if peter was the apostle to the jews in jersulaem how did he become the first pope?

Question

Jesus declared he was the rock of the church and that peter was the stone

Answer 1

Contrary to Catholic apologists, pr agents and spin doctors Peter was never the first Pope of Rome.

++The great lie against Christian history+++

Up until the 4th Century CE, there was not a single Christian sect that ever believed Simon (Peter) the Zealot was ever the founding patriarch of Christianity.

The Orthodox Churches of the East, the first churches always considered James the Just, the brother of Jesus was the first legitimate Patriarch (Pope) until his murder. All the early Christian writers testify to this being the truth.

All the generally accepted writings by Roman Catholics from the period from the death of John, to shortly after Polycarp's martyrdom (100-156 CE), never mention any alleged "bishop of Rome" by name or by title. However, they repeatedly do mention and praise Polycarp.

See: http://one-faith-of-god.org/new_testament/apocrypha/succession/succession_0020.htm

Even Paul of Tarsus himself, the founder of Christianity never ever wrote that Peter was the first Pope, or that Rome was ever one of the key first churches.

+++The apostolic succession of the first Christian churches+++

Now in terms of the beginning of succession amongst the first churches, this is what we know.

+Byzantium (Constantinople)+

48-68 CE first Bishop of Byzantium, Stachys, who was one of 70 in 48 CE by Andrew, one of the 12.

68-71 CE no bishop during the Jewish wars.

+Antioch +

Paul (58 – 62 CE) appointed himself Patriarch (Pope) and Bishop

Evodius was bishop of Antioch until 62-68 AD

68-100? CE no bishop during the Jewish wars and for sometime after.

+Alexandria +

1st bishop Mark 58-68 CE

2nd Bishop Anianus served as Patriarch of Alexandria from 68 to 82 CE

3rd bishop Abilius, of Alexandria.

Unlike any of the other Christian churches, Alexandria seems to be the only church that can lay legitimate claim of apostolic succession.

+Rome+

Linus, Bishop of Rome (c. 58 – 64) – 1st Bishop of Rome, a British prince appointed by Paul. He is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as the 2nd Bishop appointed by and after Peter.

No effective bishop in Rome for several hundred years during the active hunting and execution of Christians under state law.

+++If not Rome, where was Peter before being arrested?+++

The role of Simon (Peter) the Zealot was clouded in mystery, particularly when one of the key leaders of the rebellion against the Sadducees and Romans in the siege of Jerusalem was Simon (Peter) the Zealot.

We know this thanks to Josephus both a key person in siege negotiations, an eye witness and the only author of texts about the destruction of Jerusalem known to have survived.

See:
http://one-faith-of-god.org/new_testament/apocrypha/josephus_wars/josephus_wars_0110.htm

He describes with disgust how in his negotiations with Simon (Peter) the Zealot, he refused to listen to his offerings and showed a great personal hate towards Josephus personally. How Josephus knew Simon Peter is never properly explained.

However, Josephus writes with great joy how Simon (Peter) the Zealot was captured by the Romans and then taken to Rome.

Given the odds of two Simon (Peter) the Zealots being in existence around the same time, it can be pretty certain that this leader of the rebels is the same alleged first pope.
Why then does the Catholic Church try to support such a fabrication of Simon Peter being the first Pope?

+++The real founder of Christianity+++

It turns out that Jesus founded the Nazarenes also known as the gnostics.
http://one-faith-of-god.org/new_testament/apocrypha/nazarenes/nazarenes_0010.htm

The Vatican has known for almost 2000 years that it was Paul of Tarsus, not Jesus who founded christianity.
http://one-faith-of-god.org/new_testament/apocrypha/founders_christianity/founders_christianity_0010.htm

I leave it up to you and your readers to decide the truth.

Answer 2

and Peter said all believers were living rocks beign built up into a holy temple in his letter

this is probably doesnt make for a short answer... interestingly the Greek Orthodox church traces its bishops back to the head of the Jerusalem church and PEter

thru history the bishop of Jerusalem was looked on as a chief among equals... then later the inspiration was viewed in the consensus of the elders... then later in the pope

a protestant reformed people make an important point that would be that the important thing is not merely the chain of leadership but that the truth of the gospel and the scriptures is passed down. Through the ages there may be a chain of leadership to Peter but the gospel is not necessarily clearly taught in churches claiming to beunder Peter;s headship

Answer 3

I do not relatively think the inspiration that may be on account that the church was once enormously established initially. However, while Peter regarded Christ as Messiah and Son of God, Jesus can have been announcing that Peter could be the important thing chief within the church early on in His recognized reaction. Peter spoke after the Acts two coming of the Holy Spirit to the Pentecost pageant crowd. And he remained a chief in Jerusalem for no less than circa 15 years as Paul talks approximately him within the letter to the Galatians.Tradition says he went to Rome and died a martyr's loss of life there in Nero's reign (60s AD, I consider). Jesus can have been having a bit of amusing with Peter and the disciples, making use of puns. "Upon this rock I will construct my church". Peter's identify way rock (Cephas). However different apostles had been additionally most important - James - Jesus' brother, John, Paul. It was once a workforce attempt.

Answer 4

Good points! The word "Pope" means "Papa", "Father". At first it was applied to All Western Bishops. About A.D. 500 it began to be restricted to the Bishop of Rome, and soon, in common use, came to mean Universal Bishop. The Roman Catholic list of "Popes" includes the Bishops of Rome from the 1st. century onward. But for 500 yrs. Bishops of Rome were NOT "Popes"! The idea that the Bishop of Rome should have Authority over the Whole church was a slow growth, bitterly contested at every step, and Never Has, at ANY TIME, been Universally Recognized!!! The Roman Catholic Tradition that Peter was the 1st. "Pope" is FICTION pure & simple!!! There is NO N.T. hint, and NO Historical Evidence WHATEVER, that Peter was at ANY TIME Bishop of Rome!!! Nor did he EVER Claim for himself such Authority as the "Popes" have claimed for themselves. It seems that Peter had a "Divine Foreboding" that his "Successors" would be mainly concerned with "Lording it over Gods' Flock, rather than showing themselves Examples to the Flock." Gregory I (A.D. 590-604) is generally regarded as the 1st. "Pope". John

Answer 5

Yea. The church at Jerusalem. Paul was appointed as the apostle to the Gentiles, and it was Paul, not Peter, who travelled extensively in all the Roman provinces. Peter's grave was found some time ago outside Jerusalem, much to the chagrin of the vatican who claimed to have in the Bascillica, Peter's grave. Christ never told Peter he was a "pope".

Answer 6

Jesus was the capstone rejected by the builders.

Jesus is the Rock (captal R - unmoveable, in place, can always be relied on to be there/here).

Cephas called Peter(Petros) by Jesus is small stone or rock (little r)

Peter and Paul divided the teaching by languages and beliefs.

Paul would go to the Greek speaking Jews and the Gentiles and Peter and his would feed the Hebrew speaking sheep.

Galtians 2:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

There is more to this story but that is is what you wanted.

Neither the word pope nor the word pontiff is in the bible.

Peace -C

Answer 7

So when Jesus said "Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" He called Peter a stone? When He asked "Peter do you love me?" and Peter replied "Yes Lord" and He said "feed my sheep" He was lying. Asking the same question two more times and both time Peter said yes, Jesus said "tend my flock" He was lying. What you speak of is blasphemy. Peter was the first Pope because he was the first leader of the Church. He did go to Rome, and e was the first Apostle. He was given the Keys to the Kingdom. If Jesus wanted to end His Church with one Pope He would've come back during Peter's time, but He didn't and so we have many more Popes following Peter.

Answer 8

Peter was the apostle to the Jews. He was taken to Rome for execution. Peter died over 400 years before the roots of the catholic church were even planted. The Catholic (upper case C) church was not "official" until the time of Gregory around 600 A.D. Gregory was the "1st pope".

Answer 9

Peter was not a Pope. "Pope" is a man-made office, created by men to serve men. Jesus did ask Peter to "feed his flock" and "teach his sheep", but you have to read that in context. Jesus never once told Peter to establish himself as sole heavenly authority on earth. Jesus told Peter to SERVE. Peter likewise did not set himself up as the sole heavenly authority on earth--and I do not believe, based upon reading his own letters and what was written about him in the rest of the Bible (Acts, Romans, the Gospels), that he would have taken such a role upon himself.

That Peter was named the first Pope is a convention of the Catholic Church, and has NO BIBLICAL support whatsoever.

Answer 10

He didn't. That's a false teaching that the Church has continued to teach.
If you study the passage closely, it was not the person on whom Jesus said the Kingdom of G-d would be built, but the premise that each man (as Peter himself had done) would come to know things via revelation....that flesh & blood had not revealed to him. It is on this personal relationship with G-d that the Kingdom of G-d would be built. Not on Peter.

Answer 11

Peter was never a Pope and the Catholic church named him the first Pope long after he was dead.