Was the Apostle Peter killed in Rome and can this be supoorted by scripture?

Question

Please give me the book, chapter, and verse!

Answer 1

There is no New Testament evidence that Peter died in Rome. There are several second-hand documents from early Church fathers who state as a matter of fact that Peter died in Rome during the persecutions of Nero. We do not know what evidence they had for their statements.

Answer 2

My research says no. This was made up by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in the latter half of the second century. He was imprisoned once when James was killed but the congregation prayed so hard that an angel rescued him. When Paul wrote to the Romans, sending greetings by name to many in Rome, he omitted Peter. Had Peter been a leading overseer there, this would have been an unlikely omission. Gal 2:8-9 Brings out that Peter was entrusted with the good news for those who are circumcised, therefore he was preaching in Babylon where there was a large Jewish population.

Schneb: Peter, not Paul.

Edit: to Conundrum, Eusebius was not born until 275, so pray tell how could he be any kind of authority on the death of Peter?

Answer 3

The only apostle’s death the Bible records is James' (Acts 12:2). King Herod had James put to death “with the sword” – likely a reference to beheading. The circumstances of the deaths of the other apostles can only be known based on church traditions, so we should not put too much weight on any of the other accounts. The most commonly accepted church tradition in regards to the death of an apostle is that the Apostle Peter was crucified, upside-down on an x-shaped cross, in Rome, in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy (John 21:18).

Answer 4

There is sort of a dangerous implication here, that if something isn't in scripture then it isn't true, or it is irrelevant.

As pointed out above, there is plenty of independent historical evidence from different parts of the world that there is no reason to believe it false. Even people the early church considered heretics believed that from their writings.

Second, the more important issue here is sola scriptura.

Scripture clearly states the world is flat. Even by the early 300's Augustine, bishop of Hippo was warning evangelists not to claim the bible was literally true in its science claims. It was already known in the 300's that the science of the bible is false. Galileo went to jail for proving about 50 verses in the bible are both literally and symbolically false. Many have meanings that have no possible symbolic value.

The opposite is also important. When Pope Damasus issued the list of books we now call the bible, it was not to define which books are the boundaries of truth, but rather what books should be used during the services and which should not. A local council at Carthage, Hippo Regius and Rome each met and Damasus ultimately issued a list from their work. It is the list used by Christians today.

Many things are true, but are not in the bible. For example, we know that near the surface of the Earth, the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 meters per second per second. That is not in the bible. Beliefs about the Trinity are not called out explicitly in the bible and are contradicted in some parts of the bible. There wouldn't be unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormon's otherwise.

Finally, the first century services written by Peter, James and Mark are still in use today. Can we say a service written by Mark is false?!? By what standard could that be done since it was accepted as true by Christians before the Gospel was written. The reason I say that is that Mark founded the Church in Alexandria. As such, he performed services there before he wrote the scriptures. Later he wrote them, before his own martyrdom. There are many things still in use from the first century that are not in the bible, but were preserved either in song (if you go to an Antiochean Orthodox Church, their hymns date from the '50s, not the 1950's either.), art (Luke painted), stories, beliefs, practices and as pointed out above, services. Archaeologists date the Liturgy of James at 50 AD, it is older than most scripture and our copies of it are actually older than most scripture.

Be careful what you presume.

Answer 5

There is nothing in the New Testament indicating Peter's death at Rome, however there is evidence that he was there. The reference in his first epistle to being in Babylon for example. We know that Babylon was used as a code word for Rome - check out the book of Revelation.

However there is plenty of non biblical evidence to back up the claims. The early Church Fathers were unanimous in there claims that Peter was martyred at Rome. Also archeological evidence taken from excavations after World War 2 shows that the tomb of Peter is in fact on Vatican hill.

Answer 6

The ancient religious historian Eusebius reports that Peter “was crucified with his head downward, having requested of himself to suffer in this way.” However, Jesus’ prophecy regarding Peter’s death was not that specific. Acknowledges A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture: “As the extension of hands is set before girding and being led away, it is difficult to discern how it must be conceived. If the order is part of the prophecy, we must suppose the prisoner lashed to the patibulum before being girded and led out to execution.”( John 21:18,19)

So, were it not for the tradition recorded by Eusebius, Jesus’ statement in itself would not point to a death by crucifixion or impalement. Viewing the words of John 21:18, 19 apart from tradition, we would come to the following conclusion: In his younger years Peter was able to gird himself at will for whatever duty he wanted to perform. He had the liberty to go where he wanted to go. But in later life this would change. He would have to stretch out his hands, perhaps in submission to someone else. Another man would take control of him, girding Peter (either binding him or preparing him for what was to come) and bearing him to a place where he did not want to go, evidently the place of execution. Thus Jesus’ prophecy regarding Peter indeed indicated that the apostle would die a martyr’s death; but the manner of this death is not necessarily implied.

Answer 7

Peter is said to have been killed outside of Rome, so was Paul. They died within six months of each other.

Answer 8

Sacred Tradition and history clearly shows us the fate of Peter. It doesn't have to say it specifically in Scripture not to be true. Just look at the Trinity. We believe it's true and it's not mentioned in Sacred Scripture.

Answer 9

Acts 28:16 - He never left after that.

Answer 10

"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me." (John 21:15-19, KJV)

Verses 15- 17 very clearly show that Jesus is speaking to Simon Peter. Verses 18-19 give a brief description of his time before his apostleship and a prophetic description of his death.

Oral tradition (he is generally agreed to have been Bishop of Rome at his death) and the apocryphal book "Acts of Peter" describe his death being in Rome and by upside down crucifixion.

I hope this answers your question.
God be with you.