Name:KRS •
Title: Peter in Rome •
Date posted: 03/05/07 5:39
Q: The film noted that there was no evidence for Peter's death in Rome, thats actually incorrect. They have found a second century grave marker in Rome that seems to imply it is the burial place of Peter. While it is evidence of the second rank rather than a first century marker, one must remember that Rome was a place of intense persecution in the first century and cooled down in the early second. Its very likely that this monument was raised over something less conspicious that was present in the first century.
Admittedly, this isn't the strongest archeological evidence, but it is evidence, and seems to support the historical works cited by Eusebeas that are no longer extant.
Appearently,- the monestary also contains the ossuaries af Lazarus, Martha and Mary Magdalene (shooting a stake through the assertion, that the Mariamne of the Jesus tomb is the sister of Lazarus (if indeed the Mary in the tomb in the two links, is the sister). It puts the idea, that you were buried where you lived to death, and asserts that Lazarus and his sisters lived in Jerusalem.
Name:JMD •
Date: 03/17/07 23:30
A: The ossuary you are referring to does not state 'Mary Magdalene', it only says Martha and Mary, and was found near their brother, Lazarus' ossuary in Jerusalem. The NT never states directly that it's Mary
Magdalene who is sister to Martha and Lazarus.
It's only in some of the 'rejected' and so-called 'heretical' texts, (i.e., the ones that 'sometimes' have more of the 'truth' in them), that she's referred to as Mariamne - and in Acts of Philip, she's mentioned as his sister - 'not' Martha and Lazarus'.
(and the old boys network, wouldn't want it known that Mary Magdalene is really Mariamne, so, they 'could' have easily, when coming across 'Mariamne' transcribed it as 'Mary Magdalene' in the NT as they wouldn't want her real name known, since she was such a threat to their agenda, and thus could write off Mariamne as 'heretical' if any texts came along with that name in them. They also of course wouldn't want it known that Jesus and mariamne were married, that is, if there were ever any texts that came right out and stated that -after all, least at first, it did have to be kept a 'secret'.)
It's often been 'assumed' all those Marys in the NT, outside of Jesus' mother, are one and the same - that they are all really Mary Magdalene, but there's no proof of this. Recall that Mary was a very common name of that era.
Peter's ossuary is also there in Jerusalem, as he died there, and not in Rome. By the way, a second century grave marking found in Rome is highly suspect, and counts for no proof at all - especially when they have to keep digging around to try to find the bones to go with it! Years ago, they tried to claim they found Peter's remains -though it turned out, it was the remains of a female skeleton - serves them right, to discover that their Peter's bones turned out to be a she - perhaps it was pope Joan! heh. Or maybe it was some Pagan high priestess or something? Considering St. Peter's Bascilica, as well as the Vatican, was built over a Pagan cemetery.
(google 'Saint Peter's Jerusalem Tomb', by F. Paul Peterson.)
Wonder though if there maybe is some truth to the 'pope Joan' legend?....why else would the Vatican have to have had that special chair, (which is still somewhere in the Vatican, most likely), to 'prove'
the upcoming pope is male? (I guess if things 'hung' properly when the pope sat down, they'd know he was a male.) Why would you need to do this? -unless, of course, some brilliant woman from the past had 'snuck' in, disguised as a man; a highly learned woman, and they were fooled -but they wouldn't be fooled again with their all-male special chair!
According to the legend, she got pregnant, and that was what gave her 'secret' away -she was killed, stoned and/or dragged to her death, along with her just born son.
Interestingly, from what rumours say, at least, there is a street, still today, which popes and bishops avoid in their processions - because apparently, this street is where, (or least in the vicinity, of where), pope Joan was put to death, and so they are afraid, as maybe they should be.
So perhaps the legendary pope Joan's remains were buried somewhere in Rome, but not pope Peter's?!
Name:Dennis •
Date: 03/28/07 4:03
A: Hi KRS !
One also needs to consider that Constantine covered (in the eyes of the inhabitants, desecrated?) a good part of a previous, largely pagan cemetery to build St. Peters on top of the tomb, that by that time was considered (at least by tradition) to be Peter's.
I suppose an Emperor could do whatever he wanted. One the other hand, Emperors who gratuitously did things that just pissed people off didn't last long, and Constantine did.
So Constantine was at the least a _calculating_ Emperor who had a sense of what he could get away with and presumably what wasn't going to be worth the effort. If there wasn't some good reason to build St. Peter's basilica where he did (like that's where the Christian community of Rome was telling him Peter was buried...), he would have built St. Peter's somewhere else.
