Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

See other installments:

Part One: “Disproofs” #1-50

Part Two: “Disproofs” #51-100

Part Three: “Disproofs” #101-15o

***

Continuing response to his article, “205 Provas Contra O Primado de Pedro” (no date) [205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter]. 

151. Paul continues to “glory” (2 Cor.12:1) in this, defending his authority as an apostle. He passes on the “visions and revelations of the Lord” (2Co.12:1), having been “caught up to the third heaven, and hearing unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for man to speak” (2Co.12:4). Paul was the only apostle who, in life, was caught up to the third heaven!

St. John (while still in this life) was caught up to the very throne of heaven:

Revelation 4:1-6 After this I looked, and lo, in heaven an open door! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up hither, and I will show you what must take place after this.” [2] At once I was in the Spirit, and lo, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne! [3] And he who sat there appeared like jasper and carnelian, and round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald. [4] Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads. [5] From the throne issue flashes of lightning, and voices and peals of thunder, and before the throne burn seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God; [6] and before the throne there is as it were a sea of glass, like crystal.

The prophets Daniel (ch. 7) and Isaiah (ch. 6) had also been ushered into the presence of God in what appears to be heaven, too: both before their deaths.

152. Paul asserts that he should be “praised by you” (2Co.12:11), since he was in no way inferior to the most excellent apostles (2Co.12:1).

Basically a repeat of #66, #125, and #149.

153. After defending the authority of his apostolate, comparing himself with even the most excellent apostles and not finding himself in an inferior position to them (on the contrary, he claims that he suffered and went through experiences that none of them did), he ends saying that he could be “strong in the use of the authority which the Lord has given me to build you up and not to tear you down” (2 Cor.13:10).

See my reply to #150 and #152. Again, he’s talking about the Corinthian congregation, as to his “authority.” This has no relation to whether Peter was the leader of the early Church.

154. Paul affirms that the gospel he preached “is not of human origin” (Gal.1:11), for “I received it from no one, nor was it taught to me; on the contrary, I received it from Jesus Christ by revelation” (Gal.1:11,12). This shows us that Paul was not indoctrinated in the doctrine of Peter, as in submission to him as “pope”, but only and directly from Jesus Christ, without dependence on the other apostles.

It does not at all. That’s how he first received it. When he visited Peter for fifteen days at the outset of his ministry (Gal 1:18: the verse that Lucas totally ignores throughout his entire article), they weren’t talking about the weather . . .

155. This explains why, when he was converted, he did not consult anyone (Gal.1:15-17), nor did he go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before him, but went straight to Arabia. : “When it pleased him to reveal his Son in me so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I consulted no one. Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, but immediately I departed for Arabia, and returned to Damascus” (Gal.1:15-17). Paul’s ministry was independent, not dependent on Peter or the authority of any “pope” or other apostles. If Peter were pope and leader of Christians, it would be Paul’s responsibility to consult him immediately, as the supreme and ecclesiastical authority that he would be.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be immediately, but it was early on. Again, Lucas ignores Galatians 1:18: the very next verse after the ones he brings up, and extremely relevant to the discussion.

156. It was through Paul that the Ephesians received the dispensation of God’s grace (Eph.3:2,3).

Being an evangelist . . . St. Peter did the same with the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and Cornelius and his kin and friends (Acts 10). With St. John he converted 5,000 in Jerusalem, at the temple (Acts 4:1-4), and a bunch of other people soon after (4:31), and many in Samaria (8:14-17).

157. If anyone thinks he has reason to trust the flesh, Paul even more so (Phil.3:4).

And how is this related to our topic, pray tell?

158. Paul tells the Philippians to be imitators of him (Phil.3:17), following the example they have in him (Phil.3:17).

This repeats #137 from Part Three. Sloppy . . . Either Lucas has a bad memory or lousy organizing / editing skills. This is now maybe the tenth time (?) he has done this.

159. Paul could do everything in Him who strengthened him (Phil.4:13).

Of course; so can anyone if they will have faith and cooperate with God’s grace. That’s the whole point of Paul being a model to imitate (#137 and #158). He wrote these letters for our instruction as Christians.

160. The word which the Thessalonians received from Paul “was not the word of men, but as it truly is, the word of God” (1 Thess.2:13). In no other apostle do we see a statement like this!

Nonsense. John the Baptist wasn’t even an apostle, and the Bible says, “the word of God came to John the son of Zechari’ah in the wilderness” (Lk 3:2). A whole room full of people in Jerusalem “were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness” (Acts 4:31). Christian leaders spoke “the word of God” (Heb 13:7). Peter told believers in five different areas: “You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God” (1 Pet 1:23). St. John said “the word of God abides in” young Christian men (1 Jn 2:14).

But the real “fun” for Protestants comes in realizing that “word of God” in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 is not the Bible, but oral teaching. This is consistent with Paul’s teaching throughout. Even more “surprising” for Protestants is to understand that Paul thought that apostolic tradition was synonymous with the “word of God” and the Bible and the gospel and overall Christian message:

1 Corinthians 11:2  Maintain the traditions . .  . . even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15  Hold to the traditions . . . .  taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6  . . . the tradition that you received from us.

1 Corinthians 15:1  . . . the gospel, which you received . . .

Galatians 1:9  . . . the gospel . . . which you received.

1 Thessalonians 2:9  We preached to you the gospel of God.

Acts 8:14 Samaria had received the word of God.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 You received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . .

2 Peter 2:21  . . . the holy commandment delivered to them. (cf. Jude 3: “the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”).

It is obvious from the above biblical data that the concepts of tradition, gospel, and word of God (as well as other terms) are essentially synonymous. All are predominantly oral, and all are referred to as being delivered and received. Tradition is right in there with them, without distinction. In St. Paul’s two letters to the Thessalonians alone we see that three of the above terms are used interchangeably.

In 2 Thessalonians “gospel” is mentioned twice (1:8 and 2:14), “tradition” twice (2:15 and 3:6), but neither “Scripture” nor “Scriptures” appears. “Word of the Lord” appears once (3:1), but it appears not to refer to the Bible. Likewise, in 1 Thessalonians “Scripture” or “Scriptures” never appear. “Word,” “word of the Lord,” or “word of God” appear five times (1:6,8, 2:13 [twice], 4:15), but in each instance it is clearly in the sense of oral proclamation, not Scripture.

Clearly then, tradition is not a dirty word in the Bible, particularly for St. Paul. If, on the other hand, one wants to maintain that it is, then gospel and word of God are also bad words! Thus, the commonly asserted dichotomy between the gospel and tradition, or between the Bible and tradition is unbiblical itself and must be discarded by the truly biblically minded person as (quite ironically) a corrupt tradition of men. Paul is elsewhere almost unanimously positive about tradition. In the one place where he wasn’t (Col 2:8), he made a contrast of good and bad tradition, just as Jesus did:

Philippians 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

161. Paul gave “commandments by the authority of the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess.4:2). There is no record – biblical or historical – of any other apostles giving commandments by the authority of Christ.

This ground was already covered in #138 and #145 in Part Three, so this is now the third time Lucas has made this argument in the same list. It’s embarrassing. He needs an editor if he can’t properly edit his own writings. I sure hope he has one for his books.

162. If anyone does not obey Paul’s letters, he is marked and no one associates with him, so that he will be ashamed (2 Thess.3:14).

That’s right. All Christians should obey their bishops or pastors / priests. Does Lucas obey his bishop? Oh wait: does he even have one?

163. The Sound Doctrine is seen in the gospel that God entrusted to Paul (1 Tim.1:11).

The gospel is entrusted to all Christians to share:

Matthew 5:14-16 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. [15] Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. [16] Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Luke 9:6 And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.

Acts 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.”

2 Timothy 4:2 preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season . . .

1 Peter 3:15  but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;

Jude 3 . . . contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints

164. Paul is the only apostle who had the authority to deliver two blasphemers – Hymenaeus and Alexander – to Satan, so that they would learn to blaspheme no more (1 Tim.1:20).

St. Peter delivered Ananias and Sapphira to death (Acts 5:1-10). And he acted essentially the same as St. Paul did, with Simon (simony):

Acts 8:17-23 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. [18] Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, [19] saying, “Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” [20] But Peter said to him, “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! [21] You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. [22] Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. [23] For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”

165. Paul recognizes Luke’s gospel as Scripture divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit (1 Tim.5:18).

Good for him. The Catholic Church did that with regard to the entire Bible.

166. The model of the Sound Doctrine that we must retain was found in what was taught by Paul (2 Tim.1:13).

Yes, it was the tradition and gospel and word of God and the faith and the truth that he received (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3) and was “entrusted” with (2 Tim 1:12), and was a “steward” of (1 Cor 4:1; Eph 3:2).

167. Paul wrote in such a way that even Peter himself considered certain things “hard to understand” (2Pe.3:16). In other words, the “infallible pope” did not have the full understanding and understanding of Paul’s writings, and yet Catholics insist that the pope is the only one who knows how to correctly and perfectly interpret the Bible!

Infallibility (applicable in very specific laid-out conditions) doesn’t entail knowing everything about everything. As for Bible interpretation, Lucas’ last statement above is equal parts asinine and purely ignorant. In fact, the Catholic Church at Trent taught that all of seven Bible passages must be interpreted one way. Beyond that, everyone is free to engage in exegesis and interpretation of the Bible.

168. God did extraordinary miracles and wonders through Paul’s hands (Acts 19:11).

St. Peter raised Tabitha from the dead and healed others.

Even handkerchiefs and aprons were taken from their bodies to the sick, and the diseases fled from them, and the evil spirits fled from them (Acts 19:12). Nowhere in the New Testament is there an apostle with such power and authority that the demons themselves are cast out through his handkerchiefs and aprons!

This is an argument for second-class Catholic relics (items that come into contact with a saint), by the way. I’m glad that Lucas is obviously enthralled with and excited about our theology of relics. Nowhere in the New Testament is there an apostle with such power and authority that people are healed by his shadow! (Acts 5:15)

169. When God wanted to bring his word to light, he did so through the preaching entrusted to Paul (Titus 1:3).

Lots of people preached the gospel. I went through that in my reply to #163. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether Peter was the first pope.

170. Luke, the Church historian and writer of the book of Acts, did not bother to record anything about the “prince of the apostles” in his episcopate in Rome, but returned exclusively to Paul’s ministry among the Gentiles.

He had a lot to write about, but he chose to have Peter be the main figure in the first part of the book and Paul in the second. Sounds about right to me. These were the most important things going on in the early Church, both instances.

Although Peter appears frequently in the first chapters of Acts (while Paul was not yet converted), from the moment Paul enters the scene and becomes converted on the road to Damascus (and until the end of the book) Luke is exclusively concerned in narrating the acts of the apostle Paul, and leaves Peter for second or third hand! The logic is really very simple: When Paul enters the scene, Peter leaves the scene!

So what? Luke covers the momentous events with Peter in the very earliest times of the Church, then goes to Paul because his ministry was important and exciting too. This proves nothing whatsoever as to our topic

Evidence against the primacy of Peter in Rome

171. Jesus does not single out Rome as the main or one of the main centers of early Christianity. On the contrary, it affirms that the gospel would be preached “in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). If Rome were the main seat of the Christian faith, it would certainly be included by name by Jesus (as Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria were), and not just by way of generalization (“ends of the earth”). Rome only became the matrix of Christianity centuries later, not by order of Christ, but by the Roman political domination.

Jesus didn’t have to mention it. Those things worked out naturally. Rome was the center of the empire, so Christians were soon going to become involved there. As it is, both Peter and Paul died in Rome, and surely this is significant. God’s plan was to transform the pagan (and often wicked) Roman Empire. It took about 280 years until it legalized Christianity.

172. The apostles were not scattered along with the others in the Acts 8:1 episode. Therefore, Peter did not go to Rome, but remained in Jerusalem.

173. When Peter and John were sent to Samaria (Acts 8:14), they returned preaching the gospel in “many Samaritan villages” (Acts 8:25), without passing through Rome.

174. Peter, acting as an itinerant missionary, went to Lydda, where he preached the gospel (Lat.9:32). Again Rome is far from Peter’s destiny!

175. Still on his missionary journeys, Peter went to visit Cornelius in Caesarea (Acts 10:1). Again very, very far from Rome!

176. Before arriving in Caesarea, Peter was in Joppa (Acts 10:5). That is, Peter was neither in Rome when he went there, nor was he in Rome when he left there.

177. As early as Acts 11, the Judean brothers criticized Peter when he returned to Jerusalem (Acts 11:1-3) after preaching the gospel in Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea. Therefore, after his evangelistic missions, Peter again takes his place as an apostle in Jerusalem, not Rome.

So what? It was early on. He gets there in due course.

178. Peter did not occupy the “chair of Rome”, but, on the contrary, “traveled everywhere” (Acts 9:32)!

At that time, he was a traveling evangelist, yes. Man, these are silly items. Utterly ridiculous . . .

179. In the Acts of the Apostles we see the historian of the early Church, the physician Luke, writing in detail about the various places where Peter was. Among them are Jerusalem (Acts.8:1), Samaria (Acts.8:25), Lydda (Acts.9:32), Caesarea (Acts.10:1), Joppa (Acts.10:5), and also other places that we see through the Pauline epistles, such as Antioch, according to Galatians 2:11, where Paul rebuked Peter to the face. Now, why does the Bible show Peter in so many places, but about Rome, however, he insists on not saying anything?! Even more considering that Peter’s time and ministry in Rome would be – for Catholics – of much more importance and relevance than simple “apostolic journeys” here or there, it would be absolutely indispensable that Peter be mentioned at least in Pomegranate!

It doesn’t because Acts was written before the time that Peter went to Rome.

1 Peter 5:13 She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.

Several Protestant commentaries think that this is a code word for “Rome”:

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

It may be called the established interpretation that the place meant is Rome. We never hear of St. Peter being in the East, and the thing in itself is improbable, whereas nothing but Protestant prejudice can stand against the historical evidence that St. Peter sojourned and died at Rome. Whatever theological consequences may flow from it, it is as certain that St. Peter was at Rome as that St. John was at Ephesus. Everything in the Letter also points to such a state of things as was to be found at Rome about the date when we believe the Letter to have been written. It is objected that St. Peter would not gravely speak of Rome under a fanciful name when dating a letter; but the symbolism in the name is quite in keeping with the context. St. Peter has just personified the church of the place from which he writes, which seems quite as unprosaic a use of language as to call Rome “Babylon.” And it seems pretty clear that the name was quite intelligible to Jewish readers, for whom it was intended. The Apocalypse (Revelation 17:18) is not the only place where Rome is found spoken of under this title. One of the first of living Hebraists (who will not allow his name to be mentioned) told the present writer that no Hebrew of St. Peter’s day would have had need to think twice what city was meant when “Babylon” was mentioned. . . . Finally, as M. Renan suggests, there were reasons of prudence for not speaking too plainly about the presence of a large Christian society in Rome. The police were still more vigilant now than when St. Paul wrote in guarded language about the Roman empire to the Thessalonians. (See Excursus on the Man of Sin, after 2 Thess.) It might provoke hostilities if the Epistle fell into the hands of a delator, with names and places too clearly given.

MacLaren’s Expositions:

[It is] my own opinion that ‘Babylon’ means Rome. We have here the same symbolical name as in the Book of Revelation, where, whatever further meanings are attached to the designation, it is intended primarily as an appellation for the imperial city, which has taken the place filled in the Old Testament by Babylon, as the concentration of antagonism to the Kingdom of God.

Meyer’s NT Commentary:

According to Eusebius (H. E. c. 15), Papias already was of opinion that the name Babylon is here used figuratively, and that by it Rome is to be understood. The same view is adopted by Clemens Alex., Hieronymus, Oecumenius, Beda, Luther, and by most of the Catholic interpreters; in more recent times by Thiersch, Ewald, Hofmann, Wiesinger, Schott, etc. The principal reasons brought forward in support of this view are—(1) The tradition of the primitive church, which speaks of the apostle’s stay in Rome, but makes no mention of his having lived in Babylon; (2) The designation of Rome as Babylon in Revelation, chap. Revelation 14:8, Revelation 18:2; Revelation 18:10; (3) The banishment of the Jews from Babylon in the time of the Emperor Claudius, according to Joseph. Ant. i. 18, c. 12.

180. It was the church in Jerusalem (not Rome) that sent missionaries such as Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11:22). If Peter was pope in Rome, which was the seat of apostolic Christianity, one would expect that it was from there that missionaries were sent and the gospel was centralized.

Once again, he simply wasn’t there yet. He ended up there. Why is this so hard to grasp?

181. It was not in Rome that Christians were called by this name for the first time, but in Antioch (Acts 11:26).

This has absolutely nothing to do with our topic.

Ignatius of Antioch, a first-century bishop, adds that it was right there in Antioch – and not in Rome – where the apostles laid the foundations of the Church: “This was first fulfilled in Syria, for “the disciples were called Christians in Antioch” “, when Paul and Peter laid the foundations of the Church” (Ignatius to the Magnesians, Long Version, Cap.10).

Some very early things happened in Antioch. I don’t see how this affects the Catholic argument. Peter later went to Rome and began an unbroken succession of popes that has lasted until this day.

182. There are strong indications that Peter was only in Rome to die in martyrdom, arriving there at the end of his life. For example, Origen (2nd century) sheds a lot of light on this and states: “Peter, having finally gone to Rome, was there crucified upside down.” This “finally” makes it clear that Peter did not stay in Rome for 25 years, years as Catholics want, but only at the end of his life, FINALLY, and with the purpose clearly stated right there – to be crucified upside down (martyred).

The Catholic Encyclopedia (“St. Peter”), way back in 1910 or so, stated:

As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. . . .

Although the fact of St. Peter’s activity and death in Rome is so clearly established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn.

It provides early historical evidence for the belief that St. Peter died in Rome:

• From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria , who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles ), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples ( Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xv; III, xl; VI, xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, i). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark , Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle .
• Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): “Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church ] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony . . ., has entered the merited place of glory ” . . .
• Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says: “You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom ” (in Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xxviii).
• Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition , as “the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul ” (Adv. haer., III, iii; cf. III, i). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.
• In his “Hypotyposes” ( Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, IV, xiv), Clement of Alexandria , teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters : “After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God , the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them” (see above).
• Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In De Prescriptione 36, he says: “If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John”. In Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter’s crucifixion. “The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross”. As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (On Baptism 5) that there is “no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber”; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, “to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood” (Against Marcion 4.5).

183. The ecclesiastical historian of the Church, Eusebius of Caesarea (3rd and 4th centuries), sheds even more light and states with the greatest possible clarity: “Peter, it seems, preached in Pontus, Galatia and Bithynia, in Cappadocia and in Asia, to the Jews of the Diaspora; at last he reached Rome and was crucified with his head down, as he himself asked to suffer” (HE, Book III, 1:2). Therefore, the places where Peter preached the gospel the most were in Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia and Asia.

So what? Eusebius obviously drew this from the First Epistle of Peter:

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado’cia, Asia, and Bithyn’ia,

Eusebius verifies what Catholics believe. On what basis should he be doubted?

Paul states that he was an itinerant missionary (1 Cor.9:5). He did not exercise a primacy in Rome!

At that time he was, yes.

In the same way, he preached “to the Jews of the Diaspora”, not “to the Romans”!

At first, that’s what he primarily did.

Finally, Eusebius states the time when Peter arrived in Rome – “at last” – and with the purpose of dying in martyrdom, just as Origen said. It was only towards the end of his life that Peter came to Rome, not to exercise primacy or to act as “pope”, but with the clear purpose of being martyred. This completely eliminates the Romanist pretensions of placing Peter 25 years in Rome, and on top of that as pope!

Which Catholics say that Peter was in Rome for 25 years?

184. Paul writes to Philemon directly from Rome in AD 60, where Peter is supposed to have been (according to the Catholic gospel). However, Paul cites four companions with him in Rome. They are: (1) Epaphras, (2) Mark, (3) Aristarchus, (4) Demas, and (5) Luke. At no point does Paul quote Peter in Rome! This fact makes it clear that Peter was not there, or, if he was, his presence would be indispensable, along with the other five names that were with Paul (Phil.1:23-25). Paul would not ignore Peter’s authority. If Peter were there, the denial of his presence would be a clear sign of insubordination.

Epaphras was his “fellow prisoner” (1:23), and Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, his “fellow workers” (1:24). As Lucas said, they were his “companions.” They all sent “greetings” (1:23). This has nothing to do one way or another with whether Peter was there.  This was standard practice for Paul at the end of his letters (it’s almost always the people who are “with” him):

“All who are with me send greetings to you” (Titus 3:15).

“Eubu’lus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren” (2 Tim 4:21)

“The brethren who are with me greet you. All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household” (Phil 4:21-22)

“All the saints greet you” (2 Cor 13:13)

“The churches of Asia send greetings. Aq’uila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord. All the brethren send greetings” (1 Cor 16:19-20)

Colossians 4:10-14 Aristar’chus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions — if he comes to you, receive him), [11] and Jesus who is called Justus. . . . [12] Ep’aphras, who is one of yourselves, a servant of Christ Jesus, greets you, always remembering you earnestly in his prayers, that you may stand mature and fully assured in all the will of God. [13] For I bear him witness that he has worked hard for you and for those in La-odice’a and in Hi-erap’olis. [14] Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you.

Romans 16:21-23 Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosip’ater, my kinsmen. [22] I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord. [23] Ga’ius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Eras’tus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you.

185. To the Philippians, also in Rome, A.D. 61, Paul mentions special greetings from those in “Caesar’s palace” (Phil.4:21-23), but again he does not mention Peter or the papal see, which would be much more important if it really existed!

186. Writing to the Colossians, still in Rome (AD 60), Paul this time mentions several names. They are: (1) Tychicus, (2) Onesimus, (3) Aristarchus, (4) Mark, (5) Jesus, (6) Epaphras, (7) Luke, and (8) Demas. Again, the complete silence about Peter is embarrassing to papists. It’s incredible that Paul gave eight names, but he “forgot” exactly the most important of them: Peter!

187. To the Colossians, Paul writes that Mark and Jesus were “the only ones of the circumcision who are my co-workers for the Kingdom of God” (Col.4:11) in Rome. Interestingly, Peter was precisely “apostle of the circumcision” (Gal.2:8,9), as were Mark and Jesus the Just. But only these last two who collaborated with Paul in Rome, and he is accurate in saying that “these are the only ones who are my co-workers” (Col.4:11). By saying “unique”, he excludes the possibility of “someone else”. So either Peter didn’t really hold any “chair of Rome,” or he didn’t collaborate with Paul!

188. Writing his second epistle to Timothy in Rome (AD 67), Paul again cites several names as being with him in that city (2 Tim.4:9-12,21,22). These are: (1) Luke, (2) Eubulus, (3) Prudente, (4) Linus, (5) Claudia. Again, Paul does not quote Peter! We don’t know if Paul was “in a quarrel” with Peter and that’s why he always omitted his name, just to give the false impression that he was with him. In any case, the most likely alternative remains that Peter was actually not there!

189. In that same epistle, in chapter 4 and verses 9-12, there is a precious statement from Paul. He claims that Demas had left him, as well as Crescent and Titus. He again does not quote Peter. In other words, Peter had not left him, nor was he with him. Everything leads us to believe that he was not even in Rome, which needs no further comment and clarifies all things.

190. Still in this final greeting, Paul quotes that “only Luke is with me” (2 Tim.4:11), that is, closest to him in that city. By saying “only Luke”, he excludes the chances that Peter was also there, incognito, invisible, or on a secret mission. It was Luke – and only Luke – who was with him!

191. Finally, Paul states that “at my first defense, all forsook me” (2 Tim.4:16). Now, if there was any Christian leader for Catholics who could “save the skin” of Paul, it would certainly be the Pope, Peter. Yet again Peter doesn’t show up doing anything for Paul in Rome! Could it be that Peter was in Rome, always being so indifferent to the apostle Paul?

Mark Shea wrote:

[M]y basic response would be, “Who says Peter was there when Paul wrote the Romans?”  It seems to me he could have been anywhere.  Just as Paul founded Churches and moved on so Peter may have founded the Church at Rome and then gone on and been anywhere in the Empire when Paul wrote.  The apostles tended to get around.  As far as I know, the only thing solid we have from the Tradition is that Peter founded the Church at Rome and that both Peter and Paul were martyred there. I know of nothing in the Tradition which demands we believe Peter remained in Rome from the time he founded the Church until his death and can think of lots of reasons for presuming Peter was on the move like the other apostles till he returned to Rome to meet his destiny. The archeology that supports the fact that the tomb of Peter below the basilica of St. Peter is rather impressive. It is backed by the memoirs of apostolic Fathers who also remember Peter and Paul dying at Rome.  Against this, the argument that Paul doesn’t mention Peter in his letter is essentially an argument from silence—and a silence that can be accounted for in other ways than by supposing that the witness of the entire early Church and the bones of a crucified man (in a tomb bearing the inscription “Peter is within”) are somehow an elaborate fraud. (“Where Was Peter When Paul Wrote Romans?”, National Catholic Register, 4 March 2013)

I think the simpler explanation, though, is that Paul was simply mentioning his immediate companions. They had to be with him in order to convey to him the notion that they wanted to send greetings along in his epistle. It would obviously have been dangerous for Peter to visit Paul in prison. Or he may have also been “underground” and Paul didn’t want to reveal that he was there by mentioning him.

192. For a long time, the Christians who were scattered did not preach the gospel to anyone, but “only to the Jews” (Acts 11:19). As the Romans were not Jews, it is difficult to reconcile the idea that Peter quickly settled there, looking for a Jew to preach the gospel!

For the umpteenth time: one need only believe that Peter (for a sustained time), was only there later in his life.

193. The Roman Emperor Claudius had expelled all Jews from Rome in AD 41 to AD 54. This was the reason why Aquila and Priscilla had to leave there, “for Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome” (Acts 18:1,2). As Peter was a Jew, he would not be there alone. Claudius was not going to expel all the Jews but to leave precisely one of the “principals” there, alone. Therefore, at this time Peter could not have been in Rome at all.

Then that fits in with my repeatedly expressed scenario that Peter was only there later in his life.

194. In Galatians 1:13-18, Paul claims to have gone to Jerusalem and met Peter, having been with him for fifteen days. Therefore, since Peter was still in Jerusalem at this time, it is a fact that he was not holding any professorship in Rome.

That’s correct. Here’s a shocking revelation to Lucas: people move around a lot . . .

195. Peter was “an apostle to the circumcised” (Gal.2:8), not to the Gentiles. If Peter occupied the See of Rome, he would be an apostle to the Romans (Gentiles), consequently he would be an apostle to the uncircumcised, as well as Paul (Gal.2:9,10), for he acted among them. Paul was a Jew, but because he had a ministry among the Gentiles, he was considered an apostle to the uncircumcised (Gal.2:7,8). Peter, also being a Jew, was nevertheless considered “an apostle to the circumcised” (Gal.2:8), for his ministry was not among the Gentiles (as was Paul’s), but among the Jews themselves! Therefore, Peter was not predominantly active in Jerusalem (Jews) and not in Rome (Gentiles).

196. Paul affirms that “the gospel of the uncircumcision was entrusted from outside, as to Peter the gospel of the circumcision” (Gal.2:7). If Peter acted as bishop in Rome, he would be the chief apostle of the uncircumcision (Gentiles), not Paul! Therefore, one of two: Either Paul was greater than Peter, so that he was the chief apostle to the Gentiles, even though Peter was also turned to the Gentiles of Rome(!); or else Paul was one of the chief of the Gentiles because he was among them (Gentiles), while Peter was one of the chief of the circumcision because he was among them (Jews). Therefore, it is logical to say that Peter was predominantly in Jerusalem (even though he had missionary journeys like that of Acts 8:14), while Paul was predominantly among the Gentiles. Once again, “Peter, Bishop of Rome” is a much more invented myth.

197. In Galatians 2:9, Paul is in Jerusalem with James, Peter and John (Gal.2:9), which shows us that Peter (as well as James and John) were still in Jerusalem. Furthermore, we see that Paul would continue to address the Gentiles, while they would continue to address the circumcised: “They agreed that we should address the Gentiles, and they the circumcised” (Gal.2:9). 198. Already in Acts 23:11, we see the Lord Jesus telling Paul to have courage, for “as you testified about me in Jerusalem, so shall you testify also in Rome” (Acts 23:11). Now, where was Peter, the pope, who for so many years in that city did not make the name of Jesus known there?

I’ve been through this before and at this point I’m too lazy to look it up. Both men did both things.

199. In Acts 11:2, Peter returns to Jerusalem, and for this time Herod arrests him (Acts 12). Since this king died a short time later (Acts 12:23) and Josephus Flavius ​​claimed that such an event (of Herod Agrippa’s death) took place during the fourth year of Claudius’ reign (in 45 AD), it logically follows that at this time Peter was still in Jerusalem.

Yep.

200. In Galatians 2:11, Peter appears in Antioch, already in 45 AD, which is very, very far from Rome, in the middle of the East!

Indeed it is. No problem for our view.

201. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), which was attended by Peter, took place in this city and not in Rome. If Peter had been pope in Rome, such a Council might well have taken place there, and if he was really in Jerusalem, it follows that in AD 49 Peter was still in Jerusalem, and therefore not in Rome.

Correct. This ain’t rocket science.

202. At the end of the Acts of the Apostles, around 60-61 AD, Paul arrives in prison in Rome (Acts 28:11), and Luke records that the brothers of faith went to him (Acts 28:15). Interestingly, Peter does not show up to receive his ministry colleague, nor does Luke bother to narrate Peter there, which would be of the utmost importance! Peter again keeps his mystery “hidden” in Rome!

203. When Paul arrived in Rome, around AD 60-61, a fact recorded in the last chapter of Acts, the Romans needed information about the Christians, as they had no further information about it. They needed to hear from Paul what he thought (Acts 28:22), having to gather on a certain day to hear the gospel message (Acts 28:23). If Rome were the seat of the Pope or the center of Christianity, this would not be necessary, since they would already know very well who Christians are!

Dealt with in my reply to #191 above.

204. Peter, in writing his first epistle, claims to be writing from “Babylon” (1Pe.5:13). There are several reasons to believe that this place is not Rome, as Catholics preach.

And there are several reasons to believe it does stand for Rome, as explained in my reply to #182 above.

A. First, because if Babylon is an enigmatic language for Rome, then Catholics will have to admit that Rome is Babylon, thus dismantling their belief that Jerusalem is the Babylon of the Apocalypse. Since almost all Catholics preach that Babylon is Jerusalem, it logically follows that if the passage here is cryptic or figurative, it must be Jerusalem, not Rome!

Rome was already called “Babylon” in the book of Revelation.

B. But there are several reasons to believe that Peter was not using mysterious or enigmatic language in 1 Peter 5:13. For example, the apostle Paul writes openly to the Romans, without riddles (Rom.1:7). He doesn’t need to say he was writing “to the Babylonians”, he simply says he was writing to the Romans! In the same way, Luke, writing Acts at about the same time as Peter’s epistle, spares no words to address Rome. . . (Acts.28:14; Acts.28:16; Acts. 19:21; Acts.23:11; Acts.18:2; etc.). He writes openly about this city several times. Therefore, there would be no reason for Peter to break the entire biblical rule and use such differentiated language, whose context itself does not support it, since the context is not at all “gimmicky” or “mysterious”!

There must have been danger involved or he wouldn’t have done it.

C. The reference, therefore, concerns the city of Babylon situated by the Euphrates. There was a considerable Jewish population in the vicinity of Babylon in the early centuries of the Christian Era. It remained a focus of Judaism for centuries and therefore a suitable place for Peter, who was “the apostle to the circumcised” (Gal.2:8), to preach the gospel. Reading 1 Peter 1:1 and 1 Peter 5:13, we see that Peter did not write either from Rome or to the Romans!

Since Rome was already called “Babylon” in the book of Revelation it seems plausible that Peter would have done the same thing.

205. Finally, there is nothing better than analyzing Paul’s own letter to the Romans. If there was a more than perfect opportunity to name the “Pope Peter” who was supposed to be there, this would be the perfect chance! However, Peter is not even mentioned throughout all sixteen chapters of Paul’s epistle to the Romans! And worse: It does not even appear in the list of extended greetings that the apostle passes on in the last chapter, where he nominally greets twenty-seven brothers from Rome, and does not quote Peter from beginning to end! Why, if Peter were the pope there, being one of the most important figures in all of Christianity, he should be the first to be greeted by Paul! But this one, from start to finish, writes perfectly as someone who has no idea that Peter was there. He doesn’t remember his name at the beginning of the letter, nor in the middle, nor in the final greetings. This, however, does not prevent his saluting another twenty-seven persons whom he remembered, nor does it prevent Catholics, even in the light of all this, from preferring to continue in the most vigorous ignorance, rather than confessing all the obvious and self-evident points. – evident throughout this study, and free themselves from their historical errors that are easily refuted.

If St. Peter simply wasn’t there yet at the time St. Paul wrote this letter, that would easily explain it.

***

END OF ENTIRE REPLY

Go to Part One (#1-50)

Go to Part Two (#51-100)

Go to Part Three (#101-150)

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Detail of Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (1481-82) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli takes on my “50 NT Proofs for Petrine Primacy”, with his 205 “Petrine Potshots”. This is Part IV of my replies (#151-205).

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

See other installments:

Part One: “Disproofs” #1-50

Part Two: “Disproofs” #51-100

Part Four: “Disproofs” #151-205

***

Continuing response to his article, “205 Provas Contra O Primado de Pedro” (no date) [205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter]

101. Paul used the authority of the name of Jesus Christ to cast out an evil spirit, which went out immediately (Acts 16:18).

All twelve disciples had that power (Lk 9:1). So did the seventy evangelists appointed by Jesus (Lk 10:17, 20).

102. The seven sons of the head of the Jewish synagogue rebuked evil spirits on the basis of “Jesus whom Paul preaches” (Acts 19:13). At no time is Peter indicated by them or anyone else as sufficient authority to repel demons.

We know that he did from Luke 9:1: written by Luke: the author of Acts, too.

103. There were two people in the Christian faith who, as important as they were, made themselves “known” by name even by the devil, who insisted on highlighting them. They are: (1) Jesus; (2) Paul (Acts 19:15).

The demons mentioned Paul because his name had already been invoked by the Jewish exorcists (Acts 19:13).

104. God intervenes on Paul’s behalf with violent earthquakes to the point of shaking the foundations of a prison (Acts 16:22-26). At no other time in the New Testament does God intervene in nature in such a way on behalf of a servant of his.

There was no earthquake, but an angel got St. Peter out of prison, too (Acts 12:7-11). So only St. Paul got an “earthquake intervention.” But how does that prove that he is more so a papal figure (if there is one) than St. Peter? It simply doesn’t.

105. Paul was in charge of the baptism of the jailer and his entire family (Acts 16:33).

Great. In what way is that relevant to this discussion?

106. Paul is the apostle who baptized the most people recorded in the Bible (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor 1:16; Acts 19:5; Acts 18:8, etc.).

So that’s the Philippian jailer and his family, Crispus, the ruler of a synagogue, “some disciples” of John the Baptist, Crispus, Ga’ius,
and the household of Steph’anas. St. Peter was responsible for 3,000 baptisms in one day (Acts 2:38-41), as well as Cornelius with “his kinsmen and close friends” (Acts 10:24, 45-48).

107. Paul was officially a Roman citizen, who had numerous privileges at that time (Acts 16:38).

And this is relevant how?

108. Paul was at the forefront of encouraging the disciples in the faith. It was he who met the brothers in Thyatira, and encouraged them to continue in the walk of faith (Acts 16:40).

Of course he did. This doesn’t indicate that he was the first pope.

109. Paul is the apostle who most often entered Jewish synagogues to debate with Jews (recorded in the Bible). For three consecutive Sabbaths he went to the synagogue to argue with them from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2).

110. Paul was the only apostle to defend the Christian faith at the famous Areopagus in Athens, of which there is a biblical record (Acts 17:22).

This shows that he was a great debater, evangelist, and debater, but not the pope.

111. While some apostles like Peter were married (1Co.9:5), “Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching” (Acts.18:5).

Great. Anyone can choose to do that if they wish, and if God calls them to it.

112. Paul is the only apostle recorded to have strengthened all the disciples throughout the region of Galatia and Phrygia (Acts 18:23).

113. Paul “argued convincingly about the Kingdom of God” (Acts 19:8), convincing the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.

114. There is no record of an apostle more persecuted than Paul. In his words: “…I have worked more than them and I have been in jail more times. I have been whipped far more than they were, and I have often been in danger of death” (2 Cor.11:23). From reading 2 Corinthians 11:23-29 we see his testimony that he was the most persecuted apostle in the history of the early Christian Church (in its early years).

115. Paul was the only apostle in Church history who preached to “all the Jews who lived in the province of Asia” (Acts 19:10). For two years, they all came to hear the word of the Lord through the preaching of this blessed apostle. There is no historical record of any apostle in the history of the Church who has achieved such a wide reach in terms of propagating the faith to the unsaved.

Good for him, and irrelevant to this discussion.

116. Paul resurrects the young Eutychus (Acts 20:10-12), in yet another great demonstration of God’s power through his life.

Peter raised Tabitha from the dead (Acts 9:36-41).

117. Paul instructs the pastors, bishops and elders of the Church for three years, never failing to warn each one of them in their Christian walk (Acts 20:31).

Good for him, and irrelevant to this discussion.

118. All the bishops, pastors and elders made “great weeping” for Paul, falling on his neck and kissing him (Acts 20:37). It is probably the greatest display of affection and consideration ever known for an apostle.

This shows he was greatly loved, but not that he was the pope.

119. God chose Paul from all the ancestors to make the truth known through him (Acts 22:14,15), to see the righteous and to hear the words of his mouth (Acts 22:14,15).

We would expect that He would so bless the Greatest Evangelist.

120. He is one of the only ones to receive directly from God the guarantee of “being a witness to all men of what he has seen and heard” (Acts 22:15).

Jesus told all the apostles: “you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

121. Paul is the only apostle who claims to have fully fulfilled the will of God, “having fulfilled my duty to God with all good conscience, until this day” (Acts 23:1).

Jesus prayed that the faith of Peter would not fail (Lk 22:32). And it didn’t (after he repented for having denied Him). He also fulfilled his duty and calling and died as a martyr, being crucified upside down. Peter responded to what Jesus said by saying, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death” (Lk 22:33). He wasn’t ready that night, as we all know (and most of us wouldn’t have acted differently in that situation, though we sit in our armchairs looking down our nose at St. Peter), but he was after his repentance, and after having been filled (or re-filled) with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, so that he actually did fulfill what he claimed.

122. Paul begins to defend the authority of his ministry in his epistle to the Galatians. He writes that he went to Judea for the purpose of speaking to those who “seemed most influential” (Gal.2:6). According to Catholicism, this must certainly include Peter. However, he claims that “what they were then makes no difference to me” (Gal.2.6)! He would hardly have been so “insubordinate” to a position above his own, as special as “infallible” as is “pope” (if there had been such a thing, of course!).

This was the second time Paul went to Jerusalem to consult with Peter (and/or James and John), fourteen years (Gal 2:1) after he was already established as an apostle and evangelist. According to the Bible, Peter was the preeminent authority, which is why Paul had to, and did consult with him, during his first visit to receive sanction for his ministry:

Galatians 1:18-19 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. [19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

Now, what impression does this passage give, as to the relative importance in the church of Peter, James, and John? Yes (my answer, too . . .). But oddly and inexplicably enough, Lucas never mentions Galatians 1:18 in his entire presentation of 205 disproofs of Petrine primacy (at least if the search engine is correct). I think we should consider and analyze all the passages related to Peter and Paul in this discussion. One would think that in the course of 205 points, this key and ultra-relevant verse would be included. But Lucas prefers to ignore some of the Bible passages that don’t agree with his position, and to engage in selective presentation, which is basically setting out half-truths.

123. Paul asserts that these more influential men “added me nothing” (Gal.2:6). They had nothing to add to Paul’s life other than what he already knew or already was!

Yes, because they couldn’t make him more of an apostle than he already was. That was established no later than his first visit with Pope St. Peter (Gal 1:18-19).

124. Paul, in stating more clearly who these “influential men” were, does not differentiate Peter from the others, as being the most important.

Galatians 1:18 already showed that. But as I noted, Lucas conveniently skipped over that verse. Out of sight, out of mind! Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil . . .

On the contrary, he generalizes together with James and John. Nor does he make a point of citing Peter as being the first among them, but he places James as the first pillar of the Church, even ahead of Peter himself (Gal.2:9).

This is basically a repeat of #50, that I answered at considerable length in Part One., citing several Protestant commentaries in agreement with me.

125. Paul affirms that “I had been entrusted with the preaching of the gospel to the uncircumcised, as Peter was entrusted to the circumcised. For God, who worked through Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, also worked through me to the Gentiles” (Gal.2:7,8). One can clearly see the tone of equality between Paul and Peter. He does not place Peter above him, but on an equal footing, in asserting that God has worked in the same way among them, equally, and not disproportionately to the one to the detriment of the other.

Apostles treated each other — broadly speaking — as equals, yes. I basically replied to this line of reasoning in my reply to #66 in Part Two. Here’s the heart of that rebuttal:

None of this proves anything, anymore than Paul calling lessers “brethren” (many many times) “proves” that they are on the same level as him. Even Jesus called His disciples “friends” (Jn 15:13-15). Does that mean He isn’t above them? Paul calls Christians “fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17) and “God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9), and he calls other Christians “fellow workers” and “fellow soldiers” and “fellow servants” (see the references).

Also, we see Jesus saying, “the Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28) and “My Father . . . is greater than all” (Jn 10:29), but in the same Gospel also saying, “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30) and “All that the Father has is mine” (Jn 16:15) and “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9) and “I am in the Father and the Father in me” (Jn 14:11). Hebrew, biblical, and Catholic thinking are not “either/or” (as habitually in Protestantism), but rather, “both/and.” Therefore, sometimes Paul or Peter or the biblical narrative can talk in terms of their equality, and other times, refer to Peter’s headship in the hierarchy of the Church.

126. Paul was chosen by God to “open the eyes of his own people and of the Gentiles, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God” (Acts 26:17,18). Although this is a function of all Christians, for he was chosen of God to receive this call directly from Him, among many others.

The same is true of St. Peter, who was clearly the leader of the brand-new Church, starting on the Day of Pentecost, when he delivered the first sermon in the Church age and oversaw the baptism of 3,000 new believers (Acts 2). He continues being the focus of Luke’s narrative in Acts (during the time that Paul was persecuting and killing Christians), primarily evangelizing Jews, up through chapter 13, where the narrative switches over to the newly converted Paul (since he and Peter were the two most important figures in the new Church).

It was Pope St. Peter, not Evangelist St. Paul, who was the first to learn that the Mosaic dietary and ceremonial laws wouldn’t be required for Christians, and he was the first to receive the Gentiles into Christian fellowship, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48). Just prior, an angel had told Cornelius to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6). Peter referred back to this in his talk at the council of Jerusalem: “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe” (Acts 15:7). Obviously, since Peter wound up in Rome as the bishop, and was martyred there, he had long since focused upon outreach to Gentiles.

History and scholarship tells us that Peter was killed in 64 AD, during the reign of the madman Nero. This was before Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans (in 70 AD). Thus, Peter had decided to concentrate on outreach to the Gentiles, just as Paul had. Both evangelized Jews and Gentiles. It’s foolish to create some arbitrary divide, as if it is absolute. Both wound up being martyred in Rome.

127. Paul was considered “the chief head of the sect of the Nazarenes -και ειναι πρωτοστατης της αιρεσεως των Ναζωραι” (Acts.24:5). The presence of the definite article and the singular πρωτοστατην shows us clearly that Paul was actually the leader of the Christians appointed by the famous lawyer Tertullus (Acts 24:2), with the consent of the Jews and Luke, the evangelist who confirmed and recorded this in the Acts of the Apostles. Once again we see that Paul – and not Peter – is the most suitable to be “leader of the sect of the Nazarenes”!

Once again (annoyingly), Lucas decides to repeat an entry. If he keeps doing that, it will merely allow me to deepen and strengthen my answers, by dealing with the same thing twice (as I will do in this instance, and it doesn’t look good for his argument at all). This material was covered in my reply to #49 in Part One. There I noted that:

My RSV Bible says “a ringleader” as opposed to “the ringleader.” How much difference one little word makes! I’ve found only one out of about 60 English translations of Acts 24:5 that has “the ringleader.”

So an argument Lucas obviously thinks was a “knockout punch” for Paul being some sort of “pope” rather than Peter, is mercilessly shot down by 59 out of 60 translators of the Bible into English. That’s pretty decisive. A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament (at Acts 24:5) shows the true sense: “A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes . . . a front-rank man, a chief, a champion” [my bolding and italics]. In a Greek-English Interlinear version of the Bible (see the description of it), we see that there is no definite article, either:

prōtostatēn te tēs tōn Nazōraiōn

πρωτοστάτην τε τῆς τῶν Ναζωραίων

a leader then of the of the Nazarenes

“Nazarenes” has a definite article preceding it; but “leader” (or, “ringleader”) does not. And that’s why 59 out of 60 English translations use the indefinite “a” in describing Paul’s leadership, not the definite “the.” Whatever Portugese translation Lucas used here simply got this wrong, according to the overwhelming consensus of Bible translators (in English). I didn’t simply claim this. The translators have made it crystal-clear. I accept their conclusion; Lucas does not. Readers can make their own choice, having now read two sides, rather than just one. Isn’t back-and-forth dialogue wonderful?

128. Paul exalted his own ministry (Rom.11:13).

Yes he did. And what did he say in that verse? (Lucas merely cites it; I examine it): “I am an apostle to the Gentiles . . .” He states exactly what his role or office is: the evangelist to the Gentiles, so as to spread Christianity far and wide. It’s quite evident that such a role is not that of pope, who is the shepherd, leader, teacher, and protector of all Christians, not Gentile unbelievers. So this is Paul stating with his own “mouth” what he is (the Great Evangelist) and what he is not (the pope and leader of Christians). Paul reiterates this point of his central purpose in evangelizing the Gentiles many times.

129. Christ accomplished through Paul in word and deed (Rom.15:18). He was the only apostle on record to have “fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ” (v.19) from “Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum” (v.19).

Yes, he preached far and wide, because that was his office: evangelist. This disproves that he was pope. Why can’t Lucas see this? So many of his “disproofs” are actually strong arguments for the Catholic view of Peter as the first pope. I can’t thank him enough for affording me this wonderful opportunity to prove all the more that Peter was the first pope and that Paul certainly was not. I’ve come up with many arguments throughout these replies that likely would have never crossed my mind.

130. Paul is the only apostle who writes that he was living “in the fullness of the blessing of Christ” (Rom.15:19).

This doesn’t prove that no one else partakes of the same blessing. In order to do that it would have to read something like, “I am the only one who comes in the fulness of the blessing of Christ.”

131. Paul used the authority of the name of Jesus Christ to plead with all the Romans, giving them orders to obey “in one thought and in one judgment” (Rom.1:10).

That’s acting like a bishop does, since it is one local church or congregation. But that doesn’t prove universal jurisdiction. Paul exercises authority and supervision over the churches that he planted or nurtured.

132. Paul’s name appears first in relation to Peter in Romans [1 Corinthians] 1:12. Paul appears first, Apollos second, while Peter is only third (last listed). If Catholics really want to convince that the fact that someone’s name is mentioned first means that he has primacy over the others that come later (as they constantly do with the list of disciples), then there’s a hell of a headache that puts Peter behind Paul and Apollos!

The actual verse is 1 Corinthians 1:12. I don’t think this has any significance for our topic, because it has to do specifically with factionalism, not with ultimate authority. Paul names himself first because he was actually predominant in Corinth, having planted the church there (Acts 18; 1 Cor 2). Apollos is next because he gained much fame and reputation as an expert in apologetics in the region, in discussion with the Jews:

Acts 18:27-28 . . . When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, [28] for he powerfully confuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

He was doing so well preaching and defending the faith there that the next verse notes:

Acts 19:1 While Apol’los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus.

Division of labor . . . Because Apollos was thriving in Corinth and its surroundings, Paul (ever the pragmatist) bypassed it and went to Ephesus. Acts 18:27 stated that Apollos arrived in Achaia. This was a province of Greece in the Peloponnese peninsula that was directly to the west and north of Corinth. Because of Apollos’ success, factions started developing, as Paul notes, saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” (1 Cor 1:12).

Quite obviously and unarguably, then, Apollos was not listed after Paul because he was the second most important in the universal Church after Paul, but because he was the second most important in Corinth. No one in their right mind would say that Apollos had more importance in the early Church than Peter. So Paul mentions himself and Apollos in that respect. Then to broaden his point of unity to make it more general, the first person he thinks of is Peter (the pope), and then Christ (which is the proper answer: all Christians belong to Christ, and He alone). Paul nails down the point by adding, “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

The meaning, then, seems clear: “You say you belong to me or Apollos [the local leaders of the Corinthians], or to Peter [the pope and leader of all Christians], or to Christ.” This actually strengthens Petrine primacy, rather than diminish it, once the context is understood, because the first person he mentions beyond the immediate regional context is Peter; then he mentions Christ, because that was Who Christians should ultimately follow.

And who are the Christians who are famous for naming themselves after men and following them to a fault, and forming competing sects: precisely the opposite of St. Paul’s view? Lutherans, Calvinists, Mennonites, Zwinglians, Wesleyans, Arminians, Amish . . .

My original argument, as I have explained many times, is a cumulative one. It becomes strong and impressive by its constant repetition. Here was how I put it in my 50 Proofs for Peter. It’s not only being listed first that is noteworthy, but being named so often, period:

4. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he (“Cephas”) is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

36. Peter’s name is [almost] always the first listed of the “inner circle” of the disciples (Peter, James and John – Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).

39. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!

Lastly, if Lucas wants to make an argument from the word order in 1 Corinthians 1:12, then not only is Apollos more important than Peter in the early Church (absurd), but Jesus Christ is less important than all three men (!!!): seeing that He was listed fourth and last. Now his argument in #132 is shown to be ultra-ridiculous and more full of holes than Swiss cheese or a pin cushion.

133. Paul asserts that they were but servants through whom the Corinthians came to believe (1 Cor. 3:5), so that “neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but God alone” (1 Cor. 3:3). :7). In fact, such a picture does not occur in Catholicism, where the Pope “has full, supreme and universal power in the Church. And he can always freely exercise this power of his” (Catechism, §882).

To the contrary, popes routinely call themselves “Servant of the Servants of God.” This goes back to Pope St. Gregory the Great in the 6th century. So this “picture” is part of Catholicism. On the other hand, there is supreme and universal power in the Church, as seen in the decree of the Jerusalem council, in conjunction with the “Holy Spirit” (Acts 15). And the infallibility of the Church is also taught in 1 Timothy 3:15. When the logical and ecclesiological implications of that verse are unpacked, it is seen to teach the infallibility of the Church, which is contrary to sola Scriptura. If the Church has that power, it makes sense that the leader of the Church also would.

And Peter possessing the “keys of the kingdom” proves exactly that. That’s why the great Protestant scholar F. F. Bruce said Peter was the “chief steward” of the Church (see the Introduction in Part One), why the Lutheran Oscar Cullmann called Peter the “superintendent” (ibid.), why Methodist W. F. Albright thought Peter was the “the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain” (#7 in Part One), why Craig Keener thought he had “legislative authority” (ibid.), and why The Interpreter’s Bible confirmed that Peter had “plenary authority” and was the “chief teacher” (ibid.).

This is why, also, when Peter spoke at the Jerusalem Council, no one disagreed with him (“And all the assembly kept silence”: Acts 15:12), and local bishop James deferentially said, “Simeon has related . . .” (15:14), and proceeded to show how the prophets agreed with Peter (15:15-18). Peter (guided by his recent revelation / vision form God) had decided that the Gentiles shouldn’t have to follow the entire Mosaic Law, including circumcision, and this is what the council decreed. This is precisely “power in the Church”: exercised by St. Peter, leading a council of elders and apostles, including St. Paul (whose words in this gathering weren’t even recorded).

134. Paul claims that it was he (not Peter) who laid the foundation for the church (1 Cor. 3:10).

In context, this is clearly referring to Paul laying the foundation for the local Corinthian church (1 Cor 2:1-5; Acts 18:1-11), not the Church universal. Very shoddy hermeneutics here . . . Besides, if Paul had laid the foundation of the universal, Catholic Church, then it didn’t even exist on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit started indwelling all Christians and when 3,000 persons were baptized and “added” to the Church (Acts 2). Paul was still killing Christians in those days. So this entire notion is utterly absurd and false. It’s embarrassing to me as an apologist to have to take time to refute such a silly, vacuous argument. But we see how weak Lucas’ case is. This is a prime example.

135. Rather than adduce the pope, Paul adduces himself when he speaks of the (spiritual) “fathers” that the Corinthians had (1 Cor.4:15). If Peter were the [only] pope, obviously he would be the one for it, not Paul (remember that the very word “pope” comes from the word “father”).

Another silly, fatuous argument. Lucas himself says that this refers to the Corinthians only. Popes are the fathers of all Christians, but bishops are also the fathers of local churches, and priests of local congregations or parishes, if you will. It’s not an either/or scenario.

136. It was Paul – not Peter – who had begotten the Corinthians in faith through the gospel (1 Cor.4:15).

He planted a church as an evangelist. That is the evangelist’s task, not the pope’s.

137. Paul is the only apostle who constantly pleaded with us to imitate him (1Cor.4:16; 1Co.11:1; Phil.3:17).

He did, but in 2 Thessalonians, which was actually a joint effort of  Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (1:1), Paul said to imitate all three of them:

2 Thessalonians 3:7-9 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, [8] we did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you. [9] It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate.

Does Lucas now argue as a result, that Timothy and Silvanus are higher in the Church than Peter? Hebrews broadens the scope of this “imitation” too:

Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith.

Hebrews 11:1-40 (the whole chapter) is the famous “heroes of faith” passage. It was written, quite obviously, to exhort people to imitate the figures mentioned: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, and “Samuel and the prophets”.

138. Paul is the only apostle who passed on commandments (1Co.7:10 [7:6?]; 1Co.14:37,38)!

Peter commanded Cornelius and his kin and friends to be baptized (Acts 10:48). Jesus told eleven disciples (including their leader, Peter): “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:20). That was certainly passing on commandments. St. John did this, too: “Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment which you had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard” (1 Jn 2:7; cf. 2 Jn 1:4-6); “And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also” (1 Jn 4:21).

139. Paul is the only apostle with a “universal” character, who passed orders to “all the churches” (1 Cor.7:17).

Note it is plural: “churches” (i.e., congregations). He’s acting like a bishop, over local churches, not like a pope over the universal Church, though it is true that the advice and commands in his epistles are generally regarded as applicable to all Christians (just as the rest of the New Testament is so regarded as well).

140. Paul acknowledges that he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.7:40).

Christianity has decided that the canonical writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude were also inspired (“God-breathed”), so this is neither here nor there as to our topic at hand. This dispute is not about All the Wonderful Things About Paul (that no one disagrees with). It’s about Whether Peter Was the Pope / Leader of the Early Church.

141. Paul defends the validity of his apostleship with the following arguments (1 Cor.9:1):

A. It was free.

B. He saw the Lord Jesus.

C. The Corinthians were Paul’s work in the Lord.

And how is this a disproof of Peter’s papacy? The title of Lucas’ article that I am replying to is 205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter. Writers generally stick to the topic indicated by their title. But apparently Lucas disagrees with this widespread practice. Many of these entries about Paul have nothing to do (pro or con) with Peter’s primacy or lack thereof.

142. Note that none of Paul’s arguments for the validity and veracity of his true apostleship (either in 1 Cor. 9:1 or in any other chapter) is based upon its being “accepted or ordained by the pope.” Of two, one: Either Paul ignored the leadership and authority of Peter, or else Peter was not all that as Catholics preach. Paul’s apostleship and authority was completely independent of any acknowledgment of Peter!

We wouldn’t necessarily expect to see that at such an early stage of ecclesiology; however, what evidence we do have (Paul’s visiting Peter for fifteen days at the outset of his ministry: Gal 1:18) strongly suggests Peter’s sanctioning approval. It wasn’t just a mere coincidence that Apostle / Pope St. Peter was the one whom Apostle / Evangelist St. Paul visited, and for fifteen days, right at this important stage in his mission. If he were truly some sort of “spiritual lone ranger” as so many Protestants pretend (and Lucas may be one of them), then he wouldn’t have to go beyond Ananias, who laid hands on him (the usual rite of ordination), baptized him and was told by the Lord that Paul would have a great mission and destiny. That would constitute his ordination, if just anyone could do that. But in fact, we see the authority and ecclesiastical superiority of Peter in play.

143. Paul showed that he had the same rights to himself that the other apostles had, and he includes Peter (1 Cor.9:5).

Yep. Irrelevant. If we’re talking about apostles, Peter was one, too.

144. Paul made himself weak to win the weak, and strong to win the strong. He did everything to everyone, to somehow save as many people as possible. In his own words, “I do everything for the gospel’s sake, to share in it” (1 Cor.9:22,23). Paul was definitely the apostle who was most committed to defending the faith, to the point of becoming everything to everyone, so that they could receive Christ and see in him an example to be followed.

Exactly. This is what we would fully expect evangelists in particular to do, as good “persuasive policy”. I have tried to imitate this in the 41 years I have done Christian apologetics. Once again, Lucas seems to forget what the subject matter of this dispute is about. No one disagrees with all the great things that he notes about Paul (at least the ones that aren’t distorted and misunderstood). Was Peter the Pope? is our topic, and I religiously stick to it even if Lucas goes sailing off into the wild blue yonder, wildly, obliviously producing scads of non sequiturs and talking about all of St. Paul’s attributes that I have admired and respected as a committed disciple of Jesus and Bible-lover these past 45 years.

145. Paul’s words were not merely instructions, but “commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). He categorically states that if anyone were to ignore his words, “he himself will be ignored” (1 Cor.14:38). Nowhere else in the New Testament do we see an apostle writing with such authority, or writing on the authority of “the Lord’s commandments.”

Now Lucas bizarrely repeats an (erroneous) argument he made just seven entries earlier (#138 above). Weird . . .

146. Paul claims that he worked much harder than all the apostles did. He says, “…and his grace toward me was not in vain, but I worked harder than all of them” (1 Cor.15:10). As the apostle who works the most towards others, he can certainly be considered the “front line” among the apostles, the first and the one who most carried the gospel message.

He was the hardest worker. I agree! See my reply to #144 above.

147. Paul was “Christ’s ambassador” (1Co.5:20) [should be 2 Cor 5:20], and he claims that God made his appeal through him (1Co.5:20).

Yes he was. So was Timothy, co-writer of 2 Corinthians (1:1). That’s why Paul writes in the plural, and why it has “ambassadors” in the plural:

2 Corinthians 5:20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

But Lucas ignores the “we” and “us” that the epistle constantly employs, and so ignores poor old Timothy, who is also an “ambassador.” Peter, for his part, had long since been an ambassador or representative of Christ, as one of the twelve disciples (Mt 10:1), as Jesus made abundantly clear:

Matthew 10:22 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. . . .

Matthew 10:40 He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.

148. The only apostle the Bible says is “commended in everything” (2 Cor.6:4) is Paul.

It doesn’t say God commended him, but that “we commend ourselves in every way”. St. Peter taught that those who are commended by God are a rather large number:

1 Peter 2:19-20 For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly. [20] . . . if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God’s approval.

The writer of Hebrews applies it to a large number of past saints: “the men of old received divine approval” (Heb 11:2), based on their faith (11:1).

149. Paul clearly did not defend the superior authority of the apostle Peter over himself. Proof of this is that he says: “I was in no way inferior to the most excellent apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5). How could he have said such a thing, when Peter was the greatest earthly leader of the Church on the face of the earth, the “universal bishop”? Since Paul was in NO way inferior to the most excellent apostles, it is obvious and patent that he was not inferior to Peter or the others, either in terms of ecclesiastical authority.

I’ve dealt with this issue of “equality” twice now: in #66 in Part Two, and in #125 above.

150. Paul again defends his apostolic authority, not judging himself inferior to others (2Co.11:22-30), based on these facts: 

A. He was also a Hebrew (v.22).

B. He was also an Israelite (v.22).

C. He was also a descendant of Abraham (v.22).

D. He was much more a servant of Christ (v.23).

E. He worked much harder (v.23).

F. He was imprisoned more times (v.23).

G. He was scourged more severely (v.23).

H. He was exposed to death many more times (v.23).

I. He went through much more tribulation than anyone else (vv.25-27).

J. For these things he is proud (v.30).

He was an apostle, yep. Not every apostle is a pope, and not every pope is an apostle. He had the ancestral pedigree. He suffered a lot. The problem with Lucas’ analysis is that Paul also taught that everyone who “suffer[ed] with” Christ would — as a direct result — be “glorified with him” and would be “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17).

151. Paul continues to “glory” (2 Cor.12:1) in this, defending his authority as an apostle. He passes on the “visions and revelations of the Lord” (2Co.12:1), having been “caught up to the third heaven, and hearing unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for man to speak” (2Co.12:4). Paul was the only apostle who, in life, was caught up to the third heaven!

St. John (while still in this life) was caught up to the very throne of heaven:

Revelation 4:1-6 After this I looked, and lo, in heaven an open door! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up hither, and I will show you what must take place after this.” [2] At once I was in the Spirit, and lo, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne! [3] And he who sat there appeared like jasper and carnelian, and round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald. [4] Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads. [5] From the throne issue flashes of lightning, and voices and peals of thunder, and before the throne burn seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God; [6] and before the throne there is as it were a sea of glass, like crystal.

The prophets Daniel (ch. 7) and Isaiah (ch. 6) had also been ushered into the presence of God in what appears to be heaven, too: both before their deaths.

152. Paul asserts that he should be “praised by you” (2Co.12:11), since he was in no way inferior to the most excellent apostles (2Co.12:1).

Basically a repeat of #66, #125, and #149.

153. After defending the authority of his apostolate, comparing himself with even the most excellent apostles and not finding himself in an inferior position to them (on the contrary, he claims that he suffered and went through experiences that none of them did), he ends saying that he could be “strong in the use of the authority which the Lord has given me to build you up and not to tear you down” (2 Cor.13:10).

See my reply to #150 and #152. Again, he’s talking about the Corinthian congregation, as to his “authority.” This has no relation to whether Peter was the leader of the early Church.

154. Paul affirms that the gospel he preached “is not of human origin” (Gal.1:11), for “I received it from no one, nor was it taught to me; on the contrary, I received it from Jesus Christ by revelation” (Gal.1:11,12). This shows us that Paul was not indoctrinated in the doctrine of Peter, as in submission to him as “pope”, but only and directly from Jesus Christ, without dependence on the other apostles.

It does not at all. That’s how he first received it. When he visited Peter for fifteen days at the outset of his ministry (Gal 1:18: the verse that Lucas totally ignores throughout his entire article), they weren’t talking about the weather . . .

155. This explains why, when he was converted, he did not consult anyone (Gal.1:15-17), nor did he go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before him, but went straight to Arabia. : “When it pleased him to reveal his Son in me so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I consulted no one. Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, but immediately I departed for Arabia, and returned to Damascus” (Gal.1:15-17). Paul’s ministry was independent, not dependent on Peter or the authority of any “pope” or other apostles. If Peter were pope and leader of Christians, it would be Paul’s responsibility to consult him immediately, as the supreme and ecclesiastical authority that he would be.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be immediately, but it was early on. Again, Lucas ignores Galatians 1:18: the very next verse after the ones he brings up, and extremely relevant to the discussion.

156. It was through Paul that the Ephesians received the dispensation of God’s grace (Eph.3:2,3).

Being an evangelist . . . St. Peter did the same with the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and Cornelius and his kin and friends (Acts 10). With St. John he converted 5,000 in Jerusalem, at the temple (Acts 4:1-4), and a bunch of other people soon after (4:31), and many in Samaria (8:14-17).

END OF PART THREE

Go to Part One (#1-50)

Go to Part Two (#51-100)

Go to Part Four (#151-205)

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Detail of Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (1481-82) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli takes on my “50 NT Proofs for Petrine Primacy”, with his 205 “Petrine Potshots”. This is Part III of my replies (#101-150).

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

See other installments:

Part One: “Disproofs” #1-50

Part Three: “Disproofs” #101-150

Part Four: “Disproofs” #151-205

***

Continuing response to his article, “205 Provas Contra O Primado de Pedro” (no date) [205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter]. 

51. Paul places James as the first pillar of the Church in Galatians 2:9, placing him before Peter who only appears second. In addition to the fact that Peter is not the main pillar of the Church (as he would be if he were pope) and has to share his place with others, he is still mentioned behind James! Now, the “pillar of the Church” is a sign of leadership, of authority. Therefore, Peter is not the only leader, much less the first!

Already explained in my reply to #50. For further reading on this, see:

Did St. Paul Seek St. Peter’s Approval for His Ministry? (+ Does The Word Order in Galatians 2:9 Suggest a Lowering of Peter’s Primacy?) [4-27-17 and 9-4-17]

James Listed Before Peter (Gal 2:9)? (vs. Jason Engwer) [12-3-21]

52. Peter had been entrusted with preaching the gospel to the circumcised (Jews), as was Paul to the uncircumcised (Gentiles) – Gal.2:6-8. Again, no hint of “universal primacy” is extant, as Peter is not bishop of Gentiles and Jews, but is indicated by Paul as having a ministry aimed at Jews, while he (Paul) is at Gentiles. In addition to the fact that if Peter were bishop in Rome he would be of the uncircumcised (Gentiles), we also have the sad realization that he does not occupy universal jurisdiction, but only a local ministry on the same level as Paul (Gal.2:6- 8).

The First Epistle of Peter is directed towards a wide audience (1:1: “To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado’cia, Asia, and Bithyn’ia”), and reads like pastoral guidance of the leader of the Church to the whole Church. Peter humbly calls himself a “fellow elder.” But it doesn’t follow that he has no more authority than the other bishops (Paul also called himself a deacon). In fact, he assumes authority throughout his epistle: “gird up your minds” (1:13); “be holy yourselves in all your conduct” (1:15); “love one another earnestly from the heart” (1:22); “So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander” (2:1); “long for the pure spiritual milk” (2:2); “abstain from the passions of the flesh” (2:11); “Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles” (2:12); “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution” (2:13); “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (2:17); ” wives, be submissive to your husbands” (3:1); “Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman” (3:7); “have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.” (3:8); “Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling” (3:9); “in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense” (3:15: apologetics!); ” keep your conscience clear” (3:16); “keep sane and sober for your prayers” (4:7); “hold unfailing your love for one another” (4:8); “Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another” (4:9); “As each has received a gift, employ it for one another” (4:10); “Tend the flock of God that is your charge” (5:2: addressed specifically to other bishops); “you that are younger be subject to the elders” (5:5); “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God” (5:6); “Be sober, be watchful” (5:8); and “Resist him, firm in your faith” (5:9).

53. Jesus is said to be the only cornerstone of the Church (Eph.2:20), and we are built “on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph.2:20), not Peter. Once again, Peter is not indicated as the foundation or main stone of the Church, but only one among so many apostles and prophets, built on that one cornerstone that is Jesus Christ!

See my article, Can Christ & Peter Both be “Rocks”? [4-21-22] Excerpt:

[Some Protestants argue that] Scripture elsewhere calls Jesus Christ a “Rock”; therefore (so the reasoning goes) Peter can’t possibly be called the same thing. This simply isn’t true. The objection presupposes what I would argue is an unbiblical and hyper-rationalistic “either/or” outlook; whereas the Bible teaches a “both/and” point of view. Here are some of the passages brought up in order to set forth such a view:

Matthew 21:42 (RSV) Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures: ‘The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” (cf. Mk 12:10; Lk 20:17-18)

Acts 4:11 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Romans 9:32-33 Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, [33] as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

1 Corinthians 10:4 . . . For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

1 Peter 2:4, 6-8 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; . . . [6] For it stands in scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” [8] and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

Now, is this intended to exclude anyone else being called a rock or a stone? No. In Scripture, creatures are often called in an essentially lesser sense or degree, things which God is called. There can be such a thing as a Big Rock (God) and a small rock or stone (men or a man). In fact, this is explicit biblical teaching. Note that in the passage from 1 Peter, above, I left out a verse. Here it is:

1 Peter 2:5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

The “spiritual house” is likely referring to the Church. Jesus, in the larger passage, was called a “living stone” a “cornerstone” and “the head of the corner.” Yet we Christians are also called “living stones” in the same passage. Thus, there is no “either/or” pattern here. Both things can be true. If there can be little stones along with God as the Big Rock, then there can also conceivably be the “chief” of these secondary stones, and that would be Peter, based on the data of Matthew 16:18. And there’s more, too:

Ephesians 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [22] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

This is again referring to the Church (2:19), which is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (2:20). Thus we have precisely the same notion that Catholics contend is expressed in Matthew 16:18: there is a secondary / “co-worker” sense in which the Church is built upon men. Here it is the twelve apostles and prophets as well. In Matthew it’s Peter, as the leader and foremost of the apostles. And then in the next verse we have the “Big Rock”: “Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone”. So there is no false dichotomy. One is not in opposition to the other. Another passage teaches the same thing (without mentioning Jesus in this particular instance):

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

This sort of typology is, as I stated, common in Scripture.

54. Once again, Jesus is singled out as the only foundation (1 Cor.3:11). Peter himself declared that the rock in question was Jesus (1 Pet. 2:4), and that he (like other Christians) were “living stones” built on the main stone (1 Pet. 2:4-6).

See my reply to #53.

55. Peter, in writing his two well-known epistles, NEVER identified himself with the terms the Catholic Church inadvertently assigned to him: pope, prince of apostles, chief, head, bishop of bishops – these are all terms totally unknown to Peter. He simply identifies himself the way he was: “apostle” (1Pe.1:1) and “servant” (2Pe.1:1). As much as Catholicism invented many myths about Peter that emerged much later, there is nothing in the writings of this same apostle that could indicate a greater ostentation than that of “apostle” and “servant”, as well as all the other apostles!

See my reply to #52. So what? Much ado about nothing. Paul never called himself an “evangelist” either, even though he was the greatest evangelist of all time, and he uses the word three times.  Does it follow that he is not an evangelist? Jesus never called Himself “God” or “God the Son.” God the Father never calls Himself that in the Bible, even though He is called this name by others many times. Does it follow, then, that He ought not be called “God the Father”?

56. Peter had “neither silver nor gold” (Acts 3:6). Popes, however, have ample amounts of both!

See my articles, Biblical Evidence & Defenses for Expensive Church Buildings and Dialogue on Biblical Views Re Following Jesus & Riches.

57. At no time does Paul or any other apostle identify in the figure of Peter a maximum authority in their writings. Rather, what we see is Paul clearly stating that God “appointed some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers” (Eph.4:11). Note that neither “pope” nor anything of the sort appears to be an office in the Church. Simply put, Paul innocently “forgets” precisely what is most important within the Catholic Church!

The pope is the bishop of Rome. Lucas forgot to include Paul’s mention of bishops (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-2; Titus 1:7). We’ve already discussed whether James or Peter or both jointly presided over the council of Jerusalem. Bishops preside over local councils and popes preside over ecumenical ones. So we see the papacy and the episcopacy in kernel form here, and we have an infallible council (with Paul spreading its binding decree): something that is anathema to Protestantism. This is exactly what we would expect at this stage: a primitive development of what was later much more developed.

58. When the Judean brothers heard that the Gentiles had heard the word of God, they criticized Peter for having food in the house of uncircumcised men (Acts 11:1-3). They would hardly have done this if Peter were infallible pope, as they would be going against a superior authority, being subordinate to them. but spends a long time giving explanations about it (Acts 11:4-7).

That has to do with behavior, not promulgation of doctrine or infallibility (just as with Paul’s criticism of Peter for hypocrisy in Galatians). Since we have never claimed that popes are perfect, it’s is a non sequitur. Popes can be, and are, criticized in a variety of ways. I’ve done it myself. There is such a thing as respectful, substantive criticism.

59. If there was a “pope” (which comes from the word “father”), Jesus would not have said that “call no one on earth your father, for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Mt.23: 9).

This is a silly, classic anti-Catholic canard. The sky would fall and western civilization would come to an end if this wasn’t inevitably trotted out. See my articles, “Call No Man Father” vs. Priests Addressed as “Father”? [National Catholic Register, 8-9-18] and Biblical Evidence for “Holy Father” & “Vicar of Christ” [9-12-15].

60. It is not Peter the Supreme Pontiff, but Jesus. Just as the OT priests were a shadow of the NT priests (ministers of God), so the high priest was a figure of a greater priest, superior to the “ordinary” priests. If Peter were pope, he would be the perfect figure identifiable as this “High Priest”, or “Supreme Pontiff” (as Catholics themselves attribute to him, as well as to other popes). However, biblically only Jesus is our High Priest (Heb.6:20; 10:21; 7:23-25; 8:4)!

This is a substanceless “argument”. Jesus is the quintessential high priest in the sense of presenting Himself once and for all at His crucifixion as a sacrifice on our behalf to the Father (Heb 10:10-14). No created human being does that, and no one has offered animal sacrifice like the OT priests did, since 70 AD, so this is a non sequitur. There is simply no comparison of this with popes.

61. Furthermore, the prerequisite for fulfilling OT figures and becoming Supreme Pontiff in light of the New Covenant included having a “permanent priesthood” and “living forever to intercede for them” (Heb.7:23-25). ). Furthermore, he also needed to be “holy, blameless, pure, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens” (Heb.7:26). Now all these things do not fit the figure of Peter, but only in Christ. Therefore, Peter was not the High Priest/High Pontiff!

Again, the papacy has nothing to do with this. Jesus as high priest was figured in the OT by the high priest offering sacrifices at the temple and entering the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). That’s why Jesus is called the Lamb of God.

62. Finally, when an analogy is drawn between the Supreme Pontiff in heaven and the Supreme Pontiff (Priest) on earth, it is not to speak of Peter, but of the Israelites who presented the “offerings prescribed by the law” (Heb.8 :4). Again, Peter is not indicated as being the Supreme Pontiff on earth, as this title was only given to him later by the Catholic Church, as well as the other popes.

There is no such analogy. It’s fundamentally confused. Yes, the pope is “high priest” or “supreme priest” (pontiff), but it’s in the sense of New Testament priests, not OT priests, who offer animal sacrifice. The One who fulfilled their model was Jesus, Who sacrificed Himself as the innocent Lamb of God.

63. The Chief Shepherd appointed by Peter himself is not himself, but Christ (1Pe.5:4).

As Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid wrote:

Jesus is the shepherd of his flock the Church (Jn 10:16), yet he shares his shepherdhood in a subordinate way with others, beginning with Peter (Jn 21:15-17) and extending it later to others (Eph 4:11) . . . Jesus says he’s the only shepherd (Jn 10:11-16), yet this seemingly exclusive statement doesn’t conflict with him making Peter shepherd . . . or with his calling others to be shepherds as well (Eph 4:11). Peter emphasizes that Jesus shares his role as shepherd with others by calling Jesus the chief shepherd . . . (1 Pet 5:4). Note also that the Greek construction of John 10:16 . . . is the same as 1 Timothy 2:5 (. . . one mediator . . .). The apostles and their successors the bishops, are truly shepherds also. (“Any Friend of God’s is a Friend of Mine”, This Rock, Sep. 1992, 7-13)

64. Peter writes so that those who shepherd do not act as rulers of the flock (1Pe.5:3), exactly the attitude of the popes, who dominate the entire “flock” called the Roman Catholic Church!

This gets back to what I discussed in my reply to #3 in Part One. The pope is not to “lord it over” the flock or be a tyrant or despot. Jesus and the New Testament are not against leadership; they oppose tyrannous leadership and dictatorship. Peter, writing to elders, expresses precisely the same thing:

1 Peter 5:2-3  Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, [3] not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.

I’ve often noted that the pope affects the day-to-day life of the Catholic far less than many Protestants’ daily lives are affected by their own pastors. The pope doesn’t know I exist. But once in 1986 (on the advice of two pastor friends), I dared to respectfully criticize my Protestant pastor after he claimed — like a good Protestant — that everyone should “keep your pastors honest”. What was the result of that? I was denounced from the pulpit and lied about, and my ministry (I was an apologist and evangelist then, too, on college campuses, commissioned by this very pastor) was trashed. That was being a petty dictator: precisely what Jesus and Peter commanded us to never be.

Was James “dominating the entire flock” when he issued the proclamation of the council of Jerusalem, which claimed to be led by the Holy Spirit? If not, how is what popes do any different? How is it even different from what Luther and Calvin did? Martin Luther said things, after all, like the following:

Is that “domineering”? Is that being a “ruler”? No pope has ever spoken like that, which is why I have called Luther a “super-pope.” Erasmus wrote about Luther (after vainly trying to “dialogue” with him):

I want you and your adherents to know that I am not . . . so faint-hearted as to be disturbed by your insults. But the fact that you are so disparaging, derogatory, and utterly contemptuous towards my Discussion argues that it is not as contemptible as you make out. If it did not bear down on you, your pen would not have produced such outrageous insults to its author.

[Y]ou are so impudent in your insults . . . so unrestrained in your abuse when you are hemmed in by arguments, that no one, even if he bent over backwards to be fair to you, could find any excuses for your spirit. (Erasmus responding to Martin Luther, Hyperaspistes [1526], pp. 103, 140 in Vol. 76 in Collected Works [1999] )

65. Peter wrote in the position of “elder” (1Pe.5:1). The Catholic Church declares a priest to be “inferior to a bishop” (Council of Trent, Can.7, 967), and further states that priests cannot exercise certain functions because they are of an inferior order (Council of Trent, Can.7, 960). Now, was Peter, writing as “an elder” (1Pe.5:1), of a lower order? Could he be pope, since the priest cannot perform “certain functions”? Here is the testimony of the Catholic Church itself regarding the demotion of the position of priest as an “inferior order”, which would hurt the very concept of Peter – who was a priest – being the most superior order existing in the Church!

As I noted before, Paul often called himself a deacon or minister (1 Cor 3:5; 4:1; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23-25), yet no one would claim he was only a deacon, and nothing else. And he never (far as I can tell) called himself an “evangelist.” “Elders” in the Bible sometimes meant the equivalent of “local pastor / priest” or “bishop.” James was the bishop of Jerusalem, as many Protestants agree, but he is called an elder at the council of Jerusalem. The offices were somewhat fluid at this early stage, because ecclesiology was only in its infancy.

66. Furthermore, Peter wrote to the elders, saying that “I do so in the same capacity as an elder with them” (1Pe.5:1), that is, on an equality with them, and not superiority, as would be the case if he exercised a primacy over all others!

That’s routine “papal talk.” The pope will often say “fellow bishops” because he is a bishop (of Rome) as well as pope. None of this proves anything, anymore than Paul calling lessers “brethren” (many many times) “proves” that they are on the same level as him. Even Jesus called His disciples “friends” (Jn 15:13-15). Does that mean He isn’t above them? Paul calls Christians “fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17) and “God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9), and he calls other Christians “fellow workers” and “fellow soldiers” and “fellow servants” (see the references). These are desperate arguments, and lack understanding of biblical language and idiom and even the repeated scriptural admonition to be humble and have an attitude of servanthood.

67. It is the duty of all bishops and elders to shepherd God’s flock, and not Peter’s alone (1Pe.5:1,2; Acts.10:28). It was everyone’s duty to “feed the church of God” (Acts 10:28).

Yes, of course it is.

Christ specifically addressed Peter on the occasion of John 21:17 because of the apostle’s denials mentioned earlier. Peter denied Jesus three times, and Christ gave him the opportunity to reaffirm his love for his Master three times.

That’s the standard “anti-papal” interpretation of that passage, and I agree that it is part of its meaning, but not all of it. The meaning and intention of “Feed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep . . . Feed my sheep” and “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32) are not wiped out or nullified, simply because it was partly the process of restoring Peter.

This was the same process that Paul went through after having killed Christians. God said, “he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15). Thus, Paul’s future as the Great Evangelist was laid out to him at the beginning of His ministry. Likewise, after Peter repented of his momentary weakness and fear for his life (far less of a sin than Paul’s), Jesus (Who is God) revealed to him his role as the leader and Shepherd of the Church: to “feed” and “tend” and “strengthen” the flock.  It couldn’t be any more clear than it is.

68. Peter was rebuked by Paul face to face in Antioch, “because he was reprehensible” (Gal.2:11). A Catholic would never call the Pope “reprehensible”, nor would he resist him in the face!

As explained several times, popes have the gift of infallibility (and that in very particular specified conditions only), not impeccability. Maybe one day Protestant anti-Catholic polemicists will be able to grasp this simple distinction. But obviously, that day hasn’t arrived yet. Patience, Lord!  As to Catholics supposedly never rebuking popes, that is sheer nonsense. Saints and Doctors of the Church like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and St. Dominic have done that in no uncertain terms.

There were also many instances of morally inferior popes (e.g., during the Renaissance) being soundly rebuked by holy priests and laymen. This is nothing novel whatsoever in Catholic ecclesiology. No one knows better than Catholics the distinction between the nobility of an office and (too often) the [relative] sanctity of the person holding it at any given time.

69. Furthermore, Paul asserts that Peter “was not walking according to the truth of the gospel” (Gal.2:14), and that he had acted in “hypocrisy” (Gal.2:13). A pope who is infallible in matters of faith could hardly be classified in this way.

Again, this proves that Lucas has no clue whatsoever as to the meaning and limited application of infallibility, which has nothing directly to do with good conduct and behavior. It’s equal parts sad and absurd that Catholics have to keep explaining this till we’re blue in the face. The anti-Catholics never learn this. It’s no more difficult than a first-grader learning to read.

Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for hypocrisy more than anything else. Yet at the same time He told His disciples to “practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Mt 23:3). The Pharisees weren’t even followers of Christ, yet Jesus still told His followers to obey their teaching. Thus, we see that instances of hypocrisy do not wipe out a person’s teaching authority: that they have on other grounds.

If Peter were pope, Paul would have respected Peter’s ultimate and infallible authority in the decision he made, rather than rebuking him in public and in letter, not to mention the supposed “authority” that Peter had over him!

It wasn’t an instance of infallible authority. Peter wasn’t binding anyone else to it. He simply acted hypocritically.

70. Peter “feared those of the circumcision” (Gal.2:12). If Peter were pope, it would be Jewish Christians who should fear him!

Peter was temporarily hypocritical, no more. It has nothing to do with his authority.

71. Peter acted with dissimulation when he saw that “some from James” arrived (Gal.2:12), starting to separate himself from the Gentiles because of this (v.12). If James were under Peter’s leadership, there would be no reason to fear him, nor to censure the Gentiles for fear of those who came from James. The episode makes no sense in the view that Peter was above James in apostolic authority. If that were so, Peter would not fear an “inferior” himself, much less those sent “from” him! On the contrary, it would be Peter himself who would give orders and maintain his position of authority as leader.

This merely expands upon the last three criticisms, which are already answered.

Evidence that Peter did not exercise primacy over John

72. John, along with Matthew, was the only apostle among the 12 who composed a gospel.

Many believe that Peter was the main source behind the content of the Gospel of Mark, which was in turn (according to the prevailing scholarly view) largely copied or followed by Matthew and Luke. It matters not if he dictated it; Paul did the same in some (possibly all) of his letters, as we know.

73. John was the only apostle chosen by the Lord to have the revelation of the Apocalypse, on the island of Patmos, concerning the final and eschatological events.

Great. It doesn’t make him pope. Peter had a vision about all foods being clean. Peter raised people from the dead, and his shadow healed people.

74. John wrote more epistles than Peter, in addition to the gospel itself and the Revelation. As Jerome well said, perfectly defining this whole picture: “Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle – one is a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is only an Apostle, while John is an Apostle, an Evangelist, and a Prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a teacher; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, which no other Apostle, except Matthew, did; a prophet, because he saw on the island of Patmos, where he had been exiled by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr of the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the limitless mysteries of the future” (Against Jovinian)

Solomon wrote more than both of them, and he ended up fallen away from God.

75. Of all the disciples, John was the only one considered the “beloved disciple” (Jn.13:26; Jn.13:25).

This is silly and inexcusably ignorant, for anyone who is theologically educated, as Lucas is. It was already covered in my reply to #19 in Part One, which had exactly the same content. So now we’re repeating items in the long list of 205?

76. Even as he and Peter ran to the tomb, there is a clear distinction between “Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 20:2), clearly differentiating that this “disciple whom Jesus loved” it was the other (John), and not Peter himself.

This is just a silly variation of #19 and #76. Are we to believe that Jesus didn’t love Peter at all, or only loved John, among the disciples? We can’t, because the Bible tells us otherwise, as I already explained, with #19. Jesus stated to the collective of the disciples that He “loved” all of them (Jn 13:34; 15:12).

77. John was the only disciple who leaned on Jesus’ chest (Jn.13:23).

Peter was the only one whom the Bible noted was specifically prayed for by Jesus (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”: Lk 22:32). The prayer even had to do with what Catholics call indefectibility: the inability to fall away from the faith or proclaim a falsehood as binding (a gift that we believe the pope has). So even this had something to do with his role as leader / pope. Which of these two things is the more important and significant?

78. John was the only disciple chosen by Jesus to know which disciple would betray him (Jn.13:26).

John asked Him, and so He told Him. I don’t see that this is all that significant. Jesus would have answered the same with any of the disciples, I believe.

79. John had to correct in writing an error of Peter’s that had spread among the brothers, that he should not die (Jn.21:20-24).

Good for him. God used a donkey to communicate truth to Balaam (Num 22:21-39). When Lucas can come up with a list of “50 Biblical Reasons for Johannine Primacy” then he can come back and present an argument that is worthy to be regarded as equal in force with mine. As it is, he came up with 13, or 26% as many arguments as I produced for Peter. Whoop-de do! Is anyone impressed by that?

80. John was the first disciple to reach the tomb (Jn.20:4).

This is a replica of #27: “The first of the disciples to arrive at the tomb was John, not Peter (Jn.20:4).” Since I answered that in Part One, there is no need to repeat myself. Now we see how Lucas gets to 205 potshots; he repeats a bunch of these twice. Not impressive . . .

81. John was the only disciple to whom Jesus entrusted his mother to his care (Jn.19:26,27).

This is a re-tread of #25, also answered in Part One.

82. John did not deny Jesus.

Good. He also didn’t kill Christians like Paul, or plan to have a man killed in battle (i.e., premeditated murder) so he could have sex with and marry his wife (David). God made Big Sinner Paul the greatest evangelist of all time and writer of much of the inspired revelation of the NT. He made an eternal covenant with Big Sinner David (knowing that he was to commit these great sins), had him write most of the wonderful Psalms (a model of worship and praise ever since), become the greatest King of Israel / Judah, and made him be in the OT the model for the Messiah (his direct descendant) and messianic kingdom.

So why not make Big Sinner Peter the pope? No biggie! It’s all the same . . . All God has to use for His purposes (excepting Mary, who was made sinless solely by His grace) is a bunch of miserable sinners like us. But He makes it His business to transform us (filthy, ungrateful rebels that we are) and make us fit for His use. Praise Him for that!

83. John was always present at the most important events. He entered with Jesus into the house of the head of the synagogue at the resurrection of Talitha (Mark 5:37). He went with Jesus to the Mount of Olives, moments before the crucifixion (Mark 14:33). He was with Jesus at the scene of the transfiguration on the mount, with Moses and Elijah (Mark 9:2). He went up to a mountain to pray together with Jesus (Lk.9:28). He was regarded as one of the main pillars of the Church (Gal.2:9). If Peter is to be considered the “ultimate leader” based on his presence at important events like this, John certainly couldn’t help but be too, since he was with Peter and James on all these occasions!

Yes, it’s well known that Peter, James, and John were the “inner circle” of the disciples. This doesn’t overcome Peter’s primacy. Let Lucas come up with “50 Biblical Proofs for the Primacy of James” too (along with his miserable thirteen “proofs” for John). He can’t. So this is just fluff and silliness: meant to avoid the obvious primacy of Peter that is obvious in the Bible (at least once someone points it out, as I have).

84. John was the only disciple who followed Jesus to the foot of the cross, while all the others fled, Judas betrayed him, and Peter denied him (Jn.19:26).

Yes he did, and it is to his eternal credit. I love John! His NT writings are fantastic. But being at the cross has nothing to do with his supposedly having more “papal credentials” than Peter.

Evidence that Peter did not exercise primacy over Paul

As noted last time, I went through this routine with Jason Engwer 18 1/2 years ago: Refutation of a Satirical “Pauline Papacy” Argument (vs. Jason Engwer) [9-30-03]. For all I know, Lucas derived some of his material from Jason.

Let me begin answering this section by noting that I absolutely love and admire St. Paul. He’s one of my huge heroes and model for my apostolate of apologetics and evangelism. I always say that when I get to heaven I would like to talk to, in order: 1) our Glorious Lord and Savior Jesus, 2) the Blessed Virgin Mary, 3) the Apostle Paul, and 4) St. John Henry Cardinal Newman. In my work, I probably utilize and ponder St. Paul’s writing maybe 500 times more than I would use or think about St. Peter’s.

So none of the material to come is in any way, shape, or form, meant to denigrate or minimize St. Paul in even the slightest degree. I’m simply arguing that the Bible presents St. Peter as the ultimate leader of the early Church, not St. Paul. That doesn’t make St. Paul “inferior” to St. Peter.

In fact, I think that St. Paul played a much greater and especially more influential role in the history of Christianity and the development of the early Church than St. Peter, but that is not the question at hand, which is: “does the Bible present Peter as the leader of the early Church and the first pope (Petrine Primacy)?” This understood, most of Lucas’ “Pauline Primacy” texts will be non sequiturs, just as most of his list so far have been.

85. Paul saw the Lord Jesus (Acts 9:27) and “preached boldly in his name” (Acts 9:27), being the apostle who worked the most (1 Cor 15:10).

Peter lived with Jesus for three years (Paul never met Him except in a vision) and also preached boldly: so much so that when Herod wanted to persecute Christians, after he killed James (Acts 12:2), he went straight after Peter and put him in prison (Acts 12:3-4). An angel appeared to get him out of prison (12:7-11).

86. The entire assembly of believers in Jerusalem (at the Council) was silent as they listened to Paul and Barnabas speaking of all the signs and wonders that God had done among the Gentiles through them (Acts 15:12).

This is now the second time that Lucas has misinterpreted Acts 15:12 (the other being his #43, where he gave the wrong verse [15:13] and wrongly applied it to the council’s reaction to James).  Now he is erroneously applying it to Paul and Barnabas. In fact, it was the council’s reaction to Peter’s speech (15:7-11). The text says after his speech: “And all the assembly kept silence”: followed by a semi-colon, which means a strong break in the text (and remember, the original NT didn’t have chapters or verses). Then it says that Paul and Barnabas gave their report (while not recording their words, as Luke recorded Peter’s and James’). Get it right!

87. Paul was one of the existing prophets and teachers in the Church, named in Acts 13:1.

Good. And so Jesus appeared and said, “Saul, I now name you Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church . . .” Oh wait, that was Peter!

88. Paul and Barnabas were the ones set apart for the work of the Lord (Acts 13:2).

Of course they were! So are all Christians, whom Paul teaches have a calling: “let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him” (1 Cor 7:17).

89. Paul is the first to recognize and refute the heresy, against Elymas the magician (Acts 13:9-12).

Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, period, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24), five chapters earlier.

90. The city’s proconsul, being a “learned” man (Acts 13:7) and of great importance in the city, believed through Paul’s rebuke to Elymas, “deeply impressed with the teaching of the Lord” (Acts 13: 12).

Wonderful! How is this relevant? Paul impressed a proconsul . . .

91. Paul was the only one to stand up to defend Christianity in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:14-16).

Fabulous! The point is to show that a bunch of Bible passages, taken together, prove that Paul was the leader of the whole Church. It’s not just anything Paul does . . .

92. Paul was the apostle who most edified the Church with apostolic epistles, thirteen in all. A much larger number than Pedro, for example, with only two.

Popes need not necessarily be primarily writers. So this is neither here nor there.

93. Paul was the most church-founding apostle in the history of early Christianity.

Likewise, the founding of churches is not within the pope’s purview, but is, rather, the job of the evangelist.

94. Paul was the only apostle who ever preached to an entire city that gathered to hear the word of the Lord (Acts 13:44).

95. A great multitude of Jews and Gentiles believed through Paul’s preaching to the Jewish synagogue (Acts 14:1).

96. Paul and Barnabas were the only ones to stand up to defend the Christian faith before Jews and Gentiles in Iconium (Acts 14:1).

Nor is evangelism the primary purpose of a pope, though it can surely be part of what they do. Evangelism is for the nonbeliever, whereas popes watch over the Christian flock.

97. Paul works a notorious miracle on a paralytic (Acts 14:10), so much so that the great crowd thought he was a god (Acts 14:11).

Peter raised the dead (Acts 9:40), and Cornelius tried to worship him, too (Acts 10:25).

98. Paul preached the good news and made many disciples in Antioch and Iconium (Acts 14:21).

Great. Peter preached the first Christian sermon after Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36), resulting in three thousand conversions, baptisms, and folks being “added” to the Church (Acts 2:41).

99. Paul is the only apostle known to appoint elders in every church and commend them to the Lord (Acts 14:21).

That makes him a functional bishop, but not a pope.

100. Paul made use of the “keys” to “open the post of faith to the Gentiles” (Acts 14:27), so that they too might through his preaching hear the word of the Lord, and be saved.

This is a repeat of #35. I’ll repeat the first part of my answer there: “Keys of the kingdom” was a technical term, referring back to Isaiah 22 (as many Protestant commentators agree). They were only given to Peter. I treated the matter of the “keys of the kingdom” very extensively in my reply to #7 in Part One, citing seven corroborating Protestant scholars. What Paul was doing in Antioch, as recorded in Acts 14:27 had nothing whatsoever to do with the “keys” as understood by scholars.

END OF PART TWO

Go to Part One (#1-50)

Go to Part Three (#101-150)

Go to Part Four (#151-205)

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Detail of Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (1481-82) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli takes on my “50 NT Proofs for Petrine Primacy”, with his 205 “Petrine Potshots”. This is Part II of my replies (#51-100).