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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your last post was similar to your #279, an unthinking boilerplate copy.
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.
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 ]
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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)
The Great City Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8) which crucified the Lord.
Mystical Babylon -- the Old Covenant bride of God who had made of herself a filthy, blood-drunken Whore: Jerusalem
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
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.
SD
One of the pope's titles is "the servant of the servants of Christ."
Nice title.
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.