POPE'S OFFICE IN THE BIBLE

[mjrhealth]

Its a real problem when an english pope and french pope want to go to war, to kill one another and still claim to be from God, go figure...

 

[epostle1]

I would like to point out that the Church, the family of God, is among other things a divinely ordained society and as in all societies there must be an authority whose word is final if chaos is to be avoided. The Jews, for example, had patriarchs, judges and the then kings as well as prophets. Other societies have authorities that govern have prime ministers, kings and presidents. Thus, ordinary human experience shows that the need for authority is primary, which is demonstrated by the fact that the “justification for the existence of authority is not that it works perfectly [for the authorities are sinners like us] or that it never makes mistakes, but simply the rule, no authority, no society.

 

[StanJ]

I would like to point out that the Church, the family of God, is among other things a divinely ordained society and as in all societies there must be an authority whose word is final if chaos is to be avoided. The Jews, for example, had patriarchs, judges and the then kings as well as prophets. Other societies have authorities that govern have prime ministers, kings and presidents. Thus, ordinary human experience shows that the need for authority is primary, which is demonstrated by the fact that the “justification for the existence of authority is not that it works perfectly [for the authorities are sinners like us] or that it never makes mistakes, but simply the rule, no authority, no society.

The Church is the living breathing Body of Christ. 1 Cor 12 (NIV), of whom Jesus Christ is the HEAD, Col 1:18 (NIV)

 

[mjrhealth]

What he said, its because men are trying to build our Lords church that it is so corrupt, and unGodly. there is one head and that is Christ, anyone else has usurped His authority and will pay the price.

 

[Bibliocentrist]

I would like to point out that the Church, the family of God, is among other things a divinely ordained society and as in all societies there must be an authority whose word is final if chaos is to be avoided. The Jews, for example, had patriarchs, judges and the then kings as well as prophets. Other societies have authorities that govern have prime ministers, kings and presidents. Thus, ordinary human experience shows that the need for authority is primary, which is demonstrated by the fact that the “justification for the existence of authority is not that it works perfectly [for the authorities are sinners like us] or that it never makes mistakes, but simply the rule, no authority, no society.

Yes the bible and Judaeo-Christianity says that christians have to respect and submit to all civil and/or religious authorities (even if they are built on a lie), and it is a true fact of life/universe/nature (and is recognised in some other worldviews like national socialism). (Though sometimes christians have to choose between God and man.) But i find it extremely hard to have any respect for authority after suffering 42 years hell so far (even if some may be partly due to my own faults/bad/sickness/wrong/dumbness/dysgenic & pride/rebelion), and when mean God/Nature/history made some of us dumber/lower/sicker/bader than others. It is also not very good papal being partly based on a lie (as we have shown that the first 46+ popes were really Roman emperors). Human authority must also be balanced by responsibility (to higher or peers or lower). Who is the author?

 

[epostle1]

The Church is the living breathing Body of Christ. 1 Cor 12 (NIV), of whom Jesus Christ is the HEAD, Col 1:18 (NIV)

What he said, its because men are trying to build our Lords church that it is so corrupt, and unGodly. there is one head and that is Christ, anyone else has usurped His authority and will pay the price.

Is the Church a visible, physically identifiable reality with an institutional government that keeps guard over doctrine and discipline, or is it a kind of invisible, loose union of various communities of Christians with different opinions on doctrinal questions and no institutional reality beyond the local level?

 

[StanJ]

Is the Church a visible, physically identifiable reality with an institutional government that keeps guard over doctrine and discipline, or is it a kind of invisible, loose union of various communities of Christians with different opinions on doctrinal questions and no institutional reality beyond the local level?

Neither...it's what I gave you in the post you read and quoted here, but apparently ignored.

 

[epostle1]

The Church is the living breathing Body of Christ. 1 Cor 12 (NIV), of whom Jesus Christ is the HEAD, Col 1:18 (NIV)

Neither...it's what I gave you in the post you read and quoted here, but apparently ignored.

I ignored it because I had nothing to say. I have no disagreement with 1 Cor 12, Col 1:18, you may as well have told me water is wet. But those verses do not negate, supplant or contradict anything I have said.

Though Protestants and Catholics have many points of disagreement, it seems the most fundamental area of conflict has to do with the nature of the Church. Is the Church a visible, physically identifiable reality with an institutional government that keeps guard over doctrine and discipline, or is it a kind of invisible, loose union of various communities of Christians with different opinions on doctrinal questions and no institutional reality beyond the local level?
You said neither.
Both Protestants and Catholics acknowledge the Church has an invisible, supernatural element; Catholics, however, assert that in addition the Church has a physical, visible side - that it is physically identifiable on this earth. Protestants, following Luther, tend to view the Church as a fundamentally invisible reality. ...we will examine the biblical passages that point to the Church as a physical, institutional reality in conformity with Catholic Tradition.

Please keep in mind, we do not deny that the Church is also a spiritual-invisible reality, nor do we assert that salvation is strictly predicated only of those who are formally part of the physical Church structure - although we confess such an arrangement to be normative. In emphasizing the physical-institutional aspect of the Church, we do not mean to deny the invisible. Rather, as Christ Himself was both God and man, divine and human, so the Church, too, is a kind of incarnation, divine and supernatural while also physical and institutional.
Matt. 16:17-19

As Catholics we are extremely used to citing this passage in context of discussions about the primacy of St. Peter and the prerogatives of the papal office. However, we often overlook the broader implications of the verse: the establishment of a visible hierarchy. When Jesus Christ institutes His Church, He institutes a physical authority structure that will govern that Church. This verse should be read in parallel with Luke 10:16, when Christ says to all the Apostles, "Whoever hears you hears me, and whoever hears me hears Him who sent me." The point is Jesus establishes His Church not just to preach, but to have a real authority, the very authority with which Christ is sent by the Father. This is why the Apostles, always in union with Peter, have the duty not only to preach but also the authority to bind and loose.

In short, a Church with authority to bind and loose must have a physical presence; an amorphous, spiritual communion of all believers might be able to preach, but not bind and loose. This 'spiritual Church' model does not fit very well with our Lord's description of the powers the Church is to have. This is why Protestants have traditionally struggled with these verses about binding and loosing; once we presume that the Church is purely spiritual, "binding and loosing" can only have a spiritualized meaning, which is why many Protestants interpret this verse to mean that individual believers have authority to "bind" evil spirits in the name of Jesus. This makes little sense for a few reasons:

First, it makes sense why one would "bind" and evil spirit, but when would you ever need to "loosen" one? [1]
Second, "binding and loosing" in the rabbinical jargon Jesus is using always refers to the binding and loosing of the faithful to certain disciplines, never to spiritual powers. Third, Jesus says whatsoever you bind "on earth" shall be bound in heaven; he is not referring to the spirit world, but to the world of men. The traditional understanding, that the power of binding and loosing refers to the authority of the Church's legitimate pastors to bind believers in matters of dogma and discipline, fits the passage much better. Because this binding and loosing is also "bound in heaven", it is authoritative - and only a physically constituted authority structure can bind and loose authoritatively. Otherwise, we are left with mere opinion and interpretation.

Luke 10:16​

Like the passage about binding and loosing, this passage denotes that the preaching of the Apostles is authoritative. To hear the Apostles is to hear Christ; the preaching of the Apostles is the agency through which faith in Christ is born. "And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me" (John 17:20); St. Paul says the same, "Faith then comes by hearing; and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17). The word of the Apostles is life-giving; not only this, but despising the message means despising Christ, and thus God the Father. Jesus do not say,"He who does not believe the Scriptures despises me", but "He who despises you despises me." The message comes with authority. An invisible Church - a loose spiritual communion of Christians with diverse beliefs about everything from baptism to salvation to the Rapture to the morality of contraception - cannot preach an authoritative message. There is no common witness. Only a message coming from something that has an institutional nature can possess this kind of authority.

Matt. 18:15-17

The Church must have a visible structure in order for someone to "tell it to the Church." It could be argued that this simply means to take the problem to the community, but that it says nothing about the nature or structure of that community. We could respond by noting the authority our Lord gives to that community. "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and tax collector." Our Lord expresses a kind of disbelief that someone would refuse to listen to the Church and proscribes a kind of excommunication if they refuse their obedience. A loose spiritual communion cannot command this kind of obedience. The proscription for shunning, "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector", would make no sense in such a spiritual communion because a person who did not like the judgment of one "church" could just go down the road to another that would give him a favorable judgment. The authority Jesus invests in the Church is meaningless unless there is one Church and unless it has some sort of physical constitution.

John 17:20-21​

Here we see that the Church's unity is the source of the credibility of her message. The oneness of the Church with the Father and the Son is the reason "that the world may believe." The world is to believe based on the unity of the Church, that unity must be visible - otherwise, how would the world behold it? It is true that the Church could have an internal, moral unity, but this alone is not sufficient. It is true that the essence of the Church's unity is an internal reality based on the union of the Father with the Son that Christ bestowed upon His Church. However, unity as a mark of the Church is not primarily this internal unity; it is the external, visible unity that flows from that inner unity. That is why unity is one of the Four Marks; the marks are supposed to be visible realities that identify the true Church and distinguish it from false sects. A unity that is ultimately invisible is of no use and cannot be the Oneness that Christ gave to the Church.

read more here

 

[StanJ]

The Church is the living breathing Body of Christ. 1 Cor 12 (NIV), of whom Jesus Christ is the HEAD, Col 1:18 (NIV)
I ignored it because I had nothing to say. I have no disagreement with 1 Cor 12, Col 1:18, you may as well have told me water is wet. But those verses do not negate, supplant or contradict anything I have said.

and thus you prove your inculcation. Copying and pasting RCC apologetics won't make it any more palatable for those that know better.

 

[epostle1]

and thus you prove your inculcation. Copying and pasting RCC apologetics won't make it any more palatable for those that know better.

The truth is not always agreeable. I would expect those that "know better" would reply with more than an empty one liner.

 

[StanJ]

The truth is not always agreeable. I would expect those that "know better" would reply with more than an empty one liner.

Truth doesn't require onerous explanations and man-made justifications. It's simple and readily to be taken in by those who are child like.

Usually it's not agreeable to those who don't trust God or His word and are inculcated.

Jesus was a man of many one liners...that is how simple truth is.

 

[epostle1]

Truth doesn't require onerous explanations and man-made justifications. It's simple and readily to be taken in by those who are child like.

Usually it's not agreeable to those who don't trust God or His word and are inculcated.

Jesus was a man of many one liners...that is how simple truth is.

What you mean is your private version of truth according to your infallible opinion of what His word says.
The Church has a physical/institutional element or she cannot function. Christ Himself was both God and man, divine and human, so the Church, too, is a kind of incarnation, divine and supernatural while also physical and institutional. You deny this biblical reality.
Only a physical/institutional Church can bind and loose, you also deny this biblical reality.
Then there is the issue of authority. How can you tell me "Truth doesn't require onerous explanations and man-made justifications" when you are in disagreement with most of Protestantism on important doctrinal issues like baptism, salvation, contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, and ordaining women? Everybody claims to "follow the Bible" so what makes you different from everybody else? Where is your credibility over and above all the other sola scripturists?

The authority Jesus invests in the Church is meaningless unless there is one Church and unless it has some sort of physical constitution. This is the simple truth, yet you cannot seem to comprehend it because it violates your inculcations.

I posted #68 because we got off on a tangent about the nature of the Church. If you can't comprehend it, it would be wise to say nothing.

 

[StanJ]

What you mean is your private version of truth according to your infallible opinion of what His word says.

No, I meant what I said. You're the one that continually twists and prevaricate about what others say, much like the RCC does. They've taught you well in that regard.

 

[epostle1]

No, I meant what I said. You're the one that continually twists and prevaricate about what others say, much like the RCC does.

Either quote where I have "twists and prevaricate about what others say" or stop with the false accusations. If you can find an anti-Protestant web site operated by loyal Catholics that misrepresents or lies about your faith or anybody else's, post it. There aren't any. But there are billions of "bible Christian" web sites obsessed with persecuting Catholics. Your statement is sheer hypocrisy.

You cannot or will not refute or rebutt post #68. probably because you are ill-equipped. I won't hold your ignorance against you. At the same time, I don't need your childish insults, which is all you can offer. I wont be replying to you anymore as you are on my ignore list.

 

[Bibliocentrist]

I have no problem with alot of what you say. Its fine except for the problem that i can't find any (?biblical and) historical proof for the primacy of "Peter"/Rome (i mean the list of bishops/popes). I really dislike not being able to do anything about my "the first 46+ popes are really Roman emperors" discovery and that no one else seems to care, but i am in enough trouble with God/devil/man/self as it is. All i can do is say that i have given people (or God seemed to give me) the answer to this thing which has been used ever since at least the synod of Whitby 665 if they want (maybe i am not to know because of pride). It all hangs on the chain from "Peter" to now and if any few or more links (or if even one link) is false then is untrue.
It is an interesting question about if one church/body with a central organisation. Perhaps the 7 churches in Revelation/Apocalypse might have some answer. In some translations Laodiceans is plural in difference to the first 6 churches.

 

[epostle1]

I have no problem with alot of what you say. Its fine except for the problem that i can't find any (?biblical and) historical proof for the primacy of "Peter"/Rome (i mean the list of bishops/popes).

I've given you the list several times. Each pope on the list is hyperlinked for more details. Here it is again.

Peter speaks for all of the Apostles
In several places in the Scriptures, Peter speaks for all of the Apostles – the others are not consulted, or they simply assumed to agree with Peter. This shows that Peter was the leader of the group.
Matthew 19:27, Mark 8:29, Luke 8:45, 12:41, John 6:69

“Peter and his companions”
When describing the Apostles, the Gospels writers often chose not to list them individually by name or even write something like “the followers of Jesus” but rather wrote “Peter and his companions”. Clearly, one does not describe a group of followers of another man as “Peter and his companions” unless Peter is the leader.
Luke 9:32, Mark 16:7, Acts 3:37

Peter heads every list
When the Gospel writers do give a list of the Apostles by name, Peter's name heads every single list. This is far more than just a co-incidence, especially when taken with all the other evidence.
Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13

Peter leads the meeting to replace Judas
When the Apostles decide to replace Judas in Acts 1:13-26 it is Peter who is clearly “in charge” and leading or chairing the meeting.

Peter's name outnumbers any other Apostle's
The names of all the Apostles appear in Scripture – what many people do not realize is that Peter's name appears 195 times in Scripture, which is more than all the rest put together. If Peter is no more important than them, why is his name mentioned so many times more?

The Keys of the Kingdom
In Matthew 16:19 (immediately after the “On this rock” verse) Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. This is an example of typology – the type being referenced here is the prime minister of the old Judaic Kingdom (referenced in Isaiah 19:20-22.) The keys to the kingdom were a symbolic representation of the authority to make pronouncements and judgments in the King's name (the authority to “bind and loose”). The fact the same phrase is used in both passages of Scripture makes the comparison clear. Peter is being appointed as the prime minister of the new Kingdom – an office which has the authority to speak for the King (Jesus). It is necessary to understand that the Petrine office of the prime minister of the kingdom does not give him authority to “dictate” to Heaven – the authority itself remains with God, but it is exercised on earth through the office of the pope. And while the pope in theory has the authority to do anything, he is protected from error by the infallibility of his office.

Jesus prays for Peter so that he may strengthen others
In Luke 22:32 Jesus says that He has prayed for Peter so that Peter may be able to support the other Apostles – He does not pray for them as separate individuals. This clearly shows that Peter is viewed by Jesus as the head of the Apostles, and as representing the entire Church.

Peter is appointed shepherd of Christ's flock
In John 21:17 Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep – appointing him shepherd of His flock. This is a command given specifically to Peter, and not the rest of the Apostles. We are all required to carry out spiritual and corporal works of mercy, but the Jesus' words make it very clear that Peter had a specific and special responsibility.

The angel specifically mentions Peter
When Mary Magdalena goes to the tomb on Easter Sunday morning, she sees an angel who tells her to go and tell Jesus' followers that He is risen. In Mark 16:7 the angel makes a very special point of telling Mary to inform Peter; his name is the only name mentioned.

Jesus appears to Peter
In Luke 24:34 the Apostles say that Jesus has appeared to Simon [Peter] – they do not mention any other appearances, nor that they have seen Him themselves. Either the appearance to Peter was the only one which they were aware of, or they recognized that it was the only one worth mentioning. In either case, the importance of Peter is clear.

Peter leads the early Church
In the book of Acts there are many instances of Peter taking the initiative and being the first person to undertake a number of tasks or responsibilities. While individuals might take the initiative here and there, only the recognized and authentic leader of the Church would undertake all of these “firsts”;
Acts 2:14 – Peter leads the Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 – Peter received the first converts
Acts 3:6-7 – Peter performed the first miracle at Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 – Peter inflicted the first punishment (Ananias & Saphira)
Acts 8:21 – Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 15:7 – Peter led the first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:9 – Peter pronounces the first dogmatic decision

Peter is given divine revelation
Peter is given divine revelation – and not just any revelation, but the revelation that Gentiles are to be allowed into the Church – in Acts 10:44-46. This is such a significant and important aspect of Christianity – its universal scope – that it underscores Peter's authority.

Saint Paul visits Peter
In Galatians 1:18 Saint Paul writes that he visited Cephas [Peter] when he was in Jerusalem – why would he do this if Peter did not have some sort of authority? He specifically says that he saw no other Apostles, except James the brother of the Lord (who was the Bishop of Jerusalem – so it would be logical for him, as a matter of courtesy, to visit him). But why does Paul meet specifically with Peter and no-one else? The logical answer is that Peter has an authority which the other Apostles do not.
The various scriptural evidences do not exist on their own or in isolation; no single verse is a firm proof of Petrine Primacy. However, when taken as a whole, together with the non-Scriptural support, they form a very compelling case against which it is difficult to logically argue.
source
Still can't find the provided biblical proof? Here is a list of non-scriptural historical proof that you can't find either. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make him drink. Not seeing something is one thing, refusing to see is something else.

I really dislike not being able to do anything about my "the first 46+ popes are really Roman emperors" discovery and that no one else seems to care, but i am in enough trouble with God/devil/man/self as it is.

You should leave it alone. There is nothing in the historical record supporting such a wacky theory, and you are not a historian. Given that such a large number of popes were martyred by emperors your theory is highly insulting to those who offered their lives for the sake of the Gospel.

All i can do is say that i have given people (or God seemed to give me) the answer to this thing which has been used ever since at least the synod of Whitby 665 if they want (maybe i am not to know because of pride). It all hangs on the chain from "Peter" to now and if any few or more links (or if even one link) is false then is untrue.
It is an interesting question about if one church/body with a central organisation. Perhaps the 7 churches in Revelation/Apocalypse might have some answer. In some translations Laodiceans is plural in difference to the first 6 churches.


It is impossible for any society, religious or secular, to function without some form of authority. Anarchy is not a functioning society.

 

[mjrhealth]

There is any authority His name is Jesus whos authority your pope / church usurped, stole, it is beacuse of mens religion tha tthere is so much "anarchy:" as you put it and your church is one of the worst offenders. And by the way the JWs use the same arguement abt one church to trap people as well.

 

[epostle1]

There is any authority His name is Jesus whos authority your pope / church usurped, stole, it is beacuse of mens religion tha tthere is so much "anarchy:" as you put it and your church is one of the worst offenders. And by the way the JWs use the same arguement abt one church to trap people as well.

I don't deny that Jesus has all authority. Of course He does. But you deny He has the authority to give His authority to sinful human beings. You make Jesus weak and impotent here on earth without a representative, contrary to numerous OT prophecies, contrary to list after list of NT evidence, and contrary to centuries of Christian writings. . It's not my fault you refuse the numerous scripture citations on the Primacy of Peter. If you have a beef against the divinely appointed authority of the Catholic Church, support your contentions with scripture, and/or historical facts, not brainless emotional zingers.

 

[Bibliocentrist]

I've given you the list several times. Each pope on the list is hyperlinked for more details. Here it is again.

It is just a list (of alledged popes). If even just one or a few links are false then its all false. I objectively studied/researched/analysed the list (when/after you had almost totally convinced me) and just happened to unexpectedly discover the first 46 at least are fake. I am not able to study hyperlinks of every one of 266 popes. But from all that we have studied of the first 46 popes so far there is not any doubt that our discovery is right.

Peter speaks for all of the Apostles
In several places in the Scriptures, Peter speaks for all of the Apostles – the others are not consulted, or they simply assumed to agree with Peter. This shows that Peter was the leader of the group.
Matthew 19:27, Mark 8:29, Luke 8:45, 12:41, John 6:69

“Peter and his companions”
When describing the Apostles, the Gospels writers often chose not to list them individually by name or even write something like “the followers of Jesus” but rather wrote “Peter and his companions”. Clearly, one does not describe a group of followers of another man as “Peter and his companions” unless Peter is the leader.
Luke 9:32, Mark 16:7, Acts 3:37

Peter heads every list
When the Gospel writers do give a list of the Apostles by name, Peter's name heads every single list. This is far more than just a co-incidence, especially when taken with all the other evidence.
Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13

Peter leads the meeting to replace Judas
When the Apostles decide to replace Judas in Acts 1:13-26 it is Peter who is clearly “in charge” and leading or chairing the meeting.

Peter's name outnumbers any other Apostle's
The names of all the Apostles appear in Scripture – what many people do not realize is that Peter's name appears 195 times in Scripture, which is more than all the rest put together. If Peter is no more important than them, why is his name mentioned so many times more?

The Keys of the Kingdom
In Matthew 16:19 (immediately after the “On this rock” verse) Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. This is an example of typology – the type being referenced here is the prime minister of the old Judaic Kingdom (referenced in Isaiah 19:20-22.) The keys to the kingdom were a symbolic representation of the authority to make pronouncements and judgments in the King's name (the authority to “bind and loose”). The fact the same phrase is used in both passages of Scripture makes the comparison clear. Peter is being appointed as the prime minister of the new Kingdom – an office which has the authority to speak for the King (Jesus). It is necessary to understand that the Petrine office of the prime minister of the kingdom does not give him authority to “dictate” to Heaven – the authority itself remains with God, but it is exercised on earth through the office of the pope. And while the pope in theory has the authority to do anything, he is protected from error by the infallibility of his office.

Jesus prays for Peter so that he may strengthen others
In Luke 22:32 Jesus says that He has prayed for Peter so that Peter may be able to support the other Apostles – He does not pray for them as separate individuals. This clearly shows that Peter is viewed by Jesus as the head of the Apostles, and as representing the entire Church.

Peter is appointed shepherd of Christ's flock
In John 21:17 Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep – appointing him shepherd of His flock. This is a command given specifically to Peter, and not the rest of the Apostles. We are all required to carry out spiritual and corporal works of mercy, but the Jesus' words make it very clear that Peter had a specific and special responsibility.

The angel specifically mentions Peter
When Mary Magdalena goes to the tomb on Easter Sunday morning, she sees an angel who tells her to go and tell Jesus' followers that He is risen. In Mark 16:7 the angel makes a very special point of telling Mary to inform Peter; his name is the only name mentioned.

Jesus appears to Peter
In Luke 24:34 the Apostles say that Jesus has appeared to Simon [Peter] – they do not mention any other appearances, nor that they have seen Him themselves. Either the appearance to Peter was the only one which they were aware of, or they recognized that it was the only one worth mentioning. In either case, the importance of Peter is clear.

Peter leads the early Church
In the book of Acts there are many instances of Peter taking the initiative and being the first person to undertake a number of tasks or responsibilities. While individuals might take the initiative here and there, only the recognized and authentic leader of the Church would undertake all of these “firsts”;
Acts 2:14 – Peter leads the Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 – Peter received the first converts
Acts 3:6-7 – Peter performed the first miracle at Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 – Peter inflicted the first punishment (Ananias & Saphira)
Acts 8:21 – Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 15:7 – Peter led the first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:9 – Peter pronounces the first dogmatic decision

Peter is given divine revelation
Peter is given divine revelation – and not just any revelation, but the revelation that Gentiles are to be allowed into the Church – in Acts 10:44-46. This is such a significant and important aspect of Christianity – its universal scope – that it underscores Peter's authority.

Saint Paul visits Peter
In Galatians 1:18 Saint Paul writes that he visited Cephas [Peter] when he was in Jerusalem – why would he do this if Peter did not have some sort of authority? He specifically says that he saw no other Apostles, except James the brother of the Lord (who was the Bishop of Jerusalem – so it would be logical for him, as a matter of courtesy, to visit him). But why does Paul meet specifically with Peter and no-one else? The logical answer is that Peter has an authority which the other Apostles do not.
The various scriptural evidences do not exist on their own or in isolation; no single verse is a firm proof of Petrine Primacy. However, when taken as a whole, together with the non-Scriptural support, they form a very compelling case against which it is difficult to logically argue.
source
Still can't find the provided biblical proof? Here is a list of non-scriptural historical proof that you can't find either. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make him drink. Not seeing something is one thing, refusing to see is something else.

I do not deny/dispute that Peter had some sort-of primacy in the bible. (I am not totally sure whether the different keys are the same or not though since different names. I am also not totally sure i agree that the keys = authority. My reading of the English translation says Eliakim will be uprooted?) But what i meant is that there is no biblical proof of any of the alledged successors of Peter.

And aside from biblical there must also be historical too. There is no historical proof for it. Top historians say we are unable to tell whether Peter was at Rome or Babylon (its 50/50 whether was/wasn't according to traditional sources). Top historians say 1 Clement is spurious [i also think a cryptologist should study it too]. Our discovery that the first 46+ popes certainly really match the Roman emperors is pretty certain. There is no reliable proof of the early bishops/popes (persons/names), other than dubious Roman church/fathers writings which could be ingenuine.

I have compiled this list of historical evidences we have so far collected, and alot are not really reliable as not possibly being ingenuine:

- Peter in Matthew 16 & 1 Clement. Via Appia archaeological evidence [but may be Paul's house not Peter's house]. Nero persecution/martyrs 67 ad.
- Linus in NT [but doesn't mention him as pope/bishop/succesor] c70.
- Clement issued '1 Clement' c 96 mentioning Peter [but Historians say the letter is spurious]. ("possible independent sources at the time"?)
- Ignatius letter to Romans c110 mentions Peter & Paul.
- "council of Rome 155"
- Eusebius mentions Dionysius letter 178 mentioning Peter & Paul at Rome, pope Soter.
- st Hegesippus discussed contemporary Eleuterus c180. [Lucius 1st christian king Britain?]
- "council of Rome193"
- irenaeus c180/195/bef200 (contemp Victor 1) mentions Peter & Paul at Rome, Linus.
- tertullian 199/bef200 mentions roman church, peter, clement & callistus.
- enemies writings about callistus 1 c222.
- "Pontian earliest exact date" 230; "Pontian exiled by Maximinus".
- Eusebius wrote histories [not sure he is same as the pope of same c 310 date(s) though? "Pope Eusebius banished/exiled by Maxentius"?]
<- silvester 1 (314-335) built basilica of St Peter? silvester Nicea council? Rome primacy at Nicea 325?>
- Mark compile stories of martyrs c 330s. (Believed he founded 2 churches.)
- Liberius exiled by Constantius c355. Liberius signed onto a heretical creed?
- Jerome mentions [Peter,] Clement. Damasus patron of jerome, commisioned vulgate.
- Siricius letters/decretal/decree c 390.
<- Innocent organise Church/primacy c410.>
- Leo 1 wrote the Tome c 450. (Council Chalcedon. Supposedly met Attila the Hun 440.)
- Gelasius letters/essays 490s.
- John 1 confined by Theodoric, d 526.
<- pelagius1constructbasilica.>
<- pelagius2orderedconstrucbasilic>
- Gregory prolific writer c 600. (Employed titles. Gregorian chant. Augustine.)
- edict of the Emperor Phocas, in a.d. 606, constituting Boniface III.
- Adeodatus 615-8 lead seals on documents/bulls.
- Honorius 1 correspondence with Sergius of Constantinople c 630. (Anathemised by Council of Constantinople.)
- Martin 1 exiled by Constantine 2 c 655.
- synod of Whitby 665.
- "Pepin ceded lands to Stephan 2" 750s.
- "Pope Leo crowned Charlemagne" c 800.
- Vitalian earliest recorded use of pope in English mid-10th cent.


(I have to add the extra ones you just gave. (Please see that i do try to be as objective and thorough/perfectionist seeking all possible pro/con evidence as i can.))

I do not refuse to see. I see the things, but i don't see reliable proof of the early popes succession list as genuine, while i do see that the early popes match the emperors. Other side seem to refuse to see our correspondences evidences, and they see or claim to see the things as proof.
Either you are not able or willing to objectively consider our discovery evidences, or you must be high up in the Roman hierarchy.

wolf in sheeps clothing?

You should leave it alone. There is nothing in the historical record supporting such a wacky theory, and you are not a historian. Given that such a large number of popes were martyred by emperors your theory is highly insulting to those who offered their lives for the sake of the Gospel.

It is not true that there is nothing in the historical record to support our discovery/"theory". We have showed in tables and in a few extra details explanations that the first 46+ popes certainly match the Roman emperors.

What would you do if you made a wonderful discovery? Would you be able to keep it all to yourself? All i want is someone to privately/publicly say to me that one/some of my discoveries are right. All the discoveries i have made no one ever does. (Of course some might be wrong, but certainly some are not.)

The only reason i "should leave it alone" is because of my fear of man/devil/God, and because i don't want to offend catholics (and they don't want me to offend them). (In fact i am very afraid from what i have found, and almost wish i had not discovered it.)
I have been able to mostly leave it alone, and i will try to leave it alone, though it is not easy due to my negative condition & situation.

I am so a historian. Sure i am not overly much an academic level historian, but i nevertheless have certain historical ability and years experience and discoveries. No historian has studied my table yet as far as i know.

If the popes were really Roman emperors than it is vice-versa secretly "highly insulting" that the persecutors/martyrers have been enshrined as popes/saints.

It is impossible for any society, religious or secular, to function without some form of authority. Anarchy is not a functioning society.

Yes there has to be authority. But there are also other equally important things such as truth (not lies/fake/false/fraud), love, social, etc. Though the bible says christians have to respect all civil and/or religious authorities regardless of if they lie (except that sometimes christians have to choose between God and man but still have to respect).

​

I am not a catholic/christian hater. I just hate making discoveries and no one will give me any positive feedback on any of them (i.e. i am hated). And i hate suffering hell.

I would like nothing better than to be able to accept that the pope is genuine rep of Church/Peter/Jesus, but it is imposisble for me now because i see stark evidence of Roman imperial past and present.

"Pope(s) can't be emperor(s) [&/or vice-versa]"? :
The picture of John Paul 2 looks pretty much like an emperor/caesar to me.
The imperial eagle in the picture of Gregory 1.
The eagle on stand in churches.
The talk of "authority", and of protestant/nonconformist "rebelion/disobeying" (which smacks of Roman/Imperial/Caesarean claim to rule the whole Empire/Europe).
Pictures of the popes sitting on Throne.
The popes wearing crown.
The caesar/kepha similarity.
The "Roman"/Rome.
Wearing a signet ring.
(?Purple) robe.
Sceptre.
Shown with/in palatium in at least one picture.
At least one pope thought he could "override sovereigns". Francis meeting the British queen?
Popes carried on sedan chair like Pharaohs & gods.
Foot/feet on royal/imperial cousion.
At least the first 46 early popes/bishops really match Roman emperors (in names/meanings, details, dates/order) as we have shown.
"Revival of the Roman Empire" Maastricht 1992 (&/or Treaty of Rome 1957)?


616 / 6(6(6)) / 999 and Rome :
- Saturn is Stur in Aramaic with numeral value 666.
- Latinus has numerals value 666.
- Peter died 66 y.o. [Nero 67ad?]
- Nero(n) (Caesar) 666/616.
- 666 in Revelation numerals like letters of sex.
- Roman numerals (i, v, x, l, c, d) add upto 666.
- synod Whitby 665 ad.
- legion 6000/6200/6666 men?
- Romiith has numerals value 666.
- he Latine basleia has value 666.
- italika ekklesia has value 666.
- vicarius filii dei has value 666.
- dux cleri has value 666.
- Ludovicus (Romance for Louis &/or "chief vicar of the court of Rome") value 666.
- Paul V vice deo has value 666.
- Mussolini has numerals value 666.
[- 1996 'Clementine 2' recalls '1 Clement' [Domitian persecution]?]
- 266th Pope Francis 1, 266th day (2015).
Though I doubt if/that the papacy is the antichrist.

 

[epostle1]

The catacombs of St. Callixtus are among the greatest and most important of Rome.
They originated about the middle of the second century and are part of a cemeterial complex which occupies an area of 90 acres, with a network of galleries about 12 miles long, in four levels, more than twenty meters deep.
In it were buried tens of martyrs, 16 popes and very many Christians.

They were buried, Bibliocentrist, Emperors were cremated. You want it both ways.

The catacombs of St.Callixtus are among the greatest and most important of Rome. They originated about the middle of the second century and are part of a cemeterial complex. In it were buried tens of martyrs, 16 popes and very many Christians.

They are named after the deacon Callixtus who, at the beginning of the third century, was appointed by pope Zephyrinus as the administrator of the cemetery and so the catacombs of St.Callixtus became the official cemetery of the Church of Rome.

In the open area are two small basilicas with three apses, known as the "Trichorae". In the Eastern one were perhaps laid to rest pope Zephyrinus and the young martyr of the Eucharist, St.Tarcisius.
The underground cemetery includes several areas. The Crypts of Lucina and the area of the Popes and of St.Cecilia are the most ancient areas.

http://www.catacombe.roma.it/en/index.php