aa5874

[QUOTE=Ben C Smith;5234516][
You appear to be confused, you responded to the wrong thread. This thread is titled "Did St.Peter ever make it to Rome?"

You obviously could not find any claim that I made concerning Peter NEVER being in Rome in this thread so you had to divert to another thread which also had no specific claim that Peter was NEVER in Rome.

And by the way, there is a big difference between never in Rome and not in Rome at a specified time.

Solo

I do not think the Greek experts here would object to the view that martus etymologically derives from "witnessing", "giving (good) report", "attesting".

I happen to believe that martus was originally a cultic designation of someone who had the "experience" of Jesus and proclaimed it publicly.

The idea of 'martyr' as someone sacrificing one's life for a religious idea, and specifically 'Christ' seems to have come later, with the establishment of the Church. It would be interesting to find out whether the idea of "martyr" as someone who submits to an execution voluntarily to prove a point had any (literary) currency before the 2nd century.

Possible ? Definitely ! But how probable is it ? I disagree with Andrew that the 2nd century beliefs that Peter was in Rome can be considered "evidence" especially since Paul's Romans, the Acts, Clement and Justin Martyr seem to know nothing of Peter's career in Rome. The point to take home is that pseudo-historical events are quickly and easily created. In this case what seems at stake is the origin of the authority of the Church (and the primacy of Rome among the major Christian centres). It is interesting to observe on an example of recent history how the process of replacing the "missing foundation" works.

It is a well-known fact that Lenin wrote to the party shortly before his death, badmouthing Stalin (because of his nastiness to Lenin's wife Krupskaya) and recommending his removal as the head of the Secretariat.
When Stalin made his move for power, he suppressed this letter and "liquidated" nearly everyone who had knowledge of it. Yet this was not enough to establish Stalin's credentials as Lenin's heir and the "protector" of the Bolshevik Revolution. The problem was that in 1917, Stalin was a relatively insignificant number in the hierarchy, and during the November putch was not even in Petrograd.
But if you have the power to write history these kinds of insufficiencies do not pose any "real" problem. From the 1930's until Khrushchev, the offical Soviet History of the Communist Party had Stalin in Petrograd during the Revolution, planning the assault on the Winter Palace and on the rostrum of the All-Soviets congress proclaiming Soviet Power and its first decrees. Within a generation, this fiction became a staple of history books, paintings and movies.

Who in the Soviet Union until 1956 would ever want to doubt that the "Istoria" was depicting real historical events ?

Jiri

Jeffrey Gibson

See post 5232028

Can you provide any evidence for this belief?

Jeffrey

JoeWallack

JW:
The two earliest Christian sources and the basis for most subsequent early Christian sources, Paul and "Mark", imply that Cephas/Peter was based in Jerusalem/Galilee, had no reason to go to Rome and would not want to go to Rome. For those Asserting that Cephas/Peter ended up in Rome, for starters you need a Believable reason while accepting Paul and "Mark". Once you Ignore the best potential Christian evidence on the subject and only rely on later references you accept that the integrity of your source in general, Christianity, has been impeached. The difference in names here between Paul and "Mark" is reason alone to place little weight on Christian Assertians.

I'm demonstrating repeatedly in:

Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected

That Christian Assertians were Motivated primarily by a desire to support Christian Assertians and not to scientifically determine likely history. Thus the testimony of the Church as an institution is not reliable.

Further, the apparent mid-second century Christian Assertian that Peter ended up in Rome looks like a Reaction to he who shall be named, Marcion. Marcion is in Rome at the time claiming Paul as his authority. Roman orthodox Christianity is than forced to go Back to the Future and outdo Marcion by placing Peter as its source, before Paul.

The combination of the following factors make it Unlikely that Peter ended up in Rome:

1) Paul and "Mark" indicate it unlikely.

2) Subsequent Christian Assertian for it is unreliable.

3) The subsequent Assertian looks like a Reaction to Marcion.



Joseph

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

Doug Shaver

I skimmed the article you linked to and failed to notice the evidence establishing any significant probability. Perhaps it requires reading with closer attention. I'll read through it more carefully when I get a large block of free time.

Doug Shaver

You have claimed several times that he never existed. What's the difference? Are you saying that you think it possible that a man who never existed could have gone to Rome?

Minimalist

That's a mighty big "if" in that sentence. What if we consider the early christian writers to be a bunch of con men? What does that do your theory?

aa5874

There appears to be some confusion about "Peter" or "Cephas", Eusebius in "Church History" has claimed that there was a "Cephas" who was called "Peter" but was not "Peter", one of the original 12 disciples.

Church History 1.12 But when I checked my KJV at Galations 2.11, the passage has Peter not Cephas. And when I checked KJV John 1.42, Simon Peter one of the 12, is now called Cephas So who was in Rome and whose body is the possesion of the Church, Cephas called Peter, Peter called Cephas, Cephas in Galations 2.11, Peter in Galations 2.11or Peter called Cephas in John 1.42?

Solo

How about Jn 1:6-8 ? How about πεπελεκισμενων δια την μαρτυριαν ιησου ? ("beheaded for the witness of Jesus", Rev 20.4)

Jiri

andrewcriddle

1 Peter 5:13 says ie it claims to be written by Peter from 'Babylon'. On the whole Babylon is probably here a code for Rome (See the Revelation of John) rather than the place in Mesopotamia.

Andrew Criddle