Posted on 04/21/2004 9:20:29 AM PDT by 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".
(Excerpt) Read more at aloha.net ...
This is a flat-out, bald faced lie, BTW.
Thanks, I'm familiar with the verse, as well as the ridiculous contortions Protestants go through to explain it away.
One more time, "Shimon bar Yonah" is not the same as "Shimon Kepha bar Yonah". It might be the same person, but you can't conclude that everyone named "Simon, son of Jonah" is Simon Peter the Apostle.
He wrote that around AD 200.
But neither Ignatius or Iranaeus report of Peter's death do they? The memory of the early church isn't 'crystal clear' on this issue it seems
Underground, persecuted sects don't leave truckloads of documents lying around.
Mysteriously somehow recorded copies of the Gospel were able to survive, surely a little note about Peter's death could have made it as well. That is if it happened as stated
Don't you suppose they took better care of the Scriptures than of writings of various random folks?
surely a little note about Peter's death could have made it as well. That is if it happened as stated
Well, see above. You presumably don't deny that Peter died. If you believe the Bible, you don't deny that he was martyred. Why is it that you want him to have died anywhere but Rome, to the degree that you will question the evidence we have in favor of the the total lack of evidence placing his death anywhere else?
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. (St. Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians 5:4) [90 AD]
I do not enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am a slave to this very hour. Yet if I shall suffer, then am I a freed-man of Jesus Christ, and I shall rise free in Him. Now I am learning in my bonds to put away every desire. (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans 4:3) [110 AD]
Therefore you also have by such admonition joined in close union the churches that were planted by Peter and Paul, that of the Romans and that of the Corinthians: for both of them went to our Corinth, and taught us in the same way as they taught you when they went to Italy; and having taught you, they suffered martyrdom at the same time. (St. Dionysius of Corinth, Fragment from a Letter to the Roman Church) [170 AD]
...Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church... (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies III, I, 1) [180 AD]
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere...The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. (Against Heresies III, III, 2-3) [180 AD]
Such was the condition of the Jews. Meanwhile the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the world. Parthia, according to tradition, was allotted to Thomas as his field of labor, Scythia to Andrew, and Asia to John, who, after he had lived some time there, died at Ephesus. Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way. What do we need to say concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero? These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis...After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. (Eusebius, Church History III, 1-2) [330 AD]
This is a flat-out, bald faced lie, BTW.Of course it is. The patristic record from the apostolic fathers through Eusebius is unequivocal concerning Peter's presence and martyrdom in Rome.
Agreed. This story is from '53 and sounds fishy; however, it is interesting.
LOL!! Don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house...
(5) The Church History. It would be difficult to overestimate the obligation which posterity is under to Eusebius for this monumental work. Living during the period of transition, when the old order was changing and all connected with it was passing into oblivion, he came forward at the critical moment with his immense stores of learning and preserved priceless treasures of Christian antiquity. This is the great merit of the Church History. It is not a literary work which can be read with any pleasure for the sake of its style. Eusebius's "diction", as Photius said, "is never pleasant nor clear". Neither is it the work of a great thinker. But it is a storehouse of information collected by an indefatigable student. Still, great as was Eusebius's learning, it had its limitations. He is provokingly ill-informed about the West. That he knows very little about Tertullian or St. Cyprian is due, no doubt, to his scant knowledge of Latin; but in the case of a Greek writer, like Hippolytus, we can only suppose that his works somehow failed to make their way to the libaries of the East. Eusebius's good faith and sincerity has been amply vindicated by Lightfoot. Gibbon's celebrated sneer, about a writer "who indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion", can be sufficiently met by referring to the passages (H. E., VIII, ii; Mart. Pal. c. 12) on which it is based. Eusebius does not "indirectly confess", but openly avows, that he passes over certain scandals, and he enumerates them and denounces them. "Nor again", to quote Lightfoot, "can the special charges against his honour as a narrator be sustained. There is no ground whatever for the charge that Eusebius forged or interpolated the passage from Josephus relating to our Lord quoted in H. E., I, 11, though Heinchen is disposed to entertain the charge. Inasmuch as this passage is contained in all our MSS., and there is sufficient evidence that other interpolations (though not this) were introduced into the text of Josephus long before his time (see Orig., c. Cels., I, 47, Delarue's note) no suspicion can justly attach to Eusebius himself. Another interpolation in the Jewish historian, which he quotes elsewhere (11, 23), was certainly known to Origen (l. c.). Doubtless also the omission of the owl in the account of Herod Agrippa's death (H. E., 11, 10) was already in some texts of Josephus (Ant., XIX, 8, 2). The manner in which Eusebius deals with his numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his honesty, is a sufficient vindication against this unjust charge" (L., p. 325). ("Eusebius", Catholic Encyclopedia)
It isn't evidence of anything, save that it held the bones of someone named Shimon bar Yonah.
am not mistake, the first evidence of "spikes" in a crucifiction came from an ossuary.
And that proves what, exactly? That people who were crucified were buried just like other people who died?
By your logic, if someone found an ossuary marked "Yeshua bar Yosef," that would disprove the resurrection. After all, it has Jesus' name on it, and we know that some crucified people were buried in ossuaries ... QED.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.