Evidence for God from Science

oscarsiziba wrote:The disciple Peter was not the first pope,that is the hijack by the Catholic church to deceive.

That's a pretty strong accusation. It's one thing to disagree with a viewpoint, it is quite another to accuse others of lying and deception.

You don't believe Catholics can see this sincerely through the filter of their beliefs without it being a "deception?"

Peter wasn't the first pope, nor was he even Roman. But saying it was a "hijack" may be coming off a little strong.

I think it's rather irrelevant whether or not Peter was first Pope or not.

The deeper question should be did Peter have any 'special authority' over the other Apostles?

Personally, I find John's writtings to be most edifying.

jenwat3 wrote:Peter wasn't the first pope, nor was he even Roman. But saying it was a "hijack" may be coming off a little strong.

Did someone say hijack?



If Peter wasn't the first Pope who was?

FFC wrote:

jenwat3 wrote:Peter wasn't the first pope, nor was he even Roman. But saying it was a "hijack" may be coming off a little strong.

Did someone say hijack?



If Peter wasn't the first Pope who was?

??

I don't know who the 1st pope was, but I do know it wasn't Peter. He never even lived in Rome during his discipleship.

jenwat3 wrote:I don't know who the 1st pope was, but I do know it wasn't Peter. He never even lived in Rome during his discipleship.

Jenna, I didn't know that living in Rome was a prerequisite for being Pope.

So then where do the popes live and reside?

jenwat3 wrote:I don't know who the 1st pope was, but I do know it wasn't Peter. He never even lived in Rome during his discipleship.

Yes he did. And on the papacy.

I still haven't gotten the concept of providing livks yet, so I will quote from another source here. "If Christ had established Peter as the first (and infallible) pope, how could Peter almost immediately have fallen what Christ labeled a satanic attitude? Also there is this question; How could Peter have later denied Christ 3 times?
10 proofs that Peter was probably never in Rome;
1) Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, not Peter. (Rom.15:16, Gal.2:7) Rome was a gentile city.
2)The emperor Claudius had banished all Jews from Rome in AD 50.
3)Peter went to Babylon-in Mesopotamia (1Peter 5:13)
4) Paul would never have written what he did in Romans 1(the book was written in AD 55), verses 11 and 15-clear insults to Peter, if he had been faithfully serving there for 13 previous years, particularly if it had been as pope. Actually A "Peter", Simon Magus (see Acts was there. It was THIS Simon (not Simon Peter) who was the "pater", or "father" Simon Magus was already by this time the leading figure in the early church in Rome.
5)Romans 15:20; The apostle Paul declared that he would not preach (or write) upon any other man's foundation. Yet, Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. Thus, Peter could not have laid the foundation of the Roman congregation.
6)Romans 16 contains 30 different salutations, yet Peter, again, supposedly the resident pope there, was not greeted by Paul. This would have been a grievous slight if he had been present. Yet he wasn't even acknowledged.
7)Galatians 1:18-19 and 2:7 demonstrate that Peter was based at Jerusalem.
8)Notice Luke 22:24. Related to these points, if Peter was already designated to be the future pope, why were the disciples arguing among themselves about who was the greatest?
9)Galatians 2:7 reveals that Peter took the gospel to "the circumsion"-the Jews, and other tribes of Israel, referenced in #7.
10)2Tim.4:10-11 mentions that Paul wrote FROM ROME and records that "only Luke" was with him. Obviously this eliminates Peter.
Peter, was in fact, the leading apostle in the early New Testament Church, but he simply was not the first pope and certainly did not even live in Rome.
(quote from "Where is God's true Church?" by David C. Pack)

Most, if not all, the 10 points you (your link) raised are answered in some way in the two links I provided. I will leave it to the reader to look them up.

"One" thing that puzzles me is this statement in the papacy article, Byblos.

Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house

Byblos, isn't Christ the cornerstone and foundation of the church?

FFC wrote:"One" thing that puzzles me is this statement in the papacy article, Byblos.

Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house

Byblos, isn't Christ the cornerstone and foundation of the church?

Most definitely, Christ is the cornerstone of his universal church and by virtue of his appointment of Peter as the Rock on which Christ's church is built makes Peter (and by extension his successors) the physical continuity of that foundation. It is not a replacement, it's a continuous representation, here on earth.

Byblos, where do you get that Peter was the rock on which Christ built His church?

Byblos wrote:Most, if not all, the 10 points you (your link) raised are answered in some way in the two links I provided. I will leave it to the reader to look them up.

Did your link answer my post, or did my post answer your link?