[zooeyhll]

I've been reading that some Biblical scholars are questioning the authenticity of Matthew 16. The part where Jesus basically says that Peter ALONE is the leader of his Church. And is "given the Keys of Heaven", etc. Which is the basic tenant today for the Pope (as Peter's descendant) being the leader of all Christians.

Some scholars now think this might have been a later addition. Jesus probably said something very similar to what is quoted in the Gospel. But a later hand slightly "tweaked" the text, to give justification to the primacy of Rome.

It's important to remember that the Gospels as we have received them today, did NOT magically appear complete and entire. For the first 150 years or so after the death of Jesus, there were many versions of His sayings floating around in the early Christian Church. In fact, it took almost 300 years, until the Council of Nicaea, for the "final" form of the Bible to be agreed upon.

There didn't really exist any central, authoritative structure to define what was true or not. In this state of flux, there were plenty of opportunities for various groups within the early Church to modify or "embellish" things, to support this or that various position.

It's not only the Gospels that may have been altered. Modern scholarship has determined that many ancient documents and records were later altered from their original versions. Or even outright forgeries, such as the "Donation of Constantine".

Want to emphasize that I am NOT anti-Catholic. Just tossing this out there for any others to comment on.

 

[ActionJackson]

Peter is a small "r" rock. Jesus Christ is the large "R" rock. Without Christ there would be no church. Christ is the Rock upon which the biblical Church is built.


100% Glory to Jesus Christ. All others pale in comparison.

 

[PeterEnergy]

Peter is a small "r" rock. Jesus Christ is the large "R" rock. Without Christ there would be no church. Christ is the Rock upon which the biblical Church is built.


100% Glory to Jesus Christ. All others pale in comparison.

Agreed. I hold "the rock" Jesus was referring to was the statement Peter just made, identifying Jesus as the son of God, the Messiah, savior of the world. On this rock, Jesus is building is church.

The church is not called the Peterian Church but the Christian Church. The idea that the rock of the Christian Church is anything other than Jesus Christ is absurd. Peter articulated it well. The more I read Scripture, the less literal I realize most of it is.

Shalom.

 

[ActionJackson]

Agreed. I hold "the rock" Jesus was referring to was the statement Peter just made, identifying Jesus as the son of God, the Messiah, savior of the world. On this rock, Jesus is building is church.

The church is not called the Peterian Church but the Christian Church. The idea that the rock of the Christian Church is anything other than Jesus Christ is absurd. Peter articulated it well. The more I read Scripture, the less literal I realize most of it is.

Exactly!!! Peter was a fantastic Apostle but he was no more or less faithful than the other 10 Apostles (I'm subtracting Judas). He had great passion for the truth but was also a flawed sinner. He proved so by chopping off the ear of a soldier and by denying Christ three times. Without Christ ... Peter would have remained an un-saved fisherman.

 

[PeterEnergy]

He had great passion for the truth but was also a flawed sinner.

And Jesus said Peter was Satan (Satan get away from me). This cannot mean that Jesus was building his church on Satan.

 

[Basic Human Unit]

It's hard to say. None of the four Gospels were written by witnesses and all were compilations of oral and written documents that had been passed along for decades before being written down. There is no telling what distortions time has wrought. We now have a LoLCat Bible for ****'s sake. You are just going to have to decide for yourself.

But let me ask you this: To what end? Suppose you decide that line WAS added later and was NOT uttered by Christ. What does that change about your faith? As for me, it makes no difference in His message, so it makes no difference to my faith.

 

[PeterEnergy]

There is no telling what distortions time has wrought. We now have a LoLCat Bible for ****'s sake.

What is a LoLCat Bible?

 

[cat_1978]

The Orthodox Church does not recognize the Petrine Doctrine. It is a very late addition. However the Bible is not disputed.

"The greatest medieval schism was that between the Roman Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox church (which continues to this day). Roman Catholics have traditionally believed the Petrine doctrine. The Petrine doctrine is the belief that Saint Peter was given special authority by Christ that has since passed on to each Pope. In the Gospel narratives, Matthew 16:18-19, Christ states, "You are Peter [petrus], the Rock [petros], and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. To you I will give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." A similar verse is found in John 21:15-17. Medieval (and modern) Catholics would think of the Archbishop of Rome (i.e., the Pope) as being in direct apostolic lineage from Saint Peter. That means the particular archbishop of Rome who anointed later Popes had been annointed by earlier Popes all the way back to Saint Peter himself. Traditionally, each archbishop of Rome would inherit Saint Peter's special responsibilities and privileges--just as every other archbishop would normally receive the same traditional duties and powers that his predecessors had. Thus, the Pope (who was the Archbishop of Rome) inherited the same special authority Saint Peter had been given by Christ.

The Orthodox Greek church did not share this belief. Its constituents thought of the Pope as being the first among equals, an archbishop like any other. The Pope was thus like a Patriarch in Greek orthodoxy; i.e., he did not have special authority to command the whole church in spite of his unique prestige. The two halves of the medieval church in the West and the East argued about this, but that was the sum of the dispute for several centuries. The differences between the two halves of the old Roman empire was exacerbated by the differences in language as well. (Western Europe spoke Latin, but the Eastern half of the old Roman empire in Byzantium spoke Greek.)

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/schism.html

The reason we do not dispute the Bible is because we believe the Holy Spirit is actively involved in protecting the Word of God.

For people that do not believe in God, hence in the Holy Spirit, the fact that the Bible is still accurate after 2000 years and still represents the Word of God, is an absurdity.

 

[pinkerpv]

None of the four Gospels were written by witnesses and all were compilations of oral and written documents that had been passed along for decades before being written down

I always thought Matthew and John were two of the disciples that had been with Jesus for 3 1/2 years. Or otherwise witnesses.

And I guess we should discount and doubt the veracity of the biographies of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and hundreds of other folks because they were written decades after they died and not by witnesses. And were compilations of written documents that had been passed down for decades.

And God, who is omnipotent and can do anything to include creating the Universe and all that is therein, planets, stars, black holes, gravity, light, nuclear forces, quarks, electrons, empty space, and everything else you can think of is so puny He can't keep His own story straight and keep it from being corrupted by man, whom He also created.

 

[Trogshak]

I've been reading that some Biblical scholars are questioning the authenticity of Matthew 16. The part where Jesus basically says that Peter ALONE is the leader of his Church. And is "given the Keys of Heaven", etc. Which is the basic tenant today for the Pope (as Peter's descendant) being the leader of all Christians.

Some scholars now think this might have been a later addition. Jesus probably said something very similar to what is quoted in the Gospel. But a later hand slightly "tweaked" the text, to give justification to the primacy of Rome.

It's important to remember that the Gospels as we have received them today, did NOT magically appear complete and entire. For the first 150 years or so after the death of Jesus, there were many versions of His sayings floating around in the early Christian Church.

What are the historical underpinnings which support your assertions?

In fact, it took almost 300 years, until the Council of Nicaea, for the "final" form of the Bible to be agreed upon.

Not true. If you disagree, prove otherwise with the specific canon(s) of the council.

 

[Surviving Suburbia]

I don't think it was added later. It has just been misinterpreted and misappropriated.

The attached article (term paper, really) about Gospel eyewitness and oral tradition in the early church may be informative. Please forgive any sophomoric writing--I wrote it 10 years ago.

I can't believe it's been that long

 

[Basic Human Unit]

What is a LoLCat Bible?

Lolcats were a series of memes a few years ago largely revolving around amusing pictures of cats speaking a distorted form of English like this:

So some enterprising internet trolls decided to construct their own 'translation' of the Bible into the distorted language of the Lolcats. When it was finished, they even published it:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003OUX596/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

[cat_1978]

Lolcats were a series of memes a few years ago largely revolving around amusing pictures of cats speaking a distorted from of English like this:

So some enterprising internet trolls decided to construct their own 'translation' of the Bible into the distorted language of the Lolcats. When it was finished, they even published it:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003OUX596/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

What a loss of time and resources. Some people don't have important stuff to do in this life. Helping one another is important and instead they decide to use their energies, time and money to create verbal diarrea.

 

[ActionJackson]

Lolcats were a series of memes a few years ago largely revolving around amusing pictures of cats speaking a distorted from of English like this:

So some enterprising internet trolls decided to construct their own 'translation' of the Bible into the distorted language of the Lolcats. When it was finished, they even published it:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003OUX596/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Me likes spice!

 

[ActionJackson]

I've been reading that some Biblical scholars are questioning the authenticity of Matthew 16. The part where Jesus basically says that Peter ALONE is the leader of his Church. And is "given the Keys of Heaven", etc. Which is the basic tenant today for the Pope (as Peter's descendant) being the leader of all Christians.

Some scholars now think this might have been a later addition. Jesus probably said something very similar to what is quoted in the Gospel. But a later hand slightly "tweaked" the text, to give justification to the primacy of Rome.

It's important to remember that the Gospels as we have received them today, did NOT magically appear complete and entire. For the first 150 years or so after the death of Jesus, there were many versions of His sayings floating around in the early Christian Church. In fact, it took almost 300 years, until the Council of Nicaea, for the "final" form of the Bible to be agreed upon.

There didn't really exist any central, authoritative structure to define what was true or not. In this state of flux, there were plenty of opportunities for various groups within the early Church to modify of "embellish" things, to support this or that various position.

It's not only the Gospels that may have been altered. Modern scholarship has determined that many ancient documents and records were later altered from their original versions. Or even outright forgeries, such as the "Donation of Constantine".

Want to emphasize that I am NOT anti-Catholic. Just tossing this out there for any others to comment on.

I believe that God's divine hand has been directly instrumental in bringing us His unadulterated Word -- complete and intact. He wouldn't use "holy men of God" over past centuries to painstakingly write down His Word; His will; and His story (history) just to end up delivering a mishmash of half truths; man's mistakes; and philosopher's opinions. We either trust the Bible completely or we don't. We can't pick and choose which portions are true and cast the rest aside.

 

[Basic Human Unit]

What a loss of time and resources. Some people don't have important stuff to do in this life. Helping one another is important and instead they decide to use their energies, time and money to create verbal diarrea.

Irreverence can be constructive under the right circumstances. It causes disruption and disruption often causes thought.

 

[Basic Human Unit]

I always thought Matthew and John were two of the disciples that had been with Jesus for 3 1/2 years. Or otherwise witnesses.

And I guess we should discount and doubt the veracity of the biographies of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and hundreds of other folks because they were written decades after they died and not by witnesses. And were compilations of written documents that had been passed down for decades.

And God, who is omnipotent and can do anything to include creating the Universe and all that is therein, planets, stars, black holes, gravity, light, nuclear forces, quarks, electrons, empty space, and everything else you can think of is so puny He can't keep His own story straight and keep it from being corrupted by man, whom He also created.

Just because He could, doesn't mean that He did.

 

[Ankylus]

Some scholars now think this might have been a later addition. Jesus probably said something very similar to what is quoted in the Gospel. But a later hand slightly "tweaked" the text, to give justification to the primacy of Rome.

You're just trying to make blood shoot out the eyes of all those members of the Roman church until their heads explode, aren't you? :thumb:

The same has been said of the mention of Christ in the works of Josephus. It apparently it was a common practice back in the day. Not that the practice is any kind of proof for the proposition regarding the Gospel. But it was known to happen quite a bit.

 

[Ankylus]

None of the four Gospels were written by witnesses and all were compilations of oral and written documents that had been passed along for decades before being written down.

It is said that one of the standards for inclusion in the New Testament was that the book in question was either written by someone who knew Jesus from his corporeal form OR was approved by someone who did. That is how they get around that particular problem.

 

[Ankylus]

What a loss of time and resources. Some people don't have important stuff to do in this life. Helping one another is important and instead they decide to use their energies, time and money to create verbal diarrea.

If this is what you call verbal diarrhea, then creating verbal diarrhea is just about all you do.