Johann_Kaspar

"James" and "Peter", if you prefer. As "Peter" was executed in Eretz Israel, he never could go to Rome. This is xian fabrication. Acts give the romanced account of his death, replaying/paraphrasing/shortening the "passion" story. In the following chapters of Acts, pff, disappeared!

fta

Thanks for the clarification, but I don't recall Josephus mentioning St Peter.

CJD

hatsoff of course meant "religious [political] preaching." The two were not separated in the pre-modern era. To proclaim that Jesus the messiah is lord (and that, conversely, the caesar is not) would have raised not a few Roman eyebrows.

CJD

The Bishop

Erm, I hate to say this, but I certainly would not have expected any different from a tour guide, particularly in a city with a substantial religio-historical significance. This may surprise you to learn, but the actual priests, bishops and cardinals who work there are undoubtedly far far more skeptical of the actuality of the place of Peter's martyrdom. They undoubtedly have a reverence for the location of the Vatican through faith and tradition, but I doubt if a single one of them would be any more committal than to say "It is said to be the location of the Tomb of St Peter".

Actual verifiable historical fact is not amongst the tools of the tour guide - myth and story are their meat and drink, frequently the wilder the better. They play to their audience, and in the case of Rome their audience are devout Catholics on pilgrimage, not questioning skeptics or historical researchers.

Huon

From Catholic Encyclopedia, Saint Peter :
You will admire the logic of the bolded text : an old story is more true than a more recent story.

Johann_Kaspar

Yep, only I would prefer hatsoff to tell this himself. "Preaching" is still funny speaking of something completely political.

aa5874

The book called Acts is fiction, and Saul/Paul is one of the main characters.

Martyrdom of the apostles raises some serious questions, if a person was actually killed for his belief, shouldn't there be record of the date of his death, at least, as confimation of martyrdom?

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, not to be a broken record, but there are a few obvious things that always seem to get overlooked in regard to this topic:

1. There's no evidence that any of the early "martyrs" were killed because they believed in a resurrected God or Son of God, which would have to be established to be able to say they were killed "for their beliefs."
2. First century Romans would have considered any "Christian" to be just another Jew, at best, and
3. more likely, to 1st century Roman soldiers, a "christian" would be the equivalent of calling terrorists in Iraq "Shiia" or the like.

3 is obviously my choice, since perspective and allegience are all that delineate between calling someone a "terrorist" and calling the same someone a "freedom fighter."

So, if any early "disciples" were killed by the Romans, it would have been either because they were Jewish, or simply considered seditionists/insurrectionists, the most likely reason why Jesus was tried, convicted and crucified by the Romans, IMO.

All the rest is more easily attributed to later cult member glorification of fallen leaders. IOW, they weren't killed because they were terrorists, they were killed because they were freedom fighters; for what they believed. We see this kind of doublespeak all the time. The "axis of evil" and the "evildoers" of the world. Well, obviously to Iraqis (and apparently about nine-tenths of the globe), we are the "axis of evil" and the "evildoers" of the world.

:huh:

What a shock.