If Peter wasn't the first pope, who was?

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Is there proof, one way or the other, that Peter was the actual first Pope?
No, it was a term made upon the 4th century to validate Constantine being the head of the christians, the first Pontifus Maximus.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Agree with your post. What puzzles me more is that Peter was only an apostle to the Jews. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Rome was a Gentile city and Peter did not have any authority over Gentile Christians.

Peter travelled up to Antioch but was publicly rebuked by Paul.
So obviously, Paul did not view Peter as a pope. In fact, Paul accused Peter of attempting to make the Gentiles live like the Jews. There is no doubt that Paul saw Peter as, fallen from grace.

How Peter becomes a pope is beyond my understanding.
There was more than one apostle to the Jews and more than one to the Gentiles.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,427
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,292.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
No, it was a term made upon the 4th century to validate Constantine being the head of the christians, the first Pontifus Maximus.
Oh do stop posting such nonsense. Constantine was never considered by anyone as the head of Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
7,964
2,883
Minnesota
✟207,869.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Except he was not the prime minister of the early church, James was. Later Paul and John were significant. Peter was not recognized as prime minister by anyone living when he did.
I repeat, history does NOT show that Peter alone had the keys or that the church was built on Peter or that anyone accorded him more honor or authority than John, James or Paul.
Except he was not the prime minister of the early church, James was. Later Paul and John were significant. Peter was not recognized as prime minister by anyone living when he did.
As to the specific keys of the kingdom, Jesus gave those keys to Peter and to no other Apostle. Jesus gave Peter a special role:
John 21 14-17: 14 This was now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he had resurrected from the dead.
15 Then, when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
16 He said to him again: "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
17 He said to him a third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was very grieved that he had asked him a third time, "Do you love me?" And so he said to him: "Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my sheep. CPDV
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Eliakim was one of many ministers, but was chosen by the king to be the prime minister when the office became vacant. The foreshadowed what was to come, Peter took on not only administration duties but
as the prime minister of Jesus, according to the words of Jesus, became a shepherd to the people.
When any argument like this one turns to saying that something not connected to something else "foreshadowed" it, we know that the contention is entirely speculative.

And, by the way, what "administrative duties" did Peter take on that mark him as a Pope?
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Agree with your post. What puzzles me more is that Peter was only an apostle to the Jews. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Rome was a Gentile city and Peter did not have any authority over Gentile Christians.

Peter travelled up to Antioch but was publicly rebuked by Paul.
So obviously, Paul did not view Peter as a pope. In fact, Paul accused Peter of attempting to make the Gentiles live like the Jews. There is no doubt that Paul saw Peter as, fallen from grace.

How Peter becomes a pope is beyond my understanding.

Great post!! This should put an end to "Peter was the first Pope once and for all" untruth
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
No, it was a term made upon the 4th century to validate Constantine being the head of the christians, the first Pontifus Maximus.

Do you mean Pontifex Maximus? Because that's a title from the old religion of the Romans, before the coming of Christ. It did not originate with Christianity, much less with Roman Catholicism in particular, so even if you were correct about Constantine being the first Pope (which you aren't, at all), it wouldn't follow that he was therefore the first pontifex maximus. That was Numa Marcius, many centuries before Constantine.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
7,964
2,883
Minnesota
✟207,869.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
When any argument like this one turns to saying that something not connected to something else "foreshadowed" it, we know that the contention is entirely speculative.

And, by the way, what "administrative duties" did Peter take on that mark him as a Pope?

I disagree, Jesus came not to abolish but instead to fulfill. The old often points to the new.

An example of what I speak of as administrative was Peter making the final decision that circumcision was no longer necessary because of Baptism.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,427
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,292.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
As to the specific keys of the kingdom, Jesus gave those keys to Peter and to no other Apostle. Jesus gave Peter a special role:
John 21 14-17: 14 This was now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he had resurrected from the dead.
15 Then, when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
16 He said to him again: "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
17 He said to him a third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was very grieved that he had asked him a third time, "Do you love me?" And so he said to him: "Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my sheep. CPDV
Jesus said this to only Peter because only Peter had denied Him three times. Peter had claimed to be more loyal than all the other Apostles when he stated in Matt 26:33 that "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away", so Jesus tests him by asking "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?". Peter's response is much more humble than his earlier claim.
Jesus also no longer calls him Peter. The passage you have quoted is all about Peter's rehabilitation as an Apostle after his denial of Christ. It is not Peter being given a unique role.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I disagree, Jesus came not to abolish but instead to fulfill. The old often points to the new.
In a general or basic way, not when it comes to some very specific claim of Christ creating a position that no one had any notion of for several hundred years.

An example of what I speak of as administrative was Peter making the final decision that circumcision was no longer necessary because of Baptism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
7,964
2,883
Minnesota
✟207,869.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Jesus said this to only Peter because only Peter had denied Him three times. Peter had claimed to be more loyal than all the other Apostles when he stated in Matt 26:33 that "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away", so Jesus tests him by asking "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?". Peter's response is much more humble than his earlier claim.
Jesus also no longer calls him Peter. The passage you have quoted is all about Peter's rehabilitation as an Apostle after his denial of Christ. It is not Peter being given a unique role.
As I explained before, Peter became the first pope (call him master of the House of David, or prime minister) when Jesus, in words paralleling Isaiah 22, renamed Simon as Rock and gave Rock (Peter) the keys to the kingdom. Matt 26:33 is one of a number of Bible passages supporting this. Renaming in the Bible often marks an important even, as Abram was renamed Abraham and made a spiritual father to God's people, so too Simon was renamed Rock and made a spiritual father to God's people. It's supportive just as when John runs to the tomb but waits and lets Peter enter first.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
No, it was a term made upon the 4th century to validate Constantine being the head of the christians, the first Pontifus Maximus.

Please read a history book. This is so false as to be embarrassingly so.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,039.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
No, it was a term made upon the 4th century to validate Constantine being the head of the christians, the first Pontifus Maximus.
The term Pontifex Maximus (meaning Great Bridge builder) was used for a particular role within the Roman Mythros worship, and had a number of roles including the regulation of holidays, the burial of the dead, the arrangement of cemeteries and the organisation of religious occasions. The fact that Constantine held that role, probably until he left Rome and founded the New Capital in Byzantium, which became known as Constantinople. It is one of the clear indications that at this stage of his life, although kind the Christians he himself was not one. He was certainly not the first person to hold the title, and the Bishop of Rome for most of Constantine's reign was Sylvester 1. Pope's did not start using the title to much later.

Initially the term is a recognition of the importance of the bridges to the defence of Rome, and a proper understanding of the defeat of Maxentius at the battle of Milvian Bridge is good evidence as to how important the bridges were, and Constantine was only able to prevail as Maxentius was over confident and ultimately the Bridge that should have protected him became his demise. When the Popes started using the title there was a spiritual understanding of the Bridge between heaven and earth accessible in Christ alone.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
As I explained before, Peter became the first pope (call him master of the House of David, or prime minister) when Jesus, in words paralleling Isaiah 22, renamed Simon as Rock and gave Rock (Peter) the keys to the kingdom. Matt 26:33 is one of a number of Bible passages supporting this. Renaming in the Bible often marks an important even, as Abram was renamed Abraham and made a spiritual father to God's people, so too Simon was renamed Rock and made a spiritual father to God's people. It's supportive just as when John runs to the tomb but waits and lets Peter enter first.

Matthew 26:33-36, "Peter said to him, “If they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away!” Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will never deny you.” And all the disciples said the same thing."

I'm not sure what the connection is between Peter becoming "the first Pope" and the verse that you cite, which is part of Peter's fantasy about how devoted he was to Christ.

The so-called "first Pope" was called Satan by Jesus

Matthew 16:23, "But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”

As we all know, Peter was wrong about his loyalty to Jesus. He denied knowing Him three times in one night! In Matthew 26, it says, "Peter said to him, “If they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away!” Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will never deny you.” And all the disciples said the same thing."
 
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,444
3,769
Eretz
✟317,023.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
As I explained before, Peter became the first pope (call him master of the House of David, or prime minister) when Jesus, in words paralleling Isaiah 22, renamed Simon as Rock and gave Rock (Peter) the keys to the kingdom. Matt 26:33 is one of a number of Bible passages supporting this. Renaming in the Bible often marks an important even, as Abram was renamed Abraham and made a spiritual father to God's people, so too Simon was renamed Rock and made a spiritual father to God's people. It's supportive just as when John runs to the tomb but waits and lets Peter enter first.

Yeshua gave nicknames to other apostles too..."Sons of thunder"...were they literally born from thunder? Also, He nicknamed Peter much earlier, as soon as He met him (John 1:42). So the Roman position does not hold water...
 
  • Like
Reactions: dzheremi
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,381
5,253
✟816,720.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Matthew 26:33-36, "Peter said to him, “If they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away!” Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will never deny you.” And all the disciples said the same thing."

I'm not sure what the connection is between Peter becoming "the first Pope" and the verse that you cite, which is part of Peter's fantasy about how devoted he was to Christ.

The so-called "first Pope" was called Satan by Jesus

Matthew 16:23, "But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”

As we all know, Peter was wrong about his loyalty to Jesus. He denied knowing Him three times in one night! In Matthew 26, it says, "Peter said to him, “If they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away!” Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will never deny you.” And all the disciples said the same thing."
Unfortunately, you stop short and are picking and choosing from Scripture. What about: Matthew 16:13-20, Mark 8:27–30 and Luke 9:18–20?

What is the whole point of the Biblical account if not to illustrate that even followers of Christ sin; not only that, but there is forgiveness through repentance?

Peter goes on to confess is faith in Christ stating "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus, as a result of the repentance of Peter and his confession of faith no longer curses him but blesses him saying in Matthew 16:18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

This is a prime example that proves that even faithful Christians continue to sin despite their conversion and baptism; and since we sin daily we must repent daily. Free will and original sin with the help of the devil never leave us alone until we are with God in Heaven.

Regarding the Papacy, as a Lutheran, I don't really have a dog in that hunt; however, is seems plausible that Peter may indeed have been the first Bishop of Rome; titled such or simply in a leadership roll. The idea of supremacy came 1000 years later; and infallibility much later than that.

St. Peter is the Titular Saint of my Parish, and on Feb. 22, we Lutherans along with Rome commemorate his confession of faith in our Churches, and look to him as an example of how we too are to repent, and how only through faith and repentance is there eternal salvation through Jesus Christ. The picture below is purely symbolic of this account; however relative to this part of Scripture, Lutherans often refer to Confession and Absolution as "The Office of the Keys".
Christ_Handing_the_Keys_to_St._Peter_by_Pietro_Perugino.jpg


Kh_tRhhxd7Nl4yS5XdSnqHS8Padzf5T5ttbYXe_CvxWK_HAfGEkvobphAv51V8IzR2Ba3R_O8pN3QYOhgeI3mKoIQyVU2Q6lgU8moXgh4Wl_3Qxy7OiOqiNLpuOwjuEgyjKFMUmoeQOmaWUM74CBQfli
View attachment 289315
This is a picture in Iconography, symbolizes St. Peter; it depicts two keys and an upside-down cross. Tradition holds that Peter told his executioners that he was unworthy to be executed in the same manner as our Lord was, so he was crucified upside-down; the keys symbolize the authority given by Jesus Christ to His Church to forgive the sins of those who repent, but to bind the sins of the impenitent. Unfortunately, most Reformed Protestants disregard these irrefutable facts.

<post edited; can not seem to upload photos today from my computer>
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Matthew 26:33-36, "Peter said to him, “If they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away!” Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will never deny you.” And all the disciples said the same thing."

I'm not sure what the connection is between Peter becoming "the first Pope" and the verse that you cite, which is part of Peter's fantasy about how devoted he was to Christ.

The so-called "first Pope" was called Satan by Jesus

Matthew 16:23, "But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”

As we all know, Peter was wrong about his loyalty to Jesus. He denied knowing Him three times in one night! In Matthew 26, it says, "Peter said to him, “If they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away!” Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will never deny you.” And all the disciples said the same thing."
All that Matthew 26 and 16:23 shows us is that Peter was human. Especially before the Holy Spirit empowered him and the other apostles on Pentecost.
The fact is, all the apostles were human and flawed. One betrayed him, Peter denied him. Thomas doubted him. So there was no perfect human to carry the Church forward into History. But that's why there's more than one. The other apostles certainly advised him at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
Matthew 16:18-20 references Isaiah 22, where the king gives the keys to the House of David to Eliakim. Certainly, Eliakim was not perfect, but he was given the authority to rule in the King's name. Same with Peter.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Yeshua gave nicknames to other apostles too..."Sons of thunder"...were they literally born from thunder? Also, He nicknamed Peter much earlier, as soon as He met him (John 1:42). So the Roman position does not hold water...
Of course it holds water, and has for 2000 years. Besides, it wasn't a nickname. It was a name change. Sons of Thunder was a nickname. I think you have to also realize that John wrote his gospel 50 years after the fact, and synopsized. The fact shows that Jesus renamed Simon bar Jonah to Cephas, which means "Rock".
 
Upvote 0