Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 02-01-2008, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnolo

In any event the Greek Orthodox Church traces it's origin back to the Original church of Jerusalem. Historical facts.

http://www.holylight.gr/patria/enpatria.html
http://www.wheaton.edu/DistanceLearning/Pella.htm

But Peter is not mentioned at either of those web sites.

arnoldo · 02-01-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darklighter

...

In any event it started before 70 AD. Historical facts.

Toto · 02-01-2008, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

In any event the Greek Orthodox Church traces it's origin back to the Original church of Jerusalem. Historical facts.

http://www.holylight.gr/patria/enpatria.html
http://www.wheaton.edu/DistanceLearning/Pella.htm

Yes it is a historical fact that the Greek Orthodox Church claims to trace its origin back to the Church of Jerusalem. (It cannot be established as a historical fact that there ever was a church of Jerusalem.) And the Roman Catholic Church traces its origins back to a story of Jesus telling Peter that he was the rock upon which he would build his church, although this event cannot be shown to be historical. Both of these churches claim to be the One True Church, and that adherents of the other will burn in hell.

What is your point?

Toto · 02-01-2008, 04:01 PM

arnoldo: What do you mean with this mantra of "historical facts"? What evidence do you have that "it" started before 70 AD sic?

This is a discussion board. If you want to discuss something, give us some facts or arguments, not these bald assertions.

mountainman · 02-01-2008, 08:21 PM

The first christian Pontifex Maximus
was Pope Damasius c.365 CE

The lineage of Pontifex Maximus until
that time had been assumed by the
military leader of Rome, for 1000 years.

As the pontiff to the head priest, the
role was always previously tolerant of
others - the many and various religious
cults of Rome and its empire.

The Canonical St.Peter was a forgery of Constantinian
propagandists of the fourth century, lead by the
editor in chief of scriptoriums, Eusebius.

This authority was attacked by anti-christian polemic.
The carbon dating of the Nag Hammadi codices gives
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
as mid-fourth century. TAOPATTA is an anti-christian
document.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Johnny Skeptic · 02-01-2008, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnolo

In any event the Greek Orthodox Church traces it's origin back to the Original church of Jerusalem. Historical facts.

http://www.holylight.gr/patria/enpatria.html
http://www.wheaton.edu/DistanceLearning/Pella.htm

But Peter is not mentioned at either of those web sites.[/quote]

But this thread is about Peter being the first Pope, and neither one of those web sites mentiond Peter.

Chili · 02-01-2008, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Is there any question that St. Peter was the first pope and he was executed on Vatican Hill, Rome?

it's hilarious fabulation by the Roman Catholic church.
The Vatican had already been dedicated to a heathen cult.
The name Peter is chosen in analogy to Mithra who has been
born from a rock (petros)

Klaus Schilling

But the rock of Peter has nothing to do with rocks but with the keen insight to see the God nature of man in man. . . . and don't forget that that insight is what Rome is built upon and she don't care if you call her heathen, cult, occult or what because she remains beyond human comprehension and will always be that way.

Huon · 02-02-2008, 12:32 AM

The most important source for that question is the Liber Pontificalis, Book of the Popes. It is a collection of notices about the various popes since the origin. The first version of this Liber Pontificalis is dated from the end of the 5th century. Other sources are Catalogus Liberianus (354), Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 200). For the first popes, the dates of reign are not precise. For instance, Irenaeus (Adv. hæreses, III, iii, 3) has Linus, Anacletus, Clement ; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus.

The early evidence shows great variety. The most ancient list of popes is one made by Hegesippus in the time of Pope Anicetus, c. 160 (Harnack ascribes it to an unknown author under Soter, c. 170), cited by St. Epiphanius (Haer., xxvii, 6). It seems to have been used by St. Irenaeus (Haer., III, iii), by Julius Africanus, who composed a chronography in 222, by the third- or fourth-century author of a Latin poem against Marcion, and by Hippolytus, whose chronology extends to 234 and is probably found in the "Liberian Catalogue" of 354. That catalogue was itself adopted in the "Liber Pontificalis". Eusebius in his chronicle and history used Africanus ; in the latter he slightly corrected the dates. St. Jerome's chronicle is a translation of Eusebius’s.

paarsurrey · 02-02-2008, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

But the rock of Peter has nothing to do with rocks but with the keen insight to see the God nature of man in man. . . . and don't forget that that insight is what Rome is built upon and she don't care if you call her heathen, cult, occult or what because she remains beyond human comprehension and will always be that way.

Hi

That makes Christianity only a religion of mysteries or confusions.

Thanks

mountainman · 02-02-2008, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Eusebius in his chronicle and history used Africanus ; in the latter he slightly corrected the dates. St. Jerome's chronicle is a translation of Eusebius’s.

Eusebius altered the chronology of Africanus
by 300 years but this alteration is no longer
seen as a "correction" but as a mistake.

Eusebius is not regarded (by ancient historians)
as a competent chronographer. See Momigliano ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arnaldo Momigliano

He corrected details which seemed to him wrong even to the extent of reducing the priority of the Biblical heroes over the pagan ones. Moses, a contemporary of Ogyges according to Julius Africanus, was made a contemporary of Kekrops with a loss of 300 years.

Eusebius was not afraid of attacking St Paul’s guesses about the chronology of the Book of Judges. He freely used Jewish and anti-Christian sources such as Porphyrios. He introduced a reckoning from Abraham which allowed him to avoid the pitfalls of a chronology according to the first chapters of Genesis. He seems to have been the first to use the convenient method of presenting the chronology of the various nations in parallel columns. None of the earlier chronographers seems to have used this scheme, though it has often been attributed to Castor or to Julius Africanus.

He made many mistakes, but they do not surprise us any longer. Fifty years ago Eduard Schwartz, to save Eusebius’ reputation as a competent chronographer, conjectured that the two extant representatives of the lost original of Eusebius’ Chronicon — the Latin adaptation by St Jerome and the anonymous Armenian translation — were based on an interpolated text which passed for pure Eusebius. This conjecture is perhaps unnecessary; nor are we certain that the Armenian version is closer to the original than St Jerome’s Latin translation. Both versions reflect the inevitable vagaries of Eusebius’ mind to whom chronology was something between an exact science and an instrument of propaganda.

But we recognize the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine in the absence of millenarian dreams.

Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

02-01-2008, 08:21 PM	#25
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	the canonical and the non canonical St.Peter and Pontifex Maximus The first christian Pontifex Maximus was Pope Damasius c.365 CE The lineage of Pontifex Maximus until that time had been assumed by the military leader of Rome, for 1000 years. As the pontiff to the head priest, the role was always previously tolerant of others - the many and various religious cults of Rome and its empire. The Canonical St.Peter was a forgery of Constantinian propagandists of the fourth century, lead by the editor in chief of scriptoriums, Eusebius. This authority was attacked by anti-christian polemic. The carbon dating of the Nag Hammadi codices gives The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles as mid-fourth century. TAOPATTA is an anti-christian document. Best wishes, Pete Brown

02-02-2008, 12:32 AM	#28
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Popes The most important source for that question is the Liber Pontificalis, Book of the Popes. It is a collection of notices about the various popes since the origin. The first version of this Liber Pontificalis is dated from the end of the 5th century. Other sources are Catalogus Liberianus (354), Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 200). For the first popes, the dates of reign are not precise. For instance, Irenaeus (Adv. hæreses, III, iii, 3) has Linus, Anacletus, Clement ; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. The early evidence shows great variety. The most ancient list of popes is one made by Hegesippus in the time of Pope Anicetus, c. 160 (Harnack ascribes it to an unknown author under Soter, c. 170), cited by St. Epiphanius (Haer., xxvii, 6). It seems to have been used by St. Irenaeus (Haer., III, iii), by Julius Africanus, who composed a chronography in 222, by the third- or fourth-century author of a Latin poem against Marcion, and by Hippolytus, whose chronology extends to 234 and is probably found in the "Liberian Catalogue" of 354. That catalogue was itself adopted in the "Liber Pontificalis". Eusebius in his chronicle and history used Africanus ; in the latter he slightly corrected the dates. St. Jerome's chronicle is a translation of Eusebius’s.

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

02-01-2008, 04:01 PM	#24
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	arnoldo: What do you mean with this mantra of "historical facts"? What evidence do you have that "it" started before 70 AD sic? This is a discussion board. If you want to discuss something, give us some facts or arguments, not these bald assertions.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.