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

[pescador]

No it isn't.



Maybe if you looked outside of the Bible you'd know where the term 'Pope' comes from.

Why would I bother? I believe what the Bible says, not what people have made up.

 

[dzheremi]

Why would I bother? I believe what the Bible says, not what people have made up.

Apparently this doesn't apply to you, but most people would rather learn where the things they're posting about actually come from than post obviously incorrect information, and most people are okay with that learning process involving looking outside of the Bible, since the Bible is not an etymological dictionary.

And all words are made up by people. That's the nature of words.

 

[pescador]

Apparently this doesn't apply to you, but most people would rather learn where the things they're posting about actually come from than post obviously incorrect information, and most people are okay with that learning process involving looking outside of the Bible, since the Bible is not an etymological dictionary.

And all words are made up by people. That's the nature of words.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. If words are, according to you, "made up by people", then you're invalidating the story of creation in Genesis 1. Here are just some of the verses... "God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.

God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day."

And two examples from the New Testament: "After Jesus was baptized, just as he was coming up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my one dear Son; in him I take great delight.” Matthew 3:15-17

"While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my one dear Son, in whom I take great delight. Listen to him!” When the disciples heard this, they were overwhelmed with fear and threw themselves down with their faces to the ground." Matthew 17:5-6

Of course there are many more examples of God speaking words, so it's plain that they're not made up by people.

 

[tz620q]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. If words are, according to you, "made up by people", then you're invalidating the story of creation in Genesis 1. Here are just some of the verses... "God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.

Well, I have often wondered on the origin of Modern English. I guess now I know.

 

[pescador]

Well, I have often wondered on the origin of Modern English. I guess now I know.

I don't understand this non-sequitor. The words are obviously translations of the ancient Hebrew, but regardless of the language, they're all words. God spoke!

 

[tz620q]

I don't understand this non-sequitor. The words are obviously translations of the ancient Hebrew, but regardless of the language, they're all words. God spoke!

How do you know there was ancient Hebrew at the time of creation? Maybe Hebrew is just another translation from God's own language. You see words, alphabetic symbols, etc are all just societal constructs to allow us to communicate more effectively. They are glyphs that represent a larger reality. They do not exist in any meaningful way outside of their commonly held meaning. That is why when you listen to someone speak a language you do not know, you can understand that they are speaking words; but the words carry no meaning for you. So maybe you should not point to a word and say it is not in the Bible, therefore it is a man-made construct when all language as we know it is a man-made construct.

 

[pescador]

Again, the Bible clearly says that God spoke. He obviously spoke words that had unimaginable power, as in the creation of the heavens and earth and everything on, in, and above the planet.

Your statement that "it [a word] is a man-made construct when all language as we know it is a man-made construct" is obviously false since God's spoken words of creation predates humanity.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If the Papacy really is an innovation of the Roman Catholic Church, when did it begin? Could it have been during the oft-hated Medieval Catholic Church, when corrupt bishops decided to name a pope? No, it couldn't have been, if the Great Schism of 1054 (and tensions beginning much earlier) were primarily over the role of the Pope in the Church.

So the Catholic Church upholds that Peter was the first pope, and thus receives a lot of vicious attacks from Protestants who claim that "claiming" Peter as the first pope is a terrible thing for Catholics to do. But if he wasn't the first pope, who was? And how can Protestant Christians deny Peter as the first Pope, when Martin Luther himself described the Roman Catholic Church as "St. Peter's Church" in his 95 theses?

Included below is a link to many Church fathers discussing the issue of St. Peter as the first Pope, and I thought one quote was particularly noteworthy:


Origins of Peter as Pope — Church Fathers
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

84 popes sanctioned the inquisitions. So what does that say about the succession of the See of Rome? I think it’s clear that apostolic succession doesn’t guarantee Christ like behavior.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. If words are, according to you, "made up by people", then you're invalidating the story of creation in Genesis 1.

How? That doesn't make sense.

Here are just some of the verses... "God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.

God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day."

And two examples from the New Testament: "After Jesus was baptized, just as he was coming up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my one dear Son; in him I take great delight.” Matthew 3:15-17

"While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my one dear Son, in whom I take great delight. Listen to him!” When the disciples heard this, they were overwhelmed with fear and threw themselves down with their faces to the ground." Matthew 17:5-6

Of course there are many more examples of God speaking words, so it's plain that they're not made up by people.

Oh dear...

You are aware that the act of speaking is different than the creation or use of any particular word, aren't you? So bringing up the fact that God speaks really doesn't say anything one way or another about the creation of particular words. That's why it really doesn't mean anything to say that the word 'Pope' isn't found in the Bible. The Bible is not a dictionary.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How? That doesn't make sense.



Oh dear...

You are aware that the act of speaking is different than the creation or use of any particular word, aren't you? So bringing up the fact that God speaks really doesn't say anything one way or another about the creation of particular words. That's why it really doesn't mean anything to say that the word 'Pope' isn't found in the Bible. The Bible is not a dictionary.

The word Trinity isn’t in the Bible either.

 

[dzheremi]

The word Trinity isn’t in the Bible either.

Well yeah. I'm not the one arguing that the presence or absence of a certain word in the Bible means something. Pescador is. Perhaps you meant your reply for him.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. If words are, according to you, "made up by people", then you're invalidating the story of creation in Genesis 1. Here are just some of the verses... "God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.

God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day."

And two examples from the New Testament: "After Jesus was baptized, just as he was coming up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my one dear Son; in him I take great delight.” Matthew 3:15-17

"While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my one dear Son, in whom I take great delight. Listen to him!” When the disciples heard this, they were overwhelmed with fear and threw themselves down with their faces to the ground." Matthew 17:5-6

Of course there are many more examples of God speaking words, so it's plain that they're not made up by people.

I think this is an interesting concept. God spoke with Adam & Eve so apparently there must’ve been some sort of language before civilization. Possibly embedded by the Holy Spirit like He did at Pentecost?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well yeah. I'm not the one arguing that the presence or absence of a certain word in the Bible means something. Pescador is. Perhaps you meant your reply for him.

No I was just supporting you position on that matter friend.

 

[tz620q]

I think this is an interesting concept. God spoke with Adam & Eve so apparently there must’ve been some sort of language before civilization. Possibly embedded by the Holy Spirit like He did at Pentecost?

That is an interesting thought. I did not mean to infer in my saying that language as we know it is man-made that God cannot speak and if He did we could not understand Him. I think you bring up a good point. When God has wanted Himself understood throughout history, He has been able to talk to us, either in the Garden, or through a burning bush. I guess I always thought that God came down to our level and used our common language constructs to make Himself known. You bring up the one exception to that that bears further thought and that is how did Adam and Eve understand each other and how did they understand God when He talked with them. My only thought on this is that language is a learned construct. We are not born knowing a certain language. We are taught that and if we are born in a different part of the world we might get taught a different language. In the case of Adam, God told him to "name" the various things of the earth. Maybe in that way He gave Adam permission to create language and Adam taught Eve. That really only moves the goal posts though, since how did Adam know that God wanted him to name things without any ability to understand God.

 

[tz620q]

84 popes sanctioned the inquisitions. So what does that say about the succession of the See of Rome? I think it’s clear that apostolic succession doesn’t guarantee Christ like behavior.

I am not sure if anyone would argue that; but I am curious whether you say this as a way of dismissing apostolic succession or just the impeccability of the Pope.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That is an interesting thought. I did not mean to infer in my saying that language as we know it is man-made that God cannot speak and if He did we could not understand Him. I think you bring up a good point. When God has wanted Himself understood throughout history, He has been able to talk to us, either in the Garden, or through a burning bush. I guess I always thought that God came down to our level and used our common language constructs to make Himself known. You bring up the one exception to that that bears further thought and that is how did Adam and Eve understand each other and how did they understand God when He talked with them. My only thought on this is that language is a learned construct. We are not born knowing a certain language. We are taught that and if we are born in a different part of the world we might get taught a different language. In the case of Adam, God told him to "name" the various things of the earth. Maybe in that way He gave Adam permission to create language and Adam taught Eve. That really only moves the goal posts though, since how did Adam know that God wanted him to name things without any ability to understand God.

Well this makes me think of how the disciples began speaking in foreign languages after receiving the Holy Spirit. So I think it’s quite possible that the Holy Spirit could’ve done this with Adam & Eve.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am not sure if anyone would argue that; but I am curious whether you say this as a way of dismissing apostolic succession or just the impeccability of the Pope.

Well, when defending the validity of papal primacy apostolic succession always comes into play and this is where I find a problem because if we know that apostolic succession doesn’t guarantee Christ like behavior then how can we say that apostolic succession guarantees a valid leader of Christ’s Church? Now of course every Christian still sins but I think there’s a huge difference between stumbling in sin and sanctioning the arrest, imprisonment, torture, and in some cases execution of nonbelievers. I mean this went on for 686 years. So that’s a pretty huge gap in the papacy’s walk with the Spirit.

 

[tz620q]

Well, when defending the validity of papal primacy kpostolic succession always comes into play and this is where I find a problem because if we know that apostolic succession doesn’t guarantee Christ like behavior then how can we say that apostolic succession guarantees a valid leader of Christ’s Church? Now of course every Christian still sins but I think there’s a huge difference between stumbling in sin and sanctioning the arrest, imprisonment, torture, and in some cases execution of nonbelievers. I mean this went on for 686 years. So that’s a pretty huge gap in the papacy’s walk with the Spirit.

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.

 

[dzheremi]

No I was just supporting you position on that matter friend.

I see. Thank you. Apologies for not understanding you.

 

[pescador]

How? That doesn't make sense.



Oh dear...

You are aware that the act of speaking is different than the creation or use of any particular word, aren't you? So bringing up the fact that God speaks really doesn't say anything one way or another about the creation of particular words. That's why it really doesn't mean anything to say that the word 'Pope' isn't found in the Bible. The Bible is not a dictionary.

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.