Questions about Peter being the first Pope (belief, prophets, baptize)

[Rightly Divided]

Originally Posted by MORebelWoman

For some reason he is not able to see that he is the one who continually posts the same thing over and over again. Kind of reminds me of the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again the same way and expecting a different outcome.

There is a clinical name for that! But some cannot handle the truth and will delete the post.

[MORebelWoman]

Originally Posted by Rightly Divided

There is a clinical name for that! But some cannot handle the truth and will delete the post.

True!!!

[GreenWhiteBlue]

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Outside of Roman tradition/myth and those championing such myths 100+ years after Peter was supposedly lives and dies in Rome, what evidence is there that Peter ever was in Rome at all? Surely somebody must have seen the man made note of the fact, if indeed he ruled there as bishop for 20+ years. The complete lack of any first-hand accounts of anyone seeing him in Rome is puzzling to say the least,

No, it isn't puzzling at all. What is puzzling is that you find it puzzling. Consider this: there are no first hand accounts of the existence of Genghhis Khan -- no eye-witness accounts, no traditional burial site, in fact nothing at all was written about him for several generations after his lifetime. Does that mean there was no GEnghis Khan?

There is universal Christian tradition, both among the Greek Orthodox (who would be happier if Peter had NOT been at Rome) and in the West, that Peter went to Rome, that the "Babylon" mentioned in his epistle as the location from which he is writing is a code word for Rome just as it is in Revelation, that he was martyred there, and buried there. Numerous early Christian writers, from Clement, to Irenaeus, to Papias, to the Christian Caius who around AD 200 was able to describe the locations of the tombs of Peter in Paul at Rome, despite the persecution that continued there, all attest to these facts. No serious historian disputes this -- so why do you?

Saying that you reject the writings of the early Christian writers about Christian matters is like saying that you cannot accept the accounts of Chinese historians writing about Chinese history simply because they are Chinese.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Nonsense. Christ is the foundation for His followers (ecclesia) . . . NOT Peter and certainly not some man-made institution. Christ is the cornerstone the builders rejected.

From Matthew 21:42

. . . Did you never read in the Scriptures, 'The stone which the builders rejected, has become the corner stone; by the Lord this has been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes?'

Clearly the Jews are the “builders” who rejected Jesus who has, in more ways than one, become the cornerstone! It is this "stone" from the OT that Jesus was referring to. He was fulfilling the prophesy and saying Peter had correctly acknowledged it. This is biblical and consistent with Christ's claims to be fulfilling the OT prophesies.

That Peter was a disciple and apostle is not disputed. That he was an important disciple and apostle is not disputed. That he was first among the apostles IS disputed because Jesus specifically said no one should be considered first. (Regrettably, the RCC using its corrupt and warped reasoning interpreted the demonstration Jesus performed of washing their feet as the ritual to become the first i.e., Pope).

Originally Posted by IamACatholic

So my friend, why is it that Peter was NEVER 'Bishop" of Rome? It is, and was that He was the First POPE of the entire, Universal Church.

He was "First among equals"

There was NO FIRST. Christ made that clear. The RCC pretends that the demonstration Christ performed to emphasize the point that there was to be NO FIRST . . . was instead His creation of a ritual to establish who is to be FIRST!!!! The perversity of humans in pursuit of their own desires and agendas is unbounded!! There is no FIRST among Christ's followers, period!!!

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by MORebelWoman

For some reason he is not able to see that he is the one who continually posts the same thing over and over again. Kind of reminds me of the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again the same way and expecting a different outcome.

For the love of God! You have a phD in theology and you are a Sola Scriptura believer?


Do you realize that there is much more about the history of Christianity than the Bible? Did you study in a protestant college? It seems the teachings you received were very biased.


Do you think Socrates existed? He left nothing in writing and yet he is considered the father of philosophy. What we know about Socrates we learned by the writings of many others that wrote about him after he was dead.

There is extensive literature that confirms the role of Peter in the Catholic Church. One would think that as a student of theology you would know about this. Unless you went to the same Protestant colleges that teach ADAM and EVE and the 6000 year old creation.

Nevertheless-------- if your theology degree only involves Sola Scriptura I challenge you to present an analysis of Matt 16: 19 and John 21: 15-17.

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

There was NO FIRST. Christ made that clear. The RCC pretends that the demonstration Christ performed to emphasize the point that there was to be NO FIRST . . . was instead His creation of a ritual to establish who is to be FIRST!!!! The perversity of humans in pursuit of their own desires and agendas is unbounded!! There is no FIRST among Christ's followers, period!!!

I consider you an intellectual and I enjoy most of your posts. I don't understand why you have gone Sola Scriptura on the issue of Peter's supremacy? Why do you ignore the post biblical history of Christianity?

There is a reason why the Christians of the late first century felt the way they did about Peter. This is not a 15th century conspiracy to deal with the reformers. The prominence of Peter was established in the NT and from day 1 after Jesus departed.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

There was NO FIRST. Christ made that clear. The RCC pretends that the demonstration Christ performed to emphasize the point that there was to be NO FIRST . . . was instead His creation of a ritual to establish who is to be FIRST!!!! The perversity of humans in pursuit of their own desires and agendas is unbounded!! There is no FIRST among Christ's followers, period!!!

Originally Posted by Julian658

I consider you an intellectual and I enjoy most of your posts. I don't understand why you have gone Sola Scriptura on the issue of Peter's supremacy? Why do you ignore the post biblical history of Christianity?

I don't. But I consider the establishment of hierarchy as entirely man-made and without provenance from Christ, period. Christ was against ANY hierarchy, period. It has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura and everything to do with what Christ taught and demonstrated unambiguously. Why do YOU support hierarchy and pompous posturing in the name of Christ and God??

There is a reason why the Christians of the late first century felt the way they did about Peter. This is not a 15th century conspiracy to deal with the reformers. The prominence of Peter was established in the NT and from day 1 after Jesus departed.

That is an apologetic interpretation that is NOT supported by the history of the creation and ascendance of the Roman papacy. Peter was an important apostle. He was important to the spread of the Gospel. But he was no more important than any of the others. They were equals. What you take as a personal acknowledgement was an acknowledgement of the correctness of Peter's understanding of Christ's role. What you take as a personal charge was a charge given to ALL the apostles . . . NOT just to Peter. There are no FIRSTS among Christians, period. They ALL performed as Christ charged.

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

They were equals. What you take as a personal acknowledgement was an acknowledgement of the correctness of Peter's understanding of Christ's role. What you take as a personal charge was a charge given to ALL the apostles . . . NOT just to Peter. There are no FIRSTS among Christians, period. They ALL performed as Christ charged.

I do not deny the Apostles were equals, but Peter was singled out by Jesus and that is undeniable. And this MAN love of Jesus for Peter is the basis of the papacy.


I gladly accept that the church became a world power and was out of control with a Papal Army and Popes that had concubines , etc. But, that is the fault of MAN. The origin of the papacy remains intact.

Germany was the world academic center of physics in the late 19th century. Any American that wanted to study physics had to learn German and travel to Europe. The fact that Hitler came later on does not discredit the past achievements.

[Jerwade]

Jesus Christ was the one who proved that Hell could not hold Him.
It was not Peter, or the Catholic Church that never saw corruption.

Note: Acts 2:27, 31; Revelation 1:18

[IamACatholic]

=MysticPhD;34526475]Despite your lengthy posts proving absolutely nothing other than Peter was an important apostle . . . he was never Bishop of Rome, probably never in Rome, and had nothing to do with being Pope. Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (Matthew 16:18-19). But scripture nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the church (ecclesia/people). (Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5). However, scripture does show 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 (ecclesia/people) . . . not just their church leaders (Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

Scripture never taught that the Bishop of Rome (or any other bishop) had primacy over the church (ecclesia/people). Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome . . . let alone being the Bishop of Rome. There is only one reference in scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon” (1 Peter 5:13). But Babylon is not Rome despite inferences to that effect. The historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome after the Muslims conquered Constantinople forms the erroneous and serendipitous basis for the RCC’s teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and attaching it to Peter and the magical apostolic succession doctrine. The infallibillity doctrine followed in due course based similarly on nothing but the creative imaginations of the RCC leaders.

Peter was indeed NOT the Bishop of Rome; James was. BUT Peter like Paul DIED {was crucified} in Rome, and was seen as the HEAD apostle:

50 NEW TESTAMENT PROOFS FOR PETRINE PRIMACY AND THE PAPACY

The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically-based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrines, it has undergone development through the centuries, but it hasn't departed from the essential components already existing in the leadership and prerogatives of St. Peter. These were given to him by our Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledged by his contemporaries, and accepted by the early Church. The biblical Petrine data is quite strong, and is inescapably compelling by virtue of its cumulative weight. This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries. The evidence of Holy Scripture (RSV) follows:

1. Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds." The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Pet 2:4-8; cf. Mt 21:42).Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).

2. Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . ."

The "power of the keys" has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is "over a house" (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).
3. Matthew 16:19 ". . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

"Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to "condemn" or "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.

4. Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the "first" (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he ("Cephas") is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

8. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32).

9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).

10. Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).

11. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

12. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

13. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

14. Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27).

15. Christ teaches from Peter's boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a "fisher of men" (cf. Mt 4:19).

16. Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).

17. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).

18. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The "bark" (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.

19. Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).

20. Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).

21. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).

22. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the gospel" in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

23. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

24. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!

25. Peter's shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).

26. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

27. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
28. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

29. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

30. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).

31. The whole Church (strongly implied) offers "earnest prayer" for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

32. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).

33. Paul distinguishes the Lord's post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8). The two disciples on the road to Emmaus make the same distinction (Lk 24:34), in this instance mentioning only Peter ("Simon"), even though they themselves had just seen the risen Jesus within the previous hour (Lk 24:33).

34. Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).
35. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67 ff.).

36. Peter's name is always the first listed of the "inner circle" of the disciples (Peter, James and John - Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).

37. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1 ff., Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24 ff.).

38. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

39. Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!

40. Peter's proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the "House of Israel" (2:36) - an example of "binding and loosing."
41. Peter was the first "charismatic", having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

42. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

43. Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

44. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

45. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called "visitation of the churches" (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn't traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

46. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

47. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet
5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or "elders."


48. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pet 1:16-21).

49. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul's writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).

50. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. "Babylon" (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this"

Peter as the HEAD was no new invention by Christ who chose Abram, Moses, The Judges and Prophets, and Kings Like David and Jacob: ALl MEN; all leaders of God's Chosen people; Peter is the but the first to follow this Tradition in the NT


Perhaps this will ADD to your understanding?

God Bless you,
Patrick
I amACatholic