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: cave; caveart; caves; epigraphyandlanguage; godsgravesglyphs; jerusalem; letshavejerusalem; ossuary; spelunkers; spelunking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 521-523 next last
To: SoothingDave
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.

181 posted on 11/24/2003 2:31:15 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
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.

182 posted on 11/24/2003 2:31:49 PM PST by OLD REGGIE ((I am a cult of one! UNITARJEWMIAN) Maybe a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Sorry ... ping to #181 ;^)

183 posted on 11/24/2003 2:34:07 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader; Quester
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?
184 posted on 11/24/2003 2:35:40 PM PST by OLD REGGIE ((I am a cult of one! UNITARJEWMIAN) Maybe a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Tell me I'm wrong.
You're wrong: )
185 posted on 11/24/2003 2:45:21 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Quester
What the RCC is horrified and shamed by, the church which represents the vast, nearly overwhelming majority of Presbyterians promotes and blesses.
186 posted on 11/24/2003 2:47:43 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
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?

187 posted on 11/24/2003 2:48:56 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Quester
>>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.
188 posted on 11/24/2003 2:50:36 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
>> 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.
189 posted on 11/24/2003 2:52:26 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Quester
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?
190 posted on 11/24/2003 2:57:13 PM PST by OLD REGGIE ((I am a cult of one! UNITARJEWMIAN) Maybe a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: dangus
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.

191 posted on 11/24/2003 2:59:49 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: dangus; TheCrusader; OLD REGGIE
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.

192 posted on 11/24/2003 3:03:59 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
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?

193 posted on 11/24/2003 3:06:02 PM PST by OLD REGGIE ((I am a cult of one! UNITARJEWMIAN) Maybe a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Ping to #181.

194 posted on 11/24/2003 3:06:22 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
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.

195 posted on 11/24/2003 3:08:12 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: 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.
196 posted on 11/24/2003 3:16:21 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; american colleen; sinkspur; Lady In Blue; Salvation; Polycarp; narses; ...
Bump to an interesting discussion on St. Peter!

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

197 posted on 11/24/2003 3:23:26 PM PST by NYer ("Close your ears to the whisperings of hell and bravely oppose its onslaughts." ---St Clare Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus; 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.

Really? They claim appointment by a direct revelation from Jesus? Wow!
198 posted on 11/24/2003 3:25:39 PM PST by OLD REGGIE ((I am a cult of one! UNITARJEWMIAN) Maybe a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
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.

199 posted on 11/24/2003 3:26:55 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

200 posted on 11/24/2003 3:31:19 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 521-523 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