Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals: Apostle Simon Peter buried in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem

Jerusalem Christian Review ^ | 11-23-2003 | OP

[OLD REGGIE]

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.)

And this "sort of uber-bishop" has the authority of naming each and every bishop in his territory. NOT!

The Bishop of Rome had no effective authority over the Eastern Churches though he was recognized with a primacy of honor. He could not manage, control, or appoint bishops for the Eastern Churches.

The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (Pope) is a latter day invention. As a matter of fact this council was called by Emperor Constantine IV, not the Bishop of Rome. Why? Because the Bishop of Rome didn't have the recognized authority to do so.

[OLD REGGIE]

Don't be even more foolish than is necessary. The quoted material acknowledges the primacy of Rome. Even in the East. That the Pope never "approved" of the document doesn't make the attitude in the East different.

It recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the West!

Are you willing to claim that the Primacy of the Bishop of Alexandria, and other Eastern Bishops wasn't recognized also?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The Bishop of Rome had no effective authority over the Eastern Churches though he was recognized with a primacy of honor. He could not manage, control, or appoint bishops for the Eastern Churches.

And that is not the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. his primacy is his imemdiate jurisdictional authority over each and every Church and eache and every Christian. It does not mean he has to appoint every Bishop or manage each Church. It does mean he is the final arbiter of all problems and disputes and sets the course of the Church.

[jude24]

You know what? You're just full of it...

Nowhere does it explicitly (or implicitly) say Paul wrote Hebrews. You have a cobbled-together misinterpretation of 2Peter to support your viewpoint, but ultimately, its nothing more than a hermaneutic of tradition.

[OLD REGGIE]

It does not mean he has to appoint every Bishop or manage each Church.

So you agree with Dave that the Archbishop of Boston, for example, appoints the Bishops in the Diocese of Boston? This is not controlled in any way by the Vatican?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the West!

Are you willing to claim that the Primacy of the Bishop of Alexandria, and other Eastern Bishops wasn't recognized also?

They had a primacy, but not over the whole Church. Appeals were made to Rome for justice, not to Antioch or Alexandria.

Since the primacy of the Apostolic See has been confirmed by the merits of St. Peter, the prince and the crown of the episcopacy, by the dignity of the City of Rome, and also by the authority of the holy synods, no one should presume to do anything illicit outside the authority of this See. For the peace of the Churches will finally be preserved everywhere when the whole Church is subject to its supreme ruler. (Corpus Juris Civilis, law added by Valentinian III [ruled AD 425-455])

Is that clear enough? That is what the Empire and the Church recognized. That is what is manifestly shown in all the histories.

The primacy of Rome does not consist of appointing Bishops in every See. It consists in having final jurisdictional authority in faith, morals, and discipline over every Church and every Christian.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

So you agree with Dave that the Archbishop of Boston, for example, appoints the Bishops in the Diocese of Boston? This is not controlled in any way by the Vatican?

Dave didn't say that. The Archbishop of Boston has the duty of monitoring his suffragans and their sees, and helping deal with irregularities. He also has certain rights concerning their consecration and making suggestions for appointments.

You have no concept of what primacy is, or what it involves. It doesn't mean the right to appoint Bishops. The appointment of Bishops is a relatively modern thing (elections were the old method). But primacies have always been there.

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

The decree I posted was directly from one your boiler plate "proofs". See #279. Perhaps, unlike you, I took the time to do some checking.

Your last post was similar to your #279, an unthinking boilerplate copy.

[OLD REGGIE]

They had a primacy, but not over the whole Church.

I have a primacy, but not outside my own house. So what?

Why do you spend so much of your time and my time debating over the primacy issue only to post such a weak response?

They had a primacy, but not over the whole Church. Meaning? Local primacy.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Why do you spend so much of your time and my time debating over the primacy issue only to post such a weak response?

I think the better question is why anyone wastes their breath and typing on you.

They had a primacy, but not over the whole Church. Meaning? Local primacy.

For Antioch and Alexandria. How stupid are you? Can't you read?

Are you willing to claim that the Primacy of the Bishop of Alexandria, and other Eastern Bishops wasn't recognized also?

They had a primacy, but not over the whole Church. Appeals were made to Rome for justice, not to Antioch or Alexandria.

...

326 posted on 11/26/2003 10:40 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[OLD REGGIE]

(Reg) So you agree with Dave that the Archbishop of Boston, for example, appoints the Bishops in the Diocese of Boston? This is not controlled in any way by the Vatican?

Dave didn't say that. The Archbishop of Boston has the duty of monitoring his suffragans and their sees, and helping deal with irregularities. He also has certain rights concerning their consecration and making suggestions for appointments.

Dave said; "As Herman has explained it is stating that the "Metropolitan" has jurisdiction over the selection of lesser bishops in his territory."

What is a "lesser bishop"? What is jurisdiction?

Now you tell me one more time what Dave said.

[OLD REGGIE]

You have no concept of what primacy is, or what it involves. It doesn't mean the right to appoint Bishops. The appointment of Bishops is a relatively modern thing (elections were the old method). But primacies have always been there.

I assure you I do know what primacy involves. That is why I have already posted that the Eastern Church accorded a Primacy of Honor to the Bishop of Rome.

It is the misuse of this meaning by some RC's on this thread that I am responding to. I admit I overstated several times with my bolded NO PRIMACY! in my response to Dave. He knows what I mean. It is a secret code. Sorry.

[SoothingDave]

That is why I have already posted that the Eastern Church accorded a Primacy of Honor to the Bishop of Rome.

One is either prime or not. This "honor" thing is Orthodox propaganda. The Pope is not the Queen of England, whose power is only titular.

SD

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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 John does not say "a great city" or "another great city"; John uses the definite article "THE Great City" (Revelation 16:19) referring us directly back to THE only “Great City” which he has previously referenced in the Text -- THE Great City where the Lord Jesus was Crucified (Revelation 11:8). So let me ask you this -- if you lay aside attempts to see Rome as "Babylon" which are external to the Text, where in the Text of Revelation 16:19 itself does John ever indicate that he is now talking about a different “The Great City” other than THE Great City which he has already established as Jerusalem?

Remember, stick to the Text itself.

Furthermore, if you believe that the reference to “sitting on seven mountains” in Revelation 17:9 must be taken as a reference to a literal, geographic seating on seven mountains, then as the Roman Catholic APOLOGIA website demonstratesyou have just proven the case that THE Great City is exactly THE Great City which John has already identified to his readers: Jerusalem, which in Jesus’ day rested upon the Seven Mountains.

Rome isn't built on seven mountains, anyway; it's built on seven hills, as are Constaninople, Edinburgh, San Francisco, and Cincinnati, for that matter. Mountains are big, hills are small. There are two separate words for them and Scripture is familiar with both (see Luke 3:5 and Luke 23:30). Rome's seven hills are Palatine, Aventine, Capitoline, Quarinal, Viminal, Esquiline and Caelian (hey, how come Vatican Hill is never listed?).

Jerusalem, however, is built on seven mountains: Mount Goath, Mount Gareb, Mount Acra, Mount Bezetha, Mount Zion, Mount Ophel, and Mount Moriah. There are even Psalms about them, "As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the LORD is round about his people from henceforth even for ever." {Psalms 125:2)

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)…. 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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk… Hermann, you’re just being silly again. In the first place, I never said that the Roman trade did not make traders rich; I am simply pointing out that, as John writes in Revelation, the Harlot City Jerusalem was a Great City of almost indescribable wealth and did make traders rich, herself. This is well-attested by both Edersheim and Josephus, above.

After all, Jerusalem was not a city of ten thousand; it was a city of at least 250,000, which during Passover quadrupled to over one million. Tacitus himself records a population of at least 600,000 in the city of Jerusalem at the time (AD66 –AD70) the Roman Beast laid siege to the Harlot Great City; Josephus’ figures are even higher. And just where, pray tell, did Titus find 1.1 million Jews to kill during the Jewish Wars and another 97,000 to enslave if the Great City Jerusalem was a jerkwater burg of only 10,000? Your descent into absurdity is becoming downright humorous – now you’ve got the Roman Senate building the great Arch of Titus and celebrating the plunder of incalculable riches from what you claim to be a bump-in-the-road cow-town. This is not only terrible theology, it’s just plain bad math.

Hilarious!! Go on, tell us another one.

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.

Really? I count more like Fifty-six tribes or so. Of course, it’s a fortunate convenience for you that there are so many German tribes – with 56 to choose from, you can mix and match them any way you please to come up with ten “confederations”.

Unfortunately, you can mix and match Germanic tribes any way you please, but your bad math still won’t salvage your bad theology. The Ten Horns are integral parts of the Beast (which we have already identified with the Roman Empire and specifically the Revelation 17:10 “Seven Kings” from Julius Caesar to Galba Caesar) and “give their power and strength unto the beast”. So we must identify the Ten Horns as ten powers which give their power and strength to the Caesars.

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.

As noted above, F.W. Farrar, Chaplain to Queen Victoria, Headmaster of Marlborough College and Canon of Westminster Abbey in his “The Early Days of Christianity”, identified ten principal provinces of the Roman Empire: Italy, Achaia, Asia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Germany. These would be the Ten Horns which give power and strength to the Caesars (they needn’t conform to exact administrative divisions, if they represent the ten primary regions from which the peoples of the Empire would have identified themselves).

However, within the interpretive rule that we must identify the Ten Horns as ten powers which give their power and strength to the Caesars, there we can identify ten powers which “had received no kingdom yet” but “receive power as kings one hour with the beast” and “give their power and strength unto the beast”. While, in terms of administrative divisions, there were a varied number of Imperial Provinces, as a rule, there were always Ten Senatorial Provinces . Now under Nero (especially after AD62) the law of Maiestas was used to control and subvert the power of the Senate and aristocracy. However, under the imperium of Galba (who “continued for a short space” during the Jewish Wars) and also Vespasian and Titus (the two generals most responsible for the desolation of Jerusalem, and who later came to power as Emperors) the privileges of the Senate were respected for a short time. The senators, whose power was subverted when John wrote Revelation, received power under the short reign of the Seventh Head of the Beast (Galba) to whom they gave their power and strength, and celebrated the desolation of Jerusalem by crowning honors and glory upon Vespasian and Titus.

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!

Already did. As I said before, you are confusing the political power of the Beast of Seven Hills (Rome) with the religious power of the Harlot Great City (Jerusalem).

Josephus points out repeatedly that the nations had historically recognized the sanctity and centrality of the Temple: “This celebrated place . . . was esteemed holy by all mankind” (The Jewish War, v.i.3; cf. v.ix.4; v.xiii.6). In fact, the action of Jewish rebels, in the summer of A.D. 66, of halting the daily sacrifices for the Emperor (in violation, Josephus points out, of long-standing practice) was the single event which finally precipitated the Roman war against the Jews (ii.xvii.2-4). Even at the very end, as Titus prepared to raze the city to the ground, he was still pleading with the Jewish priests to offer up the sacrifices, which by now had been entirely discontinued (vi.ii.1). (Chilton, "The Days of Vengeance")

It was the Harlot City Jerusalem, and her servants the Apostate Elders of False Judaism (Rev. 2:9, 3:9) and their Synagogues of Satan, who at all times everywhere throughout the Empire stirred up the peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues against the Saints of Jesus Christ.; “and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.”

Game, set, match OP.

Yup. Game, Set, Match: OP!!

Let’s Review: (Next Post)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

BABYLON of Revelation

The Great City Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8) which crucified the Lord.

• Her desolation is announced with voices, thunder, lightning, and quaking (Revelation 16:17-18)
  Josephus, the Jewish Wars -- Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one-and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence".

• She is split into three parts and destroyed (Revelation 16:19-20)
  Josephus, The Jewish Wars -- And now there were three treacherous factions in the city, the one parted from the other... Accordingly, it so came to pass, that all the places that were about the temple were burnt down, and were become an intermediate desert space, ready for fighting on both sides of it; and that almost all that corn was burnt, which would have been sufficient for a siege of many years. So they were taken by the means of the famine, which it was impossible they should have been, unless they had thus prepared the way for it by this procedure.

• Crushed under a hail of stones weighing a talent each (Revelation 16:21)
  Josephus, The Jewish Wars -- The engines, that all the legions had ready prepared for them, were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion: those that threw darts and those that threw stones were more forcible and larger than the rest, by which they not only repelled the excursions of the Jews, but drove those away that were upon the walls also. Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space. As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was of a white color, and could therefore not only be perceived by the great noise it made, but could be seen also before it came by its brightness; accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, "THE SON COMETH!"

• For she had made the inhabitants of the earth drunk with her spiritual fornications (Revelation 17:2)
  But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren. (Acts 14:2; also 13:50 and 14:5 and 17:5 and 17:13 and 18:12 and 21:27, etc.)

• Clothing herself in the finest scarlet and purple of Babylon (Revelation 17:4)
  Josephus described the luxurious wealth of the Temple’s facade (cf. Luke 21:5): “The first gate was 70 cubits high and 25 broad; it had no doors, displaying unhampered the vast expanse of heaven; the entire face was covered with gold, and through it the arch of the first hall was fully visible to an onlooker without in all its grandeur, and the surroundings of the inner gate, all gleaming with gold, struck the beholder’s eye.... The gate opening into the building was, as I said, completely overlaid with gold, as was the whole wall surrounding it. Above it, moreover, were the golden grapevines from which hung grape clusters as tall as a man. In front of these hung a veil of equal length of Babylonian tapestry embroidered with blue, scarlet and purple, and fine linen, wrought with marvelous craftsmanship.... The exterior of the sanctuary did not lack anything that could amaze either mind or eye. Overlaid on all sides with massive plates of gold, it reflected in the first rays of the sun so fierce a flash that those looking at it were forced to look away as from the very rays of the sun. To strangers as they approached it, it seemed in the distance like a mountain clad with snow; for any part not covered with gold was of the purest white.” (Chilton, ibid.)

• The Whore City Jerusalem, she who sits upon the Seven Mountains (not hills) (Revelation 17:9)
  

• And the Beast of Rome, and its sixth Head Nero, and its seventh Head Galba with the Ten Senatorial powers, and Vespasian and Titus made war on the Whore City Jerusalem, and destroyed her. (Revelation 16, 17, and 18)
  Now the number of those that were carried captive during the whole war was collected to be ninety-seven thousand; as was the number of those that perished during the whole siege, eleven hundred thousand (Josephus, ibid.)

• For the Whore City Jerusalem had shed the blood of God’s saints and prophets; and so God gave them blood to drink as they deserved. (Revelation 16:6, 18:24)
  ”For it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33)

Mystical Babylon -- the Old Covenant bride of God who had made of herself a filthy, blood-drunken Whore: Jerusalem

[OLD REGGIE]

One is either prime or not. This "honor" thing is Orthodox propaganda. The Pope is not the Queen of England, whose power is only titular.

Interestingly, I don't believe you know what primacy is. Primacy "but not over the whole church". Hah! Some Primacy.

[SoothingDave]

Primacy "but not over the whole church". Hah! Some Primacy.

It's really not a difficult concept. Think of a cabinet member, who has authority over, say, the Dept. of Education. He has complete executive authority, but serves at the pleasure of the President.

Now the president doesn't involve himself in the rulings and day-to-day operations of the dept, but can be called upon as a final authority to correct some grave disorder or to remove a dept. secretary who is working against his wishes.

SD

[Quester]

Submitted for your consideration ...

Luke 22:24 And they began to argue among themselves as to who would be the greatest in the coming Kingdom.

25 Jesus told them, "In this world the kings and great men order their people around, and yet they are called 'friends of the people.'

26 But among you, those who are the greatest should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant.

27 Normally the master sits at the table and is served by his servants. But not here! For I am your servant.

[SoothingDave]

One of the pope's titles is "the servant of the servants of Christ."

SD

[Quester]

One of the pope's titles is "the servant of the servants of Christ."

Nice title.