Peter's Upside Down Crucifixion

[Live4Jesus]

Generally when we see an upside down cross we connect it to satanism, the worship and works of the devil.

But Peter the apostle was crucified upside down.... He requested that of the Roman authorities, it was his request, his idea.

Do you think Jesus was at his side, do you think the Lord inspired him to do this and for what reason?

Or do you think he got the idea on his own?

Either way what do you think he meant to signify with this final act?

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

that he was unworthy to die like our Lord. That he didn't want anyone ever seeing a cross (normal, right side up) and associating it with him. Also, I've never seen an upside down cross associated with satanism (though I don't know much about it, thank GOD!) but if it is, they picked it up long after Peter was crucified, so I don't think he had any "double secret satanic" message.

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by Live4Jesus
Generally when we see an upside down cross we connect it to satanism, the worship and works of the devil.

But Peter the apostle was crucified upside down.... He requested that of the Roman authorities, it was his request, his idea.

Do you think Jesus was at his side, do you think the Lord inspired him to do this and for what reason?

Or do you think he got the idea on his own?

Either way what do you think he meant to signify with this final act?

It's folklore, but no reliable historical records show it to be true that he was crucified upsidedown. In fact, it would be quite difficult to crucify someone upsidedown. The way cruficixion works is it slowly suffocates the person by making it painful and difficult to take a breath. It's done the way it is to make it horrible and tortuous.

If a person were crucified upsidedown, their life would be over very quickly and relatively painlessly, since gravity would work to disjoint all their joints, their blood would rush to their heads and cause them to pass out, and their lungs would not be in a position to inflate enough to keep the person alive. I know one doctor who told me Peter's life would have ended within half an hour, as opposed to the 8 to 48 hours that it took to crucify someone right side up.

Knowing this, it seems unlikely that the grusome and cruel Romans would have allowed anyone to be crucified upsidedown, and it would have required them to redesign the cross to make it possible to be upsidedown.

However, if Peter did ask to be crucified upsidedown, it seems more likely that it was to shorten his time of suffering that anything else. If you know you had to die, you'd chose the quicker less painful way, yes?

 

[Andrew]

Precisely becos Peter did not want the focus to be on him (like this thread *L) that's why he did it upside down.

 

[dmfew6599]

I think Peter knew he was not worthy to die like our precious Lord so he did it upside down. I think he was making a statement to all the people who thought Jesus was just some nobody.

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by Andrew
Precisely becos Peter did not want the focus to be on him (like this thread *L) that's why he did it upside down.

But by being different, he drew attention to himself, and made himself stick out as a topic of discussion for 2000 years.

If he would have been crucified the way all the other condemned men in the Roman empire were, no one would even have anything to talk about today.

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Originally posted by lambslove
But by being different, he drew attention to himself, and made himself stick out as a topic of discussion for 2000 years.

If he would have been crucified the way all the other condemned men in the Roman empire were, no one would even have anything to talk about today.

 

wrong.

How many other people that were crucified do you know the names of?  He wouldn't have been "just another crucified Joe."

No one would have anything to talk about?  Yeah, sure, just one of the inner circles of disciples, author of the NT, all that little stuff.  I'm sure if he would have been crucified right side up we would have forgotten him by now!

 

[Live4Jesus]

Originally posted by lambslove
But by being different, he drew attention to himself, and made himself stick out as a topic of discussion for 2000 years.

If he would have been crucified the way all the other condemned men in the Roman empire were, no one would even have anything to talk about today.

Lambslove you say above it's folklore... I'm not sure it's just folklore there is more proof that it is not... writings about it... paintings about it...

I've run into it reading early christian writings (should look 'em up) and even in art.

 

[ZiSunka]

About his crucifixion 50. I was talking about his crucifixion.

You're getting hostile over nothing.

 

[ZiSunka]

I've run into it reading early christian writings (should look 'em up) and even in art.

Art is hardly a good historical record.

And outside of the writings of the Catholic church, where are these early Christian writings of which you speak?

Why is it so important for Peter to have a different death than the other apostles and disciples?

Why is his manner of death so much more important than the other ones?

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

how do you know? certain groups inside Christianity are already blasted for raising peter above what they think is proper, had he been crucified normally, instead of this discussion, we could be having one on how he thought he was equal to Jesus.

 

[Subtilis]

In response to the suggestion that Peter was the only other person whose crucifixion is described by tradition, I submit the following:

It was customary to show Andrew crucified on a cross formed by two diagonals. According to the The Golden Legend, Aegeas, the proconsul of Patras, had Andrew held on the cross by ropes rather than nails, to prolong his suffering. But Andrew took advantage of his slow death to preach from the cross for two days, till the people threatened violence unless he were taken down. By this time Andrew had preached enough and, to die quickly, prayed that his limbs would be paralysed so that he could not be cut down. As a great light shines, he dies.

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/c/caravagg/09/54andrew.html

 

[ZiSunka]

Yes, this is much better.

 

[ZiSunka]

It was customary to show Andrew crucified on a cross formed by two diagonals. According to the The Golden Legend, Aegeas, the proconsul of Patras, had Andrew held on the cross by ropes rather than nails, to prolong his suffering. But Andrew took advantage of his slow death to preach from the cross for two days, till the people threatened violence unless he were taken down. By this time Andrew had preached enough and, to die quickly, prayed that his limbs would be paralysed so that he could not be cut down. As a great light shines, he dies.

Sheesh.

This should be moved to the Catholic discussion area, since it is now full of Catholic folklore and tradition.

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Originally posted by lambslove

And outside of the writings of the Catholic church, where are these early Christian writings of which you speak? 

 

Oh good grief, you aren't serious are you?  The early church = the Catholic church.  At this time there is only the one source.  If you discredit all the "Catholic" church sources from this period then we have absolutely NONE.

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Originally posted by lambslove
Sheesh.

This should be moved to the Catholic discussion area, since it is now full of Catholic folklore and tradition.

it's called history.  Can we not discuss anything in church history till Luther shows up to give a protestant account?

 

[ZiSunka]

Everything in these areas ends up in a fight.

There is history outside the Catholic church before Luther shows up, too. Secular history, world history. It seems we can't discuss that either. Only Catholic history is correct, I suppose.

World history doesn't always corraborate Catholicism's version of things. It would be nice to be able to acknowledge that without a fight sometimes.

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
 

Oh good grief, you aren't serious are you?  The early church = the Catholic church.  At this time there is only the one source.  If you discredit all the "Catholic" church sources from this period then we have absolutely NONE.

Not all Christians were catholics even back then. There were Christians in places that never were part of the Roman Empire and Christians who never acknowledged Catholicism or accepted its authority.

You've been brainwashed to think that Catholicism is all there was, but it's a lie.

What about the Christians outside of Europe? Are you trying to say every Christian banded together to form one big happy denomination? Do fool yourself. There was as much dissent from the Catholic church back then as there is now. Read some non-Catholic history once in while.

And since every discussion has to end up in a catholic/protestant fight around here, I quit. I'm just not coming back to be part of any of these discussion. Too one sided.

 

[Live4Jesus]

I didn't put in the catholic area because I'm not really interested in the Catholic only view of it... Peter didn't die just for the catholics, he died for Jesus Christ, he died for truth. He died for sinners of yesterday and tomorrow even, in Egypt, in Jerusalem, in Rome, in Africa and Australia... and America.

Besides which I don't feel like fighting so I put it here. I didn't come here to fight, only though some would accuse others as being hostile just for asking a question... whatever is meant by that I don't even know...

 

[Live4Jesus]

Originally posted by lambslove
Everything in these areas ends up in a fight.

There is history outside the Catholic church before Luther shows up, too. Secular history, world history. It seems we can't discuss that either. Only Catholic history is correct, I suppose.

World history doesn't always corraborate Catholicism's version of things. It would be nice to be able to acknowledge that without a fight sometimes.

I don't see anyone fighting but you could you cut it out? They are not corraborating with Catholism I don't see that, where? just having a discussion here.

I think Peter meant to signify something by that... I really should look some solid stuff up first to help confirm it I guess, that it happened...be back soon, i know it's out there...