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
OP is referring to me -the FR poster with the screen name "Jean Chauvin". That is why he "bumped" me to the post. (There are also a few other Dutchmen on this forum.)
Incidentally, this Dutch Reformed person -with the Dutch surname "Bloem" in my lineage- could also have a "possible Jewish background".
Jean
The Pax Britannica was neither a peace, nor was it from God. Such crimes as the Crimean War are enough to demonstrate that.
The one is impossible without the other. You can't uphold the Great Comission by preaching a false morality.
Anyway, I'm still waiting to see the list of "Great Protestant Missionary Achievements, 1517-1800". I have a feeling its about as blank as other famous non-works like "Feats in Space Exploration by the Pygmys and Bushmen", "How to Achieve Urban Prosperity: The Detroit Model", "Great Civilizations of Antarctica".
The fact is, there were no Protestant missions "ad gentes" 1517-circa 1800.
All the while, the Catholic Church was busy abroad.
You then present a report of a localized group of Presbytarians.
That is far from proving your claim. You should know I am not defending any Church or Church Group which endorces Gay Clergy and/or Gay Marriage. I am only suggesting you should put away your broad brush hate-mongering.
(1). Clement of Rome, alluding to the Neronian persecution in Rome in 95 AD, wrote:
"Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [Peter & Paul] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles--St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries,---” (He then goes on to speak of Paul). (Clement of Rome, ‘Epistle to Corinthians’, 95 AD)
(2). “--we shall turn to that great, ancient, and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostels Peter and Paul, and we shall know that the tradition it has received of the apostles and the faith that it preaches to men has come down to our time through the regular succession of its bishops”. (St. Irenaeus: ‘Against the Heresies’, 3, 3, I ~ 2nd century)
(3). “After such things as these, moreover, they dare to set sail and bear letters from schizmatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter and to the chief Church where priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle,” St. Cyprian: ‘Letters’, 54, 14 ~ 3rd century)
(4). ”Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome ---where Peter endured a passion like his Lord’s” (Tertullian - ‘On Prescription of Heretics’ - 3rd century).
(5). “There is added also the society of the blessed apostle Paul, a chosen vessel, who was crowned on one and the same day, suffering a glorious death, with Peter in the city of Rome, under Ceasar Nero.” Council of Rome, ‘Decretum Galasianum’,382 AD)
(6). “You cannot deny that you know that upon Peter first in the city of Rome was conferred the episcopal chair, on which sat Peter, the head of all the Apostles--”. (St. Optatus of Mileve: ‘On the Schism of Donatists’, 2, 2-3. ~ 4th cent.)
(1). Mathew calls St. Peter the “first” apostle, (Mathew 10:1), even though Peter was neither first in age or in priority of election. Peter’s older brother Andrew was chosen before him, yet Peter is called “first apostle” by Mathew.
Scripture often refers to the twelve Apostles as “Peter and the eleven”, (Acts 2:14); or in such exclusive phraseology as: “Go, tell his disciples and Peter” (Mark 16:7).
Though John arrives at Christ’s Tomb first, he refrains from entering until Peter catches up. He then defers to Peter and allows him to enter the Tomb first, (John 20: 3-10)
The highly beloved apostle James was jailed and beheaded by Herod, and though he was a favored apostle no special effort is made to save him. At the same time Peter is arrested also, and the entire Church is aroused and prayers are sent up to Heaven from Jerusalem and every Christian family in the land, (Acts 12)
(2). “They have not the heritage of Peter who have not the see of Peter, rent by their impious division”. (Tertulian: De Poenitentia, I, 7. - 3rd cent.)
(3). “---and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon Peter by the word of the Lord. Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made, except the one altar and the one priesthood”. (St. Cyprian: ‘Letters’, 39, 5. - 3rd century)
(4). “I follow no one as cheif save Christ, but I am joined in communion with your blessedness, that is, with the See of Peter. Upon that rock I know the Church is built”. (St. Jerome: ‘Letters’, 15 - 4th century)
“But if some be disobedient to the words which have been spoken by him through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no little danger. But we shall be guiltless of their sin...For you will give us joy and gladness, of you render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit”. Pope St. Clement: ‘Letter to the Corinthians, 59, 1-2 and 63, 2. - ist century)
So great was the Corinthians’ reverence for these Epistles from Clement that they were publicly read in their churches for the next one hundred years, (“Faith of Our Fathers”, Gibbons pg. 134)
(1). “---the Church in the place of the country of the Romans that holds the primacy. I salute you in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. You are a Chruch worth of God..” St. Ignatius of Antioch: ‘Salutation of Letter to the Romans ~ 2nd century)
(2). “Upon this, Victor, (pope from 189 - 199 A.D.), who presided at Rome---together with the adjacent churches, on the grounds of heterodoxy, indited letters announcing that all the Christians there were absolutley excommunicated.” (Eusebius of Caesarea: ‘Ecclesiastical History, 5, 24, 9-10.) with reference to the 2nd century controvery over the date of Easter).
(3). “Bishop Hosius said: ‘If a bishop has had sentence pronounced against him in some action, and thinks that he has a good cause for the judgment to be reconsidered, let us, if you agree, do honor to the memory of the holy apostle Peter: let letters be written to the Bishop of Rome.” (Council of Sardica, Canon 3, ~ 342 A.D.)
(4). “The Roman Church, head of the whole Roman world, and that sacred trust of the Apostles, whence flow all the rights of venerable communion upon persons”. (St. Ambrose: ‘Letters’, 11, 4, ~ 381 AD)
Is there such a thing as the "Localized Group of Presbytarians"? This particular Presbytarian church that performs homosexual "holy unions" has been here since 1894.
You're running a little slow on the uptake today, Hermann.
Hmmm.... well, I guess that's an apology for your false accusations against the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
Apology accepted. I'll forget that you ever made the accusation.
best, OP
Tsk, tsk, Hermann – merely repeating yourself won’t serve to answer the point that I have made. Let’s deal with this one specifically before I respond to the rest of your post.
As I already pointed out to you, we are not discussing a literal prostitute, a literal beast, or a literal sitting. The whore is described as sitting upon the Beast (Rev. 17:3) and sitting upon the Seven Hills (Rev 17:9), therefore the Beast and the Seven Hills are the same entity – Rome, upon whom the Whore is seated.
The whore Babylon, who is the “Great City” (Revelation 18:10) whom John tells us specifically is Jerusalem (Rev. 11:8), is “sitting upon” (that is, foundationalizing herself upon) the Beast of Seven Hills (Rome, Rev. 17:3,9), having declared "We have no king but Caesar". The Beast of the Seven Hills, whose number is 666 (Nero Caesar, the numerical value in Hebrew, Rev. 13:18), who will come to despise the Whore and ruin her (Revelation 17:16).
As long as you remember that John told us specifically in Revelation 11:8 that the Great City is Jerusalem, this stuff really isn’t that hard to figure out.
No apology was needed (but I accept).
I didn't take offense at the "Mr. Chick" thing anyway; frankly, I think Jack Chick is hilarious. I'd have been no more offended than if you compared me to Krusty the Klown (who also makes absurd, violent cartoons for children; just like Jack Chick!!)... no sweat off my back.
best, OP
Read it again... The Great City "where also our Lord was crucified" (Rev. 11:8). The Great City is obviously Jerusalem, she having become a God-hating Whore who is seated upon the Beast which is Rome ("His blood be on us, and on our children... we have no king but Caesar").
The beast is not the seven hills. The beast is Nero. "Five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come: and when he is come, he must remain a short time. And the beast which was and is not: the same also is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into destruction." (Revelation 17.10-11) This is widely ageed to be a clear reference to the Roman Emperors. Thus the reference to the worship of the Divine Emperors: "And all that dwell upon the earth adored him" (Revelation 13.8). The Romans adored the Emperor, not Rome the City or State.
The whore Babylon, who is the “Great City” (Revelation 18:10) whom John tells us specifically is Jerusalem (Rev. 11:8),
This is a false equivalence and total baloney. "And the woman which thou sawest is the great city which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth." (Revelation 17.18) Rome had kingdom over the kings of the earth, not Jerusalem. Rome is the great city referred to here. Thus, Rome is mystical Babylon.
"Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication: and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; And the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies." (Revelation 18.3) - Jerusalem was not a major city and not a place of great merchandising.
"And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived in delicacies with her, shall weep and bewail themselves over her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning:" (Revelation 18.9) - no kings wept for the burning of Jerusalem.
"And saying: Alas! alas! that great city, which was clothed with fine linen and purple and scarlet and was gilt with gold and precious stones and pearls." (Revelation 18.16) - a description of imperial majesty.
"And they cast dust upon their heads and cried, weeping and mourning, saying: Alas! alas! that great city, wherein all were made rich, that had ships at sea, by reason of her prices. For, in one hour she is made desolate." (Revelation 18.19) - Jerusalem had no ships, and made no one rich.
is “sitting upon” (that is, foundationalizing herself upon) the Beast of Seven Hills (Rome, Rev. 17:3,9), having declared "We have no king but Caesar". The Beast of the Seven Hills, whose number is 666 (Nero Caesar, the numerical value in Hebrew, Rev. 13:18),
You've got too many personalities for this to work, since you are identifying both Rome and the Caesars as the Beast. The personality of the beast is clear.
who will come to despise the Whore and ruin her (Revelation 17:16).
"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have not yet received a kingdom: but shall receive power as kings, one hour after the beast. ... And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: These shall hate the harlot and shall make her desolate and naked and shall eat her flesh and shall burn her with fire." (Revelation 17.12, 16)
Continuing, since the Harlot is Rome, why not interpret the ten kings as the ten German tribes which invaded and destroyed Rome - say the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Seuvi, Burgundians, Franks, Saxons, Lombards, Allemanians, and Bavarians.
I will grant that there is something to be said for a secondary interpretation of some of these prophecies for Jerusalem, but I think the primary meaning is with Rome.
Ugh. Founding.
SD
That is correct -- I was just discussing a local practice of massive agglomeration peculiar to Korea (among Western protestants, the closest comparison would be the Texas Baptists -- but they top out around 5-10,000 on a Sunday). In fact, I didn't even mean to imply that it was unique to Presbyterians, either -- I believe that the largest single Church in Korea is actually a Pentecostal 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.