Jump to content

Recommended Posts


No proof. But evidence for a tomb supposedly belonging to to the apostle Peter is very old, reaching back to the century after Peter lived. (Some archaeologists also believe they have found physical evidence for such a tomb.)

There is no direct Biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. But the early 'church' found it very important to control the location of the bones of martyrs. (There was an early superstition that touching or interacting somehow with the bones, grave or objects owned by martyrs could pass along some of the 'spirit' or miraculous power of that martyr.) The more famous the martyr, the more important it was for the 'church' to control the location of those bones and the tomb. So although the reasons for keeping or moving Peter's tomb to Rome might be very un-Biblical, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. I'm watching a documentary on Amazon about the history of the Catholic Church and they were discussing it.

I figured one of you might know more about it. 

Thanks..

So it is possible that he was actually "in person" walking out of Rome when Jesus told him basically to return to Rome according to the show. I think he supposedly sent his secretary back to Rome instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, admin said:

So it is possible that he was actually "in person" walking out of Rome when Jesus told him basically to return to Rome according to the show. I think he supposedly sent his secretary back to Rome instead.

There is nothing in the Bible itself about that. There are a few traditions about Peter and Rome, but they are mostly from a couple hundred years after the events would have taken place. And these traditions are often contradictory. The Bible is much more consistent and was written almost completely in the same century when Peter lived.

Some of those traditions had the Gospel writer Mark as his secretary, but the Bible does not speak of either of them in Rome. The closest is this verse:

(1 Peter 5:13, 14) 13 She who is in Babylon, a chosen one like you, sends you her greetings, and so does Mark, my son. 14 Greet one another with a kiss of love.. . .

Since Peter was married, the "she" here is often thought of as referring to his wife, and Babylon is sometimes thought of as a pseudonym for Rome. But we also know that there was still a thriving Jewish population in the actual area of Babylon, so a pseudonym for Rome is not a definite explanation here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

  • Topics

  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Claud's Lst  »  misette

      Bonjour Misette comment ça va. Merci beaucoup pour ton travail que tu as fait et continue de faire. 
      Nous avons pas reçu le joyau pour cette semaine, dis nous si il y a un problème. 
      Merci que Jéhovah continue de te benir. 
      · 2 replies
    • Isabella

      Good ideas 
       

      · 0 replies
    • 4Jah2me  »  Srecko Sostar

      Hi Srecko. I hope you can see this photo. This is my daily driving car. It is outside a Dance Studio where  I have danced and hope to go dancing again, John 

      · 2 replies
    • Tennyson  »  Queen Esther

      Hello my sister, i have not head from you long sice. I hope you are wel. Hope to hear from you soon. Agape.
      · 0 replies
    • Doryseeker  »  4Jah2me

      *** it-2 p. 7 Jehovah ***
      The Codex Leningrad B 19A, of the 11th century C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwahʹ, Yehwihʹ, and Yeho·wahʹ. Ginsburg’s edition of the Masoretic text vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wahʹ. (Ge 3:14, ftn) Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Ha·lelu-Yahʹ (meaning “Praise Jah, you people!”). (Ps 104:35; 150:1, 6) Also, the forms Yehohʹ, Yoh, Yah, and Yaʹhu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·beʹ and I·a·ou·eʹ, which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa,” “Yahuah,” or “Yehuah.”
      Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyahʹ, Isaiah would become Yeshaʽ·yaʹhu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shuʹaʽ (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sousʹ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.
      *** it-2 p. 7 Jehovah ***
      The Codex Leningrad B 19A, of the 11th century C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwahʹ, Yehwihʹ, and Yeho·wahʹ. Ginsburg’s edition of the Masoretic text vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wahʹ. (Ge 3:14, ftn) Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Ha·lelu-Yahʹ (meaning “Praise Jah, you people!”). (Ps 104:35; 150:1, 6) Also, the forms Yehohʹ, Yoh, Yah, and Yaʹhu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·beʹ and I·a·ou·eʹ, which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa,” “Yahuah,” or “Yehuah.”
      Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyahʹ, Isaiah would become Yeshaʽ·yaʹhu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shuʹaʽ (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sousʹ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.
       
      · 1 reply
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      62,831
    • Total Posts
      122,624
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      16,662
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Emoo
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.