Peter the First Pope?

[SeekingTheTruth0819]

The Pope has the ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church. This, my friend, was the ministry of the fisherman named Simon Peter and that of the Roman bishops who succeeded him.

Truth by its very nature is unitive not divisive and Our Lord not only prayed for unity among His believers (John 17) but He also warned that divided houses could not stand (Matt. 12:25-29; Mark 3:23-26; Luke 11:14-20). There is a fundamental rule to logic that is called the "Law of Non-Contradiction" and it could be argued that by implication Our Lord was teaching it when he spoke about Satan casting out Satan. The Law of Non-Contradiction applies perfectly in these passages because it basically states that something cannot be both true and false. This is what happens if Satan casts out Satan- he contradicts himself. Therefore through self-contradiction his kingdom cannot stand. Well, what is happening when you have thousands of Christian groups professing different beliefs and all claiming to follow "the Bible"? How does this square with the exhortations not only from the Scriptures but also from the writings of the early Church Fathers about the necessity of maintaining unity??? Unfortunately most Christians regardless of affiliation are ill-equipped for fostering an atmosphere of greater understanding. This is primarily because most Christians do not seem willing to take the time to learn what their fellow Christians believe. In addition, they have the view that "it does not matter what you say because I am right anyway" .

This thread is the witness to what you said, especially your last sentence. We are supposed to be working toward greater understanding, not attacking everyones favorite whipping boy. I want to say to my Catholic brothers and sisters, please realize that it is a minority (and from what I've seen, the same ones again and again) that does this.

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

The Pope has the ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church. This, my friend, was the ministry of the fisherman named Simon Peter and that of the Roman bishops who succeeded him.

I understand and respect your perspective. Try to understand mine...the Church wasn't founded in Rome, but Jerusalem. Had it been God's design for Peter to lead the fledgling Church into the future as its supreme pastor, I believe James the Righteous would have, out of necessity, abdicated the Bishopric of the Church to Peter.

This much is not scripturally clear, but I'll put it out for consideration. We know James was the first Bishop of the first Church. We know this is the man both scripture and historians have called the brother of Christ. From the Jewish Christian's perspective, Jesus was the King of Israel...upon the throne of David. In Christ's absence, the Jewish mind would very likely follow the same course that it always had...the King's bloodline determines His successor.

With regards to who the supreme pastor of the church is, my take is this:

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" Ephesians 2:20

"Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded." 1 Peter 2:6

"He didn't stand up and preach, Listen to ME, I'm your supreme pastor". Speaking of Christ, Peter defers us to Christ so as not to be confounded or put to shame.

""The Pope has the ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church"

"Unity"...
Who has the power & jurisdiction over men's hearts?

Why then heap stones? Listen to Him,... He prayed for unity, not conformity.

"Truth by its very nature is unitive not divisive..."
Jurisdiction is a division, an extent beyond which authority doesn't reach.
Where does God's jurisdiction end?

Amen! And good question!

"The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein." Psalm 24:1

 

[DarkLord]

Why was jeurasalem meant to be the head of the church? God wanted it destroyed in revelations....

In the council in Acts, it was Peter and not james who was authoritative.

If we go to Acts 15, we read that there was a lot of debate in the Church about whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised. After the debate, Peter "rose" and declared that circumcision was not necessary. James was not even in the picture at this point. Peter made an authoritative decision about the doctrinal question, and no one questioned him. In fact, after Peter spoke it says "all kept silent." When you read the Greek phrase, it is in the aorist tense, which means the silence was the effect of Peter's definitive teaching.

After Peter settles the issue, Paul and Barnabas speak in favor of Peter's teaching. Only then does James come in. A few things about James' discourse. First, James was the bishop of Jerusalem during the council, and it is common for a bishop to speak in favor of the pope's teaching at a regional or ecumenical council. This is what James does. He agrees with Peter's definitive teaching. Second, James begins speaking, not about the doctrinal issue, but about whether the Gentiles should obey the Noachide laws. At the end of James' speech, he says "it is my judgment." The Greek here (ego krino) means that James was giving a personal opinion about a pastoral issue, and recommends that the Gentiles obey the laws of Noah so as to more easily fraternize with the Jews.

So we see that Peter is the one who rules definitively on the question of doctrine, and all kept silent. His bishops then spoke in favor of his teaching, acknowledging that Peter was indeed the authority in the Church. No one questions Peter's judgment. Then we have James who speaks in favor of Peter's teaching by giving an opinion on a pastoral issue. Hardly a challenge to the authority of Peter. Acts 15 disproves the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If Peter would have relied upon the Scriptures, he would have concluded that Gentiles had to be circumcised, since all the Patriarchs and prophets were, the apostles were, and even Jesus was. But Peter, by virtue of his authority, decides the issue as the chief shepherd of the Church (and the decision was not based on the Scriptures).

James is a mere bishop in Juraselam...there were many other bishops. James did not even take a great role in the Council so he couodnt be thier leader.

The Father speaks to Peter alone and no one else in NT.

St. Optatus [14] d. A.D. 385, who opposed the Donatists, clearly believed in a "Chair of Peter", calling it a gift of the Church and saying, as summarized by Henry Wace, that "Parmenian must be aware that the episcopal chair was conferred from the beginning on Peter, the chief of the apostles, that unity might be preserved among the rest and no one apostle set up a rival." [15] "You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the Apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do other Apostles proceed individually on their own; and anyone who would set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner" (Jurgens §1242

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

Why was jeurasalem meant to be the head of the church? God wanted it destroyed in revelations....

In the council in Acts, it was Peter and not james who was authoritative.

What I'm saying is He started it there.

In Acts 15:7..That's Peter testifying

Acts 15:15 ...That's in accordance with scripture..."And to this agree the words of the prophets..."

In Acts 15:19 "Wherefore my sentence is...", that's the Bishop, James ruling on the testimonies from Peter Paul, Barnabus and others.



What's your point in twisting it all around?

 

[DarkLord]

What I'm saying is He started it there.

In Acts 15:7..That's Peter testifying

Acts 15:15 ...That's in accordance with scripture..."And to this agree the words of the prophets..."

In Acts 15:19 "Wherefore my sentence is...", that's the Bishop, James ruling on the testimonies from Peter Paul, Barnabus and others.



What's your point in twisting it all around?

So the USA capital has to be the place where they won thier first battle against the brits? Tokyo has to be the place whereby japan was founded? Ur logic do not make sense.

Ok...its time fer a short bible lesson then.

Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word. 19 45 The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, 46 for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter responded, 47 "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?" 48 He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Peter ALONE recieves divine revelation in Acts 10 that gentiles are saved.

Acts 15:7 4 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Erm....dont see Scriptures....i see Peter's Mouth.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

After Peter settles the issue, Paul and Barnabas speak in favor of Peter's teaching. Only then does James come in. A few things about James' discourse. First, James was the bishop of Jerusalem during the council, and it is common for a bishop to speak in favor of the pope's teaching at a regional or ecumenical council. This is what James does. He agrees with Peter's definitive teaching. Second, James begins speaking, not about the doctrinal issue, but about whether the Gentiles should obey the Noachide laws. At the end of James' speech, he says "it is my judgment." The Greek here (ego krino) means that James was giving a personal opinion about a pastoral issue, and recommends that the Gentiles obey the laws of Noah so as to more easily fraternize with the Jews.

 

[racer]

To have the fullness of Truth!

Eph 3:17; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

Eph 3:18; May be able to comprehend with all saints what [is] the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

Eph 3:19; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

 

[StTherese]

Ephesians 3

1 Because of this, I, Paul, a prisoner of Christ (Jesus) for you Gentiles--

2 if, as I suppose, you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for your benefit,

3 (namely, that) the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly earlier.

4 When you read this you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,

5 which was not made known to human beings in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit,

6 that the Gentiles are coheirs, members of the same body, and copartners in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

7 Of this I became a minister by the gift of God's grace that was granted me in accord with the exercise of his power.

8 To me, the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the inscrutable riches of Christ,

9 and to bring to light [for all] what is the plan of the mystery hidden from ages past in God who created all things,

10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord,

12 in whom we have boldness of speech and confidence of access through faith in him.

13 So I ask you not to lose heart over my afflictions for you; this is your glory.

14 For this reason I kneel before the Father,

15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named,

16 that he may grant you in accord with the riches of his glory to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner self,

Eph 3:17; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

Eph 3:18; May be able to comprehend with all saints what [is] the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

Eph 3:19; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ephesians 3 10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

I completely affirm this verse.

Notice that none of the following words appear in this text, as divinely inspired: "Roman" "Catholic" "Bishop" "Rome" "Infallible" "Pontiff" "Denomination" "Institution" "Pope" "Magisterium."


IMHO, no denomination (not even the RC one) can make anything "known." Institutions do not have a heart, soul, mind, mouth, hand. IMHO, all Christians are people and no Christian is an institution. So, I think this verse is speaking about Christians making Christ known, not a legal political institutional denomination. But we'll likely disagree on that.




Now, how does this verse provide support for Peter as the first POPE or a POPE at all?



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[DarkLord]

I completely affirm this verse.

Notice that none of the following words appear in this text, as divinely inspired: "Roman" "Catholic" "Bishop" "Rome" "Infallible" "Pontiff" "Denomination" "Institution" "Pope" "Magisterium."


IMHO, no denomination (not even the RC one) can make anything "known." Institutions do not have a heart, soul, mind, mouth, hand. IMHO, all Christians are people and no Christian is an institution. So, I think this verse is speaking about Christians making Christ known, not a legal political institutional denomination. But we'll likely disagree on that.




Now, how does this verse provide support for Peter as the first POPE or a POPE at all?



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah



.

How does God teach ppl abt himself thru some invisble organization.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

How does God teach ppl abt himself thru some invisble organization.

Ummm... The Holy Spirit?

John 16: 12-15

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

How does God teach ppl abt himself thru some invisble organization.

Exactly! How can ANY institution teach anything?

IMHO, only people can believe and only people can teach.



Now, back to the topic. Where is the evidence that Peter was the First Pope (or a POPE at all)?


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[jckstraw72]

Now, back to the topic. Where is the evidence that Peter was the First Pope (or a POPE at all)?

he headed the Church in Rome therefore he's the first Pope.

 

[KarrieTex]

We disagree whether Peter is pope due to the language diferences ie or the very thought of one man being infallible etc etc.

Catholics u may wish to defend the Vicar of Christ

My question about this is why Peter?

Paul was the one who brought the Gosepl to the Gentile. I have never quite understood why Peter.

 

[jckstraw72]

Paul was the one who brought the Gosepl to the Gentile. I have never quite understood why Peter.

well. there were Jews in Rome too, and as far as I know Paul never settled down anywhere as Bishop.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

It would also seem rather sensible to me that it would have been PETER who should have written the inspired Epistle to the Roman Christians, not Paul.

I also find it interesting that Paul does not address the Epistle to "Pope Peter" or "Bishop Peter" or, for that matter, Peter at all. Nothing. No mention of him whatever.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

well. there were Jews in Rome too, and as far as I know Paul never settled down anywhere as Bishop.

As far as Scripture and contemporary history, neither did Peter.


But, of course, such is completely moot to the question of the thread. There were some 1,000,000 people who lived in Rome - that doesn't mean they were regarded as the POPE. And there have been thousands of bishops - that doesn't mean they were all the first POPE - or a POPE at all.


IMHO, we either need something from God's infallible Word that teaches this, or at least we need something from contemporary secular fallible history (something from the 60's or 70's - hey I'd take something from the 80's!) that's unbiased that states that Peter was a POPE - not a resident of Rome, not a pastor, not a bishop, not first among equals, but the Infallible POPE. Otherwise, we are left with an unsubstantiated claim - without biblical or historical support. Doesn't make it false, but it doesn't make it dogma either, IMHO. Catholics, of course, will disagree.



Thank you for the discussion.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

So the USA capital has to be the place where they won thier first battle against the brits? Tokyo has to be the place whereby japan was founded? Ur logic do not make sense.

Ok...its time fer a short bible lesson then.

What on earth does logic have to do with it? James really and truthfully was, historically and scripturally proven..the first Bishop of the first Church. Why was it in Jerusalem? I don't know, maybe that's where God started it? This is a fact, its kind of silly discussing it ad nauseum.

May I respectfully decline to receive your teaching? I will be happy to discuss matters with you...you may have the exousia to teach in your local congregation and that's fine. Please let me respectfully remind you that I am not under whatever exousia you may have, and I would appreciate it if you refrained from projecting otherwise..OK? TYVM for your kind cooperation.

Now on to good old Peter. BTW, this is my favorite character in the Bible other than Christ Himself. He's an awesome example of the work Christ can do in the lives of men.

Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word. 19 45 The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, 46 for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter responded, 47 "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?" 48 He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Peter ALONE recieves divine revelation in Acts 10 that gentiles are saved.

First, Peter wasn't alone here. Along with the other Jews accompanying him, they all witnessed this event...it wasn't a private revelation, it was a confirmed revelation. Yes, Peter was the one who had the vision, but I think its interpretation is getting skewed a bit.

"And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Acts 10:28

The Gospel was brought to the Jews first, then unto the Gentiles. But if God hadn't cleared up the Jewish way of thinking about respect of persons, they would have never taken the Gospel to everyone else.

So, in Jerusalem the Jews are arguing over whether or not to circumcise the Gentile believers, not whether or not to take the gospel to them. The Apostles and elders came together to consider it. If you follow the whole context of the story, you may see another perspective here.

Acts 15:7 4 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Erm....dont see Scriptures....i see Peter's Mouth.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

After Peter settles the issue, Paul and Barnabas speak in favor of Peter's teaching. Only then does James come in. A few things about James' discourse. First, James was the bishop of Jerusalem during the council, and it is common for a bishop to speak in favor of the pope's teaching at a regional or ecumenical council. This is what James does. He agrees with Peter's definitive teaching. Second, James begins speaking, not about the doctrinal issue, but about whether the Gentiles should obey the Noachide laws. At the end of James' speech, he says "it is my judgment." The Greek here (ego krino) means that James was giving a personal opinion about a pastoral issue, and recommends that the Gentiles obey the laws of Noah so as to more easily fraternize with the Jews.

When Peter speaks in verse 7, it isn't in authority over the group. This is quite an intense implication. His statement is a clear testimony to the revelation that he had received in Chapter 10 and had been later confirmed to some of the other Jews. Following his testimony, he states what he believes about it and why. He settles nothing, only testifies what God told him and what he saw.

Next Barnabas and Paul declared the miracles they had seen among the Gentiles...more testimony. Finally, after everyone had been given their say...James answered them...yes the Bible says it was an answer to them.

James talks about Peter's testimony...James states that Peter's testimony is in agreement with the Word of God...James decrees HIS judgement, sentence or legal opinion on the matter..."Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:"

It appears that Peter's testimony influenced James' decision. But it was undisputedly left to his judgement and the judgement James, not Peter Paul or Barnabas, passed was not disputed. His judgement was based on the testimonies of two or more witnesses, men testified AND God's Word testified. Had God's Word not testified in agreement with them, well... "let God be true and every man a liar".

There had never been a Pope before and as yet one had not been established. IF Peter were the true Pope at this point in time, it would have been extremely improper for James not to yield to the higher "annointing".

BTW...the lexicon doesn't quite suggest "personal opinion" in its description of krino. It bears a pretty heavy legal connotation...and don't look now, but the Lexicon even lists resolve in its definition.
Krino
1. to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose
2. to approve, esteem, to prefer
3. to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion
4. to determine, resolve, decree
5. to judge
a. to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong
1. to be judged, i.e. summoned to trial that one's case may be examined and judgment passed upon it
b. to pronounce judgment, to subject to censure
1. of those who act the part of judges or arbiters in matters of common life, or pass judgment on the deeds and words of others
6. to rule, govern
a. to preside over with the power of giving judicial decisions, because it was the prerogative of kings and rulers to pass judgment
7. to contend together, of warriors and combatants
a. to dispute
b. in a forensic sense
1. to go to law, have suit at law

In the end, it is another extreme implication to suggest that Peter "singlehandedly" resolved this issue. Remember, they all came together to resolve it. The highest authority in the church at the time listened to them and decided in favor of God's Word and their testimonies. IMHO, one needs a very large shoe-horn to force any evidence regarding the office of the Pope into this scripture...and a much larger one to name him as Peter.

 

[jckstraw72]

As far as Scripture and contemporary history, neither did Peter.

Scripture tells us very little about Peter, so youre making an appeal to silence.

But, of course, such is completely moot to the question of the thread. There were some 1,000,000 people who lived in Rome - that doesn't mean they were regarded as the POPE. And there have been thousands of bishops - that doesn't mean they were all the first POPE - or a POPE at all.

Pope=Bishop of Rome
Peter=1st Bishop of Rome
Peter=1st Pope

if you're really that hung up on the word "Pope"....the Alexandrian Patriarch is also called Pope, as is the Oriental Patriarch.

 

[KarrieTex]

well. there were Jews in Rome too, and as far as I know Paul never settled down anywhere as Bishop.

From what I understand neither did Peter and Paul was a Roman citizen

 

[StTherese]

My question about this is why Peter?

Paul was the one who brought the Gosepl to the Gentile. I have never quite understood why Peter.

"Thou art Peter...upon this rock, I will build my Church..."