![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/05\/PeterKeys2b.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLucas Banzoli<\/a> 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\u2019s human nature after His death.\u00a0He has a Master\u2019s 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\u2019s active on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. I used\u00a0Google Translate<\/em>\u00a0to transfer his Portugese text into English.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n See other installments:<\/p>\n Part One: \u201cDisproofs\u201d #1-50<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Part Two: \u201cDisproofs\u201d #51-100<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Part Three: \u201cDisproofs\u201d #101-15o<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n Continuing response to his article,\u00a0\u201c205 Provas Contra O Primado de Pedro\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(no date) [205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter<\/em>].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 151.<\/strong> Paul continues to \u201cglory\u201d (2 Cor.12:1) in this, defending his authority as an apostle. He passes on the \u201cvisions and revelations of the Lord\u201d (2Co.12:1), having been \u201ccaught up to the third heaven, and hearing unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for man to speak\u201d (2Co.12:4). Paul was the only apostle who, in life, was caught up to the third heaven! <\/span><\/p>\n St. John (while still in this life) was caught up to the very throne of heaven:<\/p>\n Revelation 4:1-6<\/strong>\u00a0After 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, \u201cCome up hither, and I will show you what must take place after this.\u201d\u00a0[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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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.<\/p>\n 152.<\/strong> Paul asserts that he should be \u201cpraised by you\u201d (2Co.12:11), since he was in no way inferior to the most excellent apostles (2Co.12:1). <\/span><\/p>\n Basically a repeat of #66, #125, and #149.<\/p>\n 153.<\/strong> 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 \u201cstrong in the use of the authority which the Lord has given me to build you up and not to tear you down\u201d (2 Cor.13:10). <\/span><\/p>\n See my reply to #150 and #152. Again, he\u2019s talking about the Corinthian congregation, as to his \u201cauthority.\u201d This has no relation to whether Peter was the leader of the early Church.<\/p>\n 154.<\/strong> Paul affirms that the gospel he preached \u201cis not of human origin\u201d (Gal.1:11), for \u201cI received it from no one, nor was it taught to me; on the contrary, I received it from Jesus Christ by revelation\u201d (Gal.1:11,12). This shows us that Paul was not indoctrinated in the doctrine of Peter, as in submission to him as \u201cpope\u201d, but only and directly from Jesus Christ, without dependence on the other apostles. <\/span><\/p>\n It does not at all. That\u2019s how he first<\/em> 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\u2019t talking about the weather . . .<\/p>\n 155.<\/strong> 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. : \u201cWhen 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\u201d (Gal.1:15-17). Paul\u2019s ministry was independent, not dependent on Peter or the authority of any \u201cpope\u201d or other apostles. If Peter were pope and leader of Christians, it would be Paul\u2019s responsibility to consult him immediately, as the supreme and ecclesiastical authority that he would be.<\/span><\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t necessarily have to be immediately<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n 156.<\/strong> It was through Paul that the Ephesians received the dispensation of God\u2019s grace (Eph.3:2,3).<\/span><\/p>\n 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).<\/p>\n 157.<\/strong> If anyone thinks he has reason to trust the flesh, Paul even more so (Phil.3:4).<\/span><\/p>\n And how<\/em> is this related to our topic<\/em>, pray tell?<\/p>\n 158.<\/strong> Paul tells the Philippians to be imitators of him (Phil.3:17), following the example they have in him (Phil.3:17). <\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 159.<\/strong> Paul could do everything in Him who strengthened him (Phil.4:13). <\/span><\/p>\n Of course; so can anyone<\/em> if they will have faith and cooperate with God\u2019s grace. That\u2019s the whole point<\/em> of Paul being a model to imitate (#137 and #158). He wrote these letters for our instruction as Christians.<\/p>\n 160.<\/strong> The word which the Thessalonians received from Paul \u201cwas not the word of men, but as it truly is, the word of God\u201d (1 Thess.2:13). In no other apostle do we see a statement like this!<\/span><\/p>\n Nonsense. John the Baptist wasn\u2019t even an apostle, and the Bible says, \u201cthe word of God came to John the son of Zechari\u2019ah in the wilderness\u201d (Lk 3:2). A whole room full of people in Jerusalem \u201cwere all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness\u201d (Acts 4:31). Christian leaders spoke \u201cthe word of God\u201d (Heb 13:7). Peter told believers in five different areas: \u201cYou have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God\u201d (1 Pet 1:23). St. John said \u201cthe word of God abides in\u201d young Christian men (1 Jn 2:14).<\/p>\n But the real \u201cfun\u201d for Protestants comes in realizing that \u201cword of God\u201d in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 is not the Bible, but oral teaching. This is consistent with Paul\u2019s teaching throughout. Even more \u201csurprising\u201d for Protestants is to understand that Paul thought that apostolic tradition was synonymous with the \u201cword of God\u201d and the Bible and the gospel and overall Christian message:<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 11:2<\/strong>\u00a0 Maintain\u00a0the traditions\u00a0. .\u00a0 . . even as\u00a0I have delivered\u00a0them to you.<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 2:15<\/strong>\u00a0 Hold to\u00a0the traditions\u00a0. . . .\u00a0\u00a0taught\u00a0. . .\u00a0by word of mouth or by letter.<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 3:6\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>. . .\u00a0the tradition\u00a0that you\u00a0received from us.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:1\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>. . .\u00a0the gospel, which you\u00a0received\u00a0. . .<\/p>\n Galatians 1:9\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>. . .\u00a0the gospel\u00a0. . . which you\u00a0received.<\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 2:9\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>We\u00a0preached\u00a0to you\u00a0the gospel of God.<\/p>\n Acts 8:14\u00a0<\/strong>Samaria had\u00a0received\u00a0the word of God.<\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 2:13\u00a0<\/strong>You\u00a0received\u00a0the word of God, which you\u00a0heard from us, . . .<\/p>\n 2 Peter 2:21<\/strong>\u00a0 . . . the holy commandment delivered to them. (cf. Jude 3: \u201cthe Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is obvious from the above biblical data that the concepts of\u00a0tradition,<\/em>\u00a0gospel,\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0word of God<\/em>\u00a0(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\u2019s two letters to the Thessalonians alone we see that three of the above terms are used interchangeably.<\/p>\n In 2 Thessalonians \u201cgospel\u201d is mentioned twice (1:8 and 2:14), \u201ctradition\u201d twice (2:15 and 3:6), but neither \u201cScripture\u201d nor \u201cScriptures\u201d appears. \u201cWord of the Lord\u201d appears once (3:1), but it appears not to refer to the Bible. Likewise, in 1 Thessalonians \u201cScripture\u201d or \u201cScriptures\u201d never appear. \u201cWord,\u201d \u201cword of the Lord,\u201d or \u201cword of God\u201d 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.<\/p>\n Clearly then,\u00a0tradition\u00a0<\/em>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\u00a0gospel\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0word of God<\/em> 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\u2019t (Col 2:8), he made a contrast of good and bad tradition, just as Jesus did:<\/p>\n Philippians 4:9<\/strong>\u00a0What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.<\/p>\n Colossians 2:8<\/strong>\u00a0See 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.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 1:13-14<\/strong>\u00a0Follow 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.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 2:2<\/strong>\u00a0And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 161.<\/strong> Paul gave \u201ccommandments by the authority of the Lord Jesus\u201d (1 Thess.4:2). There is no record \u2013 biblical or historical \u2013 of any other apostles giving commandments by the authority of Christ.<\/span><\/p>\n This ground was already covered in #138 and #145 in Part Three, so this is now the third time<\/em> Lucas has made this argument in the same list. It\u2019s embarrassing. He needs an editor if he can\u2019t properly edit his own writings. I sure hope he has one for his books.<\/p>\n 162.<\/strong> If anyone does not obey Paul\u2019s letters, he is marked and no one associates with him, so that he will be ashamed (2 Thess.3:14). <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s right. All Christians should obey their bishops or pastors \/ priests. Does Lucas obey his bishop? Oh wait: does he even have<\/em> one?<\/p>\n 163.<\/strong> The Sound Doctrine is seen in the gospel that God entrusted to Paul (1 Tim.1:11). <\/span><\/p>\n The gospel is entrusted to all<\/em> Christians to share:<\/p>\n Matthew 5:14-16<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n Luke 9:6<\/strong> And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel\u00a0and healing everywhere.<\/p>\n Acts 15:7<\/strong> And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, \u201cBrethren, 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 4:2<\/strong> preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season . . .<\/p>\n 1 Peter 3:15<\/strong> \u00a0but 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;<\/p>\n Jude 3<\/strong> . . . contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 164.<\/strong> Paul is the only apostle who had the authority to deliver two blasphemers \u2013 Hymenaeus and Alexander \u2013 to Satan, so that they would learn to blaspheme no more (1 Tim.1:20). <\/span><\/p>\n 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):<\/p>\n Acts 8:17-23<\/strong> 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\u2019 hands, he offered them money, [19] saying, \u201cGive me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.\u201d [20] But Peter said to him, \u201cYour 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.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 165.<\/strong> Paul recognizes Luke\u2019s gospel as Scripture divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit (1 Tim.5:18). <\/span><\/p>\n Good for him. The Catholic Church did that with regard to the entire Bible.<\/p>\n 166.<\/strong> The model of the Sound Doctrine that we must retain was found in what was taught by Paul (2 Tim.1:13). <\/span><\/p>\n Yes, it was the tradition and gospel and word of God and the faith and the truth that he received<\/em> (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3) and was \u201centrusted\u201d with (2 Tim 1:12), and was a \u201csteward\u201d of (1 Cor 4:1; Eph 3:2).<\/p>\n 167.<\/strong> Paul wrote in such a way that even Peter himself considered certain things \u201chard to understand\u201d (2Pe.3:16). In other words, the \u201cinfallible pope\u201d did not have the full understanding and understanding of Paul\u2019s writings, and yet Catholics insist that the pope is the only one who knows how to correctly and perfectly interpret the Bible!<\/span><\/p>\n Infallibility (applicable in very specific laid-out conditions) doesn\u2019t entail knowing everything about everything. As for Bible interpretation, Lucas\u2019 last statement above is equal parts asinine and purely ignorant. In fact, the Catholic Church at Trent taught that all of seven Bible passages<\/a> must be interpreted one way. Beyond that, everyone is free to engage in exegesis and interpretation of the Bible.<\/p>\n 168.<\/strong> God did extraordinary miracles and wonders through Paul\u2019s hands (Acts 19:11). <\/span><\/p>\n St. Peter raised Tabitha from the dead and healed others.<\/p>\n 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! <\/span><\/p>\n This is an argument for second-class Catholic relics (items that come into contact with a saint), by the way. I\u2019m glad that Lucas is obviously enthralled with and excited about our theology of relics.\u00a0Nowhere in the New Testament is there an apostle with such power and authority that people are healed by his shadow! (Acts 5:15)<\/span><\/p>\n 169.<\/strong> When God wanted to bring his word to light, he did so through the preaching entrusted to Paul (Titus 1:3). <\/span><\/p>\n Lots of people preached the gospel. I went through that in my reply to #163. This has absolutely nothing<\/em> to do with whether Peter was the first pope.<\/p>\n 170.<\/strong> Luke, the Church historian and writer of the book of Acts, did not bother to record anything about the \u201cprince of the apostles\u201d in his episcopate in Rome, but returned exclusively to Paul\u2019s ministry among the Gentiles. <\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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!<\/span><\/p>\n So what<\/em>? 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<\/p>\n Evidence against the primacy of Peter in Rome <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 171.<\/strong> 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 \u201cin Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth\u201d (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 (\u201cends of the earth\u201d). Rome only became the matrix of Christianity centuries later, not by order of Christ, but by the Roman political domination. <\/span><\/p>\n Jesus didn\u2019t 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\u2019s plan was to transform the pagan (and often wicked) Roman Empire. It took about 280 years until it legalized Christianity.<\/p>\n 172.<\/strong> 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.<\/span><\/p>\n 173.<\/strong> When Peter and John were sent to Samaria (Acts 8:14), they returned preaching the gospel in \u201cmany Samaritan villages\u201d (Acts 8:25), without passing through Rome. <\/span><\/p>\n 174.<\/strong> Peter, acting as an itinerant missionary, went to Lydda, where he preached the gospel (Lat.9:32). Again Rome is far from Peter\u2019s destiny! <\/span><\/p>\n 175.<\/strong> Still on his missionary journeys, Peter went to visit Cornelius in Caesarea (Acts 10:1). Again very, very far from Rome! <\/span><\/p>\n 176<\/strong>. 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.<\/span><\/p>\n 177.<\/strong> 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.<\/span><\/p>\n So what<\/em>? It was early on. He gets there in due course.<\/p>\n 178.<\/strong> Peter did not occupy the \u201cchair of Rome\u201d, but, on the contrary, \u201ctraveled everywhere\u201d (Acts 9:32)! <\/span><\/p>\n At that time<\/em>, he was a traveling evangelist, yes. Man, these are silly items. Utterly ridiculous<\/em> . . .<\/p>\n 179.<\/strong> 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\u2019s time and ministry in Rome would be \u2013 for Catholics \u2013 of much more importance and relevance than simple \u201capostolic journeys\u201d here or there, it would be absolutely indispensable that Peter be mentioned at least in Pomegranate!<\/span><\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t because Acts was written before the time that Peter went to Rome.<\/p>\n 1 Peter 5:13<\/strong> She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Several Protestant commentaries think that this is a code word for \u201cRome\u201d:<\/p>\n Ellicott\u2019s Commentary for English Readers<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n 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\u00a0personified<\/span> the church of the place from which he writes, which seems quite as unprosaic a use of language as to call Rome \u201cBabylon.\u201d 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\u2019s day would have had need to think twice what city was meant when \u201cBabylon\u201d 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,\u00a0<\/span>after 2 Thess.) It might provoke hostilities if the Epistle fell into the hands of a\u00a0delator,\u00a0<\/span>with names and places too clearly given.<\/p>\n MacLaren\u2019s Expositions<\/em>:<\/a><\/p>\n [It is] my own opinion that \u2018Babylon\u2019 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.<\/p>\n