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
Yeah, if that's Reggie's contention then obviously I don't agree therewith, but I don't know that it is.
However, Reggie does raise an interesting point with John 21:17 -- this may well have been the last personal conversation between Jesus and Simon Peter (it's the last recorded in Scripture).
What if Simon Peter decided to have inscribed on his ossuary the name by which his friend the Lord Jesus called him the last time they ever spoke together on Earth?
What would be so terrible about that?
Yup.
Forced to concede?! I said all along that the Beast is Rome -- and I already pointed out the identification of [the sixth head of] the Beast with Nero in my own #252!!
You're telling me that I'm being "forced to concede" my own arguments? I've said from the get-go:
Now you've come up with a flabbergasting new argument that Jerusalem sits atop Rome/Nero. It just stretches credulity to suggest that all the nations of the earth, and all its tradesmen would be weeping over the fall of Jerusalem when Rome itself fell.
John's focus is almost certainly on the Roman world -- just as is Josephus when he says of the Jerusalem Temple "celebrated place . . . was esteemed holy by all mankind".
Seriously, OP... I've read of a few suggesting what has elsewhere here been called a "secondary prophe[tic]" significance of Jersualem in Revelations, but never that Jerusalem is the whore which rides on Rome, the beast. Now really, seriously, go back and think of what "Babylon" symbolized to the Jews... bondage in a far-off land... exile... foreign domination.
John isn't writing to Jewish Nationalists.
He's writing to the Christians of Greek Asia Minor.
"Babylon" here symbolizes a center of religious fornication and Spiritual Darkness -- which Jerusalem, by murdering her Messiah and prostituting herself with the pagans of the earth, had become.
Revelation is largely the story of the execution of God's "covenant lawsuit" bringing judgment against the Old Covenant bride who had made of herself a filthy, blood-drunken Whore -- Jerusalem.
Oooh, Jerusalem had purple linen... so did every other major city on Earth, I'd wager! And if Jerusalem was once reverenced, it was unique in that its God was not reverenced by the whole earth! This was the age of the pantheon, and only Jersualem, ONLY Jerusalem was excluded. No, Rome was where all the gods of all the Earth (except the true God!) was worshipped. And do you seriously think that the nations' traders would mourn the loss of Jerusalem, while Rome itself burned?
Rome burned in AD64 -- probably a year before John even wrote Revelation. The burning of Rome is not in view here -- John is writing Prophecy.
So, while I don't deny that merchants mourned when Rome burned, that does nothing to change the fact that they would mourn when Jerusalem burned, as prophesied in Revelation.
And just remember what you describe as the "carnal grandeur of the Whore Babylon" were the very adornments commanded by God. Be careful of what you speak! You have a dangerous tendency to not recognize the diabolical when you encounter it (like that horrendously blasphemous and satanically adorned web page you cite!)
Do you not "recognize the diabolical" when you see the adornments commanded by God... being prostituted out by His Old-Covenant bride in spiritual fornication?
As I said:
I don't think it meant diddle to Jesus what name you called Simon Peter. Jesus knew who Simon Peter was and He knew how important he was to His mission.
IOW Jesus never saw Simon Peter as The Rock. He did see him as a leader of His Church.
Old Reggie (The significance of the three times) 2003.
Well, not particularly different. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says that "Iona" may just be a contraction for "Ioannes" -- like Jack and Johnathon or Bill and William (except that Iona and Ioannes seem to me even more linguistically similar in pronunciation than those examples). Do you have any resources on the subject which would suggest otherwise? Thanks.
While I agree with you that Chilton's identification of Babylon with Jerusalem holds good for the Johannine Apocalypse, its use in the Petrine epistle is far more likely to follow the traditional Jewish intertestamental association of the term with Rome.
Why? Or, let me instead put it this way -- independent of the argument from later tradition that Peter wrote this Epistle from Rome, what independent arguments would suggest to you that Peter's Epistle is using the term "Babylon" here in reference to Rome, as opposed to John's Apocalyptic use of "Babylon" to refer to Jerusalem?
Also, do you have any citations which you could offer in support of the claim that "Early Christians often used 'Babylon' as a metaphor for Rome"? I'll say in advance that it seems entirely plausible to me that they did, but I've often heard this claim and I just realized that I've never asked anyone to actually present any evidence in support thereof (if you'd like to cite some, I'll accept a few texts demonstrating inter-testamental Jewish usage of "Babylon" to refer to Rome -- but only with the advance reservation that Gentile Christians would not have the Jewish Nationalist rationale for such usage, so I'd prefer to see evidence more particular to Early Christians if possible).
Honest questions, not trying to be tendentious. best, OP
In 2Peter 3:15-16 Peter specifically references an epistle written by Paul, to the Jews that he (Peter) was writing to
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
3:016 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things;
Also in Hebrews 13:23-24 it is clear that it is Paul speaking:
13:023 "Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.Timothy was, after all discipled to Paul, and who was the apostle charged by the Lord to 'Italy?'
13:24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.
What have you been smoking? While Protestants did not engage in forced conversions they certainly were engaged in missionary work.
An agenda was developed over the course of the late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries by colonial projectors in these countries, an agenda which reflected the strong Calvinist influence among them. With the blossoming of international Calvinism during this time there was developed a full-orbed world-view and cultural perspective, rooted in the work of the School of Salamanca in Spain;(1) this world-view is reflected strongly in the original aims and purposes of these projectors.
A good example of this was the Calvinist Willem Usselincx, a well-to-do tradesman who migrated to Holland wheile his native Flanders remained under Spanish dominion. Usselincx tirelessly pushed for the formation of a Dutch West-Indies Company which would establish permanent settlements in the New World, to bring the gospel, along with Christian civilization, to the native inhabitants. It was Usselincx's idea that exposure to Calvinist civilization would be the best way to bring the native populations over to Christendom, and of course over to the Calvinist side vis-a-vis the Latin powers. Peaceful trade with the natives would have a better effect on them than forceful subjection: "the Indians would become more civilized and become accustomed to labor in order to enjoy the fruits of labor. This could be effected better and more capably, at less expense and perils, in times of peace than of war."(2) In Usselincx's view, this contrasted with the approach of the Spaniards and Portuguese, who according to him allowed the natives to remain in their dismal state, or what is worse, enslaved and oppressed them, without making any effort to improve their lot.
Usselincx the layman was accompanied in this missionary zeal by members of the Reformed clergy. The Zeeland minister Godfried Udemans presented his ideas on the matter in justifying the missions of the Dutch East India and West Indies companies, delivering a positive evaluation of economic activity as conducted by God-fearing businessmen along the way. One noteworthy element of his exposition lies in his recognition of the concept of a community of nations, with freedom of trade between them being in the best interests of all. The formation of public trading companies was made necessary by the claims to world empire on the part of Spain and Portugal, supported by the Pope. Udemans pointed out the necessity of combining military, political, and economic efforts in these public monopolies in order to effectively carry out trade in a hostile environment. Things had been brought to this point through the failure of the Catholic powers to allow free trade. Udeman's argument thus echoes that of Grotius's Freedom of the Seas, and constitutes another expression of the theocratic jus gentium.(3)
In this connection it seems appropriate to point out the contribution of the Dutch theologian Gisbertus Voetius to the development of the Protestant mission enterprise. Voetius was a Reformed minister, theologian, and university professor, renowned among English-speaking Puritan and Presbyterian circles for his mastery of Calvinist doctrine and casuistry. The unofficial leader of the Dutch Reformed Church itself, Voetius was dubbed by his enemies, "the Pope of Utrecht" (Utrecht being the name of the city and of the university in which he lived and worked). To Voetius may be attributed nothing less than the development of the first comprehensive Protestant theology of Christian mission, developed chiefly though not exclusively in the cause of the colonial effort.(4)
Since when do you listen to popes, when it suits your needs?
"Evangelizing" - translation - dragging Catholics by force into heresy, as in England, as in Germany, as in Scandanavia.
No, what we are referring to is the utter lack of Protestant missionary endeavour among the natives in the British and Dutch colonies 1550-1800. And the utter lack of an inner impulsion to go abroad that was seen in Catholic efforts to go not only to lands under Catholic dominion, but also those still unconquered (Japan, Mesopotamia, India, China, etc.).
This is why there are over 1 billion Catholics, and not even 100 million Calvinists.
The Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oost-Indishe Compagnie, or VOC) was formed in 1605 expanding Dutch influence which supplanted the Portuguese, Spanish and English in the region. The Reformed church was the only officially accepted religion and began by taking over Catholic congregations (freedom of religion was only allowed from 1807). Mission work was carefully controlled. (Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in Asia)
http://www.schoolofministry.ac.nz/reformed/asia.htm
You folks are disgusting hypocrites. Same method seen in Europe to create your churches in the 1500's - conversion at gunpoint.
Actually, European diseases did most of the work in places where the population was decimated.
I spent a considerable amount of time in New Mexico, and the thing that suprised me is that the Indians I met didn't really like us "northeners", but they REALLY didn't like the Hispanics.
Thanks to the spread of the Spanish black legend by American textbooks influenced by Protestantism for 150 years. The Indians were wards of the government, and the government was determined to make the Protestant Christians. Spitting on the Spanish Catholic period was necessary to do that.
Abuses in colonial management and conquest happened both with Catholics and Protestants. It would be hard, if not impossible, to nail down who committed the most atrocities.
We aren't playing atrocity one-upsmanship here. We are pointing to the difference between the Spanish-Portugues-French areas, where there are large numbers of native Catholics, and the Protestant areas, where there are almost no natives.
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.