If Peter wasn't the first pope, who was?

tz620q said:

If one believes that the Holy Spirit guides His people in the selection of the next Pope, Bishop, or whatever, then all we need to ask ourselves is would the Holy Spirit sanction a less than perfect man as a leader of the Church. Since Jesus selected Peter as a leading apostle and Judas as another apostle, the answer seems that God recognizes our faults and yet works through even the worst of us. It is more about the power of God to elevate us than our own natural desires for earthly things pulling us down.

In regards to the Inquisitions, that is too long of a span and too many different circumstances to paint all Popes in that era with the same brush and begs the question of what would someone from that year think of the Inquisitions, not how do we view them through modern lens.

Click to expand...

"If one believes that the Holy Spirit guides His people in the selection of the next Pope, Bishop, or whatever, then all we need to ask ourselves is would the Holy Spirit sanction a less than perfect man as a leader of the Church."

That's a big "if"... There are many of us who question the creation of positions within the church that are not Biblical. As I have said earlier, "Pope", "Cardinal", "Bishop" are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible; they are the creations of people to create a non-Biblical hierarchy.

The Bible says that we are all a nation of Priests, with one head: Jesus Christ.

pescador said:

It's been a long time since I have used the word 'sophistry'. In case you're not familiar with it, it means the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

So, continuing onward... The word 'Pope' doesn't appear in the Bible because there was no Pope when the Bible was written. The same concept applies to "Cardinal" and "Bishop". These are terms made up by the Catholic church to identify extra-Biblical church positions.

Click to expand...

Again, the lack of any particular word in the text doesn't mean anything in itself. See BNR32FAN's post #390 for a perfect example as to why.

As far as any sophistry goes, I probably shouldn't even bother going here, but my master's degree is in linguistics, not sophistry. Do you have a master's or Ph.D. in the field, such that anyone here can trust that you're not just posting ill-considered gibberish for the heck of it? (Well, really for the sake of being against the RCC, but you'd hardly be the only one in this conversation who is; I am too, I just don't feel the need to make up nonsense to substantiate my stances.)

Oh, so now it's time to "pull rank", just like the Pharisees and Sadducees. My mentor in graduate school said that "universities are insane asylums for the very intelligent". Why didn't Jesus choose learned men to be His disciples? Because their formal education prevented them from learning God's truths.

I have seen untold numbers of people who thought that because they have a graduate degree they consider themselves experts. All one has to do is spend some time in academia to learn that people with graduate degrees disagree with each other over just about everything.

Jesus chose men to be the first apostles precisely because they had not been educated by the religious leaders of their day. There were many, many men who had an exhaustive knowledge of what the Biblical texts said but totally missed the Christ when He came to Earth.

I see the logical fallacies are out in force today.

tz620q said:

If one believes that the Holy Spirit guides His people in the selection of the next Pope, Bishop, or whatever, then all we need to ask ourselves is would the Holy Spirit sanction a less than perfect man as a leader of the Church. Since Jesus selected Peter as a leading apostle and Judas as another apostle, the answer seems that God recognizes our faults and yet works through even the worst of us. It is more about the power of God to elevate us than our own natural desires for earthly things pulling us down.

In regards to the Inquisitions, that is too long of a span and too many different circumstances to paint all Popes in that era with the same brush and begs the question of what would someone from that year think of the Inquisitions, not how do we view them through modern lens.

Click to expand...

Neither modern day man nor mid evil man’s perspectives on morality is relevant in this case. There is only one standard for morality especially in the church as I’m sure all Christians would agree. The time span is accurate. The inquisition was first sanctioned in 1184AD in France by Pope Lucius III and they continued all the way up until 1870AD when pope Pius IX finally put a stop to it. So I may have miscalculated by one pope because Pius was the one to put a stop to it and I believe I may have included him as being one who sanctioned it which means it was only sanctioned by 83 popes not 84. So yes I did make a very slight miscalculation.

pescador said:

Oh, so now it's time to "pull rank", just like the Pharisees and Sadducees. My mentor in graduate school said that "universities are insane asylums for the very intelligent". Why didn't Jesus choose learned men to be His disciples? Because their formal education prevented them from learning God's truths.

I have seen untold numbers of people who thought that because they have a graduate degree they consider themselves experts. All one has to do is spend some time in academia to learn that people with graduate degrees disagree with each other over just about everything.

Jesus chose men to be the first apostles precisely because they had not been educated by the religious leaders of their day. There were many, many men who had an exhaustive knowledge of what the Biblical texts said but totally missed the Christ when He came to Earth.

Click to expand...

Paul was a very educated scholar and Pharisee. And correct me if I’m wrong here but I believe James (Jesus’ brother) was a Sadducee.

tz620q said:

If one believes that the Holy Spirit guides His people in the selection of the next Pope, Bishop, or whatever, then all we need to ask ourselves is would the Holy Spirit sanction a less than perfect man as a leader of the Church. Since Jesus selected Peter as a leading apostle and Judas as another apostle, the answer seems that God recognizes our faults and yet works through even the worst of us. It is more about the power of God to elevate us than our own natural desires for earthly things pulling us down.

In regards to the Inquisitions, that is too long of a span and too many different circumstances to paint all Popes in that era with the same brush and begs the question of what would someone from that year think of the Inquisitions, not how do we view them through modern lens.

Click to expand...

I wanted to add that I don’t base my decision solely on the sanction of the inquisitions but also the lack of support to the Bishop of Rome’s claim to papal supremacy in the pentarchy. When all the smoke cleared from the schism the Bishop of Rome stood completely alone in his claim while the rest of the patriarchates rejected his claim and adopted the name Orthodox. The inquisitions in my opinion were the actions (fruits) that identified the tree so to speak.

pescador said:

The word 'Pope' doesn't appear in the Bible because there was no Pope when the Bible was written. The same concept applies to "Cardinal" and "Bishop". These are terms made up by the Catholic church to identify extra-Biblical church positions.

Click to expand...

Firstly this depends on how you understand the word Pope. If you take it to mean Papa or Father then there is some biblical evidence for its use.

The word Bishop is simply a rendering of the word Episcopus which has excellent biblical support.

Of course when Henry VIII argued that there was no pope in the Bible, that was only part of his argument, as his real purpose was to show the Biblical support for the nature of Kings, and the divine right thereof.

The terms were not 'made up' by the RCC but rather have ancient use in the universal and undivided Church.

The Oriental Orthodox call the Patriarch of Alexandria Pope, and the Eastern Orthodox call their Patriarch of Alexandria Pope, though they are two different persons.

I understand something of what you wish to argue against, however the case is not being well made in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

BNR32FAN said:

Paul was a very educated scholar and Pharisee. And correct me if I’m wrong here but I believe James (Jesus’ brother) was a Sadducee.

Click to expand...

I don't know about James, but Paul, before his encounter with Christ, was very educated and considered it a loss compared to knowing Christ. Paul wrote this to the Philippians: " I was circumcised on the eighth day, from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews. I lived according to the law as a Pharisee. In my zeal for God I persecuted the church. According to the righteousness stipulated in the law I was blameless. But these assets I have come to regard as liabilities because of Christ. More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things—indeed, I regard them as dung!—that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness—a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness." Philippians 3:5-9

BTW, if anyone should be called "the first Pope", it is Paul, not Peter. He was the most instrumental person in founding the Christian church, not Peter.

pescador said:

I don't know about James, but Paul, before his encounter with Christ, was very educated and considered it a loss compared to knowing Christ. Paul wrote this to the Philippians: " I was circumcised on the eighth day, from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews. I lived according to the law as a Pharisee. In my zeal for God I persecuted the church. According to the righteousness stipulated in the law I was blameless. But these assets I have come to regard as liabilities because of Christ. More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things—indeed, I regard them as dung!—that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness—a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness." Philippians 3:5-9

BTW, if anyone should be called "the first Pope", it is Paul, not Peter. He was the most instrumental person in founding the Christian church, not Peter.

Click to expand...

My point was in reference to your remark

pescador said:

Why didn't Jesus choose learned men to be His disciples? Because their formal education prevented them from learning God's truths.

Click to expand...

Paul’s former education didn’t stop him from learning anything.

BNR32FAN said:

Paul was a very educated scholar and Pharisee. And correct me if I’m wrong here but I believe James (Jesus’ brother) was a Sadducee.

Click to expand...

Also, while the Apostles were not educated men, they were far from stupid. The present argument about words not being in the Bible does not fall into the same category.

prodromos said:

Also, while the Apostles were not educated men, they were far from stupid. The present argument about words not being in the Bible does not fall into the same category.

Click to expand...

They were definitely knowledgeable about Judaism as were most Jews in that time.

BNR32FAN said:

I wanted to add that I don’t base my decision solely on the sanction of the inquisitions but also the lack of support to the Bishop of Rome’s claim to papal supremacy in the pentarchy. When all the smoke cleared from the schism the Bishop of Rome stood completely alone in his claim while the rest of the patriarchates rejected his claim and adopted the name Orthodox. The inquisitions in my opinion were the actions (fruits) that identified the tree so to speak.

Click to expand...

It is my contention that at the time of the schism, the pentarchy had been reduced to only two main camps, those under the Bishop of Rome and those under the Bishop of Constantinople. Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were all under Muslim control and were no longer centers of Christian administration or thought. Historically, the pentarchy is a development and it is my opinion that to lock this to some fourth century definition is not an honest look at what the pentarchy was supposed to be. Today, the Orthodox church hangs onto this definition of seats of Christianity when all four of the ancient seats that they claim are in predominantly Muslim areas with only modest numbers of Christians. History has a way of flowing onward, whether you want it to or not and in this case trying to prop up claims of power based on an ancient pentarchy is somewhat ridiculous.

BNR32FAN said:

My point was in reference to your remark




Paul’s former education didn’t stop him from learning anything.

Click to expand...

It didn't? "More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things—indeed, I regard them as dung!—that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness—a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness." Philippians 3:8-9

tz620q said:

It is my contention that at the time of the schism, the pentarchy had been reduced to only two main camps, those under the Bishop of Rome and those under the Bishop of Constantinople. Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were all under Muslim control and were no longer centers of Christian administration or thought. Historically, the pentarchy is a development and it is my opinion that to lock this to some fourth century definition is not an honest look at what the pentarchy was supposed to be. Today, the Orthodox church hangs onto this definition of seats of Christianity when all four of the ancient seats that they claim are in predominantly Muslim areas with only modest numbers of Christians. History has a way of flowing onward, whether you want it to or not and in this case trying to prop up claims of power based on an ancient pentarchy is somewhat ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I don't see how it's any more ridiculous or any more of a development than the RCC's modern ecclesiology, which contradicts even the ancient witness of its own bishops, like Pope Gregory I:

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us."

Granted it has been many years now since I was in an RC church, but I'm pretty sure it's not the viewpoint of the modern RCC that Alexandria ("the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist") and Antioch ("the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years") are equal to Rome.

I don't believe in the Pentarchy or either of your churches, but come on, man...your argument is pretty flimsy.

BNR32FAN said:

My point was in reference to your remark




Paul’s former education didn’t stop him from learning anything.

Click to expand...

It most certainly did. Paul was ignorant of the truth of God until he was knocked down on the road to Damascus. "If someone thinks he has good reasons to put confidence in human credentials, I have more: I was circumcised on the eighth day, from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews. I lived according to the law as a Pharisee. In my zeal for God I persecuted the church. According to the righteousness stipulated in the law I was blameless. But these assets I have come to regard as liabilities because of Christ. More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things—indeed, I regard them as dung!—that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness—a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness" Philippians 3:7-9

tz620q said:

It is my contention that at the time of the schism, the pentarchy had been reduced to only two main camps, those under the Bishop of Rome and those under the Bishop of Constantinople. Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were all under Muslim control and were no longer centers of Christian administration or thought. Historically, the pentarchy is a development and it is my opinion that to lock this to some fourth century definition is not an honest look at what the pentarchy was supposed to be. Today, the Orthodox church hangs onto this definition of seats of Christianity when all four of the ancient seats that they claim are in predominantly Muslim areas with only modest numbers of Christians. History has a way of flowing onward, whether you want it to or not and in this case trying to prop up claims of power based on an ancient pentarchy is somewhat ridiculous.

Click to expand...

The bishop of Jerusalem left Jerusalem but still held his position in the pentarchy. Antioch moved to Turkey. As far as Alexandria I’m not sure I hadn’t looked into it. I’m not aware that the bishops themselves ever lost their position as a result of the city they resided in being overtaken. I think that would be irrelevant to their position as a patriarch.

pescador said:

It didn't? "More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things—indeed, I regard them as dung!—that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness—a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness." Philippians 3:8-9

Click to expand...

Obviously Paul’s knowledge did not stop him from learning anything from Christ because he learned probably more from Christ than anyone even despite his level of education. So I’m sorry but it’s an incorrect claim and the passage your quoting isn’t addressing this topic. If Paul’s education kept him from learning from Christ then obviously he wouldn’t have been THE MOST productive apostle over all the others writing more than half of the New Testament now would he?

pescador said:

It most certainly did. Paul was ignorant of the truth of God until he was knocked down on the road to Damascus. "If someone thinks he has good reasons to put confidence in human credentials, I have more: I was circumcised on the eighth day, from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews. I lived according to the law as a Pharisee. In my zeal for God I persecuted the church. According to the righteousness stipulated in the law I was blameless. But these assets I have come to regard as liabilities because of Christ. More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things—indeed, I regard them as dung!—that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness—a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness" Philippians 3:7-9

Click to expand...

Ok, Paul didn’t lose any of his education in Damascus, what he did do was add to the knowledge that he already had.

BNR32FAN said:

As far as Alexandria I’m not sure I hadn’t looked into it.

Click to expand...

Both the Greeks and the Egyptians have kept their respective places in Alexandria:


Interior of the Coptic Orthodox Cathedral of St. Mark, Alexandria (the historical seat of the Coptic Orthodox patriarch prior to HH Pope Christodoulos, 11th century; since then we have had this cathedral in Alexandria and one in Cairo)


Interior of the Cathedral of Evangelismos (Eastern Orthodox cathedral), Alexandria