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

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

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Submitted for discussion. This Article is a complement to my Ya'akov Ha Tsedek and the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.

Enjoy. Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Article of interest.

Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

submitted for discussion.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

submitted for discussion.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Early-morning Sunday, Early-Christian history ping.

Photographic and Archaeological evidence, delivered hot and fresh from the Book of Acts. Thought you might find of interest.

Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Simon Bar-Jonah buried in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

Eastern Orthodox ping.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

submitted for discussion

[xzins]

Thanks, OP. I'll read them and send them far and wide after discussion. It's fascinating stuff and testimony that Christians should heed.

[xzins]

ping

[Corin Stormhands]

Thanks for the ping. Heard mention of this I think on Paul Harvey (?). Bookmarked to read later.

[maestro]

graffiti.......

(The Temple Scroll...)

Yet,......

(The 'sign' of the O.T. Prophet 'Jonah'.)

(Romans 10:17)

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Hate to put a damper on this, but his remains (believed, no way to be 100%) were found in Rome a few decades ago. It had long been tradition that Peter was buried beneath St. Peter's Basilica. Of Course, the first basilica was erected many years after his death (couple hundred) so it was always tradition. However during WWII, when excavations were being done beneath St. Peter's to create more room for crypts for deceased Popes they stumbled upon an amazing discovery. Directly below the High Altar (just as tradition has held), a necropolis was discovered, directly beneath the altar was a little stone that had the name PETRUS written on it and the "Fish." Furthermore, when they dug up the body, it was a body of someone who had been crucified. Later archaeology and historical research revealed that the Necropolis dated from the time of Nero. Thus, making it likely, but sadly, not 100% that this was Peter's resting spot. Just thought I would share, if you are ever in Rome, contact the Vatican Office about the SCAVI, they do tours down there everyday, but it is unadvertised, since they want to do as little disturbance as possible, but the historical value is so vital. God Bless

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Ping !!!!!!!!!!!

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Thank you, Mr. Chick. A Delightful read (rolling the eyes). God Bless

[MarMema]

Now tell me about Peter in Antioch, please?

[dangus]

There's so much nonsense, I don't even know where to start. I can't begin to refute every single claim, there are so many made, so I'll start wit the main points.

Peter was certainly not in Babylon. Babylon had long since been destroyed, and the area it once stood on was no longer called Babylon. As Anti-Catholics so often love to point out, Babylon is used in many places in Revelations to signify Rome. So, yes, Peter writes that he's in Babylon, that is the biblical proof that the sola-scriptura types need to establish he's in Rome. (incidentally, non-biblical Jewish and Christian sources also routinely identify Rome as Babylon, including 4 Esdras, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Sibellyne Oracles.)

Other odd claims include that since Paul was "apostle to the gentiles," this means that He and not Peter left Palestine. It would also mean that none of the other disciples left Palestine, which would have been a direct refutation of the command given them by Jesus.

>>Below are Ten major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. >>

Actually, these proofs *DO* succeed in doing that fairly well; they at least make a strong case. But Peter is thought to have been in Rome about 3 times, totalling about 7-10 years during his 25 year reign as Bishop of Rome. Each apostle was actually given authority over patriarchates throughout the ancient world, although they're travels through different lands are well documented, yes, including in the bible. None stayed put; the most stationary was John who scarcely travelled far from Asia minor.

OP's article does concede that there is non-biblical, historical evidence to suggest that Peter was in Rome. This is somewhat of an understatement. Often Catholics say "the unanimity of the Church Fathers." This often means that certain Church Fathers have written on a subject without being opposed, or, if opposed, having shown that they had settled the matter with authority. In this case, however, when I looked it up, I was surprised to find that all of the most ancient church historians that I most commonly came across had specifically mentionned Peter in Rome: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Gaius, Origen, Eusebius, etc.

By now, I'm actually amused be the way certain Protestants expect that the entirety of the church, even the popes and church fathers, would be so ignorant of the bible as to not notice Peter's presence in Antioch recorded in Acts!

And that closing quote is a beaut... an unsourced "secret" quote from a Pope... "Don't tell anyone this, but it was dem critters from Roswell that killed Jack in Dallas!" -- President Lyndon B. Johnson. Even the UFO wierdos would at least make up a story for the source of such a quote.

As for Peter not wishing to be buried in a cemetary... After Peter was executed, his bones were unceremoniously dumped across the River Tiber, outside Rome, as a deliberate sign of disprespect. And it is there, outside Rome, where the Chair of St. Peter has remained to this day; The Vatican can never be identified as "Babylon," for it is not in Rome, but in exile across the Tiber.

As for the Article which deceptively headlined this screed:
Is it the assertion of the article that this cave is the burial place of Peter, son of John, and also of Mary, Martha, Lazarus, Mathew, Jude, and Salome? Given
1. the uproar of James' ossuary last year*, and
2. the presence of 1st-century attestations of Peter's death in Rome,
3. the weak source and lack of review
I'm not impressed.

(*For those of you who do not remember, within the past year, every major newspaper across the country ran sensational headlines about an ossuary which was found, saying, "James, son of Joseph, and brother of Jesus." What it actually said was "James of Joseph, of Jesus" which would imply nothing of the sort. The whole matter was quickly rendered moot when it was discovered that although the ossuary was 2,000 years old, the scratchings were fresh.)

[dangus]

O, and if you really want a discussion, why ping only the people who will believe anything that is printed and contradicts Catholic belief? Why not ping someone who will defend Catholic belief? Or are you really just passing anti-Catholic screeds around?

[rogator]

How many Simon-bar-Jonahs were in Israel in the first century? (Even if this isn't just another phoney ossuary.)


"and the unusual name "Shappira" - which is a unique name"

Judging from the number of folks with the name "Shapiro" in the New York City phone book, this "unique" first century guy did one heck of a job spreading his seed.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[xzins]

Actually, to be honest with you, I did the majority of the pinging. My list is pretty comprehensive.

And I pinged a fairly lengthly list of the strongest Catholics.

I didn't ping my mormon list because I didn't think OP would want the discussion to become about those kind of issues.