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

[The Liturgist]

If those buildings could talk they would be as powerful as the word of God. Unfortunately they can't talk. The word of God is Christ and he talks to us.

Christ, being omnipotent, is entirely capable of speaking to us through architecture. Indeed, He is literally an architect, who through the Holy Ghost spoke by the Prophets the designs for the Ark, the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, and the First Temple.

If you want to put your efforts into maintaining fine works of architecture in the hope people will come to Christ, by all means do that. In the end, those buildings will fall, Christ's heavenly kingdom won't fall. Its on the true rock, the rock of life, the rock of ages, not the rock of this world.

I fear you are missing the point. Yes, the temples we build to God will fall, but the number of his faithful will be greatly increased owing to the existence of great churches, cathedrals and monasteries.

not sure what road your treading with those additional views.

What “additional views”?

 

[Root of Jesse]

The preaching of the Gospel comes prior to helping the poor and maintaining a physical building.

I never mentioned maintaining a building, but the purpose of those buildings is as a gathering place to preach the gospel. And buildings do need maintenance, sorry to say. As for helping the poor, that IS the gospel message. When we help the poor in the name of Christ, something the Catholic Church does more of than any other organization in history, we are preaching the Gospel.

I would never deny that, but we must be aware that through both systems they are inferior to the work of salvation through faith in Christ, when he rent the veil top to bottom so no other Priest need not enter into the holy of holies on our behalf.

Faith in Christ means believing what he told us. One of those things he told us was that he would build His Church on the Rock of Peter. Peter was directed to have faith in Christ and to preach just that, which he did.

The 'c'atholic church (his bride, his believers) through justification by faith alone in the saving work he did at Calvary, so we his bride could meet the bridegroom.

Justification by faith alone is one of those man-made doctrines you Protestants so abhor.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But nowhere in the Bible does Jesus or anyone else mention the Catholic Church. The church is the body of believers -- all believers -- "And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy." Colossians 1:18

It is both arrogant and false to claim that those believers who belong to the Catholic church are His body and all others are not. Again, the Catholic church didn't come into existence until long after Jesus formed His church and it is just one denomination.

Sorry, you are incorrect. He mentioned one Church. If there is one Church, and there is, He said it, it is universal. Greek for universal is catholic. I agree that the Church is the body of all believers. There is no arrogance or falsehood that those believers who are Catholic are his body, but we don't believe other Christians are not part of His Church, it's a matter of completeness. And to be fair, no Catholic is completely part of His Church, we all sin, and that places us outside His Church. But we try, though we aren't worthy, to unite, some of us every day.
The Catholic Church came into existence on Pentecost, 50 days after Christ died.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The splendour and construction of man will fail and fall. James is talking about spiritual works, not the works of man ie- "can i help wash your tent?"..."can i offer you a pair of shoes?"

Offering a pair of shoes would be fulfilling the spiritual works Christ asked us to do. But you cannot say you're a man of faith, a Christian, and do works.

Those works are nice in man's eyes but will be burnt as hay, wood and stubble. Think on when Christ feed the 5000 with physical food, he commanded the disciples afterwards to feed the 4000 (his sheep) with spiritual food.

Its the same message Christ speaks of when he teaches the disciples whatever you do to the least of my people, that ye do unto me. The emphasis is on spiritual nurishment, feeding the soul.

god bless

If you want to know why we have church buildings, it was a result of the vast number of conversions, that people could no longer fit into 'house' churches, they needed gathering places. As Mother Angelica says, doesn't God deserve a beautiful home to dwell in?

 

[Root of Jesse]

If those buildings could talk they would be as powerful as the word of God. Unfortunately they can't talk. The word of God is Christ and he talks to us.

Actually, they do talk. When I walk into a beautiful church, I hear the voice of God, he speaks to me through his saints, through the Tabernacle, through the stained glass. The beauty of a church speaks to people.

If you want to put your efforts into maintaining fine works of architecture in the hope people will come to Christ, by all means do that. In the end, those buildings will fall, Christ's heavenly kingdom won't fall. Its on the true rock, the rock of life, the rock of ages, not the rock of this world.

Well, the thing is, you cannot have a building occupied by people that's not safe. That would be unconscionable. Yes, eventually they fail, new ones are built. So what?

Agree, its spiritual. Feed them physically when needed, but don't forget to feed them spiritually.



not sure what road your treading with those additional views.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The Catholic Church came into existence on Pentecost, 50 days after Christ died.

50 days after His resurrection

 

[The Liturgist]

50 days after His resurrection

Actually the Eastern Orthodox doctrine, as i understand it from my extensive reading of Orthodox authors and my close relations with Orthodox clergy and monastics, is that since the Church is the mystical Body of Christ, it has always existed, and I have further read Eastern Orthodox authors express a view that the Hebrew faith, the faith of Noah, and so on, back to Adam, were pre-incarnational manifestations of the Church, with, for example, the shewbread and libations in the Temple being typological-prophetic anticipations of the Eucharist, just as the animal sacrifices were typological-prophetic anticipations of the one final ultimate sacrifice in which God Himself became incarnate of the Theotokos, glorifying our fallen human existence before willingly being led to the Cross, as a sheep to the slaughter, so that He could trample down death by death and be the first fruits of the Resurrection.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Actually the Eastern Orthodox doctrine, as i understand it from my extensive reading of Orthodox authors and my close relations with Orthodox clergy and monastics, is that since the Church is the mystical Body of Christ, it has always existed, and I have further read Eastern Orthodox authors express a view that the Hebrew faith, the faith of Noah, and so on, back to Adam, were pre-incarnational manifestations of the Church, with, for example, the shewbread and libations in the Temple being typological-prophetic anticipations of the Eucharist, just as the animal sacrifices were typological-prophetic anticipations of the one final ultimate sacrifice in which God Himself became incarnate of the Theotokos, glorifying our fallen human existence before willingly being led to the Cross, as a sheep to the slaughter, so that He could trample down death by death and be the first fruits of the Resurrection.

That is true (the lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world). However, my point was Pentecost/Shavuot is counted from the day of the sheaf offering (Leviticus 23:15–16), the Sunday of the resurrection.

 

[The Liturgist]

That is true (the lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world). However, my point was Pentecost/Shavuot is counted from the day of the sheaf offering (Leviticus 23:15–16), the Sunday of the resurrection.

Ah I see. Jolly good. I love the Orthodox Church very much.

 

[Root of Jesse]

50 days after His resurrection

Right. My bad.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I love the Orthodox Church very much.

I can tell by your posts! Come and see!

 

[The Liturgist]

I can tell by your posts! Come and see!

Ive been blessed to attend ROCOR, OCA, Romanian and GOArch parishes and an Antiochian cathedral the EO side, and I have also been to Syriac Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox cathedrals and parishes. I have also been to several Orthodox monasteries, my favorite being Elder Ephraim’s monastery dedicated to St. Anthony. I was blessed to meet him before his health decline, and he was a loving man. Memory eternal!

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Ive been blessed to attend ROCOR, OCA, Romanian and GOArch parishes and an Antiochian cathedral the EO side, and I have also been to Syriac Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox cathedrals and parishes. I have also been to several Orthodox monasteries, my favorite being Elder Ephraim’s monastery dedicated to St. Anthony. I was blessed to meet him before his health decline, and he was a loving man. Memory eternal!

I too have been to many. If you are Orthodox you should change your faith icon

 

[Mosheli]

This is reply to The Liturist post 275 (and Root of Jesse post 271).
The ebook when I last looked at it again I noted it was terribly written and hard for people to understand, and the ebook is down for rewriting now anyway so there is no need to worry about it or for me to give it. Also since you said you wanted to strongly complain to the publisher it seems unfair because if a person discovers something they believe to be true with evidences then it is unfair if they are barred from being able to publish it, because truths would never get out if they are barred from publishing. However I could post the some (more) evidences for the first 16 popes and you could try write a formal rebuttal ("perhaps with [our] help") as you said. Though i am pretty convinced from the quantity and quality of matches evidences. (There are even more matches between each pope and emperor than just the few ones i gave in the previous post.) I'll post each of the 16 popes below with some more of the matches (though still leaving out some). Or if you let me know if you/they don't want me to post all 16 here and I could post them in the history forum likned in my signature and then you can write your rebuttal from reading them there. I've written 5 of the 16 so far. I will cover the criticisms in posts 271 & 275 in the relevant pope posts. Below is the one on Pius 1 with a few more details than I previously gave.

10th Pope Pius 1
&
Emperor Antoninus Pius.

Both are named Pius.

(The meaning of the name Pius "religious, pious/piety, dutiful, holy, honest" might also match emperor Antoninus Pius?
"Antoninus acquired the cognomen Pius after his accession to the throne, either because he compelled the Senate to deify his adoptive father, or because he had saved senators sentenced to death by Hadrian in his later years." "One of his first acts as Emperor was to persuade the Senate to grant divine honours to Hadrian, which they had at first refused; his efforts to persuade the Senate to grant these honours is the most likely reason given for his title of Pius (dutiful in affection; compare pietas). Two other reasons for this title are that he would support his aged father-in-law with his hand at Senate meetings, and that he had saved those men that Hadrian, during his period of ill-health, had condemned to death."
"Antoninus was known as an avid observer of rites of religion....")

("like the similar error "Anicetus, Pius" for "Pius Anicetus"". Anicetus Pius similar to Antoninus Pius?)

Dates match:
Pope Pius 1 reigned 140/142/146-154/155/157/161 (compiled from six different official popes lists) "during the [reign] of Antoninus Pius".
Emperor Antoninus Pius reigned 138-148-156-161 (and his successor Marcus Aurelius took some role from 156.)
Both dates coincide 140-155/161 (the whole of pope Pius' reign),
both almost the same start date 138/140, or similar date 146/148;
both the same date 155/156/157,
both the same end date 161.
The argument that Pius "reposed in 155 AD, ... he predeceased Emperor Antoninus Pius by six years" is not valid because (1) the end date for Pius is 154/155/157/161 in different sources, and (2) the end date "155" probably relates to that Marcus Aurelius took some role from 156.

Both are pontiffex maximus.
Pius 1 is bishop / "pope" / "pontiffex maximus" / "supreme pontiff" (Annuario Pontificio, Liber Pontificalis).
"the account of his [Justin's] martyrdom indicates there was no Roman bishop present there."
Antoninus Pius was pontiffex maximus (the emperors from Augustus to Gratian were pontiffex maximus).
"Antoninus was known as an avid observer of rites of religion...."
[The argument that the titles pontiffex maximus and pope were not used by/for bishops of Rome until later (mid-5th & mid-6th centuries) and so is an anachronism is not necessarily valid because bishop/pope/pontiff are still related.]

Both are in Rome.

With both the popes & emperors before and after also match each other all in order.
1 Peter (Nero) = Nero (Peter)
2 Linus = Vespasian
3 Cletus = Titus
4 Clement 1 = Domitian (Clemens)
5 Evaristus = Nerva
6 Alexander 1 = Trajan (Alexander)
7 Sixtus 1 = Trajan? or Hadrian?
8 Telesphorus = Hadrian?
9 Hyginus (Graecvs) = Hadrianus (Graeculus)
10 Pius 1 = Antoninus Pius
etc.
See each separate pope & emperor chapter for matches details.

Both died aged 74:
Pope Pius aged "74" at end of his papacy (ref Wiki).
Emperor Antoninus Pius aged 74 at end of his reign.

Both are associated with the 10/11th of July:
Pius 1's feast day 11 July.
Antoninus Pius accession day 10/11th of July.

Both are linked with freed slaves:
Pius: "The writer of the later text identifies himself as a former slave. This has led to speculation that both Hermas and Pius were freedmen."
Antoninus Pius: "Antoninus passed measures to facilitate the enfranchisement of slaves. Mostly, he favoured the principle of favor libertatis, giving the putative freedman the benefit of the doubt when the claim to freedom was not clearcut."

Pope Pius 1 built 1/2 churches & baptistry.
He "built a concealed church on the second floor of a bath house which had been converted to a residence. This church, Santa Pudenziana, is the oldest surviving church in Rome...."
Antoninus Pius authorised the construction of a temple to Faustina.
"Antoninus built temples, theaters, and mausoleums...."
["newly built temple to Hadrian"?]

Pius "Martyr (by sword)". But they otherwise say it was a conjecture and is no grounds for consideration, and he is not presented as martyr in 'Roman Martyrdom'.

There is no contemporary proof that any pope Pius 1 ever existed. "Many popes in the first three centuries of the Christian era are obscure figures". "the account of his [Justin's] martyrdom indicates there was no Roman bishop present there."
"The actions of Pius I are recorded in multiple second and third century sources." But what are the details, and how reliable really are these sources even to a secular academic historian? Do they say he was bishop? They might have even begun the pope/emperor correspondences as early as then.
"Additionally, he (Pius) also left us archaeological evidence as to his existence, for he built a concealed church...." But there is no contemporary inscription of name of bishop Pius in/on the church?
"Hermas the brother of Pius wrote The Shepherd of Hermas which work is dated to the mid-2nd century". But does that work mention a bishop Pius?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If those buildings could talk they would be as powerful as the word of God. Unfortunately they can't talk. The word of God is Christ and he talks to us.

If you want to put your efforts into maintaining fine works of architecture in the hope people will come to Christ, by all means do that. In the end, those buildings will fall, Christ's heavenly kingdom won't fall. Its on the true rock, the rock of life, the rock of ages, not the rock of this world.





Agree, its spiritual. Feed them physically when needed, but don't forget to feed them spiritually.



not sure what road your treading with those additional views.

The road he is treading is the traditional, historic, evangelical catholic faith.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This is reply to The Liturist post 275 (and Root of Jesse post 271).
The ebook when I last looked at it again I noted it was terribly written and hard for people to understand, and the ebook is down for rewriting now anyway so there is no need to worry about it or for me to give it. Also since you said you wanted to strongly complain to the publisher it seems unfair because if a person discovers something they believe to be true with evidences then it is unfair if they are barred from being able to publish it, because truths would never get out if they are barred from publishing. However I could post the some (more) evidences for the first 16 popes and you could try write a formal rebuttal ("perhaps with [our] help") as you said. Though i am pretty convinced from the quantity and quality of matches evidences. (There are even more matches between each pope and emperor than just the few ones i gave in the previous post.) I'll post each of the 16 popes below with some more of the matches (though still leaving out some). Or if you let me know if you/they don't want me to post all 16 here and I could post them in the history forum likned in my signature and then you can write your rebuttal from reading them there. I've written 5 of the 16 so far. I will cover the criticisms in posts 271 & 275 in the relevant pope posts. Below is the one on Pius 1 with a few more details than I previously gave.

10th Pope Pius 1
&
Emperor Antoninus Pius.

Both are named Pius.

(The meaning of the name Pius "religious, pious/piety, dutiful, holy, honest" might also match emperor Antoninus Pius?
"Antoninus acquired the cognomen Pius after his accession to the throne, either because he compelled the Senate to deify his adoptive father, or because he had saved senators sentenced to death by Hadrian in his later years." "One of his first acts as Emperor was to persuade the Senate to grant divine honours to Hadrian, which they had at first refused; his efforts to persuade the Senate to grant these honours is the most likely reason given for his title of Pius (dutiful in affection; compare pietas). Two other reasons for this title are that he would support his aged father-in-law with his hand at Senate meetings, and that he had saved those men that Hadrian, during his period of ill-health, had condemned to death."
"Antoninus was known as an avid observer of rites of religion....")

("like the similar error "Anicetus, Pius" for "Pius Anicetus"". Anicetus Pius similar to Antoninus Pius?)

Dates match:
Pope Pius 1 reigned 140/142/146-154/155/157/161 (compiled from six different official popes lists) "during the [reign] of Antoninus Pius".
Emperor Antoninus Pius reigned 138-148-156-161 (and his successor Marcus Aurelius took some role from 156.)
Both dates coincide 140-155/161 (the whole of pope Pius' reign),
both almost the same start date 138/140, or similar date 146/148;
both the same date 155/156/157,
both the same end date 161.
The argument that Pius "reposed in 155 AD, ... he predeceased Emperor Antoninus Pius by six years" is not valid because (1) the end date for Pius is 154/155/157/161 in different sources, and (2) the end date "155" probably relates to that Marcus Aurelius took some role from 156.

Both are pontiffex maximus.
Pius 1 is bishop / "pope" / "pontiffex maximus" / "supreme pontiff" (Annuario Pontificio, Liber Pontificalis).
"the account of his [Justin's] martyrdom indicates there was no Roman bishop present there."
Antoninus Pius was pontiffex maximus (the emperors from Augustus to Gratian were pontiffex maximus).
"Antoninus was known as an avid observer of rites of religion...."
[The argument that the titles pontiffex maximus and pope were not used by/for bishops of Rome until later (mid-5th & mid-6th centuries) and so is an anachronism is not necessarily valid because bishop/pope/pontiff are still related.]

Both are in Rome.

With both the popes & emperors before and after also match each other all in order.
1 Peter (Nero) = Nero (Peter)
2 Linus = Vespasian
3 Cletus = Titus
4 Clement 1 = Domitian (Clemens)
5 Evaristus = Nerva
6 Alexander 1 = Trajan (Alexander)
7 Sixtus 1 = Trajan? or Hadrian?
8 Telesphorus = Hadrian?
9 Hyginus (Graecvs) = Hadrianus (Graeculus)
10 Pius 1 = Antoninus Pius
etc.
See each separate pope & emperor chapter for matches details.

Both died aged 74:
Pope Pius aged "74" at end of his papacy (ref Wiki).
Emperor Antoninus Pius aged 74 at end of his reign.

Both are associated with the 10/11th of July:
Pius 1's feast day 11 July.
Antoninus Pius accession day 10/11th of July.

Both are linked with freed slaves:
Pius: "The writer of the later text identifies himself as a former slave. This has led to speculation that both Hermas and Pius were freedmen."
Antoninus Pius: "Antoninus passed measures to facilitate the enfranchisement of slaves. Mostly, he favoured the principle of favor libertatis, giving the putative freedman the benefit of the doubt when the claim to freedom was not clearcut."

Pope Pius 1 built 1/2 churches & baptistry.
He "built a concealed church on the second floor of a bath house which had been converted to a residence. This church, Santa Pudenziana, is the oldest surviving church in Rome...."
Antoninus Pius authorised the construction of a temple to Faustina.
"Antoninus built temples, theaters, and mausoleums...."
["newly built temple to Hadrian"?]

Pius "Martyr (by sword)". But they otherwise say it was a conjecture and is no grounds for consideration, and he is not presented as martyr in 'Roman Martyrdom'.

There is no contemporary proof that any pope Pius 1 ever existed. "Many popes in the first three centuries of the Christian era are obscure figures". "the account of his [Justin's] martyrdom indicates there was no Roman bishop present there."
"The actions of Pius I are recorded in multiple second and third century sources." But what are the details, and how reliable really are these sources even to a secular academic historian? Do they say he was bishop? They might have even begun the pope/emperor correspondences as early as then.
"Additionally, he (Pius) also left us archaeological evidence as to his existence, for he built a concealed church...." But there is no contemporary inscription of name of bishop Pius in/on the church?
"Hermas the brother of Pius wrote The Shepherd of Hermas which work is dated to the mid-2nd century". But does that work mention a bishop Pius?

Shame to waste one's time on conspiracy theories and trying to tear down the History of others; much like pulling down statues and desecrating cemeteries. Posts like this are not constructive.

 

[Root of Jesse]

This is reply to The Liturist post 275 (and Root of Jesse post 271).
The ebook when I last looked at it again I noted it was terribly written and hard for people to understand, and the ebook is down for rewriting now anyway so there is no need to worry about it or for me to give it. Also since you said you wanted to strongly complain to the publisher it seems unfair because if a person discovers something they believe to be true with evidences then it is unfair if they are barred from being able to publish it, because truths would never get out if they are barred from publishing. However I could post the some (more) evidences for the first 16 popes and you could try write a formal rebuttal ("perhaps with [our] help") as you said. Though i am pretty convinced from the quantity and quality of matches evidences. (There are even more matches between each pope and emperor than just the few ones i gave in the previous post.) I'll post each of the 16 popes below with some more of the matches (though still leaving out some). Or if you let me know if you/they don't want me to post all 16 here and I could post them in the history forum likned in my signature and then you can write your rebuttal from reading them there. I've written 5 of the 16 so far. I will cover the criticisms in posts 271 & 275 in the relevant pope posts. Below is the one on Pius 1 with a few more details than I previously gave.

10th Pope Pius 1
&
Emperor Antoninus Pius.

Both are named Pius.

(The meaning of the name Pius "religious, pious/piety, dutiful, holy, honest" might also match emperor Antoninus Pius?
"Antoninus acquired the cognomen Pius after his accession to the throne, either because he compelled the Senate to deify his adoptive father, or because he had saved senators sentenced to death by Hadrian in his later years." "One of his first acts as Emperor was to persuade the Senate to grant divine honours to Hadrian, which they had at first refused; his efforts to persuade the Senate to grant these honours is the most likely reason given for his title of Pius (dutiful in affection; compare pietas). Two other reasons for this title are that he would support his aged father-in-law with his hand at Senate meetings, and that he had saved those men that Hadrian, during his period of ill-health, had condemned to death."
"Antoninus was known as an avid observer of rites of religion....")

("like the similar error "Anicetus, Pius" for "Pius Anicetus"". Anicetus Pius similar to Antoninus Pius?)

Dates match:
Pope Pius 1 reigned 140/142/146-154/155/157/161 (compiled from six different official popes lists) "during the [reign] of Antoninus Pius".
Emperor Antoninus Pius reigned 138-148-156-161 (and his successor Marcus Aurelius took some role from 156.)
Both dates coincide 140-155/161 (the whole of pope Pius' reign),
both almost the same start date 138/140, or similar date 146/148;
both the same date 155/156/157,
both the same end date 161.
The argument that Pius "reposed in 155 AD, ... he predeceased Emperor Antoninus Pius by six years" is not valid because (1) the end date for Pius is 154/155/157/161 in different sources, and (2) the end date "155" probably relates to that Marcus Aurelius took some role from 156.

Both are pontiffex maximus.
Pius 1 is bishop / "pope" / "pontiffex maximus" / "supreme pontiff" (Annuario Pontificio, Liber Pontificalis).
"the account of his [Justin's] martyrdom indicates there was no Roman bishop present there."
Antoninus Pius was pontiffex maximus (the emperors from Augustus to Gratian were pontiffex maximus).
"Antoninus was known as an avid observer of rites of religion...."
[The argument that the titles pontiffex maximus and pope were not used by/for bishops of Rome until later (mid-5th & mid-6th centuries) and so is an anachronism is not necessarily valid because bishop/pope/pontiff are still related.]

Both are in Rome.

With both the popes & emperors before and after also match each other all in order.
1 Peter (Nero) = Nero (Peter)
2 Linus = Vespasian
3 Cletus = Titus
4 Clement 1 = Domitian (Clemens)
5 Evaristus = Nerva
6 Alexander 1 = Trajan (Alexander)
7 Sixtus 1 = Trajan? or Hadrian?
8 Telesphorus = Hadrian?
9 Hyginus (Graecvs) = Hadrianus (Graeculus)
10 Pius 1 = Antoninus Pius
etc.
See each separate pope & emperor chapter for matches details.

Both died aged 74:
Pope Pius aged "74" at end of his papacy (ref Wiki).
Emperor Antoninus Pius aged 74 at end of his reign.

Both are associated with the 10/11th of July:
Pius 1's feast day 11 July.
Antoninus Pius accession day 10/11th of July.

Both are linked with freed slaves:
Pius: "The writer of the later text identifies himself as a former slave. This has led to speculation that both Hermas and Pius were freedmen."
Antoninus Pius: "Antoninus passed measures to facilitate the enfranchisement of slaves. Mostly, he favoured the principle of favor libertatis, giving the putative freedman the benefit of the doubt when the claim to freedom was not clearcut."

Pope Pius 1 built 1/2 churches & baptistry.
He "built a concealed church on the second floor of a bath house which had been converted to a residence. This church, Santa Pudenziana, is the oldest surviving church in Rome...."
Antoninus Pius authorised the construction of a temple to Faustina.
"Antoninus built temples, theaters, and mausoleums...."
["newly built temple to Hadrian"?]

Pius "Martyr (by sword)". But they otherwise say it was a conjecture and is no grounds for consideration, and he is not presented as martyr in 'Roman Martyrdom'.

There is no contemporary proof that any pope Pius 1 ever existed. "Many popes in the first three centuries of the Christian era are obscure figures". "the account of his [Justin's] martyrdom indicates there was no Roman bishop present there."
"The actions of Pius I are recorded in multiple second and third century sources." But what are the details, and how reliable really are these sources even to a secular academic historian? Do they say he was bishop? They might have even begun the pope/emperor correspondences as early as then.
"Additionally, he (Pius) also left us archaeological evidence as to his existence, for he built a concealed church...." But there is no contemporary inscription of name of bishop Pius in/on the church?
"Hermas the brother of Pius wrote The Shepherd of Hermas which work is dated to the mid-2nd century". But does that work mention a bishop Pius?

There are all sorts of way to rebut this. Santa Pudenziana, the church, was built over a home, they used part of a bath facility to build it, and part of the bath is still visible. The house was the home of Popes until Constantine gave Lateran Palace to the Catholic Church.
Pius died in 55 AD, Antoninus Pius in 68. Yeah, they were both 74, but that proves nothing.
I will just stop responding to you. It's ridiculous.

 

[Mosheli]

It is not true that "[Pope] Pius died in 55 ad." Comparing six different official popes lists his end date is 154/155/157/161. Plus I already gave answer that the "155" date is probably because Marcus Aurelius took some role from 156.

All the pope/emperor matches evidences have to be considered before it can be proven whether the match between the two lists is true or false.

I have now done all the first 16 popes except for 3 of them (11th-13th), though I still left out some matches. But I won't post them all here, they can be seen at https://biblehistory.createaforum.com/history-between-acts-and-now/popes-list/ . Just two examples of good matches below:

From Pope "Peter" = Nero:
Both associated with choir/singing:
Peter: In the Eastern Church Peter is called Cotyphaeus "choir-director".
Nero: "Nero was encouraged to sing and perform in public by the senate...." Nero "sang to the lyre". ("Nero fiddled while Rome burnt/burned". Vespasian fell asleep during one of the emperors lyre sessions.)

From Pope Zephyrinus = emperor (Septimus) Severus:
Both similar education:
Zephyrinus:
"The pope is described ... as a simple man without education. This is evidently to be understood as meaning that Zephyrinus had not taken the higher studies...."
Septimius Severus:
"Little else is known of the young Severus' education, but according to Cassius Dio the boy had been eager for more education than he had actually got."

There are too many quality matches for me to doubt the match of the two lists.
But i won't argue it here anymore since you seem to not want to. I will finish writing the first 16 popes and post them in the forum I thread gave link to above. People are free to try write a rebuttal from that if they wish and are able.

 

[The Liturgist]

I too have been to many. If you are Orthodox you should change your faith icon

Alas if only there was a “Congregationalist” faith icon...

 

[The Liturgist]

Shame to waste one's time on conspiracy theories and trying to tear down the History of others; much like pulling down statues and desecrating cemeteries. Posts like this are not constructive.

Indeed. I personally am adamantly opposed to iconoclasm, both the religious heresy that plagued the Islamic and Byzantine Empires and later, parts of Europe in the 16th-18th centuries, and the former Russian Empire and the Communist lands, especially Albania, and also historical revisionism, which is also a popular Communist vice.

Amusingly ironic though that we find ourselves seeking to debate against what amounts to a historically revisionist allegation of historical revisionism.