St. Peter's Tomb...In Jerusalem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This guy is competing for the Dan Brown Award in Creative History.

He has no verification of anything that he claims, invents data, and puts down the general lack of information to a Catholic conspiracy. Disproving such things is practically impossible, and attempting to do so will only fuel the belief that there is a Catholic conspiracy (q.v. the Da Vinci Code affair).

My personal favourite was “From all evidence, Peter was about fifty years old when Jesus called him to be an Apostle”. Sorry? From all what evidence? We have none.
 
FightingFat said:
Anyone familiar with this who could help me debunk it?

biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm
Click to expand...
look at what he states ** “that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem,”**

Bar Jona , means son of jona or son of john. he then inserts St.Peter as if Simon Bar Jona meant St. Peter. but nowhere on the ossuary was the name Peter! does that not stike you as odd?if it were truly St. Peter it should read Simon, Peter , son of Jonah.he is called Peter or “rock” throughout Scripture after Jesus names him in John 1:42, it would also imply that there were no other Simon’s who had a father named john. the box most probably did hold the bones of simon , son of john , but not simon Peter.

The third Pope built a memoria over the tomb of “St.Peter” which was replaced by Constantine, with the Confession of " St.Peter."

newadvent.org/cathen/04214a.htm
 
Jason_W said:
look at what he states ** “that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem,”**

Bar Jona , means son of jona or son of john. he then inserts St.Peter as if Simon Bar Jona meant St. Peter. but nowhere on the ossuary was the name Peter! does that not stike you as odd?if it were truly St. Peter it should read Simon, Peter , son of Jonah.he is called Peter or “rock” throughout Scripture after Jesus names him in John 1:42, it would also imply that there were no other Simon’s who had a father named john. the box most probably did hold the bones of simon , son of john , but not simon Peter.
Click to expand...
His name wasn’t Peter though. It was Simon Bar Jona as Jesus addresses him in Matthew 16. The legend behind this is that Peter died in Rome but his ossuary was taken back to Jerusalem. We may never know for sure. Peter would never have been put on the ossuary though. His formal name Simon would have been.
The third Pope built a memoria over the tomb of “St.Peter” which was replaced by Constantine, with the Confession of " St.Peter."
Click to expand...
That doesn’t mean anything. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built over the supposed burial place of Christ. But this is questionable because Christ was crucified and buried outside the walls of Jerusalem. The church is inside the walls of Jerusalem.

PEACE
 
NDfan said:
His name wasn’t Peter though. It was Simon Bar Jona as Jesus addresses him in Matthew 16. The legend behind this is that Peter died in Rome but his ossuary was taken back to Jerusalem. We may never know for sure. Peter would never have been put on the ossuary though. His formal name Simon would have been.PEACE
Click to expand...
even you call him Peter here. this is my point. there is not only one person throughout history who’s name was simon and who’s fathers’ name was jonah. but there is only one person who’s name was Simon ,who was the son of Jonah , who was called Peter.
 
NDFan I must respond to your comment that the Holy Sepulchre is a questionable place for the tomb of Christ. actually, in the time of Jesus, the wall of Jerusalem were placed differently and the Edicule was actually outside-- not to mention the piles of other data suggesting it as the location.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top