|
|
Post by watchman on May 6, 2009 13:53:07 GMT -5
Prove that I was not the first pope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 7, 2009 8:05:02 GMT -5
Prove that I was not the first pope. You're asking for "negative evidence"? Proof of something that doesn't exist?  I mean, it's obvious that Jesus didn't choose you to be the first spiritual father to The Apostles in John 21, so I'm going to assume that you have something else in mind when you say "pope"? You mean as in a father to your own children? If that's the case, then you are their first father (pope) because you're their only physical father. I can't believe that you'd be asking for me to prove that you are the first Pope of The Catholic Church since you yourself already stated that you believed that there were Popes before you were born, so I'm really at a loss as to "what" you're asking me for.  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 7, 2009 11:14:06 GMT -5
Prove that I was not the first pope. You're asking for "negative evidence"? Exactly, and this goes for you as well, you want proof that Peter was not the pope, but it is only catholic propaganda that says he was, and others cannot prove a negative. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 7, 2009 11:38:01 GMT -5
You're asking for "negative evidence"? Exactly, and this goes for you as well, you want proof that Peter was not the pope, but it is only catholic propaganda that says he was, and others cannot prove a negative. The difference is that I provided secular non-biased evidence that Peter "is" the first Pope. So, there was a standard to be compared to. You had to disprove that proof I posted, so that isn't negative evidence. The proof I posted actually "existed". But, you still can prove that the list of Popes that I posted by Brittania is false. Just use an unbiased source to counter an unbiased source. Otherwise, the evidence stands as it is...fact. And no one can claim that The Catholic Church "created" that history that is put forth by the secular world.  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 7, 2009 12:10:47 GMT -5
Exactly, and this goes for you as well, you want proof that Peter was not the pope, but it is only catholic propaganda that says he was, and others cannot prove a negative. The difference is that I provided secular non-biased evidence that Peter "is" the first Pope. I do not believe any evidence given to show Peter was the first pope is non bias. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 7, 2009 14:06:41 GMT -5
True, the best evidence is the Bible, which is quite biased. It is biased because it contains things that must be received by faith. And because God wants all people to be saved, so it is quite biased. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "non bias" historical writings. So, you can either read history as most people do, looking at the overall picture and putting yourself in the shoes of the writer, or completely ignore history all together, throw all the books in a big bonfire and pretend that all we can know is present and the future.  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 7, 2009 16:45:04 GMT -5
Sorry there is no biblical evidence to support the false claim that Peter was the first pope or ever a member of the RCC at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 8, 2009 8:18:37 GMT -5
The difference is that I provided secular non-biased evidence that Peter "is" the first Pope. I do not believe any evidence given to show Peter was the first pope is non bias. So The Catholic Church, the overwhelming majority of Christianity, the secular world all accept this as fact and history proves this, but you still don't believe even though the evidence was presented to you? Ok. It's unreasonable for you to reject history, but if you reject history, you reject history. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 8, 2009 8:34:08 GMT -5
True, the best evidence is the Bible, which is quite biased. It is biased because it contains things that must be received by faith. And because God wants all people to be saved, so it is quite biased. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "non bias" historical writings. So, you can either read history as most people do, looking at the overall picture and putting yourself in the shoes of the writer, or completely ignore history all together, throw all the books in a big bonfire and pretend that all we can know is present and the future. Well, when a secular organization states something as factual (and history agrees with it), that cannot be called biased. It wasn't put forth by the organization it benefits (The Catholic Church). And I've always said that one would have to completely reject history to be Anti-Catholic. Watchman admits that he rejects the historical evidence I posted (that had nothing to do with The Catholic Church). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 8, 2009 8:58:38 GMT -5
Sorry there is no biblical evidence to support the false claim that Peter was the first pope or ever a member of the RCC at all. Sure. The Christian Church is a universal (catholic) Church. Peter was in Rome. Peter was the first leader of The Universal Christian Church in Rome. All undeniable Biblical facts. John 21, Peter is commissioned as the first head shephard by Jesus Christ. Matthew 16, Peter is has his name changed to "Rock" (Peter) and Jesus said He'd build His Church upon Peter (or literally, thou are cepha and upon this cepha, I will build my church...the aramaic word for rock). Paul has to meet with Peter before he could start his own ministry first. Whenever there is a meeting, Peter is always the first one to speak as head. The Apostles always wait for Peter to speak at counsels (he has the final say). There are tons of examples. Not to mention all of the historical evidence by the Church Fathers that existed before The Bible was even created. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 8, 2009 9:09:44 GMT -5
You're asking for "negative evidence"? Exactly, and this goes for you as well, you want proof that Peter was not the pope, but it is only catholic propaganda that says he was, and others cannot prove a negative. It is not Catholic Propaganda. Many Protestant Scholars and Historians (such Philip Schaff agree the ancient belief that Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, cf. History of the Christian Church, Volume 2). I have given historical facts here. You believe that he was not the first Bishop of Rome. Thereby, you need to provide reliable unbiased source that proves your view, which you have not done till date! Prove them wrong Watchman. I double dare you! The only difference between you and us is that we have Historical evidence to suggest that he was the first Bishop of Rome. No evidence has been forthcoming to suggest anything different. Thereby, I can not help but accept what the entire Early Church (1st-10th Century), Ancient Historians, such Eusebius of Caesarea, and what many non-Catholics Scholars and Historians said. Reject History if you want. But we do not. You ask us for historical proofs, but then when we ask you for the same, you become dull and hard of hearing. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
