Posted on 01/31/2008 5:45:17 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
I don't believe it's a Protestant position either....but I'm not a Protestant....so I don't know for sure.
Of course there were Jews in Rome. Why would you ask me that?
Where in Scripture do you read he was never there?
I don't read anywhere in scripture that he was not there. I only read that he was told not to go among the Gentiles [Matthew 10:5-6]. Rome was Gentile. Scripture never places him there and in fact where he is placed in scripture hardly gives him the time to be there.
The tradition is that he was martyred there and that his tomb like Paul’s came to be a place for pilgrims.
I'm not much on tradition....but scripture does indeed place the Apostle Paul in Rome.....twice! That's where The Lord wanted him evangelizing.....among the Gentiles. Peter, on the other hand.....had other fish to fry!
This could be true. We do know that Simon was called a god by the Romans themselves. We know he had a statue erected in his honor....inscribed as "Simoni deo Sancto" (the holy god, Simon). Justin Martyr writes of this in his Apology in the first century (152 A.D.) It is interesting to note that Justin says nothing about the Apostle Peter..... and the statue to Simon Magus is still standing at the time Justin wrote!
Simon Magus and his brand of Christianity was dangerous as it blended Greek and Babylonian paganism along with actual Christian beliefs and evidently suckered quite a few folks. This is the main reason Luke [Acts 8] devotes the time he does to identifying this brand of Christianity as it was quite apparent by the time the Book of Acts was written that Simon had many adherents.....mostly in Rome.
Nope....you're right....but, pagan gods were all called Peter. Simon was called a god by the Romans themselves [Justin Martyr's apology].
Most early civilizations had "Peter" gods and priests of those cultures were called Peters also. Variations of the name were Patre, Pator, Petor etc. The name stems from the word "Inter-Preters"....and these gods interpreted things for the folks [Genesis 41:8].
This name for gods continued on into Greco/Roman culture and we find that heads of families became known as Pators. Because of their importance the name was given the adjective Arch-Pator and evolved into "Patriarch"....or Father.
The Romans had their "Ju-Pator" which became known as "Jupiter" and the Greeks had their "Zeus-Pator" which was the same god. Apollo was also called "Patrius". Artemis was also called "Patora" as was Bacchus. Posieden was called "Petraios"....also known as Neptune.
In Egypt the gods were called Patroa which was usually a stone pillar which was actually a phallic symbol. These Peter (phallic) symbols can be found all over the ancient world. The term "Petra" came to be known as a rock or stone formation....always in a religious sense.
There are many examples of the word "Peter" being used in ancient pagan religions to signify either a god, a priest or an obelisk. The first mention in scripture of a "Peter" temple is here: [Numbers 22:4-5] And Moab said unto the elders of Midian, Now shall this company lick up all that are round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field. And Balak the son of Zippor was king of the Moabites at that time. He sent messengers therefore unto Balaam the son of Beor to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me:
[Deuteronomy 23:4] Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. This place was the oracle temple of a heathen god....a high place which was an abomination to God. In Greece it was called Delphi. In Egypt it was Ammon and in Asia Minor it was Pergamos. These were all places of "Inter-Pretation" by the oracles....or priests.
The Simon "Pator" that was in Rome was not the Apostle Peter....it was Simon Magus and his own blend of Christianity and paganism.
Josephus [Antiquities, Book XI, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2, lines 5-6] And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took their effects with them, and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going down to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.
This was written in the first century. "Beyond the Euphrates" is also known as Babylon....the ancient civilization. There were still many Israelites living in these territories left over from the Assyrian captivity of 721 B.C. [II Kings 17:22-23]. There were also many Jews living here....left over from the Babylonian captivity 125 years later [II Kings 25:11]. These two houses....The House of Judah and The House of Israel were the Lost Sheep referred to by Our Saviour in [Matthew 10:5-6]....and these are the folks to whom the "Twelve" were given to evangelize!
Over the years history has lost track of these people but during the first century everyone knew who they were and where they were. [John 7:35] Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?
The two tribes mentioned by Josephus as still in Asia were of course Judah and Benjamin who comprised the House of Judah. Levi was also with them but was not listed separately as they were a priestly tribe and lived among and ministered to the others.
The title of the article ends in a question mark, questioning the notion rather than declaring it. As I said in my initial comments, I posted it in hopes that some would understand Scripture rather than hold to RCC doctrine. “Watch dogs” tend to jump on topics with the RCC talking points, making sure no one questions the supposed supreme knowledge of the pope and his church.
My aim is not to go far in this world but to be fit for the next.
Beyond the Euphrates, yes. In the city of Babylon, no.
So you’re complaining that people pointed out the glaring falsehood you posted?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Beyond the Euphrates, yes. In the city of Babylon, no.
A more extensive answer. From HistoryWorld.net:
“The city’s end directly relates to the Greek conquest of this region. In 312 BC Seleucus founds a new Mesopotamian capital city, Seleucia, further to the north and on the Tigris rather than the Euphrates. Much of the building material is brought from Babylon, which becomes a forgotten city until excavated in the 20th century. But at all times there has been an important city in this region where the two great rivers come closest together. Seleucia is followed, in it turn, by Ctesiphon on the opposite bank of the Tigris. And from the early days of Islam this has been the site, a few miles further up the Tigris, of Baghdad. “
Or, from the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical literature:
“The Great City of Seleucia, which arose in its neighborhood , not only drew away its population, but was actually constructed of materials derived from its buildings... “The Great City,” “The Beauty of the Chaldean’s Excellency” has thus emphatically “become heaps” — she is truly “an astonishment and a hissing, without inhabitant.” Her walls have altogether disappeared — they have “fallen,” been “thrown down,” been “broken utterly.”... The natives regard the whole site as haunted, and neither will the “Arab pitch tent nor the shepherd fold sheep there.”
I believe the term Babylon can also refer to the ancient territory of the civilization of the same name.
If you read Josephus again you will notice that he calls Babylon a country. (post #145)
“Pater” means “father” in Latin. It *is* the origin of dyeus-pater, “father God,” which became Jupiter. It is of no etymological relationship to “Petrus,” however. Even if there were some unrecognized linkage (if I should accept your novel argument, for instance), Petrus would be much harder to confuse with “Pator,” “Patrius,” or “Petraius.”
The relationship between “Petrus” and religious structures, however, is deliberate, and is actually an uncannily fortunate translation of Cephas (or Kephas), for Cephas has the same religious significance.
But what if there is some etymological resemblance? What then? Simon’s name “Petrus” was clearly ordained by God. So what have you proven? That calling the Pope “Il Papa” is biblical? That when Jesus called Peter “Petrus,” he was invoking notions of religious supremacy? Perhaps next you will rock us with your insight that “Cephas” means “head” in Greek?
I clicked on that headline to read the rest of the limerick. Imagine my disappointment.
Wow. You’re all over the map. In your absurd etymology, all names that start with P and end in R come from a common root.
Peter != Pater. Peter is derived from the Greek for, not father, but rock — petroleum is oil drawn from rock. Petrograd is a city built from rock. Wood that turns into rock is petrified. When Jesus clapped Peter on the shoulder and said “on this rock I shall build my church,” he was making a pun.
Jesus never gets enough credit for having a sense of humor.
Pater is not greek, but Latin — before Vatican II, Catholics didn’t say “Our Fathers,” They said “Pater Nosters.”Peter and Pater share a number of letters in common, but they do not share a common derivation.
In search of St. Peter’s Tomb
By Dr. Steven Hijmans
Christus helios, the mosaic of Sol in Mausoleum M, which is interpreted as Christ-Sol
Print story | Email story
April 27, 2001 - On December 23, 1950, in his pre-Christmas broadcast on radio, Pope Pius XII announced the discovery of St. Peter’s tomb far below the high altar of St. Peter’s basilica in the Vatican. This was the culmination of 10 years of archaeological research under the crypt of the basilica, carried out by two Jesuit archaeologists and their colleagues. Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, the administrator of St. Peter’s, had overall authority over the project and reported about it directly to the Pope himself.
Between 1939 and 1949 this team had uncovered an impressive complex of mausoleums under the foundations of the church, dating to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. From their perspective the most spectacular find was, beyond doubt, the small monument under the present altar of the church which, all evidence suggests, was built as early as AD 160 to mark the tomb of St. Peter below it.
But from a scholarly perspective many other aspects of this complex are equally fascinating. It is striking, for instance, that although the monument above St. Peter’s tomb is unequivocally Christian, all the mausolea in the necropolis around it were pagan. Accustomed as we are to associating the Roman Empire before Constantine with the persecution of Christians, it is interesting to note that Christians were apparently able to erect such a monument in an otherwise pagan area at this time.
The numerous mausoleums in the necropolis, often quite intact and well-preserved, are also of obvious interest. One mausoleum, designated mausoleum M, has sparked much debate because of the mosaics with which it is decorated. One figure in particular, depicting the sun-god, is often interpreted as Christ. This would make the mausoleum the single exception to the rule that all mausolea in the necropolis are pagan. However, this mausoleum has been the focus of some of my own research that deals with the Roman sun god, and I question the Christian interpretation given to its mosaics. But it is through this mausoleum that I became interested in this complex as a whole.
Returning to the tomb of St. Peter, its discovery immediately raised the question of the remains of the apostle. Did the excavators find them in the tomb under the monument? This is what Pope Pius XII said in his radio broadcast:
The tomb of the Prince of the Apostles has been found. Such is the final conclusion after all the labour and study of these years. A second question, subordinate to the first, refers to the relics of Saint Peter. Have they been found? At the side of the tomb remains of human bones have been discovered. However, it is impossible to prove with certainty that they belong to the apostle.
Little did he know what a bizarre episode in Christian archaeology lay ahead when he spoke these words. The whole subsequent story has been clearly set out by Dr. J. Curran in the journal Classics Ireland but I will summarize it here. Although the scant remains of bones found in the tomb were initially identified as those of a man in his late sixties, more extensive study later revealed that they actually belonged to an older man, a younger man, a woman, a pig, a chicken, and a horse.
This was disappointing, but meanwhile Margherita Guarducci, an epigraphist studying the graffiti on the monument above the tomb, had discovered that there had actually been a second burial associated directly with the monument. The excavators were unaware of this second burial through no fault of their own. The problem was that these archaeologists, as scholars, had dealt with their finds—including human remains—as archaeological data. Monsignor Kaas, a cleric rather than a scholar, thoroughly disapproved of this and as a result there had been a growing rift between the excavators and their superior. Increasingly, Kaas had taken to visiting the site alone, when the others were gone, guided by workmen sworn to secrecy.
On one such visit, in 1942, he had noticed this second tomb in the monument, newly uncovered but as yet unopened, and had ordered the workman accompanying him to open it. The tomb was not empty, and convinced that this was yet another burial that would soon be desecrated by the Jesuit archaeologists, Kaas had ordered the remains removed and stored for safekeeping. Guarducci discovered these events by pure chance, and by that time Kaas had died. So when Paul VI, a family friend of the Guarduccis, was elected pope, she informed him of her belief that in fact these remains were the true remains of Peter. The bones were found where Kaas had stored them and when testing revealed that they did indeed belong to a man in his sixties, Paul VI officially announced, on June 26th 1968, that the relics of St. Peter had been discovered.
Numerous scholars, including Curran, are by no means convinced that Guarducci was right and that these bones are indeed those of St. Peter. There are in fact numerous cogent arguments against that suggestion. However, none of the alternative hypotheses put forward are convincing either, and this leaves us with two tombs, a monument, and no relics.
Does that matter? It is true that we will probably never know with certainty which of the various bones—if any—belong to St. Peter, but while scholars puzzle over the nature of these remains, is it not enough that under the high altar of St. Peter’s we have identified the remains of a monument marking a tomb that has drawn Christian worshippers continuously for over 1850 years? It is in that, one would think, that the true importance of this monument lies.
Dr. Steven Hijmans is a professor of history and classics and also a member of the Religion and Culture Network at the University of Alberta. This article was written in conjunction with a lecture series, “Exploring Our Past: Historical Perspectives on Christianity”, that was co-organized by the Faculty of Arts and McDougall United Church. See the ExpressNews What’s On - Lectures section for more information about this lecture series, which continues until June 14, 2001.
Related links - internal
The U of A Department of History and Classics Web site: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~histclas/
The U of A Department of Comparative Literature, Religion, and Film and Media Studies Web site: http://www.humanities.ualberta.ca/comparative_studies/
I'm surprised that there hasn't been a move somewhere in the Vatican for the sainthood of this Leucius Charinus, as he was probably the one who got it all started.
But "pater" is Greek and the Greek word for "father", as well as the Latin word.
My question would be how did the word "Petros" in Greek, which was "Petrus" in Latin, evolve into "Pietro" in Italian and then "Peter" in English???? Wouldn't theologians want to carry over a person's name from one language to another as close as possible to the original language. It's done with "Cephas" for Peter. Then why not "Petros"???
It is conceivable that as the Roman Church began to view "Petros, Petrus" as the Pater [Father] of their Church, that "Pater" would have been Petrus's title: "Pater Petrus" [Father Peter] -- shortened in time to just the Italian "Pietro" and later "Peter", a name remarkably similar to "Pater" in both spelling and meaning to those in the RCC -- Peter, the Pater of their Church.
>> If you read Josephus again you will notice that he calls Babylon a country. (post #145) <<
Right, and how many times in the New Testament does an apostle refer to being in a city, or to others being in a city? That number has to be in the hundreds. In a country? Zero (unless you count Egypt). What does Babylon mean? The much-beloved-on-this-thread Strong writes, “allegorically, of Rome as the most corrupt seat of idolatry and the enemy of Christianity.”
How strange that the only time an apostle refers to being in a land, it would be a name that would naturally make people think he was referring to another city.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.