In the wake of Pope Benedict resigning and the desire for a new one to replace him, we need to consider the evidence that Peter was the first Pope. But as Austin Cline argues there isn't any. Given that the early Catholic Church lied with forged documents like the Donation of Constantine and the Testimonium Flavianum (inserted text into Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews concerning Jesus), any claim of theirs, including the one that the earliest disciples were martyrs for Jesus, must have evidence for it.
Loftus over reaches his claim that the Catholic Church forged that text in Josephus. I mean the whole passage is not a proven forgery nor can any prove that there was malicious intent involved or what the motivation involved at all. His point that the Catholic Church did lie about a few things is well taken is true. The thing is all the evidence of forgeries has squat to do with the Bible or whether or not the claims of Christianity are true.
In fact, I'll betcha in the Vatican records themselves the priests who have access to them already know Peter was not the first Pope, that there was no such office. So the Catholic Church is lying to us this very day.
I don't know what is in the Vatican records. but what I do know is that no one in the Bible would agree that there is such an office as a "Pope" and that Peter did not think of himself that way according to the Bible.
It's just another case of liars for Jesus, something that both Richard Carrier and I have documented before. It's never seen more clearly than in the Catholic Church cover-up of pedophile priests. All they can do is stonewall, obfuscate and lie in defense of the indefensible, whatever it takes. They have lost all credibility when it comes to their faith. None is left, none.
Hold on there. It's irrational to think that covering up pedophile priests is the same a saying that Peter was the first Pope without being able to prove that. Both arte bad but have nothing to do with one another.
But then that's what we see when it comes to faith in general, no matter what the religion. With faith, almost anything can be believed. With faith, people can believe without any evidence at all. With faith, people can even believe against the overwhelming evidence. In fact, with faith, people can even justify lying to defend what they need to believe. It's pathetic. Yes, it's THAT bad.
Again, Loftus demonstrates that he does not know what "Faith" is. And if this is the kind of faith he had when he thought he was a Christian, he was doing it wrong and has traded one delusion for another. Yes, it truly is pathetic.
I dare say that if Christians went back in time to the start-up of the early church they would almost all blast its rise as nothing more than a number of harmful pious cultic frauds, by leaders who sought power over others.
Judging the early Christians by the kind of clergy that Loftus himself was? Not good, Mr Loftus, not good. I don't think that Loftus' accusations apply to the writers of the Bible, nor can Loftus show that it does. Before Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire there was precious little power to be had. I mean for about 300 hundred years from the beginning becoming a Christian leader would not gain you power or wealth but suffering and death.
Let's take a step back and look at Loftus' argument. Let's say he's right. The Catholic Church lied about Josephus writing about Jesus. It lied about Peter being the first Pope. Transubstantiation is wrong. So what? Even if Loftus is right about faith, and he is not, it matters nothing about whether or not the claims in the Bible are true or not. Loftus being right would not make the Bible right however it does make the Catholic Church wrong.
Debunking Christianity: The Catholic Church Is Lying to This Day: Was Peter the First Pope?
it matters nothing about whether or not the claims in the Bible are true or not
ReplyDeleteOf course it does. Why do you think the people who wrote and edited the various books of the Bible are any different than the people who forged the Donation of Constantine and added their bit to the Testimonium Flavianum, fibbed about Peter and cover up child abuse?
The people who wrote the various books of the Bible are different from the people who forged the Donation of Constantine and added their bit to the Testimonium Flavianum, fibbed about Peter and cover up child abuses. I'm referring to the autographs. Obviously you don't think we really know what the autographs actually said, but I'd argue that we do. That is a different argument. The point here is that the authors of the New Testament were not motivated bt greed or power - not like those who forged the Donation of Constantine and added their bit to the Testimonium Flavianum, fibbed about Peter and cover up child abuses. They didn't do those things and condemned those who do. Since the Bible does not admonish or command or even allow for such evil things to be done they are condemned as a matter of fact in the Bible - Old and new testaments. Therefore trying to say you can't trust the Bible bacause of these actions by people who were not living by it is not just dishonest but stupid. The Bible even tells us that such false prophets and false teachers would appear and how we can recognize them - they do things like these: forge the Donation of Constantine and add their bit to the Testimonium Flavianum, fib about Peter and cover up child abuses. In order for your and Loftus to be correct you would have to demonstrate that the Christians who wrote the New Testament were guilty of such evils - and you can't.
ReplyDeleteAh, got it, “bible writers can’t do wrong because they were the bible writers”. Are you familiar with the term “tautology”? Additionally, besides writing the books of the New Testament, you don’t actually know what any of the authors did or did not do.
ReplyDeleteIn order for your [sic] and Loftus to be correct you would have to demonstrate that the Christians who wrote the New Testament were guilty of such evils - and you can't.
Well, for the most part you are right, of course we can’t, we don’t know the first thing about most of them. It’s worth noting however that at least in one case (and possibly others) we can demonstrate that there was an author who purported to be someone else. So… nice try.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou don't get it. You have no proof that that writers of the Bible did anything that you are complaining that the Catholic Church did, but we know that that the authors of the Bible condemned those actions. If we are talking about what the Bible says and whether or not it is true, you admittedly know nothing about them that can lead you to such a conclusion.
ReplyDeleteWell, for the most part you are right, of course we can’t, we don’t know the first thing about most of them. It’s worth noting however that at least in one case (and possibly others) we can demonstrate that there was an author who purported to be someone else. So… nice try.
So what give you the reasonable right to assume that the writers of the Bible did the same things later Catholics did? How do you know? What makes that assumption valid? You have nothing. No proof. No evidence. Nada. Nothing. You say you can demonstrate that there was an author of a canonical book of the Bible "who purported to be someone else"...then do it. You admit that you don't know much about any of the authors but you know one who lied about who he was. Too funny. I'd like to see you try. You must like the taste of faceplants.
You don't get it. You have no proof that that writers of the Bible did anything that you are complaining that the Catholic Church did...
ReplyDeleteOh I "get it", of course I don't have proof, but even the bible correctly describes the general human condition as being universally corruptible. My evidence that the writers of the various books of the bible were susceptible to corruption is that they were human. Now, I suppose that means you are special pleading on behalf of the bible writers (who can do no wrong because they are bible writers!!!!!1!one!!)
So what give you the reasonable right to assume that the writers of the Bible did the same things later Catholics did?
See above.
How do you know?
See above.
You say you can demonstrate that there was an author of a canonical book of the Bible "who purported to be someone else"...then do it.
As you know, Second Peter is almost universally thought to be pseudepigraphical (you know, an author purporting to be someone else, a.k.a. lying...).
And I'm sure you know that Paul's authorship is disputed in the case of several of the epistles that are traditionally identified as Pauline. Granted, not all of them explicitly claim to be written by Paul, so one shouldn't assume malice on the authors part in all the cases, ignorance by later editors is just as likely.
Nope. You are clueless. None of the authors of the Bible claims infallibility nor sinless perfection, but that does not mean that any of them are guilty of lying in what they wrote. You have no evidence that any of them forged anything nor covered up sins. You are making an assumption. You have the burden of proof here. You are the one pleading from ignorance. Of course the authors were succeptible to corruption that is why they threw themselves on God's mercy and trusted God. What are you going to do about your corruption?
ReplyDeleteYou have nothing.
As you know, Second Peter is almost universally thought to be pseudepigraphical (you know, an author purporting to be someone else, a.k.a. lying...).
Yes many many scholars have come to that erroneous conclusion. So what. So you can't demonstrate that the Apostle Peter did not write II Peter. Nor can you show that anything in it is wrong. Your position sucks.
And I'm sure you know that Paul's authorship is disputed in the case of several of the epistles that are traditionally identified as Pauline. Granted, not all of them explicitly claim to be written by Paul, so one shouldn't assume malice on the authors part in all the cases, ignorance by later editors is just as likely.
Again, you have no proof. I don't think the evidence that we have supports those conclusions at all. I doubt that you have any real reason for rejecting Pauline authorship or Peter other than most scholars think reject that. Why aren't you demonstrating that you have thought about these things yourself?
Of course the authors were succeptible [sic] to corruption...
ReplyDeleteRight, so you are special pleading. OK.
I don't think the evidence that we have supports those conclusions at all. I doubt that you have any real reason for rejecting Pauline authorship or Peter other than most scholars think reject that.
I know you have difficulty answer simple yes or no questions, but let's try one. Do you read Koine?
ReplyDeleteRight, so you are special pleading. OK.
So you didn't understand what I said. Must be because I misspelled "susceptible". Go back an re-read that.
I know you have difficulty answer simple yes or no questions, but let's try one. Do you read Koine?
No I do not read Kione Greek. Now answer my questions:
How do you know Peter did not write 2 Peter? Which Epistles do you agree that Paul wrote and how do you know he did not write the canonical epistles you reject? And most importantly, given that you agree that all human beings are susceptible to corruption what are you doing to fix your corruption?
So you didn't understand what I said.
ReplyDeleteOf course I did, what you said was Bible Writers® are susceptible to corruption just like everyone else (March 7, 2013 at 5:50 PM), but were also somehow different from everyone else because they were Bible Writers® (February 27, 2013 at 11:03 AM). Special pleading.
How do you know Peter did not write 2 Peter?.
I don't. But like you (although to a lesser extent) I must rely on the arguments of scholars and in this case most of them believe 2nd Peter is epipseudographical. Unlike you, I understand the difference between words like "know" and "believe".
...what are you doing to fix your corruption?
Not nothing! Actual, material things, things that make a difference in reality.
Of course I did, what you said was Bible Writers® are susceptible to corruption just like everyone else (March 7, 2013 at 5:50 PM), but were also somehow different from everyone else because they were Bible Writers® (February 27, 2013 at 11:03 AM). Special pleading.
ReplyDeleteNope. I said that you have no evidence that they were doing any of the evil things that this post are about that were done later by people claiming to be Christians.
I don't. But like you (although to a lesser extent) I must rely on the arguments of scholars and in this case most of them believe 2nd Peter is epipseudographical. Unlike you, I understand the difference between words like "know" and "believe".
So you don't know. You believe that 2 Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter. So why do you live as though you do know? Thanks for some honesty (Backhanded as it was).
Not nothing!
Double negative.
Actual, material things, things that make a difference in reality.
Like what? And how do you know these things (which you are being vague about) are working?
Nope.
ReplyDeleteYou actually did. It’s on record, there are time stamps.
I said that you have no evidence that they were doing any of the evil things that this post are about that were done later by people claiming to be Christians.
You did also say this, but you don’t understand what evidence is, and a universal human propensity to commit “evil” is certainly evidence of a specific human’s propensity to commit “evil”. It’s not conclusive, but it is evidence. Otherwise, you are special pleading…
So why do you live as though you do know?
Um, I don’t? But I think I now see one of the fundamental stumbling blocks you have in communicating with normal human beings.
Double negative.
Well yes, it is. Sorry if you had trouble following a double negative, but it means what I intended it to mean. Draw out a diagram perhaps if you need further help?
You have no evidence that anyone who wrote anything now find in the Bible is guilty of forgery, sexual abuses, nor saying anything that which we know is false. That's called lack of evidence for your "argument". No special pleading on my part. If you have real evidence and not your catch-all "They were sinner too" argument, then you can keep talking.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way writing in double negatives is really really poor communication in English. Truly lazy and not clearly thought out. You should be ashamed...just like you should be ashamed of your "arguments" - bad as they are.
No special pleading on my part…
ReplyDeleteLet me see if this is a position you would agree is correct. P1) All humans are wicked sinners. P2) Humans wrote the various books of the bible. C1) The humans who wrote the various books of the bible were wicked sinners… except for when they were writing the various books of the bible.
Is that an accurate statement? A simple yes or no is fine. But if no, then present clearly articulated argument that doesn’t include your typical fallacies.
Truly lazy and not clearly thought out. You should be ashamed
LOL
No, It is not an accurate statement. P2 does not take into account that the Bible writers wrote did not come from them.
ReplyDeleteLook at 2 Peter 1:16-21
And there it is! Citing scripture to prove scripture. Arguing that you are not special pleading by special pleading. Well played Marcus, well played….
ReplyDeleteI said it before, I’ll say it again. LOL
You seem happy. About what? You have show that your assumption that scripture is unreliable is tenable. And you haven't. The question here was on what basis can I conclude that the Bible writers were not doing the same evil games with manuscripts that we know some people of the Catholic church did. I offered the evidence of what they wrote. If you wanna show that it is wrong to cite scripture in this case you have show that the cited scripture is false not cry because you can't demonstrate that it's false. You're welcome.
ReplyDeleteThe question here was on what basis can I conclude that the Bible writers were not doing the same evil games with manuscripts that we know some people of the Catholic church did.
ReplyDeleteYes, you demonstrated that the bible writers said "hey, we're legit, no really, we are, trust us". Again, LOL.
It's also worth noting of course that we don't have a clue who wrote 2nd Peter 1:16-21 and it likely was someone fibbing about who they were.
Yes, you demonstrated that the bible writers said "hey, we're legit, no really, we are, trust us". Again, LOL.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you have a really good laugh when you demonstrate that the authors of the Bible were not legit. Now watching you try would truly be hysterically comical.
It's also worth noting of course that we don't have a clue who wrote 2nd Peter 1:16-21 and it likely was someone fibbing about who they were.
Sure would like to see you provide evidence that the Apostle Peter did not write 2nd Peter 1:16-21. I could use the laugh. I wanna laugh too, because so far nothing has been funny in this thread aside from your "logic" and "reason".
I haven't figured out yet if you abuse the word proof / prove out intentionally or out of ignorance.
ReplyDeleteYou are horrible at dodging questions. I didn't ask you for a proof or even to prove anything. I asked you to provide evidence that the Apostle Peter did not write 2nd Peter 1:16-21 and what is written there is not true.
ReplyDeleteYou could just try something different. Provide your evidence or admit that you just believe your conclusions with no real evidence.
Ah, good catch, and no dodge intended, I'm just so you to you saying "You can't prove!!!!!!!1eleven!!?/1!" that I misread "provide".
ReplyDeleteBut see Raymond E. Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Moyise's Old Testament in the New, Callan's Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter from the '04 Biblica 85, Harris's Understanding the Bible, Green's 2 Peter Reconsidered, Harner's What are they saying about the Catholic Epistles?, Grant's Historical Introduction To The New Testament and even witherington's A Petrine Source in 2 Peter. Also Kümmel, Wallace, Moo, Ehrman and Carson.
But the gist is the linguistic differences from the 1st epistle of Peter, the 2nds use of Jude, it's gnostic influence which would have post-dated Peter’s lifetime and it's desperate encouragement to the flock that Jesus really was coming back, no really! (also post-dating Peter’s lifetime) and the fact that the church vaters didn't universally think it was written by Peter are all evidence that it was epispseudographical.
Yes, yes, I know, that doesn't prove (!!!!1eleven!!?/1!) that Peter (or whomever) didn't write 2nd Peter... rest easy dear Marcus, rest easy, at least you have that...
So your problem was reading comprehension. I understand.
ReplyDeleteYour argument depends on Jude not being a contemporary of Apostle Peter. How do you know that? (Read more carefully this time)
And you really need to quit whining about having to admit that you can't prove what you are asserting. And just because you can't prove something doesn't meant I don't have the right ask for proof or that I don't know what you are asking for. In attempt to be nicer to you I'm only asking for evidence because I know you have no proof. And you know that too.
Your argument depends on Jude not being a contemporary of Apostle Peter.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have misunderstood, it in no way depends on whether the men (whoever they were) themselves were or were not contemporary, it's about when the writing took place. The earliest possible date for Epistle of Jude is right around the time Peter was martyred, so I think even you could see the problems inherent in that. But even if the writing of Jude actually predated the death of Peter or if you'd formulated your objection correctly, it doesn't depend on a single argument at all. You may have noted there were several other reasons cited. Speaking of dodging...
And you know that too.
Of course I know that! But I also know what "prove", "proof" and "evidence" actually mean. One can't "prove" the historical. I'd love it if you could figure that out and move on. Bottom line, you have no "proof" and cannot "prove" that Peter, Paul, Luke or John wrote anything or even lived, you have no "proof" and cannot "prove" Jesus was crucified or even lived. I'm not saying those things didn't happen, or aren't supported by "evidence", I'm saying that you need to recognize that you currently hold a warped view of what "proof" means and when to expect something to be "proven".
You have a lot of problems:
ReplyDelete1. You claim that the writer of 2 Peter uses Jude. You can't demonstrate that this is true. It's either true or it's not. You claim that it is.
2. You claim that Jude has a gnostic influence but you can't demonstrate that this conclusion is true.
3. You said that Jude had to post-date Peter's lifetime but later says that it is dated to Peter's martyrdom. Both can't be true. Pick one and show that it's true.
4. There were not of reasons you cited for the conclusions you have deluded yourself into accepting, I just picked this one. I'm not asking how do you know Jude's letter comes before or after Peter's death. I'm asking how do you know the book of 2 Peter depends on Jude? Also how do you know Peter did not write 2 Peter and Jude (Jesus brother) did not write Jude?
If you are going to be dodging, you are really going to have to do better than this. I wish you would just answer the questions.
I totally disagree that you can't "prove" the historical. An event either happened or it didn't. I realize that so many professional scholars have adopted this view but I reject it. Under this view you have nothing real to contribute or no standard to any claim about truth or reality. If you have evidence for something and can demonstrate something as being true there is nothing wrong with basing your conclusions on it. You can't really live the way you are pretending you are doing. If you did you could not really reject Christianity. You have come to your conclusions and all I've done is ask you to demonstrate and give evidence why your conclusions are rational. You have provided zero evidence and zero reasons for why you have come to the conclusions that the authors of the New Testament have lied in their writings or plagerized anything. Still waiting.
You views are not just warped. They are skewed. At some point, after weighing your evidence, you have to come to a conclusion. I'm asking you to substantiate yours...and claiming that you can't prove anything in history is a cop out because you claim the Bible is false and written by liars and can't provide a shred of evidence that there is any reason at all to come to that conclusion. Either stop saying that or show that what you are saying is true.
1. You claim...
ReplyDeleteWell, considering that these passages are the same, it demonstrates it's more likely than not...
2nd Peter / Jude
1:5 / 3
1:12 / 5
2:1 / 4
2:4 / 6
2:5 / 5
2:6 / 7
2:10-11 / 8-9
2:12 / 10
2:13-17 / 11-13
2:18 / 16
3:2f / 17f
3:3 / 18
3:14 / 24
3:18 / 25
2. You claim...
No, I didn't. Reread.
3. You said...
Where did I say "had to"? The Epistle of Jude is dated on the earliest end to the last two years of Peter's life. On the later end, the 160s...
4. There were not of reasons you cited for the conclusions you have deluded yourself into accepting...
Um, what?
I'm asking how do you know the book of 2 Peter depends on Jude?
See above. But I don't know that, it's just more likely than not.
Also how do you know Peter did not write 2 Peter
Because of these two premises, 1) The Epistle of Jude post dates Peter's death and 2) 2nd Peter is dependent upon the Epistle of Jude. But again, I don't know that, it's just that both of those premises have far more support than their inverse making them more likely true than not.
I totally disagree that you can't "prove" the historical. An event either happened or it didn't.
Yes, an event either happened or it didn't, but that doesn't at all speak to your ability to "prove" that it happened.
You have provided zero evidence...
You can keep saying this as much as you need to, but there are several comments above and this one as well where I point you towards the evidence in question. This makes you look foolish.
At some point, after weighing your evidence, you have to come to a conclusion.
Agreed, but it doesn't mean your conclusion is "proven".
and claiming that you can't prove anything in history is a cop out because you claim the Bible is false and written by liars and can't provide a shred of evidence that there is any reason at all to come to that conclusion.
This sentence is confused. You'll note I never have claimed to have "proven" the Bible is false and written by liars, just that the evidence points to that being the case (at least in some instances). This leads me to believe you truly are ignorant of what "prove" means, which makes me feel better about your integrity, but less so about your claims to be a scientist.
1. So you claim that those list of passages in 2nd Peter and Jude are the same. Are you claiming that they are the same in English or in Greek?
ReplyDelete2. You said:
But the gist is the linguistic differences from the 1st epistle of Peter, the 2nds use of Jude, it's gnostic influence which would have post-dated Peter’s lifetime and it's desperate encouragement to the flock that Jesus really was coming back, no really!
So how is that not saying that Jude or 2 Peter has gnostic influence?
3. Back pedalling seems to be your "go-to" defense.
4. You have 2 premises and the first one I have no problem with. As for the second, why don't we look at this closer. I'm going to be doing a follow up post and examine your list of passages in English and Greek.
Yes, an event either happened or it didn't, but that doesn't at all speak to your ability to "prove" that it happened.
If you can't know whether the event happened or not, what gives you the right to make a decision and live your life based on that decision.
This sentence is confused. You'll note I never have claimed to have "proven" the Bible is false and written by liars, just that the evidence points to that being the case (at least in some instances). This leads me to believe you truly are ignorant of what "prove" means, which makes me feel better about your integrity, but less so about your claims to be a scientist.
You say you haven't proven the Bible is false yet you live that way. You claim that it is likely that the authors are liars and the evidence does not support your conclusion. Your standard of proof is really low in this case for something so important. I told you I reject your "definition" of proof. It is not the definition used in science. I can really go into a laboratory and prove that the acceleration due to Gravity really is about where the textbooks say it is. It's true. It's not just likely true. You can know the reality of God just as certainly. I'm not saying you need a laboratory to do it, but there is plenty of evidence pointing to the correct conclusion and you have missed it.
Here is what I think of your silly list.
ReplyDeletehttp://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2013/03/faceplant-of-day-does-2nd-peter-copy.html
Marcus; you are probably right in this case. Take care and godspeed
ReplyDelete