Replies

Here are some Simons mentioned in the Bible, use your imagination to figure out how many others had the name, and then took the name after Saint Peter's death:

Actually, "after Peter's death" is not in the cards here, as the usage of burial cave in question is dated prior to AD70 -- not thereafter.

Which doesn't, of course, alter the fact that there were lots of Simons running around prior to AD70; what narrows the matter down to the proverbial eye of a needle is the fact that we have a Mary, Martha, and Lazarus together with a Simon Bar-Jonah all together in a cemetery specifically reserved for Jerusalem-area Jewish Christians.

If the Apostle Simon Peter bar-Jonah died amongst the company of the Jerusalem Christian Church, then this is about what we would expect to find.

And this is what was, in fact, found.

Best, OP

"Which doesn't, of course, alter the fact that there were lots of Simons running around prior to AD70; what narrows the matter down to the proverbial eye of a needle is the fact that we have a Mary, Martha, and Lazarus together with a Simon Bar-Jonah all together in a cemetery specifically reserved for Jerusalem-area Jewish Christians."

Don't you, dear readers, find it quite amusing that a man such as OrthodoxPresbyterian, who so rabbidly trumpets the Bible to be the source and end of all Christian teaching and tradition, is now attempting to commingle a case for his personal "Christian" beliefs with anthropology, presumption, and a matter the Bible is silent on? Anyone else thinking "Piltdown Man", or "James, the 'brother' of Jesus" in a jar??? LOL

"the fact that we have a Mary, Martha, and Lazarus together with a Simon Bar-Jonah all together in a cemetery specifically reserved for Jerusalem-area Jewish Christians."

Are you really so naive as to believe this crock of crap?

I suppose in the tomb nextdoor they found the bones of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary as well!!! Not to mention Moses, Elijah and King David.

FYI the largest population of Jews outside of Jerusalem was in Rome - not surprising really, it being the capital of the empire. It would be only natural for those taking the gospel to the circumcision to end up in Rome.

This is why there was already a community of Christians in Rome before either Peter or Paul got there. The point isn't that Peter and Paul established the Church in Rome, but that they consecrated it with their blood poured out in martyrdom.

Do you really think that Paul could have written a letter to "the Romans" if there wasn't already an established Church there?

Do you really think that the Romans would have executed Peter anywhere other than Rome, considering that he was the leader of the new sect?

As for the impossibility of St. Peter preaching the gospel to the gentiles, who do you think received the revelation from God to baptise the gentiles?

The likelihood of there being any truth at all to this article is about as much as there was for that recent thread about the manna appearing again in Egypt. Looks like you've been had by the Onion!

"Actually, "after Peter's death" is not in the cards here, as the usage of burial cave in question is dated prior to AD70 -- not thereafter"

Two little facts that you "overlook".

(1). As I have shown, there were clearly a great many other 'Simons' who lived and died in Jerusalem during St. Peter's generation. Mary was the most common female name of all, Lazarus was such a common name that Jesus used it in His parable of the rich man, (Luke 16), and Martha was also a very common Hebrew/Aramaic name that meant "Lady". Cemetaries at the time of the Apostles were literally chock full of these names. It would be like modern cemetaries containing tombstones with the epitaph "Here Lies Bill", or "Here Lies Jane". Your pale little case could not even withstand the legal standard of "reasonable doubt", let alone the infinitely clearer proof required to controvert the writings of so many early historians, bishops and saints.

(2). At least five Early Church Fathers, historians and Bishops wrote of Peter's death in Rome. Testimony of his martyrdom in Rome is extensive, including writings by Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Clement I of Rome, St. Ignatius, and St. Irenaeus.

Now, whom do we believe, the writings of the early Christian historians and Saints, or a man whose "orthodoxy" is from a 'church' that blesses homosexual unions in formal ceremonies and call the abomination of sodomite activity "Holy Unions"? I'm curious to know how much Mr OrthodoxPresbytarian's loafers weigh. :o)