Archive for category Biblical Scholarship
Is Simon Peter really the rock of the Roman Catholic Church?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical Scholarship, England issues, The Roman Catholic Church on April 10, 2026
Throughout my youth, my mother always said that I was never deliberately named after St Peter, the apostle of Christ. Although at times I think I was. My mother originally got saved in 1972 after seeing a cross in a window, and when she went home she always said that Jesus appeared to her in the room of the house where my parents lived.
My father became a Christian the following year, in 1973. I was born that very same year.
Over recent years and months I have revisited the locations where these events happened and they have a very close affinity with me and my family. My mother was a very dedicated Christian who spent all of her life testifying about Jesus and singing about Him wherever she could. My dad on the other hand was a preacher, and a fishmonger.
I think some of these influences have impacted me throughout my life.
Like St Peter, I too like to go fishing. Like St Peter, I too believe Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. Like Peter, I too follow Christ.
For me, I don’t like it when the very true apostle of Christ, who bears the same name as I, is slanderously claimed to be the founder of the singularly most apostate religion to have ever claimed the Name of Christ.
I am speaking of course about the Roman Catholic Church. An establishment that claims Peter was its first pope. This claim of course is absolute nonsense. The Roman Catholic church as it stands today was not even formulated unto 1054 A.D at the Great East West Schism. The facts remain that the early 1st century bishops of Rome had nothing whatsoever to do with modern church of Rome. Today the Vatican is an empire, a political power, a religion that affirms many acts that the Bible speaks against.
But let us look at this claim of St Peter being the rock of the Roman Catholic Church.
The claim itself comes from Matthew 16: 18 where Jesus says to Peter, “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (NKJV)
Let us imagine for a moment that Peter was the rock that Christ chose to build His church upon, would that mean that church was the Roman Catholic Church? If it were, would that exclude all other churches? Would that mean that Peter was only the rock of Rome, or only those churches the pope has jurisdiction over? Would that exclude the Greeks? Would that exclude the churches that St Paul founded? Or the Church of Jerusalem that was run by James? Would it exclude the church run by Titus on Crete?
The Greek word that Matthew uses to communicate “rock” is Petra, which means “a (mass of) rock, (literally and figuratively): – rock”. (Strongs G4073)
This word can be found in Matthew 7: 24-25, where Jesus says a wise man builds his house upon the rock. Was Jesus talking about Peter here? Was Jesus saying that a wise man builds his house upon St Peter? I don’t think so. When the wise man Jesus is speaking about built his house upon the rock Jesus was talking about the wise man building his faith upon Jesus Christ.
It is more consistent to say that Jesus was building His church upon Peter’s declaration of faith which came from the Father (Matthew 16: 17).
When Jesus says “you are Peter,” (Matthew 16: 18) He is acknowledging Peter as one of His disciples and when He says “and upon this rock I will build My church,” He was saying that like the wise man built His house upon the rock, so also Peter built his house of faith upon a solid foundation, which is the true confession of faith.
This confession of faith has lasted for 2000 years since Jesus said those words and Christ’s church has never gone away.
The reality is that if the Roman Catholic church views Peter as the rock that the church has built itself upon, then it is a house built upon sand and not upon the rock.
Roman Catholic’s may well view Peter as the rock of the Roman Catholic church, but he is not the rock of the body of Christ. Jesus Christ is the rock of the body of Christ, not Peter.
“The Divine Saviour in the Dark Light of Modern Critical and Sceptical Scholarship” coming soon
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical archaeology, Biblical Scholarship, Theology on March 21, 2026
“Over the last two thousand years or so, the Christian faith has had more than its fair share of enemies.” I write “When Jesus was born, whatever date that may have been, Herod sought to have the Christ-child put to death. In the Gospels, the authors record how many attempts were made on Jesus’ life, only one was granted. All Four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified and died. From the human perspective, Jesus had been executed for proclaiming Himself King. All other accusations against Him failed. In Jerusalem, at an ancient execution site outside the city walls, Jesus of Nazareth was nailed to a cross and died. This is historical fact.
To all intents and purposes, the story should have ended there, but it didn’t. The Gospels claim that Jesus came alive again and remained on earth for a period of forty days.”
The above words are a quote from my new upcoming book “The Divine Saviour in the Dark Light of Modern Critical and Sceptical Scholarship” a book that objects to the many speculative criticisms made by sceptical scholars over recent years. For those who do not know, sceptical and critical scholars are those who doubt the authenticity of the Bible and are often very vocal about it.
In my book I explore the history of the Bible and offer proofs in defence of the historicity of the Scriptures and I believe the work can be a valuable resource for many Christians who believe in the infallibility of the divine word.
Now that I have completed my documentary series on St Paul and the Greek Islands, “The Divine Saviour in the Dark Light of Modern Critical and Sceptical Scholarship” will be available soon.
Does Romans 16: 1-2 say Phoebe was a minister?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical Scholarship, Church of England, Is Female Leadership Biblical? on August 23, 2025
Throughout Christianity today we see many Christian’s believing that women can be leaders in the church. Although a number of Scriptures are used to argue that point, some don’t even want to discuss the subject. They say female leadership is now established and it’s a secondary issue. We need to lay aside our differences and work together for the cause of the gospel.
But I can’t do that. I do not believe the idea of women in leadership is Biblical or a secondary issue. The New Testament is clear on the matter and I have not been persuaded to believe otherwise. In the Bible God always chose men to be religious leaders. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Peter, James, John, Paul, Barnabus, Timothy and Titus were all men chosen by God. In order for a woman to be a minister, she too would have to be chosen by God and we do not find that in Scripture.
Yet today many leaders claim the church has been wrong for 2000 years and they seem to pull New Testament passages out of thin air to support their weak claim of women leadership.
Now before I continue, I want to clarify that I am not writing against women leaders in a secular sense, neither am I supporting misogyny I am talking purely about church leadership, ministry and preaching within the complimentarian perspective. The opposite viewpoint does not agree with the Bible so it seeks to revise it to make the church fit in with a changing world. The Church of England is one such establishment. Revisionists make claim upon claim and hardly any of them are legitimate.
One such claim primarily begins with a 1st century woman by the name of Phoebe, who revisionists claim was a deacon in office in the early apostolic church. Yet very little is known about her and the singular reference does not provide enough certainty to make such a significant claim. All we have are two verses.
St. Paul writes,
“I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and myself also.” (Romans 16: 1-2. NKJV)
According to some, Phoebe is described by Paul as a deaconess and in a regular order which implies she held the office of leadership in the church at Cenchrea. This I argue is a false claim and unsupported by Scripture. Let me show you why.
Firstly, in the Epistle to the Romans the apostle was not speaking to a modern 21st century church, neither was he writing to the church where Phoebe was from, he was writing to a congregation in Rome (Romans 1: 7). This congregation probably met in a Roman house church and Paul “commends” Phoebe to them. This act of commending someone is significant and should not be overlooked. In 2 Corinthians 3: 11 Paul uses the same custom of commendation, but if Phoebe was already known for being in office as a deacon Paul would not need to commend her. The very fact that Paul commended her implies that she was not acquainted with the congregation at Rome, or she would have already be assumed a deacon by them. This implies that Paul’s request to make her welcome was that the Roman Christian’s would receive her, why? Why would he need to make such a request if she was already a known preacher and teacher?
Paul follows this important point by using the word “servant” “diakonos” which does mean deacon and can also mean “to run on errands” (G1249 Strongs) This word is used in a variety of places in the New Testament and is used in around thirty contexts, including John 2: 5 where Mary (the mother of Jesus) calls for the servants. The greek word used in John 2: 5 is also “diakonos” yet the servants mentioned in this passage were not leaders in the church, they were simply servants. John also uses this word in 2: 9.
Likewise, we also find “diakonos” in Matthew 22: 13, which does not imply a position of leadership. This means that New Testament Greek has a limited vocabulary that uses words in a broad spectrum.
When Paul refers to deacons in office he does not always use ‘diakonos‘ but rather“diakoneo” (G1247 Strongs) which means a minister, or teacher or a deacon in office. When Paul uses “diakonos” he places deacons and bishops in the same sentence (Philippians 1: 1) and makes it very clear that deacons are to be the husbands of one wife (Timothy 3: 12) thus, if he was affirming that Phoebe was a deacon in office he would be totally contradicting himself. There is no way that Phoebe could be the husband of one wife.
When Paul uses diakonos in Romans 16: 1-2 he is simply presenting a position compatible with a ‘complimentarian view’ teaching that some women in the apostolic church were appointed to visit the sick, mainly women, and to help out. Paul is not implying that women were to teach or have the pastoral office of a deacon. He is merely using a general word to communicate a servant of the church.
John Wesley in his commentary on this passage wrote this,
“In the apostolic age, some grave and pious women were appointed deaconesses in every church. It was their office, not to teach publicly, but to visit the sick, the women in particular, and to minister to them both in their temporal and spiritual necessities.”
Obviously modern churches can and do disagree with a correct understanding of Paul’s use of diakonos but people should also consider that if Scripture interprets Scripture Acts 6: 3 affirms how the apostles gave instruction for seven men to be chosen as deacons, not seven women. The Biblical criteria is very clear and although many are now persuaded against this, the institution of women leaders in the church is just one of many signs of national apostasy and these revisions have caused the very foundations of church leadership to be weakened.
In Romans 19: 2 Paul affirms that the people of Rome should “assist her (Phoebe) in whatever business she has need of you”. The Greek word translated “business” (G4229) is used 11 times in the New Testament and does not mean preaching or teaching, it only means a task or a legal process. In fact Paul mentions nothing about Phoebe teaching or preaching but rather that she has helped many people including himself. This is within the context of a servant to run on errands or have some kind of business to attend to rather than an ordained ministry of preaching and teaching. If Phoebe were to be here today she would be a clerical worker in the church.
Thus, to claim Romans 16: 1-2 proves Phoebe was an acting deacon in office is a far fetched claim and makes the Bible out to be self contradictory. The Bible does not support the idea that Phoebe was a deacon in office, and if Scripture interprets Scripture Phoebe was merely a servant, and possibly the widow of a deacon. She helped many people and Paul out and delivered his letter, that’s all. There is no mention of preaching or teaching and certainly no hint whatsoever that any woman could be a bishop, archbishop or pastor.
I will address the other Scriptures in due course as time moves on.
The Sudarium of John 20: 7
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Bible translation, Biblical Scholarship, The Shroud of Turin on April 4, 2021
One of the two Scripture readings from the Book of Common Prayer for today (Easter Day) is John 20: 1-10. In this passage John gave his account of the first day of the week where Mary Magdalene saw how the stone had been rolled away from the tomb of Christ and she ran to Simon Peter and the disciple Jesus loved to tell them “They have taken away the Lord from out of the sepulchre“.
In the passage from the BCP it is not difficult to hear Tyndale’s unmistakeable 16th century translation work. And if we look back centuries earlier, we can read Wycliffe’s 14th century translation, yet with a difference.
In verse 7 of the same passage, the 1388 Wycliffe translation makes reference to an English translation of a Latin word. This six letter word is “sudary” from the Latin Vulgate’s “Sudarium”.
The Sudarium is believed to be a bloodstained piece of cloth that was wrapped around the head of Christ after His death. Many learned people who believe the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth of Christ also believe the Sudarium is a match.
The Wycliffe translation puts it this way;
“And in one day of the week, Mary Magdalele came early to the grave when it was yet dark. And she saw the stone moved away from the grave. Therefore she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to another disciple whom Jesus loved, and says to them, They have taken the Lord from the grave, and we wit not where they have laid Him! Therefore Peter went out and the ilk other disciple, and they came to the grave. And they twain ran together, and the ilk other disciple ran before Peter and came first to the grave. And when he stooped, he saw the sheets lying. Netheless, he entered not. Therefore Simon Peter came suing him, and he entered into the grave and he saw the sheets laid, and the sudary that was on His head, not laid with the sheets, but by itself lapped into a place. Therefore then, the ilk disciple that came first to the grave, entered and saw, and believed. For they knew not yet the Scripture that it behoved Him to rise again from death. Therefore the disciples went eftsoon to themselves.”
The Wycliffe New Testament 1388. The Gospel of John, Chapter XX
Today a Sudarium is in Oviedo, Spain. Opinion differs as to the authenticity, but it is the responsibility of each individual to weigh the evidences and make a decision. But whatever a person decides, the resurrection of Jesus Christ cannot be ignored.
Tertullian and the Census of Luke 2: 1-2
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical Scholarship, Census of Luke on February 18, 2019
Forum Rome © Simon Peter Sutherland
Around 197 AD, early Christian author Tertullian, wrote concerning the Roman Census of Cyrinius. In his writing Tertullian claimed that there was a reference to the Mary of the Gospels “among the Romans“. The English translation of his words read like;
“Jesus was from the native soil of Bethlehem, and from the house of David. For, among the Romans, Mary is described in the census, of whom Christ was born.” (c. 197, W), 3.164. (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. Birth of Jesus. Page 69. Hendrickson.)
This ancient historic claim is intriguing because it implies that Tertullian himself had seen archival evidence of the census written about in the Gospel of Luke. The text reads like so;
“And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.” (Luke 2: 1-2. NKJV)
This archival evidence has clearly vanished from our modern world, yet it seems that both Luke and Tertullian had access to documentation concerning the Roman census.
In a previous article, I theorised over the possibilities that the Census of Luke 2: 1-2 may have been referenced in The Mausoleum of Augustus on the funerary Res Gestae Divi Augusti in Rome. If this is true, then we have two Biblically external evidences that help collaborate the historicity of the Census of Luke 2: 1-2.
In the forum of Rome there are the remains of the ancient Curia Julia. The majority of the legal trials were held in that place. It is therefore possible that the census referenced by Tertullian was once held within the archives of the forum.
History tells us that Tertullian went to Rome after completing his education in Carthage. It was in Rome that Tertullian became interested in the Christian movement and did not return to Carthage until the end of the 2nd century. This places Tertullian as researching Christianity in Rome when documented evidence of the Census of Luke 2: 1-2 was still extant.
Luke 2: 1-2: Augustus, the Census and Rome
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical Scholarship, Census of Luke, Christmas on December 18, 2018
Well, the Christmas season is upon us! Yet recent months and hours have been a strange time for the people of Britain. England is politically divided and chaotic, the country appears to be tearing itself apart and it is difficult for the average person to see any bright future? However, I have repeatedly stated that an East Wind is coming, and I believe it is. But I know that God is in control.
Sometimes in this wicked world, it is necessary for a person to set himself apart and come away a while. In November I visited Rome. This was my third visit. Rome is a bustling busy city, and being there is like walking through an outdoor museum. The streets are filled with ancient rubble. A person who visits Rome is walking in the footsteps of historic giants.
The Roman Forum is by far one of my beloved areas of Rome. Here I can bathe myself in Biblical history and bring myself back to what really matters. Biblical Truth! Here stands The Arch of Titus, The Temple of Caster and Pollux, The Curia Julia, where Paul stood trial. The location of the conflict between Peter and Simon Magus. The Mamertine Prison, where tradition claims Peter and Paul were imprisoned.
Across the way from the Mamertine, there stands the remains of the ancient Forum of Augustus. This forum was inaugurated in 2 BC by the man who decreed the census to be taken around the time when Jesus was in the womb of Mary.
In Luke 2: 1-2 it reads: “And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.” (NKJV)
By Luke’s reference to “all the world” I take that to mean all the Roman world. The Greek (G3625) is with special reference to a part of the globe, “specifically the Roman Empire”. However, the facts surrounding the census are still a matter of much debate.
Yet in The Mausoleum of Augustus, Rome, there once stood Bronze pillars which had an engraved reference to a Census of Augustus. This funerary inscription is known as “Res Gestae Divi Augusti“. It was upon this inscription where Augustus recorded the achievements he had made during his life. One such achievement reads “CENSVM-POPVLI”. This when translated reads ‘I did a census‘.
Dates for this census are well established, but my question is; could this reference be remotely related to the census written about by St. Luke? After three visits to Rome I have concluded that Luke probably wrote his Gospel from this ancient City of Seven Hills. However, some modern scholars claim there is no historic evidence for the census of Luke 2: 1-2. Yet in claiming this they assume Luke’s narrative is not a reliable source. Likewise, they sometimes fail to explore the possibilities of other arguments and views that differ to their own. They often likewise ignore the possible translations issues concerning the correct rendition of (G2958) and the possibility of a continued or repeated census.
In a pause of reflection, what strikes me about Augustus and the “Gestae Divi Augusti” is how historically absolute it is that this Roman Emperor was distinctly associated with a census. Whichever way we look at it, we cannot dismiss that Augustus was known for a census of the Roman world.
What Luke was communicating was a fulfilment of the Scripture that a ruler over Israel would come out of Bethlehem (Micah 5: 2). That the ancestral home of Joseph was Bethlehem. Yet, when Augustus Caesar did his census, he thought he was bringing this about of his own power. But Luke was communicating that it was God who was bringing it to pass, not man.
Here we can learn. The world is a mess. People are sinful and depraved. Does that mean that Christ is not reigning or a Ruler? Has God lost control of His universe? On the contrary. There is no greater way to cause people to change their ways than pain. In the Scriptures God often hands nations over to corrupt leaders to teach them and bring them to repentance. Yet He must have been reigning in order to have done such things.
It is Christ who holds all things by the word of His power (Hebrews 1: 3) there is no governing power outside of Him. By bringing about a Census, Augustus was doing the will of God, not the will of man. We all must learn from that. Christ is in control.
Discerning Biblical truth from fiction…
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical Scholarship, Theology on November 8, 2018
The term Biblical truth does not always mean what the individual person considers the term to mean. Each person has a definition of every word. What is Biblical truth to one man is heretical to another and vice versa. The Bible has a habit of contradicting many of our ideologies and theologies. But for me, when something is clearly stated in scripture and plainly referred to, the ideas and opinions of men mean little to me. Where the truth is concerned, what does it matter what men may think?
It is a fact that the many spurious gospels employed by modern secular critical scholars when dealing with the historical and spiritual life of Christ were written much later than the canonical Gospels and letters. It is not difficult to conclude that many of these writings are fictional fabrications and interpretations of real events and real people. Since many apocryphal texts are not conclusive in terms of dating due to the lack of historical reference in the texts they cannot all be deemed as truth but rather fictionalised truth.
I bring to attention the “Acts of Paul” which Tertullian claimed was a forgery by a Presbyter who wrote it out of his “love for Paul” 1. These texts, though interesting, are not as good as the biblical texts. They have very little majestic quality to them and I conclude the reason why so many were not included in the Biblical canon, is because they were not authoritative. Some of them contain stories that are so fictional, they appear unbelievable. Yet they come in useful to help us understand the minds of the ancients. If they are a record of beliefs and myths and factual traditions from the early Christians era’s, they can be useful. The problems happen when modern critical secular scholars use those texts in relation to Jesus in their attempts to disprove the New Testament. Too often they make out many of these books are modern discoveries and that the New Testament contains blatant errors. Yet scholars have been debating textual issues from the earliest days of the church. The arguments when presented today are merely part of a much larger soup of recycled argument. Re-packaged, re-marketed and re-developed for a modern audience.
EXCERPT FROM UPCOMING BOOK BY SIMON PETER SUTHERLAND
© 2018 Simon Peter Sutherland
Jesus the “Son of David” and heir to the throne of Israel
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical Scholarship, Theology on December 11, 2015
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7: 14
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ has been controversial topic for centuries. In the 2nd century, a Greek philosopher and a critique of Christianity named Celsus, claimed that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Pantera. This claim has sparked debate that Mary was the victim of a rape and that Jesus was the product of that. But the story has very little historic backbone to it.
In 1952, a Bible translation called the Revised Standard Version was published. This translation rendered “a virgin” of Isaiah 7: 14 as “young woman”.
The translation appeared to be in direct contrast to the KJV and caused considerable controversy in its day and gave zest to the King James only movement. One of the arguments presented by critics of the RSV was that the rendering of ‘a virgin’ could be traced back to the oldest translation of the Old Testament known to exist. This translation is the Septuagint (LXX) and is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating to the 3rd century BC.
likewise, we know the early Church believed Isaiah 7: 14 meant ‘a virgin’ since the ancient Apostles creed, puts the miracle of the Virgin birth this way:
- “Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary.”
The problem is that in the RSV, the text of Isaiah can be read to deny the virgin birth, however, Luke’s gospel according to the RSV may not appear to deny the virgin birth, since the claims are quite clear by exposition.
However, for many people today, the virgin birth is about as real as Rudolf pulling Santa’s sleigh, yet these views are nothing new. In fact, when we read the New Testament, we see Joseph and Mary wrestling a little with it too.
In Matthew 1: 20 we read that Joseph “thought about these things” and then had a dream. Clearly he was troubled by the situation and was logical, he must have thought Mary had been unfaithful to him and Matthew recorded that he planned to divorce her quietly (Matthew 1: 19). Likewise Mary’s response to the angel who told her she would give birth to a son was likewise logical and reasonable “how can this be, since I do not know a man” (Luke 1: 34. NKJV). The angel told Mary the miraculous conception would be of “the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1: 35. NKJV). Mary’s question was reasonable and shows that people can reason and ask questions concerning God and faith.
A question I often asked myself when I was a child was; why did the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel go to Joseph? And why do the genealogies of Matthew and Luke differ? Many years later, I learned there is a very distinct reason for the two genealogies. Matthew’s genealogy differs to Luke’s genealogy for very distinct reasons:
Matthew’s genealogy proceeds forwards from Abraham to Joseph. While Luke’s genealogy moves backwards from Jesus to Adam. Matthew’s genealogy represents the legitimate, legal, royal line unto Jesus’ legal father, as in stepfather, while the genealogy of Jesus recorded for us by Luke represents Mary’s lineage.
Matthew’s genealogy represents the legitimate, legal, royal line unto Jesus’ legal father, as in stepfather. The genealogy of Jesus recorded for us by Luke through Mary’s lineage. This connects all the way back to Adam, as needs must to connect Christ as direct decent from Adam that He in the likeness of flesh, might take upon Himself the sins of the world.
Research shows that King Jeconiah is mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy and thus reveals a very distinct reason for the virgin birth.
In Jeremiah 22: 30 the prophet wrote;
- “Thus says the Lord; Write this man down as childless, A man who shall prosper in his days; for none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.”
This is the reason why a virgin birth had to happen, because if Jesus had been the actual biological son of Joseph, then Jesus would have been part of this curse and thus could not be King of Israel.
If not for this curse, then Joseph, Jesus’ stepfather would have been the legitimate King of Israel. This is why the Angel referred to Joseph as “Joseph, thou son of David” Matthew 1: 20. The Angel did not refer to Joseph as ‘the’ Son of David, but ‘son of David’. Seventeen verses in the New Testament name Jesus as the Son of David and Matthew recorded that when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a Donkey, the people hailed “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matthew 20: 9) Jesus the King was clearly next in line for the throne and Paul also affirmed this claim in Romans 1: 3, 2 Timothy 2: 8.
This curse written by the prophet Jeremiah did not come upon Mary or her descendants because she was not a descendant in the lineage of Jeconiah.
The people of ancient Jerusalem and the Babylonian Kings (the wise men) knew these things and this is why they asked:
- “Where is He who is born King of the Jews”. Matthew 2: 2
Jesus Christ crucified from a 19th century engraving © 2013/15 Simon Peter Sutherland
The claim to the throne of Jesus as the true King of Israel was known not only by the Jewish people, but by Greeks and by Romans. The Gospels record that the claim of Jesus as King was written by Pontius Pilate and placed upon Jesus’ cross.
- Matthew 27: 37 “This is Jesus the King of the Jews”
- Mark 15: 26 “The King of the Jews”
- Luke 23: 38 “This is the King of the Jews”
- John 19: 19 “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews”
The claim of Jesus as King was written in “Greek, Latin and Hebrew” and in John 18: 34 Jesus questions Pilate on whether or not the claim that He Himself was King came from Pilate or from other people. “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”
That question should be asked by all of us; do we say things about Jesus because others tell us these things or do they come from ourselves? It must be a fact that since Christianity has impacted this world so strongly that every human being must at some point ask the question of who Jesus Christ truly was and is. If He was truly the Son of God, which I believe He was, then He is the most important person who has ever lived or ever will live. And if He wasn’t the Son of God then who was He and how strong a case can be assembled to make each and every individual wage eternity upon their answer?
I believe that Jesus was who He said He was and that is why I hold Him and His commands in such high royal esteem. I believe He is the only way to God and His miracles, healing’s and resurrection stand as firm proofs of that.
The question is; when He returns, will He take the throne in a literal sense?
The Arch of Titus and Biblical Prophecy
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical archaeology, Biblical Scholarship on May 30, 2015
The Arch of Titus, Rome © 2015 Simon Peter Sutherland
In Rome there stands the Arch of Titus. This arch stands on the Via Sacra and was built c 82 AD to commemorate the Roman victory over Jerusalem and the Jewish people.
I had read about the Arch of Titus for many years, and during my visit to Rome it was quite a monumental moment for me to look directly at this treasure of the Biblical era.
The Arch of Titus, Rome and the Jerusalem Temple © 2015 Simon Peter Sutherland
The actual arch contains some of the few secular and historical images of the artefacts from the Herodian Temple and the siege of Jerusalem. The arch contains an image of the Menorah which was the very same Menorah that was standing in the Temple in Jerusalem when Jesus was on earth. The Arch also contains excellent representations of the gold Trumpets and the Table of Show bread as written about in the Bible.
It is claimed that the images were once coloured in gold and the background blue.
The inscription on the arch reads like so;
SENATVS
POPVLVSQVE.ROMANVS
DIVO.TITO.DIVI-VESPASIANI.F
VESPASIANO.AVGUSTO
A literal translation into English, would read something like this;
Senate
people Roman Titus divine
Vespasian son Augustus
With some emphasis on translation, it could read like this;
(The) Roman Senate and (the) people to (the) Divine Titus Vespasian son (of) Augustus.
The Arch of Titus, Rome © 2015 Simon Peter Sutherland
On another note, the situation I so often find myself in is at variance with so many modern claims of secular scholarship. I find it hard to respect certain branches of modern critical scholarship when certain claims are made against the Bible, arguing the narratives are not factual history, but merely religious fiction. These claims are at variance with me continuously, especially when I see facts such as the Arch of Titus standing before my very eyes.
The Arch of Titus strengthens the case to claim that the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were all written well before AD 70, likewise the book of Revelation.
The following verses are affirmed by the Arch of Titus;
Matthew 24: 2
Mark 13: 2
Luke 21: 6
The thing is many modern scholars must claim the Gospels were written after AD 70 and not by eye witnesses or the truth of Biblical prophecy will be clearly seen. The Gospels claim that Jesus, during His incarnation, prophesied the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple around 40 years or more prior to the events themselves. The problem is that many modern critical scholars do not believe in prophecy and therefore approach the texts with that persuasion. Thus, if a person looks at the Biblical narrative through certain spectacles and in denial of the supernatural, that person will only see a natural explanation. Thus, the conclusion will be made that the Gospel narratives were written after the events they prophesied and not by eye witnesses.
As controversial a statement as it may seem these days, there is no actual evidence that the Gospels themselves were written after AD 70. On the contrary, the evidence of the Arch of Titus affirms the New Testament step by step and the Old Testament also.
This claim is not any new argument or contrary to Ecclesiastical history or historical Theology.
DSS: 7Q5, Marks Gospel and the Resurrected Christ
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical Scholarship, Christianity, The Bible on April 20, 2014
Ancient handwriting
© 2014 Simon Peter Sutherland
Those who are familiar with me know how I repeatedly disagree with the many popular claims made by so-called modern ‘Bible Scholars’. All too often I find the opinions of these people and their dating methods concerning Biblical history, the New Testament Gospels and epistles, inconsistent with the information that is available. Since the existing data contradicts them, I often regard their claims as either misinformation or out right lies.
However, what some people fail to acknowledge concerning me, I, is that I never make such claims without rigorous research and proofs.
In this post, I am writing yet again concerning another often overlooked and deliberately disregarded proof text which contradicts the claims of modern critical scholars. This further information I am presenting relates to DSS fragment 7Q5 and its connection to the Gospel of Mark, which if true, is undeniable proof that the Synoptic Gospel of Mark was written well before AD 66 or 68.
The facts are the following.
Between 1946-47 shepherds in Qumran, Israel, discovered a number of ancient manuscripts in a series of Caves about a mile inland from the Dead Sea. These scrolls (known as DSS) are of highly significant in Biblical research and were written in the languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and provide valuable information relating to some Religious practices and beliefs during the 2nd Temple Biblical era.
This discovery is arguably one of the greatest finds of the last century.
In cave 7 among some of the Qumran scrolls was discovered a fragment known as 7Q5. This Papyrus fragment clearly appears to be a New Testament papyri containing a section of Marks Gospel chapter 6 and verses 52-53.
This section in Greek reads like so;
ου γαρ
συνηκαν επι τοις αρτοις,
αλλ ην αυτων η καρδια πεπωρω-
μενη. και διαπερασαντες [επι την γην]
ηλθον εις γεννησαρετ και
προσωρμισθησαν. και εξελ-
θοντων αυτων εκ του πλοιου ευθυς
επιγνοντες αυτον.
In the King James Version, the passage reads as following;
“For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened.
And when they had passed over, they came into the land of Gen-nes-aret, and drew
to the shore”
It is quite clear that this Greek passage is part of Marks Gospel. Which, presents a huge problem for modern scholars since this cave was closed in AD 68 and never reopened again until 1946-48.
The problem is that those leading scholars whom society make their leading thinker, are the very ones who deny them. Yet the Markan narrative in its original context shows that some people back in the time of Christ could not see the Truth, their hearts were hardened by God Himself.
In his book ‘The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English’ Geza Vermes ignores the claim that 7Q5 contains Mark 6: 52-53 and dismisses it as a “clearly unprovable hypothesis” (Appendix. P 441) yet he appears to offer no satisfactory explanation why? Neither does he include the actual text in his book. This begs the question; ‘just how complete is his version?’
The significance concerning this fragment and Marks Gospel is very high and should not be played down by scholars. Since the caves in which the DSS scrolls were discovered were large quantities of scrolls which are of the highest importance. Today the DSS sit in the Shrine of the Book, in Jerusalem of which the Israel Museum has over one million visitors per year.
It is a very real claim to say there are a lot of disinformation agents in the West today who are trying to bring down Christianity and her mother Religion, Judaism. And any evidences that rise up, either by archaeology, vault discovery or textual analysis, each day they are ready to pounce upon them and discredit the information in relation to the Bible.
The Truth is that the some of these modern scholars continuously play down the authority of the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John because they know the implications and the power of eye witness testimony of this grand scale. The Gospel of Christ “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17: 6) and these scholars and authorities and political spin doctors know that. So in order to control the masses of people and play down Christianity, they must attack it from within. What better place to start than attack the Bible itself.
The problem is that they know all too well that the Bible is not just another religious text. If Jesus had been presented as some kind of guru, philosopher or crucified man, He would be just another martyr, but no, He rose from the dead and proved He was the Christ. But if He was just a great teacher or one of many ways to God, then people would not revolt against Him. But knowing the implications of the things He said, He Himself makes the path of Truth a very singular journey. Thus, in order for the enemies of Truth to bring down this road to pave the way for another they look for contradictions like a lawyers in a court of law in an attempt to make the testimonies themselves appear unreliable. But clear research and Theological insights and exegesis of the Biblical narratives clearly demonstrate that the Gospels do not contract each other and people like myself are willing to appear unlearned and silly sometimes in making claims that are contrary to what is often seen as the majority opinion.
But just because something is believed by a majority, does not make it true. The fact remains the Theological community regularly reviews these apparent contradictions and by careful analysis of the text, know the claims are in error. The problem is, that we know the Word of God and its Theological meaning, they don’t. They are attacking things they do not understand. They win over the unsaved majority and even some believers who sit on the fence and then claim their victories. But even a majority vote does not make something true, sometimes people are just plain wrong.
What we need to do, each and every one of us, is rise up and defend the Truth. It is the promise of eternal life which those scholars are robbing people of. It is they who are destroying peoples faith in the Bible as the Word of God. And it is the Word of God which is Gods chosen way for Him to reveal who He is. But if people close their minds to the Truth, how will they find it?
The time is upon us and we are seeing more than enough proofs of this each day, that a very large organization is set out to utterly abolish Christianity from face of the earth. And if it cannot do that, it seeks to destroy peoples faith in Christianity’s measuring line by reducing it to mere literature. But they will not succeed so long as the Truth is presented and that fellow Christians, is our job.
Do it now while it is still day, for the night comes when no man can work.
-
You are currently browsing the archives for the Biblical Scholarship category.
Simon Peter Sutherland
-
Simon Peter Sutherland 