The Problem of Peter, His Tomb in Jerusalem or Rome.

Approved~~MJM

Hi

The Problem of Peter, His Tomb in Jerusalem or Rome.

Dominus Flevit and the Tomb of Simon bar Jonah in Jerusalem

Preface

As a researcher, my writing is neutral. However, not trying to be anti-religious, but write or say it as it is historically—without being politically correct, which has no place in history. This post is as I said is not anti-Catholicism or anti-Protestantism or anti any religion. 

One has to understand that the term Catholicism was created in 380 CE by a Roman tripartite. Also, Catholicism has more than three times more history than Protestantism (1521 CE- present). Besides, any religious history before 1521 is inevitably going to be about Catholicism. After 1521, religious history in the West is going to be dual Protestant/Catholic.  

With both religious faiths having a bloody past with tens of millions of innocent lives being lost in the name of the Christian God. 

Also, sorry for the length of the post and assure the commentator’s that reams have been cropped to shorten the post— Jero Jones

§

In 1960 the author F. Paul Peterson wrote the book: “Peter’s Tomb Recently Discovered In Jerusalem.”http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm It is based on an archaeology discovery in 1953 of the Tomb of Peter in Jerusalem. Jerusalem! Well, not many people outside of scholarship know of this, and that is a fact owing to suppression. With the Vatican keeping a closed lid on it and suppressing any information coming out of the Franciscan order in Jerusalem. Which also includes the book Gli Sacvi del Dominus Flevit published in 1958 by the Franciscan archaeologist Catholic Monks P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik who discovered the Jewish-Christian tomb of Simon/Peter. The sepulchre is on the Mount of Olives containing many bone ossuaries (stone boxes) within an old cemetery which was in use from 136 BCE to 70 CE.

Peterson added: I quote this letter of Dr Glueck because it shows that priest Milik is a competent archaeologist. As I have mentioned, I was only able to be with him for a few minutes and was not able to show him but a very small part of the evidence. Anyone, including myself, would readily agree with Dr Glueck that if only the name Simon Bar Jona on the ossuary was all the evidence that was available it would not be conclusive evidence that it was of the Apostle Peter, though it would certainly be a strong indication.

The story of the cave and the ossuaries and the regular cemetery just outside of the Convent site is this: It was a Roman custom that when a person had died and after about ten years when the body had decomposed, the grave would be opened. The bones would be placed in a small ossuary with the name of the person carefully written on the outside front. These ossuaries would then be placed in a cave as in the case of this Christian burial ground and thus making room for others. 

But this cave or burial place where the ossuaries were found and which was created and brought about through the natural and disinterested sequence of events, without any reason to change facts or circumstances, was a greater testimony than if there were a witness recorded, stating that Peter was buried there. 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. Even the Catholic history would have claimed the above as a fact and not as fickle tradition. To omit Peter as being Pope and in [pg. 8] Rome (and the Papacy) would be like omitting the Law of Moses or the Prophets or the Acts of the Apostles from the Bible.[Ibid] 

 

Catholic apologists attacks on “Gli Sacvi del Dominus Flevit” and “Peter’s Tomb Recently Discovered In Jerusalem.”

A Catholic Apologist wrote: There is one problem, though: the claim itself is a fabrication. The linked article is taken from the pages of a 1971 anti-Catholic tract, self-published by one F. Paul Peterson of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and sold from his home. It is poorly written and rife with factual errors (e.g. the Saracens “never made it to Rome”), unfounded accusations, and unsubstantiated claims. In a tract which purports to provide solid evidence of the burial of the Apostle Peter in Jerusalem, the author actually provides little real evidence other than his own testimony that various people, including a number of well-known archaeologists and even Pope Pius XII, agree with him regarding his remarkable discovery and its implications. This is little more than a baseless screed like so much of the anti-Catholic literature… 

http://lonelypilgrim.com/2013/11/25/on-the-so-called-jerusalem-tomb-of-st-peter/

Well, these Catholic apologists not only malign the authors, but it is the apologists themselves that are giving factual errors and unfounded accusations.  

The Saracens/Muslims did get to Rome in 846 CE. Sacking the Old St Peters and St Paul’s Outside-the-Wall but were prevented from entering the City itself by the Aurelian Wall.

https://www.academia.edu/7054388/The_Saracen_Raid_of_Rome_in_846_An_example_of_maritime_ghazw._pp._93_120_

Another Catholic Apologist blogged the caption below!

Well, this anonymous apologist has not done his homework or any research on the work mentioned above, which was written by two well respected Franciscan monk archaeologist. Who claims the book to be a myth written by anti-Catholics. The apologist goes on to say: Also, why would his fellow Christians bury him under his Jewish (Simon bar Jonah) name and not his Christian one? Bracket ( ) and the emphasis is mine.

Well, this apologist shows the ignorance of the history of his religion. Long before the term Christian, the adherents of the man Yeshua/Jesus called themselves “The Nazarenes” “The Poor (Ebionites)” “The Way” “The saints” “The Believer” “χρηστιανοι/Chrestians” meaning Good, then later changing it to make χριστιανος/Christian meaning Christós/Christ or the anointed. The oldest extant manuscript Codex Sinaiticus dated 330-360 CE used the term “χρηστιανοι/Chrestians” in Acts 11:26. The term χριστιανος/Christian could not of n introduced before the publication of the Sinaiticus in the 4th century. We know this because the term χρηστιανοι was fraudulently changed by (forging copyist) to χριστιανος sometime after the Sinaiticus as produced.

Below one can clearly see part of the scratched out eta making an iota in its place.

Rebuttal against anything the Raman Curia propaganda machine in denying any excavation at the place and time stated or the maligning the publish works of Catholic Fathers P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik and the work of F. Paul Peterson.

The Semitic Scholar J.Van Der Ploeg was writing an Oxford Academic review in 1960. On the book “Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit”/“The excavations of the Dominus Flevit,” authored by Franciscan Friars, wrote: This beautifully presented volume contains the final and definitive report on the result of the excavations on the Mount of Olives, conducted since 1953 by the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, near the New Franciscan Sanctuary of “Dominus Flevit” (the Lord wept). Unlike other discoveries of a similar kind, this one became famous by the finding of what may have been Jewish-Christian sepulchres of the first century, the oldest yet known. A first report, from the hand of the very able Franciscan archaeologist, Father B. Bagatti, appears in the Liber Annuus Studii Franciscani, III (Jerusalem, 1953), 149-84, with some drawings and other illustrations which are reproduced in the present volume. 

The purely archaeological part of the final report has been written by Father Bagatti, whilst Father J.T. Milik has written the chapter on the ossuary-inscriptions (pp.70-109 and the epigraphical index (pp. 186-7)…J.Van Der Ploeg, Journal of Semitic Studies, Volume 5, Issue 1, January 1960, Pages 81–82,https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/5.1.81 Published: 01 January 1960] and 

https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/5/1/81/1649294?redirectedFrom=fulltext

What do you say?

Article URL : https://breakingnewsandreligion.online/discuss/

%d bloggers like this: