[yawn]

(Original post by Martyn*)
There's no way that the body of the apostle and disciple Peter could have been preserved. Peter was not historical. Mark's account of Peter comes from Pagan mythology, and Matthew's Peter confirms it. Additionally, the corpus of documents written by 'Peter' are considered Catholic and spurious, designed to heighten Peter's status in Church hierarchy. It was Anicetus who first decided that 'here lies Peter's body'. Before him no-one had a clue about where he was burried. Peter's death is another Catholic fiction as well.

St. Peter's body was not incorruptible. Just read the report before you comment again.

You have absolutely no evidence to support your claims other than the opinion of yourself or others who seek to denigrate the veracity of those who were closest in time to the apostles and their successors.

At least the report I linked to is substantial evidence from one source...there are others too. But since you have not provided anything of substance I see no need to provide any more substantive evidence until you raise your standards regarding your OP.

[Hylean]

(Original post by Martyn*)
1. I have connected Peter to Paganism via the god Janus, the Nabataen god Dhushara, and to Egyptian religion.
2. Greco-Roman. As an anthropologist and a linguist you can effortlessly connect ancient Greece to ancient Rome through a number of channels (i.e., language, ethics, philosophy, religion, etc).

But that's my point. You have done neither of those well. Nowhere near well enough for it to make a viable argument.

You make the same mistake that Frazier did in The Golden Bough. You think that any similarity is a sign of a direct link, through borrowing, absorption, etc. It doesn't have to be. Most scholars these days are wary of such a broad-scale comparative approach.

(Original post by Martyn*)
This would explain why Peter, or Simon-Peter, was given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Only because Janus the Roman god was also, at least metaphysically, given the keys to the entrances of every temple and home. Moreoever, Janus was known, according to an ancient Pagan prayer book, as Jane Pater ('Father Janus'). So I am wondering whether the Peter of Mark was originally Jewish, but that Matthew conflated him with the Roman Janus.

*according to linguistic studies the Latin word 'Pater' meant 'Father', as in 'Father of the household', as in the head of the house. Wasn't Peter the head of the church, the rock on which Jesus built the Church. Wasn't Mark referred to as Peter's son? Wasn't Mars (Marcien) the son of Janus in Pagan mythology?

Having a similar motif does not connect them. For a start, Mars was the son of Juno alone, with no connection to Janus. If you are going to try and use that as a reason, you first have to connect Mark to Mars beyond a similarity in name. So they both have keys... Not really a strong enough connection. In Greek and Norse mythologies there are examples of bound giants, but scholars are highly wary of linking them together.

(Original post by Martyn*)
We read that Simon-Peter was the 'rock' (Cephas), which clearly places him within Pagan mythology, for Petra was the home of the Nabataean god Dhushara, but also the Egyptian god Kef, of Kefia. Besides that, it could be that the name Peter, or Petros in Greek, was a corruption of the word 'Pater', the same word we find in the Pagan prayer book for the god Janus, the guardian of the gates, and entrances. Moreover, Janus was associated with January, and that can only mean one thing: the Great Flood. January was linked to the astrological sign Aquarius. And Aquarius the water-bearer features (presumably) in the Gospel of Mark!

Having a nickname descended from a Greek translation of a Semitic language (the word "kefa" that his name comes from being Syriac, only distantly related to Egyptian) makes it a bit of a stretch to stick him into Pagan mythology. Unless you want to suggest that anyone called Freyja these days is clearly an example of a pagan goddess? You assume that such things didn't happen back then as well?

If you're going to use etymology, at least do it properly. You forget that the OT was translated into Greek and thus "Peter", which the English version of the Greek "Petros" is actually a translation of the word used in the original document, which can be traced back to Syriac, as mentioned above. So it's not a corruption of "pater" in the slightest.

In fact this entire section reads as a polemic against such baseless connection drawing. It seems so over the top and ridiculous and weak. Especially the bit about the Flood and Aquarius, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I do believe this is meant to be a parody.

(Original post by Martyn*)
Interestingly, the name 'Pater' can be found in the name Ju-piter, the supreme god. The Greek equivalent of Jupiter was 'Zeus-Pater', and Zeus was associated with the mountains of Olympus. Remember the Nabataean god Dushara? This god was linked with the moutains of Petra.

Zeus was never called "Zeus-Pater".

Again, this appears to be a parody of such connections. It looks ridiculous and you have in no way shown that "Petra" is related to "Petros".

(Original post by Martyn*)
I also find the 'cock-crow' motif interesting.

Peter denies Jesus three times before the cock-crow. This is significant because Janus was associated with the sun at dawn!

Cock crows a few times in Norse mythology too.

(Original post by Martyn*)
Clearly, the early Christians incorporated Pagan astrology into their sacred scriptures. It's probably the reason why we have no original first century copies of any of the Gospels, save a few tiny fragments.

Clearly nothing.

All your evidence is weak at best. Either your scholarship is abyssmal or this is intended to be a critique of such scholarship. I can only hope for the latter.

[Romanorum-Hellas]

(Original post by yawn)
I wouldn't place much credence on what Diarmid MacCulloch has to say over and above the opinion of the scientists/archaeologists involved in examining the remains. This latest opinion concluded from the most recent excavations have so far not been refuted.

You can read the account of the excavation yourself on this link: http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Necro...fStPeter-8.htm

It is a lengthy account though, from start to finish. Maybe you could start at the end to read the conclusion and then go back to the beginning to see how they arrived at their determination.

Their conclusions are far from being grounded on indisputable evidence. Historians are generally educated in science and archaeology as well.

[Apeiron]

(Original post by Hylean)
Zeus was never called "Zeus-Pater".

As a name no, but 'pater' is a fairly common epithet of Zeus in early and classical Greek.

Otherwise, I agree completely.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Hylean)
But that's my point. You have done neither of those well. Nowhere near well enough for it to make a viable argument.

You make the same mistake that Frazier did in The Golden Bough. You think that any similarity is a sign of a direct link, through borrowing, absorption, etc. It doesn't have to be. Most scholars these days are wary of such a broad-scale comparative approach.




Having a similar motif does not connect them. For a start, Mars was the son of Juno alone, with no connection to Janus. If you are going to try and use that as a reason, you first have to connect Mark to Mars beyond a similarity in name. So they both have keys... Not really a strong enough connection. In Greek and Norse mythologies there are examples of bound giants, but scholars are highly wary of linking them together.




Having a nickname descended from a Greek translation of a Semitic language (the word "kefa" that his name comes from being Syriac, only distantly related to Egyptian) makes it a bit of a stretch to stick him into Pagan mythology. Unless you want to suggest that anyone called Freyja these days is clearly an example of a pagan goddess? You assume that such things didn't happen back then as well?

If you're going to use etymology, at least do it properly. You forget that the OT was translated into Greek and thus "Peter", which the English version of the Greek "Petros" is actually a translation of the word used in the original document, which can be traced back to Syriac, as mentioned above. So it's not a corruption of "pater" in the slightest.

In fact this entire section reads as a polemic against such baseless connection drawing. It seems so over the top and ridiculous and weak. Especially the bit about the Flood and Aquarius, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I do believe this is meant to be a parody.





Zeus was never called "Zeus-Pater".

Again, this appears to be a parody of such connections. It looks ridiculous and you have in no way shown that "Petra" is related to "Petros".




Cock crows a few times in Norse mythology too.




Clearly nothing.

All your evidence is weak at best. Either your scholarship is abyssmal or this is intended to be a critique of such scholarship. I can only hope for the latter.

I think that Frazier made the point about 'chance clues', whereby links can be made through possible, but by no means entirely certain, avenues which may or may not show borrowing of traits and ideas. However, Egyptologist Bojana Moshov makes a convincing case for Egyptian religion and Christianity as does Gerald Massey. The nature of syncretism is exactly this a lot of the time, especially when we are dealing with such spurious literature as Christian writings. It is true that the comparative approach must incorporate a number of different disciplines, and not just linguistics. But this is not always possible, and so, therefore, 'chance clues' is often the best we can hope to get.

I do not think I connected Mars with Janus directly, although I made a connection with the name Mark (Marcus), because of 'Marcien', although this is too late. Marcus is related to Mark:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...wed_in_frame=0

I believe that Kefa is not original in Syrian but is directly Egyptian (I think that you might be using that name for the Phoenicians, whom the Egyptians refered to as 'Kefa'), derived from Kef, or early Egyptian, Kepsh, Khept, or Kep. The word Kef, or Kefa, is related to the Hebrew Chevva, the name of Eve, the mother of Humanity. Kef/Kefa (meaning 'womb') was a title of the Great Mother in Egyptian mythology.

The cock does crow, but it does each morning. This was my point. The connection seems firm even here. The cock does crow in the morning.

[yawn]

(Original post by Romanorum-Hellas)
Their conclusions are far from being grounded on indisputable evidence. Historians are generally educated in science and archaeology as well.

Best explanation to date at the very least then, you would agree?

(Original post by Martyn)
The cock does crow, but it does each morning. This was my point. The connection seems firm even here. The cock does crow in the morning.

Cocks have been known to crow not only in the morning, but also other times during the day. Ask my uncle who has a farm...his name is McDonald...but no connection to Ronald McDonald.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by yawn)
St. Peter's body was not incorruptible. Just read the report before you comment again.

You have absolutely no evidence to support your claims other than the opinion of yourself or others who seek to denigrate the veracity of those who were closest in time to the apostles and their successors.

At least the report I linked to is substantial evidence from one source...there are others too. But since you have not provided anything of substance I see no need to provide any more substantive evidence until you raise your standards regarding your OP.

That's not what I meant. Of course, a body is not incorruptible. But we are taking more than a hundred years before someone says 'Here lies Peter's body'. How could they possibly identify it as Peter's body? Besides, there was no Peter, just a fictional character from Mark's Gospel. Denigrating the veracity? What veracity? I am merely seeking a different interpretation of the Gospel material. You call me for not providing substance? Do you actually know what is involved in hermeneutics?

[Martyn*]

(Original post by yawn)
Best explanation to date at the very least then, you would agree? Cocks have been known to crow not only in the morning, but also other times during the day. Ask my uncle who has a farm...his name is McDonald...but no connection to Ronald McDonald.

But the cock crow is linked to the rise of the morning sun; if we read ancient literature the cock crow is linked to the break of the morning. We have to view this metaphor in its cultural context. Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did he do that? Of course, he didn't! It was a metaphor, the fig representing Israel. Did Jesus really feed the multitude with a few fish and bread? Of course not! The teaching is allegorical containing sacred numerology. Did Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a donkey? No. It is, as it was in ancient Greece, a metaphor for overcoming the lower, or animal, passions.

Context is important.

[Romanorum-Hellas]

(Original post by yawn)
Best explanation to date at the very least then, you would agree? Cocks have been known to crow not only in the morning, but also other times during the day. Ask my uncle who has a farm...his name is McDonald...but no connection to Ronald McDonald.

It has some weight behind it but no measure of certainity, so I'd say that believing it to be true is exclusive to your faith. The so-called Catholic Church of his founding was not formally recognised across Europe and the Middle-East until Pope Leo I launched a propaganda coup in 452 by exclaiming that God had allowed him to drive the Huns out of Italy and therefore save Christianity in Europe. Carthage and Alexandria were much more important centres of Christianity.

[yawn]

(Original post by Martyn*)
But the cock crow is linked to the rise of the morning sun; if we read ancient literature the cock crow is linked to the break of the morning. We have to view this metaphor in its cultural context. Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did he do that? Of course, he didn't! It was a metaphor, the fig representing Israel. Did Jesus really feed the multitude with a few fish and bread? Of course not! The teaching is allegorical containing sacred numerology. Did Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a donkey? No. It is, as it was in ancient Greece, a metaphor for overcoming the lower, or animal, passions.

Context is important.

You are making connection to present your case as something that it isn't.

I'm not going to get involved in the citing of miraces apart to say that there is primary historical evidence for them. And your interpretation of the fig tree incident is highly questionable as well.

Whilst I agree that sacred scripture does employ the use of numerology in certain places, they have no place in the situations you cite, not the metaphors you employ.

Look, Martyn...you say tomatoes, I say tomatoes etc. Each of us has our reasoning but the difference between us is that as far as scripture goes, my reasons are based on the studies of the most erudite scholars of scripture, ancient languages, and Jewish history and culture. Knowledge that, without erudition and understanding of the assumption, the persepectives, the languages and the customs of the authors, one cannot appreciate the depths of the books nor come to a clear understanding of the scriptures. Your reasons come from God knows where...

Your claims have been negated by every poster who has addressed them. Doesn't that speak volumes about their veracity (and since you questioned its use, look the word up if you don't understand the meaning.)

Again, just read the report of the latest excavations rather than repeating denial based on all sorts of myths.

This post covers responses to both your posts to me.

[yawn]

(Original post by Romanorum-Hellas)
It has some weight behind it but no measure of certainity, so I'd say that believing it to be true is exclusive to your faith. The so-called Catholic Church of his founding was not formally recognised across Europe and the Middle-East until Pope Leo I launched a propaganda coup in 452 by exclaiming that God had allowed him to drive the Huns out of Italy and therefore save Christianity in Europe. Carthage and Alexandria were much more important centres of Christianity.

I don't know the source of your information, but it's very obviously flawed as proved by the Early Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background. They clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show. I'm sure you recognise the importance of studying the earliest Christian writings of the first few centuries to aid us in our understanding of how the Church "worked" after the death of the last apostle. With that in mind I facilitate your understanding by quoting what they had to say about the status of Peter. This list is not exhaustive, incidentally.

Tatian the Syrian

"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

The Clementine Homilies

"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"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]).
"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).
"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).

Firmilian

"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).
"[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).

Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
"It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 532 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Sechnall of Ireland

"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).

Pope Leo I

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).

Council of Chalcedon

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

All the above was concluded before what you claim was the first such mention. It seems that your source...whatever it is....comes from one that is biased against the Catholic Church. That wouldn't surprise me in the least (and it does not upset me either since I'm so used to it) because the Church, until the 16th century was considered the One, True Church by the overwhelming majority of Christendom. I do not include the Orthodox church as they had their own schism in the 11lth century over the 'filoque' clause in the Nicene Creed. Of course, the Reformers demonised her because they needed to give justification for forming their own church. This action is understandable if one understands the nature of human frailty.

Can you please give your source for your claim so that we may examine it in greater depth? Thank you.

[Romanorum-Hellas]

You reference the biblical verse in which is stated that Peter is given governorship of the Church, but this verse does not specify a link to Rome nor a nature similar to that of the Catholic Church.

My sources: almost every history book on Christianity accessible. Particularly a book I recently read called 'Keepers of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy'. In every single history book, the same answer is given: there was no direct successor of Peter. I will dig out my books later and delve into this when I am able.

Edit: oh, and referencing popes and papist theologians as credible sources is not very useful. It would very much be like referencing the words of Thomas Cromwell to justify that the king was 'Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England'.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by yawn)
You are making connection to present your case as something that it isn't.

I'm not going to get involved in the citing of miraces apart to say that there is primary historical evidence for them. And your interpretation of the fig tree incident is highly questionable as well.

Whilst I agree that sacred scripture does employ the use of numerology in certain places, they have no place in the situations you cite, not the metaphors you employ.

Look, Martyn...you say tomatoes, I say tomatoes etc. Each of us has our reasoning but the difference between us is that as far as scripture goes, my reasons are based on the studies of the most erudite scholars of scripture, ancient languages, and Jewish history and culture. Knowledge that, without erudition and understanding of the assumption, the persepectives, the languages and the customs of the authors, one cannot appreciate the depths of the books nor come to a clear understanding of the scriptures. Your reasons come from God knows where...

Your claims have been negated by every poster who has addressed them. Doesn't that speak volumes about their veracity (and since you questioned its use, look the word up if you don't understand the meaning.)

Again, just read the report of the latest excavations rather than repeating denial based on all sorts of myths.

This post covers responses to both your posts to me.

But it could be, and I believe that in some parts there is firm ground confirming such connections such as Peter being given the keys to the Gates of the Kingdom of Heaven, amongst other things. There is no historical evidence for any miracles that Jesus performed. Miracles are the Semitic explanation of ancient mysteries. The Jesus 'miracles' are litered in the ancient world as 'Mysteries'. Any scholar can see this, apart from the flat head Christian apologists and theologians, and other charlatans, whom you seem to cherish so much.

I think your rebuttals are bordering on ad hominem.

[yawn]

(Original post by Romanorum-Hellas)
You reference the biblical verse in which is stated that Peter is given governorship of the Church, but this verse does not specify a link to Rome nor a nature similar to that of the Catholic Church.

The quotations I provided are quotes from the Early Church Fathers, stating their belief that Peter was indeed the early leader of Christ's Church; they had already determined a link to Rome so didn't need to clarify that in their supportive views. And as I said, since they were closest in time to the apostles, they would have known better than any other, giving their views more substance that any others.

My sources: almost every history book on Christianity accessible. Particularly a book I recently read called 'Keepers of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy'. In every single history book, the same answer is given: there was no direct successor of Peter. I will dig out my books later and delve into this when I am able.

Maybe those Christian related history book that you’ve read so far, but most certainly not “almost every history book...”

I've got one at least sitting beside me here that gives the evidence that witness continues in every generation afterward. Tertullian the North African said "They have not the heritage of Peter who have not the See of Peter." In the next generation, at the beginning of the third century, St. Cyprian said "a primacy is given to Peter," and "He who deserts the chair of Peter on whom the Church has been founded, does he still believe that he in in the Church?"The greatest Scripture scholar of antiquity, St. Jerome, who translated the entire Bible into Latin, hailed the pope with these words: "I speak with the successor of the fisherman, and disciple of the cross. Following none but Christ as my primate. I am united in communion with Your Beatitude - that is, with the chair of Peter; Upon that Rock I know the Church is built. Whosoever eats a lamb outside this house is profane. Whoever is not in Noah's ark will perish when the flood prevails."

He put the papacy, as was his habit, in biblical terms. The Church is Apostolic because, not only was it founded on the Apostles, but also because it preserves their teachings and traditions; because it continues to be guided by those teachings and traditions; and because it has received the entire patrimony of the Apostles through a legitimate succession. The Apostles were careful to choose successors. St. Peter’s quotation of Psalm 108:8, “His office let another take,” is illuminating. The word “office” here is a translation of the Greek word episkopen (literally, “overseer”), from which we derive the English word “bishop”. In fact, in the King James Version of the Bible, the line is rendered, “his bishoprice let another take.” Luke is discussing here the “office” of Apostle, which the Church even then understood under the title “bishop.”

Bt the way, I've had to reply to your edit as my response, although put in spoiler tags is too long to post in one go!

[yawn]

(Original post by Romanorum-Hellas)

Edit: oh, and referencing popes and papist theologians as credible sources is not very useful. It would very much be like referencing the words of Thomas Cromwell to justify that the king was 'Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England'.

Come now...that hints at a fear of difficulty in refuting...and not only is that a very bad analogy, but also because showing a successive link of popes from apostolic times is useful since it can be used as evidence and corroborated and also provide a route for your 'Christians Historians' to refute. Additionally, each pope and anti-pope has a link facility to their biographies etc.

Spoiler:

Show

From the time of St Peter there has been 266 popes including our current pope Benedict XVI:
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
Donus (676-78)
St. Agatho (678-81)
St. Leo II (682-83)
St. Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen VI (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (928)
Stephen VIII (929-31)
John XI (931-35)
Leo VII (936-39)
Stephen IX (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John XII (955-63)
Leo VIII (963-64)
Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-58)
Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-98)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-78)
Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-58)
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-58)
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)
Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005—)

This took ages to repost - I took the list from New Advent's website - as I had to go to every single pope and remove the numbering manually!
If your sources claim something different then let us have it to critique. Thank you.

[yawn]

(Original post by Martyn*)
But it could be, and I believe that in some parts there is firm ground confirming such connections such as Peter being given the keys to the Gates of the Kingdom of Heaven, amongst other things.

You have to remember that there is a seamless transition from the Old to the New Testament, the latter being a fulfillment of the former. Bearing this in mind, we see that your point about Peter being given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven has it's connection firmly placed in the Davidic kingdom.

When the ancient Israelites, and later the Jews, spoke of “the kingdom” the reign of David provided their only historical reference. If the stories of Adam, Abraham, and Moses foretold the reign of a priestly king, that priestly king was David, and in turn, his house, his line, his son.”

This brings me to the comparison between David in the Old, and Christ in the New Testaments.

1. The Davidic monarchy was found upon a divine covenant.

2. The Davidic monarch was the Son of God.

3. The son of David was “the Christ.” See Lk. 2:26, for the title applied only to kings of the Old Testament.

4. The House of David was inextricably bound to Jerusalem.

5. The monarchy was also bound to the Temple.

6. The Davidic king is destined to rule over all twelve tribes of Israel – but also all the nations.

7. The kingdom of David was to be everlasting. [Lk. 1:33 refers]

I’ve got all relevant scriptural quotes to back up these contentions if you would like to check.

The three secondary characteristics find fulfilment in the Gospel as well.
1. Mary appears as Queen Mother when she advises her royal Son [Jn. 2:3], when she pleased the cause of His subjects, when she receives foreign dignatories with Him [Mt. 2:11], and when she stands with His court of twelve royal ministers, the Apostles [Jn. 19:25; Acts 2:14]

2. Jesus appoints Peter as ‘prime minister’ using the very terms used in the appointment of the “steward” who governs “the house-hold of David” as vice-regent [see Mt. 16:19; Is. 22:15-25]. *The king bestows authority symbolically with “the keys.”

3. Jesus renews the sacrifice of Thanksgiving, the todah, by His own offering of bread and wine, the eucharistia, the Eucharist. Indeed, whenever we find Jesus breaking bread, we see Him “giving thanks” [e.g. Lk 24:30; Jn. 6:11]
No one who believes the Gospels can deny that Jesus’ contemporaries awaited a Messiah-king from the House of David. No one who believes the Gospels can deny that Jesus presented Himself as the long-awaited Davidic king.

If Jesus is the Davidic king, His kingdom must be, in some sense, a Davidic kingdom – the Davidic kingdom. Jesus’ “kingdom of God” did not supplant or replace the everlasting kingdom created by the covenant with David. Jesus’ kingdom was that kingdom, and is that kingdom, brought to fulfilment.

For only David’s kingdom was called the “kingdom of Yahweh” [1 Chr. 28:5]. The Old Testament authors understood that the reign of the house of David was based on a divine covenant in which the son of David was also declared to be the Son of God [2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7].

Source: Scott Hahn.

* See [Is 22:15-25] the prophecy telling that everyone in the kingdom could identify the prime minister: "he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah." The sign of the prime minister's office was the keys of the kingdom. "And I shall place of his shoulderns the key of the house of David: he shall open, and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open."

The correlation between David and Jesus also weakens your professed correlations between Egyptian mythology and Jesus because the former connection is far stronger than the weaker one which you consistently highlight. In future, everytime you point to an extremely tenuous link between your mythology I shall remind you of the Davidic kingdom.

There is no historical evidence for any miracles that Jesus performed. Miracles are the Semitic explanation of ancient mysteries. The Jesus 'miracles' are litered in the ancient world as 'Mysteries'.

Of course there's historical evidence for the miracles that Jesus performed. The ancient documents that comprise the Gospels tell us of the account of historically primary witness accounts!

Any scholar can see this, apart from the flat head Christian apologists and theologians, and other charlatans,whom you seem to cherish so much.

First we have this above...easily recognisable ad homs...and then we have this below; an accusation of that which you have done yourself.

I think your rebuttals are bordering on ad hominem.

This is based purely on your perceptions which account for your 'feelings.' There was certainly no intent to make an ad hominem attack on you, and I dispute that I have anyway.

Please let's keep this debate mature if at all possible, and not fling around accusations in order to denigrate the other.

God bless.

[Romanorum-Hellas]

(Original post by yawn)
Come now...that hints at a fear of difficulty in refuting...and not only is that a very bad analogy, but also because showing a successive link of popes from apostolic times is useful since it can be used as evidence and corroborated and also provide a route for your 'Christians Historians' to refute. Additionally, each pope and anti-pope has a link facility to their biographies etc.

Spoiler:

Show

From the time of St Peter there has been 266 popes including our current pope Benedict XVI:
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
Donus (676-78)
St. Agatho (678-81)
St. Leo II (682-83)
St. Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen VI (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (928)
Stephen VIII (929-31)
John XI (931-35)
Leo VII (936-39)
Stephen IX (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John XII (955-63)
Leo VIII (963-64)
Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-58)
Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-98)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-78)
Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-58)
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-58)
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)
Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005—)

This took ages to repost - I took the list from New Advent's website - as I had to go to every single pope and remove the numbering manually!
If your sources claim something different then let us have it to critique. Thank you.

All you have is the historian Irenaeus to testify that the popes descended from St Peter, Linus, Anacletus, etc. Alexandria, Antioch and Carthage were, according to historians like Roger Collins, more recognised centres of Christianity prior to the 5th century. St. Peter left no instructions for a successor - and he certainly had no family heirs. If all you have to justify the Apostolic Succession by is the consistency of papal rule following St. Peter's death (the date being unknown/uncertain) and a few writers of the time, then I think the burden of proof is on you for having such presumptions as to the God-ordained rule of the Papacy.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by yawn)
You have to remember that there is a seamless transition from the Old to the New Testament, the latter being a fulfillment of the former.

Which is just not true. The Christian scriptures are heretical in Judaism. The 'seamless transition' has little or nothing to do with any kind of fulfilment, but more to do with profiting from the prophets in order to legitimise the new mystery religion.

[yawn]

(Original post by Romanorum-Hellas)
All you have is the historian Irenaeus to testify that the popes descended from St Peter, Linus, Anacletus, etc. Alexandria, Antioch and Carthage were, according to historians like Roger Collins, more recognised centres of Christianity prior to the 5th century. St. Peter left no instructions for a successor - and he certainly had no family heirs. If all you have to justify the Apostolic Succession by is the consistency of papal rule following St. Peter's death (the date being unknown/uncertain) and a few writers of the time, then I think the burden of proof is on you for having such presumptions as to the God-ordained rule of the Papacy.

I think that your sources might be guilty of that which you accuse Irenaeus of. I would far rather pay greater attention to an historian much closer in time to the beginning of the papacy than an historian who tends to ignore theology in his treatise.

There is ample evidence for the papacy, for Peter's primacy amongst the apostles and its successors. And as for St. Peter not leaving any instructions for his successor, such matters were instructed in scripture...."Let his place, another take" when asked what should happen once Judas had died.

If we do not accept the papal implications in the New Testament text we create many other problems.

The bishops of the Catholic Church can trace their ordinations back to the apostles themselves. This laying on of hands in the sacrament of Holy Orders takes place as part of an uninterrupted chain connecting us to Christ Himself two thousand years ago. Further the letters to Timothy are very explicit where they concern papal authority. "This saying is trustworthy; whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task." Note the reference to the episopate as an "office." That clearly denotes an ongoing institution that is renewed from one generation to the next." And Paul's second letter to Timothy highlights further, the sacramental view of the infusion of the life of the Holy Spirit, and of the passing on of apostolic authority, from one generation to the next and well as that authority is derived from apostolic succession alone.

In Acts 6:6 we see that the Church's authority is passed down from generation to generation.

My mention of the connection between the Old and the New Testaments, especially in the latter fulfilling the former - ie the kingdom of Christ being the fulfilment of the Davidic earthly kingdom - is highlighted in Is. 22:15-25. Eliakim is given the keys of the kingdom. Thus, he becomes "master of the palace", the second most powerful man in the realm, behind only the king himself, for he wields the authority of the king. Likewise in Mt. 16:19, Jesus gives St. Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. It is in this authority that Peter's power to bind and to loose - in heaven as well as on earth - is founded.

Eph. 2:19-20 "...household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets..." The Church's authority is not based on human wisdom or insight, or even on the Bible, but on the authority of God passed to and through the apostles.

In basic terms, the Catholic Church is still structured the way it was in apostolic times, as noted in the New Testament, with bishops, priests and deacons making up the ranks of the hierarchy.

I hope this has clarified matters for you by introducing you to other, more reliable sources.

[yawn]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Which is just not true. The Christian scriptures are heretical in Judaism.

Not entirely...Messianic Jews believe that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the prophecies about the coming Messiah.

The 'seamless transition' has little or nothing to do with any kind of fulfilment, but more to do with profiting from the prophets in order to legitimise the new mystery religion.

You have always made it quiet clear that, in your view, Jesus is not the Son of God, considering the Judeo-Christian faith being based on a 'load of bunkum.'

I think that we'll have to agree to disagree because your theory that Osiris was the prototype of Jesus Christ is a 'load of bunkum' to all Christians.

This thread has now evolved and is one that no longer relates to your premiss so it is inappropriate to engage in further debate with you in particular on this current thread.

God bless.