Freethought & Rationalism Archive

beachbum · 01-08-2002, 09:50 AM

I have been reading parts of The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths...... and came across the following item

Matthew 16:18-19 Sats something about Simon being called Peter and that line about on this rock I will build my church. As I understand, the Catholic Church points to this and says "See the first pope". According to TWEoM.... this piece of scripture was actually added sometime around the 3rd century C.E. as a political move, jprobably by the early church to support their claim. Interesting stuff in that book.

IvanK · 01-08-2002, 10:20 AM

3rd Century CE seems like a late date for the passage; Matthew and John (where the same story appears) were both probably written before the middle of the 2nd Century and I'm not aware of that significant a difference between the earliest copies we have and any 3rd Century texts. Possibly the interpretation identifying the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter was put forward first in the 3rd Century, though.

-DM- · 01-08-2002, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IvanK:
3rd Century CE seems like a late date for the passage;

Yes, it does.

Quote:

I'm not aware of that significant a difference between the earliest copies we have and any 3rd Century texts.

Me either, and I searched my library looking for some indication, any indication, that the earliest manuscripts of Matthew might not have included this passage and -- unlike, for example, the longer ending of Mark -- found no such indication.

--Don--

01-08-2002, 11:21 AM

[
It doesn't really matter if that was the second or the third century after. Let's be clear that it had to be long enough to let all skeleton's die in the closet or eye witnesses would have to be verifyable and that would remove the myth from the truth. You have to understand that the name of the game is leading people into a certain direction that is true but not quite true as was first believed in effort that truth may become real to the blind being led into the darkeness of religious obscurity.

Could you have said that better sullster? The problem here is that I mean it.

Amos

beachbum · 01-08-2002, 12:24 PM

Don and IvanK

Thanks for the insight. I was going on what was in the one book. Evidently there is a flaw somewhere. I have no early works and even if I did I couldn't read them. I did read that the autor of the book I was reading Ms. Barbara Walker is rather a hard ass femanist and may tend to slant some facts to her own likeing. I know no more about that either.

Amos

HUH?

Vorkosigan · 01-08-2002, 02:47 PM

Eisenman argues that James was the actual successor to Jesus, not Peter, basing this on early church traditions.

Michael

sullster · 01-09-2002, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:
<strong>[
It doesn't really matter if that was the second or the third century after. Let's be clear that it had to be long enough to let all skeleton's die in the closet or eye witnesses would have to be verifyable and that would remove the myth from the truth. You have to understand that the name of the game is leading people into a certain direction that is true but not quite true as was first believed in effort that truth may become real to the blind being led into the darkeness of religious obscurity.

Could you have said that better sullster? The problem here is that I mean it.

Amos</strong>

Let me try, my man.
The founders of the catholic myth had a problem. How do we get an other-worldy system going during the declining Roman Empire by replacing a worldly Pagan emperor with a religious leader leader only loyal to the catholic myth?
Big problem here for the catholic team. The masses won't buy a bunch of incremental lies but they will believe a big lie after a few generations pass. Back it all up with threats of eternal damnation and you have an up and running religious organization complete with a first pope who used to hang out with jaysus himself.
Add saints, obscure dogmas, and gloomy cathedrals and the team was on its way. The ends always justify the means in the nihilistic maze of the religious mind. Truth-schmuth!

01-09-2002, 07:44 AM

Sullster, you show anger and resentment. The Early Church Fathers just absolutly towered above the crowds and were playing a game with them. They had no problem but it is true that no physical event happended (only a spiritual) and so it takes time to let skeletons die.

Hell never got blown out of proportion until the reformation when real men became wimps and it just baffles me that upright Americans should relate to that.

Tom in KC · 01-09-2002, 08:15 AM

I have heard and read in several places that this verse is more likely a play on words by Jesus rather than a mandate for the establishment of a pope. More specifically, the name Peter means small rock or pebble and the following reference to "rock" is more like boulder (interpreted as bedrock or foundation?). Many protestants think that he second reference is to Jesus himself (the foundation of the Church) not Peter at all.

Is anyone else familiar with this interpretation?

01-09-2002, 11:13 AM

Is anyone else familiar with this interpretation?[/qb][/QUOTE]

There is a thousand of them and most protestants have their own version.

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

01-08-2002, 09:50 AM	#1
beachbum Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cocoa Beach, FL Posts: 864	Peter not the first Pope? I have been reading parts of The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths...... and came across the following item Matthew 16:18-19 Sats something about Simon being called Peter and that line about on this rock I will build my church. As I understand, the Catholic Church points to this and says "See the first pope". According to TWEoM.... this piece of scripture was actually added sometime around the 3rd century C.E. as a political move, jprobably by the early church to support their claim. Interesting stuff in that book.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-08-2002, 10:20 AM	#2
IvanK Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Posts: 2,016	3rd Century CE seems like a late date for the passage; Matthew and John (where the same story appears) were both probably written before the middle of the 2nd Century and I'm not aware of that significant a difference between the earliest copies we have and any 3rd Century texts. Possibly the interpretation identifying the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter was put forward first in the 3rd Century, though.

01-08-2002, 11:21 AM	#4
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	[ It doesn't really matter if that was the second or the third century after. Let's be clear that it had to be long enough to let all skeleton's die in the closet or eye witnesses would have to be verifyable and that would remove the myth from the truth. You have to understand that the name of the game is leading people into a certain direction that is true but not quite true as was first believed in effort that truth may become real to the blind being led into the darkeness of religious obscurity. Could you have said that better sullster? The problem here is that I mean it. Amos

01-08-2002, 12:24 PM	#5
beachbum Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cocoa Beach, FL Posts: 864	Don and IvanK Thanks for the insight. I was going on what was in the one book. Evidently there is a flaw somewhere. I have no early works and even if I did I couldn't read them. I did read that the autor of the book I was reading Ms. Barbara Walker is rather a hard ass femanist and may tend to slant some facts to her own likeing. I know no more about that either. Amos HUH?

01-08-2002, 02:47 PM	#6
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Eisenman argues that James was the actual successor to Jesus, not Peter, basing this on early church traditions. Michael

01-09-2002, 07:44 AM	#8
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Sullster, you show anger and resentment. The Early Church Fathers just absolutly towered above the crowds and were playing a game with them. They had no problem but it is true that no physical event happended (only a spiritual) and so it takes time to let skeletons die. Hell never got blown out of proportion until the reformation when real men became wimps and it just baffles me that upright Americans should relate to that.

01-09-2002, 08:15 AM	#9
Tom in KC Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: KC, MO Posts: 19	I have heard and read in several places that this verse is more likely a play on words by Jesus rather than a mandate for the establishment of a pope. More specifically, the name Peter means small rock or pebble and the following reference to "rock" is more like boulder (interpreted as bedrock or foundation?). Many protestants think that he second reference is to Jesus himself (the foundation of the Church) not Peter at all. Is anyone else familiar with this interpretation?

01-09-2002, 11:13 AM	#10
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Is anyone else familiar with this interpretation?[/qb][/QUOTE] There is a thousand of them and most protestants have their own version. [ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.