WrongPlanet.net
WP Members: > 80,000



Aspie Affection

New Today: 14
New Yesterday: 25

Why was Paul beheaded and Peter crucified?
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion     
pgd
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Jul 17, 2010
Posts: 1624

PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:26 pm    Post subject: Why was Paul beheaded and Peter crucified? Reply with quote

Why did the Romans apply the law differently to the same offense of religious preaching?

Why was Paul beheaded and Peter crucified?

Why weren't both beheaded (same punishment)?

Also, why is Paul who wrote most of the New Testament not buried in Rome next to Peter?

Paul is buried outside of Rome and Peter is buried in Rome.

Peter only wrote a few pages of the New Testament when Paul wrote about half the new Testament.

Why is Peter given the credit and Paul ignored?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruveyn
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 77
Posts: 31498
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Why was Paul beheaded and Peter crucified? Reply with quote

pgd wrote:
Why did the Romans apply the law differently to the same offense of religious preaching?

Why was Paul beheaded and Peter crucified?

Why weren't both beheaded (same punishment)?

Also, why is Paul who wrote most of the New Testament not buried in Rome next to Peter?

Paul is buried outside of Rome and Peter is buried in Rome.

Peter only wrote a few pages of the New Testament when Paul wrote about half the new Testament.

Why is Peter given the credit and Paul ignored?


Why did Smeagol (Golum) jump into the fire?

Why did Frodo want to keep the Ring?

Why did Arwen forgo Elven immortality?

ruveyn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
one-A-N
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 03, 2010
Posts: 861
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:07 am    Post subject: Re: Why was Paul beheaded and Peter crucified? Reply with quote

pgd wrote:
Why did the Romans apply the law differently to the same offense of religious preaching?

Why was Paul beheaded and Peter crucified?

Why weren't both beheaded (same punishment)?

Also, why is Paul who wrote most of the New Testament not buried in Rome next to Peter?

Paul is buried outside of Rome and Peter is buried in Rome.

Peter only wrote a few pages of the New Testament when Paul wrote about half the new Testament.

Why is Peter given the credit and Paul ignored?


Paul was a Roman citizen, having been born in the Roman city of Tarsus (the city had been specially granted Roman status). Peter was not, having been born in Galilee. The Romans beheaded citizens who committed capital crimes - so Paul was beheaded. They crucified slaves and non-Roman provincials who committed major capital crimes - so Peter was crucified.

I don't understand the assumption behind the question about them being buried in different places. Their role in writing parts of the New Testament has nothing to do with where they were buried. There is no hard evidence that they were executed at the same time or place, so why would they necessarily be buried together? In any event, it was usual to bury people outside cities, wasn't it?

As for "credit" - I don't know anyone who gives Peter credit for writing much of the New Testament. Peter was given credit for being the "first" among the twelve apostles - their leader, so to speak, after Christ "disappeared" (ascended). Paul came into the church a few years later - he wasn't one of the original twelve (or thirteen - Matthias replaced Judas) apostles. Despite Paul being a late-comer - and originally a persecutor of Christians - he was given high honour in the early church. Paul was hardly ignored. Both apostles ended up in Rome and were martyred there, presumably during the reign of Nero. Both apostles are honoured as founders (or at least early builders and leaders) of the church in Rome, although Peter is also honoured as the leader of the twelve apostles, and more broadly as leader of the early church. The latter is the primary basis for the Catholic claim that the church of Rome is entitled to be the leader of the church today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pgd
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Jul 17, 2010
Posts: 1624

PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:13 am    Post subject: Re: Why was Paul beheaded and Peter crucified? Reply with quote

one-A-N wrote (in part): The latter is the primary basis for the Catholic claim that the church of Rome is entitled to be the leader of the church today. --- one-A-N - In my view Rome has lost the claim for the church to be its leader due to a variety of heresies which range from trying to throw the Bible out the window and replace it with (phony) Italian poetry/phony dogma to the known criminal systematic coverup of child crimes around the world by a number of Popes - including the current Pope - to save Rome lawsuit money. Rome does not hold the title to lead the church today anymore due to its throwing the values of Jesus Christ out the window. That's my view. Christianity is vastly different than Italian Catholicism. One believes in the God of the Bible (Christianity); the other (Rome) doesn't. Rome has no authority today. The authority is only the God of the Bible. That's my understanding. - pgd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
one-A-N
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 03, 2010
Posts: 861
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:47 am    Post subject: Re: Why was Paul beheaded and Peter crucified? Reply with quote

pgd wrote:
one-A-N wrote (in part): The latter is the primary basis for the Catholic claim that the church of Rome is entitled to be the leader of the church today. --- one-A-N - In my view Rome has lost the claim for the church to be its leader due to a variety of heresies which range from trying to throw the Bible out the window and replace it with (phony) Italian poetry/phony dogma to the known criminal systematic coverup of child crimes around the world by a number of Popes - including the current Pope - to save Rome lawsuit money. Rome does not hold the title to lead the church today anymore due to its throwing the values of Jesus Christ out the window. That's my view. Christianity is vastly different than Italian Catholicism. One believes in the God of the Bible (Christianity); the other (Rome) doesn't. Rome has no authority today. The authority is only the God of the Bible. That's my understanding. - pgd


I was merely reporting the Catholic claim, neither defending it or condemning it. As it happens, I am not Catholic, have never been Catholic, and have no plans to become Catholic.

However, the question was about Peter and Paul, and about one or both getting appropriate "credit" (whatever that means). As one of the questions related to their alleged places of burial, the questions were hardly restricted to a discussion of scripture passages about Peter and Paul. I was trying to explain why Peter was regarded differently to Paul (and vice versa) in the early centuries of the church, I was not trying to justify the doctrines based on such differences - and I was certainly not discussing the contemporary Catholic church. Personally, I would think that Jerusalem and Antioch have just as good claims as Rome to having been established by the apostle Peter, and built up by the apostle Paul, without touching on the myriad of other issues here (apostolic succession, bishops, archbishops and patriarchs, etc, etc). And perhaps Peter also visited Alexandria - it would not have been difficult, and it would have been a reasonable thing to do, given the large Jewish community and Gentile Christian community there. So the Eastern Orthodox view that the Patriarchs are equal strikes me as a plausible argument, if patriarchal authority were to be based on which apostle founded or built up each patriarchal church.

The point is: there are a number of differences between Peter and Paul. Peter was one of the original twelve, personally appointed and taught by Christ in the flesh. He was described as "first", when listing the disciples. He was the spokesman on the day of Pentecost. Paul was not an original apostle - he had been a persecutor of the church, had not travelled with Christ in the flesh or witnessed his miracles, and had "only" become one of a wider class of apostles (e.g. along with Barnabas) some years later than Peter. Writing parts of the New Testament did not figure as strongly in the mind of the early church as it does today because (a) they still had the apostles themselves, which was even more important than a letter from an apostle; (b) the letters took time to be collected and brought together as a New Testament; (c) when Peter and Paul died, some parts of the NT were probably not yet written (e.g. some of the Gospels, Revelation, some of the letters). Peter was viewed as having a governmental authority based on his appointment by Christ (Paul notes that Peter, James, and John were considered "pillars" of the church). Whether that authority died with Peter (a common Protestant view), or rested on all the Patriarchs (a possible Orthodox view, I guess) or resides specially and fully in the Roman church (the Catholic view) is a separate issue.

Regardless of any later issues about the Catholic church, Peter himself had an earlier claim to apostolic authority than Paul.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AngelRho
Synclavier owner/operator
Phoenix


Joined: Jan 05, 2008
Posts: 4820
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is no certainty about HOW Peter and Paul died. What we have is a description of how Peter WOULD die, a prediction by Jesus signifying crucifixion. There is no account of any of the disciples' deaths. The only death account that I recall was given in any amount of detail was that of Stephen, and he was NOT one of the 12. These accounts come through the Catholic church tradition.

Something else to consider: Paul was most influential in spreading the gospel throughout the Roman world, visiting and planting churches, winning new converts, and so on. Paul didn't end his work by simply visiting churches during the formative phase. He corresponded with them to check their progress and offer advice. For this reason, he is the most prolific of the NT writers. But his letters were LETTERS, not books. And because those things he wrote about were of general concern to the greater Christian community, there are among our most treasured sources of Christian theology and are considered inspired writings.

Peter, by contrast, was called by Christ to be "the Rock" upon which the church was built. This indicated Peter as a leader of the early church. I'm just speculating here, but most of us know that if someone spends all there time rallying others for a common goal and teaching, they are less concerned with mass communication and writing books than they are "tending their flock." Peter was NOT as eager as Paul to preach to the Gentiles, which the book of Acts tells us. We know that Peter was eventually convinced, but his ministry didn't ultimately lead him far from home. Since it was Paul, not Peter, that took up an active, enduring interest in Christian missionary work, we shouldn't be surprised that it's Paul's writings that survived rather than Peter's. Because Paul was constantly traveling, he was harder to pin down, which I think contributed in part to his longevity. It could be that Peter was among the earliest Christian casualties, which meant he never would have had the time to write as many letters or books. But since Paul depended on his knowledge of Hebrew law and tradition as well as his knowledge of Jesus' teachings, It's hardly likely that his writings would be inconsistent with the gospels. It's hardly likely also, with Peter having learned at the feet of Jesus, that had he more time and more concern with writing, that his writings would really have been that much different.

The epistle writers in general wrote to specific audiences. James, Peter, and the others were not really concerned with outsiders, though Paul was. Being better-informed, Paul would have been better at sympathizing with and communicating to the Gentiles--reaching a broader audience.

If Peter was a stronger "church father," and being the "rock" that the church was built on, he would have been revered more highly than a simple letter-writer. That's my guess of why he's so revered by the Catholic church, as opposed to Paul, having actual mention within Jesus' own words.

What I don't understand is how we have any certainty that Peter even IS buried in Rome. A lot of that kind of thing is tradition and has no bearing on actual scripture or theology. I'm not sure that we can really KNOW where Peter is buried, nor do I even see why it's important!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruveyn
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 77
Posts: 31498
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peter's name (in Aramaic) was Shimon bar Kephos. Jesus referred to him as Rocky (a nick name) or Petros in Greek, hence Peter. Peter I was the first (and only) Jewish Pope.

ruveyn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeantHumain
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Jun 25, 2004
Posts: 5119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Why was Paul beheaded and Peter crucified? Reply with quote

pgd wrote:
Rome does not hold the title to lead the church today anymore due to its throwing the values of Jesus Christ out the window. That's my view. Christianity is vastly different than Italian Catholicism. One believes in the God of the Bible (Christianity); the other (Rome) doesn't. Rome has no authority today. The authority is only the God of the Bible. That's my understanding. - pgd

This is the old argument between Protestantism ("by faith alone," Bible as sole basis) and the Roman Catholic Church (faith plus good works, Bible plus an accumulation of dogma and tradition, Church hierarchy). From an atheist's point of view, it's all nitpicking on, as ruveyn said, different bits of fiction. On the bright side, the Protestant Reformation did eventually lead to the sort of tolerance we see today that allows atheists and agnostics to live openly in the West.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 48
Posts: 19126
Location: Spokane Valley, Washington

PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Why was Paul beheaded and Peter crucified? Reply with quote

NeantHumain wrote:
pgd wrote:
Rome does not hold the title to lead the church today anymore due to its throwing the values of Jesus Christ out the window. That's my view. Christianity is vastly different than Italian Catholicism. One believes in the God of the Bible (Christianity); the other (Rome) doesn't. Rome has no authority today. The authority is only the God of the Bible. That's my understanding. - pgd

This is the old argument between Protestantism ("by faith alone," Bible as sole basis) and the Roman Catholic Church (faith plus good works, Bible plus an accumulation of dogma and tradition, Church hierarchy). From an atheist's point of view, it's all nitpicking on, as ruveyn said, different bits of fiction. On the bright side, the Protestant Reformation did eventually lead to the sort of tolerance we see today that allows atheists and agnostics to live openly in the West.


As a possible descendant of one of Martin Luther's colleagues, I thank you for your nod to the Protestant contribution to modern western civilization's tradition of tolerance.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Douglas_MacNeill
What's next beyond "Phoenix?"
Phoenix


Joined: May 11, 2007
Age: 50
Posts: 1377
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tradition has it that Paul was a Roman citizen and thus exempt from crucifixion; thus he was beheaded for his "crimes".
Peter suffered the fate of many other non-citizens in the Roman Empire--with the difference that he was crucified upside down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeantHumain
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Jun 25, 2004
Posts: 5119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Why was Paul beheaded and Peter crucified? Reply with quote

Kraichgauer wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
pgd wrote:
Rome does not hold the title to lead the church today anymore due to its throwing the values of Jesus Christ out the window. That's my view. Christianity is vastly different than Italian Catholicism. One believes in the God of the Bible (Christianity); the other (Rome) doesn't. Rome has no authority today. The authority is only the God of the Bible. That's my understanding. - pgd

This is the old argument between Protestantism ("by faith alone," Bible as sole basis) and the Roman Catholic Church (faith plus good works, Bible plus an accumulation of dogma and tradition, Church hierarchy). From an atheist's point of view, it's all nitpicking on, as ruveyn said, different bits of fiction. On the bright side, the Protestant Reformation did eventually lead to the sort of tolerance we see today that allows atheists and agnostics to live openly in the West.


As a possible descendant of one of Martin Luther's colleagues, I thank you for your nod to the Protestant contribution to modern western civilization's tradition of tolerance.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

We mustn't forget the wars and internecine persecutions before the West realized that it was folly to present any Christian denomination or later any religion more broadly as having a monopoly on the truth. The Protestants were willing to pull the same dirty tricks when they got their first taste of power.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 48
Posts: 19126
Location: Spokane Valley, Washington

PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:15 am    Post subject: Re: Why was Paul beheaded and Peter crucified? Reply with quote

NeantHumain wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
pgd wrote:
Rome does not hold the title to lead the church today anymore due to its throwing the values of Jesus Christ out the window. That's my view. Christianity is vastly different than Italian Catholicism. One believes in the God of the Bible (Christianity); the other (Rome) doesn't. Rome has no authority today. The authority is only the God of the Bible. That's my understanding. - pgd

This is the old argument between Protestantism ("by faith alone," Bible as sole basis) and the Roman Catholic Church (faith plus good works, Bible plus an accumulation of dogma and tradition, Church hierarchy). From an atheist's point of view, it's all nitpicking on, as ruveyn said, different bits of fiction. On the bright side, the Protestant Reformation did eventually lead to the sort of tolerance we see today that allows atheists and agnostics to live openly in the West.


As a possible descendant of one of Martin Luther's colleagues, I thank you for your nod to the Protestant contribution to modern western civilization's tradition of tolerance.

Absolutely; I can't argue with that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

We mustn't forget the wars and internecine persecutions before the West realized that it was folly to present any Christian denomination or later any religion more broadly as having a monopoly on the truth. The Protestants were willing to pull the same dirty tricks when they got their first taste of power.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChrisVulcan
Deinonychus
Deinonychus


Joined: Feb 27, 2010
Posts: 361
Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't speak about the burial thing, but my understanding is that actual Roman citizens were allowed a more merciful death sentence, whereas crucifixion victims sometimes took days to die.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion   

 
Read more Articles on Wrong Planet



Wrong Planet is a Registered Trademark.
Copyright 2004-2014, Wrong Planet, LLC and Alex Plank. Alex does public speaking for Autism.

Advertise on Wrong Planet

Alex Hotchalk / Glam 

Alex Plank  Aspie Affection 

Terms of Service - You must read this as a user of Wrong Planet | Privacy Policy

Subscribe: RSS Feed  Wrong Planet News  Wrong Planet Forums




fine art