Originally Posted by Minimalist

"Only on his father's side."

Originally Posted by aa5874

The authors of the Epistles do not acknowledge the authors of the Gospels, nor do the authors of the Gospels acknowledge the authors of the Epistles. And to show that bickering and posturing among the authors was not really significant, there were more than one person using the name Paul, yet no-one bickered about that.

Originally Posted by Chili

That is because in those days each Paul had written his own Gospel as a follower of Jesus of Nazareth who had walked this walk for the first time. There is nothing to it and according to Golding it is as "easy as eating and drinking" (the Spire) once the Sacraments are in place to guide us along the ancient trail rigth back to the place we first started and there give an account of our self as if for the first time.

Bickering became part of it when we were granted permission to tie others fast and lead them into our way, which now has become like a world that is lost in it own mire.

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I can't think of anything important to which it makes any difference at all.

It's the people who feel certain that he did go to Rome who seem to consider it to be of vital significance.

I cannot guess why a non-Christian would feel that way, but it's easy to see why Christian apologists would feel compelled to defend Peter's presence and martyrdom in Rome. A great deal of their dogma becomes practically indefensible if orthodox Christian tradition is not taken to be as infallible as the Bible itself.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In the case of Peter, there is no narrative-story evidence that he was ever in Rome. There is possibly narrative-story evidence that he was executed. As Huon noted, there's the statement of Jesus to Peter from John 21.18-19 "18. "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go." but that is such a vague statement that it cannot be taken by itself as narrative-story evidence. It could just as well be a statement of the human condition, that all people dress themselves when they are young and go where they wish, but when they get old, other people dress them and they lose their independence.

Originally Posted by Chili

. . . but the human condition doesn't go to Rome but is left behind which is why "another will tie you fast and carry you off against your will" (NAB). There is nothing vague about it but I suppose if "the [mysterious] other" is not from Rome one must wonder where you will be taken except Rome (where is that 'wtf' smiley when I need it). Hence, "Rome sweet home" lies beyond the mystery of faith.

Originally Posted by Chili

You mean his mother's side. On his father's side he was a Jew and died under the conviction of Jewish law.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Once again, this.

Jeffrey

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

So, Christianity existed before Jesus Christ? What does that tell us about the development of Christianity?

Originally Posted by gstafleu

[ If Paul derived Jesus' humanity as a necessity for his role, that would offer another explanation for his famous "silences": there just wasn't anything to talk about.

Gerard Stafleu