POST ONE OF TWO
Hi
@Dogknox20
1) REGARDINGTHE FALSE ADVERTISEMENT THAT THE APOSTLE PETER BECAME A STANDING BISHOP OF ROME FOR 25 YEARS
Dogknox20 repeats the non-historical claim : “This man Peter is the ONLY Apostle the Christian Church Jesus established claims as their first Bishop! “ (post #1225)
We both agree that in the later centuries, the roman Schism CLAIMED that the apostle Peter became a standing bishop.
I think it was a good It a good tactical claim in the later roman religious movements' goal to gain prominence over the other provinces and congregations as they vied for power and influence.
BUT, the claim was never, historically, true.
2) THE HISTORICAL CLAIM TO HAVE AUTHORITY, THE USE AND MISUSE OF THIS CLAIM
The claim for one of the competing schisms to have “the Authority of Peter the Apostle” was used to attempt to trump the claim of other competing religious opinions.
For example, Eusebius,
a century later, uses the claim to authority to improve the strength of his polemic against competing opinions.
3) THE CREATION AND USE OF FALSE DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM FOR RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY
If you remember your history, The roman schism, even created false clementine letters to offer as “proof” of a "historical" transfer of this authority. In the early stages of Christianity.
Such false claims were helpful in creating the traditions and mystique the roman religious movement wanted.
However, later, these letters were shown to be faked.
The use of this claim anciently to try to trump other religious claims and create the appearance is similar to your use of the same erroneous claim to try to trump other religious claims in forum arguments. i.e. “My church is better because we had Peter”. It is a good ploy. It’s good advertisement. It’s also false.
4) MOVING BEYOND SELF REASSURING SOUND BITES AND MOVING INTO ACTUAL HISTORICAL CONCEPTS
I can see that you are having a difficult time moving beyond sound bites and statements of faith. While repeating soundbites to yourself while looking in the mirror may serve as a “pep talk” to reassure your own belief they are not particularly helpful to simply repeat over and over to others who are looking for actual DATA to support the sound bites an advertisements you offer.
Let me help you understand the historical problem with this false claim that Catholic Historians themselves have consistently never been able to overcome.
5) THE REASON FOR THE CLAIM ANCIENTLY (AND INSIDE MODERN FORUMS) WAS TO ACHIEVE A SUPERIOR RELIGIOUS POSITION OVER OTHER COMPETING RELIGIOUS CLAIMS
The claim made by the Roman movement that Peter was the “First Bishop” who sat in the chair at rome was a false claim created to enhance their position inside an attempt to gain political power, influence and position. The Church Ignatius was referring to in his statement in 100 a.d. was different than the church referred to in this later Roman Religious movement that became the Roman Catholic Church.
6) NOT ONLY WAS PETER NEVER A STANDING BISHOP IN ROME, BUT THERE WAS NEVER ANY PERIOD APPROPRIATE DATA TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM
For example : The Patrologiae Graeca dedicates TWO ENTIRE VOLUMES to pseudographical
Clementine writings, who was a Bishop over the Roman Congregation at most for only 10 years (and no one regarded Clement as important as Peter),
yet when one turns to the earliest written traditions for Rome, the records speak of Clement and are silent on Peter.
If Peter had actually become a standing Bishop of Rome for 25 years as you advertisement suggests, then there should be a great deal of textual records of this momentous occurrence.
Where is the volume for “Bishop Peter”?
Where are the 25 years of “Bishop Peter’s” sermons,
Where are the 25 years of “Bishop Peters” miracles,
Where are the 25 years of his conversations,
Where are the 25 years of his administrative acts, etc.
The Clementine records describe personal daily interactions with Peter when Peter is in Palestine. But, upon leaving Palestine, even Clement loses sight of Peter and writes nothing of what happened to him. If Peter DID serve as a standing Bishop go to Rome, then the silence and void is even more astounding.
A) If Peter HAD BEEN a sitting Bishop in Rome and head of the church, then he would have written MORE than only first peter.
Why It is inconceivable that a “
bishop” Peter would NOT have written something during the 25 YEARS you claimed that he was Bishop.
Remember,
Peter does NOT have to write with his own hand, but need simply employ a few secretaries. Origen and Augustine kept several secretaries very busy taking their dictation in their prodigious production of texts. Paul doesn’t write his text, but leaves it to another to write.
Also, as administrative support increases, the ease with which texts are generated increases, ease of transmission increases; ease of stationary storage increases; ease of distribution increases; and the ease and amount of copying improves.
B) During this time period, the Christian churches are experiencing amazing growth (which requires guidance and administration to a greater degree than churches in a “steady state).
It is inconceivable that Peter would not have provided this guidance and administration, much of it in the form of written text. If he was a bishop, I do not believe he would have written LESS than as an apostle-missionary, but he would probably have written MORE as administrative duties requiring textual communications grew (though the nature of and content of the texts would have been somewhat different).
C) The Apostle Peter would have continued to give many types of textual testimonies of Jesus to many groups in many contexts during his 25 years as a “bishop”and such texts would have been copied and distributed just as other sacred christian texts were copied and distributed widely.
D) There was continuing concern with growing apostasy and heresies and conflicting doctrines as the Christian movement took root among differing culture and countries.
IF Peter had been acting as a “general Bishop” would have continued to send textual letters (epistles) out to attempt to deal with such issues. The Galatians were not the only ones who were “
soon removed” from the original teachings of the Apostles.
Peter would have offered guidance and admonishment as other Bishops did (clement, ignatius, etc).
E)
Much of this guidance would have been Doctrinal guidance in a textual form as Peter encouraged corrections to competing doctrines and questions that arise concerning the gospel.
F)
Peter would have had at least a few public debates or at least public "disagreements" from detractors, such as his extraordinary debate with Simon Magnus, which were immortalized in the Clementine recognitions. Clement wrote of these early debates Peter had, others would have written about continuing debates in Rome had Peter been there.
G)
Any Petrine administration in Rome would have generated textual records associated with mundane administrative affairs; the buying of supplies and food and records relating to the distribution of welfare. Such is the nature of the majority of the earliest hierarchal records of egypt from thousands of years previous. Some of these should be extant.
H) The continuing miracles which were to follow “those that believe” would have continued in Peter and many of them would have been textually documented and immortalized had he been in one place over a period of 20 years. Healing and miracles he continually wrought would have been written about by both the Christians and the non-christians in a community in which Peter lived for 25 years.
I) Textual records associated with other organizational and administrative tasks within a growing christendom itself, records of those who were directly ordained and sent by the Peter as a “bishop” to a certain task would have existed, (Certainly many more ordinations than Peters’ ordination of Clement alone)
J) At least some texts a hypothetical Petrine Bishopric sent out to different countries and congregations would not have been highly valued and retained.
How likely is it that
all copies of
all such documents created over 25 years as a Bishop of a rapidly enlargening religious movement in
all places they were sent in
all cities of an enlargening Religious movement
would have undergone destruction?
For example, we have a fair amount of the correspondence that took place between the Priests of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and the priests of it’s sister jewish temple in Egypt (Elephantine), why would none exist; be discussed; or at least be known of having at one time existing.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
