Peter's Upside Down Crucifixion

[Live4Jesus]

Generally when we see an upside down cross we connect it to satanism, the worship and works of the devil.

But Peter the apostle was crucified upside down.... He requested that of the Roman authorities, it was his request, his idea.

Do you think Jesus was at his side, do you think the Lord inspired him to do this and for what reason?

Or do you think he got the idea on his own?

Either way what do you think he meant to signify with this final act?

[I can eat 50 eggs]

that he was unworthy to die like our Lord. That he didn't want anyone ever seeing a cross (normal, right side up) and associating it with him. Also, I've never seen an upside down cross associated with satanism (though I don't know much about it, thank GOD!) but if it is, they picked it up long after Peter was crucified, so I don't think he had any "double secret satanic" message.

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by Live4Jesus
Generally when we see an upside down cross we connect it to satanism, the worship and works of the devil.

But Peter the apostle was crucified upside down.... He requested that of the Roman authorities, it was his request, his idea.

Do you think Jesus was at his side, do you think the Lord inspired him to do this and for what reason?

Or do you think he got the idea on his own?

Either way what do you think he meant to signify with this final act?

It's folklore, but no reliable historical records show it to be true that he was crucified upsidedown. In fact, it would be quite difficult to crucify someone upsidedown. The way cruficixion works is it slowly suffocates the person by making it painful and difficult to take a breath. It's done the way it is to make it horrible and tortuous.

If a person were crucified upsidedown, their life would be over very quickly and relatively painlessly, since gravity would work to disjoint all their joints, their blood would rush to their heads and cause them to pass out, and their lungs would not be in a position to inflate enough to keep the person alive. I know one doctor who told me Peter's life would have ended within half an hour, as opposed to the 8 to 48 hours that it took to crucify someone right side up.

Knowing this, it seems unlikely that the grusome and cruel Romans would have allowed anyone to be crucified upsidedown, and it would have required them to redesign the cross to make it possible to be upsidedown.

However, if Peter did ask to be crucified upsidedown, it seems more likely that it was to shorten his time of suffering that anything else. If you know you had to die, you'd chose the quicker less painful way, yes?

[Andrew]

Precisely becos Peter did not want the focus to be on him (like this thread *L) that's why he did it upside down.

[dmfew6599]

I think Peter knew he was not worthy to die like our precious Lord so he did it upside down. I think he was making a statement to all the people who thought Jesus was just some nobody.

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by Andrew
Precisely becos Peter did not want the focus to be on him (like this thread *L) that's why he did it upside down.

But by being different, he drew attention to himself, and made himself stick out as a topic of discussion for 2000 years.

If he would have been crucified the way all the other condemned men in the Roman empire were, no one would even have anything to talk about today.

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Originally posted by lambslove
But by being different, he drew attention to himself, and made himself stick out as a topic of discussion for 2000 years.

If he would have been crucified the way all the other condemned men in the Roman empire were, no one would even have anything to talk about today.

 

wrong.

How many other people that were crucified do you know the names of?  He wouldn't have been "just another crucified Joe."

No one would have anything to talk about?  Yeah, sure, just one of the inner circles of disciples, author of the NT, all that little stuff.  I'm sure if he would have been crucified right side up we would have forgotten him by now!

[Live4Jesus]

Originally posted by lambslove
But by being different, he drew attention to himself, and made himself stick out as a topic of discussion for 2000 years.

If he would have been crucified the way all the other condemned men in the Roman empire were, no one would even have anything to talk about today.

Lambslove you say above it's folklore... I'm not sure it's just folklore there is more proof that it is not... writings about it... paintings about it...

I've run into it reading early christian writings (should look 'em up) and even in art.

[ZiSunka]

About his crucifixion 50. I was talking about his crucifixion.

You're getting hostile over nothing.

[ZiSunka]

I've run into it reading early christian writings (should look 'em up) and even in art.

Art is hardly a good historical record.

And outside of the writings of the Catholic church, where are these early Christian writings of which you speak?

Why is it so important for Peter to have a different death than the other apostles and disciples?

Why is his manner of death so much more important than the other ones?

[I can eat 50 eggs]

how do you know? certain groups inside Christianity are already blasted for raising peter above what they think is proper, had he been crucified normally, instead of this discussion, we could be having one on how he thought he was equal to Jesus.

[Subtilis]

In response to the suggestion that Peter was the only other person whose crucifixion is described by tradition, I submit the following:

It was customary to show Andrew crucified on a cross formed by two diagonals. According to the The Golden Legend, Aegeas, the proconsul of Patras, had Andrew held on the cross by ropes rather than nails, to prolong his suffering. But Andrew took advantage of his slow death to preach from the cross for two days, till the people threatened violence unless he were taken down. By this time Andrew had preached enough and, to die quickly, prayed that his limbs would be paralysed so that he could not be cut down. As a great light shines, he dies.

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/c/caravagg/09/54andrew.html

[ZiSunka]

:sigh:

Yes, this is much better.

:sigh:

[ZiSunka]

It was customary to show Andrew crucified on a cross formed by two diagonals. According to the The Golden Legend, Aegeas, the proconsul of Patras, had Andrew held on the cross by ropes rather than nails, to prolong his suffering. But Andrew took advantage of his slow death to preach from the cross for two days, till the people threatened violence unless he were taken down. By this time Andrew had preached enough and, to die quickly, prayed that his limbs would be paralysed so that he could not be cut down. As a great light shines, he dies.

Sheesh.

This should be moved to the Catholic discussion area, since it is now full of Catholic folklore and tradition.

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Originally posted by lambslove

And outside of the writings of the Catholic church, where are these early Christian writings of which you speak? 



 

Oh good grief, you aren't serious are you?  The early church = the Catholic church.  At this time there is only the one source.  If you discredit all the "Catholic" church sources from this period then we have absolutely NONE.

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Originally posted by lambslove
Sheesh.

This should be moved to the Catholic discussion area, since it is now full of Catholic folklore and tradition.

it's called history.  Can we not discuss anything in church history till Luther shows up to give a protestant account?

[ZiSunka]

Everything in these areas ends up in a fight.

There is history outside the Catholic church before Luther shows up, too. Secular history, world history. It seems we can't discuss that either. Only Catholic history is correct, I suppose. :mad:

World history doesn't always corraborate Catholicism's version of things. It would be nice to be able to acknowledge that without a fight sometimes.

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
 

Oh good grief, you aren't serious are you?  The early church = the Catholic church.  At this time there is only the one source.  If you discredit all the "Catholic" church sources from this period then we have absolutely NONE.

Not all Christians were catholics even back then. There were Christians in places that never were part of the Roman Empire and Christians who never acknowledged Catholicism or accepted its authority.

You've been brainwashed to think that Catholicism is all there was, but it's a lie.

What about the Christians outside of Europe? Are you trying to say every Christian banded together to form one big happy denomination? Do fool yourself. There was as much dissent from the Catholic church back then as there is now. Read some non-Catholic history once in while.

And since every discussion has to end up in a catholic/protestant fight around here, I quit. I'm just not coming back to be part of any of these discussion. Too one sided.

[Live4Jesus]

I didn't put in the catholic area because I'm not really interested in the Catholic only view of it... Peter didn't die just for the catholics, he died for Jesus Christ, he died for truth. He died for sinners of yesterday and tomorrow even, in Egypt, in Jerusalem, in Rome, in Africa and Australia... and America.

Besides which I don't feel like fighting so I put it here. I didn't come here to fight, only though some would accuse others as being hostile just for asking a question... whatever is meant by that I don't even know...

[Live4Jesus]

Originally posted by lambslove
Everything in these areas ends up in a fight.

There is history outside the Catholic church before Luther shows up, too. Secular history, world history. It seems we can't discuss that either. Only Catholic history is correct, I suppose. :mad:

World history doesn't always corraborate Catholicism's version of things. It would be nice to be able to acknowledge that without a fight sometimes.

I don't see anyone fighting but you could you cut it out? They are not corraborating with Catholism I don't see that, where? just having a discussion here.

I think Peter meant to signify something by that... I really should look some solid stuff up first to help confirm it I guess, that it happened...be back soon, i know it's out there...

[Subtilis]

lambslove:

I concur with you that this is not a place for Catholic and Protestant debate, and because of that, I will not commence a debate on church history.  However, I will point out that I made no reference to Catholicism in my previous post.  Andrew was an Apostle who had a distinctive mode of crucifixion, so if your assertion was that Peter just did it to stand out and be unique, then he did a poor job of it.

[Live4Jesus]

Here's some paintings, there's more than this I have seen more but you gotta search them out..
http://www.bestpriceart.com/painting/?image=flippi10.jpg&tc=cgfa painting1 Lippi app 1475
http://btr0xw.rz.uni-bayreuth.de/cjackson/flippi/p-flippi10.htm ""

http://www.abcgallery.com/M/michelangelo/michelangelo70.html painting3 Michelangelo. 1546-1550

Then I found this:
http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/avrilmai/stpeter.htm writing modern

Where can I learn more about the potential truth to the story of St. Peter being crucified upside down?
Answer:

Dr. Alexander Roman alex@unicorne.org

The death of St Peter the Apostle and also, of course, how he died, was already known to the Christian world at the time of the writing of the Gospel of John.

We know this from John 21:18-19 where the Risen Christ relates Peter's future martyrdom to him "This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God."

There are numerous testimonies concerning Peter's actual presence in Rome, and the most compelling is at the end of Peter's First Epistle, 5:13 "The church that is at Babylon . . ." This is a symbolic allusion to Rome, as is mentioned in other sources as well.

The death of Peter is already mentioned in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians in the fifth chapter and we know this Epistle was read in church as part of Scripture for many years.

Tertullian in his "De Praescriptione" in the 35th chapter states that Peter "emulated the Passion of the Lord." In the 15th chapter of his "Scorpiace" Tertullian says, recalling John's Gospel, Chapter 21, that "Peter was girded by another, as he was bound to the cross."

Again, these and other writings attest that Peter's death on a cross at Rome was well known throughout the Christian world.

It is in the New Testament deuterocanonical book of the Acts of Peter that we read of his being crucified upside down under the Neronian Persecutions.

Such books were read widely by the early Church, often even during liturgical services themselves. But they didn't make it into the official canon of the New Testament for one reason or another.

They are perfectly orthodox in and of themselves, such as the Gospel of Nicodemus, and the Church often used the information contained in them for its liturgical celebrations, such as the Feast of the Entry into the Temple of the Virgin Mary, an event in her life that we find only in the orthodox deuterocanonicals. So, in liturgical form, these books continue to be read in the Church.

There were also books written in this same style by Gnostics and others to promote their agendas that were condemned by the Church and they don't figure in this deuterocanonical collection.

Here is an on-line translation of the Acts of Peter:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspeter.html

[kern]

Just beacause something is only mentioned in a "catholic" source does not automatically mean it's false -- we don't have all that much secular history from that time period, and what we do have is not very interested in Christianity (often in the Roman writings of this time there are a few bare mentions of Christianity, usually in a very negative light. Writing down the details of a particular apostle's crucifixion would not have been of interest to many non-Christians of that day.)

-Chris

[Live4Jesus]

It appears to me that peter was crucified as part of Nero's anger against the christians for the fire of rome, 64 ad.

I found 2 pages here:
- Suetonius' Life of the Emperor Nero, chapter 16 (excerpt)

Note: Gaius Suetonius Tranquilla was a Roman historian under Hadrian (AD 76-138).
http://www.bible-history.com/nero/NEROTacitus_on_the_Emperor_Nero.htm
http://www.bible-history.com/nero/NEROThe_Scapegoats.htm

[Wolseley]

Peter's upside-down crucifixion is another one of those topics like whether or not Mary had more children after Jesus; it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference one way or the other, unless the goal is to discredit Catholic teaching. :cry:

[Live4Jesus]

I don't know.. I guess the question comes about because I was looking at the chruch during the first century, they were persecuted hard especially by Nero it seems... I run across generally 2 things on this issue, Peter not feeling he was worthy to be crucified as Christ, or so we are told... then also a predominant idea seeming to be that the inverted crucifix was to some an acceptable mockery of Christ's crucifixion... those 2 lines of thought seem most prevalent...

I think the question stemming also that Peter was crucified app 64ad... the chruch existed at rome at that point even though it was discredited and heavily persecuted there... but then we get the Revelations from john at patmos in app 94-96ad or so thats when he was a prisoner there an exile... but Rome isn't mentioned in Revelations as one of the seven churches so i am just trying to piece together whatever i can I guess... figuring there is a reason for everything, including the form of peters crucifixion...

i know Wolsey Catholics would be offended thats why i didn't post it there or even in apologetics I am for sure looking for the reformed/non-denominational viewpoint instead...

[TheBear]

Originally posted by lambslove
Why is it so important for Peter to have a different death than the other apostles and disciples?

Why is his manner of death so much more important than the other ones?

First, even if you take Peter out of the equation, the other Apostles did not all die the same way.

Also, I don't think it is a matter of importance of how Peter died, any more than I think it is a matter of insignificance of how the other Apostles died.

[Live4Jesus]

I don't know either.

corinth isn't mentioned in Revelations either yet we have 2 books, romans, corinthians, more even... then in Revelations we see Jesus only holding seven stars, seven golden candelsticks..

Just looking for a reason in every corner maybe...

[dignitized]

Originally posted by Live4Jesus
Generally when we see an upside down cross we connect it to satanism, the worship and works of the devil. 


 

Then you are mistaken. Satanism uses an inverted Crucifix not an inverted Cross. :) The Crucifix (Cross with the corpus or body of Christ attached) is a Christian symbol of redemption. By inverting the Crucifix, the Satanists proclaim their denial of Gods redemptive plan.

[Wolseley]

According to Eusebius, quoting Origen, Peter asked to crucified upside-down and the request was granted, although the source I looked at didn't have specific reference numbers (grrr!!!!) that I could cross-check, and I'm too lazy to read through the entire corpus of both Eusebius and Origen to try to locate the specific passage. Take it for what it's worth.

[Blindfaith]

Remember when Peter denied the Lord 3 times?  He felt unworthy?  The Lord kept asking Peter, "do you really love me Peter"?

Our pastor (non-denom church) spoke of Peter and his death during one of his sermons.  I don't remember where he obtained his information, but he is very well informed, versed and an amazing teacher.  Anyway, he brought up the points above and said that it may very well be possible that Peter chose this type of death to make a point that he wasn't worthy of Jesus.  I don't necessarily believe that this type of death was for the people of that time, but for the people throughout the ages, after we've read about his life, history, and relationship with Jesus.  For him to choose an upside down crucifixion because he was telling us he wasn't worthy of Jesus, and that he messed up more than a couple of times.  Like we all do. :)


This is purely speculation, based upon what I've heard at chuch, and some thought.  It in no way means this is correct, but just trying to make conversation:)

In the scheme of things, it just doesn't really matter, and when we get to heaven, all knowledge will be given to us. :)  Can you imagine?

[Live4Jesus]

I do always tell my daughter that, like when she asks about dinosaurs and the universe... some things you do have to wait till Jesus tells you face to face...

Was just wondering if anyone had run across anything guess not... so many wars so much destuction not much history left overtime... .


Terribly strange and brutal though Nero's time... I did learn a bit there... Nero's circus etc.

[Blindfaith]

Nero was absolutely insane. That man was evil, evil, evil.

[Apologist]

Originally posted by blindfaith
Nero was absolutely insane. That man was evil, evil, evil.

That's an understatement. ;)

Ever hear the term, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned?"

When he was through singing, Nero blamed the fire on the Christians and began the first Roman persecution. Others, pointing to Nero's desire to rebuild Rome on a grand scale, note that the fire was a very convenient way for him to carry out his plans and suggest that he may have caused the fire himself.


Insane? You be the judge. :(

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by lambslove
But by being different, he drew attention to himself, and made himself stick out as a topic of discussion for 2000 years.

If he would have been crucified the way all the other condemned men in the Roman empire were, no one would even have anything to talk about today.

You never cease to amaze me.

:( :rolleyes:

[dignitized]

what we're forgetting here is that there is no evidence that Peter was not Crucified as claimed by "tradition"

[kern]

Right...I can at least understand the opposition to Mary's ever-virginity because a surface reading of the Bible does suggest that she had other children.

However, on this point the only purpose in opposing it seems to be to connect Satanism with Catholicism (through the Pope's use of the upside-down cross). Otherwise why even bother? Is it so impossible to believe that Peter was crucified upside-down? Nothing in the Bible says how Peter died one way or the other.

-Chris

[dignitized]

kern: but the upside down cross is a confession of St Peter's death. An upside down CRUCIFIX - the corpus or body of Christ attached - is a denial of the Sacrifice of Christ and a satanic symbol. *sigh* I guess that’s what happens when you try to take Christs out of the sacrifice of the Cross and leave the cross empty. They say that an empty cross is a symbol of the resurrection, I say that an EMPTY TOMB is a symbol of the resurrection. an empty cross is a sing of Roman oppression.

[kern]

Well, logic and facts don't usually mean much to the anti-Catholics who spout this kind of stuff.

-Chris

[MizDoulos]

Not:&nbsp&nbspBe objective and keep on topic. Don't let this thread deteriorate into flaming and bickering or it will be closed.

[nyj]

Originally posted by Br. Max
what we're forgetting here is that there is no evidence that Peter was not Crucified as claimed by "tradition"

Actually, it's much more than "tradition" that St. Peter was crucified. It's Scriptural.

John 21:18-19 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, "Follow me."

[nyj]

The following is the from book "The Acts of Peter", a text with a written date of before AD 200. I post it here for information only. It is not considered canonical by any Christian faiths (that includes the Catholic Church).

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

XXXVII. And having approached and standing by the cross he began to say: O name of the cross, thou hidden mystery! O grace ineffable that is pronounced in the name of the cross! O nature of man, that cannot be separated from God! O love (friendship) unspeakable and inseparable, that cannot be shown forth by unclean lips! I seize thee now, I that am at the end of my delivery hence (or, of my coming hither). I will declare thee, what thou art: I will not keep silence of the mystery of the cross which of old was shut and hidden from my soul. Let not the cross be unto you which hope in Christ, this which appeareth: for it is another thing, different from that which appeareth, even this passion which is according to that of Christ. And now above all, because ye that can hear are able to hear it of me, that am at the last and final hour of my life, hearken: Separate your souls from every thing that is of the senses, from every thing that appeareth, and does not exist in truth. Blind these eyes of yours, close these ears of yours, put away your doings that are seen; and ye shall perceive that which concerneth Christ, and the whole mystery of your salvation: and let thus much be said unto you that hear, as if it had not been spoken. But now it is time for thee, Peter, to deliver up thy body unto them that take it. Receive it then, ye unto whom it belongeth. I beseech you the executioners, crucify me thus, with the head downward and not otherwise: and the reason wherefore, I will tell unto them that hear.

XXXVIII. And when they had hanged him up after the manner he desired, he began again to say: Ye men unto whom it belongeth to hear, hearken to that which I shall declare unto you at this especial time as I hang here. Learn ye the mystery of all nature, and the beginning of all things, what it was. For the first man, whose race I bear in mine appearance (or, of the race of whom I bear the likeness), fell (was borne) head downwards, and showed forth a manner of birth such as was not heretofore: for it was dead, having no motion. He, then, being pulled down -who also cast his first state down upon the earth- established this whole disposition of all things, being hanged up an image of the creation (Gk. vocation) wherein he made the things of the right hand into left hand and the left hand into right hand, and changed about all the marks of their nature, so that he thought those things that were not fair to be fair, and those that were in truth evil, to be good. Concerning which the Lord saith in a mystery: Unless ye make the things of the right hand as those of the left, and those of the left as those of the right, and those that are above as those below, and those that are behind as those that are before, ye shall not have knowedge of the kingdom.

This thought, therefore, have I declared unto you; and the figure wherein ye now see me hanging is the representation of that man that first came unto birth. Ye therefore, my beloved, and ye that hear me and that shall hear, ought to cease from your former error and return back again. For it is right to mount upon the cross of Christ, who is the word stretched out, the one and only, of whom the spirit saith: For what else is Christ, but the word, the sound of God? So that the word is the upright beam whereon I am crucified. And the sound is that which crosseth it, the nature of man. And the nail which holdeth the cross-tree unto the upright in the midst thereof is the conversion and repentance of man.

XXXIX. Now whereas thou hast made known and revealed these things unto me, O word of life, called now by me wood (or, word called now by me the tree of life), I give thee thanks, not with these lips that are nailed unto the cross, nor with this tongue by which truth and falsehood issue forth, nor with this word which cometh forth by means of art whose nature is material, but with that voice do I give thee thanks, O King, which is perceived (understood) in silence, which is not heard openly, which proceedeth not forth by organs of the body, which goeth not into ears of flesh, which is not heard of corruptible substance, which existeth not in the world, neither is sent forth upon earth, nor written in books, which is owned by one and not by another: but with this, O Jesu Christ, do I give thee thanks, with the silence of a voice, wherewith the spirit that is in me loveth thee, speaketh unto thee, seeth thee, and beseecheth thee. Thou art perceived of the spirit only, thou art unto me father, thou my mother, thou my brother, thou my friend, thou my bondsman, thou my steward: thou art the All and the All is in thee: and thou Art, and there is nought else that is save thee only.

Unto him therefore do ye also, brethren, flee, and if ye learn that in him alone ye exist, ye shall obtain those things whereof he saith unto you: 'which neither eye hath seen nor ear heard, neither have they entered into the heart of man.' We ask, therefore, for that which thou hast promised to give unto us, O thou undefiled Jesu. We praise thee, we give thee thanks, and confess to thee, glorifying thee, even we men that are yet without strength, for thou art God alone, and none other: to whom be glory now and unto all ages. Amen.

XL. And when the multitude that stood by pronounced the Amen with a great sound, together with the Amen Peter gave up his spirit unto the Lord.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspeter.html

[nyj]

Originally posted by lambslove
Sheesh.

This should be moved to the Catholic discussion area, since it is now full of Catholic folklore and tradition.

Lambslove,

Get a grip. The only one bringing up Catholic vs non-Catholic is you. Which is saying something IMNSHO. Think about it.

[dignitized]

Nyj: :) I know of that text, which was why I put tradition in quotes :) some people like to call anything that is not what they believe to be scripture to be tradition as if history is a matter of subjection. :sigh:

[nyj]

Originally posted by Br. Max
Nyj: :) I know of that text, which was why I put tradition in quotes :) some people like to call anything that is not what they believe to be scripture to be tradition as if history is a matter of subjection. :sigh:

Gotcha, guess I'm just a bit dense today. :)

[dignitized]

nyj: sokay we all get like that ;)

[Homie]

Peter's upside-down crucifixion is another one of those topics like whether or not Mary had more children after Jesus; it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference one way or the other, unless the goal is to discredit Catholic teaching.
WHAT? Jesus had both brothers and sisters. It is a fact. I thought nobody disagreed on that :scratch:

[kern]

Homie: I suggest you search the forum archives -- the idea that Mary had other children besides Jesus is a fairly recent idea. All of the Reformers believed in it.

-Chris

[dignitized]

I think what kern is trying to say is that all of the refomers agreed that Mary was a perpetual virgin and that in the case of Jesus' brother's the term is refering to cousins.

[4Jesus]

Originally posted by lambslove
:sigh:

Yes, this is much better.

:sigh:

:rolleyes: I agree lambslove

4Jesus 

[Grim]

They say theres no evedence that peter was crucified in rome but, theres no evedence that he wasnt!

[pmarquette]

some links on this topic
http://www.bibarch.com/The%20First%20Christians/Peter's-Tomb.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm
http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/avrilmai/stpeter.htm