Peter's Upside Down Crucifixion

[Subtilis]

lambslove:

I concur with you that this is not a place for Catholic and Protestant debate, and because of that, I will not commence a debate on church history.  However, I will point out that I made no reference to Catholicism in my previous post.  Andrew was an Apostle who had a distinctive mode of crucifixion, so if your assertion was that Peter just did it to stand out and be unique, then he did a poor job of it.

 

[Live4Jesus]

Here's some paintings, there's more than this I have seen more but you gotta search them out..
http://www.bestpriceart.com/painting/?image=flippi10.jpg&tc=cgfa painting1 Lippi app 1475
http://btr0xw.rz.uni-bayreuth.de/cjackson/flippi/p-flippi10.htm ""

http://www.abcgallery.com/M/michelangelo/michelangelo70.html painting3 Michelangelo. 1546-1550

Then I found this:
http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/avrilmai/stpeter.htm writing modern

Where can I learn more about the potential truth to the story of St. Peter being crucified upside down?
Answer:

Dr. Alexander Roman alex@unicorne.org

The death of St Peter the Apostle and also, of course, how he died, was already known to the Christian world at the time of the writing of the Gospel of John.

We know this from John 21:18-19 where the Risen Christ relates Peter's future martyrdom to him "This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God."

There are numerous testimonies concerning Peter's actual presence in Rome, and the most compelling is at the end of Peter's First Epistle, 5:13 "The church that is at Babylon . . ." This is a symbolic allusion to Rome, as is mentioned in other sources as well.

The death of Peter is already mentioned in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians in the fifth chapter and we know this Epistle was read in church as part of Scripture for many years.

Tertullian in his "De Praescriptione" in the 35th chapter states that Peter "emulated the Passion of the Lord." In the 15th chapter of his "Scorpiace" Tertullian says, recalling John's Gospel, Chapter 21, that "Peter was girded by another, as he was bound to the cross."

Again, these and other writings attest that Peter's death on a cross at Rome was well known throughout the Christian world.

It is in the New Testament deuterocanonical book of the Acts of Peter that we read of his being crucified upside down under the Neronian Persecutions.

Such books were read widely by the early Church, often even during liturgical services themselves. But they didn't make it into the official canon of the New Testament for one reason or another.

They are perfectly orthodox in and of themselves, such as the Gospel of Nicodemus, and the Church often used the information contained in them for its liturgical celebrations, such as the Feast of the Entry into the Temple of the Virgin Mary, an event in her life that we find only in the orthodox deuterocanonicals. So, in liturgical form, these books continue to be read in the Church.

There were also books written in this same style by Gnostics and others to promote their agendas that were condemned by the Church and they don't figure in this deuterocanonical collection.

Here is an on-line translation of the Acts of Peter:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspeter.html

 

[kern]

Just beacause something is only mentioned in a "catholic" source does not automatically mean it's false -- we don't have all that much secular history from that time period, and what we do have is not very interested in Christianity (often in the Roman writings of this time there are a few bare mentions of Christianity, usually in a very negative light. Writing down the details of a particular apostle's crucifixion would not have been of interest to many non-Christians of that day.)

-Chris

 

[Live4Jesus]

It appears to me that peter was crucified as part of Nero's anger against the christians for the fire of rome, 64 ad.

I found 2 pages here:
- Suetonius' Life of the Emperor Nero, chapter 16 (excerpt)

Note: Gaius Suetonius Tranquilla was a Roman historian under Hadrian (AD 76-138).
http://www.bible-history.com/nero/NEROTacitus_on_the_Emperor_Nero.htm
http://www.bible-history.com/nero/NEROThe_Scapegoats.htm

 

[Wolseley]

Peter's upside-down crucifixion is another one of those topics like whether or not Mary had more children after Jesus; it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference one way or the other, unless the goal is to discredit Catholic teaching.

 

[Live4Jesus]

I don't know.. I guess the question comes about because I was looking at the chruch during the first century, they were persecuted hard especially by Nero it seems... I run across generally 2 things on this issue, Peter not feeling he was worthy to be crucified as Christ, or so we are told... then also a predominant idea seeming to be that the inverted crucifix was to some an acceptable mockery of Christ's crucifixion... those 2 lines of thought seem most prevalent...

I think the question stemming also that Peter was crucified app 64ad... the chruch existed at rome at that point even though it was discredited and heavily persecuted there... but then we get the Revelations from john at patmos in app 94-96ad or so thats when he was a prisoner there an exile... but Rome isn't mentioned in Revelations as one of the seven churches so i am just trying to piece together whatever i can I guess... figuring there is a reason for everything, including the form of peters crucifixion...

i know Wolsey Catholics would be offended thats why i didn't post it there or even in apologetics I am for sure looking for the reformed/non-denominational viewpoint instead...

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by lambslove
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?

First, even if you take Peter out of the equation, the other Apostles did not all die the same way.

Also, I don't think it is a matter of importance of how Peter died, any more than I think it is a matter of insignificance of how the other Apostles died.

 

[Live4Jesus]

I don't know either.

corinth isn't mentioned in Revelations either yet we have 2 books, romans, corinthians, more even... then in Revelations we see Jesus only holding seven stars, seven golden candelsticks..

Just looking for a reason in every corner maybe...

 

[dignitized]

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

 

Then you are mistaken. Satanism uses an inverted Crucifix not an inverted Cross. The Crucifix (Cross with the corpus or body of Christ attached) is a Christian symbol of redemption. By inverting the Crucifix, the Satanists proclaim their denial of Gods redemptive plan.

 

[Wolseley]

According to Eusebius, quoting Origen, Peter asked to crucified upside-down and the request was granted, although the source I looked at didn't have specific reference numbers (grrr!!!!) that I could cross-check, and I'm too lazy to read through the entire corpus of both Eusebius and Origen to try to locate the specific passage. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[Blindfaith]

Remember when Peter denied the Lord 3 times?  He felt unworthy?  The Lord kept asking Peter, "do you really love me Peter"?

Our pastor (non-denom church) spoke of Peter and his death during one of his sermons.  I don't remember where he obtained his information, but he is very well informed, versed and an amazing teacher.  Anyway, he brought up the points above and said that it may very well be possible that Peter chose this type of death to make a point that he wasn't worthy of Jesus.  I don't necessarily believe that this type of death was for the people of that time, but for the people throughout the ages, after we've read about his life, history, and relationship with Jesus.  For him to choose an upside down crucifixion because he was telling us he wasn't worthy of Jesus, and that he messed up more than a couple of times.  Like we all do.


This is purely speculation, based upon what I've heard at chuch, and some thought.  It in no way means this is correct, but just trying to make conversation

In the scheme of things, it just doesn't really matter, and when we get to heaven, all knowledge will be given to us.   Can you imagine?

 

[Live4Jesus]

I do always tell my daughter that, like when she asks about dinosaurs and the universe... some things you do have to wait till Jesus tells you face to face...

Was just wondering if anyone had run across anything guess not... so many wars so much destuction not much history left overtime... .


Terribly strange and brutal though Nero's time... I did learn a bit there... Nero's circus etc.

 

[Blindfaith]

Nero was absolutely insane. That man was evil, evil, evil.

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by blindfaith
Nero was absolutely insane. That man was evil, evil, evil.

That's an understatement.

Ever hear the term, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned?"

When he was through singing, Nero blamed the fire on the Christians and began the first Roman persecution. Others, pointing to Nero's desire to rebuild Rome on a grand scale, note that the fire was a very convenient way for him to carry out his plans and suggest that he may have caused the fire himself.


Insane? You be the judge.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

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.

You never cease to amaze me.

 

[dignitized]

what we're forgetting here is that there is no evidence that Peter was not Crucified as claimed by "tradition"

 

[kern]

Right...I can at least understand the opposition to Mary's ever-virginity because a surface reading of the Bible does suggest that she had other children.

However, on this point the only purpose in opposing it seems to be to connect Satanism with Catholicism (through the Pope's use of the upside-down cross). Otherwise why even bother? Is it so impossible to believe that Peter was crucified upside-down? Nothing in the Bible says how Peter died one way or the other.

-Chris

 

[dignitized]

kern: but the upside down cross is a confession of St Peter's death. An upside down CRUCIFIX - the corpus or body of Christ attached - is a denial of the Sacrifice of Christ and a satanic symbol. *sigh* I guess that’s what happens when you try to take Christs out of the sacrifice of the Cross and leave the cross empty. They say that an empty cross is a symbol of the resurrection, I say that an EMPTY TOMB is a symbol of the resurrection. an empty cross is a sing of Roman oppression.

 

[kern]

Well, logic and facts don't usually mean much to the anti-Catholics who spout this kind of stuff.

-Chris

 

[MizDoulos]

Not:&nbsp&nbspBe objective and keep on topic. Don't let this thread deteriorate into flaming and bickering or it will be closed.

[notroll][/notroll]