Jeffrey Gibson

Is μαρτυριαν ιησου subjective or objective genitive ?

And what do you do with Mk. 14:63?

In any case, he word martus was in use long before NT authors took it up.

But have a look at the article in TDNT.

Jeffrey

Chili

I always thought that Peter was faith in being the twin half of doubt in Thomas and that only the keen insight of Peter is what made him worthy to be called rock upon which Rome would be built . . . where-ever Rome is built and thus where-ever Truth is Rome will be. The physical Rome is just the place where they display their abundance but the Rome of Christ Jesus is not in this world and so why look for petrified bones to carry this Church?

Did you forget that Peter put on his cloak of faith once again and dove headfirst into the celestial sea to built his new church in Jn.21?

In case you wonder, Peter was naked on that fishing trip to prove that when all doubt is gone in Jn.20:28 there is no faith left . . . wherefore they caught nothing that night and so here Jesus as much as laid the first stone of that great new religion that will forever be great because of that.

Oh right, and the celestial sea is the other side of our brain where the fishing is good and no bait is needed.

Minimalist

Hmmm....once again, as soon as the "literal word of god" runs into difficulty it becomes a code...or a metaphor...or a symbol. I wonder why that keeps happening?

2-J

It goes without saying that the theory would then dissolve; but why keep picking at the 'it doesn't refer to martyrdom / it doesn't refer to Rome' issue if you reject the first premise already. Strange!

Still, many do hold the generally respected writings to be authentic at least for the most part so it's interesting to spell out the consequences of that.


JoeWallack I don't really understand how Mark and Paul show that Peter "had no reason to go to Rome and would not want to go to Rome".

But I do appreciate your point about churches wanting to be associated with apostles at all costs (and what better apostle for the empire's capital than the rock of the church himself), the timing of the first record of the tradition perhaps roughly coinciding with Marcion is an intriguing thought.

Ben C Smith

I took your claim that Peter did not die under Nero as a claim that Peter was not martyred in Rome. The point is that you are making claims about Peter, all the way up to the point of claiming that he never existed, without even having reviewed the evidence on Peter that predates Eusebius.

The main reason I marvel at your not having reviewed this evidence is because at least some of it was presented to you as early as post 7 on this thread, in answer to your own question in post 6. Yet in post 18 you are still asking:

Read post 7! It was written precisely as an answer to your question. Here is the link again. If that does not work, copy and paste the following into your browser window and click go: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...32#post5231132. Or go to page 1 of this thread and scroll down to post 7. Failing all of that, I can PM the post to you, if you wish.

The answer to your question is: Tertullian, Irenaeus, and the Acts of Peter.

There is also Dionysius of Corinth and Gaius of Rome, but, since these are preserved only through Eusebius, doubtless you will not accept them. Several others are most easily understood on the premise that Peter died in Rome, but are not unambiguous.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

So, do you think, yes or no, that Peter was never in Rome, that there was no time in which he was there?

Jeffrey

Solo

Not a genitive of origin; RSV's "testimony to Jesus" looks like a better rendering.

I read it as allegory: The priests hear testimony to the phantasms called Jesus - they are contradictory. So they turn to the phantasm embodied and ask direct: are you X., the Son of the blessed ? And HE says: I am, and you will see the Son of man seated ...blah blah ...and coming on the clouds of heaven..." That is the TESTIMONY OF JESUS (subjective ). The priests hear that (HIM) and they need no more testimony of Jesus (objective ) from anyone !


Jeffrey, kindly look at what I was saying. That a 'martus' as a word existed before NT is not being in any way challenged. It's the meaning of the word : was it used before 2nd century in the sense of 'martyr' ? I'd be much obliged if you could shed light on that.

Jiri

aa5874

When was 1 Peter written?

There may be some chronological problems when you try to use 1 Peter to establish that some-one called Peter was in Rome.

Who wrote 1 Peter?

Eusebius in Church History bk 1.12 claimed there were two persons called Cephas and/or Peter, which have created a problem in identifying the Peter/Cephas of Galations or the NT.

When did Cephas/Peter or Peter/Cephas die?

jules?

Did Britannia ever visit London, She is well documented and you can find her on coins but did she ever visit London or did she spend her life on that rock?

2-J

Not necessarily.

Consider this scenario: suppose that 1 Peter was a forgery composed sometime between 70 to 112 AD, and suppose (as many have argued) 'Babylon' does really refer to Rome. Then this forgery could be an extraordinarily early witness to the tradition that Peter spent time in Rome.