Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Dagda · 11-19-2008, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imnotspecial

I think Catholics can make a fairly good case for it. All authority comes from Jesus and is passed on to the apostles and their successors. Apostolic succession is an important part for Christianity. There have been huge arguments about this in the past which means that those guys recognized that importance. Otherwise guys like Jim Jones can claim to be ministers of God.

Peter probably never thought of himself as the first pope and I suggest that the Church has made him such in retrospect. Any organization needs a head. The papacy and the primacy of the see of Rome became only gradually recognized. Scriptures like the "upon this rock will I build my Church" and the rock being Peter, references to laying on of hands to choose successors of apostles are used to prove that there is legitimacy to this claim. History itself attest to that. It was only questioned when the protestant revolt took place.

Don't forget the first schism between Orthodox Christians and Catholics back in the early part of the 1st millenia.

George S · 11-19-2008, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Paul scolded Peter to his face for being afraid to teach the Gospel message when Jews were around. That does not suggest that Paul considered Peter to be the first Pope.

The New Testament says that Peter, James, and John were the most prominent apostles.

Paul basically says that he is not inferior to any of the other apostles.

Regarding Jesus telling Peter that he was "the rock," a reasonable explanation is that Jesus was referring to Peter's confession of faith, not to Peter himself.

Consider the following Scriptures from the NIV:

Matthew 16:13-17

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

It is reasonable to assume that "this rock" refers to Peter's confession of faith, not to Peter himself.

Considering the many atrocities that the Roman Catholic Church has committed, not the least of which was the selling of indulgencies, it is doubtful that a loving God had anything to do with it.

The pomp, pageantly, wealth, and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church are far removed from the simple lives that Jesus and the disciples led.

I assume that Jesus and the disciples would have strongly opposed church services being given in Latin for many centuries. In 1st Corinthians 14, Paul scolded the Corinthians for speaking in tongues that the audience did not understand unless someone interpreted the message.

If the Roman Catholic Mass is so beneficial, why has God deprived hundreds of millions of people of participating in it for thousands of years? My word, what do beautiful, expensive robes and funny looking hats have to do with pleasing God?

Of course, the Roman Catholic Church has done a lot of good things, but so have many other organizations.

Is the Catholic Church justified in claiming authoritarian descent from the Beginning of Christianity? (attempted rephrase of above post)

The easy answer is, well no. The authority rests ultimately on a mythological entity with magic powers named, cryptically, YHVH.

If we enter that mythology and use it as a framework in which YHVH is the ultimate authority, then (easily) "yes." When writing mythology, it means what the current interpreter says it means and not what it meant yesterday. The chain of custody of the authority is part of the mythology. Case closed.

Meanwhile, back in reality, no mythology. What you see is what you get. You get just this chance to be loving, kind and loved and kindly warmed in turn. Find another other and interact. For all there is to being human is interacting with other human beings and the natural world.

Smullyan-esque · 11-19-2008, 03:59 PM

More appropriate for BC&H. Prepare for transport...

Toto · 11-19-2008, 04:08 PM

Some posts inappropriate for this forum have been split off here

mountainman · 11-19-2008, 06:32 PM

Dear Johnny Skeptic,

The man at the bottom of the promote Peter scam is one Pope Damasius of Rome, in fact the very first christian pontifex maximus. He saw great opportunities in renovating the Roman catacombs near the Vatican just after the non-christian Emperor Julian died, and the christians had got back into political power once again.

Best wishes,

Pete

arnoldo · 11-22-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear Johnny Skeptic,

The man at the bottom of the promote Peter scam is one Pope Damasius of Rome, in fact the very first christian pontifex maximus. He saw great opportunities in renovating the Roman catacombs near the Vatican just after the non-christian Emperor Julian died, and the christians had got back into political power once again.

Best wishes,

Pete

Dear mountainman,

Perhaps Peter was the first bishop of Antioch?

Quote:

Few Christian denominations can claim the antiquity of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, whose foundations can be traced back to the very dawn of Christianity. The Church justifiably prides itself as being one of the earliest established apostolic churches. It was in Antioch, after all, that the followers of Jesus were called Christians as we are told in the New Testament, “The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26).

According to ecclesiastical tradition, the Church of Antioch is the second established church in Christendom after Jerusalem, and the prominence of its Apostolic See is well documented. In his Chronicon (I, 2), the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea tells us that St. Peter the Apostle established a bishopric in Antioch and became its first bishop. He also tells us that St. Peter was succeeded by Evodius. In another historical work, Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius tells us that Ignatius the Illuminator, “a name of note to most men, [was] the second after Peter to the bishopric of Antioch” (III, 36).
http://sor.cua.edu/Intro/index.html

mountainman · 11-24-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Perhaps Peter was the first bishop of Antioch?

Quote:

Few Christian denominations can claim the antiquity of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, whose foundations can be traced back to the very dawn of Christianity. The Church justifiably prides itself as being one of the earliest established apostolic churches. It was in Antioch, after all, that the followers of Jesus were called Christians as we are told in the New Testament, “The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26).

According to ecclesiastical tradition, the Church of Antioch is the second established church in Christendom after Jerusalem, and the prominence of its Apostolic See is well documented. In his Chronicon (I, 2), the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea tells us that St. Peter the Apostle established a bishopric in Antioch and became its first bishop. He also tells us that St. Peter was succeeded by Evodius. In another historical work, Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius tells us that Ignatius the Illuminator, “a name of note to most men, [was] the second after Peter to the bishopric of Antioch” (III, 36).
http://sor.cua.edu/Intro/index.html

Dear Arnaldo,

In Jay Raskin's book "The Evolution of Christs and Christianities" there is a section dealing with Eusebius and the Miraculous Founding of the Christian Churches . Philosopher Jay Raskin provides a brief introduction to the Eusebian narrative foundational to our knowledge of the history of the earliest and most important of the purported christian churches, including the Church at Edessa, the Church at Jerusalem, and the Church at Caesarea, at which Eusebius reports himself domicile. Here is the author's summary:

Quote:

p.63

To sum up what Eusebius tells us of the history
of his own Church in Caesaria: he gives us five
names Theophilus, Theocritus, Domnus, Theoctistus,
Agapius. He asserts that Theophilus was bishop
around 190 C.E., and Agapius (apparently) died
in 306.

...[...]...

Eusebius gives us no firm dates for when these men
took office or when they left office. He tells us
virtually nothing of their practices or lives. He
only claims that the bishop before him, Agapius, was
persecuted and martyred (although we cannot be certain
that this is the claim he is making). This is
suprising. Caesarea was perhaps the second largest
city in Palestine.

One may come up with a number of reasons for Eusebius'
lack of interest in displaying knowledge about the
history of his own Church of Ceasarea or in exploiting
that history. Perhaps he did not want to be accused of
self promotion and glorification by the other churches,
or perhaps there was something that he considered
shameful in this history of his church that he preferred
not to go into.

Still, if one looks at Acts of the Apostles, one
finds lots of things happening at Caesarea. What is the
relationship between that material and Eusebius' silence
about the early history of his church?

Misplaced Footnotes:

[96] The little detail of an orthodox Christian Church
functioning in Jerusalem for some 100 years after
the death of Christ is one that Josephus and every
other writer before Eusebius failed to notice.
There is no evidence that such a church existed
beyond the word of Eusebius. He repeats this in
H.E. (4::5.1), listing the names without giving any
source.

In conclusion all I can say about the bishop of Antioch and Caesarea and Jerusalem and Rome and Alexandria etc etc etc at all other places in the Roman empire is that they appeared to have lacked any archaeological "church" from which to conduct their bishopricks. I am also very keen to learn who was the first Bishop of Dura Europos.

Best wishes,

Pete

Chili · 11-24-2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Is the Catholic Church justified in claiming authoritarian descent from the Beginning of Christianity? (attempted rephrase of above post)

The easy answer is, well no. The authority rests ultimately on a mythological entity with magic powers named, cryptically, YHVH.

If we enter that mythology and use it as a framework in which YHVH is the ultimate authority, then (easily) "yes." When writing mythology, it means what the current interpreter says it means and not what it meant yesterday. The chain of custody of the authority is part of the mythology. Case closed.

Meanwhile, back in reality, no mythology. What you see is what you get. You get just this chance to be loving, kind and loved and kindly warmed in turn. Find another other and interact. For all there is to being human is interacting with other human beings and the natural world.

There were two different Gospels preached at that time and only one of them was what they called Christian and the other became known as Catholic. Obviously Paul was only one of these two and he built his Church in the keen insight of Peter who so became the Seat of Paul for an inspired religion that always was and forever remains beyond the comprehension of so called Christians who already denied Christ in John 6:66.

This then is what mythology is all about and that will never change but can only get bigger and better or heaven would not be worth it's while.

It is true that loving each other is a human urge but that already shows a need to be loved in evidence of estrangement from a greater love wherein no opposites are found = the solitary Christ.

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

11-19-2008, 03:59 PM	#13
Smullyan-esque Contributor Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: California Posts: 18,543	More appropriate for BC&H. Prepare for transport...

11-19-2008, 04:08 PM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Some posts inappropriate for this forum have been split off here

11-19-2008, 06:32 PM	#15
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Dear Johnny Skeptic, The man at the bottom of the promote Peter scam is one Pope Damasius of Rome, in fact the very first christian pontifex maximus. He saw great opportunities in renovating the Roman catacombs near the Vatican just after the non-christian Emperor Julian died, and the christians had got back into political power once again. Best wishes, Pete

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.