Bede

rlogon,

Actually, Eusebius isn't considered any less trustworthy than any other ancient historian, pagan or Christian. Like all the others he could be over gullible about his sources, was conciously putting forward a particular point of view and omitted stuff he didn't like. But this is not unusual so beware assuming that historian X is right when he contradicts Eusebius. And don't assume Eusebius is doing anything more than passing on what he's heard. He could hardly know the Pope list was dodgy and besides you can't prove it was fake.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto

I am not faulting Roger Pearse for criticizing Wheless where Wheless does "get stuff wrong". But what does that have to do Steve Carr's alleged "hounding" of Monty? Steven was correct in his allegations and Monty was just belligerant and unable to defend his words

You concern for the good name of the "anti-Christian cause" is noted.

CJD

rlogan, the papal piffle can be frustrating—for some.

Let me expose my institutional biases as I unpack the skinny on the papacy.

The idea of a single vicar of Christ's Church on earth does not come (unfortunately for some Catholics) until the 6th-7th centuries.

Significant factors led to the development of Rome's centrality.

1. Peter and Paul were supposedly martyred there (already mentioned by Bernard). Without having read Bernard's page on this, Irenaeus argued in his "Against Heresies" (written against gnostics and the Marcusians—defectors from his church in Lyon) for "apostolic succession." But not, however, in the sense of a succession of living bishops holding a particular office; rather, he was speaking more about a succession of theology from bishops that has been passed down by the apostles, and is therefore true orthodoxy (which, to turn the table on the heretics, was not "given" to the gnostics).

2. The city itself was the central city of the known world for over 500 years.

3. Rome was the largest city in the West.

4. In 330 AD, Constantine moved the Empire's capitol from Rome to Constantinople. This left a hole in Rome in terms of leadership. Thus, the bishop of Rome stepped up to fill the void, mixing (significantly for the first time) the political and the spiritual.

During the first four centuries of the Church, there is a clear competition between four patriarchal bishoprics: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. By the fifth century, Alexandria and Antioch had diminished in stature because of serious controversy. At the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), Canon 28, two supreme bishoprics were noted: Rome and Constantinople.

After this, things went Rome's way, mainly because of its bishops' charismata. Leo 1 and Gregory the Great stand out in this regard. Gregory (540-604) should probably be dubbed the "first" Pope. To be sure, Leo invested the word pope with spiritual connotations. Leo was the bishop who filled the gap in Constantine's absence. Leo, being a decent diplomat, saved the city from being ransacked on two major occasions (first with Atilla and then with the Vandals). He also persuaded the weak emporer Valentinian 3 (445) to issue an edict naming Rome spriritually supreme.

But Gregory stands as the clear first Pope. He defeated the Lombards and developed some key Catholic doctrines: the primacy of Rome; literal Apostolic succession; penance; proto-transubstantiation; invocation of Saints in prayer; made purgatory essential.

Bogus documents also perpetuated the supremacy of the Roman bishopric.

1. The Donation of Constantine: reported that Consantine became leprous and was then healed by one bishop Sylvester of Rome. The emporer then gave him political authority. This was eventually unmasked as a 9th century fraud.

2. the Isidorian Decretals (called thus because the collection was "found" by Isidore of Seville): a collection of documents (letters and decrees) supposedly from early bishops that asserted 1) the Roman bishop had supremacy over the entire church; 2) a bishop in any country had the right to a final appeal to the Roman bishop; 3) the State has no authority over the church.

The Decretals were also unmasked as a 9th century fraud.

At any rate, go with Bede's recommended books. Delayed gratification builds character.

Regards,

CJD

rlogan

Thanks to all again. CJD - that helped with my original question in zeroing in on the question of the primacy.

I have looked in to the Amazon.com reviews of Ehrman's work, Chadwick and such - I think I'll order some of the things I have seen referenced here.

Yeah, the Isidorian Decretals and Donation of Constantine - I had started checking into those and found enough verification there. Doesn't seem to be a debate about those, really.

Bede - I'm not entirely gullible. To be fair to Toto, he did reference the thread addressing Wheless. There is just so much history here of fraud and forgery that it can't help but cast a very dark shadow on the whole HJ question. It is a real disappointment for me.

I am much more skeptical now, too, about claiming such early dates for Mark - such as the 80's. If there was something that far back I don't think it was anything like what Ireneaus referred to.

offa

offa;
You are wasting your time ... pseudo guru's. You are stricken with fundamenatalism. The wrong path. Of course, Amos will diluge what I write with his psycholgy. And many of you with your own intimate knowledge will intervene.

Peter is mythic, to fundies. He was alive. You have to raise yourselves up a level. First believe what is written and discect it. Do not disbelieve and then discect it. You think I am a liar. Look around you!

thanks,
Offa