Talk:Peter the Apostle

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Copied[edit]

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.) Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 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. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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."The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. Pink mowse.pngGodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 15:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Тytalk 16:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the formal name we relocate to should be Simon Peter, since simon is his original name. Pink mowse.pngGodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 16:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A redditor politely disagrees[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/4ptehu/how_is_the_authority_of_the_pope_and_the_catholic/d4oy1m6

I have to fault rationalwiki for saying "led the church" as there was, at that time, no such thing as "the church." There were many Christian churches. It should read "led a church." It would be several centuries before there would be anything that could be called the church. Too, there was at that time not even a Bishop of Rome (Clement was a presbyter, and never claimed prime authority). The office of Bishop of Rome wasn't established until the middle of the 2nd century, when Anicetus was confirmed in the office by Polycarp of Smyrna.

He is frequently mentioned by Paul in his writings, founding churches with Paul, and acting as the bishop of those churches.

The key here is "he." Exactly which "he" is the subject? The he in question is the leader of a Galilean church. The narrative has it that this real person is the founder of The Church (note the caps) in Rome (and also the Apostle Peter). That Simon Peter preached in Galilee, and was known by Paul (which I did not dispute, mind you) is not in any way evidence that Simon Peter is the founder of the church in Rome.

There is no evidence at all that ties Simon Peter to the alleged The Church in Rome. The religion was undergoing notable change around then. The belief that judgment day was imminent was dwindling. Rejection of the material world was fading. The churches had assets, bequeathed by their dying adherents.

Now at the time, the church in Rome was a nobody. All the important events had happened way over there in the Levant. The Fathers of the Church, the biggies were also way over there. Anicetus himself was confirmed in office by a guy over in Anatolia, Polycarp of Smyrna. Way over there in the Levant, they had history on their side authority and authenticity wise, and apostolic relics and stuff to boot. Rome had caca. It was in that environment that Anicetus "found" the EXACT SPOT where a hundred years earlier Simon Peter was allegedly buried. In The Rise of Christianity William H.C. Frend asks "Why it was only after nearly a century that the Roman Christians selected this spot as the burial place of Peter (and Paul) is a mystery." Shorter: "Hey look guys! We have the authority of Apostle Peter!"

If you'll carefully read what I wrote, you will see that I said Peter's name does not appear in any of Paul's letters to the Romans. He also doesn't mention Peter in any of the letters he wrote while in Rome. SO: There was a Simon Peter preaching in Galilee who is cited by Paul. There is no evidence outside the narrative tying that person to Rome in any way. and the name Peter doesn't appear in any of Paul's letter to the Romans, nor in the letters Paul sent from Rome, though Simon Peter is the founder of the church in Rome?!?!?

Is Simon Peter the same person as the alleged Apostle Peter? There is simply no extra-biblical evidence whatsoever for a historic Apostle Peter. None. (There is no extra-biblical evidence for any of the alleged Apostles.) Further, not only is there no good reason to believe the Peter who led those sects is the same as the alleged Apostle Peter, in fact the evidence cited is reason to think otherwise.

Paul: "For I certify to you, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not devised by man. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Paul didn't hear about Jesus from Simon Peter. Do you think Paul thought Simon Peter was the alleged Apostle Peter? Paul said not one word concerning any detail of Jesus' life and ministry (he was born of woman and crucified don't count as "details"). Does it seem likely then that Paul thought Simon Peter was the Apostle Peter who would surely have told him about the times he spent with Jesus? If he knew someone who had spent time with Jesus, why does he never say a single thing about Jesus?

Since it's lengthy and possible correct, dropping it here. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 10:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well context is important and the original context is this:

Most scholars accept that the Peter who led the church beside Paul was an actual person, and possibly the Peter who himself was a witness to the events of Jesus' life (whatever they be, historically). He is frequently mentioned by Paul in his writings, founding churches with Paul, and acting as the bishop of those churches. It is highly unlikely that Paul's letters would mention a person who did not exist, as his churches would say "Huh? There's no such man".

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)