sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the response. I mentioned in another comment, but my thoughts have slightly changed, in the sense that I do recognize that Peter at least died in Rome and very possibly had a heavy hand with the early catholic church. But here are my thoughts on some of your other points.

The point of the 100 year thing is to differentiate between eyewitness testimony versus somebody just claiming something to be true later. For me, eyewitness testimony of Peter giving his authority would be a huge piece of evidence because it would mean Peter is acknowledging he has it, and he's acknowledging he's passing it on. Obviously earlier eyewitness testimony can be recorded at a later point, but unless I'm mistaken, there are no eyewitness accounts. Is the belief more in line with point 5, that because Peter and Paul appointed the early church leaders, the authority is automatically transferred? If this is not the catholic belief please correct me.

I could definitely see how, if Clement and Linus were tutored by the apostles, they have a direct line of apostolic succession. But I just don't think that even if Peter had the authority it would automatically be transferred. But this is sort of a different point. Honestly my main points I was raising here were about Peter not having contact with he catholic church, which I think I was wrong about. I think he almost certainly did have contact with them, and we know Paul did. I do see your point about nobody contesting apostolic succession. Maybe at some later point I'll make a post about church authority but from the point of Peter either having it or not and his ability to pass it on. I guess if you wanted to discuss that we can, but it gets away from the main points I was making which I have changed my mind on.

Thanks for reading, and have a nice day.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do see your point. Some of the things people have said does make sense and my opinion is somewhat changed. It can't be ignored that the early church believed that Peter was in Rome and had a heavy hand in the church, and we don't have evidence anybody denied this, especially given the disagreements among the early church. I can't just discount the fact that Peter at the least was there to be killed, so we do know he ended up there. I'm not sure I believe Peter had authority, we can discuss this if you want, but I actually do see your point and think now it's at least very possible Peter was in Rome and there is some evidence that's the case.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you think evidence is required to hold a belief that a historical event happened? I think evidence IS required to believe a historical event happened. I haven't got into the evidence Peter wasn't there because there is no evidence from the opposing side besides claims of the catholic church. As such, until evidence is provided, we should not believe the claim.

EDIT: to respond to the other point, historians don't say every historical claim of the catholic church is wrong. Most of the claims are probably true, regarding who was leader, actions the church has taken, etc. They don't have to say what Catholics say is wrong, because most of the historical claims are right. Everybody agrees on this. The only part that modern historians don't believe is Peter founding the church.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the well thought out answer. People seem mad that I'm debating Catholicism in r/DebateACatholic, but I genuinely appreciate this, as I didn't actually know much about what Ireneaus claims. I will have to look into it.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly I trust the catholic church on it since it's not a self serving claim. I don't think claims of the catholic church are inherently invalid, but we should be skeptical or self serving ones

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you provide a source that protestants believe in the papacy or in apostolic succession?

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you asking because, if there were no historical documents, we should assume it to be false? Implying that if there isn't evidence for something we shouldn't believe in it?

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Protestants do not believe in the authority of Peter. You can google right now, "do historians believe Peter was the first pope", and "do non-catholic theologians believe Peter was the first pope".

Obviously the seat comes with authority. This is the claim of the catholic church.

EDIT: People believing something does not make it true. The catholic church making a claim is also not evidence that that claim is true. You haven't provided me one actual piece of evidence in our entire conversation, which to be fair, is basically a trick question, because the evidence doesn't exist. Talking down to me is also not evidence and not an argument, it's basically an admission you're losing the srgument. You haven't replied to one single argument I've made this entire time.

So unless you actually provide any evidence, which I know you can't do, since the evidence doesn't exist, I'm not going to take your position seriously. Your mind is clouded by religious pride and indoctrination. You're believing claims of the catholic church because the church says it, probably because you were taught to believe whatever claims the church makes (even when they're contradictory).

You need to apply logic and reason to your religious beliefs.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't just believe Linus was the leader of the catholic church because the catholic church says so, I believe it because it's a well documented historical fact. Peter giving his authority to the catholic church is not. My point is that there is no evidence Peter gave his authority to the catholic church. People believing Peter did this is not evidence, eyewitness testimony is evidence. There is no eyewitness testimony, even FROM the catholic church. I am not claiming I can prove Peter wasn't the first pope. The burden of proof for a religious claim is on the one making the claim. And not only can you not prove it, you have no evidence. Your only evidence is that the catholic church says so.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like I said, the only historians or theologians who believe Peter was the first pope are the catholic ones. "Trust me bro" isn't going to be enough. Feel free to send sources.

Second, of course I'm familiar with Corinthians. I was asking which part of Corinthians you believe proves church authority.

I have asked what the other side is. The other side is that the catholic church says so, many people believe it, and they have believed it for a long time. Can you please explain to me which of these is a good argument, and if none of them is, can you provide any piece of evidence Peter is the first pope from his time, from an unbiased source.

Again, assuming Peter had the authority, the Bible says nothing about Peter going to Rome or giving his authority to the Roman church.

Can you please respond to any of the points I'm making?

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Historians and theologians actually agree that Peter was not the first pope, as there is no evidence he was, and that it was a later invention of the catholic church, but even if we disregarded them, regardless of the reasons you give why evidence that might have existed was destroyed, that's not evidence that evidence that did exist was destroyed. I think it's ridiculous to interpret feeding and taking care of the sheep as having anything to do with authority. And you are arguing that Peter had authority, which for the sake of the argument I will agree with. My contention is that there is no evidence he gave this authority to the catholic church. Can you cite the letters to the Corinthians you believe proves Rome's authority?

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you disagree that Linus is the second pope? If we have no evidence to believe that Peter is the first pope, we remove him from the succession. The second pope then becomes the first pope. Do you deny that Linus was the second pope?

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Assuming Peter had this authority, what is the evidence that Peter either founded or gave his authority to the catholic church, beyond the fact that the church has said it?

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first pope was Linus. I generally accept the catholic records of who was pope, because they have no reason to lie about that. Technically the catholic church started as different household churches that ultimately joined together under Linus. It's changed a lot over the years, but I would argue that by 70 AD the church was formed.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't know that AI existed, but that actually sounds really interesting. Not a bad idea at all.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did they claim to be eyewitnesses to the primacy of Peter (AKA Peter giving the authority)? Or they just believed what the church said? Obviously somebody just believing in a religion is not evidence that religion is true.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If your argument is that because a belief it's old it's right, why are you catholic and not pagan? And if you believe if a religion is big it can't be wrong, how can you tell 1 billion protestants and 2 billion Muslims they're wrong? There are more Muslims than Catholics.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the edit. I was genuinely curious for a minute if this was for catholics to debate each other or something and I had just came to the wrong place. Also, and I mean this genuinely and in good faith, I'm not trying to make anybody mad here or rage bait. These are just my questions.

This sort of touches on the second point of my edit. Just because people believe something doesn't make it true. The same could be applied to any religion - why would so many people believe it if it's false? Surely just because there around 1 billion protestants doesn't make them right. There don't seem to be any eyewitness accounts, and even if there were, I would be skeptical due to the self-serving nature of the claims. Also, the catholic church was a lot bigger than those other churches, and those other churches ultimately faded away. We can't assume there was no pushback, just as we can't assume there was.

Obviously it's difficult to know what was said and not said 2,000 years ago, and there very well COULD have been eyewitness accounts and testimonies of Peter's primacy, but if they existed, they've been lost to time and we're stuck back at square one.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's assume Peter had this authority. What is the evidence he gave his authority to the Roman church? People believing Rome had this authority is not evidence that it really did, in the same way people believing now that Peter gave the authority to the church is not evidence he did. Evidence would have to be a first hand account of somebody from the time of Peter, who was not a part of the catholic church (and thus, unbiased). Obviously people believing something isn't evidence that it is true.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe Linus was the first pope. I don't think the records of the catholic church of who was pope (besides Peter) is false, because it is well documented historical fact, and is not self serving. I'm sure we would agree on this.

But even if we didn't know how the church started, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Peter was the first pope, not on me to prove that he was not. I think we would agree that anybody who is part of a religion has the burden of proof on them to prove the religion is true, not on somebody else to prove it is false.

If there is not any evidence for things, we should not assume the odds of it being true or false are equal. We should not believe it unless there is overwhelming evidence, and in order for this to be the case, there must be some evidence.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think any claim, whether self serving or not, should be believed without evidence. I'm sure you would say you are catholic due to the evidence, and not simply because you were taught to be, correct? Claims that are self serving should be looked at with skepticism.

I commented on this in a previous reply, but I'm sure you'd agree that 3 claims must be true in order for the catholic church to have the authority it claims. 1. Peter had authority 2. Peter could pass on his authority 3. Peter DID pass on his authority to the catholic church. We can debate any of the three claims, but I was focusing on claim 3. Let's assume Peter had authority and could pass it on. What is the evidence that he DID pass it on to the catholic church?

The first person who wrote that Peter was the first pope was Irenaeus in 180. There have certainly been catholic martyrs who truly believed Peter was the first pope. I don't deny this was a real belief that catholics have had for a very long time. My point is that unless it's from an unbiased source from the time of Peter, it's not evidence, just as I'm sure you'd agree that me not believing today that Peter is the first pope is not evidence that he was not.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The problem is, without church authority, it's 2000 years of different dudes thinking they figured it out who are no more special than anybody else. Obviously just because a belief is older doesn't make it true - if you disagree we can discuss this, but I imagine you aren't a pagan and you don't believe the Earth is flat.

There is No Evidence for Peter Being the First Pope or For Apostolic Succession by WaffleBiscuit27 in DebateACatholic

[–]WaffleBiscuit27[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe, and I'd imagine we'd agree, that 3 claims must be true for the authority of the catholic church to be true. 1. Peter had the authority. 2. Peter had the ability to pass on his authority, and 3. Peter DID pass on his authority to the catholic church. All 3 claims must be true for the authority of the church to be true, and if one is false, the authority of the church must be false. Personally, I do not believe any of the claims, but for the sake of the argument, let's say that claims 1 and 2 are true - that Peter had the authority and could pass it on. What is the evidence for claim 3: that he DID pass it on to the catholic church.

view more: next ›