An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Posted on 11/23/2003 3:39:24 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
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
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 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
"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
A better place to find any book that you may be searching for is abebooks.com. You can place a 'want' and they will search the lists of all of the used book stores in the western world for your book :o)
This has no meaning to you?
James having been identified as the son of Zebedee, John is simply identified as his brother. "James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother who was also son of Zebedee, which, being the brother of the son of Zebedee, you would well expect..." would get a little tedious.
Same goes double for Simon bar-Jona, and his brother Andrew.
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. ~~ Apparently we are dealing with modernist scholars here.
Or, the author intended to mean the completion of the New Testament's writing. Bad word choice.
As he continued his excavations, Bagatti also found a coffin bearing the unusual inscription "Shimon bar Yonah" (= "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah"). I'm amazed that you cut short your article here.... I don't suppose its any more likely to be Peter's coffin than the one marked "Yeshua" is to be Jesus'?
I cut short the article because neither the part about the evidence being inconclusive as to the certainty that the ossuary is that of the Simon bar-Jonah, nor the additional information detailing the use of Antiochan monograms (which lends evidence to the likelihood that the tomb is that of Peter, given his stay in Antioch), provided much of a segue into the article critiquing the claim of Peter's burial in Rome. When posting two Articles in one, I'll cut to the chase for brevity's sake (there's always the link for the full article, of course).
It seems the the so-called missions of Sts. Peter and Paul were determined as a manner of speaking by the Church, not by Christ. Christ commissioned both St. Peter and St. Paul to preach to all men.
Point Granted.
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! How about Acts 10? Acts 15?
I never disputed that Peter unlocked the gate for the Gentiles, but this doesn’t make him the “Apostle to the Gentiles” in anything like the sense of Paul. That said, I do agree that Peter preached to all men; albeit there may have been a difference in focus between his ministry and Paul’s, as Scripture suggests.
1 St. Peter 1? Note that of the Christians St. Peter writes to in Asia Minor, he mentions their "former ignorance" (1.14) and "futile conduct" (1.18), says explicitly that before they were not "God's people" (2.10), etc. Sounds like non-Jews to me.
Well, sure. Even if Peter had his primary focus as the “Apostle to the Circumcision”, I never denied his General Epistles were not written to the Church… in general.
And where was St. Peter between AD 42 (release from prison) and AD 49 (Council of Jerusalem). Acts mentions "he left and went to another place" (Acts 12.17). Where? WHY NOT ROME, as spoken of by tradition? And desn't AD 49 fit in well with what we know of secular history (Seutonius) and the Bible (Acts 18.2) regarding the expulsion of Jews from the capital by edict of Claudius in AD 49 because of the preaching of Christ causing tumults among them? Who was doing the preaching? NOT ST. PAUL!!!
To reason from “another place” all the way to Rome is quite a leap -- Especially considering that Biblical accounts list several places Peter journeyed during his ministry, including Antioch, Samaria, Joppa, Caesarea, and (indirectly but likely) Corinth, but never Rome…. WHY NOT ROME? This is hardly a matter of Paul’s (only once-mentioned) side-trip to Crete; leaving out mention of Peter’s alleged preaching in Rome is quite a biggie.
A highly amusing claim which is made even more humorous because St. Paul is writing to an existing Christian community in Rome which he did not establish! As St. Paul notes in Romans 15.19, he has preached only between Jerusalem and Illyricum (modern Albania/Dalmatia). Perhaps he is sending his letter by a sealed bottle tossed into the sea in hopes that he might come to preach there before it arrives??? Note Acts 23.11 also specifies that St. Paul has never yet been to Rome - and this is AD 58!
An “existing Christian community” is not necessarily indicative of Apostolic formal establishment as a properly-organized church. Considering that 3,000 from all over the Roman world converted during Peter’s first big sermon, it’s not at all unlikely that quite a few ended up in Rome – and were then expelled by Claudius, many came back to Rome in time (presumably), and finally enjoyed formal organization by Paul.
This doesn’t disprove the possibility that Peter preached in Rome, but it is curious that the Bible nowhere mentions Peter’s alleged trip to Rome.
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! ~~ So WHO is he writing to then if not the Chrsitians of Rome? These Christians so famous that "their faith is spoken of in the whole world" (Romans 1.8)?
Again, Rome being the center of the empire, I’m sure that there were Christians in Rome even before Paul got there. However, that does not speak to their formal Apostolic organization as a proper church.
The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. As to verse 11, the word under examination is sterichthenai - strengthen, not establish. Strong notes the following definitions: "1) to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix, 2) to strengthen, make firm, 3) to render constant, confirm, one's mind" Perhaps your Protestant translators are insinuating their own prejudices into this verse (again)?
As you note, to “make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix” is the primary translation. Ergo, if the Church at Rome had not yet been firmly placed, what was Peter doing during his alleged sojourn there?
However, the Roman Church would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense! ~~ Well certainly somebody had done it, else St. Paul would have no Christians to be writing to. He'd clearly never been there himself.
”Somebody” could simply have been those Converted during Peter’s ministry in the Holy Land who journeyed (or just returned home) to Rome. But again, they apparently had not been “firmly placed” and “set fast” as a properly-organized church when Paul wrote.
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). ~~ We need to step back and examine the grammar here. Note St. Paul is talking in the past tense here "strived". In other words, he is giving a summary of his efforts to date, not saying what he will be doing in Rome.
Well, okay… but you’ve got a bit of Assuming your own Conclusion going on here. Because you assume that Peter had already “firmly placed” the Church at Rome (never mind that was what Paul was going there to do), you assume that Paul’s use of the past tense indicates that he is only giving a summary of his efforts to date and he will be building on another’s foundation (Peter’s) at Rome.
However, if you don’t assume your own conclusion, Paul’s use of the past tense to describe his previous policy may just as well describe his continuing policy. If I say, “I have always tried to take care of new customers in other markets”, that doesn’t mean I am not going to take care of new customers in my next market, or that they aren’t new customers.
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. ~~ Again, who could he possibly be writing to here but men of another man's foundation? The Romans he address the letter to were Christians, but St. Paul had never been to Rome when he wrote to the Romans. Additionally, St. Paul clearly worked in areas where St. Peter also worked. 1 Corinthians 1.12 and 3.22 should be clear enough to establish this, since he admits to working with disciples made in Corinth by Kephas - none other than St. Peter, of course.
Peter working in areas where Paul also worked would not impinge on Paul’s policy of getting to new destinations “the firstest with the mostest”. So, all we’ve got here is some strong Biblical evidence that Peter did some preaching in Corinth… and still no Biblical evidence of Peter’s preaching in Rome, not to say it’s impossible that he ever did.
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! ~~ So? St. Peter was clearly off doing more than just preaching in Rome. Obviously he was in Corinth and Asia Minor as well, to name but a few spots.
At this point, the poor church of Rome must be wondering what “their Bishop’s” job has to do with Rome, since the guy is hardly (if ever) around…
But, since you grant that Peter was not in Rome at this time, so I’ll be fair and grant that neither does this prove that Peter was never in Rome (he’s just certainly never there when the writers of the Bible are looking, apparently).
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! ~~ So? Again, St. Peter did more than sit down in Rome and stay there. He was an Apostle. However, it needs to be asked who made all these Christians by their preaching? Certainly it was not St. Paul - this was his very first visit.
I’ve already addressed the matter of Christian converts from the Holy Land, Asia Minor, etc., ending up in Rome prior to its formal establishment. It was the center of the Empire. That said…
At this point, the poor church of Rome must be wondering what “their Bishop’s” job has to do with Rome, since the guy is hardly (if ever) around…
But, since you grant that Peter was not in Rome at this time, so I’ll be fair and grant that neither does this prove that Peter was never in Rome (he’s just certainly never there when the writers of the Bible are looking, apparently).
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. ~~ Lets refresh. Catholic tradition is St. Peter went to Rome in AD 42 and returned to Jerusalem during the Claudian expulsion in AD 49. Apparently some time after perhaps around Claudius' death in AD 56, the Jews returned. St. Peter, of course, was apparently occupied elsehwere at this time. By the time St. Paul comes on the scene in roughly AD 60, its been eleven years since the expulsion. There is nothing incongruous with St. Peter still being elsewhere busying himself with Apostolic work (probably Asia Minor), even though a Church founded by him still tarried in Rome. And there is nothing incongruous with Jews coming from elsewhere to Rome after he left not know of Christianity.
These aren’t just “some jews from elsewhere”, these are the CHIEFS of the Jewish eldership whom Paul calls upon. Peter preached in Rome for seven years (allegedly), and these guys hadn’t heard even the basics about Christian teachings?
Really??
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! ~~ Again - so what? What do you think you are prooving saying that St. Peter was not in Rome AD 60-62?
At this point, the poor church of Rome must be wondering what “their Bishop’s” job has to do with Rome, since the guy is hardly (if ever) around…
But, since you grant that Peter was not in Rome at this time, so I’ll be fair and grant that neither does this prove that Peter was never in Rome (he’s just certainly never there when the writers of the Bible are looking, apparently).
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. ~~ OP, I'm really beginning to question your basic knowledge of what you are writing about. The people who "forsook" St. Paul at his first defense were those in Asia, where he was obviosuly captured… As to his (Peter’s) being alone in Rome - obviosuly not. A list of important brethren is given in 4.21, and notes that all the brethren in Rome salute St. Timothy - so the Roman Church most certainly had not abandoned St. Paul. Included in the list is St. Linus, the second Pope. It is quite probable that, St. Peter being executed in AD 64, that St. Linus was already the new Bishop of Rome when St. Paul was writing.
Well, the author of Proof Ten was referencing Jerome’s tradition that Peter held the bishopric of Peter for 25 years, AD 42/43 – AD 67/68 or so. If your contention is that Peter was either dead or out of town (always out of town, it seems) in AD 64-65, then Proof Ten concerning Peter’s absence from Paul’s side wouldn’t apply.
Although if Peter is not dead at this point, what was the “Bishop of Rome” doing while one of the greatest of Apostles was being sentenced to death in the “Bishop of Rome’s” own alleged back yard? Alternatively, if Peter were dead by this point, it’s interesting that the “Pope” (Linus) gets only passing mention, certainly not first on the list, of important Christians in Rome.
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). No, AD 42. And its "AD 42", not "42 AD". You know "The Year of Our Lord 42", not "42 Year of Our Lord". 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. ~~ No the incidents related in Galatians are in AD 49, before the council, and precipitating its convocation. St. Paul specificially dates them taking place around 14 years after his conversion (AD 34-35), which would place the time frame as AD 49.
Point Granted – I myself disagree with the author’s dating of events here.
Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). This is a highly imaginative date. Where do you get AD 66 from?
It’s a speculative date. Catholic Encyclopedia prefers to date the Petrine Epistles around AD 63/64, which is okay by me; so if you think the author is off by a couple years, I’ll grant the contention for the sake of argument.
As to Babylon the city, it was an uninhabited wasteland at this time. It had been abandoned around 300 years previously, and the stones and bricks used to build Seleucia-Ctesiphon some miles away. Babylon is clearly a code for Rome here, as in the Apocalypse (or does using the Bible to interpret the Bible only hold for when we are not busy spinning lies about Catholicism???).
Addressed below.
The bones of St. Peter were found. There is a book which clearly discusses the decades long investigation with all its twists and turns - "The Bones of St. Peter" by John E. Walsh. But all you needed to do was scroll down further on the page you linked too: http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200105052a.html As this disappointment unfolded, another scholar, Margherita Guarducci, worked to decipher some strange graffiti found on a necropolis wall. One day in 1952, she inquired about a nearby cavity, the one previously emptied by Kaas. Segoni, still laboring away on the project, led her to the bones he’d placed in a storeroom years before…. A decade later, those bones were identified as those of a man 5 feet 7 inches tall, of heavy build, age 60 to 70…. After additional tests, the pope was convinced, despite dissent from three of the original four archaeologists. Paul announced that the bones of Peter had been identified “in a manner which we believe convincing.” On June 27, 1968, Paul reinterred them, stored in 19 Plexiglas cases, in Peter’s tomb.
Hmmm…. Well, I guess one outta four ain’t bad.
Lastly from your #39: 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. ~~ Does Jerusalem sit on seven hills? I think not. How gullible do you think we are?
At the time that John wrote the Revelation, in the same sense that the Jewish Elders once “sat” upon the “chair of Moses” (Matthew 23:2) – absolutely. Jesus did not here mean a literal seating upon a literal chair; He was referring to their spiritual foundation.
Likewise with John’s Revelation. We are not discussing a literal woman literally sitting upon a literal beast. We are discussing the harlot “Babylon” (Jerusalem) who has rejected her foundation and is now “sitting” upon (foundationalized herself) the idolatrous, emperor-worshipping “Beast” (Rome) of seven hills -- ”We have no king but Caesar!”
Gosh, John specifically tells us that the “Great City” (Revelation 18:10) IS Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8).
Ergo, when we encounter “metaphorical Babylon” in the New Testament, we are talking about Jerusalem.
Sorry for the long delay, just a long post demanding a long response.
best, OP
(wink) okay, you got me.
If the untampered ossuary of Simon bar-Jona were discovered underneath the Vatican, I'm sure the first response of the Roman Catholic Caucus would be:
I can see it now....
;-)
As usual, he did a fine job.
I finally got around to answering his #60 (long post) in my #203, but I did (as I expected) have to grant several of his points.
best, OP
Okey-doke, I gotcha.
I stand by my criticism, but I understand your clarification.
Mortal fear?
What, he thought James was sending some Guido Pharisees ("Oy Veh! We gonna make you an offer you don't refuse") over to bust his kneecaps?
Yup.
Yeah, it's a disagreement. Eastern Orthodoxy also assigns separate Feast days to James the Less and James the Righteous, but opinion over there is also split as to whether this is a correct or incorrect division.
You skipped Clement of Rome in your second response; I'll address the matter anyway. Clement, of course, in speaking of great Spiritual heroes, says only that Peter and Paul were martyred (doesn't say where). Some Roman Catholics propose that because Clement, who was in Rome, mentioned Peter and Paul, that therefore both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome.
Well, you can believe that if you want to, but Clement doesn't say that. I'll grant Paul, given that the Bible has him sitting on death row in Rome when we see him last, but the Bible does not tell us where Peter was martyred -- neither does Clement. In fact, Clement simply mentioned the two greatest martyred Apostles who probably meant most to the Gentiles (James would be high on the list also, but not so much with Gentiles; whereas John was likely still alive for several years more at the probable date of Clement's Epistle), those being Peter and Paul.
This is doubly true in the case of Corinth -- to whom Clement was writing. Both Paul (certainly) and Peter (almost certainly) ministered in Corinth -- we know Paul for sure, and the Bible gives two strong (albeit indirect) references to Peter's ministry in Corinth. So of course Peter and Paul would be mentioned in an Epistle to their beloved Corinthians -- no matter where either of them were martyred.
In his "Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
No, it simply means that Peter and Paul were Apostles, whereas Ignatius was not. Paul directly commanded the Romans by Epistle (and also by personal residence), and Peter's general Epistles likewise were commandments unto the whole Church (including Rome).
Think about it -- the guy was writing under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he was allegedly the Bishop of Rome for (nobody knows, apparently) so many years, he's alleged to be the first "Pope" of the entire church... and yet where are Peter's Epistles not accepted as canonically Scriptural? ROME!!
Pretty freaky...
As to the rest, Irenaeus does say that Peter preached in Rome (doesn't say he was martyred there), although he is writing 140 or so years after the fact, and the rest of your citations are at least 200 or more years after the fact... plenty of time for George Washington to have chopped down the cherry tree, or not (legends develop); and like I said, neither as early nor as concrete as the Jerusalem ossuary.
best, OP
Vast, nearly overwhelming?
If one is going to blithely lump all "presbyterians" together, there are about 50 million Presbyterians worldwide (http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/christ/cep/presbyt.html). Much like the 70-million member Worldwide Anglican communion and it's "Episcopalian problem", the apostasy of the 2.5 million Presbyterians in the mainstream USA denomination are not reflective of the 50 million as a whole.
In both cases, a former mission field (Africa for the Anglicans, East Asia for the Presbyterians) is now more numerous and far more conservative than their godfathers in the USA. Not everybody lives in America, y'know.
And for that matter, American Catholics have the same problem, what with the US Council of Bishops saying that y'all aren't supposed to target Jews for evangelism to Christ anymore. Does that reflect the judgment of Rome? Well, Rome hasn't denounced the Bishops declaration, but neither have they endorsed it -- but that doesn't stop the American Bishops from promulgating such idiocies, now, does it?
You have used the concrete twice now. You get one more shot at it, so make it a really good one.
The fourth time, of course, will be driving it into the ground. :>)
Oh, great... I'll have to hunt down a new lithographic pun? That may be too formidable a quarry for my wee brain. (sigh)
St. Mark 10.35 "James and John, the sons of Zebedee"
St. Luke 5.10 "James and John, the sons of Zebedee"
St. Matthew 20.20, 26.37, 27.56, St. John 21.2 "the sons of Zebedee" (no names).
Every verse Andrew is mentioned in, he is noted simply as the brother of Peter, or it is a reference to something he did alone or with some other Apostle. Andrew is never called "son of Jonah", despite being introduced first in St. John 1.40-42.
St. Peter is only called "son of Jonah" or "son of the Dove" (depending on whether or not one translates the name) in the verses mentioned previosuly.
I never disputed that Peter unlocked the gate for the Gentiles, but this doesn’t make him the “Apostle to the Gentiles” in anything like the sense of Paul. That said, I do agree that Peter preached to all men; albeit there may have been a difference in focus between his ministry and Paul’s, as Scripture suggests.
Granted, that St. Paul has a special ministry to the Greeks (what really seems meant by the term "Gentiles" given his areas of preaching). It seems St. Paul's methodology, if there was one, was to first preach to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. We see this pattern over and over again (i.e. Acts 13, Acts 28, etc.). It would seem to me that St. Paul's special apostleship (with St. Barnabas) to the Gentiles is based upon the success of his results during the period from around AD 37 to AD 48 when he was in Syria, especially Antioch, and Cilicia, since his mission is said to stem from meeting with Sts. Peter, James, and John at that time. Essentially, it would appear that St. Peter and St. James sent St. Paul north to test him on his home territory, he being from Tarsus in Cilicia (Galatians 1.18-24, Acts 9.27-30, Acts 13-14). Upon his success, he was given charge of greater missions (Galatians 2.1-10, Acts 15.1-36) by Sts. Peter and James and John at the Council of Jerusalem (the others not being mentioned in Galatians, it is unlikely they were in town).
On the other hand, granted that St. Peter had a special ministry to the uncircumcised, it seems that he also give primary focus to the north of Asia Minor, to parts of Greece, and to Rome.
Well, sure. Even if Peter had his primary focus as the “Apostle to the Circumcision”, I never denied his General Epistles were not written to the Church… in general.
St. Peter's First Epistle is not general - it is specifically addressed to the Churches of the Roman civil dioceses of Asia, Bithynia, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, places where St. Paul, for the most part, did not visit. There is good reason for him to visit there as Apostle to the circumcised, since there was a fairly large Jewish settlement area in that region. The dominant population was, of course, non-Jewish, and it is unknown how many Jews there accepted Christ. Since he was writing to those Churches, it is of course obvious that he was elsewhere, specifically Rome (Babylon). His stating that St. John Mark is with him narrows down the period he might have written this. Acts 15.39 notes that Sts. Paul and Mark parted company at that time (around AD 50). Colosians 4.10 and Philemon 1.24 find St. Mark in Rome with St. Paul during his first captivity around AD 62. Since St. Paul is shortly to depart on his 4th missionary journey (after the period covered in Acts, when he went to Crete, Ephesus, Spain, Corinth, Miletus, etc.), we can surmise that St. Mark stayed on in Rome to help the perhaps newly re-arrived St. Peter to write his Epistle, before departing for Laodicea/Colossae, from which St. Paul later asks St. Timothy at Ephesus to go and fetch him 2 Timothy 4.11. No persecution of Nero yet begin mentioned, it is likely that 1 St. Peter was written in AD 63.
To reason from “another place” all the way to Rome is quite a leap -- Especially considering that Biblical accounts list several places Peter journeyed during his ministry, including Antioch, Samaria, Joppa, Caesarea, and (indirectly but likely) Corinth, but never Rome….
1 St. Peter 5.13. Peter is in Rome, AD 63, at which time it would seem St. Mark wrote his Gospel.
WHY NOT ROME? This is hardly a matter of Paul’s (only once-mentioned) side-trip to Crete; leaving out mention of Peter’s alleged preaching in Rome is quite a biggie.
St. Paul's trip to Crete occurred after his Roman imprisonment AD 60-62 during his fourth missionary journey, in which he also went to Spain (Romans 15.28).
When you ask why doesn't the Bible address this, it seems you are totally misunderstanding what the Bible is. The Bible is a set of letters and writings about the revelation of God in Christ. It never pretends to give a complete story of everything Christ did, or everything the Apostles did. The focus of the book of Acts is clearly upon the foundation of Christianity in Jerusalem, and then the missionary work of St. Paul. There is no reason to suppose that it must of necessity tell what St. Peter did. That isn't the purpose of the book. The testimony of tradition is more than sufficient to tell about the other Apostles.
An “existing Christian community” is not necessarily indicative of Apostolic formal establishment as a properly-organized church. Considering that 3,000 from all over the Roman world converted during Peter’s first big sermon, it’s not at all unlikely that quite a few ended up in Rome – and were then expelled by Claudius, many came back to Rome in time (presumably), and finally enjoyed formal organization by Paul.
It is incredible to suppose that such a "target rich environment" was not exploited at the earliest possible opportunity. The work of St. Paul has more to do with taking care of the after effects of the Claudian exile than anything else and strengthening them with a spiritual gift - the clear exposition of his theology. The first bishops and priests of Rome were Jewish (not surprisingly, since they could best preach the Gospel, knowing the Old Testament as they would). Therefore, the expulsion of AD 49 would have left a hole in the leadership of the community, with its most knowledgeable members stripped away. St. Paul does not let on anywhere that he feels a need to come to Rome to ordain anyone or to teach the basics of the faith. As noted in Romans 1.8, their faith was already "proclaimed all over the world."
This doesn’t disprove the possibility that Peter preached in Rome, but it is curious that the Bible nowhere mentions Peter’s alleged trip to Rome.
The Bible does not mention St. Thomas' journey to India, but there are all those Christians in South India and the monument of his martyrdom. Why is this any less curious?
”Somebody” could simply have been those Converted during Peter’s ministry in the Holy Land who journeyed (or just returned home) to Rome. But again, they apparently had not been “firmly placed” and “set fast” as a properly-organized church when Paul wrote.
Unlikely, since none of them were noted as being ordained as ministers, and because this was a primary Apostolic work as seen in the Pastoral Epistles, and also Acts 14.22, 20.28, etc. It was necessary for the Apsotles to go out and establish Churches by ordaining them Presbyters (Priests), so that the individual believes might have a shepherd. It seems highly unlilkely they would be left for just shy of 30 years without pastors.
As you note, to “make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix” is the primary translation. Ergo, if the Church at Rome had not yet been firmly placed, what was Peter doing during his alleged sojourn there?
But this definition does not work in the context. "For I long to see you that I may impart some spiritual grace unto you to strengthen you." What spiritual grace could St. Paul be imparting to "establish them"? How ould their faith be reknowned across the world, and yet he need to set their faith stable?
However, if you don’t assume your own conclusion, Paul’s use of the past tense to describe his previous policy may just as well describe his continuing policy.
Context, context, context! "This is why I was hindered these many times coming to you." (Romans 15.22) - in other words, it was necessary that I preach the Gospel in Greece and Asia where none other had yet worked. "But now, having no more work in these parts, and having had for many years a great desire to come to you, when I set out for Spain I hope to see you as I pass through ... having first enjoyed being with you for a while." (Romans 15.23-24) Rome was to be a pitstop on the way to fresh fields in Spain. He had not come to Rome yet because (1) they were already evangelized and (2) Asia and Greece were not. There is a perfectly plausible explanation of your question.
Peter working in areas where Paul also worked would not impinge on Paul’s policy of getting to new destinations “the firstest with the mostest”. So, all we’ve got here is some strong Biblical evidence that Peter did some preaching in Corinth… and still no Biblical evidence of Peter’s preaching in Rome, not to say it’s impossible that he ever did.
On the contrary, we have the First Epistle of St. Peter written from Rome, we have St. Mark's Gospel replete with Latinisms based on the preaching of St. Peter, we have St. Peter disappearing for seven years AD 42-49, simultaneous with the introduction of Christianity in Rome, and we have St. Paul wanting to go to Rome, but never going because his policy was to evangelize untouched areas.
At this point, the poor church of Rome must be wondering what “their Bishop’s” job has to do with Rome, since the guy is hardly (if ever) around…
The Apostles were not stationary Bishops in one place, but Apostles with Episcopal powers. They went about establishing the stationary Bishops with a fixed territory of a city, town or village (every place had a Bishop, if it was large, there would be seperate priests and multiple congregations - little villages in Asia Minor had Bishops for centuries, even down to the time of the Second Council of Nicea - they were called chorepiscopi). If we grant that the care of the Church was given to St. Peter (and I don't see how else you will explain St. John 21.15-17), St. Peter was given care of not just Rome, but the coordination of the Apostolic work in the whole world. Undoubtedly, he was a busy man, travelling about setting things aright like many reform Popes did later, such as St. Leo IX in AD 1049-1054 or John Paul II in our own day.
These aren’t just “some jews from elsewhere”, these are the CHIEFS of the Jewish eldership whom Paul calls upon. Peter preached in Rome for seven years (allegedly), and these guys hadn’t heard even the basics about Christian teachings?
Again, recall that Claudius had expelled the Jews in AD 49. All that would then remain would be the faithful Romans. In AD 60-61, the Jews would have been back (and not necessarily the same individuals as before) possibly at most for five years, and it would be around 12 years since the time of St. Peter actively preaching. The events of AD 49 being fresh, it is unlikely the gentile Christians remaining in Rome went to share the Gospel with the newly returned Jews in the period AD 54-61. Their ignorance of Christ is easily explained.
Well, the author of Proof Ten was referencing Jerome’s tradition that Peter held the bishopric of Peter for 25 years, AD 42/43 – AD 67/68 or so. If your contention is that Peter was either dead or out of town (always out of town, it seems) in AD 64-65, then Proof Ten concerning Peter’s absence from Paul’s side wouldn’t apply.
I'm not particularly familiar with St. Jerome's view, nor do I feel it highly relevant to the historical record. St. Peter was in charge from AD 33. The succession at Rome, with its multitude of witnesses does not commence with a fixed date or with St. Peter's first evangelization in AD 42. The absence of St. Peter in 2 Timothy, and the mention of St. Linus seems to indicate to me that St. Peter was already dead and had handed on the government of the Church to St. Linus.
Alternatively, if Peter were dead by this point, it’s interesting that the “Pope” (Linus) gets only passing mention, certainly not first on the list, of important Christians in Rome.
You seem to be confusing wordly pomp, prestige, and the like with the humility of the successors of the fisherman. Aren't you familiar with St. Luke 12.41-48? Some of the Popes were forced into seeming situations of great pride mostly to teach the powerful of the earth the spiritual lesson that the Church rules their souls too. This attitude of dominance towards and Otto or a Napoleon shouldn't be confused with the proper government of the Church. Why does the Pope need to be first on the list? Could St. Paul not simply have listed those mentioned by his own feelings of friendship, for example, a perfectly natural and human trait?
Gosh, John specifically tells us that the “Great City” (Revelation 18:10) IS Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8).
Does Jerusalem sit on seven hills (Revelation 17.9)? No!
Rome does (Aventinus, Caelius, Esquilinus, Viminalis, Quirinalis, Pincius, Palatinus), and it was such a famous characteristic that Constantinople New Rome was purposefulyl founded on a site with seven hills.
"The seven heads are seven mountains upon which the woman sits" (Revelation 17.9). The focus is all upon the woman, not the beast, sitting on the seven hills.
Well, you can believe that if you want to, but Clement doesn't say that. I'll grant Paul, given that the Bible has him sitting on death row in Rome when we see him last, but the Bible does not tell us where Peter was martyred -- neither does Clement. In fact, Clement simply mentioned the two greatest martyred Apostles who probably meant most to the Gentiles (James would be high on the list also, but not so much with Gentiles; whereas John was likely still alive for several years more at the probable date of Clement's Epistle), those being Peter and Paul.
OP - the obvious known to all does not need to be stated. When someone mentions the assination of Kennedy, is it necessary to also name the city of Dallas as the location, or is that understood by the topic? St. Clement was writing around AD 80, so the events of Nero would be fresh in the minds of most. He mentions these two Apostles because they had died in his Rome. He could just as easily have mentioned the two James killed in Jerusalem, or any of the other Apostles, but he didn't. Not a coincidence.
Peter's general Epistles likewise were commandments unto the whole Church (including Rome).
St. Peter wrote Epistles to Churches in Asia Minor, not to the world at large. It says so right in their text (1 St. Peter 1.1, 2 St. Peter 3.1).
Although, while I am on the subject -- it is rather interesting that the earliest Canon of the New Testament Scriptures specifically in use at Rome (the Muratorian Canon, AD170?) includes practically the entire New Testament except for one of the epistles of John, James, and both Epistles of Peter.
The provenance of the Muratorian Canon must of necessity remain speculatory. It is incomplete (it also does not mention St. Matthew, and St. Mark is only mentioned indirectly), so there is no proof one way or another that it does not include the Epistles of St. Peter. It does include an apocalypse attributed to him.
Think about it -- the guy was writing under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he was allegedly the Bishop of Rome for (nobody knows, apparently) so many years, he's alleged to be the first "Pope" of the entire church... and yet where are Peter's Epistles not accepted as canonically Scriptural? ROME!!
It doesn't say that. They aren't mentioned and the fragment is incomplete. Arguements from silence win no points. The Muratorian Canon does mention the martyrdom of St. Peter and strongly implies it was in Rome.
Not true. Our Sunday Visitor just addressed this this past week, noting that Roman Catholic has been in use since the 8th century AD. For example, the profession of Faith for the Waldensians (AD 1208), reads: "By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423)
By providing the Christians with an enormous swath of the world at peace for 400 years in which to begin the Church.
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.