Imnotspecial

A friend asked me the following question. I don't really have a reliable answer to it.

Any info would be appreciated. Thanks

"Just a few more thoughts . The Catholic Church seems to be centered in Rome yet Jesus lived in Isreal. What happened to get Peter down to Rome and die there in 64 AD. The timing is a little suspicious too . Peter was a very old man when they killed him ?"

As far as I know, any story about Peter is probably quite questionable.

Toto

The Legend of Saint Peter (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Arthur Drews; Frank R. Zindler is a slim volume containing all that is known on the subject.

show_no_mercy

The proto-Catholic church probably wanted Peter (and Paul) to be in Rome because that's where they were centered; they more than likely "stole" him from some other - "heretical" - Christian sect.

Toto

The usual interpretation is that Peter was built up as the orthodox counter to the heretical Paul. (Paul was then domesticated to be equally orthodox.)

Paul does write about a Cephas, who might be the same as Peter, and speaks somewhat disparagingly of him. The gospel of Mark portrays Peter as stubborn but weak, and as a betrayer. But connecting any of this to a historical person is highly speculative.

aa5874

There is really no doubt that the Church writers claimed Paul met Peter. There is no claim from the Church that Paul was heretical or was heretical after his conversion as written in Acts of the Apostles. In fact, the Church has presented a chronology of Saul/Paul from his conversion to his trial in Rome and nowhere did Saul/Paul preach any heresy or counter orthodoxy.

But, as with virtually every character in the NT associated with Jesus, there is no external corroborative source that can link Peter and Paul at Rome or anywhere.

"Paul" becomes a witness to himself, he substantiates himself, even though he is unknown to the outside world.

Paul claimed he met Cephas, so some may think that it must be true. But Paul claimed Jesus resurrected and ascended and that is known to be false.

There is really no external source to confirm the existence of Paul in the 1st century or that he could have met Peter anywhere. Peter is not known to have existed at all outside of the Church.

mountainman

The earliest information concerning the deaths of Peter and Paul
in Rome are sourced from the flip side of the new testament canon

If the Canon came out as a 45, the non canonical was the flip-side.
It was forbidden to listen to the flip-side of the canon.
The official broadcasting stations only played the canon.
The flip-side was illegal, banned and forbidden.
If you were caught in possession of the flip-side
the official medicine was immediate death by beheading.

The original Christians were very serious about their NT Canon.

Imnotspecial

So do you know what is in that flip side? Thanks.