Replies

OP, to this point, the other Catholics on this thread have done an excellent job of debunking your "Ten Proofs." However, I believe a point made by Deborah has not received quite as much attention as it should with respect to the original premise of this thread, i.e. the supposed discovery of Peter's bones in Jerusalem.

Come now, OP, as a good sola scriptura Protestant, it is you, of all people, who should be downright offended that someone is trying to pass off an ossuary labelled, "Simon bar Jonah," as Peter's.

Deborah raised this issue early on. Our Lord changed Simon bar Jonah's name to Peter. And all Christians should be just a little offended at the suggestion that after that man died, either Peter, himself, or the early Christians would take it upon themselves to change his name back to Simon bar Jonah.

Old Reggie has strained mightily to offer the arguement Jesus, himself, changed Peter's name back after the Ressurrection.

Sorry, Reg, but that "dog won't hunt." And here's why.

If your theory were true, if it were true that Jesus specifically intended to change Peter's name back to Simon bar Jonah, then the man known as Peter should be referenced ever after the Ressurection as Simon bar Jonah.

But he's not. Instead, in all the Epistles and in Acts, in all the writings describing Peter's actions after the Ressurection, Peter is always called Peter.

Granted, in two instances the name "Simon" is variously attached. In Acts 10, as pointed out by Deborah, Peter is referred to as Simon, known as Peter. Though throughout other verses in Acts Peter is just called Peter.

The second place Simon shows up in connection with Peter comes in, ironically enough, 2nd Peter where Peter, himself, introduces himself as "Simon Peter."

Otherwise, in 61 other instances in the Epistles and Acts, when Peter is mentioned by name, he is called, "Peter." Indeed, Peter calls himself, "Peter," at the beginning of his first epistle. Paul calls Peter, "Peter," five times in Galations alone. Nowhere, post-Ascension, does anyone ever refer to Peter anywhere as Simon bar Jonah. Always the name Peter is attached.

Hence, OP, it is the Bible which testifies against this ossuary. It strains credulity that such an important Apostle could have his name changed by Our Lord, could be called by that name by virtually everybody for decades, could call himself by that name for decades, and then be interred without any mention of that name showing up on his ossuary.

Old Reggie has strained mightily to offer the arguement Jesus, himself, changed Peter's name back after the Ressurrection.

I don't think that Reggie is trying to claim that Jesus "changed Peter's name back"; Old Reggie was simply pointing out that in the last recorded conversation between Jesus and Peter, Jesus Himself called him by the name "Simon".

I.E., the man had a couple of names -- Peter, (the name given him by Jesus), and Simon (the name given him by his mom & dad). If Simon Peter died and was buried within the region of Jerusalem, it's not unimaginable that his "headstone" would have borne his "family" name. The Sons of Zebedee had the "descriptive" name Boanerges or "Sons of Thunder"; but if we found a "Yaakov-bar-Zebedee" (James of Zebedee) ossuary I honestly don't know enough about 1st-century burial customs to know whether or or not we'd expect to find "Boanerges" on the ossuary as well.