The Apostle Peter's Jerusalem tomb.

[37818]

Peter’s Tomb Recently Discovered In Jerusalem.

All the evidence Peter to have been buried in Rome are post the 1 Clement claim Peter was crucified up side down. The main claim against the Jerusalem tomb is the lack of either a Capha or Peter inscription.

 

[37818]

All the evidence Peter to have been buried in Rome are post the 1 Clement claim Peter was crucified up side down.

Actually at best, 1 Clement is a first century reference to Peter having died, 5:4, ". . .
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. . . ." But the place of his death being Rome and how he died is a late 2nd century religious fiction from The Acts of Peter.

 

[Cathode]

Simon was the most common name of Jews in Roman Judea and John was the fifth most common name.
There were countless Simons sons of John in those times.

I would trust early Christian bishops, and not those with an axe to grind.

 

[Walter]

There’s 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 out there, akin to Chick tracts

 

[LaGrange]

Actually at best, 1 Clement is a first century reference to Peter having died, 5:4, ". . .
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. . . ." But the place of his death being Rome and how he died is a late 2nd century religious fiction from The Acts of Peter.

Hi 37818,

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you. And so doth my son, Mark.

My Comment: This shows Peter writing from Rome (Babylon). There were other babylons but, in scripture, this is the one that is referred to (Apoc 17:5, Apoc 18:10).

John 21:18: Amen, amen, I say to thee, When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. 19 And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.

My Comment: This shows that John must have had some knowledge of Peter’s death and how he would die. “thou shalt stretch forth thy hands” means Crucifixion.

There is much evidence from the early church fathers and the historian Eusebius.

“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. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” (Against Heresies, Irenaeus, 3.1)

My Comment: This shows that Peter and Paul were in Rome. It also shows that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome. Eusebius (History, Book 2.15.1) also speaks of this.

 

[LaGrange]

I forgot to add this sentence on why Mark wrote his gospel in Rome:

He wrote his gospel at the request of the people who wanted a written account of Peter’s preaching.

 

[37818]

Hi 37818,

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you. And so doth my son, Mark.

My Comment: This shows Peter writing from Rome (Babylon). There were other babylons but, in scripture, this is the one that is referred to (Apoc 17:5, Apoc 18:10).

John 21:18: Amen, amen, I say to thee, When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. 19 And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.

My Comment: This shows that John must have had some knowledge of Peter’s death and how he would die. “thou shalt stretch forth thy hands” means Crucifixion.

There is much evidence from the early church fathers and the historian Eusebius.

“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. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” (Against Heresies, Irenaeus, 3.1)

My Comment: This shows that Peter and Paul were in Rome. It also shows that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome. Eusebius (History, Book 2.15.1) also speaks of this.

That is an interpretation. The opposing interpretation being it was actually from Babylon not spiritually Rome.

 

[LaGrange]

That is an interpretation. The opposing interpretation being it was actually from Babylon not spiritually Rome.

Hi 37818,
I thought all Protestants would want to tie Apoc 17 to the church in Rome? I’m glad to hear that you don’t. I truly don’t mean to be sarcastic or disrespectful but my interpretation is simply an attempt to be a biblical one.

 

[JonC]

Peter’s Tomb Recently Discovered In Jerusalem.

All the evidence Peter to have been buried in Rome are post the 1 Clement claim Peter was crucified up side down. The main claim against the Jerusalem tomb is the lack of either a Capha or Peter inscription.

There is no evidence that Peter ever traveled to Rome (Paul's comments indicate Peter probably did not).

There are traditions that have naturally arisen around the lives, and deaths, of the Apostles. These are not harmful, but they are not beneficial as well. As Paul emphasized, it is not them but Christ in them that is important.

 

[kyredneck]

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you. And so doth my son, Mark.

Peter was apostle to the Jews and it's probable that he never left Jerusalem (or Palestine), and that 'Babylon' is intended 'spiritually' in the same vein as Revelation 11:8 - meaning Jerusalem.

Edersheim had a lot to say of the Eastern Dispersion and quotes a Babylonian Rabbi concerning Jewry in Babylon:

"... the sad boast of Nehardaa, that up to the end of the third century it had not numbered among its members any convert to Christianity..."

 

[Campion]

Peter was apostle to the Jews and it's probable that he never left Jerusalem (or Palestine), and that 'Babylon' is intended 'spiritually' in the same vein as Revelation 11:8 - meaning Jerusalem.

Edersheim had a lot to say of the Eastern Dispersion and quotes a Babylonian Rabbi concerning Jewry in Babylon:

"... the sad boast of Nehardaa, that up to the end of the third century it had not numbered among its members any convert to Christianity..."

Acts 15:7: "And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.'"

 

[kyredneck]

Acts 15:7: "And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.'"

Yes! Peter was chosen by Christ to go to Cornelius, Acts 10. And, he got called onto the carpet in Acts 11 for going into the Gentiles.

 

[Campion]

Yes! Peter was chosen by Christ to go to Cornelius, Acts 10. And, he got called onto the carpet in Acts 11 for going into the Gentiles.

Does St. Peter say that A GenitlE or THE GentileS would hear the gospel from his mouth and believe in Acts 15:7?

Also, regarding Acts 11, when Peter was "called onto the carpet," who won out and was correct? Peter or the Jews???

 

[Campion]

There is no evidence that Peter ever traveled to Rome (Paul's comments indicate Peter probably did not).

There are traditions that have naturally arisen around the lives, and deaths, of the Apostles. These are not harmful, but they are not beneficial as well. As Paul emphasized, it is not them but Christ in them that is important.

...Except for all those pesky historical accounts which place Peter in Rome.

First Epistle, 5-6, St. Clement in c. 70 A.D.

Epistle to the Romans, 4, St. Ignatius of Antioch in c. 110 A.D.

Against Heresies, III.1.1 and III.3.1-2, St. Irenaeus in c. 180 A.D.

Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Peter, Chp. 1.3, St. Clement of Alexandria as quoted in Cassiodorus' translation in c. 190 A.D.

De Praescriptionem haereticorum, 35, Tertullian, c. 200 A.D.

Church History, II.25.5, Eusebius, c. 290 A.D.


I can go on and on. It is not a coincidence the early Church celebrated the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul on the same day.


Can you provide ANY historical source from antiquity which states these historical accounts of Peter and the Roman Church are actually wrong?

 

[JonC]

...Except for all those pesky historical accounts which place Peter in Rome.

First Epistle, 5-6, St. Clement in c. 70 A.D.

Epistle to the Romans, 4, St. Ignatius of Antioch in c. 110 A.D.

Against Heresies, III.1.1 and III.3.1-2, St. Irenaeus in c. 180 A.D.

Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Peter, Chp. 1.3, St. Clement of Alexandria as quoted in Cassiodorus' translation in c. 190 A.D.

De Praescriptionem haereticorum, 35, Tertullian, c. 200 A.D.

Church History, II.25.5, Eusebius, c. 290 A.D.


I can go on and on. It is not a coincidence the early Church celebrated the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul on the same day.


Can you provide ANY historical source from antiquity which states these historical accounts of Peter and the Roman Church are actually wrong?

It is illogical to ask me to prove a negative. Do you have any reason to believe they are correct?

The Roman Catholic Church has been inventive with history. How do we know this is not another invention?

Remember, the epistle of Clement is anonymous, Irenaeus does not write that Peter was in Rome but rather that his letter is not a command in the line of Peter and Paul's writings, the commentary on the First Epistle of St. Peter deals with what Peter and Paul said, but does not place Peter in Rome either.

In the end we have to decide for ourselves - was Paul correct, or those historians.

 

[kyredneck]

Does St. Peter say that A GenitlE or THE GentileS would hear the gospel from his mouth and believe in Acts 15:7?

It was Cornelius's whole clan that the Spirit dropped on, not just one.

Also, regarding Acts 11, when Peter was "called onto the carpet," who won out and was correct? Peter or the Jews???

Not sure what your concern here is. My point is that Peter's target audience was mainly Jews, Paul's was non-Jews:

7 but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision
8 (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles);
9 and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me,James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; Gal 2

 

[Campion]

It is illogical to ask me to prove a negative. Do you have any reason to believe they are correct?

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to support your assertion, which you made here:

There is no evidence that Peter ever traveled to Rome (Paul's comments indicate Peter probably did not).

I just gave you evidence from each of the first few centuries. I could provide more from each of those and continue on throughout the subsequent centuries.

Can you provide ONE source which says those fathers were wrong and that Christian history is thus wrong? Just one will suffice.

The Roman Catholic Church has been inventive with history. How do we know this is not another invention?

You previously argued the Catholic Church did not even exist until the 4th century. (See here) I gave you names of people who wrote prior to when you claim the Catholic Church even existed so your point is thus moot.

Remember, the epistle of Clement is anonymous

Says who? Every early Church list of bishops of Rome includes Clement.

Irenaeus does not write that Peter was in Rome but rather that his letter is not a command in the line of Peter and Paul's writings, the commentary on the First Epistle of St. Peter deals with what Peter and Paul said, but does not place Peter in Rome either.

Wrong. Here is Irenaeus...

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church,” - Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 c. 189 A.D.

In the end we have to decide for ourselves - was Paul correct, or those historians.

St. Paul was indeed correct and testifies to St. Peter's presence in Rome. St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans in approximately 58 A. D. In it he says that he does not want to preach the Gospel where Christ is already known, because he would not build on "another man's foundation." (Romans 15:20). In the same epistle to the Romans, he writes to a Church clearly already founded, one whose “faith is proclaimed in all the world.” (Romans 1:8). Yet, St. Paul also states that he himself had not yet visited Rome (Romans 1:10-13; 15:22-23), but that he hoped to do so when he later set out to visit Spain (Romans 15:24).

Thus St. Paul acknowledges there had been a person who had already built a foundation in Rome; a person who spread the faith in a city whose faith would be proclaimed through all the world. St. Paul is writing to these Roman people previously evangelized by someone other than St. Paul, as he had not yet visited but had hoped to do so on his way to Spain.

History tells us this person was St. Peter, the protos.

 

[Campion]

It was Cornelius's whole clan that the Spirit dropped on, not just one.



Not sure what your concern here is. My point is that Peter's target audience was mainly Jews, Paul's was non-Jews:

7 but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision
8 (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles);
9 and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me,James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; Gal 2

Here again is St. Peter speaking at the Council of Jerusalem. He could not be more explicit.

Acts 15:6-11: The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom THE GENTILES would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

 

[kyredneck]

Here again is St. Peter speaking at the Council of Jerusalem. He could not be more explicit.

Acts 15:6-11: The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom THE GENTILES would hear the message of the good news and become believers.

Call that a 'one-off', Peter wasn't the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul was:

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: Acts 9

13 But I speak to you that are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; Ro 11

15 But I write the more boldly unto you in some measure, as putting you again in remembrance, because of the grace that was given me of God,
16 that I should be a minister of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be made acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Ro 15

15 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother`s womb, and called me through his grace,
16 to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: Gal 1

7 but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision
8 (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles);
9 and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me,James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; Gal 2

Though no doubt just as Paul would first visit the synagogue in every city he came to, Peter would also preach to Gentiles when/if the opportunity presented itself..

 

[Campion]

Call that a 'one-off', Peter wasn't the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul was:

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: Acts 9

13 But I speak to you that are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; Ro 11

15 But I write the more boldly unto you in some measure, as putting you again in remembrance, because of the grace that was given me of God,
16 that I should be a minister of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be made acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Ro 15

15 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother`s womb, and called me through his grace,
16 to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: Gal 1

7 but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision
8 (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles);
9 and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me,James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; Gal 2

Though no doubt just as Paul would first visit the synagogue in every city he came to, Peter would also preach to Gentiles when/if the opportunity presented itself..

Not sure how you can chalk it up to a "one-off" when I've given you multiple examples of St. Peter stating he was called to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Here is another example, this time from none other than St. Paul, when he had to confront St. Peter for his hypocrisy...

"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, 'If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?'" (Gal 2:14)

Who was St. Peter preaching the Gospel to? The Gentiles!