Freethought & Rationalism Archive

steve_bnk · 07-08-2009, 07:16 PM

I believe the RCC claims authority as the only true Christian church by claiming the popes are in an unbroken line starting with Peter.

mountainman · 07-08-2009, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

I believe the RCC claims authority as the only true Christian church by claiming the popes are in an unbroken line starting with Peter.

Which is of course a totally bogus and fabricated claim
that was first dressed up for public consumption and the
tourist trade by Pope Damasius after Emperor Julian died.

The only early source that I am aware of that explicitly
places Peter in Rome is an apocryphal (non canonical)
new testament book authored by a gnostic heretic who
loved the apostle Paul more than the gnostic and
Platonic Logos.

judge · 07-09-2009, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

I believe the RCC claims authority as the only true Christian church by claiming the popes are in an unbroken line starting with Peter.

Yes the RCC claims it is the true church in some way, but the Church of the East claims they are just as old.
In the link I posted there is the COE link of almost unbroken patriarchs.

beginning with.

Quote:

Shimun Keepa (St. Simon Peter), who wrote his Catholic Epistle from Babylon.

I. Peter, 1.1 and 5.13.

Tooma Shlikha (St. Thomas), who after establishing Church in Mesopotamia, Persia and their environment, went to India 33 -77

Bar Tulmay 33 -

Addai (or Taddai) Shlikha 33 - 45
Agai, disciple of Addai
{both from the seventy disciples}45 - 81

Mari, disciple of Addai 48 - 81

Abris, relative of the virgin Mary 90 -107

Etc etc....

Both of these lists are traditions that cant be proved. If one accepts the catholic one then one might as well accept the other.

The very fact that the COE admits small breaks might even be an argument for accepting it over the RCC tradition. Or perhaps it just indicates a different type of tradition. As you will see from the link it is not until the tenth century that one patriarch follows immediately after the previous one. Up until that time they, unlike catholics, were happy, it seems, if the office was idle till the right man was found.

mountainman · 07-09-2009, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Yes the RCC claims it is the true church in some way, but the Church of the East claims they are just as old.
In the link I posted there is the COE link of almost unbroken patriarchs.

The Roman Primacy of Peter vs the Alexandrian Primacy of Mark

If we recognise the fact that we are wearing "Christian Glasses" and take them off and look around at the "Churches" and "Temples" of the "Religion" of the "eastern empire" what do we see? Since the epoch of Alexander the great, focussed on the City of Alexander - Alexandria - a huge and empire-wide network of ancient Hellenistic temples to many gods including Asclepius, Apollo, Zeus, Diana, Aphrodite, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc ... it was a gigantic melting pot of cults. This non-christian Hellenistic milieu represented the universal collegiate collaborative network of ther Graeco-Roman religion. It was not christian. There are no christian monuments or architecture. In terms of a gathering up of all the archaeolofgical citations to "church and temple structures" in the period from the 1st to the beginning of the 4th century, when we do so, we have nothing "christian". A simple count of the archaeological citations is available by adding up the numbers.

The scoreboard, since the "Christian Glasses" are off,
is . ........................ MANY THOUSANDS to ZERO !!

The pre-Constantinian eastern "churches" were 100% pagan - Hellenistic.
Readers may now replace their "Christian glasses".
I apologise for any interruptions to orthodox conceptions.

avi · 07-09-2009, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

...The question is, how late in this forgery? Let's review the texts to see if there is a bright dividing line when this text becomes known.

Pauline episltes. No.
Mark. No.
Luke. No.
John. No.
Acts. No.
1 Peter. No.
2 Peter. No.
Any other New Testamnet text. No.
Clement of Rome. No.
Ignatius. No.
Polycarp. No.
Justin Martyr. No.
Tatian. No.
Polycrates. No.
Melito. No.
Irenaeus. No.
.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by John 14: 28

...If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Is this sentiment found in any other text of the new testament? If not, then, should we consider it also a forgery?

In my opinion, one ought not classify a particular passage as representing forgery, i.e. a later interpolation, based upon absence of discussion on that passage in other texts.

Solo · 07-09-2009, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Matthew 16:18-19 makes the astounding claim that the Apostle Peter received from Christ the primacy of jurisdiction in the Church.

Matthew chapter 16
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock,I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
This is quite obviously a forgery since it is not mentioned in any other New Testament text.

The second century proto-catholic Church at Rome had taught that their authority was handed down from the apostles. Marcion undercut that claim by introducing the teaching that Paul had exclusively gained the truth by revelation. The Pauline epistles, especially Galatians chapter 1, strongly supported Marcion. The proto-Catholic church had responded by promoting Peter to go one on one with Paul, and had pursued the doctrine of the parallelism of Peter and Paul; that their joint actions had established the Church at Rome. This doctrine is seen plainly in Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3.

But Matthew 16:18-19 goes beyond that, and builds the case for the primacy of Peter over all the apostles, including Paul.

The question is, how late in this forgery? Let's review the texts to see if there is a bright dividing line when this text becomes known.

Pauline episltes. No.
Mark. No.
Luke. No.
John. No.
Acts. No.
1 Peter. No.
2 Peter. No.
Any other New Testamnet text. No.
Clement of Rome. No.
Ignatius. No.
Polycarp. No.
Justin Martyr. No.
Tatian. No.
Polycrates. No.
Melito. No.
Irenaeus. No.

OK, we have reached at least 185 CE and no evidence that Matthew 16:18 existed. Suddenly things change.
We begin to find explicit references.
Tertullian, Monogamy, 8,4. (after 213 CE).
Tertullian, Modesty, 21,7. (about 220 CE).

At about the same time that Tertullian explicitly mentions Matt. 16:18, we for the first time start to find other claims for the priority of Peter, but without direct quotation.
"the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among disciples, for whom alone with Himself the Savior paid the tribute.” Clement of Alexandria, _Who is the Rich Man that is Saved?_ 21,1,3. (210 CE) also Origen, Homily on Exodus, 5,4.

Continuing with the third century Fathers, Cyprin makes many references in the 250's CE.
The Unity of the Catholic Church, 4.
Letter Without heading to the Lapsed, 33(127), 1.
To Florentius Papianus, 66(69),8.
To Quintus, 71,1.

Moving into the fourth century, we see
Aphraates, Treatises, 21,13; Ephraim, Homilies, 4,1; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catchetical Lectures, 17,27.

Thus reviewing the evidence, we find the smoking gun with Tertullian. Unsatisfied with the mere equivalency of Peter and Paul, in his hatred for the Marcionites he decided to take Paul down a notch and promote Peter above him.

We find the first reference *ever* to Matthew 16:18-19 in the Prescription against Heretics, chapter 23.
‘Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?’
At the same time that Tertullian promoted Peter, he took Paul down a notch by questioning his authority based on revelation.
“Now, although Paul was carried away even to the third heaven, and was caught up to paradise, and heard certain revelations there, yet these cannot possibly seem to have qualified him for (teaching) another doctrine, seeing that their very nature was such as to render them communicable to no human being. If, however, that unspeakable mystery did leak out, and become known to any man, and if any heresy affirms that it does itself follow the same, (then) either Paul must be charged with having betrayed the secret, or some other man must actually be shown to have been afterwards "caught up into paradise," who had permission to speak out plainly what Paul was not allowed (even) to mutter.”
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian11.html

The evidence is that Matthew 16:18-19 is an early third century forgery.

Jake Jones IV

Hi Jake,
though you may be right about Mt 16 "evidence", I would say that the clamour for Peter's primacy long predates Tertullian. The 1 Cr 15:3-11 passage (whether or not a forgery) sits in Marcion's Apostolikon and there Cephas receives the first appearance of the risen Lord, a clear argument for Peter's primacy and Paul's low status (even if not to Marcion). Also, the gospels of Mark and John (and Thomas if you wish) are transparently dissing Peter as a central figure among the disciples with a privileged access to the Lord. This would not have been necessary, IMO, had Peter not been established as a leader in at least some factions of the early congregations.

Best,
Jiri

jakejonesiv · 07-09-2009, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Is the pre-eminence of Peter alien to the rest of the NT. I wouldn’t say that much. Take John 21:15-19

Quote:

15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."

16 Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."

17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."

19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

John chapter 21 was added by a redactor. The text above is unattested before late 2c/early 3c.

Jake

bacht · 07-09-2009, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

...though you may be right about Mt 16 "evidence", I would say that the clamour for Peter's primacy long predates Tertullian. The 1 Cr 15:3-11 passage (whether or not a forgery) sits in Marcion's Apostolikon and there Cephas receives the first appearance of the risen Lord, a clear argument for Peter's primacy and Paul's low status (even if not to Marcion). Also, the gospels of Mark and John (and Thomas if you wish) are transparently dissing Peter as a central figure among the disciples with a privileged access to the Lord. This would not have been necessary, IMO, had Peter not been established as a leader in at least some factions of the early congregations.

Right, why build a straw-man at all unless there really was someone with status before Paul? Does it still make sense to identify Peter/Cephas with whatever Jewish-Christian groups existed in the early 2nd C?

jakejonesiv · 07-09-2009, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Thanks to both Andrew and Jake for helping me understand Tertullian. On a semi-tangential note, what would be the point of God providing revelations one cannot share? From Tertullian's perspective, I mean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The contrast between the primacy of Peter, and Peter as Satan was likely unintentional.

I was thinking it could be argued as an additional indication of interpolation. So, not just unintentional but a mistake.

It is one thing for an author to describe Peter recognizing Jesus as Christ only to be subsequently chastised for failing to understand and, I think, quite another to start that transition with being named the foundation of the Church.

OK, those are good points.

ynquirer · 07-09-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

John chapter 21 was added by a redactor.

The same as forged Mat 16:18-19, surely?

Quote:

The text above is unattested before late 2c/early 3c.

That is argument from silence, isn’t it? Moreover, how many NT passages are attested before late 2c/early 3c?

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

07-08-2009, 07:16 PM	#11
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	I believe the RCC claims authority as the only true Christian church by claiming the popes are in an unbroken line starting with Peter.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.