The history of belief in Peterine primacy

[thirsty-for-orthodoxy]

Please respond to the arguments brought up by the opposition, with clear and conclusive proofs. Especially the arguments brought up by Cam.:argue: Until then I agree that no more posts should be made.

God bless you all,

Kenny B. :tiphat:

[LittleLes]

Hi CAM 42

I believe that I've answered this question on at least two occassions.

(1) Assuming that 1 Peter was actually written by St. Peter, it would have to have been written before his death in 64 A.D.

(2) The Babylon "code word" first appears in Revelation which was written about 95 A.D. Thus Peter would have missed it by 31 years.

(3) Bablylon on the Euphrates was a large flourishing Jewish colony from the time of the Babylonian captivity. It survived the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D and became the center of Jewsih culture after that time. If Peter claimed he was writing from Babylon, that's where the letter would be from. (Before you demand a reference [which I've given in the past] try "search" for "Jews of Babylon."

(4) And again you are beginning to shotgun, so I cease responding and I'll continue to analyze each claimed writing progressively as I have been. Also please note that the writings you are attempting to use were written more than 100 years after the fact. This may be the way church traditions are created, but not history.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]I believe that I've answered this question on at least two occassions.[/quote]

Dude, I haven't asked you a question, except that you answer me.

[quote]Assuming that 1 Peter was actually written by St. Peter, it would have to have been written before his death in 64 A.D.[/quote]

Where and I want documentation to support your statement.

[quote]The Babylon "code word" first appears in Revelation which was written about 95 A.D. Thus Peter would have missed it by 31 years.[/quote]

Doucmentation? I disagree. Peter's letter precedes this, assumption.

[quote]Bablylon on the Euphrates was a large flourishing Jewish colony from the time of the Babylonian captivity.[/quote]

So, what is your point? Babylon was a code word. You are contradicting yourself now. Documentation and proof.

[quote](Before you demand a reference [which I've given in the past] try "search" for "Jews of Babylon."[/quote]

Ummm....I don't like the internet????? I don't need the internet to follow your fallacious logic. I did and got:

[quote]1.  Audio Tapes
... 1457 - New Covenant Israel (2) ____ 1463 - New Covenant Israel (3) ____ 1464 - The Jews, Babylon, & Ezekiel 38 ____ 1465 - A Need For Leadership (1) ____ 1466 - A Need For Leadership (2) ____ 1467 - A ...
www.amprom.org/AUDIOT.htm Cached page

2.  www.samlink.com/~mus_ldj/Additional_Colors.htm
... the king had set up. Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews. Babylon: Isaiah 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath ...
samlink.com/~mus_ldj/Additional_Colors.htm Cached page

3.  The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulub: section 7
... Allah ibn Abi Bakr Qazvini CHAPTER V The chief cities of Arabian `Iraq. Anbar, and the captive Jews. Babylon. Basrah, its foundation. The Great Mosque: miracle of its Minaret. Com­panions buried here ...
erga.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=16301012&ct=7 Cached page

4.  The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulub
... of Baghdad CHAPTER V pp. 44-53  The chief cities of Arabian `Iraq. Anbar, and the captive Jews. Babylon. Basrah, its foundation. The Great Mosque: miracle of its Minaret. Com­panions buried here. The ...
erga.packhum.org/persian/pf?file=16301012&ct=0 Cached page
Show more results from "erga.packhum.org".

5.  Satan's Great Deception
... In Bible Light, p. 55). Now notice carefully, for this is very important! "To the later Jews, Babylon was the complete embodiment of the enmity of the heathen world against the kingdom of God, and ...
ultimatechurcharchive.cogcw.org/SGD.HTM Cached page [/quote]

1. I am not interested in buying tapes
2. I really don't care about colors
3. dead link
4. previous link
5. There is no merit in this link, it is full of erroneous "bible-ology."

[quote]And again you are beginning to shotgun, so I cease responding and I'll continue to analyze each claimed writing progressively as I have been. Also please note that the writings you are attempting to use were written more than 100 years after the fact. This may be the way church traditions are created, but not history.[/quote]

No, I am being very consistent. I want you to respond to me. You just have a lot of work ahead of you PRECISELY because you refused to do so earlier.

Address my points. They are all related to the Petrine primacy. There is no shotgunning. It is all on one point. Don't mislead....it is not becoming.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Hi CAM.

(1) You want documentation that Peter didn't write 1 Peter after his death? Is that it?

(2) The Introduction to Revelation in the New American Bible gives the approximate date of its writing. Are you claiming that it was written before the persecution it concerns? And yes, 1 Peter, if written while he was still alive and not already dead would precede this.

(3) That Babylon was a code word is not my assertion to defend.

(4) I've given the reference before. I'm sorry if you don't know how to use the search function. Maybe your librarian can help you or direct you to an encyclopedia. But for the rest of us (using Google), The Jews of Babylon brings up the topic in a "crash course in Jewish history."

And finally wasn't it Eric Berne who, in writing "The Games People Play" advised that when one encounter someone obviously playing games, refuse to play. For one thing they are probably far more experienced at game playing. .So while I may read your posts, I refuse to play your games.

But if I find that Peter did indeed write 1 Peter himself after his death, I promise to let you know.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]You want documentation that Peter didn't write 1 Peter after his death? Is that it?[/quote]

I just want you to prove it....documentation....your loaded questions don't count.

[quote]The Introduction to Revelation in the New American Bible gives the approximate date of its writing. Are you claiming that it was written before the persecution it concerns? And yes, 1 Peter, if written while he was still alive and not already dead would precede this.[/quote]

You do know that these introductions are not definitive don't you? But where is this date that you assert? Do you mean:
[quote]The date of the book in its present form is probably near the end of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), a fierce persecutor of the Christians.[/quote]

That is not a definitive statement. There is no inference that it is, execpt by you. I want definitive proof that your assumption has merit.

[quote]That Babylon was a code word is not my assertion to defend.[/quote]

When you attack it within the context that you did, it does become your assertion to defend, so defend it.

[quote]I've given the reference before. I'm sorry if you don't know how to use the search function. Maybe your librarian can help you or direct you to an encyclopedia. But for the rest of us (using Google), The Jews of Babylon brings up the topic in a "crash course in Jewish history."[/quote]

Oh, I see, I used MSN search. That is my search engine of choice. Yes, I am pro-choice in this matter. However, it doesn't really matter, you still have used no documentation. There is no reference. If you think there is, repost it. Or give the date as to when you did post it.

[quote]So while I may read your posts, I refuse to play your games.[/quote]

I am playing no games....I am simply asking you to respond to my posts. My sarcasm is something else....however, when exactly are you going to respond to my points?

[quote]But if I find that Peter did indeed write 1 Peter himself after his death, I promise to let you know.[/quote]

Introduction to 1 Peter:
[quote]From Irenaeus in the late second century until modern times, Christian tradition regarded [b]Peter the apostle as author of this document.[/b] Since he was martyred at Rome during the persecution of Nero between A.D. 64 and 67, it was supposed that the letter was written from Rome shortly before his death. This is supported by its reference to "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13), a code name for Rome in the early church.....[b]Hence there is nothing in the document incompatible with Petrine authorship in the 60s.[/b] (Introduction, NAB; USCCB)[/quote]

You are not accomplishing anything. However, if you address my points, perhaps you could.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Reviewing the writings produced over a hundred years after the events they describe, we have to be on guard for the introduction of legend, tradition, and spurious writings.

At this point some apologetic "Peter in Rome" lists include Clement's Epistle to James as proof that Peter was in Rome. However, Clement to James is one of the many False Decretals (aka pseudoisodorian Decretals) produced around the 8th century to support papal authority.

Fortunately, "Corunum" omits James, but does limit its Dionysius of Corinth (about 178 A.D.) to just one sentence:

"You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth."

A more complete translation is:

"You have thus by such an admonition (1) bound together the planting (2) of the Romans and Corinthians that came from Peter and Paul. For both of them indeed planted into our Corinth, likewise taught us. And, likewise, having taught into Italy, they suffered martyrdom at the same time."

(1) admonition = a letter fro Bishop Sorter of Rome
(2) planting = implantation of the word of God
(3) Italy - not Rome. (Question: Since the writer knows Paul was at Rome, why does he limit this phrase to Italy, unless he is aware that Peter wasn't also in Rome with Paul. Actually, this might be reading too much into the statement).

Note: It should be pointed out that the Roman Christian community predates any visit by Paul or allegedly Peter. See Acts on this point.

Summary: The work of Peter and Paul spread the same teachings on Christianity among the Corinthians and the Romans. But, again, there is nothing about Peter being bishop of Rome or even being in Rome.

Sorry for the long post.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]Summary: The work of Peter and Paul spread the same teachings on Christianity among the Corinthians and the Romans. But, again, there is nothing about Peter being bishop of Rome or even being in Rome.[/quote]

I would like irrefutable documentation to back that claim. I have given proofs as to Peter being in Rome, you haven't responded, or refuted the Catholic position.

[quote]It should be pointed out that the Roman Christian community predates any visit by Paul or allegedly Peter.[/quote]

Allegedly? Are you saying that it is possible that Peter was in Rome? I think that is what you are saying.

Again, you need proof. You need to quote and cite your proofs. Vague allusions to documents don't allow for proof. It is at best speculation and at worst, calumny against the Church. Unless of course you can give irrefutable proof as to the truth of your malicious claim.

Cam

[Cam42]

[quote]Reviewing the writings produced over a hundred years after the events they describe, we have to be on guard for the introduction of legend, tradition, and spurious writings.[/quote]

I can assume that you hold this position on anything topic. You are so vehement about it. The most definitive works chronicling the life of George Washington were written in the early to mid 20th century.

A non-exhaustive list would include:

Abbott, W. W., and Twohig, D., eds., The Papers of George Washington (1990- )
Alden, John R., George Washington: A Biography (1984)
Callahan, North, Thanks, Mr. President: The Trail-Blazing Second Term of George Washington (1992)
Cunliffe, Marcus, George Washington: Man and Monument (1958)
Davis, Burke, George Washington and the American Revolution (1975)
Dupuy, Trevor N., The Military Life of George Washington (1969)
Flexner, James T., George Washington, 4 vols. (1965-72; repr. 1982)
Freeman, Douglas S., George Washington, 7 vols. (1949-57; repr. 1975)
Jones, R. F., George Washington, rev. ed. (1986)
Knollenberg, Bernhard, George Washington: The Virginia Period, 1732-1775 (1964) and Washington and the Revolution (1940; repr. 1968)
Lewis, Thomas A., For King and Country: The Maturing of George Washington, 1748-1760 (1993)
McDonald, Forrest, The Presidency of George Washington (1974)
Nettels, Curtis P., George Washington and American Independence (1951; repr. 1977); Schwartz, Barry, George Washington (1987)
Smith, Richard Norton, Patriarch: George Washington and the New American Nation (1993)

Arguably the most definitive work on the life of Geo. Washington was by Douglas Freeman. It was published first in 1949. This would invalidate it according to you, precisely because it was published 152 years after his death. You are ubsurd.

Cam

N.B. This allegory was given to illustrate that definitive works can be produced in a reasonable timeframe, after one's death. To say that 100 years after one's death is too long a timeframe is incredibly naive and close minded.

[thirsty-for-orthodoxy]

[quote]A more complete translation is:

"You have thus by such an admonition (1) bound together the planting (2) of the Romans and Corinthians that came from Peter and Paul. For both of them indeed planted into our Corinth, likewise taught us. And, likewise, having taught into Italy, they suffered martyrdom at the same time."[/quote]

I see that you are again trying to disguise your opinion of a reading as a "more accurate translation." Unless you have the original statement right in front of you in its original language and you are actually translating it into english, it is not a translation Please don't try this ploy again. It has never worked before, nor shall it start working in the future.

God bless all of you,

Kenny B.

[Cam42]

[quote]Unless you have the original statement right in front of you in its original language and you are actually translating it into english, it is not a translation....[/quote]

Ego eram admiratio idem eadem idem res.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Hi Kenny,

You can find the passage in Greek on the Web. Since I don't read Greek, I used the English translation.

Do you challenge the accuracy of the translation I used? Precisely what?

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]Do you challenge the accuracy of the translation I used?[/quote]

Quite simply put, [b]I challenge everything that you put forth to this point.[/b] I have given support to the Catholic position, as have others.

You don't cite the translation, you don't even quote the verse. How about a smidge of scholarly action. It would be nice since you berated me for not doing the same.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Since Kenny aka Thirsty-For-Orthodoxy, has expressed concern about the accuracy of the translations I'm using, I'm deviating from my aversion to URL's and providing a URL for theGreek text from which the translation is made that I'll be using for Irenaeus. I'll also start giving some background material on the history of the period in which the document was written (and the reference in which it can be found).

Since I assume most of us don't read Greek, English translation can be found on the "Christian Hospitality" website or at other websites. I'll be using this in my post. (Be careful to note that some translations are modified slightly to match the belief system of the translators).

[url="http://www.christianhospitality.org/pages_20items/irenaeus-gospels.htm"]http://www.christianhospitality.org/pages_...eus-gospels.htm[/url]

Littleles

P.S. If this doesn't work, I'll try posting it again or the serach terms.

[Cam42]

[quote](Be careful to note that some translations are modified slightly to match the belief system of the translators).[/quote]

Yes, let's make sure that we use the proper translation....how about the Vulgate, it is the earliest complete translation of the Canon, available.

I also paroused your wesite that is listed....we cannot possibly take it seriously. The Textus Receptus only dates to 1550. It is entirely to new. We need more ancient documentation from you. Sorry.

Cam

Edited March 12, 2005 by Cam42

[LittleLes]

The translations I am presenting in Greek of Irenaeus and others has absolutely nothing to do with the Latin Vulgate or any other bible. These are writings of the Church Fathers, not scripture.

Little Les

[Cam42]

Rather than providing a link that simply states a partial writing of Irenaeus in Greek, which I agree, most won't be able to read, why don't you provide a link of some use. What you have provided is an image and not quotable. I tracked back to the main website and it is nothing more than an organ for Brother Branham Ministries.

It is basically a compliation of Wesleyan (Methodist) and Lutheran theology. Both hold no weight and have no scholarly value when dealing with the situation at hand.

So, if we are going to discuss the Greek, let's get at it, I happen to read ecclesiastical Greek, (had to learn it for my degree) as well as some Hebrew, and as you have surmised (I hope) I am conversant in Latin. So, let's have the conversation. Where do you want to start with the Greek? Shall we break it down word for word?

I have not done this in a while, it will be good to knock off some of the dust from my Greek.

Cam

Edited March 13, 2005 by Cam42

[LittleLes]

A little history before we continue analyzing putative claims that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

Toward the end of the second century, we begin to see the rise of the monarchial bishops (there's no "pope" yet). Naturally, they try to find reasons for claiming authority and even preeminence. It's natural that the bishop of Rome, the captial of the Roman empire, would try to claim the greatest authority, and eventually extend this claim over other bishops and even princes and kings.

"A Concise History of the Catholic Church" Fr. Thomas Bokenkotter, SS, Doubleday, NY, 1990

"The authority of the monarchial bishops as a guarantor of the oral tradition was based on the claim that he stood in legitimate succession in a line reaching back to the apostles themselves."

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

The next "evidence" that apologists present to prove their claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome is that of Irenaeus of Lyons, A.D. 180 in his Against Heresies, III i I. Unfortunately, only an old Latin copy survives.

This writing, principally created to refute the growing Gnostic influence in the church, describes the writing of the four principle gospels.

"Matthew also produced amongst the Hebrews, in their own dialect, a written account of the Gospel of Peter and Paul, in Rome, while they were (still) evangelizing and laying the foundation of the Church."

"After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter."

"And Luke, for his part, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him."

"Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

The accuracy of these statements regarding the composition of the Gospels written several generations after the events, has been challenged, but there is no claim here that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome.

LittleLes

Edited March 14, 2005 by LittleLes

[thirsty-for-orthodoxy]

[quote]Since Kenny aka Thirsty-For-Orthodoxy, has expressed concern about the accuracy of the translations I'm using, I'm deviating from my aversion to URL's and providing a URL for theGreek text from which the translation is made that I'll be using for Irenaeus[/quote]

So now Irrenaeus is a valid reference. At least that is what it sounds like you are saying.

God bless you all,
Kenny

[Cam42]

[quote]So now Irrenaeus is a valid reference. At least that is what it sounds like you are saying.[/quote]

That is exactly what he is saying. However, he is contradicting himself, because Irenaeus is too young....he's a whipper-snapper in Littleles' mind, don'tcha know.

Next thing you know, he'll be calling a cassarole a hotdish!!!! Sheesh

Cam