Please Provide Historical Proof That Peter Was The First Pope.

ProAmerican · #1 3rd January 2006, 12:28 PM

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.

FreezBee · #2 3rd January 2006, 12:35 PM

I suspect this could be a very short thread

- FreezBee

ProAmerican · #3 3rd January 2006, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by FreezBee

I suspect this could be a very short thread

- FreezBee

Surely the RCC apologists at this site could provide the proof that I(and no doubt others) seek....

eoe · #4 3rd January 2006, 12:45 PM

ProAm - are you attempting to show that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome or are you arguing against primacy?

I don't think that there is any argument at all that Peter was the first bishop of Rome - just as James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. These are historical facts. The term "Pope" likely was not used but that is irrelevant. You can call him the guy in the big hat if you like - it does not matter - it is simply a title for the Bishop of Rome.

Maybe you could clarify your position a bit to foster a better discussion?

Metanoia02 · #5 3rd January 2006, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by ProAmerican

Surely the RCC apologists at this site could provide the proof that I(and no doubt others) seek....

And how would proof or lack of proof change your life?

ProAmerican · #6 3rd January 2006, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by eoe

I don't think that there is any argument at all that Peter was the first bishop of Rome - just as James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

Maybe no argument within the RCC, but what proof are you basing the argument on that Peter was the first bishop of Rome? Please provide this proof within the parameters provided in the OP.

Originally Posted by eoe

These are historical facts.

Then I am sure that you should have no trouble at all then providing that historical proof(parameters provided) that Peter was the first Bishop/Pope of Rome.

Originally Posted by eoe

The term "Pope" likely was not used but that is irrelevant.

So in other words there is no historical proof that Peter was called the "Pope."

Originally Posted by eoe

You can call him the guy in the big hat if you like - it does not matter - it is simply a title for the Bishop of Rome.

If Peter wasn't called Pope then in which century was the Bishop of Rome called the Pope?

ProAmerican · #7 3rd January 2006, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Metanoia02

And how would proof or lack of proof change your life?

That's not at issue here. At issue here is for you to provide the proof that I(and no doubt others) seek, as stated in the OP.

If you don't have this historical proof then just say so, instead of turning the argument upon me, and changing the direction of this thread.

HeartFullaLove · #8 3rd January 2006, 01:07 PM

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

ProAmerican · #9 3rd January 2006, 01:09 PM

Unfortunately I have to go for now, and probably for the rest of the day.

I will be back tomorrow, though, to see if someone, anyone, can provide the proof(as outlined within the OP) that I, and no doubt others, seek.

Surely something as important as this to the RCC would have historical proof to support it(as outlined within the OP.)

Surely.

Metanoia02 · #10 3rd January 2006, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by ProAmerican

That's not at issue here. At issue here is for you to provide the proof that I(and no doubt others) seek, as stated in the OP.

If you don't have this historical proof then just say so, instead of turning the argument upon me, and changing the direction of this thread.

I didn't realize I was being argumentative. May you find what you seek.