Talk:Peter the Apostle

Copied
This article borrows heavily from my artcile on Liberapedia by the same name. My apologies for the lack of originality. zieber 16:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is going to last long. It's not what you might call "on mission". (And also not very snarky.)  16:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly on mission in light of the bible stuff we have ("the mission" also includes the things that will support "the mission", otherwise, why the hell do we have a huge article on relativity?). But snark 'er up, and it should do fine. 16:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be particularly "on mission" at the moment. Neither does the article on relativity. That is the problem with letting in non-mission items.  Once you create a precedent with one then it becomes a reason to let in another.--BobNot Jim 18:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The bit about his not being crucified puts it on-mission. 18:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? Under "refuting crank ideas" but it just denies it - there is no refutation. Or under "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism"? I'm  not convinced that a simple denial is "exploring fundamentalism". But perhaps I've missed something.--BobNot Jim 19:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, while this article isn't exactly "on mission" as it stands right now, it doesn't mean it could, perhaps, be edited so that it would be "on mission." I'm sure we could find some way to make it "on mission." 20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt we could. Though I'm not quite sure exactly how at the moment.  :-) --BobNot Jim 20:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In defense of this article
I would like you all to consider retaining this article. I noticed that you have many articles on the topic of religion already and many mentioned Saint Peter.

I believe this article furthers your mission in analyzing the anti-science movement and exploring fundamentalism. Although it is often difficult to refute assertions related to religion, one can point out that there is in fact no basis for traditional beliefs, as I believe this article does on several occasions.

I must admit that snark is not my strong suit although I do hope my knowledge of the Bible can benefit us. If anyone can edit this article to provide snark and make it more on mission I would appreciate it.

Thank you for your consideration. zieber 01:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Saint peter
Since the bible does not call him a saint, and the "title" of Saint is reflective of only really one text in English (though granted, it is the single most popular of the English bibles), and since we do not call Paul, Mary, Moses, Abraham, or John the Baptist "saints", I propose we relocate this to Peter, with an "(the apostle) if we need a differentiation. Leaving the redirect of course, for those who live and die by the KJV. Godot   I smell roasted chestnuts.  droollllllll. 15:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Тy talk 16:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the formal name we relocate to should be Simon Peter, since simon is his original name. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   I smell roasted chestnuts.  droollllllll. 16:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A redditor politely disagrees
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/4ptehu/how_is_the_authority_of_the_pope_and_the_catholic/d4oy1m6

Since it's lengthy and possible correct, dropping it here. 10:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well context is important and the original context is this:


 * There are a multitude of issues with this claim. You have the weasel words "Most scholars" right at the bat.  Then you have the issue of how each "Paul" (there are four of them, remember?) mentions "Peter".  Then you have the question of if "Cephas" and Paul are truly the same person (As Carrier shows with about a half a page worth of references even the "Authentic or Early Paul" writings have been altered in some faction). --BruceGrubb (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)