No, it was a term made upon the 4th century to validate Constantine being the head of the christians, the first Pontifus Maximus.Is there proof, one way or the other, that Peter was the actual first Pope?
There was more than one apostle to the Jews and more than one to the Gentiles.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.
Oh do stop posting such nonsense. Constantine was never considered by anyone as the head of Christians.No, it was a term made upon the 4th century to validate Constantine being the head of the christians, the first Pontifus Maximus.
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.
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: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.
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.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.
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.
No, it was a term made upon the 4th century to validate Constantine being the head of the christians, the first Pontifus Maximus.
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?
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
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.No, it was a term made upon the 4th century to validate Constantine being the head of the christians, the first Pontifus Maximus.
Sounds like something Jack Trick would have cooked up.Please read a history book. This is so false as to be embarrassingly so.
-CryptoLutheran
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.
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.
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?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.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."
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".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...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?