in Paul and make him one of their number. And that's still how they do it to this day.

Actually ... it was more like Christ commissioned him and the other Apostles eventually accepted it.

Read up a little on Paul.

I don't think that anyone, other than God, Himself, could have stood in his way in regard to the fulfillment of his calling from God.