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
Like that image? You'll probably like this one too, then.
A the left is a sculpture by Gian Lorenzo Bernini decorating the tomb of Pope Alexander VII. At the four corners surrounding the enthroned Pope, are the four virtues, Charity, Prudence, Justice and Truth. Charity is on the front left side and "La Verita", which means "The Truth" is on the right front side. On the right is a close up of "La Verita".
Notice that the woman is embracing a 'sun-burst'. Clicking on the large image will take you to an art gallery where
you can click on the image and zoom for a closer look.
Pagan Babylon worshipped the sun as a deity, and pagan Rome also worshipped the sun. The Roman Catholic Church, with the assistance of Constantine, changed the day of worship from Sabbath to Sun Day and commonly used images and symbols of the sun.
Constantine placed no Christian appellation upon the worship on the first day of the week, referring to it as the "venerable day of the sun."
Let all judges and all city people and all tradesmen rest upon the venerable day of the sun. But let those dwelling in the country freely and with full liberty attend to the culture of their field; since it frequently happens that no other day is so fit for the sowing of grain or the planting of vines; hence, the favorable time should not be allowed to pass, lest the provisions of heaven be lost. Quoted in Blakely, p. 269
Or if you prefer the Codex Justinianus:
On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. (Given the 7th day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time [A.D. 321].) Source: Codex Justinianus, lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3 (5th ed.; New York: Scribner, 1902), p. 380, note 1.
Revelation 17 Daniel 7
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
I think the blasphemies are 'false doctrine'. Changing the Sabbath to Sun-day, in honor of the 'venerable day of the sun', changes God's Law regarding the 4th Commandment.
The biblical calendar has been around since the beginning. It was given to all mankind. The Babylonians used it. When the exile ended the Jews brought it with them. This is why the Jewish calendar has Babylonian names for the months. But, the papacy changed all that with the introduction of the Julian calendar, which was later revised and became the Gregorian calendar. Under the Gregorian calendar, the New Year is changed and is no longer in the spring as God commanded. Passover was changed to Easter and of course the Sabbath was changed to SUN day. That, along with starting the "day" at midnight, made their "change of times and seasons" complete.
Exodus 12
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt saying,
2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.
This was commanded by God to Moses at the time of the Passover, which always comes in spring.
In accordance with its ancient beginnings (right from The Seven Days Of Creation when light was created after the darkness), Bible calendar days were, and are, determined to begin and end at sunset e.g "from evening to evening shall you keep your sabbath" (Leviticus 23:32 )
(Book of Genesis)
Chapter 1
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Book of Leviticus) Chapter 23
32 It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.
The Popes/RCC have fulfilled Daniel 7:25, the 4th beast of verse 23.
Looks like the ring goes back further than the seventh century.
At the left is a tablet from the early 9th century B.C. which depicts the Babylonian sun-god Shamash seated on the right, holding emblems of his authority, a staff and ring, and the king with two attendants on the left. In the center, on an altar, is a large 4-point sun image, with additional small wavy rays between the points. Clicking on the image will take you to the British Museum, where you can see and read about this tablet depicting the sun god, Shamash.
The miter is the proper liturgical headdress fir all bishops of the Latin rite, including the pope. The word comes from the Greek word mitra, meaning "turban."
The 'mitre' doesn't look like any turban, I've seen. It more closely resembles the head gear of the pagan priests of Dagon!
It consists of two stiffened flaps of material joined by a headband with two fringed strips hanging from the back base of the miter.
Those stiffened flaps are called 'lappets'. They too trace back to the pagans sun worsippers.
The miter as we know it today developed from the conical head-covering worn by the pope that appeared in the tenth century.
More likely the mitre developed from the conical fish head hat of Dagon priests. The mitre looks more like that fish head hat, then it does a 'turban'!
The Pope also has a ring and staff of authority, remarkably similar to the depiction of the sun god Shamash on the Babylonian tablet shown previously.
Note the lower hand of King Ashur-nasir-pal II in the above stele. On the wrist is the sunburst symbol. On the right, the pagan sunburst is on the glove of Pope John XXIII. Clicking on the image of the stele will take you to the British Museum.
The depictions of the pagan kings on the ancient standing stones (stela) above, show a strip of cloth (lappet) hanging from the rear of the headgear. These lappets are also present on the papal mitre and tiara, shown at left, and partially visible in the photos of popes above.
The RCC/Popes seem to have borrowed a lot of 'symbols' from the pagans, but then again they were trying to entice pagan sun worshippers to join christianity, though it looks more like chrisitanity adopted the pagan symbols. They didn't christianize Rome, they merely paganized/hellenized christianity.
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
There is only one self-proclaimed "Mother" church, The Universal (Catholic) Church.
Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
In the Old Testament 'fornication' is often used to denote those that whored after other gods.
I think the 'cup of abominations' is all the pagan stuff that the 'church' whored after, and the merging of Sun worship. The pagans believed in eating and drinking the blood of their gods so as to become more god-like. Today, I think that is called the 'eucharist'.
The Greek Alexandrian Jews allowed some of their pagan agendas to seep into their version of the Greek Septuagint. Later, the NT would include others, like the eating and drinking of blood.
Because we pagan Catholics worship the Fish God we are, (Canon Law #666)required to eat fish every Thanksgiving. You are prolly a real Christian and so you get to eat Turkey and what not.
In honor of the Fish God, you eat fish on Fridays during Lent, do you not????? LOL Just another example of pagans eating their god/fish.
In all seriousness I am afraid we are working with differing definitions of "primacy" and, as such, we will never be able to agree.
I accept that the Bishop of Rome, at some later time, enjoyed a "Primacy of Honor" amongst all Bishops.
I deny that the Pope was ever granted a temporal primacy, though there were some who claimed such.
Pope Gregory I went so far as to deny "universality" for the Pope or any Patriarch. He claimed equality and nothing else.
Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople, seeking occasion from another cause, held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he despatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod ... .
¶ For ... this name of Universality was offered by the holy synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve. But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title; since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this, far be it from the mind of a Christian, that any one should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honour of his brethren....
Gregory the Great
I would appreciate if you could state what you mean by "Primacy". Who knows, we might actually agree.
Agree. In addition, there is the obvious fact that Paul was definately "persona non grata" in any place that was under the control of the Sanhedrin, thus would have done much to eliminate his identity from the text to protect the courrier.
There is really no legitimate controversy here.
The Catholic Church hasn't done that. Look in our Missal. Our week goes - "Dominica" (Lord's Day), "Day 2", "Day 3", "Day 4", "Day 5", "Day 6", "Sabbato" (Sabbath). We don't use the pagan God names, and we have not changed the Sabbath to Sunday. What has happened is that the obligation of rest and divine worship has been transferred to the Lord's Day.
But, the papacy changed all that with the introduction of the Julian calendar, which was later revised and became the Gregorian calendar. Under the Gregorian calendar, the New Year is changed and is no longer in the spring as God commanded.
Notice the name - Julian. You know, like Julius Caesar? He wasn't Catholic (Christ not even having lived when he did this), but he reformed the Roman solar calendar. It was also he who made January to be the new year, when he added January and February to the calendar (note the names of September-Decembet mean "7th Month", "8th Month", "9th Month", and "10th Month"). For a long time, England followed Dionysius Exigisius' method of starting the New Year on March 25, the date of the Annunciation (and also the old date of the Spring Equinox). Germany and Scandanavia used Christmas Day. France and Netherlands used January 1. Russia used September 1. The Catholic Church uses the last Sunday in November as the beginning of the Ecclesiastical year, while the orthodox use September 1.
Oh, and the Jews used 1 Nisan as the start of the religious year, but Rosh Hoshana as the start of the civil year.
Passover was changed to Easter and of course the Sabbath was changed to SUN day.
Catholics call the day of "Easter" "Dominica in Parsceve" - "The Lord's Day of the Passover", or simply "Pascha" if you prefer. "Easter" is simply the English name of convenience given to this day and used official by Protestants only.
We've already gone over the Sabbath, which we retain.
That, along with starting the "day" at midnight, made their "change of times and seasons" complete.
The Catholic Church ends her ecclesiastical day with Compline, which is said after sundown before bedtime at the last of dusk's light. The new day then begins and the office of Matins is said to commence it at dawn's first light. Since the astronomical Julian Day started at Noon (by observation of the time when the Sun was highest in the sky since it was a Solar calendar), this was long used by astronomers. It was only in the 1920's that they came up with the modified Julian Day to start things at midnight. I've no idea where starting the civil day at midnight came from. You may find this ISO standard of interest:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html
In Old Testament prophecy, the term "Day of the Lord" refers to the prophetic time of the return of the Messiah as conquering king and world ruler. "Lord's Day" is the same as saying "Day of the Lord." John, in Revelation, was referring to the Day of the Lord, not the first day of the week. Mark 2:28 says that Yehoshua is Lord of the Sabbath.
The Sabbath is the only "Lord's Day."
Isaiah 66
22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
The Sabbath will be kept in the Millennium.
In the verse above we can see that ALL flesh are to worship before G-d, on the sabbath, when we get the new heavens and the new earth. Are we having a 2,000 year reprieve from keeping the Sabbath??
G-d sanctified the Sabbath, Saturday. The Sabbath IS the LORD'S DAY. That is from G-d, and not man-made like SUNday worship, via the 'edict' of Constanintine, in veneration of the Sun.
Notice the name - Julian.
The days of the week were named as follows: Sunday was originally named afted the Sun; Monday was originally named after the Moon and was called Moonday, which evolved into Monday over time. The next day was originally named Mars Day after the Roman warrior god, but was later changed to Tiu's Day for the Teutonic warrior god. It later evolved into Tuesday as we know it today. Wotan's Day was named for the Roman god of peace, but it was later changed to Woden's Day after a Teutonic god. This day later evolved into our present day called Wednesday. Notice how the "e" and the "n" somehow got transposed over the years. Thursday was originally called Jupiter's Day, named after the Roman god of thunder and lightning. It later got changed to Thor's Day, named after the ancient god of thunder. Finally, it evolved into its present-day name. Venus' Day was the fifth day of the week, named after the Roman goddess who symbolized Spring. This name was changed to Frigg's Day after the Scandinavian Love goddess. The name finally evolved into Friday. Saturday has hardly been changed as it began as Saturn's Day, named after the Roman god of the harvest. Of course, it evolved over the years into our modern day Saturday.
Notice the Julian calendar was revised! We use the Gregorian calendar!
For the Jews the 1st month is Nissan, (March/April-[spring]) and its Gregorian equivalent is January (winter). The Jewish calendar has certainly had no effect on their Sabbath. Unlike the changes via papal bulls, and decrees of Constanine and Pope Gregory where we get a change not only in when the New Year was to begin, but a change of the 4th Commandment. Not to mention the disappearance of Passover and the adoption of Astarte/Ishtar (Easter), a pagan holiday named for the pagan godess of fertility.
The Gregorian Calendar is a revision of the Julian Calendar which was instituted in a papal bull by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. The reason for the calendar change was to correct for drift in the dates of signifigant religious observations, (primarily Easter/Astarte/Ishtar) and to prevent further drift in the dates.
The important effects of the change were:
Adoption of the new calendar was essentially immediate within Catholic countries. In the Protestant countries, where papal authority was neither recognized nor appreciated, adoption came more slowly.
More information on the Gregorian calendar.
Here's a little information about Emperor Aurelius:
The emperor tried to achieve more unity in the Empire by establishing Sol invictus as supreme god of the Roman Empire. On coins, Sol is called Dominus imperi Romani. A priesthood called "priests of the Sun-god" was created. At the end of A.D.274, perhaps on the 25th of December (Sol's alleged birthday), he inaugurated the new temple of the Sun-god in Rome on the eastern Campus Martius (today between the Via del Corso and the Piazza San Silvestro). Annual ludi and an agon Solis every fourth year were being held in honor of the Sun-god. Aurelian also restored discipline in the army.
From what I've read December 25th was later adopted by the church at the First Council of Nicea under Constantine.
When Constantine changed the 4th commandment, and certain Holy days, in essence he placed himself above G-d.
Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:32
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Hegesippus (circa 170AD) records that the Law and Prophets were taught until all the Apostles died off.:
... Up to that period the Church had remained like a virgin pure and uncorrupted: for, if there were any persons who were disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule of the preaching of salvation, they still lurked in some dark place of concealment or other. But, when the sacred band of apostles had in various ways closed their lives, and that generation of men to whom it had been vouchsafed to listen to the Godlike Wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then did the confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching "knowledge falsely so called." On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus. But in the case of every succession,14 and in every city, the state of affairs is in accordance with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Lord.... Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching.15 Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to corrupt her by stealth. . . . Each of these leaders in his own private and distinct capacity brought in his own private opinion. From these have come false Christs, false prophets, false apostles-men who have split up the one Church into parts16 through their corrupting doctrines, uttered in disparagement of God and of His Christ....
From the Council of Nicea (325):(excerpted)
It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded.In rejecting their custom,(1) we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course (the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them?
They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked people[the Jews].
That's why the church needed to change the calendar, needed to do away with the Sabbath and started Sun-day worship, in 'honor of the venerable Sun'. Why they needed to distance themselves from Passover and celebrate Easter, a name derived from the pagan godess of fertility, widely known at the time.
The church has done nearly all it could to distance themselves from the root that they 'claim' to be grafted unto. Yet, it resembles nothing of the root anymore.
The part I want to specifically point out is this: for the Saviour has shown us another way;
An actual admission that the church has deviated from 'the way' and gone after 'another way'!! And to top it off, they give credit to Yehoshua for this 'new way'. The church admits that this 'other way' is more CONVENIENT!
Justin Martyr admits that christianity offers nothing new, that the pagans and their pagan gods didn't already have.
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth45 of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide
Moreover, the Son of God called Jesus, even if only a man by ordinary generation, yet, on account of His wisdom, is worthy to be called the Son of God; for all writers call God the Father of men and gods. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated.
And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.
Justin Martyr gives a point, by point, by point, accounting of the similarities between paganism and the 'new religion'. Its the same thing under a new name.
Stay in the dark Jude; you love it there (and the light shown in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not...)
What is gratuitously affirmed, I gratuitously deny.
Acts 20.7 And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow. And he continued his speech until midnight.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
The Sabbath will be kept in the Millennium.
Will the new Moon also be kept as a religious feast?
Isn't the verse really saying "from month to month and week to week"?
In the verse above we can see that ALL flesh are to worship before G-d
I'm afraid I don't see that. And who is this "G dash d" character that we are supposed to worship?
and not man-made like SUNday worship, via the 'edict' of Constanintine, in veneration of the Sun.
Christian Worship on Sunday is attested to well before Constantine. The Didache, written in AD 70 says "On the Lord's Day come together and break bread. And offer the Eucharist, after confessing your sins that your sacrifice may be pure." St. Ignatius of Antioch writes around AD 110 that Christians "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life rose again." Constantine had nothing to do with it. Put down the Seventh Day Adventist screeds.
The days of the week were named as follows: Sunday was originally named afted the Sun [snip]
Like I said, that's all real nice, but it isn't what the Catholic Church calls the days of the week. I already gave you that list. So its totally irrelevant.
Not to mention the disappearance of Passover and the adoption of Astarte/Ishtar (Easter), a pagan holiday named for the pagan godess of fertility.
Apparently you can't read. Again, the Catholic Church calls "Easter" "Pascha" - "Passover". I think you need to point the accusing finger at the Protestants, not the Catholics.
The reason for the calendar change was to correct for drift in the dates of signifigant religious observations, (primarily Easter/Astarte/Ishtar) and to prevent further drift in the dates.
Nope, completely wrong. The dates of religious observations weren't "drifting", since they are fixed by numbers. The drift was the forward movement of the Solstices and Equinoxes through the calendar. Astronomical events are described by the calendar. The calendar does not force their occurance. The drift of the seasons was the reason for the correction.
Again, the Catholic Church celebrates "Pascha" on the "Dominica in Parsceve", not some pagan feast called "Easter".
Change the beginning of the year to 1 January from 25 March
Only in England. Other countries observed a different New Year. We already went over all that though. Don't you read the posts you are responding to?
A priesthood called "priests of the Sun-god" was created. At the end of A.D.274, perhaps on the 25th of December (Sol's alleged birthday), he inaugurated the new temple of the Sun-god in Rome
December 25 was the winter solstice when Julius Caesar reformed the calendar, so it was Sol's "real" "birthday". The drift of dates under that system caused the Solstice to fall on December 21 by AD 325, when the Council of Nicea used the date of the Vernal Equinox to set the date for the celebration of the Death and Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The relationship to the birth of Christ is coincidental. The very earliest Christian calendar, from Rome and dated AD 336 has 25 December as Christmas.
From what I've read December 25th was later adopted by the church at the First Council of Nicea under Constantine.
Apparently, what you've read is total crap. The Council of Nicea never mentioned Christmas.
When Constantine changed the 4th commandment, and certain Holy days, in essence he placed himself above G-d.
Except that he didn't do it, or rather, it was done before him. But never mind. Doesn't matter if you want to wallow in ignorance, does it?
then did the confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching "knowledge falsely so called."
That's "Gnosticism". Are you trying to claim the Catholic Church is Gnostic?
That's why the church needed to change the calendar, needed to do away with the Sabbath and started Sun-day worship, in 'honor of the venerable Sun'. Why they needed to distance themselves from Passover and celebrate Easter, a name derived from the pagan godess of fertility, widely known at the time.
Continuously repeating a lie doesn't make it any more believeable. The festival of the Resurrection in the liturigical books of the Church is called "Pascha" - "Passover". Easter is a secular name used among Protestants. Go criticize them.
The church has done nearly all it could to distance themselves from the root that they 'claim' to be grafted unto.
The faithless Jews who rejected Christ are not the "root". Nor is the "Church" grafted on to that root. The Church is that root. It is the Gentiles who are grafted on.
And to top it off, they give credit to Yehoshua for this 'new way'.
Who is "Yehoshua"? I only know a God-man named "Jesus" in Greek and English and Latin and "Yeshua" in Aramaic and Hebrew. Did you make that one up too?
Justin Martyr gives a point, by point, by point, accounting of the similarities between paganism and the 'new religion'. Its the same thing under a new name.
I'm sure St. Justin Martyr would be quite surprised to hear that assertion. Makes you wonder why he was killed if he was really a pagan, doesn't it?
How stupid do you think we are?
<>end of qote<>
YOur lines brought to mind Tertullian, writing in 207-212 a.d. :"It is agreed even by pagan witnesses that in Judea a city was suspended in the sky early every morning for forty days. As the day advanced every outline of its walls vanished, or if anyone approached, there was nothing."
Have a Blessd Advent, O.P.
Re the First Epistle of St. Peter; "For St. Peter's residence and death in Rome there is solid evidence that goes back to the end of the 1st century. This is admitted by A. Harnack, Chronologie der altchristl. Literatur, I, 2403, 703-10,: H. Lietzmann, Petrus and Paulus in Rom, Berlin, 1927, 226-38 : F.J. Jackson, Evidence for the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome, JBL 46 (1927) 74-8; cf. Holzmeister, 37-71. Hence, when the Apostle concludes with :...The church that is in babylon..saluteth you," 5:13, we may be reasonably presume that 'Babylon' here, as in Apoc. 14:8; 16,19;17:5; 18:2,10,21 refers to Rome as the palce of composition. This was held by Papias and Clement of Alexanderia, according to Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2,15; cf, also St. Jerome, De Vir. Illust 8, PL 23, 622.
From "A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture" Thomas Nelson and Sons LTD, 1953, edited by Dom Orchard (General Editor and New Testament Editor)
"By Babylon, as observed before, may very probably be signified all the wicked world in general, whom God will punish and destroy after the short time of this mortal life; or may be signified every great city, and perhaps Rome returned to idolatry in the time of the antichrist, a little before the end of the world; or may be signified the idolatry of heathen Rome, in the fourth age, when the Christian religion, under Constantine and his successors, began to triumph over paganism, i.e. according to those interpreters followed by Alcazar, Bousset, P. Alleman ect. It is probable that here by the great Babylon is meant the city of the devil; that is, the universal society of the wicked; as Jerusalem is taken for the city and Church of God." The Haydock Version of Douay Bible and Rheims Testament.
The language of the Apocalypse is so highly symbolic and open to different levels of meaning and has been understood differently by so many orthodox Christians that it prolly isn't wise to be so circumspect or dogmatic or pedantic as to strictly interpret Babylon as meaning "just" this or that city/place. Babylon can be understood as to applying to different events/cities/times
The time of God's punishing the wicked world is aproaching; for by a third interpretation babylon may signify metaphorically all the wicked in general.
I forgot to include this in the last post. (There are other, similar, examples)
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.