Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
These are very strange ideas. Where are you getting them?
We just studied this in our Bible Study of Revelation, but I would have to get the book. There is more than just this one reference to this many days.
Actually the myth that he was crucified upside down originates in the late 2nd century apocryphal book The Acts of Peter and susequent Clementine literature. Christian writers often erroneously believed some of what was in these obvious works of fiction to be true and repeated the information there as if true when it had no basis in history or reality.
It is a pure myth, probably invented by the disciples of Simon Magus who wanted their founder to be associated with Simon Peter and later venerated as him. And they were successful.
Since the bones of Peter [Simon Bar Jonah] are all intact and accounted for in his ossuary at the Monastery of Dominus Flevit on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem where they were discovered in 1953, then Peter couldn't have died in Rome.
However it is entirely possible that Simon Magus was crucified upside-down by Nero there in Rome, and his body buried in that pagan cemetery with the other soothsayers on Vatican Hill. Since his mausoleum would have had to have been moved in order for Constantine to build St Peter's Basilica, his bones are more than likely in that tomb under the altar of the basilica. The Vatican should recheck those bones to see if they are the bones of a certain Samaritan sorcerer from Gitto.
And while a person who is crucified actually dies by suffocation, how exactly does someone who is crucified upside down actually die???? and why would the Romans diverge from their normal practice of capital punishment just because someone requests it???
BTW do Catholics have any idea what an UPSIDE DOWN CROSS actually symbolizes??? Do they realize that it is an occult symbol worn by soothsayers and sorcerers?
Any help you could give with this would be appreciated. I am studying it again, in Daniel, and just finished Revelation - I took lots of notes. I understand the overall idea but certainly not enough to explain to another. If it's still confusing to me I would really confuse someone else. I'm looking forward to your thoughts on this subject.
I went to Mass LAST week - in a wheel chair. It's that "scrutinies" time of year, y'know and I'm sponsoring somebody so I have to be there to keep her in line!
Saturday we had an alleged 'retreat' or day of recollection for the catechumens and candidates and I was there, in my wheelie, and gave a talk! And they didn't fall asleep! And then we all went to the vigil Mass for the second scrutinies.This has been the greatest Lent EVER! Thanks for your prayers!
God is so good I can't even come up with a metaphor! In His kindness to the rest of you, He has rendered me speechless!
Why should we care what soothsayers and sorcerers think? They're nuts and evil and wrong.
But it was presented as a slam-dunk. That's a serous problem to me, very serious.
Call me hyper-sensitive, but I think I detect a slight anti-Catholic tone?
The author of this piece needs to educate himself in order to communicate more effectivly before trying to argue a position. It appeared to be a middle school term paper gone bad.
I find it even more curious that what we apparently have here is a contingent of individuals who are engaging in duelling Bible verses.
When one verse is brought up, another one which apparently differs in intent is immediately shot back. The discussion of the first verse is limited to either denial or dispensed with altogether.
The foremost reasons seem to be justification for, well frankly, hubris. I have known many evangelicals and fiercely non-denominational Protestants, as well as Christian liberals, who focus on verses that give them freedom to interpret and do things which amaze and astound, given the Bible as a whole.
I feel sorry for those who are not in full communion with the Church and with God. Why would one not participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass instead of being entertained, lectured or shouted at by a man on a stage? Why would one give up rather lengthy community prayer at the Mass? Why would one give up public confession as well as partake of the Sacrament of Reconciliation in favour of pretending that one's inner voice is sufficient? Why would one give up Communion - His Body and Blood, as He commanded - for symbolic crackers and grape juice, or, nothing. Why would one give up whole portions of the Bible, or, as one individual here believes, even dispensing with the Commandments in favour of one's one religion, created by hand-picking selected portions of the Bible regardless of context?
I interpret this as justification for creating God in one's own image. Why else would one reject God's own creation in favour of man-made ones? But what a poor, poor compromise. Heading up one's own theology means that you reject Him. And theoretically, since many of the modern Protestant movements have gone to individual theologies, we could have millions of different and conflicting interpretations of the Bible, with each individual convinced that the Holy Spirit is within them, aiding their interpretation.
One Church of Christ, now fragmented by men. I'm sure that Satan is now laughing with delight...
It's a shame that someone of your obvious intelligence posted this.
http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/peter.html says that:
"Peter is believed to have been crucified upside down at his own request, as he did not feel worthy to die the same way as Jesus. Therefore many Christian sects use this cross as a symbol of humility.
He was an early missionary in Asia Minor and the Roman Empire and founded the Church of Rome with Paul, Emperor Nero saw this new church as a threat, and began a campaign to eradicate these troublemakers. Peter was imprisoned, tortured and finally crucified. Such was his faith, it is believed, he remarkably succeeded in persuading his sadistic captors to change from the normal way of executing prisoners. Apostle Andrew also was crucified, and he too requested that a cross different to Christ's Latin Cross be used. Therefore we have another cross form, the 'X' shaped St. Andrew's Cross.
In 1920, Archbishop Joachim of Nizhny Novgorod was also crucified upside down, on the Royal Doors of the Cathedral in Sevastopol, a Black Sea port of southern Ukraine.
Sometimes this cross is called Satan's Cross because it points downward to Hell. But this is a misnomer; Satan was never crucified on a cross, rather he fell to his death1. This inverted cross is sometimes used by Satanists to mock the Latin Cross and its meaning."
Step back a little. There is more to Heaven and Earth...
"My entire family of well-educated and knowledgeable Catholics"
Uncle Chip, were you baptized in the Catholic Church?
Really, Uncle Chip! Even when I was Presbyterian, I knew the early Christians worshipped in the Catacombs. Whose tombs do you think they were? They certainly weren't all Christians, it was too soon for that.
You have yet to post the citations for your sources on the "Simon Magus as the first pope" theory, so I will post an article from the New Advent Catholic Encylopedia on Simon Magus, the first Christian heretic (his doctrine seeming to have been a heathen type of Gnosticism):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13797b.htm
Yes as an infant. But then I was baptized after I received the Gospel as an adult --- the way it should be.
That is pure myth. Everyone was crucified the same way no matter who he was. One might just as well reason that the one who wanted to be crucified upside down just wanted to be different, to stand out from the others who were crucified normally. So rather than a symbol of humility it might be construed as a symbol of pride.
A gruesome death by suffocation occurs in a normal cricifixion, but how does one die upside down? Wouldn't he pass out first.
BTW Thanks for the link with all those crosses --- amazing. Every religious order and group had their own distinctive cross --- obviously a lot of cross-breeding going on in the church at that time --- but very few upside down crosses.
Uncle Chip's post #1874.
I'm not so sure that he had to be dragged kicking and screaming....but he was hesitant about associating with Gentiles. The Holy Spirit was involved here (on both sides) as Acts 10:7 and Acts 10:19 points out and the vision was to show Peter that no man was to be considered unclean [Acts 10:28].
This had taken place after Paul's conversion. [Acts 9] You still see Peter slipping back into this mode at Antioch and Paul has to chastise him [Galatians 2:11-13] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.. Very strange behavior for the great leader of the faith that had been directed to preach to the Gentiles!
So....some years after Our Lord was crucified and buried you still have Peter (Ostensibly the leader) hesitant about dealing with Gentiles. Don't some of you folks think this strange if, as according to you....the Apostles were instructed to go to the Gentiles in [Matthew 28:19]? It has been my contention that Peter....and the other eleven, had been told specifically to stay away from the Gentiles and tend only to the "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" [Matthew 10:5-6].
Let's revisit the incident with Cornelius and look at [Acts 10:44-47] While Peter was saying these words, the Holy Spirit came on all those who were hearing the word. And the Jews of the faith, who had come with Peter, were full of wonder, because the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentiles, And they were talking in tongues, and giving glory to God. Then Peter said, Will any man say that these may not have baptism who have been given the Holy Spirit as we have?
Again....let me point out. This is a long time after.... you say, the Apostles received this direction to go to the Gentiles in Matthew 28!
And......Acts 11:1-3] Now the Apostles and the brothers who were in Judaea had news that the word of God had been given to the Gentiles. And when Peter came to Jerusalem, those who kept the rule of circumcision had an argument with him, Saying, You went to men without circumcision, and took food with them.
Now, I don't really think that where you stand on the "WAS PETER EVER IN ROME" debate has much to do with this, but if you are honest, you will admit that the Apostles did not receive a so called "Great Commission" to go and preach to the Gentiles. That's why the Lord called Paul and that's why....I say, Peter was never in Rome!
Matthew 28:19 is an incorrect translation (Matthew was written in the Hebrew) to the Greek....and I have just proved it. Why would Peter be hesitant, and the other Apostles astonished, about giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles.....some years later?
Going for 2000 posts :)
How can you say that it's a myth? Do you claim that St. Andrew's crucifixion story is a myth too?
I trust though, that your fears about the Catholic Church creating a Satanic symbol have been allayed.
Were you brought up in the Catholic Church? Did you go to pariochial school? If so, what turned you against the Church?
Since you both like to quote Early Church Fathers, here are some quotes to help you understand their views on the authority of Bishops, the Primacy of Rome, on the Eucharist, and on Schism:
“Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-2, c. AD 80
"You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2, AD 107
"The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things, just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the Tradition is one and the same."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1, 10, 2, c. AD 190
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1, AD 107
“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66, A.D. 151
“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved…Accept our counsel, and you will have nothing to regret…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger…You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.”
St. Clement of Rome*, Letter to the Corinthians, 1: 58–59, 63, A.D. 80
“Ignatius…to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 1:1, A.D. 110
"It is possible, then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times…But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1-2, c. AD 190 **
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’…On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 1st edition, A.D. 251 ***
“(T)hey have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” And the vessel of divine election himself said: “If ye have forgiven anything to any one, I forgive also, for what I have forgiven I have done it for your sakes in the person of Christ.”
St. Ambrose of Milan, On Penance, Book One, Ch. VII, v. 33, c. A.D. 390.
“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion of Christ.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, 3.2, ca. A.D. 110
“There is nothing more serious than the sacrilege of schism because there is no just cause for severing the unity of the Church.”
St. Augustine, Treatise On Baptism Against the Donatists, Bk 5, Ch. 1, A.D. 400
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.