• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Please Provide Historical Proof That Peter Was The First Pope.

revduane

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2005
2,030
133
✟2,866.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others

I am not attacking catholics. I am opposed to the doctrine, and know it is for future events to come concerning the last days. Also anger isn't becoming of you.

Blessings.
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,145
41
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟79,442.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
I am not attacking catholics. I am opposed to the doctrine, and know it is for future events to come concerning the last days. Also anger isn't becoming of you.

Im not angry, perhaps frustrated, but not angry. You keep telling us how you are so certain in your beliefs and how they are the right ones, and yet, you have "Legitimate questions about the RCC", and you wont answer a simple question.
 
Upvote 0

TreesNTrees

Active Member
Jan 3, 2006
234
6
66
✟22,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

jckstrw72....

Then, seeing you think the Catholics believe those verses, including this; what do they believe the "till" means.

Best I know, there's a word there in the Latin / Greek. So if we don't add another additional word, or subtract words that are supposed to be there, how is that part of the verse explained. I know they believe the word "son" is there, that his name "Jesus" is there - almost verbatim as it sits.

But I've never read their teaching for "till" or "firstborn". Do they have a book that explains it, or do you know the teaching off the top of your head. If you don't know, that's okay, I might be able to find a source.

Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,145
41
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟79,442.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
basically the "till" doesnt imply a necessary change after the fact. Like if your mom says "be good until i get back", that doesnt mean be a hellion once shes back. plus, not to mention that in Greek the linguistic rules are different. and "firstborn" doesnt necessarily mean there are other children. For instance, all the firstborn children were killed at Passover--did this not apply to familes with only one child?
I think this may have been covered in more depth on this thread, and if not, certainly on other threads.

this website deals with these words, although i have def seen posts somewhere on here that have gone much more in depth http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9174.asp
 
Upvote 0

IgnatiusOfAntioch

Contributor
May 3, 2005
5,859
469
Visit site
✟31,267.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
TreesNTrees said:
But how about a whole different way of looking at this. Since the Catholics believe one way and several other groups another or other ways.
The verses you quoted are about the ever-virginity of Mary, which is not really the subject of this thread. There are several thread on this subject, one is here: http://www.christianforums.com/t2477070-the-ever-virginity-of-the-mother-of-god.html.

Also, it may surprise you to learn that 2/3 of all Christians hold to the Catholic beliefs on the ever-virginity of Mary.

Do the Catholics at least believe and teach that all those words are the Word of God?

You might want to read the Book "Where we got the bible" by Henry G. Graham.
You can also research the subject by searching for "Canon of the New Testament", Council of Carthage and Council of Hippo.

May the Lord be gracious to you and grant you His peace.

Your brother in Christ.
 
Upvote 0

TreesNTrees

Active Member
Jan 3, 2006
234
6
66
✟22,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Also, it may surprise you to learn that 2/3 of all Christians hold to the Catholic beliefs on the ever-virginity of Mary.

Name 560 of them? Do you know 200 of them? By name.

Time to get a check-up from the neck-up here and talk turkey.

I've been to a lot of churches. And in most, even the high commitment ones, for every person that attends and says they believe, there seems to be one other that does not believe everything their church teaches.

So I may agree - to be generous - that 2/3 or about 2/3 of christians (call themselves) go to churches that believe the ever-virginity of Mary, BUT, I am not ignorant. Not 2/3 or them believe that, nor will 2/3 of them even say they believe it.

On top of that, when many people have their doctrine explained in greater detail, they will realize that what they thought they believe in is not really what they thought they believed.

In a real world, if 2/3 of "so-called" Christians to to ever-virgin churches, it's more like 1/3 that will really believe it.

I've been around too many to know otherwise. Many of my friends are and were that way. The inside story is not bound too tightly.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Archbishop 10-K said:
Shelb5 has provided ample evidence for the Catholic side of the argument.

That was just to show Peter was in Rome becuase someone said he was even never in Rome.

Here are some quotes from the early Church on him actully being the head of the Church.


"It was right indeed that he(Paul) should be anxious to see Peter; for he was the first among the apostles, and was entrusted by the Savior with the care of the churches."
Ambrosiaster,Commentary on Galatians,PL 17:344 (A.D. 384),in SPP,62

" 'Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church', Wherefore where Peter the Church is..."
Ambrose,Commentary on the Psalms,40:30 (AD 395),in DOP,184

"At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church."
Ambrose,Commentary on the Psalms,43:40(AD 397),in GILES,145

"...the chief of the disciples...the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church."
Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15(A.D. 337),in SPP,58


"Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer."
Augustine,Psalmus contr Partem Donati(A.D. 393),in GILES,182

"Peter bore the person of the church"
Augustine, Sermon 149:7(inter A.D. 391-430),in SPP,69

"Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church."
Basil,In Isaias,2:66(A.D. 375),in SPP,55
"Peter is again called 'the coryphaeus of the Apostles"
Basil of Seleucia,Oratio 25(ante A.D. 468),in FOC,II:49




"He promises to found the church, assigning immovableness to it,as He is the Lord of strength, and over this he sets Peter as shepherd."
Cyril of Alexandria,Commentary on Matthew (A.D. 428),in SPP,74

"Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church..."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,11:3(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VIII:64
"(Peter)The first of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of disciples."
Chrysostom John,Ad eos qui scandalizati 17(ante A.D. 407),in SEP,74



"[T]he first of the apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built."
Epiphanius, In Ancorato,9:6 (A.D. 374),in SPP,in 57

"...Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others..."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,2:14 (A.D. 325),in NPNF2,I:115
"And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail' "
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,6:25 (A.D. 325),in NPNF2,I:273

"...folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid..."
Firmilian,Epistle To Cyprian,Ep 75(74):17(A.D. 256),in ANF,V:394

"To Peter,that is, to his church, he gave the power of retaining and forgiving sins on earth."
Fulgentius, De Remissione Peccatorum,2:20(A.D. 523),in SPP,71

"The holy Roman Church is senior to the other churches not by virtue of any synodal decrees, but obtained the primacy from Our Lord and Savior in the words of the Gospel,'Thou art Peter...' "
Gelasius Pope,Decree of Gelasium(A.D. 492),in SPP,166


"Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the church."
Gregory of Nazianzen,Oration 32:18(A.D. 380),in SPP,56
"The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles...he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the savior built his Church."
Gregory of Nyssa,Panegyric on St. Stephen,3(ante A.D. 394),in SPP,56

"lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom..."
Hilary de Poiters,On the Trinity,6:20(A.D. 359),in NPNF2,IX:105
"By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' By this Spirit the rock of the Church was stablished."
Hippolytus,Discourse on the Holy Theophany,9(ante A.D. 235),ANF,V:237


"The decrees of the Roman Pontiff, standing upon the supremacy of the Apostolic See, are unquestionable."
Isidore of Seville,(ante A.D. 636),in PL:84

"As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!"
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18



 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Continued.




"And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail..."
Origen,Commentary on John,5:3(c.A.D. 232),in ANF,X:347

"[T]he Lord spoke to Peter a little earlier; he spoke to one, that from one he might found unity, soon delivering the same to all."
Pacian,To Sympronianus,Epistle 3:2(AD 372),in GILES,123





"...the most firm rock, who(Peter) from the principal Rock recieved a share of his virtue and his name"
Prosper of Aquitaine,The Call of All Nations,2:28(A.D. 426),in SPP,71

"Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...' "
Tertullian,On the Prescription Against the Heretics,22(c.A.D. 200),in ANF,III:253

 
Upvote 0

lismore

Maranatha
Oct 28, 2004
20,964
4,614
Scotland
✟295,059.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
eoe said:
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. ?

Every protestant or Christian I have ever met would first question if peter was even in Rome, the scriptures say paul was in rome, not Peter.

Some Christians even write articles like this:

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm


Dont Misunderstand me. If catholics or Orthodox wish to see peter as the first pope then they have a free choice to do this. But to say it is a ' historical fact' is fantasy. Its a tradition of their group which may or may not be a ' historical fact'.

 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
But when it comes along with historical proof it isn’t a fantasy.
 
Upvote 0

twosid

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2003
1,872
72
64
Woodstock, Georgia
Visit site
✟2,396.00
Faith
Christian

The problem with the whole me and my posse are going to show the Catholic Church the error of their ways is that many of you don't know what the true beliefs and practices of the RCC are. You don't want to know what they are. That makes it a mission just to tear down, which sadly is what I am beginning to believe that the end result of the Reformation has been, simply a destroyer of the Church. It corrected what it was supposed to correct and then its role became that of accuser.

Here is a series that I'm running through at the moment, if any of you want to actually learn something about what Catholics believe about the Pope.

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=6148&T1=Pope+Fiction

It's about 7 hours long but they are in 27 minute segments. There won't be anyone hollering AAAAAMEN! or WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! and so if that is what charges your battery it will be a hard listen. It will be a hard listen for a Protestant anyhow but you might go listen to it just so you can say you halfway know what their position is. You might, but your posse does not and while they are nipping at everyones heels they might pick up some knowledge along the way.
 
Reactions: MommasaursRex
Upvote 0

lismore

Maranatha
Oct 28, 2004
20,964
4,614
Scotland
✟295,059.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Shelb5 said:
But when it comes along with historical proof it isn’t a fantasy.

There is no 'historical proof', just subjective data. The information from after Peter died that is quoted wont act as proof to everyone, just those who have a vested interest in believing it already. If there were proof then everyone following Christ would believe you.

What about 'proof' that peter was buried in jerusalem and that Jesus had brothers?
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,468
1,441
58
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
People are free to reject the fact that Jesus is God. If you don't want to hold that Peter was the first Pope, go ahead. Your little game of having to provide quantifiable evidence means absolutely nothing to those of us who adhere to that belief. Peter was the first of the Apostles and evangelized extensively from Rome. Good enough for me. You should go ahead and ask for certified medical records that Jesus was really dead when they burried Him, and not merely unconscious.
 
Upvote 0
Every protestant or Christian I have ever met would first question if peter was even in Rome, the scriptures say paul was in rome, not Peter.
I never knew that it was an issue at all and I used to rant like mad in the Fundamentalist forum louder than anyone. I suppose it is most important to people that want to justify certain types of church leadership. I just don't see why it is important for anything else for a protestant to deny that Peter was the first bishop of Rome as in order for the protestants to even hold water the whole of the church had to fall into apostasy very soon afterwards anyway. Why is it relevant in the protestant position other than from a political / church organizational POV?
 
Upvote 0

Quijote

a.k.a Mr. Q
May 5, 2005
23,199
410
54
Wisconsin
✟48,138.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican


 
Upvote 0

ProAmerican

Veteran
Jun 1, 2005
1,250
58
55
✟1,696.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican


That which cannot be proven to be absolutely certain should not be taught as though it were absolutely true.

Keeping that in mind concerning Peter's so-called Bishoprick being in Rome, there are three primary methods by which one can look at a particular thing like Peter's so-called Bishoprick in Rome and determine the veracity or lack thereof of this.

The Scriptures. Historical documents. Church tradition.

I have looked through all of the 'proof' provided on this thread and have determined that none can absolutely prove historically that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. They may lean in favor of Peter being in Rome or preaching there, but one must also remember that Paul states that Peter was made the Apostle to the circumcision and he, Paul was made the Apostle to the uncircumcised(Gentiles). So Peter could very easily have been preaching to the Jews in Rome.

What the RCC and others rely upon is tradition, plain and simple, to support their contention that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

A.)

There is scriptural proof that Jesus Christ lived and rose victoriously from the dead.

There is historical proof that Jesus Christ lived, and some of these documents are before 125 A.D.

B.) There is church tradition that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and only a few historical documents to show that he might have preached at Rome, but no proof of this is found within the scriptures.

there is no historical proof, before A.D. 125, that I have seen, which proves Peter as being the first Bishop of Rome.

Relying on tradition, which has nothing before the third century A.D. to show that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, is pretty much relying on what could easily be called hearsay.

Feel free to believe amongst yourselves that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, but don't trot this out as fact when facts are lacking to sustain this belief.

Remember, that which cannot be proven to be absolutely certain should not be taught as though it were absolutely true.
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,468
1,441
58
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
How do you know that the bible is absolutely true? The Koran claims divine inspiration far more often than Scripture does, so why don't we follow the Koran?
 
Upvote 0