http://imgur.com/a/PETjt

In this video about the Liberation of Auschwitz, the narrator says, "They [the Nazis] sold hair to factories in the nationalized upholstery industry." What was the hair used for? Was it for the fabric itself, or was it used as stuffing? What other industries could have used human hair?

This reminded me of some depictions I had seen of barber's in the Hausbuch of Mendle's 12 brother foundation from the 14th-16th century. They're pretty darn confusing. http://www.nuernberger-hausbuecher.de/75-Amb-2-317b-80-v

http://www.nuernberger-hausbuecher.de/75-Amb-2-317-117-r

So while the medieval idea of what a barber does overlap with out modern idea of the same profession in some ways, it seems really quite bizarre and foreign in other ways. What's going on there?

I asked this question in r/Christianity but would like a less biased view from historians as many of the responses were a reflection of each poster's denominational bias. I apologize if any of my assumptions or info are incorrect

I've been reading about the history of the early church, and I was surprised to learn that the modern position of "Pope" did not hold the same authority in the early church or perhaps did not exist at all. I had always assumed that following the death of Jesus that the one church recognized Peter as the first Pope and unquestioned, official head of the church. I also assumed that after becoming the first bishop of Rome that his successors were likewise recognized as the official head of the church above all else much like the President of the United States. The Catholic Church certainly believes that the position of Pope/Bishop of Rome has always held universal authority over the church and he is the leader of the one true church

Instead, what I've read is that the Bishop of Rome was one bishop among various Bishops throughout the Roman Empire who seemed to be on equal level with one another. Yes many churches and bishops looked to the Bishop of Rome to settle disputes, so there certainly was some aspect of leadership - almost like an inuflential governor of California among equal governors. However, at various times, the Bishops of Antioch, Smyrna, Jerusalem, Rome, etc. had possibly stronger influence. It's clear Rome became increasingly more influential over time, but it seems to have not fully developed into an official seat of power until centuries after Christ.

My questions:

1.) Was the Pope recognized as the universal leader of the church pre-Nicea with universal jurisdiction over all bishops?

2.) Is there any truth to the claim that Peter was only Bishop of Rome for a year or possibly never Bishop of Rome? I've even read some minority claims that he never set foot in Rome at all. Quote from a poster: "There is absolutely no evidence that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, except for a later tradition that was first recorded at the end of the second century AD, over a hundred years after he died. The only real evidence we have that he ever went to Rome is a tomb outside Rome which Roman tradition says is his."

3.) If Jesus did indeed make Peter the head of the church in Matthew 16:18 and established the Pope, why did the other bishops and Christians not recognize the Bishop of Rome as head of the church from the very beginning? If the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is correct, why did the early Church seem to recognize other leaders in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Smyrna as equal or more influential than the Bishop of Rome? Is it later Roman Catholic revisionism and re-interpretation of a verse to support Papal Primacy after Nicea? How did the early church interpret MAtthew 16:18. My understanding is that we are not even sure Peter founded the church in Rome. It seemed to pre-exist Paul's journey there so perhaps it was founded by Jews who had heard the Word and brought it there. And what about the Bishop of Antioch being the head of the church since Peter helped found that church and other churches?

4.) At any point, did all the other bishops and churches recognize the Bishop of Rome as the head of the church? Some Orthodox posters stated that most of the eastern Bishops never once recognized the Pope as having unquestioned authority over them but rather was a first among equals. Did the other bishops never once recognize the Bishop of Rome as the Pope as we know the seat today? How did the Orthodox, Assyrian, Coptic, and other Apostolic churches view the claim of Papal Primacy then and now?

5.) Why was the Bishop of Rome recognized as the head when it was not so from the start? Is it a reflection of the theological influence or the geopolitical reality and location of Rome as being in the center of the empire beginning with Constantine and the collapse of the Byzantine empire/East?

6.) How did the Protestant Reformers find it acceptable to reject Papal Primacy when I assume most of them had been educated in the Roman Catholic tradition?

7.) This might be outside the discipline of history, but are there good reasons for Christians to solely recognize the Papacy and Catholic Church as the one true Church or do the Orthodox and other Apostolic churches have equal claim?

Thanks!