jasJis Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Les, this only works with convoluted reasoning. One either disregards all of Scripture, or considers all of Scripture, old and new Testament, and the Traditional understanding. You are simply attemtpting to take a myopic view of a select few verses and ignoring or disregarding everything else. Theobabble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DojoGrant Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I think you're confusing the scope of a legend. If it was being written about Peter being in Rome in the 2nd century, that falls well out of the "legend" framework. That Peter performed X miracle, that might fall under "legend." That Peter resided in a city for 25 years is a little bit harder to conjure up and have everybody believe within a centuries time if it was not based in some kind of fact. And if you are denying that Peter wrote his epistle, meaning, its claim of authorship is faulty, then why not just throw out the baby with the bathwater. If there can be one lie, there can be many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 No Theobable, You're creating the "either - or " fallacy. One has to either completely accept everything in scripture or completely reject everything in scripture. What can be demonstrated to be true should be accepted. What can be demonstrated to be false or contradiction should be rejected. On another thread I've pointed out that Matthew's account of Jesus entering Jerusalem riding two animals contradicts common sense and the other three evangelists which clearly specify only one animal. Matthew is very clear that he's fuffilling a prophecy here in Zec 9:9 about a king entering riding on two animals. The problem is that Matthew didn't understand the Hebrew idiom. There was only one animal there too. Also, obviously Matthew wasn't an eyewitness to the event. Even the Catholic New American Bible in a footnote to Matthew acknowledges Matthew's error. As do I. But it does not follow that everything Matthew reported is in error. Little Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Sorry DoJoGrant, The 25 years Peter in Rome story was more than a century old. Eusebius wrote it around 325-350 A.D. And the legend of the line in the sand drawn by Col Travis at the Alamo (1836) was in full swing by 1873 and was published in a Texas magazine. The trouble is that the survivors of the Alamo (wives, slaves, merchants) reported nothing of the sort. Even Travis' person slave who reported his death early on the last day did not recount this legend. As I wrote earlier, I'm looking for a solid reference written within 100 years of the supposed event claiming Peter was the bishop of Rome. We already know he left his first successor bishop (Evodius) in Antioch. But for whatever reason, he didn't get to be Pope. Probably because Rome was a more important city than Antioch. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Are you accepting all of Scripture, or accepting none of it? It seems it's you who is choosing to ignore the whole of the texts to choose what seems to be an error or an linguistic idiom to define it later by your own terms after the fact. You ignore completely what the Apostles and other disciples that walked, talked, ate, and discussed things with Jesus in person did and didn't do. You limit your scope to what was written down and not "[i]seemingly[/i]" contradicted in Scripture and being the only source of what to do and what not to do. That is illogical and also ignores the clear Scriptural instruction that not everything can be or will be written down. It ignores the clear Scriptural assurance that Christ will send the paraclete to particiapte and dwell with us. We weren't just left with written instructions and nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Hi Jas Jis, I separate fact and fiction in scripture as in all other data.I also separate truth from error. For example, although the moral legitimacy of chattel slavery is scripturally established by Lev 25, I judge slavery to contary to the divine and natural law. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 7 2005, 03:30 AM']Hi Archangle, Lets stick to the topic and discuss the Protestent reformation as a separate thread. It isn't directly related to the claim of Peterine primacy. LittleLes[/quote] Okay. Suffice it to say that the only Christian group 2000 years ago was the Catholic Church. You can actually trace the line of popes directly back from our current pope, John Paul II, all the way back to Peter. You can't do that with any of the Protestant churches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmjtina Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 (edited) [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 7 2005, 03:08 PM'] For example, although the moral legitimacy of chattel slavery is scripturally established by Lev 25, I judge slavery to contary to the divine and natural law. [/quote] Um, no one is debating that. Did you skip the story about Moses freeing the slaves as well? Does that mean because Abraham had alot of wives, it's okay? Did you entirely skip the New Testament? Heck, Adam and Eve were naked, why don't we all run around in our birthday suits? I"ve taken Texas History. EVERYBODY says it's just made up about that line. What's that to do with anything? I'm sure my grandparents added some things to thier family stories as well. As for the legitamacy as Peter as the first Pope, what is it, specifically do you disagree with? I am interested to know. ----- The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else. Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons. These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church." The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show. Tatian the Syrian "Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]). Tertullian "Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]). "[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]). The Letter of Clement to James "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]). The Clementine Homilies "[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]). Origen "Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]). Cyprian of Carthage "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). "There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]). "There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8). Firmilian "But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]). "[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17). Ephraim the Syrian "[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]). Optatus "You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]). Ambrose of Milan "[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]). "It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]). Pope Damasus I "Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]). Jerome "‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]). "I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]). Augustine "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]). Council of Ephesus "Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]). Sechnall of Ireland "Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]). Pope Leo I "Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]). Council of Chalcedon "Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]). We know he was the first pope of the Church which Christ established more than 2000 years ago. It is entirely up to you to disprove it. So let me just ask this: You obviously don't believe Peter is the first pope, yet you don't believe Jesus established a "Church", right? What led you to that conclusion? What made you believe that truly and sincerely? Because as much searching as you've done, I'm sure your road will lead to Rome. All roads do ya know! Pax Christi. Edited March 7, 2005 by jmjtina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmjtina Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I'm getting this thread messed up with the other thread...... :pc: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Ah Yes. It is alwyas "an indisputable fact..." according to the Catholic Encyclopedia when they have no evidence to support their "party line" position. It's really very simple. Please provide a reliable citation written within 100 years of Peters death that establishes that he was ever the bishop of Rome. Claims from the third, fourth or fifth century are not reliable historically. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 7 2005, 02:57 PM']Please provide a reliable citation written within 100 years of Peters death that establishes that he was ever the bishop of Rome. Claims from the third, fourth or fifth century are not reliable historically. LittleLes[/quote] False alternative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmjtina Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 again, since you don't believe Jesus established a Church, or that Peter was the first Pope, what do you believe in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 8, 2005 Author Share Posted March 8, 2005 (edited) Hi Archangel, Not a "false alternative" at all. If Peter really was the bishop of Rome, that fact should have been recorded within a hundred years of his death. It's certainly not in Acts, although Eusebius argues Peter was in Rome for 25 years, being martyred with Paul. Is it conceivable that Luke would have overlooked this if it really had occurred??? I think what Jimjina is offering as evidence is separated from the fact by about twice the time as we and the American revolution are. Still, perhaps we can take a look at what the more or less early church fathers said, but one at a time. Little Les Edited March 8, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 7 2005, 05:53 PM'] If Peter really was the bishop of Rome, that fact should have been recorded within a hundred years of his death. [/quote] Why 100 years? Why not 10, 50, 300 or 600? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 7 2005, 11:53 PM'] Hi Archangel, Not a "false alternative" at all. If Peter really was the bishop of Rome, that fact should have been recorded within a hundred years of his death. It's certainly not in Acts, although Eusebius argues Peter was in Rome for 25 years, being martyred with Paul. Is it conceivable that Luke would have overlooked this if it really had occurred??? I think what Jimjina is offering as evidence is separated from the fact by about twice the time as we and the American revolution are. Still, perhaps we can take a look at what the more or less early church fathers said, but one at a time. Little Les [/quote] Prove Peter was not the Bishop of Rome, with a statement from within your 100 year framework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts