Please Provide Historical Proof That Peter Was The First Pope.
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.
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?
Owner of the invisible & amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; quot ;goo b er doll& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; quot ;
Join Date: 26th June 2003
Posts: 3,608
Blessings: 38,854
Reps: 14,171 (power: 24)
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?
__________________
Many who would willingly let themselves be nailed to a Cross before the astonished gaze of a thousand onlookers cannot bear with a christian spirit the pinpricks of each day! Think, then, which is the more heroic
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?
Owner of the invisible & amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; quot ;goo b er doll& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; quot ;
Join Date: 26th June 2003
Posts: 3,608
Blessings: 38,854
Reps: 14,171 (power: 24)
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.
__________________
Many who would willingly let themselves be nailed to a Cross before the astonished gaze of a thousand onlookers cannot bear with a christian spirit the pinpricks of each day! Think, then, which is the more heroic
Linear Mode
