Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What is the biblical justification for Peter as the first Pope?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I said that Catholics believe that, not that I believe that.
    Eh, yes, that's what I meant.

    but Peter is what made the church of Rome important.
    No, Divine Providence is what made Rome important. You seem to have it mixed up, Rome is not important because Peter died there, Peter died there because Rome is important.

    Non-answer.
    I'd love to see you actually explain this assessment. My answer is clear: I stated that it was not hard evidence, therefore, I meant it was not hard evidence. No amount of grammatical nitpicking is going to overrule that statement.

    Another non-answer. Since you gave an irrelevant response, I'll assume that you realize that you were being emphatic and are too proud to admit to it.
    I acknowledged that you pointed out the language you thought was emphatic....it wasn't, though. "Prominent" has two dictionary meanings, one is being easy to see or observe, that's the one I meant.

    Supporting evidence logically does matter. Irrelevant material doesn't support anything at all.
    All evidence matters, even supporting evidence.

    Again, you assert agreement and then equate what I said to a position with which I have repeatedly disagreed in this thread. That's dishonest and deceitful. Please stop doing it.
    If you actually read it, I explained 'why' it was a statement of authority. So, essentially, I don't care if you disagree with it, since you haven't actually justified why you can disagree with it. Simply saying Peter had a history of making brash statements doesn't work, as that still doesn't negate the clear meaning of the statement itself. Once again, it only makes sense if Peter has authority over the others, if it was one of his usual "brash statements" then someone should have called him out on it.

    I should qualify that it is most appropriate for where we have parallel accounts (such as the Gospels in the NT and Kings/Chronicles in the OT). I admit that Adam and Eve are only mentioned in the first part of Genesis in the OT; on the other hand, I don't know off-hand where else in the OT they would be relevant.
    Well, I have to concede that, however, I still don't see how that would have been important at the time that the Gospels were written. The main focus at that time was evangelizing through the accounts of the actions of Jesus, not the Church hierarchy.

    On the other hand, Peter's alleged primacy is murky at best
    Question begging.

    There is no grumbling from the other apostles that Peter was chosen over them.
    Well, none reported, anyway.

    In fact, Paul treats James, Peter, and John equally as 'pillars' (Gal 2:9) - and as has already been mentioned
    Well, referring as them all as "pillars" doesn't really imply that they're equal, unless they're pillars of equal size. All it implies is that they're the supporting foundation of the Church, which is true for all bishops, priests, cardinals, ect.

    Paul showed no compunction about rebuking Peter to his face.
    I don't get it. Are you suggesting that Catholics aren't allowed to prove the Pope wrong when he says/does something wrong? If you are, that's not the case, that's never been the case.

    You're the one attempting to make your case. I've already explained in general why I think the comparisons are inapt.
    No, actually, you're the one asserting that I'm reading without paying attention to the context, it's your responsibility to proof that. Also, no, you haven't explained why the comparisons are inapt, you've just repeatedly asserting that the Keys mean something else, even though all evidence points to the contrary.

    Er, no. You made three assertions, two of which I disagree with. (In case you're uncertain, I agree that the Pope is not Jesus.)
    Well, in that case, I've already presented my case. You have yet to present a convincing counter-case.


    The Jewish expulsion from Rome happened well before Peter ever got there (AD 49, IIRC). Priscilla and Aquila, whom we know from scripture were among those expelled (Acts 18:2), were back in Rome by the time Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans (Rom 16:3); Paul, meanwhile, inexplicably neglects to address the putative bishop of the church he's writing to.
    Well, that 'big' proof isn't really that big. There are several explanations for why Paul does not mention Peter by name, the most obvious being that a lot of people want to murder Peter, and Paul doesn't want to reveal his identity/location because of this.

    Paul, meanwhile, inexplicably neglects to address the putative bishop of the church he's writing to. On the other hand, in Acts 28 (c. AD 62), the Jews of Rome came to Paul to get the low-down on this Jesus sect. Was the 'apostle to the Jews' so unconscionably lax that he had not yet preached the gospel to them for at least his first 13 years there?
    The text says that they came there to get Paul's views on this "Sect that most speak against". Nothing about that implies that they've never heard of it before, nor that they knew absolutely 'nothing' about it just that they want to learn about it from the greatest evangelist around at the time.

    The Jewish expulsion from Rome happened well before Peter ever got there (AD 49, IIRC).
    This was a valiant effort to try and prove that Peter was not in Rome, however, you're ignoring why the Jewish expulsion of Rome happened in the first place. Namely, because the Jews kept fighting over a Jew named "Chrestus". The idea that Peter was not in Rome before the expulsion does not hold water when exposed to this fact.

    If you can't do better than the tripe you posted here regarding the correspondence of Pope Gregory the Great, don't bother.
    I see that both psychological projection, and the Dunning-Kruger effect, are both well-alive and thriving within the annals of your mind.

    "Knew and just didn't care"? lawl.
    Yes, what's so absurd about that? He based his primacy out of a See that doesn't exist....which by the way, is the same See that your schism is based out of. I'd love to have that debate. It would be hilarious to watch you try and explain away how your schism was based out of the non-existent See of Constantinople.

    ...except that they're not.
    Ah, I see your projection rears its head again. You accuse me of giving non-answers, and yet, saying something along the lines of "...no it's not" is exactly what a non-answer is! Good show!

    I'm not sure that I would call Israel the "Kingdom of God on Earth"; I've never seen that before either.
    Really? Because it's been called that like, forever within Jewish culture, both ancient and modern. Seriously though, Israel was a Kingdom, and since it was a theocratic kingdom, it had God at its temporal head. What do you call that?
    Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

    -Thomas Aquinas

    I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

    -Hernando Cortez

    What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

    -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

    Comment


    • If Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, and it has a word for singular you and another word for plural you, and koine Greek also; then which, singular or plural, did Jesus use? I guess it was singular, except why are we still disputing?
      The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

      [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

      Comment


      • *reads TT's latest bombast* Looks like my work here is done.

        When you go so far as to claim a datum is a 'non-answer' the post after you admit to the same point (namely, that the phrase 'keys to the kingdom of heaven' is not found in the Old Testament), I come to the conclusion that you're no longer trying to win any sort of debate, but only try to score cheap points any way you can. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go special order a new case of irony meters.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          *reads TT's latest bombast* Looks like my work here is done.

          When you go so far as to claim a datum is a 'non-answer' the post after you admit to the same point (namely, that the phrase 'keys to the kingdom of heaven' is not found in the Old Testament), I come to the conclusion that you're no longer trying to win any sort of debate, but only try to score cheap points any way you can. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go special order a new case of irony meters.
          Yeah, that's typical of you. Start a debate, then leave when you're getting floored in said debate, but only after hilariously trying to proclaim that you were the one who won. By the way, you never even mentioned the Old Testament in that post.

          I proclaimed that the keys were called the "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven", without actually specifying where, though I would have guessed you would have been smart enough to figure out that I meant the New Testament, since that's the only place they're called that (You weren't) . You replied "except they're not", and then tried to dishonestly twist it as to make it mean the keys in the Old Testament, when indeed, your original question was about how the keys in the New Testament were the same as in the Old Testament.

          Straw-manning your opponent's points, doing something wrong and then accusing your opponent of doing it, and running away after you get creamed, but not before erroneously trying to assert that you were the one in the right? John Loftus would be proud.

          Tell you what, since the Amen system is working, I'll give you one, if purely out of pity.
          Last edited by TimelessTheist; 10-01-2014, 09:09 AM.
          Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

          -Thomas Aquinas

          I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

          -Hernando Cortez

          What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

          -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
            Yeah, that's typical of you. Start a debate, then leave when you're getting floored in said debate, but only after hilariously trying to proclaim that you were the one who won. By the way, you never even mentioned the Old Testament in that post.

            I proclaimed that the keys were called the "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven", without actually specifying where, though I would have guessed you would have been smart enough to figure out that I meant the New Testament, since that's the only place they're called that (You weren't) . You replied "except they're not", and then tried to dishonestly twist it as to make it mean the keys in the Old Testament, when indeed, your original question was about how the keys in the New Testament were the same as in the Old Testament.

            Straw-manning your opponent's points, doing something wrong and then accusing your opponent of doing it, and running away after you get creamed, but not before erroneously trying to assert that you were the one in the right? John Loftus would be proud.

            Tell you what, since the Amen system is working, I'll give you one, if purely out of pity.
            U mad, bro?

            I read this little gem of a passage from Gildas the historian on the way home from work, so I thought I'd share it with you.
            Source: The History and Conquest of Britain chapter 109


            when our Lord demanded whom his disciples supposed him to be, how Peter answered, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God;" and our Lord in respect of such his confession, said unto him: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonas, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven." Peter therefore, instructed by God the Father, did rightly confess Christ; but ye being taught by the devil your father, do, with your lewd actions, wickedly deny our Saviour. It is said to the true priest, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church:" but ye resembled "the foolish man, who hath builded his house upon the sand." And verily it is to be noted, that God joineth not in the workmanship with the unwise, when they build their house upon the deceitful uncertainty of the sands, according unto that saying: "They have made kings unto themselves, and not by me." Similarly that (which followeth) soundeth in like sort, speaking thus: "And the gates of hell (whereby infernal sins are to be understood) shall not prevail." But of your frail and deadly frame, mark what is pronounced: "The floods came, and the winds blew, and dashed upon that house and it fell, and great was the ruin thereof." To Peter and his successors, our Lord doth say, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." But unto you, "I know you not, depart from me all ye workers of iniquity," that being separated with the goats of the left hand, ye may together with them go into eternal fire. It is also promised unto every good priest, "Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be likewise loosed in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be in like sort bound in heaven." But how shall ye loose any thing, that it may be loosed also in heaven, since yourselves for your sins are severed from heaven, and hampered in the bands of your own heinous offences, as Solomon saith, "With the cords of his sins, every one is tied?" And with what reason shall ye bind any thing on this earth, that above this world may be likewise bound, unless it be your only selves, who, entangled in your iniquities, are so detained on this earth, that ye cannot ascend into heaven, but without your conversion unto our Lord in this life, will fall down into the miserable prison of hell?

            © Copyright Original Source



            Gildas here equates a) every true priest having Peter's confession with b) Peter and his successors having the keys of the kingdom of heaven and with c) every good priest being able to bind and loose. Have fun with that.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • U mad, bro?
              Yeah, I guess I'm a little mad that, in the two debates we've had, you've begun both of them with insulting me, then when you get cornered, you run away and arrogantly assert that you were the one who was right all along.

              Gildas here equates a) every true priest having Peter's confession with b) Peter and his successors having the keys of the kingdom of heaven and with c) every good priest being able to bind and loose. Have fun with that.
              Eh....I don't have a problem with that. Peter and his successors 'do' have the keys to the kingdom of heaven , and every good priest 'does' have the power to bind and loosen. Are you trying to say that he's right, or wrong?

              Speaking of gems, though, I'd really love to see you try to explain away how your schism was founded on a See that doesn't exist.
              Last edited by TimelessTheist; 10-01-2014, 10:27 PM.
              Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

              -Thomas Aquinas

              I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

              -Hernando Cortez

              What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

              -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                <snip> I'd really love to see you try to explain away how your schism was founded on a See that doesn't exist.
                Start a thread for that.
                The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                  Start a thread for that.
                  I would if I didn't think OBP would do the same thing he did in the last two debates.
                  Last edited by TimelessTheist; 10-03-2014, 02:13 PM.
                  Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                  -Thomas Aquinas

                  I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                  -Hernando Cortez

                  What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                  -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                    Yeah, I guess I'm a little mad that, in the two debates we've had, you've begun both of them with insulting me, then when you get cornered, you run away and arrogantly assert that you were the one who was right all along.



                    Eh....I don't have a problem with that. Peter and his successors 'do' have the keys to the kingdom of heaven , and every good priest 'does' have the power to bind and loosen. Are you trying to say that he's right, or wrong?

                    Speaking of gems, though, I'd really love to see you try to explain away how your schism was founded on a See that doesn't exist.
                    Your attempts to goad me into responding are amusing. I am quite comfortable with allowing the good readers of this thread to see who is and who is not being reasonable here.

                    ETA: Eh, I'm bored, so I thought I'd refresh my memory of how this (and the other conversation) went down. My first substantive reply here? No insults. My first several posts in the other conversation? No insults (of you). And by that point you had shown a propensity for hurling insults yourself. And the argument I was making when I "ran away" in that one (namely, that Pope Honorius made heretical statements), is now a position you suddenly agree with.
                    Last edited by One Bad Pig; 10-04-2014, 12:12 PM.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • Your attempts to goad me into responding are amusing.
                      If you didn't want to respond, then why'd you start the debate in the first place?

                      I am quite comfortable with allowing the good readers of this thread to see who is and who is not being reasonable here.
                      As am I, although I'm perplexed why you would want that, considering it probably wouldn't favor you.

                      Eh, I'm bored, so I thought I'd refresh my memory of how this (and the other conversation) went down. My first substantive reply here? No insults.
                      You seem to take my responses to be literal to the extreme if you think I was implying that your very first posts contained insults, however, you eventually devolve into insults with time. As evidence by that 'other conversation':

                      Your article went to absurd lengths to re-write Canon 6 of Nicaea to support papal primacy. Didn't bother reading for further verbal hijinks beyond that point.
                      Arguments that are patently absurd do not require a response.
                      And this one as well:

                      As unlikely as it may seem to you, my aim is to read the text for what it says, not for what polemical use I can make of it.
                      I'm beginning to think you have difficulties in the area of reading comprehension. Do make the attempt to follow the arguments presented, please.
                      And I can't believe that you think you can carry on a meaningful argument while blithely ignoring the meanings of the words you use. Consult a dictionary before you embarrass yourself further.


                      And by that point you had shown a propensity for hurling insults yourself.
                      Yes, I know, because you kept throwing insults at me.

                      And the argument I was making when I "ran away" in that one (namely, that Pope Honorius made heretical statements), is now a position you suddenly agree with.
                      Well, that explains why I was confused, considering that has absolutely nothing to do with this debate whatsoever.
                      Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                      -Thomas Aquinas

                      I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                      -Hernando Cortez

                      What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                      -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                      Comment


                      • You don't know when to stop digging, do you?

                        You may have the last word.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          You don't know when to stop digging, do you?

                          You may have the last word.


                          That's all I can really say at this point. You're so thickheaded, you've exasperated every other line of dialog.
                          Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                          -Thomas Aquinas

                          I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                          -Hernando Cortez

                          What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                          -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                          Comment


                          • You know what? I apologize for insulting you. I will try to avoid doing so in the future.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              You know what? I apologize for insulting you. I will try to avoid doing so in the future.
                              Well....alright then. Same to you.
                              Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                              -Thomas Aquinas

                              I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                              -Hernando Cortez

                              What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                              -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 05-26-2022, 08:29 AM
                              12 responses
                              63 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Working...
                              X