Is Peter the first pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NewPerspective
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NewPerspective

Guest
"Catholics have always claimed that the apostle Peter was not only the first Roman bishop, but that he was also martyred in Rome. But Peter’s commission was to serve the lost tribes of Israel. In neither his nor Paul’s letters is there any indication that Peter was ever in Rome. Even if he was brought there for execution, the fact remains that he never served there. The false claim that Peter was the first pope is appropriately labeled, “Fiction, pure and simple”
 
"Catholics have always claimed that the apostle Peter was not only the first Roman bishop, but that he was also martyred in Rome. But Peter’s commission was to serve the lost tribes of Israel. In neither his nor Paul’s letters is there any indication that Peter was ever in Rome. Even if he was brought there for execution, the fact remains that he never served there. The false claim that Peter was the first pope is appropriately labeled, “Fiction, pure and simple”
Peter’s commission was to serve the lost tribes of Israel.

What does this mean, and where does it come from?
 
"Catholics have always claimed that the apostle Peter was not only the first Roman bishop, but that he was also martyred in Rome. But Peter’s commission was to serve the lost tribes of Israel. In neither his nor Paul’s letters is there any indication that Peter was ever in Rome. Even if he was brought there for execution, the fact remains that he never served there. The false claim that Peter was the first pope is appropriately labeled, “Fiction, pure and simple”
I am wondering why you state that this thread will be closed soon!:confused:
 
I am wondering why you state that this thread will be closed soon!:confused:
I do too. :confused: There is nothing wrong with you asking questions - this is, after all, a discussion forum. Doesn’t mean you are right, just means we are open to discussion and educating you of your error. 😃

~Liza
 
"Catholics have always claimed that the apostle Peter was not only the first Roman bishop, but that he was also martyred in Rome. But Peter’s commission was to serve the lost tribes of Israel. In neither his nor Paul’s letters is there any indication that Peter was ever in Rome. Even if he was brought there for execution, the fact remains that he never served there. The false claim that Peter was the first pope is appropriately labeled, “Fiction, pure and simple”
Well, most people belied it until Martin Luther (Celestial Chewiness and Joy and Pancackes be Upon His Head) and his Reformation.

🤷
 
“In neither his nor Paul’s letters is there any indication that Peter was ever in Rome.”
An argument from silence - a great fallacy commited by many protestants.
Even if he was brought there for execution, the fact remains that he never served there. The false claim that Peter was the first pope is appropriately labeled, “Fiction, pure and simple”
If he indeed was not in Rome than explain this (this is just a selection):

Dionysius of Corinth
“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time” (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] recorded by Eusebius).

Irenaeus
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

Eusebius
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).

When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).

Peter of Alexandria
Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
 
Heres the thing. I wont stand here and say that I have found scripture in the absolute, unwavering, non-sharing authrority of the true Word of God (The Bible) that “Peter was not the first bisop of Rome” word for word. However we also dont find anything in Scripture about Paul owning a computer, however we can safely assume that he didnt. Now assumptions can get you into trouble if you dont have supporting understanding that at least somewhat validates them such as the like: Rome has been an antagonist of the Christian Church and a persecuter since Nero. Roman responsiblity for the brutal persecution of the Church supports us to safely assume that Peter, a man named by Christ Himself as the rock on which He will build His Church, would then Bishop an empire such as that of Rome. I think this is a pretty safe assumption.
 
Peter writes his first Epistle when he is in Rome.

1 Peter 5:13 She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.

In the NT Babylon is another name for Rome (cf Apoc. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, 10-12).
 
…I am fairly certain that this thread will be removed… to the Apologetic Forum… shortly.

.
 
. Roman responsiblity for the brutal persecution of the Church supports us to safely assume that Peter, a man named by Christ Himself as the rock on which He will build His Church, would then Bishop an empire such as that of Rome. I think this is a pretty safe assumption.
Excuse me? What on earth are you saying?

Peter was named by Christ Himself as the rock on which He will build His Church. OK. We agree on that.

You say that Peter was “Bishop of an empire such as that of Rome?” WHAT does that mean?

Peter was the Bishop of the church at Rome. He was not an official of the Empire. In fact, the Empire crucified him. His bones have been identified and they now repose under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica.
 
"Catholics have always claimed that the apostle Peter was not only the first Roman bishop, but that he was also martyred in Rome. But Peter’s commission was to serve the lost tribes of Israel. In neither his nor Paul’s letters is there any indication that Peter was ever in Rome. Even if he was brought there for execution, the fact remains that he never served there. The false claim that Peter was the first pope is appropriately labeled, “Fiction, pure and simple”
Aside from your assumption that there is nothing in scripture to support Peter’s presence in Rome, what are the source documents that support that assumption?
 
"Catholics have always claimed that the apostle Peter was not only the first Roman bishop, but that he was also martyred in Rome. But Peter’s commission was to serve the lost tribes of Israel. In neither his nor Paul’s letters is there any indication that Peter was ever in Rome. Even if he was brought there for execution, the fact remains that he never served there. The false claim that Peter was the first pope is appropriately labeled, “Fiction, pure and simple”
Wrong.

“After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, ‘My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe’” (Acts 17:7)

Note that St. Peter was to teach the Gentiles. And do the others recognize his authority?

“The whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 17:12)

Yes.

On a side note, I am a bit curious about your username. Your perspectives are not all that new - they are entrenched heresies that have been addressed time and time again. Honestly, I feel a bit cheated. You, sir, have failed to deliver.

Edit:

No, I don’t think your question should be deleted, but it should be moved to Apologetics where it belongs.
 
Heres the thing. I wont stand here and say that I have found scripture in the absolute, unwavering, non-sharing authrority of the true Word of God (The Bible) that “Peter was not the first bisop of Rome” word for word. However we also dont find anything in Scripture about Paul owning a computer, however we can safely assume that he didnt. Now assumptions can get you into trouble if you dont have supporting understanding that at least somewhat validates them such as the like: Rome has been an antagonist of the Christian Church and a persecuter since Nero. Roman responsiblity for the brutal persecution of the Church supports us to safely assume that Peter, a man named by Christ Himself as the rock on which He will build His Church, would then Bishop an empire such as that of Rome. I think this is a pretty safe assumption.
Of course Paul had a computer! He just didn’t have any wall sockets to plug it into! 😛
 
Uh I dont know what Bible you are reading out of but those scriptures definitely dont correlate with the text you provided. Chapter 17 tells of Paul and Silas bringing the Word to Berea and Pauls sermon on Mars’ Hill in Athens and told them they were to superstitious. Soooo…ya might wanna check that out. Have a good one man.
 
Uh I dont know what Bible you are reading out of but those scriptures definitely dont correlate with the text you provided. Chapter 17 tells of Paul and Silas bringing the Word to Berea and Pauls sermon on Mars’ Hill in Athens and told them they were to superstitious. Soooo…ya might wanna check that out. Have a good one man.
15:7, 15:12

You too.
 
On a side note, I am a bit curious about your username. Your perspectives are not all that new - they are entrenched heresies that have been addressed time and time again. Honestly, I feel a bit cheated. You, sir, have failed to deliver.
I have to agree…When I started reading this thread yesterday, I was stumped on the name. But you said it right…this is by far no new perspective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top