Which book and verses

[Internet Ministry]

desciribe where Peter requested to be crucified upside down?

 

[Unix]

I did a search in my harddrive, Logos.com library, and can conclude that it's a Tradition that comes with the appendix to the Gospel of Jn (note: 20th century scholarship holds that it's not authentic, the passage has however been authorative throughout history):
Jn 21:18f
"There is an ancient tradition concerning the martyrdom in Jn 21:18."
Source: Vol. 6: Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (p. 111). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

desciribe where Peter requested to be crucified upside down?

 

[Zoe of Elyon]

The Bible doesn't talk about the deaths of any of the 12 Apostles, I suppose partly because many of the books of the New Testament were written before their deaths. However, many church fathers, including Clement of Rome who lived during Peter's lifetime, wrote about Peter's death. Origen is the one who described the upside-down crucifixion.

 

[ebia]

The Bible doesn't talk about the deaths of any of the 12 Apostles, I suppose partly because many of the books of the New Testament were written before their deaths. However, many church fathers, including Clement of Rome who lived during Peter's lifetime, wrote about Peter's death. Origen is the one who described the upside-down crucifixion.

Acts does briefly describe the death of James the brother of John.

Many NT books will have been written after the death of Peter. But that's not where their focus lies.

 

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

ebia,

Acts does briefly describe the death of James the brother of John.

Many NT books will have been written after the death of Peter. But that's not where their focus lies.

I'm not sure why you started this topic and you may learn a letter of Laodicea is not in some bibles, it does not prove it was never written by an apostle as you may learn from the scripture below.

Colossians 4

16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

New International Version (NIV)

 

[ebia]

ebia,

I'm not sure why you started this topic and you may learn a letter of Laodicea is not in some bibles, it does not prove it was never written by an apostle as you may learn from the scripture below.

Colossians 4

16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

New International Version (NIV)

Eh?

I didn't start this thread. I just commented on something someone else said.

The letter mentioned in Colossians may well be the letter we call Ephesians, which shows all the signs of being a circular unlike any other Pauline epistle and is missing a "in Ephesus" in many of the early manuscripts. If not then it no longer exists and hasn't existed for a very long time, though many forgeries of it have been produced inspired by that reference.

 

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

ebia

Eh?

I didn't start this thread. I just commented on something someone else said.

I put the word "topic", did you not start the topic of the timing of writing of books ?

The letter mentioned in Colossians may well be the letter we call Ephesians, which shows all the signs of being a circular unlike any other Pauline epistle and is missing a "in Ephesus" in many of the early manuscripts.

I'm still not persuaded it is what is known as Ephesians. "May well be" does not prove it is. I have seen a copy of The Wycliffe bible in old english with the letter to Laodicea.

If not then it no longer exists and hasn't existed for a very long time, though many forgeries of it have been produced inspired by that reference.

Maybe all are not forgeries.

 

[ebia]

ebia

I put the word "topic", did you not start the topic of the timing of writing of books ?

No. The previous post did.

I'm still not persuaded it is what is known as Ephesians. "May well be" does not prove it is.

No it doesn't. But either Ephesians is it or it was lost very, very early on.

I have seen a copy of The Wycliffe bible in old english with the letter to Laodicea.

Yeh, and the one it has, like the many others produced, are blatant forgeries. There is zero chance that's a genuine Pauline epistle - its a 3rd rate pastiche of bits from other epistles.

 

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

ebia

No. The previous post did.

I didn't state which topic I was speaking of. Did you not start the topic of timing of books and where their focus lies ?

No it doesn't. But either Ephesians is it or it was lost very, very early on.

Maybe it wasn't lost and people believe it is and other people believe what other people believe.

Where is Phyrgia ?

Yeh, and the one it has, like the many others produced, are blatant forgeries.

Do you know which copy of the Wycliffe bible I looked at ?

There is zero chance that's a genuine Pauline epistle - its a 3rd rate pastiche of bits from other epistles.

Why should I believe any of that what you state, have you received apostolic training ?

 

[Internet Ministry]

see other reply

 

[Internet Ministry]

I did a search in my harddrive, Logos.com library, and can conclude that it's a Tradition that comes with the appendix to the Gospel of Jn (note: 20th century scholarship holds that it's not authentic, the passage has however been authorative throughout history):
Jn 21:18f
"There is an ancient tradition concerning the martyrdom in Jn 21:18."
Source: Vol. 6: Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (p. 111). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Thank you, long ago I too had made note in my bible of John 21:18-19 as the only biblical reference to Peter's death. Yet it does not imply anything to do with an inverted crucifixion. But rather simply that of someone who could no longer dress themselves perhaps and therefore why crucify someone in that state anyway? Peter may have simply died of old age in the care of others? Ergo, whoever wrote the commentary John 21:19 might have believed the rhetoric of an inverted crucifixion allegedly written by Origen or whomever but does not actually say so? So it might be rumor at best and most certainly is an 'assumption' that his manner of death somehow glorified God in a special or different way than any other disciple's death?

 

[Internet Ministry]

The Bible doesn't talk about the deaths of any of the 12 Apostles

For the most part yes, with the exception of Peter's impending death per John 21:19 and I think Paul's certain impending death is mentioned in the bible too but I can't recall the book/verses off the top of my head. But I mainly wanted to 'confirm' that there is little or no talk of the deaths of the Apostle's but I keep hearing James Robison constantly referring to Peter's inverted crucifixion and also saying that All the Apostles were martyred/crucified but none of this is mentioned in the bible. So apparently Robison believes the hearsay from theologians of 2 or 3 hundred years after Christ's resurrection which is his prerogative but not necessarily true?

 

[Internet Ministry]

I'm not sure why you started this topic

Who are You, the "Topic Police" of this forum? It's none of Your business "why" someone starts a topic. No wonder Christians are so divided.

 

[ebia]

ebia

I didn't state which topic I was speaking of. Did you not start the topic of timing of books ...

The previous post said something about most of the NT being written before the deaths of the apostles. I pointed out that a good part of it was written after Peter's death. A direct response to what what was said.

Maybe it wasn't lost and people believe it is and other people believe what other people believe.

We know it's lost because we don't have it unless its Ephesians. None of the claimed versions floating around is plausibly a genuine Pauline letter. The one in the Vulgate and copied by Wycliffe and others was probably made up to counter a Marcionite forgery.

Do you know which copy of the Wycliffe bible I looked at ?

Why would I need to?

Why should I believe any of that what you state, ...

It should send you to go off and do some serious research yourself.

 

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

ebia,

The previous post said something about most of the NT being written before the deaths of the apostles. I pointed out that a good part of it was written after Peter's death. A direct response to what what was said.


We know it's lost because we don't have it unless its Ephesians. None of the claimed versions floating around is plausibly a genuine Pauline letter. The one in the Vulgate and copied by Wycliffe and others was probably made up to counter a Marcionite forgery.


Why would I need to?


It should print you to go off and do some serious research yourself.

One error you've made is misquoting my post to you, you have tried to escape correction.

 

[ebia]

ebia,

One error you've made is misquoting my post to you, you have tried to escape correction.

That's it is it?

What has any of this to do with the OP anyway?

 

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

ebia,

The previous post said something about most of the NT being written before the deaths of the apostles. I pointed out that a good part of it was written after Peter's death. A direct response to what what was said.

What you put may have been explained in more than one way. How many documents may be called NT books if there is discussing of The Church Fathers ?

We know it's lost because we don't have it unless its Ephesians.

I don't believe that, why should I ? Where does your knowledge come from ? Have you received all the teaching given by the apostles to the fathers ?

None of the claimed versions floating around is plausibly a genuine Pauline letter. The one in the Vulgate and copied by Wycliffe and others was probably made up to counter a Marcionite forgery.

I have looked through the documents of the ones known as Early Church Fathers and I reason much has been rejected by people and treated like being false.

You may be another person like them.

Why would I need to?

You don't know everything what has been put with what and called what.

People have been adding, taking out, making errors, forging, hiding documents from people and telling lies.

It should send you to go off and do some serious research yourself.

To me you maybe one of those kinds of people who believes what scholars have recorded, who haven't received the training handed by apostles through the churches.

Passing a test in a university is not the same as being tested and taught by the people of God.

Are you part of one of those churches that allows anyone to get baptized or married in them without conversion to the service of God ?

If so, is that really a Christian church ?

I don't reason so.

 

[ebia]

ebia,

Unless you fix the quote tags I can't respond point by point.

But your case seems to the classic anti-intellectual "I'm right and therefore everyone who disagrees with me is wrong".

 

[Zoe of Elyon]

Disclaimer: I am not any kind of Bible scholar or historian. I do small amounts of research on subjects that interest me whenever I feel like it, and as such my opinions are certainly fallible. If somebody else is more educated on this subject than I am, I gladly accept your correction of any false or incomplete information I may have inadvertently provided.

For the most part yes, with the exception of Peter's impending death per John 21:19 and I think Paul's certain impending death is mentioned in the bible too but I can't recall the book/verses off the top of my head.

Paul writes about his own impending death in 2 Timothy, probably the last letter he wrote, perhaps just a few weeks before his death. It's noteworthy that the lack of reference to Paul's death is internal evidence of an early date for the authorship of the book of Acts, since it closely follows Paul's life and ends with him being under house arrest and still spreading the gospel, as if this is what he was doing at the time Luke finished writing the book. Similarly, since Acts doesn't mention Peter's death either and Peter is a central figure in the first half of the book, I think it's reasonable to assume Acts was written before AD 64, which puts Luke before that and Mark even earlier than that.

As a sidenote, Paul is not one of the 12.

But I mainly wanted to 'confirm' that there is little or no talk of the deaths of the Apostle's but I keep hearing James Robison constantly referring to Peter's inverted crucifixion and also saying that All the Apostles were martyred/crucified but none of this is mentioned in the bible.

Yes, because as I said, those events occurred after most of the New Testament had been written.

So apparently Robison believes the hearsay from theologians of 2 or 3 hundred years after Christ's resurrection which is his prerogative but not necessarily true?

I'm afraid you may have an extremely poor view of the church fathers who are responsible for handing our faith down to us. I think you are also exaggerating the time period between the event and our earliest records of it. Peter died, most likely, in AD 64. Clement of Rome mentions his death in his letter to the Corinthians, dated between AD 80-98. Origen and Tertullian, who also wrote about Peter's martyrdom, both lived within 200 years after Peter's death (Tertullian 160 – c. 225 and Origen 184/185 – 253/254).

The first mention of Peter being crucified upside-down is in the apocryphal Acts of Peter, which was probably penned between AD 150-200. (Edit: upon further research, I found that the account of Peter's martyrdom is in a fragment that is included in the Acts of Peter but which itself predates the book - that is, it was originally from some other, earlier work which is now lost.) Neither this book, nor the writings of Clement, Tertullian, and others, are part of Scripture. Does that mean they are therefore false? No. There are a lot of historical documents that are not part of the Bible that are still considered reliable. I'm not sure about the Acts of Peter's overall reliability, but it was likely written by a disciple of John so it's not that far removed from actual events, as far as ancient documents go. As a comparison, consider the following:

- The earliest biography of Alexander the Great wasn't written until 400 years after his death and nobody doubts its historicity. Alexander the Great was the kind of person you would expect mythology to develop around, too.

- The Siege of Syracuse ended in 212 BC. The earliest records of this battle tell us that Archimedes developed a number of weapons to help protect the city. About 400 years later we see the earliest mention of Archimedes using fire to defeat the Romans, and 200 years after that we see the full-grown myth that Archimedes invented a "death ray" that used mirrors reflecting sunlight to focus a beam of light and heat at the enemy ships until they caught fire. This 600-year gap between Event and Myth about the Event makes the 90-150 years between Peter's death and the first account of an upside-down crucifixion seem a lot closer together.

I'm not a historian, as I said in my disclaimer above, so I'm totally going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that mythology actually takes a very long time to develop and be written down as historical fact. Historians generally don't write down whatever people on the streets are gossiping about; they do research in order to record the most accurate information they have access to.

This is not "hearsay." It's not even pseudepigrapha (books like the Gospel of Judas which claim to be written by one person but were actually written much, much later by somebody else). This is the tradition of the earliest members of the Church, people who loved and served God, who studied and researched the things they wrote about, and who had every reason to be truthful in what they said and wrote. This doesn't make it Scripture, or inspired, or even completely accurate, but it doesn't make it completely false either.

 

[ebia]

Paul writes about his own impending death in 2 Timothy, probably the last letter he wrote, perhaps just a few weeks before his death. It's noteworthy that the lack of reference to Paul's death is internal evidence of an early date for the authorship of the book of Acts, since it closely follows Paul's life and ends with him being under house arrest and still spreading the gospel, as if this is what he was doing at the time Luke finished writing the book.

The structure of Acts calls for it to finish where it does whenever it was written. It's not a biography of Paul.