Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
OP, you've tried this before, i.e. equating Jesus' descriptive appellation of Sons of Thunder with Jesus' name change of Peter. Can you show me one instance in which James and John are actually called, "Thunder 1 and Thunder 2?" Can you show me one instance in the Acts or Episltes where they are called that? Can you show me one instance in which they take "Thunder" as their name?

Seriously, OP, to continue to equate these two things is to discount the testimony of Sacred Scripture. There is a difference between these two instances. And I think you know that.

Secondly, to try to lay my argument off on 'we don't know enough about 1st century funeral customes' is a bit disingenuous. Surely the ancient Christians would have found some way of honoring the wishes of Our Lord by somehow indicating the Simon bar Jonah in question was called, "Peter." Even if this were to 'break' custom. That's sort of what they were all about, anyway.

Here's what it comes down to, OP. With respect to this ossuary, who are you going to believe, the speculations of some post-modern archeologist, or the Bible?

273 posted on 11/25/2003 2:58:02 PM PST by AlguyA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies ]


To: AlguyA; xzins
OP, you've tried this before, i.e. equating Jesus' descriptive appellation of Sons of Thunder with Jesus' name change of Peter. Can you show me one instance in which James and John are actually called, "Thunder 1 and Thunder 2?" Can you show me one instance in the Acts or Episltes where they are called that? Can you show me one instance in which they take "Thunder" as their name? Seriously, OP, to continue to equate these two things is to discount the testimony of Sacred Scripture. There is a difference between these two instances. And I think you know that. Secondly, to try to lay my argument off on 'we don't know enough about 1st century funeral customes' is a bit disingenuous. Surely the ancient Christians would have found some way of honoring the wishes of Our Lord by somehow indicating the Simon bar Jonah in question was called, "Peter." Even if this were to 'break' custom. That's sort of what they were all about, anyway. Here's what it comes down to, OP. With respect to this ossuary, who are you going to believe, the speculations of some post-modern archeologist, or the Bible?

The Bible simply doesn't tell us what Simon Peter had inscribed on his ossuary. Fact is, my understanding is that oft-times ossuaries were purchased in middle age or so (which Peter may have been when first called by Christ) on account of the uncertain life expectancy in the first century.

If that's the case, Simon bar-Jonah may have already purchased his intended ossuary before he was ever called to the Apostolate.

278 posted on 11/25/2003 3:13:58 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies ]

To: AlguyA; Tantumergo; OrthodoxPresbyterian
"Sons of Thunder" is a title from Christ equivalent to St. Peter's title of "Son of the Dove (Jonah)".

It is an allegorical title. Peter is not the son of a Dove, and James and John are not the sons of Thunder itself. The names refer to their character.
311 posted on 11/26/2003 6:55:06 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson