Please Provide Historical Proof That Peter Was The First Pope.

eoe · #11 3rd January 2006, 02:24 PM

Actually, there is really no evidence Peter was EVER in Rome.

Where do you suppose Peter died?

anyhoo...
Thanks for the clarification ProAM.

As I understand it you are looking for:

1 - proof that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.
2 - proof that he was called "Pope"

revduane · #12 3rd January 2006, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by ProAmerican

I would appreciate it if someone would provide proof, that has been determined, by what could be called a third party, to be proof that the Apostle Peter was, indeed, the first Pope of Rome.

1.) This historical proof must have been determined by a "third party" to have been written before, say, A.D. 125.

IOW, verification as to the authenticity of this document must not come from within the RCC.

2.) Peter in this document must be referred to as the "Pope," and it must be said that his place of authority was in Rome.

BTW, there are multiple historical proofs that show that Jesus Christ actually lived, which were written by Romans(and others) before A.D. 125.

Hey P.A.

Here is a website you might find interesting.

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi...er_as_pope.php

chilehed · #13 3rd January 2006, 04:35 PM

ProAmerican,

Is it that you don’t think he was in Rome at all? There’s lots of evidence that he was:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;...”
Irenaeus, 2nd Bishop of Lyons, Againt Heresies (inter AD 180/199)

“That both Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom at the same time is affirmed as follows, by Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, when writing to the Romands: 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.”
St. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Letter to Soter of Rome (fragment in Eusebius, History of the Church, Bk. 2, Ch. 25) (A.D. 166/174)

“It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter likewise, was crucified, during the reighn of Nero. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemetaries there, which remain to the present time.And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. This gaius, in a written disputation with Proculus, the leader of the sect of Cataphyrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned Apostles were deposited: “ I can point out the trophies of the Apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church.”
Caius, Presbyter of Rome, Disputation with Proclus (fragment in Eusebius, History of the Church, Bk. 2, Ch. 25) (A.D. 198/217)

“How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s.”
Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200)

Perhaps you may defer to the words of Peter himself:

Originally Posted by The Apostle Peter

“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark”
1 Pet. 5:13

I imagine that you’ll object that these documents are of late origin, that they are of Catholic origin, and that they don’t use the word “Pope”. I find all of these objections to be quite unreasonable.

There’s no evidenciary reason to say that documents written after 125 AD are to be automatically discounted, and to artifically apply that as a cut-off date violates the rules of historical evidence.

Only a Christian would have really been interested in recording the whereabouts of Peter (other than to kill him), and since the Catholic church was the only act in town then by definition all of the documents would be of Catholic origin. One exception would be any Roman civil documentation of his arrest and execution, but since the Romans wouldn’t have regarded him as particularly worthy of note they wouldn’t have gone to any lengths to copy or preserve such records (if they existed at all).

And to top it all off, the site that Gaius referred to in the quote above has indeed been found in the catacombs of Rome. You can visit it today if you like, and see the tomb of St. Peter with your own eyes. You may want to get a book entitled "The Bones of St. Peter", by John Evangelist Walsh.

If you’re hung up about the word “Pope”, then as eoe has said you’re making much out of nothing. The authority of Peter and his successors has nothing to do with what he is affectionately called; it has everything to do with the office to which Jesus promoted him.

“Pope” is an English rendering of the word “papa”, and English didn’t exist at the time. You’re essentially asking us to produce documents written in a language that would falsify their authenticity.

“Papa” means “father”, and priests and bishops have been called “father” since the beginning of Christianity. The date of the first use of the word as a title for the Sucessor to St. Peter is quite irrelevant to the question of Papal authority. And if you're hung up about the use of the word "father", see how the Apostles characterized themselves as "fathers":

"Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17)

"To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2)

"To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).

"This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18)

"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1)
But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).

"To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4)

"I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10)

You may be intersted in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2381...ic-church.html

Veritas · #14 3rd January 2006, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by revduane

Hey P.A.

Here is a website you might find interesting.

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi...er_as_pope.php

I have to laugh at this link. Newsflash! The pope is a sinner like everyone else including you and me. He even goes to confession regularly! Pointing out his sins proves nothing. Why don't you list yours? Then we can say "revduane" is a sinner of the worst kind and is disqualified from leading anyone to Christ. Gosh, even St.Paul admitted to being a sinner

and look how well he did the Lord's work. Amazing!

revduane · #15 3rd January 2006, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Veritas

I have to laugh at this link. Newsflash! The pope is a sinner like everyone else including you and me. He even goes to confession regularly! Pointing out his sins proves nothing. Why don't you list yours? Then we can say "revduane" is a sinner of the worst kind and is disqualified from leading anyone to Christ. Gosh, even St.Paul admitted to being a sinner and look how well he did the Lord's work. Amazing!

Well veritas.

I see that your responses are not much different than what you described as attacks on the catholic church. I am a sinner. I just know that Peter wasn't the first Pope.

eoe · #16 3rd January 2006, 08:14 PM

I just know that Peter wasn't the first Pope.

Back this up?

Amb1 · #17 3rd January 2006, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by ProAmerican

I would appreciate it if someone would provide proof, that has been determined, by what could be called a third party, to be proof that the Apostle Peter was, indeed, the first Pope of Rome.

1.) This historical proof must have been determined by a "third party" to have been written before, say, A.D. 125.

IOW, verification as to the authenticity of this document must not come from within the RCC.

2.) Peter in this document must be referred to as the "Pope," and it must be said that his place of authority was in Rome.

BTW, there are multiple historical proofs that show that Jesus Christ actually lived, which were written by Romans(and others) before A.D. 125.

He wasn't! m i s s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

grateful heart · #18 3rd January 2006, 08:43 PM

I think this thread is going no where fast, why cant we agree to disagree??

BBAS 64 · #19 3rd January 2006, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by HeartFullaLove

Actually, there is really no evidence Peter was EVER in Rome.

Good Day, Heart Fulla Love

I have done a bit of research in this area, facts of the matter there are "lots" of historically evidence of Peter being in Rome, not the least of that is where he died.

Peace to u,

Bill

+RubiesFire+ · #20 3rd January 2006, 09:06 PM

Some can say that Pete was not the first Pope, others say he is the First Pope, and I say that I have no Comment because I don't know the answer.

So I am going to write this what I found in the Bible maybe this can help:

Now all of you together are Christ's body, and each of you is a separate and necessary part of it. Here is a list of some of the members that God has placed in the body of Christ:

First are the Apostles,
Second are Prophets,
Third are Teachers,
then those who do miracles,
those who have a gift of healing,
those who can help others, those who can get others to work together,
those who speak in unknown language.

Is everyone an Apostle? Of course not. Is everyone a Prophet? No. Are all Teachers? Does everyone have the power to do miracles? Does everyone have the gift of healing? Of course not. Does God give all of us the ability to speak in uknown languages? Can everyone interpret unknown languages? No! And in any event, you should desire the most helpful gifts.

1 Corinthians 12:27

This saying reminded me about Peter, some may believe that he was the first Pope others may disagree that he was a Pope. It's like are some of us Teachers? Yes. Are others teachers? No. Well if Peter was the first Pope then yes, if not then no. And that's where I go blank......