was peter the first pope?

Question

For peter was never in Rome! and I don"t want to hear about the vatican's apostolic succession

Answer 1

The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the Book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes, were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.

But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the Church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the Church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome, comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

Also, nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).

What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).

Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic no. Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere is his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the Gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy.

Answer 2

Tradition has it that Peter was executed in Rome. There's no way to tell what kind of leadership he may have been able to offer the underground Christian community in Rome, but the idea of having a leader or bishop (literally "overseer") in each community was established very early, so it was assumed that Peter spent a short time as "bishop of Rome". Bishops can only be properly ordained by other bishops, so it is assumed that if there is a bishop in Rome, he has had a raft of predecessors stretching back to the first one there. Historical corroboration is usually spotty when it comes to underground groups.

The actual term "pope" wasn't used until 384, shortly after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, when Pope Siricius came to power. Since civil government had collapsed, the Church of Rome stepped in to fill the gap by default. It didn't prove to be any more effective at providing public services than its predecessor, but the chain of command was simpler. And as sole authority in the area, it had a shot at claiming authority over all the Church. But that was a difficult sell to the other patriarchs, especially the ones way off in the East who still spoke Greek. It took a series of steps for the office to develop from "bishop of Rome" to "pope" and from "vicar of Peter" to "vicar of Christ". "Pontifex maximus" was actually inherited from the Roman Emperor, who had been the official leader of the cult of the Roman pantheon. Only last year, the title "Patriarch of the West" was dropped. (Too limiting perhaps) Historically, the pope's official basillica is the Latern Palace, but since the Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't visit too often, St. Peter's is usually available.

So the first 33 "popes" were too busy staying alive to worry about what they were called, and the next eight were being good subjects of the Emperor.

Answer 3

the 1st Pope of the Roman church became into in no way the Apostle Peter, this may well be a deception of the Roman church to get extra human beings to maintain on with them and to settle for her guy-made doctrine. regrettably it has worked, by way of fact there are literally 1000's of Roman Catholics interior the international to this factor. even nonetheless the Roman church's Catholics would say that they have not got faith that there are antichrist strolling the earth acceptable now, that too is a lie and a factor of her deception. The Bible is obvious that there are antichrist between us. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, it will be the in basic terms acceptable Antichrist which will reason the beginning up of the tip i don't think of that he would be Catholic. Scriptures say that he will come out of the desolate tract, Assyria or maybe nonetheless the Roman church's hand stretches some distance it does not administration the desolate tract and her human beings. The Roman church and her Popes would instruct a faux and guy-made doctrine, yet she isn't the Antichrist of Daniel and Revelation. Be Blessed:-)

Answer 4

1. No
2. Peter did go to Rome. It is where he was put to death in 67 a.d.

The Roman Catholic Church is a religion started around 258 years AFTER Peter's death so how could he have been this church's FIRST "pope ?"
One of the deceptive practices of the Roman Catholic Church is to lay it's claim upon the word "Catholic" and proclaim it's following started back when the first disciples of Jesus were first called Catholics at Antioch by Ignatius in the first century a.d. THESE Catholics were NOT "Roman Catholics" but the faithful in a faith thought to be "universal" or for "everyone." Later came the Emperor Constantine and his leaque of bishops to set down HIS religion with the convening of the Council of Nicea in 325 a.d. By "then" the Romans had killed, persecuted and eraticated most of the faithful disciples of the "true" Jesus throughout their Empire. The Roman Catholic Church continued this practice for the better part of the next 17 centuries......

Answer 5

Hello, Trinity:

No, Peter was not the first pope--that was a fabrication invented by a forged document bearing Constantine's signature. Interestingly, this document calls the pope VICARIUS FILII DEI, which adds to 666.

Church headquarters was in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15. There was a continuous line of Jewish bishops for about 90 years until Hadrian banned all Jews from Jerusalem. At that time, Mark became the first gentile bishop. Later Ephesus became the city where the Church leadership met.

If you are a Bible student, you will see that the Roman Empire transitioned into Papal Rome--both "wore out the saints of the Most High."

A Bible code reminds us of who the Abomination of Desolation is that Jesus warned us of. See: http://abiblecode.tripod.com

Shalom, peace in Jesus, Ben Yeshua

Answer 6

If Peter was the rock on which the church was built, he certainly would have known it; and if he knew it he would have made that powerfully clear in his own epistles. But even in his own writings Peter never calls himself pope or speaks of himself as the head of the church.
If Peter had been the first pope, would he not have known it? Yet never once did he call himself “Supreme Pontiff” or pope. Nowhere in his writings did he claim supremacy, infallibility or the right to have a successor. On subjects so important as this it is unthinkable that Peter would remain silent.

If Peter was the vicar of Jesus Christ, how is it that he never acted like a pope? Peter never established himself in a sumptuous residence. He never hired a small army of soldiers to guard him. He never dressed in clothes drastically different from his brothers. He never had himself carried about by his brothers on a papal chair similar to one used by Egyptian kings. Why did he never act like a pope? Because he obeyed Jesus’ command: “Do not call anyone your father on earth, for One is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called ‘leaders’, for your Leader is one, the Christ.”—Matt. 23:9, 10.

Answer 7

Yes, Peter was the first Pope. Jesus said "you are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church", so St. Peter's Basilica is the place where they have buried Peter's bones. Upon Peter's bones the Church is built. Peter was the head of the apostles so he was the first Pope. Jesus told him to feed His sheep. Also Jesus said, "the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church". Peter must have passed on his authority to the next Pope and the next Pope passed on his authority to the next Pope until we now have the present Pope. This is the proof that the Catholic church is the true church founded by Jesus Christ.

Answer 8

There is absolute and undeniable archeological evidence that Peter was buried in Rome, just as the church has always known.

In fact, mid 20th century excavations, which are open to anyone, proved that the original St. Peter's basilica was indeed built on his grave site.

Evidently, Jesus wasn't kidding when he said "On this Rock I will buikl my church."

And whether you want to hear about it or not, apostolic succession is not only a historical fact, it is one of the four marks of the authentic church.

No wonder YOU don't want to hear about it.

http://www.slowtrav.com/italy/rome/scavi_tour.htm

Answer 9

I agree with kait - a pretty comprehensive answer. The Roman Church is partly founded on a gross misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18. Here Christ calls Peter by the name 'Rock' on which Christ is apparently going to build his church. The Greek in this verse calls Peter 'Petros' but uses a slightly different word for the rock (petra) on which the church is going to be built. Rome argues that 'Petros' is the masculine form of the feminine noun 'petra' and therefore means the same thing, Peter is that rock.
However closer examination of all relevant texts in Syriac, Aramaic and Greek, showing the usage of these words, indicates that the correct understanding of this verse is : “You are 'Petros' (a movable stone) and upon this 'petra' (a large massive rock) I will build my church". Christ meant himself as 'petra'.
Rome maintains this misinterpretation having falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac text, and ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language.

Answer 10

+PAX

Yes, Peter was the first Pope. Christ said, "Peter, you are my rock and upon this rock I shall build my church." He also asked Peter 3 times if he loved him. Peter answered yes, 3 times to which Christ answered feed my flock. He was also given the Keys to the Kingdom...whatever was bound on earth would be bound in Heaven and whatever was loosed on earth would be loosed in Heaven.

Peter was most certainly in Rome is was martyred there. He was crucified. But in his humility, he did not feel it appropriate to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord and God. So he was crucified head down.

Many of the Apostles were married to which Christ indicated they leave EVERYTHING and follow him. You don't hear of the wives tagging along in Scripture.

In charity and humility of the Lord,
j

Answer 11

Yes, first among equals. One of the 12, which you know. Jesus picked him.
Why is Rome important? Rome was where Caesar ruled the "known" world, so eventually someone would go there, everyone went there.