I guess the column is too subtle for me. So WHY did Peter come to be in Rome ??
Obviously, Peter was in Rome fulfilling his apostolic duties as the chief
Apostle. More specifically, he was trying to correct the false doctrine that was
present in the Rome branch of the Church, which doctrine eventually led to
apostasy. Most of Paul's epistles in the New Testament were written for the
The New Testament makes no mention of Peter ever going to Rome. That’s
found in early Church traditions and references in writings. Catholicism
identifies Peter as the Bishop of Rome and the first Pope although the Papacy
didn’t even exist in Peter’s lifetime. It’s not clear to me
whether Peter had any leadership authority at all. But in Acts, he does figure
more prominently than any other of the twelve.
Yes, religion is a powerful motivator and can be the catalyst for people to do
extraordinary things they would not otherwise do – we should find this at
least as troubling as it uplifting.If that is not clear, ask
yourself what would motivate Christians to torture and burn their fellow
countrymen for 500 years or 19 pious Muslims to fly planes into buildings.
McMurphy,I think Dr. Peterson is alluding to Simon-Peter's call
to the ministry by Christ and subsequent conversion. Peter could have just as
easily lived his life as a fisherman, dying quietly in bed, and been forgotten
to history a few generations later. Instead, he answered the call to become a
fisher of men, died a martyr for the testimony of Christ, and will be remembered
through all generations.Editors at DesNews typically write the
headlines, not the authors. Sometimes headlines end up a little disconnected
from the article.As to the headline's question, there is a
wonderful story of Simon-Peter coming to Rome to set the Church in order.
According to the legend, Simon Magus (the guy from Acts 8) had come to Rome
claiming to be an apostle and was leading the Romans astray. Magus claimed
supernatural powers and appeared to fly. The people, amazed at Magus'
"powers," began to doubt. Peter, calling upon the powers of heaven,
commanded Magus to fall, and fall he did. He died shortly thereafter. Magus
was a favorite of Nero, who then sought an opportunity to kill Peter. The fire
provided the pretext.
The Apostle Peter never stepped foot in Rome. Not even once. Rome was the
mission field of the Apostle Paul.
Michigander,Although the New Testament makes no mention of Peter
going to Rome, the early traditions of him being there are very strong ones.
They include mention by Clement, Tertullian, and Eusebius. I find it likely that
Peter did go to Rome and suffered martyrdom there. Why he came there in the
first place is matter for speculation. I find it more likely he was there as an
emissary than as leader of the Rome Christian community as Catholic tradition
holds. But if he was there for any appreciable length of time, who can say?
Tyler D posted:=Yes, religion is a powerful motivator and can be the
catalyst for people to do=extraordinary things they would not otherwise do
– we should find this at least=as troubling as it uplifting.==If that is not clear, ask yourself what would motivate Christians to
torture=and burn their fellow countrymen for 500 years or 19 pious Muslims
to fly=planes into buildings.I think the key is to be sure
what God is telling you to do, before you do it in the name of religion. I find
it very hard to believe that God would actually tell anyone "to torture and
burn their fellow countrymen for 500 years" or "to fly planes into
buildings" where thousands of innocent people would be killed.
Craig Clark,The Apostle Peter died in old age from natural causes
per John 21:18-19. The martyrdom in Rome stories are cunningly devised fables.
"I think the key is to be sure what God is telling you to do..."That's the problem...religious believers are sure they are doing
what God is telling them to do based upon subjective, supernatural
authentication. The bigger problem is when one religion claims a
corner on the market in terms of being "sure what God is telling you to
@kvnsmnsn – “I find it very hard to believe that God would actually
tell anyone "to torture and burn their fellow countrymen for 500
years"”If you read the histories of European middle ages
it becomes quite clear that otherwise good Christians were utterly convinced
they were doing God’s will in burning heretics, pagans,
“witches,” and other non-conformists. We only judge
these actions wrong in retrospect, which raises the question “if God
cannot do a better job of communicating his will in real time, is it rational to
question the entire theistic believe system?” I think so…Again, so we have the proper perspective and scope, we’re talking 500
years of burning heretics! This is not one isolated outbreak of passionate
violence but year after year, decade after decade, generation after generation
of systemic violence perpetrated by “followers of Christ.” And it actually makes sense if you believe the worldview of the OT
(e.g., Exodus 22:18). But this is not atypical of institutional
religion – read the Grand Inquisitor chapter in Brothers Karamazov.All of this should give us great pause when submitting our will to
“men of God.”
1. a careful reading and addition of the deaths ordered by God/Moses in the
torah-pentateuch shows that moses, author of 5th (6th or 7th depending on the
choice of texts) commandment isrealites to kill 600K MEN/WOMEN/CHILDREN (and
oft times all the stock animals.) 600,000 may be an exaggeration by moses
"himself", but the sum remains at 600,000 human lives killed2. samuel the prophet was commanded by the Lord to annoint saul, king of
israel. the Lord remembered what the Amalek kingdom did to Israel, so the Lord
via samuel told saul to "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox
and sheep, camel and (DN banned word)." (I Sam 15)saul decided
to spare some. saul's throne was removed; the Lord said "to obey is
better than sacrifice" and the Lord "repented that He had made Saul king
over Israel"sometimes it is hard to read the Bible when it tells
us what we don't want to believe abt it, but the numbers and words are
== MICHIGANDERWestland, MIinteresting interpretation of john
21:18-19, but it isn't my interpretation, and it doesNOT tell peter
where,when,why,how or by whose hand/command he will die.18 Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and
walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch
forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou
wouldest not.19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify
God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.(New
Testament | John 21:18 - 19)peter, when you were young you directed
your own life and you were capable, but when you get old and feeble you will
need someone else to help you along, and sometimes to places you would not want
to go. follow Me
Michigander,Actually, that scripture is usually cited to mean that
Peter would be crucified and thus glorify God (being faithful even in death).How would death from old age/natural causes glorify God?
@ SEMI-STRONGLouisville, KYMichigander,the john
scriptural passage may "actually usually be cited to mean ... " ...
whatever ... usually ...which of course is a
"intrepretation" of something that isn't implied: young vs old , no
crucifiction (inverted or not,) in rome or not, etc. that is a lot of reading
ini can't see that translation as anyway near the correct
meaningpeter had to remain faithful and diligent in his calling as
apostle, of testifying of Christ's divinity to glorify God; one glorifies
God by living a true and faithful life of righteousness and love - the same as
all christian followers glorifying God. i can't see evidence that a
martyr's death is more glorious than a lay follower of ancient age dieing
bearing testimony of Christ. will God love one more than the other ?
Crimendelsiglo,(and hopefully you have not committed that)Not sure what you mean by translation. I checked several translations. All
seem to indicate the same. That when Peter gets older he will be girded by
others, his hands outstretched, and taken where he does not wish to go and that
in doing so he would follow Christ’s manner of death.If Christ
meant a simple death from complications due to old age, the phrasing does not
seem to fit. Agreed that a faithful life is a wonderful thing. But through
long ages we have associated those that die defending their testimony to have
glorified God in so doing. It is hardly original to me. Hence it was said of
Joseph and Hyrum “He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and
his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has
sealed his mission and his works with his own blood; and so has his brother
Hyrum.”Love has nothing to do with any of this. It is a
separate issue entirely.
I have never read any evidence that Peter ever was in Rome. Anything said about
Peter ever being in Rome may or may not be true. There is nothing in the Bible
that says Peter visited Rome. At the time Peter was on earth, the Christian
Church was based in Jerusalem where all of the Apostles lived.
"translation" should read "interpretation".if ye
love me keep my commandments. love and the other virtues have everything to do
with being a follower of Christgranted "we have associated those
that die defending their testimony" as glorifying God, but (many times more)
X (many times more) X (many times more) (seventy times seven) glorify God by
living lives of virtue, honesty, faithfulness etc etc etc than have been
martyreddieing at the hands of criminals is being the victim, not by
choice, not the sacrificial lamb. God is not glorified by the death of people.
one's death does not impress Godor possibly so in the case of
allah and insane extremistsor the koolade clanor lemmingsnahhhh, i don't think so
RE: Semi-Strong “he would follow Christ’s manner of death”.
True,“…‘stretch out your hands’, and others
will tie you up and bring you where you do not want to go.” Now Jesus
said this to indicate clearly by what kind of death Peter was going to Glorify
God. After he said this, Jesus told Peter, “Follow me.” John
21:18,19). The kind of death, the hands of the person crucified are
‘stretched out’ and nailed to the cross.”(Peter)Jesus Christ has shown me that I must soon leave this earthly life,( 2
Peter 1:14 NLT)Hegesippus said that Nero (in Rome) sought to put
Peter to death. Jerome said that he was crucified, his head being down and his
feet upward, himself so requiring, because he was (he said) unworthy to be
crucified after the same form and manner as the Lord was.(Peter)
for‘flesh and blood hath not revealed it’ unto thee, but my Father
which is in heaven. (Mt 16:17). Or,God[is]Spirit (John 4:24 Greek N.T.)
Why do some people go to such lengths and try so hard to be willfully blind?Why do they reject any data that does not fit their already existing
paradigm?Why do they assume their own knowledge to be so superior
that no new thoughts are allowed to enter?Why do people think if
they personally haven't read about it, it must not have happened?
@crimendelsigloL It's easy for some people to cherry pick the parts of the
gospel that appeal to them the most. For you, it is love and other virtues while
choosing to ignore the bigger picture. For others, it is something else. But
remember that God's thoughts are not our thoughts. For you to impose your
beliefs on God is just as incorrect as an Islamic martyr imposing his beliefs on
God.Hopefully someday people will get over themselves and start
trying to hear all of what is revealed rather than just the selected items that
make it through their personal filters.If death is the greatest
tragedy, the God has played a huge joke on all of us since all of us will die.
But if you would open your eyes to a more expansive perspective, you
wouldn't make such a big deal out of death. To you, God would never ask
someone to die but that it an artifact of your much more limited vision of what
life is all about. It is more than just continuing to live.
Ken Sisler,"....There is nothing in the Bible that says Peter
visited Rome. At the time Peter was on earth, the Christian Church was based in
Jerusalem where all of the Apostles lived."______________________________That’s certainly true. But in
Paul’s epistle to the Galatians we read of his confrontation with Peter in
Antioch which is in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). So Peter did travel outside
of Judea. While some the literature of the early church is fanciful and of
dubious historicity, the reports that he went to Rome are not at all improbable.
The witnesses to that are credible ones.
It's fascinating to read these posts speculating about who was where when,
what may or may not have happened, there's "no evidence" of this or
that, etc. Interesting mental gymnastics for certain, but what difference does
it make? IMO, in matters of religion it all comes down to one's personal
relationship with God and if/how one serves his/her fellow human beings.
Everything else is just so much "dust in the wind."
Crimendelsiglo,You state that "dieing (sic) at the hands of
criminals is being the victim, not by choice, not the sacrificial lamb."Was not Christ the sacrificial lamb? Did he not die at the hands of
those who if not criminals certainly committed criminal acts in the disposition
of their public offices? While it cannot be said that Christ had no choice in
the matter, he otherwise fits your description. Did his death not glorify
God?I am not saying that one should seek a martyr's death nor
that that there is no honor in a long life lived doing the Lord's work
followed by a peaceful death. But a martyr's death has long been looked at
as one that gives glory to God.
"... his very bones have been identified."Must have been
before the summer of 1829. By then, he was a resurrected being.
@Semi-Strong – “But a martyr's death has long been looked at as
one that gives glory to God.”I cannot begin to express how
repellant I find this view and if for no other reason than this, could never
accept Christian (let alone Islam) theology.Now if we’re
talking about choosing to die rather than be enslaved, oppressed or even because
one refuses to conform in some way that would be deeply and personally
offensive, than that’s a different matter (i.e., one of integrity vs. an
afterlife theology or metaphysics).Speaking of which, has anyone
heard the story of Hypatia of Alexandria? She died a principled
martyr’s death but I doubt you’ll be happy to know who the
perpetrators of her death were.
Tyler D,Isn't the concept of martyrdom always one in which the
principle mattered to the person more than life? That Peter, Christ, or any one
of a host of others could have relinquished their faith (and lived) but choose
not to.It is not simply about an afterlife, it is about living a
principled life here. If that means that the powers that be will not accept it
and will take your life for it then that is the price some are willing to pay.
Even if one does not believe in God, surely it puts into high relief that
person's belief in the rightness of their faith or those principles, true?
Even in the field of science are not those who suffered for their principles
highly regarded? Why is the suffering or death of a religious person less a
suffering for principle/integrity?From my brief review, the story of
Hypatia seems much more political than simply someone killed for her
@Semi-Strong – “Why is the suffering or death of a religious person
less a suffering for principle/integrity?”Certainly
there’s some overlap here but the key difference for me (admittedly, as a
non-believer) is between objective principles based in the here & now
– which could be the case for a religious person if they we’re
martyred because they refused to stop helping the poor or loving their neighbor
– and imaginary (again, for me) principles about theology, metaphysics,
deities and an afterlife.The latter is in my view extremely
dangerous – if a person can be convinced to die over such subjective
beliefs, they can no doubt be convinced to kill for the same reason (as history
makes abundantly clear).Hypatia is interesting – the biography
I read on her suggests that her friendship with the Prefect was incidental and
largely a pretext for her murder. What really sealed her fate - besides being a
strong, brilliant woman… something not well tolerated at that time –
was her publically refusing to accept the Christian faith (something she was
cornered into).After that the Christians were just looking for an
Clifton Palmer McLendon,The Apostles Peter and James (who was
beheaded) are resting in the paradise of God. They have not resurrected yet and
will not return to the earth until the 1st resurrection (Christ's 1000 year
reign upon the earth with all His saints from all ages past and present).
Tyler D,Semi-Strong here.I am not sure how helping the
poor or loving ones neighbor qualify as objective principles. Good yes. But
subjectively good in my view.Aren’t nearly all principles
simply part of a belief system – a system not open to purely scientific
examination as to rightness or wrongness?If one were to die
defending art or poetry, aren’t the definitions of beauty being defended
only within the realm of imagination and opinion?Aren’t the
politics behind many wars really just matters of subjective beliefs (including
those we ourselves see as just)?I can hardly think of a situation
where someone dies in defense of a dry fact provable by science. I suppose
there are some. Just none that come to mind.
It seems these articles tend to bring out the non-believers in mass.
Peter and The Cross or Petrine Cross is an inverted cross traditionally used as
a Christian symbol, but in recent times also used as an anti-Christian symbol.
Peter was crucified upside down Per,Origen RE: Twin Lights. In
John 21:18, Christ told Peter how he would die at the hand of others. Then
Peter asked the Lord what would happen to the apostle John,(Jesus) “If I
will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”A mild
rebuke was misunderstood by JS as a promise that John would never die.
I.e…,The introduction to D&C 7: 1–3, John the Beloved will live
until the Lord comes. John is still alive somewhere on the earth.A
Modern translation, “So the rumor spread among the community of believers
that this disciple wouldn’t die. But that isn’t what Jesus said at
all. He only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is
that to you?”(John 21:23 NLT).Biblical scholars outside of the
LDS Church tend to believe that John, though not dying as a martyr, probably
lived out his days in Ephesus.
The Gospel of Mark was written to the saints in Rome, and stresses on nearly
every page emphasis to be clean, and Mark was a close companion to Peter, both
of whom had strong ties to the city.
@ joe5After reading all these comments and arguments, YOU, and only
YOU summed it up so very well . . . !
This is kind of simple. Peter never was in Rome. On it's best day
it's a fictional account of anything that might have happened 2000 years
ago. Believing everything you read can send you down some very strange roads.
If St. Peter's bones are still under the Vatican, how did a physically
resurrected St. Peter lay hands on Joseph Smith in 1830 to restore the
Clifton Palmer McClendon and Ron Hilton take a restrictive view of what
constitutes resurrection, suggesting that all the same molecules that composed
Peter's body at the time of his death must necessarily be rounded up and
reconstituted in order for Peter to be resurrected. That view is
unwarranted, and quite problematic: If a man dies and his body rots, some of
the materials from his body find their way into soil, worms, and plants. Those
plants may find their way into animals or people, directly or indirectly. Thus,
my body almost certainly contains some atoms and molecules that used to be part
of someone else's body. I don't see how we can share those atoms once
we are resurrected. It seems, then, that being resurrected consists of having
some matter--no matter what matter--formed into a new body that is similar to
the one lived in while in mortal life. It does not require that we take up the
very same dust we left behind. Thus, there's no problem with Peter being
resurrected while his bones lie in the ground.