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 Dutch Reformed Church dates from 1642. As the religion of the colonial government, its membership reached about 400,000 before the end of Dutch rule in 1796. Under the British, Church of Scotland chaplains were present from 1830 and the Dutch and Scottish presbyterians united in 1882. Membership has since reduced to about five thousand through migration and reversion to Catholicism and to other faiths.(Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in Asia)
http://www.schoolofministry.ac.nz/reformed/asia.htm
Fairly obvious where those Reformed "adherents" came from, and their motivation for being Protestant (persecution and outlawing of Catholicism). There are today 1.4 million Catholics in Sri Lanka, despite the Dutch persecution.
You should never have brought up Dutch Protestant "mission" work in Asia.
(1). "Although the Catholic Churches diffused throughout the world are but one bridal chamber of Christ, yet the Holy Roman Church has been set before the rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained the primacy by the voice of our Lord and Savior in the gospel, (Mathew 16:18, etc.)"
(2). "For this will appear best and fittest, that the priests of the lord from all the provinces should report to the head, that is, to the See of Peter the apostle".
(3). "Bishop Gaudentius said: 'A rider, if you will agree, to this very holy decision has been made: When a bishop has been deposed by the judgement of the bishops living in neighboring places and has---let another bishops on no account be ordained in his stead--except the case shall have been determined by the judgment of the Bishop of Rome".
(4). "Ignatius Theophorus to the church on which the majesty of the most high Father and of Jesus Christ, His only Son, had his mercy; to the church beloved and enlightened by the faith and charity of Jesus Christ, our God, through the will of Him Who has willed all things tht exist--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".
(5). "We have, I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which...you reported to the Roman Church as to the head of your body. No priest is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons".
(6). "Away with jealously of the Roman preeminence, away with ambition! I speak to the successor of the fisherman and to the disciple of the cross. 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"
The significance of the three times = Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Whore Babylon is the Great City Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8)
This is an illegitimate connection. Revelation 11 is not directly connected to the events of Revelation 17, so you are making a false equivalence between two cities called "the Great City" in completely different contexts.
In the midst of a lengthy passage describing Jerusalem’s extensive commerce, Edersheim reports: “In these streets and lanes everything might be purchased: the production of Palestine, or imported from foreign lands – nay, the rarest articles from the remotest parts. Exquisitely shaped, curiously designed and jewelled cups, rings, and other workmanship of precious metals; glass, silks, fine linen, woolen stuffs, purple, and costly hangings; essences, ointments, and perfumes, as precious as gold; articles of food and drink from foreign lands – in short, what India, Persia, Arabia, Media, Egypt, Italy, Greece, and even the far-off lands of the Gentiles yielded, might be had in these bazaars. Ancient Jewish writings enable us to identify no fewer than 118 different articles of import from foreign lands, covering more than even modern luxury has devised.”
Again, Jerusalem was a city of a around ten of thousand (the walls then were actually smaller than today, since the area of the Church of the Anastasis, where Christ was crucified and buried was outside the walls).
Cities like Rome, Smyrna, Ephesus, Pergamon, Antioch, Alexandria, Athens and Carthage were many hundreds of thousands. Luxuries were only available in Jerusalem (and the trade was hardly making anyone rich there) because they coudl be brought to the huge market represented by those major cities.
It was the city of Rome and its suffragans for which traders brought goods, not Jerusalem. I'll await your explanation of how the economics of the Jerusalem trade, and not the Roman trade were what made the traders rich.
Why, you've left out Attila the Hun!! How many times does a guy have to sack Rome to get a mention on your list? Of course, you have to leave out the Huns -- if we counted all the tribes who descended upon the carcass of the Western Empire, we'd end up with a lot more than ten in a hurry.
First, the Huns aren't German. Second, the Huns affected little of the Roman Empire and only for a short period. Third, there were ten major German tribal confederations that descended upon Rome.
No, Hermann -- the Ten Horns "have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast"; these being the ten Imperial provinces of Rome: Italy, Achaia, Asia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Germany. "And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire."
"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. These have one design: and their strength and power they shall deliver to 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 17.12-13, 16)
The German tribes were of one mind, as shown by their collective invasion in AD 407. There were never ten imperial Roman provinces (there were many more), nor ten kings of these provinces, nor were they of one mind, nor did they hate either Rome or Jerusalem, nor did the provinces ever sack Rome or Jerusalem. I'd say the German tribes fit that far better. Example: "We...Lombards, Saxons, Franks, Lotharingians, Bajoarians, Sueni, Burgundians, have so much contempt [for Romans and their emperors] that when we become enraged with our enemies, we pronounce no other insult except Roman (nisi Romane), this alone, i.e., the name of the Romans (hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine) meaning: whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious, deceitful, and, indeed whatever is evil." (Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana 12. Migne, PL 136. 815) - Keep in mind that when that was written, the Roman Empire had destroyed the Vandals and Ostrogoths, and the Arabs had destroyed the Visigoths, which then totals ten kings and kingdoms of one mind who hate the harlot.
http://www.romanity.org/htm/frame_friesian_en.htm
Scroll down on that site and you can see the provincial divisions circa AD 116.
Two serves you won't answer:
"And the woman which thou sawest is the great city which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth." (Revelation 17.18)
Jerusalem never ruled the earth, Rome did. You can't address or refute this point. - ACE!
"And there came one of the seven angels who had the seven vials and spoke with me, saying: Come, I will shew thee the condemnation of the great harlot, who sitteth upon many waters: ... And he said to me: The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples and nations and tongues." (Revelation 17.1, 15)
Jerusalem did not sit upon many peoples, Rome did, not only being the confluence of all peoples, but also their dominator and even betimes their opressor (as the worthy Hermann the Cherusker would know). - ACE!
Game, set, match OP.
NO PRIMACY TO ROME!
Sigh. Maybe the third time you'll actually engage the question. I'm not holding my breath.
SD
Right. But the fact that a conversation is "last" to appear in the Gospels is all-important.
Or is that the other way around? Whatever.
SD
No, they just forbid the Irish to own land, arms, etc.; forced them from their ancestral lands; forbid the saying of Mass; and offered charity during the imposed starvation of the Famine only to those willing to denounce their Catholicism.
But Protestants never forced anyone to convert.
(Oh, I know. The English weren't really Protestants. The glory of the Church of One is having no history.)
SD
CANON VI.
LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
NO PRIMACY!
This is a canon concerning the ordinary government of the Church, which is not centered in Rome, but at the level of the Primatial Sees, which watch to keep order in each province. The right of appeal to Rome and her final doctrinal, moral, and disciplinary authority, the essence of her primacy, were understood by all and did not need re-annunciating. The Roman Law of Emperors Theodosius and Justinian explicitly recognize this, as does the common title of the Roman Pope as "Archbishop of the universal Church". This is why Bishop Hosius and two mere Priests, Vitus and Vitellus of Rome, presided over the Council of Nicea, despite their rank below the other Bishops present.
What you are spouting is the Spanish black legend - wicked evil Spain destroys the whole world, kills all the Jews with her Inquisition, tries to take over England but is punished by God, etc.
As Herman has explained it is stating that the "Metropolitan" has jurisdiction over the selection of lesser bishops in his territory. It says nothing about the Bishop of Rome and his primacy.
(A "Metropolitan" is a sort of uber-bishop who has authority over a certain region, involving other bishops in dioceses in his territory. For example, here in PA, the Archbishop of Philadephia is metropolitan over all of the other dioceses in Pennsylvania.)
SD
Whose side are you arguing?
SD
The decree you posted wasn't accepted by the Pope because it was schizmatic, detrimental to the Church, and was a selfish power grab due to jealousy of Rome's primacy. Follow-up Coucils and decrees made it clear that Rome held the primacy. And the Eastern church accepted this primacy, as my last post clearly demonstrates.
By the same token a "First Will" is more important than the "Last Will. Whatever.
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.