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 ...
1953. The article is copyrighted 1960. If it didn't sell the first time around, 40-50 years ago, what is different to make it sell today?
It wouldn't be that surprising if there isn't some wacky anti-Christian group in a lab doctoring up a first-century male skeleton with Roman nails right now...
True, but since when does it matter if we stay on track around here?
I'm sorry, but we Calvinists are busy elsewhere. Maybe we can squeeze you in on Friday.
That verse is endlessly misunderstood. It doesn't mean that Peter preached one Gospel and Paul preached another. (There's only one Gospel.) It doesn't mean that Peter somehow had authority only over Jewish converts. (All the apostles had divinely instituted authority over the one Church of Christ.)
All it means is that Paul primarily preached to the Gentiles, because he spoke fluent Greek, and Peter mainly preached to Jewish crowds, because his Greek was not as good. A strategic decision, not a theological one.
I had to asked myself, "If such a valuable "Pope" such as Peter was always buried in the Vatican, why did it take until 1950 to find him?" I didn't know that he was lost.
Perhaps your box is correct but I remain skeptical.
What Happened this Day in Church History
December 23, 1950 • Pope Pius XII Announced Discovery of Peter's Tomb
On this day, December 23, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared in a radio broadcast that St. Peter's tomb had been found several feet below the altar of St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican in Rome.
"The tomb of the Prince of the Apostles has been found," said Pius. "Such is the final conclusion after all the labor and study of these years. A second question, subordinate to the first, refers to the relics of Saint Peter. Have they been found? At the side of the tomb remains of human bones have been discovered. However, it is impossible to prove with certainty that they belong to the apostle."
For ten years, Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, the administrator of St. Peter's, oversaw the dig which was conducted by two Jesuit archaeologists and their colleagues. Kaas did not sympathize with the methods archaeologists use. He felt it was wrong for them to treat human bones like scientific evidence. Secretly, he examined the digs each night after the workmen left and collected all bones that he found. He stored these in boxes off the site, making no scientific record of where the bones had been found or their placement. The procedure diverged drastically from accepted archaeological method.
The pope's claim was guarded because bones originally identified as belonging to a sixty-year-old man and thought to belong to the Apostle Peter turned out to include those of a young man, some animals and a bone from an elderly woman.
Other questions were not satisfactorily answered. The early church historian Eusebius, writing at the time when Emperor Constantine ordered the original St. Peter's built, mentioned a monument with an inscription. No such monument was found. The only inscription which ever came to light, appeared mysteriously in an adjacent vault. This was on a flake of stone and supposedly came from a graffiti-covered wall unearthed below the basilica. Writing on the small flake was interpreted to mean "Peter is in here;" however it could not be matched to the wall.
A widely distributed photograph of the bones turned out to be a fake: the bones had been removed from a pile and were later brought back to the scene and arranged for the photo. Atheists made much of these discrepancies.
Eighteen years after Pius XII's original announcement, Pope Paul VI announced that the actual bones of Peter had been identified. Three of the original archaeologists protested the pope's claim which came about because Margherita Guarducci, studying graffiti on the wall, accidentally learned of the boxes of bones Kaas had taken off-site. Kaas was dead. One of the workmen, however, remembered that Kaas had ordered a new-found crypt opened and its contents removed so that the archaeologists could not "desecrate" the bones. The workman led Margherita to the box. The bones proved to be that of an elderly man. According to the Vatican, carbon dating confirmed they dated to Peter's era.
However, questions remained. Tests showed that the soil on the bones did not match the soil of the crypt where they were supposed to have been found. A spokesman for the Vatican later admitted the church was in an "insecure position" regarding identification of the bones.
Few archaeological finds corroborate the existence of individuals mentioned in the New Testament. Biblical Archaeology Review enumerated these in its November-December 2002 issue. Significantly, Peter's bones were not mentioned. In archaeological circles, the identification is considered completely unsatisfactory. But Catholic apologists reminded the faithful that the Christian faith rests not on archaeological remains but on a risen, living Christ.
Sources:
1. Allen, John L., jr. "The Bones of St. Peter." Catholic Digest. (www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200105052a.html)
2. Feldman, Steven and Roth, Nancy E. "The Short List: The New Testament Figures Known to History." Biblical Archaeology Review. (November/December 2002).
3. Hijmans, Dr. Steven. "In Search of Peter's Tomb." (www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/expressnews/articles/ ideas.cfm?p_ID=794&s=a)
4. Zindler, Frank R. "Of Bones and Boners; St. Peter at the Vatican." American Atheists.
(www.atheists.org/church/bones.html) [This article is cited because it demonstrates the sport made of the claims].
Ref: http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2002/12/daily-12-23-2002.shtml
And this looks like a reputable source to you?
You don't know how confused this is or what ignorance it shows of the Catholic faith. The gift of salvation is given to who so ever will accept the free gift. But HOW does it come about? It won't necessarily come as it did to Paul, through a personal encounter with the Lord. More often it will come through the instrumentality of another human being, as it did to the Ethiopian. It may even come through saying the Rosary for someone whose heart is seeking the Lord. Or it may come as it came to Augustine when the the sound of children at play calling to one another, Pick it up, pick it up, caused the saint to pick and read the copy of Romans by his side. God works through his creation, which is why He became incarnate.
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.