Sheng

I am a longtime reader of these message boards, but I seldomly post new thread topics. I was recently in Rome and spent a significant amount of time near the Vatican area. One thing that kept confusing me was the constant reference to historical evidences of St. Peter. Now from what I have read over the years, I understand that there is no physical evidence for a historical Jesus outside of the Gospels that were written perhaps several hundred years after his supposed death. The references that I saw to Peter's life were:

• A small cave-like place that was claimed to be Peter's prison during his life

• References to the stored place of his bones, which was not in the shrine that most people look at, but rather protectively sealed underground

• The spot where he was supposedly crucified upside-down

• References to the dates when he became the first pope (something like 76 AD)

Now I personally came to the conclusion that these items and places were simply from derived from stories and relics that early churches devised before we have records. Like with the prison: if it is said that Paul was kept in a prison, then early churches simply looked for the most likely prison around at that time, and claimed it to be his, regardless of whether he was actually kept there. My fiancee, however, is a recovering fundy who is not as skeptical as me in such maters. I would like to hear what this group can tell me about these so-called evidences of Peter so that I don't come off to her as just a closed-minded atheist, and that she will understand my skepticism of early church history. Also, if there is some legitimacy to these 'evidences', I would like to know that as well. Thank you all.

Marxist

You might like this article from Frank Zindler:

Of Bones and Boners: Saint Peter at the Vatican

andrewcriddle

The claim that the bones of Peter are underneath St Peter's is very dubious, however excavations have shown that there is underneath St Peter's the tropaion or memorial of Peter and Paul dating back to c 155 AD, and commemorating their martyrdom.
Traditionally Peter became leader of the church at Rome in 42 AD and was killed in 67 AD. (The AD 42 date can't possibly be right but the date of death is probably roughly accurate though some would prefer 64 AD)

FWIW 76 AD is the date Linus the successor of Peter was supposedly replaced by Cletus/Anacletus.

Andrew Criddle

offa

I wonder why the date A.D. 42 cannot be right? Too many people are hung up on the War of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Jerusalem of the gospels was destroyed in A.D. 33 by Pilate. Get off this kick that the gospels were written after the War of the Jews.

Peter was actually Herodias' first husband and he was the father of Salome, however, his daughter had nothing to do with the beheading (removal of his cap) of John the Baptist.

Peter was also 'doubting Thomas' and when they are both present (Peter and Thomas) at the same time is because they are the same person ... twins.

Peter would have been damned near 85 years old when Nero became emperor, why the hell crucify this old goat?

offa

Wallener

Never underestimate the ability of local entrepreneurs to make silk out of a sow's ear. If you think Rome is trip with all its "historical" attractions, you should see the income-generating whackiness that has developed in the religo-tourist business in the Levant. Did you know someone has "discovered" the very rock Jesus used as a stepping stone to get on the donkey he rode into Jerusalem?

It's the Faith-based economy: no need to attribute to miracles that which can be adequately explained by greed.