Peter’s Tomb Recently Discovered In Jerusalem

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm ^ | 1953 | F. PAUL PETERSON

[flevit]

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures show the story. The first show an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".

[Ff--150]

And yet, even that is unmistakenly recorded in the three words in Aramaic of the ossuary, Simon Bar Jona. Herein, lies the greatest proof that Peter never was a Pope, and never was in Rome, for if he had been, it would have certainly been proclaimed in the New Testament. History, likewise, would not have been silent on the subject, as they were not silent in the case of the Apostle Paul

Good read--should this stay :-)

[Pyro7480]

Simon son of Jonah... both are VERY common Hebrew names. The chance that there was another is pretty high. Besides, the REAL bones of St. Peter were found under the Vatican.

[B Knotts]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3975/petrom.htm

[redgolum]

Wasn't this posted earlier?

By the way, nice way to stir things up on a slow Wed.

[Ff--150]

"Besides, the REAL bones of St. Peter were found under the Vatican"

Among the barnyard animals??

[Campion]

This is an anecdotal claim from the website of a Seventh-Day Adventist who is practically a professional anti-Catholic. Why bother even posting something so worthless?

[RobbyS]

Convenient, isn't it, that all these inscriptions be found in the same spot? If authentic they would be very valuable to the finder, no?

[Pyro7480]

Read the third entry on this page: http://www.cincinnati.com/freetime/vatican/stories/vatican_photos.html

[Campion]

Explain something to me. Your tagline cites the Gospel of John. Good. In the last chapter of John's Gospel, Jesus prophesies that Peter will die a martyr's death.

Was Jesus a false prophet?

If not, then when and where did Peter die, and how do you know? I ask because it's not likely that the early Christian church would simply have forgotten where and how Peter died, especially since it was prophesied in Scripture. It's not likely that that knowledge would have been silently replaced by a myth, either. The ancients weren't quite that stupid, cowardly, or gullible.

And the memory that the early church left us about Peter's martyrdom is crystal clear: he was crucified upside down in Rome during the reign of Nero. If you disagree with that, show us your evidence -- keeping in mind that your story either must end with Peter's martyrdom, somewhere and somehow ... or must conclude that Jesus is a liar.

[billbears]

I ask because it's not likely that the early Christian church would simply have forgotten where and how Peter died, especially since it was prophesied in Scripture.

Except that the 'history' of Peter's death wasn't recorded until the 4th century if I'm not mistaken. The rock Christ spoke of was faith, not a man.

[Ff--150]

"Read the third entry on this page: http://www.cincinnati.com/freetime/vatican/stories/vatican_photos.htm"

Absolutely proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that's Peter. [/s]

[flevit]

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html


this is perhaps a bit less arguementative, there is alot of useful stuff there, besides the "simon bar jona" ossuary

the paper "gli scavi del dominus flevit" was written by catholic (renound) archeologist... it in itilian but you can by it and look for you self.

[Campion]

Except that the 'history' of Peter's death wasn't recorded until the 4th century if I'm not mistaken.

First off, Christianity was illegal until the 4th Century. Underground, persecuted sects don't leave truckloads of documents lying around.

However, Ignatius of Antioch (d. 110) states clearly that Peter and Paul were in Rome.

Irenaeus of Lyons (d 180) states clearly that Peter and Paul were in Rome.

Those are just two examples I can think of off the top of my head. There are certainly others. Do you have any counterexamples?

The rock Christ spoke of was faith, not a man.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of where Peter was buried.

[Campion]

As he continued his excavations, Bagatti also found a coffin bearing the unusual inscription "Shimon bar Yonah" (= "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah"). Other than its existence among the burial tombs of some of the very first Christians, no conclusive evidence was found to identify this stone coffin as that of the disciple and close companion of Jesus, Simon Peter.

From your link. By the way, even this is somewhat misleading. If the ossuary sayd "Shimon bar Yonah," that means "Simon, son of Jonah", not "Simon Peter, son of Jonah". Peter (Gk "Petros", "rock") is rendered in Aramaic as "Kepha" (="rock", which transliterated into Greek is "Cephas"). It doesn't say "Shimon Kepha".

[flevit]

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

[HarleyD]

I've seen this article floating around the Internet. The trouble is that I never could find anything that would substantiate its claims. Seeing how this was supposedly written in 1953 I would think someone else would have looked into this one way or another.

[gilliam]

this is perhaps a bit less arguementative, there is alot of useful stuff there, besides the "simon bar jona" ossuary

But nothing even remotely conclusive.

[eastsider]

Eusebius, one of the most learned men of his time, wrote the Church history up to the year 325 A.D. He said that Peter never was in Rome. This Church history was translated by Jerome from the original Greek, but in his translation he added a fantastic story of Peter’s residence in Rome. This was a common practice in trying to create credence in their doctrines, using false statements, false letters and falsified history.

"The frequency is coming from the grassy knoll, Captain."

[flevit]

yea me too...I not so much interested in the "testimonies" but the actual arctifacts... I found a site for 250$ you could bye "Gli scavi del dominus flevit" (boggati and milik) but since its in italian which I cannot read...

but would be understandable the hush hush nature of it being on a catholic site founded by respectable catholic archeology....reguardless of whether "simon bar jona" is THE simon bar jona, (perception becomes reality) my favorite ossuary is "shappira" it would be a shame if the 100+ other ossuaries were kept unpublized do to some apparent conflict of history.