Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 02-02-2008, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

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

One church that makes the claim of being as old or older than the RCC is the Church of the East. Their numbers are very small today, but they claim that Peter was working in Babylon where their church operated.

Quote:

...why do they continue to search for the remains of the said holy Apostles? And if it is false, as the facts clearly indicate it to be, then it not only confirms the fictitious origin of the presence of St. Peter and his martyrdom in Rome, but it also nullifies all the other claims made by the Roman Church by virtue of that fact. Notwithstanding, this does not mean that these claims would have any justification whatsoever even if these facts were true!

From here. Nestorian Patriarchs

andrewcriddle · 02-02-2008, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

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

Although Peter was probably executed in Rome on Vatican Hill and was presumably a leader of the Christian Church there; the earliest lists of Bishops of Rome begin with Linus supposedly appointed by the Apostles Peter and Paul . The idea that Peter not only instituted the line of Bishops of Rome but was himself Bishop of Rome comes later.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...#P7297_1937859

Quote:

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. ........ To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver · 02-02-2008, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

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

Yes, they are very questionable. I doubt both propositions, and I believe I have good reasons for doubting them.

Huon · 02-02-2008, 10:19 AM

Linus (64 or 67-76 or 79).
One century after the alleged facts, Irenaeus wrote (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) that Pope Linus is the same Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle II Timothy 4:21. Not sure at all.

The statement made in the Liber Pontificalis that Linus suffered martyrdom, cannot be proved and is improbable. For between Nero and Domitian there is no mention of any persecution of the Roman Church; and Irenaeus (1. c., III, iv, 3) from among the early Roman bishops designates only Telesphorus as a glorious martyr.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm

Huon · 02-02-2008, 10:29 AM

The title pope (papa) was, as has been stated, at one time employed with far more latitude. In the East it has always been used to designate simple priests. In the Western Church, however, it seems from the beginning to have been restricted to bishops (Tertullian, "De Pud." 13). It was apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive title of the Roman Pontiff. Pope Siricius (d. 398) seems so to use it (Ep. vi in P. L., XIII, 1164), and Ennodius of Pavia (d. 473) employs it still more clearly in this sense in a letter to Pope Symmachus (P. L., LXIII, 69). Yet as late as the seventh century St. Gall (d. 640) addresses Desiderius of Cahors as papa (P. L., LXXXVII, 265). Gregory VII finally prescribed that it should be confined to the successors of Peter.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

...the successors of Peter : understand : the successors of Gregory VII.
You are reading the official policy of Rome.

Huon · 02-02-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

The organization of provinces under metropolitans followed, as a matter of obvious convenience, the organization of the empire arranged by Diocletian (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 21-23). In this arrangement the most important cities in the East were Alexandria of Egypt and Antioch of Syria.
So the Bishop of Alexandria became the chief of all Egyptian bishops and metropolitans;

the Bishop of Antioch held the same place over Syria and at the same time extended his sway over Asia Minor, Greece and the rest of the East.

Diocletian (284-305) had divided the empire into four great prefectures. Three of these (Italy, Gaul, and Illyricum) made up the Roman patriarchate, the other, the "East" (Præfectura Orientis) had five (civil) "dioceses" -- Thrace, Asia, Pontus, the Diocese of the East, and Egypt. Egypt was the Alexandrine patriarchate. The Antiochene patriarchate embraced the civil "Diocese" of the East.

Remember that Diocletian was a persecutor of the Christians, but not, apparently, of the Patriarchs of Rome.

Caius was bishop of Rome for twelve years, from December, 283, to April, 296.
Marcellinus was bishop of Rome from June, 296 to 304. He died in the second year of the persecution and, in all probability, a natural death. No trustworthy sources of the fourth or fifth century mention him as a martyr. His name does not occur either in the list of martyrs or the bishops in the Roman "Chronograph" of the year 354.

And the Patriarch of Jerusalem ?

Answer : Until Nicaea (325) there was no real need of a Patriarch of Jerusalem. After all, what is the real importance of Jerusalem, as compared to Antioch or Alexandria ??

Quote:

When pilgrims began to flock to the Holy City, the Bishop of Jerusalem, the guardian of the sacred shrines, began to be considered as more than a mere suffragan of Cæsarea. The Council of Nicæa (325) gave him an honorary primacy, saving, however, the metropolitical rights of Cæsarea (can. vii). Juvenal of Jerusalem (420-58) succeeded finally, after much dispute, in changing this honorary position into a real patriarchate. The Council of Chalcedon (451) cut away Palestine and Arabia (Sinai) from Antioch and of them formed the Patriarchate of Jerusalem (Sess. VII and VIII). Since that time Jerusalem has always been counted among the patriarchal sees as the smallest and last.

Note the last sentence.

Quote:

But the greatest change, the one that met most opposition, was the rise of Constantinople to patriarchal rank. Because Constantine had made Byzantium "New Rome", its bishop, once the humble suffragan of Heraclea, thought that he should become second only, if not almost equal, to the Bishop of Old Rome. For many centuries the popes opposed this ambition, not because any one thought of disputing their first place, but because they were unwilling to change the old order of the hierarchy. In 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that: "The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome" (can. iii). The popes (Damasus, Gregory the Great) refused to confirm this canon. Nevertheless Constantinople grew by favour of the emperor, whose centralizing policy found a ready help in the authority of his court bishop. Chalcedon (451) established Constantinople as a patriarchate with jurisdiction over Asia Minor and Thrace and gave it the second place after Rome (can. xxviii). Pope Leo I (440-61) refused to admit this canon, which was made in the absence of his legates; for centuries Rome still refused to give the second place to Constantinople.

Source :
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm

Good Christians...

arnoldo · 02-02-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paarsurrey

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

Speaking of mysteries the book of revelations mentions a certain entity called "mystery babylon."

aa5874 · 02-02-2008, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewCriddle

Although Peter was probably executed in Rome on Vatican Hill and was presumably a leader of the Christian Church there; the earliest lists of Bishops of Rome begin with Linus supposedly appointed by the Apostles Peter and Paul .

There is no extant source outside the early church that can corroborate anything about "Peter". Probabilities are based on evidence. What external evidence made an unknown execution probable on Vatican Hill?

The chronolgy and events with respect to Peter of the NT appear to be erroneous. Philo of Alexandria never wrote a single thing about any Jesus the Word, the Christ, with twelve disciples one of which is called "Peter" the rock.

arnoldo · 02-02-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewCriddle

Although Peter was probably executed in Rome on Vatican Hill and was presumably a leader of the Christian Church there; the earliest lists of Bishops of Rome begin with Linus supposedly appointed by the Apostles Peter and Paul .

There is no extant source outside the early church that can corroborate anything about "Peter". Probabilities are based on evidence. What external evidence made an unknown execution probable on Vatican Hill?

The chronolgy and events with respect to Peter of the NT appear to be erroneous. Philo of Alexandria never wrote a single thing about any Jesus the Word, the Christ, with twelve disciples one of which is called "Peter" the rock.

Since Peter has letters addressed to churches in the New Testament do you have any theories on who the real author is?

Quote:

The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. 1 Peter 5:13

mountainman · 02-02-2008, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Since Peter has letters addressed to churches in the New Testament do you have any theories on who the real author is?

NAME: Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea.
DATE: 312 to 324 CE
SPONSOR: Emperor Constantine.
LOCN: Rome
WHY: New MONOTHEISTIC "Healer" required to unify the soft and disparate cults of the empire. Asclepius, etc were to be shafted. The old temples had useful gold and treasures - Bullneck was going to be RICH, RICH, RICH, and his army was well paid. He was the rightful holder of the role of Pontifex Maximus. Who the fuck was going to argue with the Boss? And so, he published lavishly, and at least 50 copies, of what is today regarded as the christian bible. The fact that he invented this new religion by fabricating a pseudo-history, was censored by the fourth and fifth century successors of this powerful top-down-emperor-cult.

Best wishes

Pete Brown

02-02-2008, 10:19 AM	#34
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Linus (64 or 67-76 or 79). Linus (64 or 67-76 or 79). One century after the alleged facts, Irenaeus wrote (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) that Pope Linus is the same Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle II Timothy 4:21. Not sure at all. The statement made in the Liber Pontificalis that Linus suffered martyrdom, cannot be proved and is improbable. For between Nero and Domitian there is no mention of any persecution of the Roman Church; and Irenaeus (1. c., III, iv, 3) from among the early Roman bishops designates only Telesphorus as a glorious martyr. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm

02-02-2008, 10:29 AM	#35
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	The title pope The title pope (papa) was, as has been stated, at one time employed with far more latitude. In the East it has always been used to designate simple priests. In the Western Church, however, it seems from the beginning to have been restricted to bishops (Tertullian, "De Pud." 13). It was apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive title of the Roman Pontiff. Pope Siricius (d. 398) seems so to use it (Ep. vi in P. L., XIII, 1164), and Ennodius of Pavia (d. 473) employs it still more clearly in this sense in a letter to Pope Symmachus (P. L., LXIII, 69). Yet as late as the seventh century St. Gall (d. 640) addresses Desiderius of Cahors as papa (P. L., LXXXVII, 265). Gregory VII finally prescribed that it should be confined to the successors of Peter. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm ...the successors of Peter : understand : the successors of Gregory VII. You are reading the official policy of Rome.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.