spin

Stop retrojecting gospel assumptions and church teachings into your analyses. It is self-defeating. Work from Paul forward, not back from gospels and Acts.

Do you honestly believe Peter was the first pope? If not, how did he later get to be seen that way? (Ignore if you believe he was the first pope.)


spin

TedM

I doubt Peter was the first pope for the same reason I think the author of Acts likely knew which person Paul met with at the council--based on probability given what information we do know. Probably the author of Acts knew who was at the council because of its importance. Probably Peter wasn't the first Pope because of the information we have about James and the silence of Paul on the matter. Why do you seem to be insisting on 100% positive proof on these kinds of debatable matters? You too rely on probabilities and likelihoods. In the discussion regarding Josephus and James you dismiss a passage on the grounds that probably Josephus would not have worded his description the way it is now. You don't have proof that he didn't. Just no corroberation that he did. You concluded what you do based on a calculation of probabilities regarding a behavior of Josephus. Is that really all that different from what I'm doing?

ted

spin

Peter was the first pope by retrojection and based on the misunderstanding of "upon this rock..."

What I get from you is an uninterrupted stream of assumptions breeding other assumptions causing others to sprout up and more to flower.

Making one assumption may be standing on the ground trying to see, making assumption on assumption places you nowhere, not knowing where you stand or what you're looking at.

A good rule is to minimize the assumptions -- I'd recommend one at a time.


spin

TedM

How do you come to this conclusion? Is it not in part due to the lack of evidence for a Pope Peter? It is likely that the "rock" Jesus refers to is Peter or a play on Peter's name, which means 'rock'.


Not a bad idea. But it wouldn't be much fun that way. take care,

ted

spin

You'd make a good catholic.


spin

TedM

I looked at this issue a couple of years ago pretty closely and concluded that Peter is the rock Jesus refers to--based on the actual meaning of the words used. Yes, I was aware of the male/female meanings, etc.. I also concluded that Peter probably wasnt' the head of the Church, so the verse likely was not original to Jesus, Jesus made a mistake, or Jesus was referring to Peter's early important role of helping to build the church.

ted

spin

First, there are only two examples of ekklhsia in the gospels, Mt 16:18 and Mt 18:17. This should tip one off to the veracity of the texts, the literary Jesus, before churches existed, makes a prediction about the one church. One indication in Pauline analysis regarding the veracity of texts as Pauline is whether they talk of churches or the Church.

Second, the contrast between masculine and feminine separates Peter from any direct connection with the rock on which the church is to be built. The difference between petra and petros is not merely gender. You can build on the former, not on the latter.


spin

TedM

thanks for your thoughts. I"m not interested in reviewing the topic further, but I am curious: Am I to assume (like that word?) that you think it is just a coincidence that the passage uses a word that so closely matches the meaning of Peter's name?

ted

spin

Certainly not. Phonetic similarities were often used as a rhetorical device in literary works.


spin

NOGO

What about the idea that in the passage in question Jesus changed Simon's name in order to give him a special role just like Yahweh had changed Abram's name.

So which rock was Jesus talking about if it was not Peter?