In the wake of Pope Benedict resigning and the desire for a new one to replace him, we need to consider the evidence that Peter was the first Pope. But as Austin Cline argues there isn't any. Given that the early Catholic Church lied with forged documents like the Donation of Constantine and the Testimonium Flavianum (inserted text into Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews concerning Jesus), any claim of theirs, including the one that the earliest disciples were martyrs for Jesus, must have evidence for it.
Loftus over reaches his claim that the Catholic Church forged that text in Josephus. I mean the whole passage is not a proven forgery nor can any prove that there was malicious intent involved or what the motivation involved at all. His point that the Catholic Church did lie about a few things is well taken is true. The thing is all the evidence of forgeries has squat to do with the Bible or whether or not the claims of Christianity are true.
In fact, I'll betcha in the Vatican records themselves the priests who have access to them already know Peter was not the first Pope, that there was no such office. So the Catholic Church is lying to us this very day.
I don't know what is in the Vatican records. but what I do know is that no one in the Bible would agree that there is such an office as a "Pope" and that Peter did not think of himself that way according to the Bible.
It's just another case of liars for Jesus, something that both Richard Carrier and I have documented before. It's never seen more clearly than in the Catholic Church cover-up of pedophile priests. All they can do is stonewall, obfuscate and lie in defense of the indefensible, whatever it takes. They have lost all credibility when it comes to their faith. None is left, none.
Hold on there. It's irrational to think that covering up pedophile priests is the same a saying that Peter was the first Pope without being able to prove that. Both arte bad but have nothing to do with one another.
But then that's what we see when it comes to faith in general, no matter what the religion. With faith, almost anything can be believed. With faith, people can believe without any evidence at all. With faith, people can even believe against the overwhelming evidence. In fact, with faith, people can even justify lying to defend what they need to believe. It's pathetic. Yes, it's THAT bad.
Again, Loftus demonstrates that he does not know what "Faith" is. And if this is the kind of faith he had when he thought he was a Christian, he was doing it wrong and has traded one delusion for another. Yes, it truly is pathetic.
I dare say that if Christians went back in time to the start-up of the early church they would almost all blast its rise as nothing more than a number of harmful pious cultic frauds, by leaders who sought power over others.
Judging the early Christians by the kind of clergy that Loftus himself was? Not good, Mr Loftus, not good. I don't think that Loftus' accusations apply to the writers of the Bible, nor can Loftus show that it does. Before Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire there was precious little power to be had. I mean for about 300 hundred years from the beginning becoming a Christian leader would not gain you power or wealth but suffering and death.
Let's take a step back and look at Loftus' argument. Let's say he's right. The Catholic Church lied about Josephus writing about Jesus. It lied about Peter being the first Pope. Transubstantiation is wrong. So what? Even if Loftus is right about faith, and he is not, it matters nothing about whether or not the claims in the Bible are true or not. Loftus being right would not make the Bible right however it does make the Catholic Church wrong.
Debunking Christianity: The Catholic Church Is Lying to This Day: Was Peter the First Pope?
