The fictional Pope Peter
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2015, 09:12 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2015 09:31 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(28-05-2015 09:02 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:This one on Vespasian mentions this too.


Commemorative coins and arches? Claudius did the same thing in Britain. So did Trajan. So did Hadrian. Sorry, but this is hardly evidence of anything other than standard operating procedure for an emperor.

I'll see if I can find the other video after I finish watching the ball game.

Yeah sorry it's about 3.10 minutes into the video that they make the point about how Vespasian was a great propagandist

Here is another.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_96ZQAbvCI
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 04:11 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
Okay, so, as I hinted above...let's talk about Rome.

Or, to put it in a format that I prefer.... the bullshit about Rome being the primary seat of power.

That the doctrine of papal primacy developed over the course of centuries is not to be denied. Leo I pushing it in the 5th century and making up stories about how he talked Attila out of attacking Rome by the power of his holy horseshit.

But xtianity seems to have arisen in the East and the earliest centers were Alexandria, Antioch, and perhaps Ephesos. So much of this early xtian crap seems dedicated to the proposition that Rome was the center and always had been because of the Peter is the Rock routine. They are giving directions to other churches like First Clement. But who the fuck were they to be giving orders. They final victory of the proto-orthodox did not come about until the 4th century. The first to assert the primacy of Rome was Irenaeus, c 185:

Quote:2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Bk II, 3.2

The term one lies and the other swears to it pops into mind.

So let's trot out the other part of the scam, First Clement, supposedly written by Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, except.

Quote:Essentially, many Roman Catholics believe that a late 1st century letter to the Corinthians shows that Clement felt that he had the authority over all other Christian churches. And thus, this is the earliest proof that in fact, the cathedra went to the bishops of Rome and therefore (according to this line of reasoning) is still there today.

The first problem is that the letter never says any individual sent it. So even if it was from Clement, he apparently did not feel he himself had what Catholics now call the cathedra (the ecclesiastical chair or authority), for it was unsigned. The second problem is that there is no indication that the Corinthians were in any way writing to Clement. And the third is that recent Catholic scholarship admits that "I Clement" does not establish the primacy of the Roman Church:

In the past, Catholic writers have interpreted this intervention as an early exercise of Roman primacy, but now it is generally recognized as the kind of exhortation one church could address another without any claim to authority over it...I Clement certainly does not support the theory that before the apostles died, they appointed one man as bishop in each of the churches they founded.

http://www.cogwriter.com/clement.htm

Once again we are confronted with "tradition" at the best-case scenario or Fraud as the worst. How are we supposed to tell?

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
29-05-2015, 04:21 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
Quote:Here is another.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_96ZQAbvCI


Again, it's not much other than Emperor Manual 1.01 as noted before. I suppose one could argue about commissioning Josephus to write a history of the Jewish War but it wasn't finished until 78 and Vespasian was dead a year later. Titus was dead 2 years after that and, it seems, Domitian did not like Jews.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
29-05-2015, 04:34 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(29-05-2015 04:11 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Okay, so, as I hinted above...let's talk about Rome.

Or, to put it in a format that I prefer.... the bullshit about Rome being the primary seat of power.

That the doctrine of papal primacy developed over the course of centuries is not to be denied. Leo I pushing it in the 5th century and making up stories about how he talked Attila out of attacking Rome by the power of his holy horseshit.

But xtianity seems to have arisen in the East and the earliest centers were Alexandria, Antioch, and perhaps Ephesos. So much of this early xtian crap seems dedicated to the proposition that Rome was the center and always had been because of the Peter is the Rock routine. They are giving directions to other churches like First Clement. But who the fuck were they to be giving orders. They final victory of the proto-orthodox did not come about until the 4th century. The first to assert the primacy of Rome was Irenaeus, c 185:

Quote:2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Bk II, 3.2

The term one lies and the other swears to it pops into mind.

So let's trot out the other part of the scam, First Clement, supposedly written by Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, except.

Quote:Essentially, many Roman Catholics believe that a late 1st century letter to the Corinthians shows that Clement felt that he had the authority over all other Christian churches. And thus, this is the earliest proof that in fact, the cathedra went to the bishops of Rome and therefore (according to this line of reasoning) is still there today.

The first problem is that the letter never says any individual sent it. So even if it was from Clement, he apparently did not feel he himself had what Catholics now call the cathedra (the ecclesiastical chair or authority), for it was unsigned. The second problem is that there is no indication that the Corinthians were in any way writing to Clement. And the third is that recent Catholic scholarship admits that "I Clement" does not establish the primacy of the Roman Church:

In the past, Catholic writers have interpreted this intervention as an early exercise of Roman primacy, but now it is generally recognized as the kind of exhortation one church could address another without any claim to authority over it...I Clement certainly does not support the theory that before the apostles died, they appointed one man as bishop in each of the churches they founded.

http://www.cogwriter.com/clement.htm

Once again we are confronted with "tradition" at the best-case scenario or Fraud as the worst. How are we supposed to tell?

Agreed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 04:42 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(29-05-2015 04:21 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:Here is another.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_96ZQAbvCI


Again, it's not much other than Emperor Manual 1.01 as noted before. I suppose one could argue about commissioning Josephus to write a history of the Jewish War but it wasn't finished until 78 and Vespasian was dead a year later. Titus was dead 2 years after that and, it seems, Domitian did not like Jews.

Hurrah! I've managed to find the the podcast. It is number 73 on Vespasian..."the only man who improved...." I think it goes for about 20 minutes and it is worth listening to the whole thing.

https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/the-...54474?mt=2
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 04:53 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(29-05-2015 04:11 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Okay, so, as I hinted above...let's talk about Rome.

Or, to put it in a format that I prefer.... the bullshit about Rome being the primary seat of power.

That the doctrine of papal primacy developed over the course of centuries is not to be denied. Leo I pushing it in the 5th century and making up stories about how he talked Attila out of attacking Rome by the power of his holy horseshit.

But xtianity seems to have arisen in the East and the earliest centers were Alexandria, Antioch, and perhaps Ephesos. So much of this early xtian crap seems dedicated to the proposition that Rome was the center and always had been because of the Peter is the Rock routine. They are giving directions to other churches like First Clement. But who the fuck were they to be giving orders. They final victory of the proto-orthodox did not come about until the 4th century. The first to assert the primacy of Rome was Irenaeus, c 185:

Quote:2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Bk II, 3.2

The term one lies and the other swears to it pops into mind.

So let's trot out the other part of the scam, First Clement, supposedly written by Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, except.

Quote:Essentially, many Roman Catholics believe that a late 1st century letter to the Corinthians shows that Clement felt that he had the authority over all other Christian churches. And thus, this is the earliest proof that in fact, the cathedra went to the bishops of Rome and therefore (according to this line of reasoning) is still there today.

The first problem is that the letter never says any individual sent it. So even if it was from Clement, he apparently did not feel he himself had what Catholics now call the cathedra (the ecclesiastical chair or authority), for it was unsigned. The second problem is that there is no indication that the Corinthians were in any way writing to Clement. And the third is that recent Catholic scholarship admits that "I Clement" does not establish the primacy of the Roman Church:

In the past, Catholic writers have interpreted this intervention as an early exercise of Roman primacy, but now it is generally recognized as the kind of exhortation one church could address another without any claim to authority over it...I Clement certainly does not support the theory that before the apostles died, they appointed one man as bishop in each of the churches they founded.

http://www.cogwriter.com/clement.htm

Once again we are confronted with "tradition" at the best-case scenario or Fraud as the worst. How are we supposed to tell?

"The term one lies and the other swears to it pops into mind."

Ha ha! Yes! This is how I worded my commentary about what Irenaeus wrote...

Irenaeus was writing a little over one hundred years after the “glorious” Peter and Paul allegedly founded the “very great and very ancient” Church in Rome. Irenaeus, a man who actively promoted episcopacy, had to rely on “tradition” as a “matter of necessity” to explain Peter in charge in Rome. Irenaeus could not name any genuine source or facts about this so-called tradition, so his expletives were meaningless, other than that they suggest he was desperate to promote baseless assertions and the power of his own Church.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 05:32 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(29-05-2015 04:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(29-05-2015 04:11 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Okay, so, as I hinted above...let's talk about Rome.

Or, to put it in a format that I prefer.... the bullshit about Rome being the primary seat of power.

That the doctrine of papal primacy developed over the course of centuries is not to be denied. Leo I pushing it in the 5th century and making up stories about how he talked Attila out of attacking Rome by the power of his holy horseshit.

But xtianity seems to have arisen in the East and the earliest centers were Alexandria, Antioch, and perhaps Ephesos. So much of this early xtian crap seems dedicated to the proposition that Rome was the center and always had been because of the Peter is the Rock routine. They are giving directions to other churches like First Clement. But who the fuck were they to be giving orders. They final victory of the proto-orthodox did not come about until the 4th century. The first to assert the primacy of Rome was Irenaeus, c 185:


The term one lies and the other swears to it pops into mind.

So let's trot out the other part of the scam, First Clement, supposedly written by Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, except.


http://www.cogwriter.com/clement.htm

Once again we are confronted with "tradition" at the best-case scenario or Fraud as the worst. How are we supposed to tell?

Agreed.


Oh.






(Now what?)

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 05:40 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(29-05-2015 05:32 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(29-05-2015 04:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Agreed.


Oh.






(Now what?)

I guess we just hang around here and hope that some Catholic Christian tries to tell us how Peter was, in fact, the first pope, and then we shoot him off at the kneecaps.

Where is Q when you need him? ( Although I don't think he's a Catholic )
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 06:31 PM
The fictional Pope Peter
Can't help. I'm a former Catholic and even then I thought they just made that shit up to fill in some blanks.

Has Tarzan commented here? I haven't really kept up with this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 07:57 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(29-05-2015 06:31 PM)Clockwork Wrote:  Can't help. I'm a former Catholic and even then I thought they just made that shit up to fill in some blanks.

Has Tarzan commented here? I haven't really kept up with this thread.

Nope.

Is he a catholic? Bring him here please.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: