So of course I learned all about this in catechism classes, that there was an unbroken line of succession from the apostles to the present day that only the Catholics could claim. It's one of the threads that always made me think if any church was true it was the Catholic church.
Well I just got finished reading Nailed which was amazing, and or called into serious doubt the entire existence of AS, since of course th eres littke wvidwnce for said originak apostles to begin with. Now im really interested in this; does anyone have any secular information on this? Most of what I'm finding googling is coming from Christian sources
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@ Mikhail
And now you are uncovering the political (and in no way historical) founding of the Catholic Church.
There is no contemporary evidence at all for the "Peter" or "Simon Peter" of the gospels, none. Even the gospels and the rest of the bible do not agree with each other as to the names and number of the disciples never mind who went on to found the Church in Rome in the late mid 1st century and beginning of the Second Century CE.
We do know that 2 Peter was NOT written by 'the" Peter as he was not alive in the mid second to third centuries when it was written
1 Peter also has many problems in attribution. General scholastic opinion is that it was not written by the legendary fisherman apostle, was certainly not written before 68CE and borrows much imagery and structure from Paul's epistles. Even using the same words in the same format in more than one case.
The Catholic Church leans heavily on 2 Timothy for its authority over scripture and apostolic succession, unfortunately 2 Timothy is considered a fraud. 2 Timothy was certainly not around until the mid second century long after 'Paul's' death, and was probably written by a cleric desiring authority for his views. In order to imbue his work with authority he 'borrowed' Paul's monicker.
The problem with the Catholic Church is that it is directly founded upon the teachings of Paul, someone who had never encountered the Jesus figure, wrenched the early church from its jewish roots and replanted it in a greek/syriac garden to take root. At the time of the early church there were competing sects. The Roman Pauline Church had to imbue their particular sect with divine authority and came to the section where Peter engineered the selection of Matthias as replacement apostle for Judas. Jesus was dead by then. The early Pauline church seized on that precedent to insist (in the late 3rd century) that Peter had passed his authority to the "bishop of Rome" (didn't have popes back then). This authority naturally fell to Constantine when he assumed control of the Roman church and was then delegated back the Bishops of Rome ( a title the Pope still carries to this day).
In short, it is all politics Mikhail, and all utter bollocks.
Old man, in gonna be straight with you, I was absolutely floored when I first learned that there are so many parts of the canonized bible that are straight up forgeries. I gotta admit my inner skeptic still instinctively tries to aide with Catholicism and day "what? No way! There's no way the Catholic church could hide or pretend that their books are forgeries!" But I mean, this is the church that didn't want people reading their bibles, this was a church built upon the ig meant and the gullible in the first centuries, and I don't believe that scholars like carrier or earhman or historical writers like Fitzgerald are trying to press any agenda like I would have believed as a Catholic. We are uncovering more evidence all the time and can date things with knowledge we simply didn't have in 500 CE, of COURSE we are going to learn shit we didn't know before.
I'm also loving hearing about early pagans looking at Christians and going wait, you believe what? Why?? Those are OUR stories.
All this to say, it never even occurred to me until recently that the apostles weren't solid, historically proven figures like Caesar or Cleopatra. No idea man. Note did I realize that Paul really had no concept of a human jesus! He even says that he has come to this conclusion by scripture and revelation!
Well done Mikhail
Keep on learning. Then apply what you learn to the way politicians, religions and corporations behave today....they all lie.
That is why it is important to learn history, then you can recognise much of what is presented to you as 'fact' as something more nebulous. As something to be corroborated rather than believed on first ask.
Apply the historical method Mikhail, as you are doing now and you will not go far wrong my friend!
@Mikhael
...*applauding*... You're doing great. Keep up the good work... *thumbs up*...
Imma trying, Tinny. Nothing like watching His Dark Materials to remind myself of why I hate the church
Huh. You know I read those books when i was like 12. Shoulda been a sign I was destined for heresy
@ Mikhael
Yep the man that founded gentile christianity never met jesus and relied on revelations in his dreams or chats with a zombie hallucination when he was awake...way to found a movement huh?
@Michael: Apostolic Succession: A fucking moronic assertion made by the Catholic Church. There have been no less that 15 popes at one time. Today there are 4. There are currently no less than 4 reigning popes:
Pope Francis, the head of the Roman Catholic Church and sovereign of the State of the Vatican City
Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark
Patriarch Theodore II of Alexandria, His Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, All Egypt and All Africa, Father of Fathers, Pastor of Pastors, Prelate of Prelates, the Thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Ecumene
Peter III, Pope of the Palmarian Catholic Church
[accurate as of February 13th, 2019]
https://evert.meulie.net/faqwd/how-many-popes-are-there/
THERE WAS NEVER A LINE OF SUCCESSION. THERE IS AN ASSERTED LINE OF SUCCESSION. IT'S ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS.
It's also remarkable how I was always taught via apologetics that there was never a schism before the orthodox church in like the 11th century but uh, history seems pretty clear that the first 3 centuries or so of the church was a clusterfuck
@Mikhael Re: "...history seems pretty clear that the first 3 centuries or so of the church was a clusterfuck"
The church was a clusterfuck???... *shaking head in disappointment*... Hey, that's not very nice. I thought you had better manners than that. For your information, I happen to know of, and have been involved in, quite a few very respectable clusterfucks over the years. So there is no excuse for your attempting to insult clusterfucks by implying they were/are involved with the church. I assure you that no self-respecting credible clusterfuck would ever dare claim an association with such a stupendously malicious viper den as the church. Shame on you, young man... Tsk-tsk-tsk... *shaking finger in admonishment*...
A message to all Clusterfucks reading this thread: I would like to offer a formal apology on behalf of our dear Mikhael for the insensitive remark he made toward the Clusterfuck community. I am personally confident he was unaware of the severity of his insult, and that he did not make the remark with malicious intent. I hope you find it in your hearts to forgive him, and please understand how truly and sincerely sorry we are for any undue pain that may have been caused to members of the Clusterfuck society. Thank you.
I should have known you'd be a clusterfuck apologist, omg. Yeah sure I get it, not all clusterfucks, but let me tell you, tinny, I myself am a clusterfuck so I have every right to insult my own culture, gawd
@Mikhael Re: "...tinny, I myself am a clusterfuck so I have every right to insult my own culture, gawd"
Okay, sure, I understand that. But my question is WHY would you want to associate your culture with and insult your own people in such a way? Like I said, I have been very well acquainted with many-many different clusterfucks over the years. Some good. Some bad. But I venture to say that even the worst of them would not want to be associated with any of the various churches out there. They simply have more self-esteem and more self-respect than that, is all I'm sayin'.
(On a side note, great comeback!... LMAO... You are catching on quick, young lad.)
@Tin: On behafph of all the clusterfucks, we understand and accept your hearfelt apology.
@ Mikhael
There was not "the' church at all. There was a variety of sects, using different texts and competing for membership...a lot like small town American churches do today.
Some sects insisted on circumcision, some did not, some taught the virgin birth, some did not, some taught the physical resurrection, some taught a spiritual resurrection. Some taught of a human jesus, some a divine jesus, and some of of a spiritual jesus that never existed in the flesh. Some had a gospel that was rewritten so all the contradictions were gone, many had gospels that no longer exist....and in 352CE that all changed.........well, actually it didn't change immediately it took another two hundred years or so before the major churches emerged...the Coptic, The Eastern Orthodox (x3) and the Catholic. ( We will leave the Thomasinian Church in India for another day)
So when you refer to "the" church it just didn't exist, its precursor were the various Pauline sects that eventually won the war for supremacy and yes, massacred and destroyed the competition.
What do you guys think is the reason so much of this is unknown? I mean I understand that were still relatively new to the age of the internet and unlimited knowledge, and that before say the last 20 years or so this kind of stuff would be a lot less accessible. Also, and this is just my millennial talking maybe, but theboldwr someone is the less likely they are to be computer savvy (generalized I know), and it's also fairly recent that thibgs like the mythicist theory has gained traction...
Obviously the church wants to control information. Obviously church leaders want to keep faithful sheep. But with more and more information available all the time. I wonder if we will see more seekers asking questions or just more excuses and twisted words.
Not gonna lie, indoctrination still has me thinking in the back of my mind, can it really be so easy? Can history really be this clear on some things? What are apologists doing to hide this, just straight up lying ?
@ Mikhael
Most of what I have written above has been known since that time. It has been suppressed and research actively discouraged by all the churches. Since the 19th century biblical criticism became more and more prevalent with many societal and scientific advances eroding church authority.
Many secular resources became available during that time, to a much wider audience and a note of scepticism was becoming more obvious in the writings of academics and historians. The fledgling science of archeology was experiencing a boom, many discoveries from then being re evaluated nowadays.
In short, the science of history has leaped ahead in the last hundred years with new resources, deeper understanding of cultures and mores, all leading to the dismantling of mythologies.
@Mikhael: Like every good superpower, those that win the wars make the rules. The Catholic Church filled the gap left by the fall of the Roman empire. All non-catholic religions were destroyed. Books and documents that disagreed with the official versions were burned. All heretics were put to death and their gold and property ceased by the Church. Christianity became a world religion by the edge of the sword and threats of death and eternal damnation. Any other myth about the spread of the Christian faith is an outright lie.
When Constantine converted to Christianity only about 10% of Rome was Christian. He began giving property and tax breaks to the Christian Churches and he taxed all non-Christians for the money to build Constantinople. The new city had no Pagan or Foreign Churches within its walls. " Christian chroniclers tell that it appeared necessary to Constantine "to teach his subjects to give up their rites ... and to accustom them to despise their temples and the images contained therein," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity
Later, Constantine commissioned 50 Christian bibles and sent them to the Bishops of the new Christian faith. By the end of Constantine's life, two-thirds of the government was Christian. By the end of his rein, Constantine was ordering the burning and pillaging of Roman temples.
Most of what you have heard about the spread of the Christian faith is complete bullshit! The Church held the power and the Church controlled the information.
Fuck, Mikhael, I am very proud of you. You are starting to ask the right questions.
Knowledge is power, and those who desire to maintain tight control of power work very hard to keep the masses ignorant.
Yes, apologists are more dishonest than politicians. IMO the role they play is not to counter atheism, but to provide incredibly feeble and/or outright lies and arguments to keep the sheep inside the enclosure.
Indoctrination and propaganda are incredibly powerful tools. And if you have the ability to disseminate your lies, you can control vast numbers of the population.
I am 69 years old, and my life experiences are quite different than yours. On a side note I hope you live a very long and happy life, learning more and more each and every day. Live long and prosper.
When I was much younger tobacco smoking was common, it was everywhere. For example, in 1968 I was hospitalized in a naval hospital for a week for a very nasty virus. I distinctly remember sitting in my hospital bed smoking. It is a very distinct memory because that was when and where I learned to blow smoke rings. No one objected, there were many smokers in my ward.
The tobacco industry was aware of the health hazards and used a lot of political arm twisting and spent a lot of money to suppress any anti-tobacco efforts. But what caused the change to today's standards? Knowledge that spread down through the masses.
Thanks my gnomie, I'm trying
That's actually a really remarkable comparison I hadn't thought about. As someone born in 1990, it's hard to imagine a time when that was not common knowledge, since its something drilled into our heads our whole lives. I see vintage adds in magazines and shit and I'm always just like, how could they hide this ?
The thing with me right now is, I need to build this foundation, because I am still not as strong emotionally as I need to be. I have issues, and they're tough. The first thing that triggered this spiral was Fatima, and for a long time I was sound in my opinion that it was a weather phenomena made worse for many by staring at the sun, until a Catholic apologist pointed out that itbqas impossible, because if it was a physical weather thing, it "could and should" have been visible to everyone and indeed, some in the crowd saw nothing
But here's the thing; I'm visually impaired, I can't see movement well. My best friend is too without her glasses. Another friend is color blind. If you told us to look up at a sun dog or shifting rainbow, chances are we aren't going to see much of anything! It makes perfect sense to me that outnof 70,000 people, some poor rural folks 100 years ago aren't gonna be able to see it.
But I have been taught to not trust my own experiences and decisions. I've been conditioned to see others as inherently more knowledgeable than me, and to discard my own experience. And it's/hard/ and I'm working my ass off against it
"That's actually a really remarkable comparison I hadn't thought about. As someone born in 1990, it's hard to imagine a time when that was not common knowledge, since its something drilled into our heads our whole lives. I see vintage adds in magazines and shit and I'm always just like, how could they hide this ?"
But they did, that is all you need to know. If you did some research, all that information is available to you.
"The thing with me right now is, I need to build this foundation, because I am still not as strong emotionally as I need to be. I have issues, and they're tough."
You are not alone, we all have "trigger" points. But just keep at doing the right thing, building a strong foundation. My suggestions for right now is not to focus on specific incidents, but learning how to be a skeptic.
"It makes perfect sense to me that outnof 70,000 people, some poor rural folks 100 years ago aren't gonna be able to see it."
Let us unpack your statement. I am pulling the account out of Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima#Miracle_of_the_Sun
"According to accounts, after a period of rain, the dark clouds broke and the Sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky. It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds. The Sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth before zig-zagging back to its normal position."
OK, I can understand some with visual impairments not being able to see a spinning disc, duller, and casting multicolored lights. I have no problem conceding that item. But the sun careening towards the earth and zig-zagging? Come on, a person almost completely blind would be able to notice the sun dancing around the sky.
"until a Catholic apologist pointed out that itbqas impossible, because if it was a physical weather thing, it "could and should" have been visible to everyone and indeed, some in the crowd saw nothing"
Don't you now see that completely failed logic from the Catholic apologist? His assertion was based on the assumption everyone saw the same thing, no exceptions. Yet some saw the sun moving and doing weird shit, some did not see anything. Many believed they saw a miracle, some believed nothing was unusual that day. Some stared at the sun, some did not.
"But I have been taught to not trust my own experiences and decisions. I've been conditioned to see others as inherently more knowledgeable than me, and to discard my own experience. And it's/hard/ and I'm working my ass off against it"
And it shows, you are definitely moving in the right direction.
Your experiences and decisions do matter, and you should trust them. But just like the scientific method, they can be checked and verified. If you see something very unusual, ask others "did you see that?". If you are struggling with a difficult decision, asking wiser people for advice is recommended.
On the point of seeing the sun zigzagging, I've seen an argument that ice crystals at that altitude could create a sort of lense, and movement of that sense in the clouds can make the suns posititon distort and appear to move and grow. This was not seen by everyone of course, everyone who claimed to see something saw something different. My only point was that, since people saw different things or nothing at all, it appears that for some at least there was a physical or visual component to it? Because I admit i don't quite see the total failing in the apologists assertion that if there was a physical explanation, then everyone would see it, save for the possibilities that account for visual differences or people not looking up consistently. And I do think there was some weather thing going on, as some who did bot expect to see anything saw something, and some people not in the crowd saw something, which indicates some kind of natural phenomena
First off, take the initial position that your brain is fresh, and any claims must be proven to you. If you do the opposite and accept whatever someone is stating, and then look at reasons to disprove, you are well and truly screwed.
So what can we accept as FACTS?
Some very poorly educated catholic children claimed a miracle would occur. A large crowd gathered.
That is it, everything else is questionable. We have contradictory accounts, we have a crowd expecting something religious, the movement of the sun was not registered or witnessed at any other geographic location.
https://en.es-static.us/upl/2015/01/halo-display-1-9-2015-Red-River-NM1.jpg
This is a VERY spectacular ice crystal display that was captured on camera. It is very cool, but everything in that picture can be explained. And if those who did the Fatima thing saw something like that, yes, they would be very affected. It would be understandable that those very religious in nature and expecting a miracle, would go bonkers if they saw that.
I hope you see that for every god claim, I can easily offer an alternate natural explanation that does not require anything supernatural.
Based on that picture, what would be the most reasonable explanation?
1) Ice crystals distorted the sun's light and created a spectacular imagery for the observer.
or
2) A being of insane power and knowledge created the entire universe in six days, is obsessed with human genitals and their sex lives, had a son who walked on water, could turn water into wine, and was resurrected.
Definately the first as you said, an amazingly timed coincidence, but amazing coincidences aren't as rare as we think they are in a world of billions! I also remember hearing that similar phenomena had been reported in the area recently that season
Fatima was most likely a meterogical event made worse by some by staring at the god damn sun, which can make the sun look like it's moving , and not noticed by others because they were not primed for a miracle, were not staring as intently, had visual differences, etc. There are many logical reasons why an occurabce like that could be perceived in wildly different ways in such a large crowd. This recent stir up really did just hinge on the fact that I couldn't be sure why some people wouldn't see something if there was a physical thing to be seen, which I believe there was
Could be even simpler than that; it has been suggested by Joe Nickel that it might just be an afterimage. And that might also explain the zigzag motion, and not require an amazing coincidence.
You know the thing is, the only reason I believe there had to be a weather phenomena was because I heard that other people outside of Fatima also saw this thing, but upon deeper investigation I can't find any claims of this that can be attributed to the day of. People have said oh yes, ad a child I saw this in my village or, I didn't even remember the girls prophesies but yeah I saw it that day 20 years ago. I can't find any primary sources before the book that priest wrote and I don't really believe what someone says about it years after the fact. I'm sure the story spread within hours of fatima, and then the pool is tainted
@ Old Man shouts
Indeed.
It is my understanding that dominant sect claiming Jesus as founder was not even widely called 'christianity ' until the 4th century. Then only because it was the term used by the emperor Theodosius.
It is also my understanding that at least one Roman writer made the observation that the various 'christian 'sects hated each other . Not sure which one. Tacitus perhaps too early, Herodotus perhaps a bit late. Perhaps Cassius Dio? I'm afraid I'm quite ignorant of most Roman historians . However, having a look at just 4 'alternative sects', it sounds about right.
The four 'alternative' sects I've actually heard of were; Ebionite, Arian , Donatist, and Gnostic,
The myth that christianity sprung to life whole and homogeneous is one the many major cons perpetrated by the dominant church. I think it's up there with the bare faced lie of apostolic succession.
It is my opinion that organised religion is the greatest confidence trick ever perpetrated one the human race . That the Catholic church takes the biscuit as the most egregiously corrupt, virtually since the beginning . However, I don't think it became truly evil as an organisation until the fourth century, when it began openly murdering anyone who disagreed with it. That only ceased when and because the church sue lost its temporal power, when? Seventeenth century?
. . Running a close second are the evil cunts who convinced poor, ignorant youngsters that blowing themselves and others into vapour was/is a fucking dandy idea. if there are any 'religious' figures I hate, it's those evil old men.
OT-ish. Not sure where I heard this, but it sounds about right; The late Ruhollah Khomeini used children to clear mine fields by the simple expedient of walking through them.
I can vouch for that man. Back when I was hardcore Catholic there was such a cultish sense of pride, just this smug superiority that we were the one true church and we could prove it, we were working on our salvation, we got our knowledge straight from the line of st. Peter, and it was whole and unbroken. What do they even use to claim that now? Like legit, surely they have some timeline they point to, but how?
I was hardcore trad cat from 18-about 23, petwring off around 24 when I couldn't stay in the closet anymore. I was 100% in, I used natural family planning, I covered my hair in church (I was still living as female then) I went to confession 1-3 times a week, I listening to Michael Vorris...a truly evil man, I swear. "If you're friends with non Catholics and you aren't trying to convert them you are sending them and yourself to hell"
@ Cranky
You forgot the Marcionites, the Syriacs, the Thomasinian, the splinter Greek church who also claimed apostolic succession...and so many more......
I thought it was the SS that invented mine clearing by running Russian pows across the minefield, wholeheartedly reciprocated by the Russians later in the war.
@Old man
Yes I did but don't know much about the Marcionites. I was trying to make the point that the beginning of what we call Christianity was a bit slow and very vicious.
Do you know who the Roman writer was who said the various sects hated each other?
@ Cranky
I Can't recall any particular writer who said that, Eusebius was certainly polemical as was Tertullian and every interpretation of liturgy or worship produced polemical writers like St Athanasius, St Basil and all the other hodge podge of apologists and counter apologists. All very insulting to the opposition.
The Romans in general were very dismissive of the various sects and you may be thinking of the early goings on in Antioch ? They were described in unflattering terms by several writers.