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
The Bible doesn't tell us the lineup for the '49 Yankees either, but we know it existed. I gave you the names, quotes, dates and sources of five early Church Fathers who placed Peter in Rome, Lactantius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Eusebius and others, including Augustine in his Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
No matter, for even if all these early Christian Bishops and historians are somehow wrong, Peter was head of the Apostles and the Church long before he ever left Jerusalem. The Bible is rich with examples of this irrefutable fact. So the "Peter in Rome" debate is really just smoke and mirrors anyway. But it is a curious thing for me, because most serious Protestant scholars and exegetes, faced with the writings of the early Fathers, now admit that Peter was most likely in Rome, died there, and was Bishop of Rome. I'm wondering why you still cling to this long defunct Protestant charge?
I can find as many 2 million in South Korea cited...
There aren't 2 million Presbyterians in Korea; there are over 9 million. At least 20% of the entire population (Presbyterianism is the dominant Christian denomination in Korea). Korean Presbyterians almost certainly outnmuber all presbyterian denominations in the USA combined, probably by a good margin.
Like I said, that's just the most obvious example -- but we have to add another 7 million Presbyterians to your Worldwide tally right there, even without including the millions of Worldwide Reformed (who really are "Dutch Presbyterians" -- or maybe Dutchman Jean Chauvin would say that presbyterians are "Scottish Reformed" -- it's basically a Greek-Orthodox/Russian-Orthodox ethnocultural distinction as much as anything).
As to their orthodoxy: well, I haven't been to Korea, but I've known plenty of Korean Presbyterians here in the US of A -- and the above link has it right, the Korean Presbyterians "appear to be a monolithic group – traditional, conservative, biblical and evangelical". In Presbyterianism, as in Anglicanism, the Evangelized... have become the Evangelists (a little conservative backlash from the hinterlands wouldn't hurt Rome either, in "abortion-on-demand-for-any-reason-ever" Mother Italy).
O, by the way, about the not evangelizing to Jews... campaigns to target Jews as a group should be abandonned as they are *counter-productive* to conversion, and destructive to a religious dialogue which the Catholic Church has grown richer from as it has fostered a greater understanding among Catholics about the relation of God the Father to his people. I am uncomfortable with this position, but I don't consider it scandalizing, like the shuffling of pedophillic priests, or the approval of sodomite "marriages".
Since you were charitable enough to mention in the same breath American Catholicism's clerical problem (pederasty) and American Presbyterianism's clerical problem (blessings on "monogamous" sodomy), I shall be charitable enough to admit that I myself find the Presby-Church-USA denomination's formal permission of sodomitic unions is in theory a more greivous breach of Church holiness than the American Roman church's informal cover-up and protection of clerical pederasty -- on the hypothesis that the FLAGRANT perversion of moral orthodoxy on the part of Presby-Church-USA is arguably worse than the INSIDIOUS hypocrisy, deceit, and victim-blaming of the American Catholic church. That may be my own parochial disgust for my fellow (professing) "presbyterians", but that's the way I see it.
In Canon-Law theory, at least. It's a harder call, in practice -- One may hope that the practitioners of Presby-USA sodomitic "union" only defile themselves (and unless they repent, they have already chosen Hell, after all), aside from the profane example they set before the Church and World; but a single Roman pederast, protected by his Bishops, may have defiled hundreds of child innocents. So, Presby-USA being the worse of the two in theory, it's hard to say which is worse in praxis. Either way, it's like choosing between a dog's vomit and a dog's sh... well, you get the idea.
What really bothers me about the American Bishops denunciation of Evangelism targetted towards the Jews... well, how do I put this. Hmmm. It's not, thank God, a blessing of sodomitic "monogamy"; it's not, thank God, another cover-up of clerical pederasty; it's just that it's... an attempt to play fast and loose with the Great Commission itself.
That's just... very troublesome. It is not, of course, my place to tell Rome her business -- but I wish that she would formally rebuke this dangerous indifferentism. At the end of the day, upholding the Great Commission is surely more important than, say, Rome's consistent opposition to condoms.**
Tuesday, November 23rd 1999
NEWARK, NJ -- A regional Presbyterian church court in New York yesterday rejected a conservative faction's efforts to prohibit gay unions and block an openly gay candidate for ordination in a stunning setback for conservatives in the 2.6 million member Presbyterian Church (USA).
In a decision released Monday, the 12-member Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Northeast let stand a decision by a group of southern New Jersey churches to admit to the level of candidate an openly gay man who had refused a celibacy vow.
The panel also upheld the right of the Hudson River Presbytery, a body of clergy members and church elders that oversees 95 churches in New York's lower Hudson Valley, to allow ministers to conduct wedding-like blessings of same-sex couples as long as they are called "holy unions" -- not marriages.
Presbyterians are now at a stalemate on the gay issue, with both sides vowing to assert their stand or split off from the main denomination.
In 1997, a well-orchestrated conservative campaign was successful in passing an amendment to the Presbyterian Book of Order requiring all unmarried ministers and church officials to be sexually celibate and defining marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman. The "Faith and Chastity Amendment" was intended to prohibit the quiet sanctioning of gay ministers and gay "unions" that had taken place for years in some Presbyterian churches.
Monday's decisions pivoted on a very narrow interpretation of that 1997 amendment to church law.
-- C. Barillas, Editor
Besides which, other than that... um, other than that, we disagree on... uh... hmmm.
Sorry, I can't think of much else we disagree on.
New Jersey! It's always New Jersey.
It's all good.
I gave you a hard time (as I admitted) by seizing on an obvious case where your numbers were way short of the actual tally. As a Roman Catholic, you probably weren't aware that Korea is probably (numerically, at least) the most Presbyterian country in the entire world -- both in terms of per-capita percentage and absolute numbers.
That said, the Korean Presbyterians truly are "monolithic" -- in a manner which almost seems spooky to a cantankerous, independent Western Protestant such as myself. The Korean Presbyterians have developed a curious local tradition of genuinely monstrous Local Congregations -- they have Individual Churches the size of American Cities, tens (even hundreds) of thousands packed-in-Covenant to a single Local Church, the size of a mega-stadium (under the overall supervision of a number of Elders, of course). In regular attendance. Almost as if a Roman Bishop were to call together his entire diocese for Liturgy and Homily every Sunday Morn.
Definitely... not typically Western.
But -- considering that the East-Asian Presbyterians today represent (as with the Africans of Anglicanism) the greatest numbers, and the greatest orthodoxy, of Worldwide Presbyterianism -- who am I to judge against the work of the Lord?
American Presbyterianism was once the Religion which gave rise to the American Revolution... but it has decayed into a shadow of its former self. Today, even as American Missionaries once evangelized Korea for the banner of Presbyterianism -- the Korean Presbyterians are now discussing amongst themselves whether or not they should evangelize North America for Presbyterianism!!
The Evangelized become the Evangelists.
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Which I answered (I discussed the earliest references, in which no reference to Peter's alleged martyrdom in Rome is found; and as I pointed out, your later references are separated from the actual events in question by as many centuries as the common Legend of "George Washington and the Cherry Tree" is separated from us today.)
No matter, for even if all these early Christian Bishops and historians are somehow wrong, Peter was head of the Apostles and the Church long before he ever left Jerusalem. The Bible is rich with examples of this irrefutable fact. So the "Peter in Rome" debate is really just smoke and mirrors anyway. But it is a curious thing for me, because most serious Protestant scholars and exegetes, faced with the writings of the early Fathers, now admit that Peter was most likely in Rome, died there, and was Bishop of Rome. I'm wondering why you still cling to this long defunct Protestant charge?
Well, if you're wondering, then I can answer you -- if you would like me to do so.
But I am already engaged in a similar discussion with Hermann -- who is, even at his most heated, both a more erudite and charitable opponent than you have so far chosen to be. I enjoy debating Hermann: both because he is challenging (he has identified several probable errors of dating and attribution in the Article above; which I, examining his arguments versus the Author's, have admitted) and also because (like Patrick Madrid, when he rarely debates on Free Republic) Hermann seems genuinely interested in converting his opponents to Rome -- not just labelling his opponent a closet homosexual and then claiming a self-congratulatory victory when his opponents finally become disgusted with his coarse and unchristian slanders.
If you really want me to answer the question you raise, I shall be happy to do so.
But first -- I have stated the price for my personal respect.
Just as you claim that your own vehemence is motivated by your defense of Your Own Church, so likewise is mine. I ask of you no apology whatsoever for your (entirely unwarranted) personal insinuations against my own sexual purity.
I ask no apology for your ad hominems against myself, personally. I ask only for your admission, retraction, and apology for your Lies against the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Do that, and I'll forget all your ad hominems. You claim that you seek to defend your own Church? You haven't a leg to stand on, when you deliberately tell lies about another man's Church.
You call yourself "Crusader"? And well you should -- you see yourself as fighting a legitimate Just War (and I admit that the Crusades were a defensive counter-attack against Islam, just as I admit that many of the tribunals obf the Inquisition were the most fair and enlightened of Continental Europe at the time -- as a Protestant, I may surprise you). But the Crusades failed in this -- their Just War of Defense became an unchristian massacre of rape, booty, and bloodlust. That which began as a Just War, did not remain so.
You may correct this error, in yourself. You may be a Crusader who not only commits War, but who commits Truth. You will admit that you promulgated Lies about the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. You will admit that you were informed of your error, and preferred to continue in Dishonesty rather than acknowledge Honesty. You will retract these knowing Lies against the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. You will apologize for these knowing Lies against the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
Do this, and you will have my personal respect -- now, tomorrow, whenever we cross swords.
If not??
If not -- no bother to me. I will ignore you, and will instead prefer to encounter the sword of Hermann. Sharp, yes -- but also Clean.
If not?
If not, that is your own choice. You know that you have told deliberate Lies about Orthodox Presbyterianism which you knew to be False; yet in Spiritual Pride, you refuse to simply admit, retract, and apologize for your Lies.
That's a matter between you and your Confessor. What is the Divine Penalty for unrepented Spiritual Pride?
Last I checked, Spiritual Pride is the Soul-Killer.
By providing the Christians with an enormous swath of the world at peace for 400 years in which to begin the Church.
I would not disagree, ... but, of course, there is no need to imagine that the Church was based Rome for this to be.
The peace (through which the truths of the church were further spread) was a work of God, and, thus, would have existed, in any case.
Please. "Dutchmen"??? The name is obviosuly Gallo-French, and Chauvin is awfully suggestive of "Cohen" as a possible Jewish background.
Most of the Catholic parishes around me have 10,000 or more members.
That is an extremely presumptuous statement. Can you point to a similar golden period of such a vast area at peace for so long (over 400 years?).
I have no respect for your apostate ilk, nor will I ever. You have shown me only that you are the master of the lie, the slander, and the arrogant supposition. You entered the scene with your silly anthropoly as your historical "proof" that Peter was not in Rome, and when I exposed this lightweight circumstancial evidence for what it is, you switched to Scripture and chose to misuse the Bible by injecting your personal interpretation of Peter's reference to "Babylon", (a reference to Rome which is now almost universally accepted in all of Christianity, including the Chruch Fathers).
Next you tried to deny that many of early Church Fathers have written that Peter lived and died in Rome by chosing to ignore their writings and focusing on the silence or ambiguity of other Fathers. This is Clintonian maneuvering at best. I seek the truth and you carry an anti-Catholic agenda.
You never at any time presented a strong case, but only an arrogant one devoid of substance. Thus you chose to carp on the fact that I said you were a member of a Church that blesses homosexual unions, and apptempted to turn that into the focal point. The Presbytarian church does indeed perform homosexual ceremonies, and calls them "Holy Unions".
If your so-called "Orthodox Presbytarian" church rejects the abomination of your sister church then so be it. I stand corrected. But the two words "Orthodox" and "Presbytarian" are a Christian oxymoron anyway.
Hermann the Cherusker is indeed a worthy opponent, I have faced him myself a few times. He is more of a gentleman than I am, and probably more learned as well. I am never ashamed to face truth, in fact I have learned to love it, and that, my friend, is why I cannot tolerate bait-and-switch, professional liars such as yourself. Why not use all that energy and intellect seeking Truth rather than trying to destroy it?
regards,
Jim
The peace (through which the truths of the church were further spread) was a work of God, and, thus, would have existed, in any case.
That is an extremely presumptuous statement. Can you point to a similar golden period of such a vast area at peace for so long (over 400 years?).
Exactly how is such a statement presumptious ?
Do you deny that God ordained the peace ?
Not at all. You said the peace would have existed anyway. The peace only existed because Christ was born into it.
Do you deny that God ordained the peace ?
Not at all. You said the peace would have existed anyway. The peace only existed because Christ was born into it.
The peace existed because God ordained it.
Do you deny that God ordained other periods of peace, as well ... for instance ... the Pax Britannica ?
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.