mcdaddy Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 So the pastard was saying this morning some junk about Peter going to Rome, being crucified upside down, and other various bits of myth that showed his transformation from "Average Pete" to "Super Pete". Facepalms. Anyways, I could have sworn at one point he claimed that REAL HISTORIANS had corroborates him being crucified and whatever other nonsense. I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to this, but, is there any outside corroborating info AT ALL about the life of this Peter tool? I'm under the impression the early church took this character from the early writings and wrote even more stories/myths about him to try to historicize te whole Jesus drama. Just curious if anyone at all outside the cult wrote anything reliable about "Rocky". Thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Most of it comes from early church historical documents AFTER peter was crucified, they also state he flew across Rome... Yea literaly FLEW. Most of the works are found in extra curricular Apocrypha and we know how reliable that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted July 29, 2012 Author Share Posted July 29, 2012 Most of it comes from early church historical documents AFTER peter was crucified, they also state he flew across Rome... Yea literaly FLEW. Most of the works are found in extra curricular Apocrypha and we know how reliable that is. No more or less reliable than the canonical shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Most of it comes from early church historical documents AFTER peter was crucified, they also state he flew across Rome... Yea literaly FLEW. Most of the works are found in extra curricular Apocrypha and we know how reliable that is. No more or less reliable than the canonical shit. I actually disagree on this one, the cannon was decided based on author verification, which is more reliable than the Apocrypha but at the same time if that's how they were basing their picks then there should be books in the bible that aren't. Which just goes to show it was MEN picking what books went into the bible, not GOD. Theologians and Apologist say that the council of Nicaea "discovered" what books were viable but if this were the case, based on their criteria, there are missing books. Of course you must also contend with the fact the documents change as well through history through manipulation but not everything in the bible is false, i mean to discredit the entire bible would mean you must discredit all historical documents but you don't haft to discredit the entire thing to realize it isnt infallible. I also add the authors of the gospels aren't verified but i think the writings of Paul are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 To say that, Peter being crucified upside is a historical fact, is claiming alot more then what the preacher really wants to claim. Considering the sources for a second, are totally extra biblical and one comes from the second pope ever in Christian history, scepticism should abound particularly in protestant innerrantist circles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#Martyrdom So they got one bit right, out of a apocryphal text and one guys testimony. I would hardly call that a undisputed historical fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen652 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Most of it comes from early church historical documents AFTER peter was crucified, they also state he flew across Rome... Yea literaly FLEW. Most of the works are found in extra curricular Apocrypha and we know how reliable that is. No more or less reliable than the canonical shit. I actually disagree on this one, the cannon was decided based on author verification, which is more reliable than the Apocrypha but at the same time if that's how they were basing their picks then there should be books in the bible that aren't. Which just goes to show it was MEN picking what books went into the bible, not GOD. Theologians and Apologist say that the council of Nicaea "discovered" what books were viable but if this were the case, based on their criteria, there are missing books. Of course you must also contend with the fact the documents change as well through history through manipulation but not everything in the bible is false, i mean to discredit the entire bible would mean you must discredit all historical documents but you don't haft to discredit the entire thing to realize it isnt infallible. I also add the authors of the gospels aren't verified but i think the writings of Paul are. nothing about the canon was even discussed at Nicaea, as far as I'm aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Most of it comes from early church historical documents AFTER peter was crucified, they also state he flew across Rome... Yea literaly FLEW. Most of the works are found in extra curricular Apocrypha and we know how reliable that is. No more or less reliable than the canonical shit. I actually disagree on this one, the cannon was decided based on author verification, which is more reliable than the Apocrypha but at the same time if that's how they were basing their picks then there should be books in the bible that aren't. Which just goes to show it was MEN picking what books went into the bible, not GOD. Theologians and Apologist say that the council of Nicaea "discovered" what books were viable but if this were the case, based on their criteria, there are missing books. Of course you must also contend with the fact the documents change as well through history through manipulation but not everything in the bible is false, i mean to discredit the entire bible would mean you must discredit all historical documents but you don't haft to discredit the entire thing to realize it isnt infallible. I also add the authors of the gospels aren't verified but i think the writings of Paul are. nothing about the canon was even discussed at Nicaea, as far as I'm aware. Yeah that was one of the first things I remeber ever looking into too about christianity, and no dice on that claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inqui Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 You guys all have it wrong. Saint Peter was actually a rabbit. Jesus appointed him as the first pope of the Christian church so he wouldn't say anything. People always get the message messed up but rabbits are pure. That's also why we have an easter bunny. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Positivist Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Oh gawd, mcdaddy. What would I give to have seen the look on your face. Thank you for the reminder about what I'm not missing on Sundays, besides not missing facial injuries from repeated facepalms..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 If Peter was actually crucified upside-down, wouldn't that make him the Antichrist? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 If Peter was actually crucified upside-down, wouldn't that make him the Antichrist? Actually, I am surpised not alot of satanists probably realize there are actually stealing more or less a catholic symbol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Most of it comes from early church historical documents AFTER peter was crucified, they also state he flew across Rome... Yea literaly FLEW. Most of the works are found in extra curricular Apocrypha and we know how reliable that is. No more or less reliable than the canonical shit. I actually disagree on this one, the cannon was decided based on author verification, which is more reliable than the Apocrypha but at the same time if that's how they were basing their picks then there should be books in the bible that aren't. Which just goes to show it was MEN picking what books went into the bible, not GOD. Theologians and Apologist say that the council of Nicaea "discovered" what books were viable but if this were the case, based on their criteria, there are missing books. Of course you must also contend with the fact the documents change as well through history through manipulation but not everything in the bible is false, i mean to discredit the entire bible would mean you must discredit all historical documents but you don't haft to discredit the entire thing to realize it isnt infallible. I also add the authors of the gospels aren't verified but i think the writings of Paul are. Out of 13 NT books attributed to him, 7 are generally agreed upon by scholars to be written by Paul, while the majority of the remainder are considered to clearly be forgeries. In general, I think it is more difficult to nail down the authorship of NT books which were not attributed to Paul. There was probably less to go on in the second to third centuries when the cannon was largely firming up than there is today in terms of what was "authentic", since scholarly techniques in use today were lacking then, and the selection process was rife with competing agendas involving the battle for what won out as orthodox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 Oh gawd, mcdaddy. What would I give to have seen the look on your face. Thank you for the reminder about what I'm not missing on Sundays, besides not missing facial injuries from repeated facepalms..... Pos, I roll my eyes and fidget and all that SO FUCKING HARD every week. I mean, I've gotten better at concealing it to a degree. But damn. If someone was staring at me the whole service, they'd figure out PDQ I'm not a beeleebah. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 If Peter was actually crucified upside-down, wouldn't that make him the Antichrist? I've always wondered what would happen if Christ and the Antichrist meet up. Would it be like mixing matter with anti-matter? That would be fun. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Just curious if anyone at all outside the cult wrote anything reliable about "Rocky". Thx The short answer...No. The long answer...No. mwc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 Just curious if anyone at all outside the cult wrote anything reliable about "Rocky". Thx The short answer...No. The long answer...No. mwc I can always count on you for a thorough, detailed and well-sourced response. Thxbuhbuy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I can always count on you for a thorough, detailed and well-sourced response. Well, how much do you want me to say on all the things people didn't write? Starting as earlier as the first century CE, and quite possibly before, people started to not write about the glorious Saint Peter... mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I can always count on you for a thorough, detailed and well-sourced response. Well, how much do you want me to say on all the things people didn't write? Starting as earlier as the first century CE, and quite possibly before, people started to not write about the glorious Saint Peter... mwc I guess it's sort of like asking about all of the written accounts of when Stalin visited the Florida Keys. (He never did, did he?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I guess it's sort of like asking about all of the written accounts of when Stalin visited the Florida Keys. (He never did, did he?) Doesn't matter. He went surfing there. No one wrote about it. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 I can always count on you for a thorough, detailed and well-sourced response. Well, how much do you want me to say on all the things people didn't write? Starting as earlier as the first century CE, and quite possibly before, people started to not write about the glorious Saint Peter... mwc Just joking, man. I like someone who cuts thru the shit and keeps it short and sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts