![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/02\/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 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster (active on and off) for six blogs. He<\/span>\u00a0has many videos on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n This is my<\/span> 61st refutation<\/a> of Banzoli\u2019s writings. For almost half a year (5-25-22 to 11-12-22) he wrote not<\/em> one single<\/em>\u00a0word<\/em>\u00a0in reply, because my articles were deemed to be<\/span>\u00a0\u201cwithout exception poor, superficial and weak\u201d and he believes that<\/span> \u201conly a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take\u201d<\/span>\u00a0them<\/span>\u00a0\u201cseriously.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Despite this childish rationalizing, he found my refutations so<\/span>\u00a0\u201centertaining\u201d\u00a0<\/span>that he bravely decided to<\/span>\u00a0\u201cmake a point of rebutting\u201d\u00a0<\/span>them\u00a0<\/span>\u201cone by one\u201d<\/span>;\u00a0this effort being his<\/span>\u00a0\u201cnew favorite sport.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n He has now replied to me\u00a015 times<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(the last one<\/span>\u00a0dated 2-9-23<\/a>). I disposed of the main themes of his slanderous insults in several Facebook posts under his name on my<\/span>\u00a0Anti-Catholicism page<\/a> (where all my replies to him are listed). I shall try, by God\u2019s grace, to ignore his innumerable insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for all these blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).<\/span><\/p>\n Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas\u2019 Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in<\/span>\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0Words from past replies of mine to him will be in\u00a0<\/span>green<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/span><\/p>\n See Part I: Defending 20 Biblical Proofs for the Papacy (vs. Lucas Banzoli)<\/a> (2-13-23)<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/p>\n This is my reply to Lucas Banzoli\u2019s article,<\/span> \u201cRefutando as \u201c20 maiores provas b\u00edblicas\u201d que Dave encontrou do papado de Pedro (Parte 2)\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[Refuting the \u201c20 Greatest Biblical Proofs\u201d Dave Found for the Papacy of Peter (Part 2)<\/em>]<\/span> (2-9-23). Despite his heroic resolve to refute any and all of my [now 61] critiques of his arguments<\/span> \u201cone by one,\u201d<\/span> for some odd reason he chose to pass over my massive four-part counter-reply,<\/span> \u201cReply to Lucas Banzoli\u2019s 205 Potshots at St. Peter\u201d<\/a> (5-26-22) and to concentrate on my older article (not directed towards him):<\/span> \u201cTop Twenty Biblical Proofs for the Office of the Papacy\u201d<\/a> (12-12-15). Obviously, twenty arguments are easier to address than 205, but one hopes to see him defend his larger effort, which I disposed of over eight months ago now.<\/span><\/p>\n Here we will look at the other ten, more for entertainment than anything else, as the arguments that were already laughable in Part 1 become even more catastrophic in Part 2 (which is the \u201cleftover\u201d of the previous arguments).<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m sure, then, since my arguments are so \u201claughable\u201d<\/span> and \u201ccatastrophic\u201d<\/span> according to Banzoli, that his takedown of my 205 refutations of his anti-Petrine \/ anti-papacy arguments will be appearing soon.<\/p>\n 11. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to \u201cstrengthen\u201d the Christian \u201cbrethren\u201d (Lk 22:32).<\/span><\/p>\n This in no way implies rule over the Church, because Jesus did not use a word to designate authority or leadership.\u00a0The word Luke uses here is\u00a0<\/span>sterizo,<\/span><\/i>\u00a0which means \u201cto strengthen, to make firm\u201d (Strong\u2019s #4741), and throughout the Bible we are taught that it is the duty of all of us to strengthen one another.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Of course we are to do so, but this misses the point (yet another non sequitur<\/em>: Banzoli\u2019s stock-in-trade). The actual point<\/em> is that only Peter \u201camong the apostles\u201d (technically meaning here the twelve disciples) is told to do this. It is this constant singling out of Peter that indicates his primacy among the disciples, and by analogy and the historical working-out of Petrine primacy, the pope\u2019s primacy among the bishops.<\/p>\n There is a reason<\/em> why Peter is portrayed as the leader of the disciples and the early Church in the NT (just as there is a reason for absolutely everything<\/em> in the inspired, infallible revelation of the Bible), and that reason is his role as the prototype of the pope and his being the first pope.<\/p>\n The author of Hebrews says that it is the overall mission of Christians (not just Peter)\u00a0<\/span>to \u201cstrengthen the feeble hands and the feeble knees\u201d<\/span>\u00a0(Heb. 12:12);\u00a0<\/span>James asks to\u00a0\u201cstrengthen your hearts\u201d\u00a0(James 5:8);\u00a0Paul says to\u00a0\u201cbe strong in the Lord and in the power of his might\u201d\u00a0(Eph 6:10), to\u00a0\u201ccomfort one another\u201d (1 Thess 4:18) and to\u00a0\u201cExhort one another and build one another up\u201d\u00a0(1 Thess 5:11).<\/span><\/p>\n Yep. This has nothing<\/em> to do with my point, as explained. It would be nice if just one time<\/em>, Banzoli actually comprehended, grasped, understood<\/em> the nature of an argument that I made. That would be such a refreshing change. I think I\u2019d go out and celebrate of that ever happened: take my wife to a play or something; even take my whole family (my treat!). A real cause for celebration . . .<\/p>\n Banzoli then uses an argument that he has brought up several times now: trying to explain away or rationalize all of these evidences of Petrine primacy:<\/p>\n Christ had predicted in the previous verse that Satan would tempt Peter (v. 31), as indeed he did, causing him to deny the Lord three times, as he says would shortly thereafter (v. 34).\u00a0<\/span>So,\u00a0<\/span>within this context,<\/span><\/i> he says that, when all this was over, Peter would be used by God to strengthen his brothers . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This \u201csingular weakness of Peter\u201d canard can\u2019t be used for every single one of my fifty Petrine proofs<\/a> (from which these twenty are drawn). Even if it is a factor at all (and it may have been, to a minor degree), it simply can\u2019t explain away everything I have made note of. When Jesus called Peter the Rock and said He would build His Church upon Him, it wasn\u2019t (by all indications in the immediate context) because Peter was weak and had to be given a \u201cvote of confidence\u201d from the Lord.<\/p>\n It was because Peter proclaimed that He was \u201cthe Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God\u201d (Mt 16:16), to which Jesus replied: \u201cBlessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven\u201d (Mt 16:17). And then He made him the Rock in the next verse.<\/p>\n Now, what does any of this have to do with Peter being weak or the one who temporarily lost his resolve (under the threat of possible death) to follow Jesus, denying Him? Absolutely nothing! Even those who don\u2019t like Petrine primacy and despise the very notion of a papacy freely admit that it was Peter\u2019s faith (before<\/em> the Day of Pentecost, when all<\/em> Christians were indwelt with the Holy Spirit) that led Jesus to change his name to Rock.<\/p>\n And true faith has nothing to do with the weaknesses that we also all have. Critics of Peter (who in effect represents the dreaded, detested\u00a0 Catholicism) and those who run down things like my 50 Proofs<\/a>, love to bring up the fact of Peter\u2019s three denials.<\/p>\n As I pointed out elsewhere, that was a matter of a strictly temporary weakness or cowardice, under the threat of possible death, as one of Jesus\u2019 followers. He made the denials, heard the cock crow, and then immediately<\/em> \u201cwent out and wept bitterly\u201d (Mt 26:75; Lk 22:62); \u201cbroke down and wept\u201d (Mk 14:72); that is, he repented. The entire incident may have lasted no more than five or ten minutes.<\/p>\n Contrast that with Paul, who persecuted and actually killed who knows how many Christians, for who knows how long of a time (\u201cravaging the church\u201d: Acts 8:3); who stood by \u201cconsenting\u201d (Acts 8:1) when St. Stephen was stoned to death. It took God virtually forcing him to convert, with a dramatic vision, to stop the killing. This is why Paul described himself as \u201cthe foremost of sinners\u201d (1 Tim 1:15), noting how he had \u201cformerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted\u201d Jesus (1 Tim 1:13).<\/p>\n Which sin was worse<\/em>, between those two? But both repented, and both were mightily used by God. Both were martyred (Paul by beheading, which takes half a second; Peter by being crucified \u2014 by his request \u2014 upside down: many hours of the most agonizing torture). Yet I never see Protestants like Banzoli arguing that God used Paul as he did only because Paul was such a notorious, murdering sinner before he became a Christian; therefore God told him (through Ananias) the great things he would do for the kingdom (\u201cyou will be a witness for him to all men\u201d: Acts 22:15), to restore his confidence in himself.<\/p>\n That\u2019s never heard; it\u2019s only applied to Peter<\/em>, and only \u2014 I submit \u2014 because we say he was the first pope. Thus, there exists an irrational bigotry towards Peter from anti-Catholics like Banzoli, or Jason Engwer: with whom I\u2019ve gone through these discussions several times, too, whereas there is no similar animus towards Paul, even though (if we are to compare) he was a far greater sinner before his conversion to Christ.<\/p>\n 12. St.\u00a0Peter is the first to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to \u201cpreach the gospel\u201d in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s right, the logic is \u201cPeter was the first to speak; <\/span>therefore he was pope.\u201d\u00a0Believe me, this is literally how Dave tries to \u201cprove\u201d the papacy! . . . <\/span>in Dave\u2019s tiny mind, the fact that Peter was the first to speak at Pentecost makes him a pope, . . . [this] would automatically make any talkative person a leader \u2013 which is just plain stupid. . . . If being the first to speak were a criterion that necessarily identified a supreme leader, Moses would have taken the lead and spoken directly to the people and Pharaoh, instead of urging God that Aaron do it for him. . . . But Dave can\u2019t understand something so simple, either because of obvious cognitive limitations or because of his traditional intellectual dishonesty. He really thinks that Peter being the first to speak on one occasion can only be explained by the fact that he is \u201cpope\u201d, which shows the extent to which he is committed to duping his readers and how he sees them only as putty; an amorphous, mindless mass that will trust any dumb argument without question. . . . it\u2019s really hard to imagine how anyone would follow such a guy for any reason other than to laugh.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Of course (\u201ccognitive limitations\u201d<\/span> or \u201cintellectual dishonesty\u201d<\/span> or not), this is not<\/em> <\/strong>my argument because (as seemingly always!) Banzoli has not comprehended what it is<\/em> in the first place. So he caricatures and ridicules it. His goal is not to understand my arguments and provide rebuttals to them. Rather, he is always trying to \u201cprove\u201d that I am the dumbest person and apologist to ever walk the face of the earth (as we can readily observe above in his supercharged polemic). This is why he loses \u2014 and will continue<\/em> to lose \u2014 every debate with me (by virtue of his vastly underestimating the ability of his opponent).<\/p>\n This particular argument is part of an overall cumulative argument (fifty such observations), that, taken together, lead one to believe that Peter was being portrayed as the leader of the disciples and the Church; that is, the first pope. No single argument is sufficient to do this by itself. Ron J. Bigalke<\/a> (BS; MApol; MTS; MDiv; PhD), [Protestant] professor in apologetics and theology, explains the nature of cumulative apologetics arguments:<\/span><\/p>\n Cumulative case apologetics is a method that argues for the existence of God (or another complex truth claim) by demonstrating that it is the more reasonable view in correspondence with all obtainable evidence than some alternate hypothesis. As an argumentative methodology, the cumulative case would employ various arguments but none would be regarded resolutely. Each argument, however, results in clear and definite conclusions evidentially, which assert the probability of the existence of God. Various theistic arguments are intended as proofs that assert the probability of belief in the existence of God. For instance, arguments for the existence of God are not entirely formulated definitively; rather the argumentation is developed progressively, according to conditions of probability, until theism explains natural theology better than any alternative hypothesis and becomes more probable as truth than it not being true. (\u201cApologetics, Cumulative Case\u201d<\/a>, 25 November 2011)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I explained this in my 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy<\/a>. And Banzoli read my explanation then, since he responded to this article of mine<\/a> before I ever started refuting his materials (which was in May 2022):<\/p>\n The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight<\/em><\/strong>, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. (my bolding and italics now)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In March 2002<\/a>, I elaborated upon this in reply to Protestant apologist Jason Engwer, who had critiqued my 50 Proofs<\/a>:<\/p>\n [T]hey are part of a long list of indications of the primacy of Peter. As I said, it is a \u201ccumulative\u201d argument. One doesn\u2019t expect<\/i>\u00a0that all individual pieces of such an argument are \u201cairtight\u201d or conclusive in and of themselves, in isolation, by the nature of the case. I certainly don\u2019t do so. I was probably assuming at the time that the sort of thing that Jason brings up was self-evident, because that was my own opinion (therefore, I thought it quite unnecessary to state it). Obviously, passages like the two above wouldn\u2019t \u201clogically lead to a papacy.\u201d But they can quite plausibly be regarded as\u00a0consistent<\/i>\u00a0with such a notion, as part of a demonstrable larger pattern, within which they do carry some force. It\u2019s true that I should have made my logical and epistemological viewpoint on this more clear in the original paper, but I am happy to have the opportunity to do so now.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I made an analogy to biblical evidences for the Holy Trinity, which I had compiled two long lists of proofs for (one<\/a> \/ two<\/a>), twenty years earlier, in 1982:<\/p>\n Obviously, the Jews are quite familiar with Isaiah 9:6 and Zechariah 12:10, but they don\u2019t see any indication of trinitarianism at all in them, nor do the three passages above \u201clogically lead\u201d to trinitarianism, if they are not interconnected with many, many other biblical evidences. Yet they are used as proof texts by Christians. No one claims that they are compelling by themselves; these sorts of \u201cproofs\u201d are used in the same way that my lesser Petrine evidences are used, as\u00a0consistent<\/i>\u00a0with lots of other biblical data suggesting that conclusion. And Jews who reject trinitarianism beforehand as a form of blasphemy, will not see the relevance, let alone compulsion, of\u00a0any<\/i>\u00a0of these indications, as their presuppositions do not allow them to interpret within that framework. Likewise, with many Protestants and the papacy and its biblical evidences.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I further explained my methodology:<\/p>\n I approached the Petrine list with the thought in mind: \u201cPaul is obviously an important figure, but how much biblical material can one find with regard to Peter, which would be\u00a0consistent with<\/i>\u00a0(not\u00a0absolute proof\u00a0<\/i>of) a view that he was the head of the Church and the first pope?\u201d Or, to put it another way (from the perspective of preexisting Catholic belief): \u201cif Peter were indeed the leader of the Church, we would expect to find much material about his leadership role in the New Testament, at least in kernel form, if not explicitly.\u201d . . .<\/p>\n As for the nature of a \u201ccumulative argument,\u201d what Jason doesn\u2019t seem to understand is that all the various evidences become strong only as they are considered together (like many weak strands of twine which become a strong rope when they are woven together). . . .\u00a0Apart from the first three evidences of the 50 being far more important (as indicated by the space given to them), many of the others are not particularly strong by themselves, but they demonstrate, I think, that there is much in the New Testament which is\u00a0consistent<\/i>\u00a0with Petrine primacy, which is the developmental kernel of papal primacy.<\/p>\n The reader ought to note, also, that in the original paper I wasn\u2019t claiming that these biblical indications proved \u201cpapal\u00a0supremacy<\/i>\u201d or \u201cpapal\u00a0infallibility<\/i>\u201d (i.e., the fully-developed papacy of recent times). . . .<\/p>\n I did\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0assert \u2014 didn\u2019t get anywhere\u00a0near<\/i>\u00a0claiming \u2014 that the papacy as understood after 1870 was present in full bloom in the pages of the New Testament. Quite the contrary; I stated that the doctrine was \u201cderived from\u201d Petrine primacy \u2014 as opposed to \u201cproven in all its fully-developed aspects by the biblical presentation of Peter,\u201d or some such thing \u2013, and that it developed from the essential elements shown with regard to St. Peter in Scripture (just as, e.g., Chalcedonian trinitarianism developed from far simpler biblical and early patristic teachings on the Trinity).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I repeated much of this when I started refuting Banzoli\u2019s 205 anti-Petrine arguments, so (barring a nonexistent memory) he is fully aware of it<\/em>. Yet he continues to mock and ridicule various evidences, as if he has no inkling of how relatively little I claim for most of them. This is either outright dishonest or extremely shoddy scholarship on his part. <\/span><\/p>\n My overall argument in my 50 Proofs is far more subtle and sophisticated<\/em> than Banzoli seems to understand. Or he does<\/em> understand its nature and has simply chosen to misrepresent and caricature it in order to make me look like a simpleton and an idiot for his already anti-Catholic and \u201cwilling to believe anything and everything about Catholicism and its defenders, no matter how ridiculous\u201d reading audience.<\/span><\/p>\n Banzoli even distorts and twists the specific point I made here, mocking the notion of Peter speaking first, even though he didn\u2019t at the Jerusalem Council. It\u2019s not the fact that he happened to be the first speaker on this occasion (as if that would prove anything); it\u2019s the fact that he was the only one recorded to have spoken on the Day of Pentecost, which makes him<\/span> \u201cthe first Christian to \u2018preach the gospel\u2019 in the Church era.\u201d Certainly this has significance, and there is a reason that it happened and is recorded in the Bible. It\u2019s the beginning of the Church, and at that time, Peter was clearly its leader. <\/span><\/p>\n So this is not a failed evidence. It works perfectly well, as long as one properly understands<\/em> how much<\/em> I would claim for it, in the context of the other 49 proofs. But if they make no attempt to comprehend and grasp that which they are critiquing, then we will get the asinine, vapid, fatuous analysis that he provided above, only making a fool of himself.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 13. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).<\/span><\/p>\n Wow!\u00a0Peter performed a miracle;\u00a0therefore, Peter was pope!\u00a0It is increasingly difficult to think that anyone reads this citizen\u2019s articles without being for comic reasons\u2026 <\/span>Again, if you have an evangelism group, be very careful about performing a miracle \u2013 you don\u2019t want someone to identify you as the pope.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n He repeats the same basic, elementary noncomprehension of the nature of each individual argument, per my explanation immediately above. He notes that Paul performed seven miracles in the book of Acts, to Peter\u2019s four. But this is perfectly irrelevant; my point being that Peter being the first<\/em> has a symbolic meaning, according to the nature of biblical portrayals.<\/p>\n As a matter of fact, we have no way of knowing whether the first miracle was really the one performed by Peter in Acts 3;\u00a0all we know is that it was the first\u00a0recorded miracle.\u00a0<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s right, and this is a valid point. But this is part of my argument, too: there is a reason<\/em> why Peter either performed the first or is the first person recorded<\/em> as having done so.<\/p>\n Or maybe Dave thinks that only doing the \u201cfirst\u201d miracle is important,<\/span><\/p>\n Yes it is, insofar as it is viewed in conjunction with 49 other proofs: all leading to the same conclusion: Petrine primacy.<\/p>\n In summary, from the moment that Paul is converted, Luke focuses almost entirely on him, and Peter is practically forgotten.<\/span><\/p>\n Since Peter and Paul were the most important figures in first century Christianity, Luke devotes the first half of his book to Peter and the second to Paul: exactly as we would expect. Once need not pit them against each other. There is no warrant to use the polemical language of Peter being \u201cforgotten.\u201d His deeds and words were simply recorded first in the book and then Paul\u2019s.<\/p>\n 14. Peter is regarded by the common people as the leader of Christianity (Acts 5:15: \u201cas Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them.\u201d).<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s hard to know for sure whether it\u2019s dishonesty or backwardness (probably a combination of the two, from what we know of him).\u00a0Dave picks up a text that says Peter\u2019s shadow healed, and says that makes him the \u201cleader of Christianity.\u201d\u00a0If he weren\u2019t so dishonest, I\u2019d say it\u2019s a serious case of psychiatric impairment. . . . it\u2019s hard to know the line between stupidity and dishonesty.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n See my explanations above, under #12. Apparently, it\u2019s impossible to have any honest differences with anti-Catholics, without being accused of being nuts<\/em> (James White, James Swan, Steve Hays all having made this charge), as well as good ol\u2019 dishonesty.<\/p>\n We see Banzoli (in his reply here and often elsewhere) constantly pitting Paul against Peter, in the same manner that Jason Engwer tried to do. I answered all of that years ago:<\/p>\n