Please Provide Historical Proof That Peter Was The First Pope.

It is interesting that, despite their differences, all of the world's oldest churches - the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Nestorians, the Non-Chalcedonians, Chaldeans, etc. - all accept that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that the bishops of Rome were and are his successors.

It wasn't until a group of Christians arose (in the 16th century) who had a vested interest in denying this that it was called into question.

Self-claims is only an insult if that is how you take it. It is true that atholic claims are self-claims, nobody meant it as an insult, it was simply being used to show that they are claims from within the RCC.

racer said:

Something being said in this thread is confusing me. The Orthodox do not believe in the Papal office, so why do people here--I think some Orthodox even--keep saying that the Orthodox believes Peter was the first Pope?

Can somebody help me out with this?

Click to expand...

Sure, a tiny amount of the avilable evidence has been posted in this thread, you might want to actually read it. There is virtually no evidence to the contrary. The vast preponderance of the evidence, not only from all of the Christian churches that existed then, but from all secular sources indicate that this is the case. Also, because any one who honestly investigates with an fair mind comes to the same conclusion. Peter was the first Pope of Rome. Additionally the vast repository of evidence from modern archaeological science continues to make it ever more certain.

May the Lord send His angles to encamp 'round about you.

Your brother in Christ.

Racer,

The point between Rome and the Orthodox is what it means to be the Pope of Rome... what authority was given to the Bishop of Rome is for the followers of Rome only..

I, for instance, am of the Church of Antioch, and while I certainly agree that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome... the office of the Roman Bishop holds no authority over the Bishop of Antioch.... they are equals...

All Bishops are equals... the Church is, and has always been, run by councils of Bishops acting as equals in voting power... The Holy Spirit provides the guidance, through the layity and validation of council meetings.

The seat of Rome is / was the "head of council" and acts as the "chairman".... but has no special authority with respect to setting rules and dogma.

Does that help?

Forgive me....

Self-claims is only an insult if that is how you take it. It is true that atholic claims are self-claims, nobody meant it as an insult, it was simply being used to show that they are claims from within the RCC.

Click to expand...

Obviously claims of the RCC being the one, true Church are going to come from within the RCC.Anyone outside the RCC who believes this, would probably become Catholic.

I like soemones point about Christ self-claiming. If He can self-claim then so can His body.

This is interesting, all the talk about the Word this, the Word that, this church here and all those old churches there....

Consider this verse...

Acts 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted ? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

Click to expand...

If the Catholics or Orthodox churches were wrong, and God sent a prophet, guess what the traditional response would have been for their reaction and action...

And suppose that the other churches besides them were wrong and God sent a prophet to them, guess what the traditional response would have been for their reactin and action...

Once either side is set in their ways, whoever is right or wrong, one thing is sure, the side that's wrong rarely listens to a man sent from God.

the first pope , as we know it today , was during the reign of Constantine ... for until that time there was 1 church in 1 city .... Jerusalem ... and James and Peter were in charge ... Paul said he returned to compare his gospel with that of the 12 ...

historically Rome was the last major metropolitan area that survived Islam , when Constantinople , Carthage , and other cities fell ... was the center of the Roman empire , and the seat of secular power , and for the next 4-500 years , excepting what is called " the babylonian captivity " , where there were 2 popes , one in France in Avigion and the other in Rome , was the seat of the churches power

Moses set up the rulers of the congregation ... 1000 , 100, 50, 10 ... which was in place at the time of the birth of " the Way " ; God singled out Aaron and his seed , the suggestion of succession , in the foundation , operation , and oversight of the Mosaic Tabernacle in the wilderness ...

Jesus calles Peter a source of strength , after he was sifted as wheat , denying Christ 3 times , and said to go and strengthen the others ...

fair enough ?

jckstraw72 said:

Obviously claims of the RCC being the one, true Church are going to come from within the RCC.Anyone outside the RCC who believes this, would probably become Catholic.

I like soemones point about Christ self-claiming. If He can self-claim then so can His body.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree. Even Jesus knew the harm of "self-claiming"

John 5
31 "If I were to testify on my own behalf, my testimony would not be valid.
32 But someone else is also testifying about me, and I can assure you that everything he says about me is true.
33 In fact, you sent messengers to listen to John the Baptist, and he preached the truth.
34 But the best testimony about me is not from a man, though I have reminded you about John's testimony so you might be saved.
35 John shone brightly for a while, and you benefited and rejoiced.
36 But I have a greater witness than John--my teachings and my miracles. They have been assigned to me by the Father, and they testify that the Father has sent me.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Thank you.

Bishop Eusebius lived from ca. 263-339
That's 200-250 years after the fact...


I understand that the first MENTION of Peter having ever even been in Rome - at all - and it's purely in passing - comes about a century after the Peter's death.


IF history is going to be our support for the self-claim, well - it's not too impressive. I could be considered, of course, but placing a HUGE self-claim and a HUGE aspect of Christianity on such seems a tad shaky to ME. But everyone can (and I guess does) decide for themselves. IF we were just talking history here, I'd probably say it's likely. But we're talking salvation here and a claim that divides Christ's Body in half. I kinda put a little higher bar, a higher standard there.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

Click to expand...

Josiah

Well, what more would you like? Just what would suffice for you? You have a consensus stretching over how many centuries? And you still say, “Well that’s not enough…”

It’s not just one early bishop, it’s many many bishops spanning over centuries who all say Peter was in Rome and the first bishop of Rome and we have non Catholic protestant historians saying the same thing. You can come to some honest conclusion about this without becoming Catholic you know…

Look at all that you have in front of you as a whole and accept the story it tells you.

Honestly, I think some of you are just wanting to hang on to what ever you can to justify you not being Catholic.

I know if I didn’t want to believe in Catholicism I would use what ever I could to excuse myself from coming to terms with the facts.

plmarquette said:

historically Rome was the last major metropolitan area that survived Islam , when Constantinople , Carthage , and other cities fell ... was the center of the Roman empire , and the seat of secular power , and for the next 4-500 years , excepting what is called " the babylonian captivity " , where there were 2 popes , one in France in Avigion and the other in Rome , was the seat of the churches power

Click to expand...

Historically incorrect. Constantinople was the last city to fall in the Roman Empire, and that was in 1453. By that time, there were already other major cities, such as Florence. Constantinople was also the center of the Roman Empire. Carthage was destroyed by Arab invaders in the 7th century. On the other hand, the Huns did threaten Rome while the Goths latter sacked Rome, thus diminishing power politically, economically and militarily.

Shelb5 said:

Josiah

Click to expand...

Shelb5 said:

Well, what more would you like? Just what would suffice for you? You have a consensus stretching over how many centuries? And you still say, “Well that’s not enough…”

It’s not just one early bishop, it’s many many bishops spanning over centuries who all say Peter was in Rome and the first bishop of Rome and we have non Catholic protestant historians saying the same thing. You can come to some honest conclusion about this without becoming Catholic you know…

Look at all that you have in front of you as a whole and accept the story it tells you.

Honestly, I think some of you are just wanting to hang on to what ever you can to justify you not being Catholic.

I know if I didn’t want to believe in Catholicism I would use what ever I could to excuse myself from coming to terms with the facts.

Click to expand...

Well, we're discussing history here..
Historical evidence.

It's been suggested that Catholicism be held accountable to HISTORY as it's norma normans, so that seems reasonable for the OP to ask this as a HISTORY issue.

Historically speaking, on that basis, verification coming from a single source, in passing, more than a century after the fact IMO wouldn't be overwhelmingly convincing to most historicans. And others agreeing but 200, 300, 400, 1000, 2000 years later would be given even less credability. For historicans, I think this is what is considered a legend.

If we were only taking history, nothing more than did that nice guy Peter ever get to Rome, was he ever a pastor there - it wouldn't matter much. Frankly, I see no reason to reject the idea. But there IS much, much, MUCH more here. Catholics are asking us to look to this as their evidence, their NORM, that the very basis of their self-claim about being "THE CHURCH" comes not only on Peter, as a person, receiving the keys (an odd interpretation that you must accept because your denomination tells you it's correct and you must) and that it was to some office so that it continued past him (that, IMO, totally unrelated OT passage - from Isaiah, isn't it?). But those two biblical verses so interpreted would still mean nothing if Peter moving to Rome and becoming the first Roman Pope cannot also be solidly verified. Otherwise, we just have a legend and a self-claim, both of which could be correct or not, but there is no support, biblical or historical.

Again, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying it seems there extremely little to no historical support and obviously no biblical support. That doesn't mean it's wrong, of course. But I would hope the realization of such might give cause for our UNseparated, full brothers and sisters in Christ who participate in congregations of the RC Denomination to realize why not all place their salvation in this particular denominational's self-claim.


Thank you!


Pax


-Josiah


.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Well, we're discussing history here..
Historical evidence.

It's been suggested that Catholicism be held accountable to HISTORY as it's norma normans, so that seems reasonable for the OP to ask this as a HISTORY issue.

Historically speaking, on that basis, verification coming from a single source, in passing, more than a century after the fact IMO wouldn't be overwhelmingly convincing to most historicans. And others agreeing but 200, 300, 400, 1000, 2000 years later would be given even less credability. For historicans, I think this is what is considered a legend.

If we were only taking history, nothing more than did that nice guy Peter ever get to Rome, was he ever a pastor there - it wouldn't matter much. Frankly, I see no reason to reject the idea. But there IS much, much, MUCH more here. Catholics are asking us to look to this as their evidence, their NORM, that the very basis of their self-claim about being "THE CHURCH" comes not only on Peter, as a person, receiving the keys (an odd interpretation that you must accept because your denomination tells you it's correct and you must) and that it was to some office so that it continued past him (that, IMO, totally unrelated OT passage - from Isaiah, isn't it?). But those two biblical verses so interpreted would still mean nothing if Peter moving to Rome and becoming the first Roman Pope cannot also be solidly verified. Otherwise, we just have a legend and a self-claim, both of which could be correct or not, but there is no support, biblical or historical.

Again, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying it seems there extremely little to no historical support and obviously no biblical support. That doesn't mean it's wrong, of course. But I would hope the realization of such might give cause for our UNseparated, full brothers and sisters in Christ who participate in congregations of the RC Denomination to realize why not all place their salvation in this particular denominational's self-claim.


Thank you!


Pax


-Josiah


.

Click to expand...

impressive answer for a 17 year old.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Thank you.

Bishop Eusebius lived from ca. 263-339
That's 200-250 years after the fact...


I understand that the first MENTION of Peter having ever even been in Rome - at all - and it's purely in passing - comes about a century after the Peter's death.


IF history is going to be our support for the self-claim, well - it's not too impressive. I could be considered, of course, but placing a HUGE self-claim and a HUGE aspect of Christianity on such seems a tad shaky to ME. But everyone can (and I guess does) decide for themselves. IF we were just talking history here, I'd probably say it's likely. But we're talking salvation here and a claim that divides Christ's Body in half. I kinda put a little higher bar, a higher standard there.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

Click to expand...

No, the first mention of Peter being in Rome is in his second epistle, when he writes from "Babylon". you don't really think he was in the ancient capital of Persia do you? By the time of Peter and Paul, Babylon was a small, inconsequential villiage. The Babylon of the time of the Apostles was the capital of the world, Rome. It was written in code because of the persecutions of Nero. They didn't want to sabotage their evangelistic work by letting the persecutors know where they were.

2 Peter 5:13 "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark."

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Well, we're discussing history here..
Historical evidence.

Click to expand...

That's for pointing that out. History does not have some sort of arbitrary "cap" on which date one can use. The OP still hasn't bothered to indicate why he chose that date. Typical Reformist obfuscation.

Quijote said:

1. Again, what is so magical about A.D. 125? The NT was not compiled as we have it today by A.D. 125. Why not use the date when the NT was compiled as your cut out date?


Cheers.

Click to expand...

This is the third time I ask this of the OP.

Maybe now I'll get an answer

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Well, we're discussing history here..
Historical evidence.

It's been suggested that Catholicism be held accountable to HISTORY as it's norma normans, so that seems reasonable for the OP to ask this as a HISTORY issue.

Historically speaking, on that basis, verification coming from a single source, in passing, more than a century after the fact IMO wouldn't be overwhelmingly convincing to most historicans. And others agreeing but 200, 300, 400, 1000, 2000 years later would be given even less credability. For historicans, I think this is what is considered a legend.

Click to expand...

Key words in this paragraph: "IMO" "I think"

californiajosiah said:

If we were only taking history, nothing more than did that nice guy Peter ever get to Rome, was he ever a pastor there - it wouldn't matter much. Frankly, I see no reason to reject the idea. But there IS much, much, MUCH more here. Catholics are asking us to look to this as their evidence, their NORM, that the very basis of their self-claim about being "THE CHURCH" comes not only on Peter, as a person, receiving the keys (an odd interpretation that you must accept because your denomination tells you it's correct and you must) and that it was to some office so that it continued past him (that, IMO, totally unrelated OT passage - from Isaiah, isn't it?). But those two biblical verses so interpreted would still mean nothing if Peter moving to Rome and becoming the first Roman Pope cannot also be solidly verified. Otherwise, we just have a legend and a self-claim, both of which could be correct or not, but there is no support, biblical or historical.

Click to expand...

Well, then do not take the word of the Catholics here. Look at what the EO's here are saying, they, like you, do not recognize the authority of the Pope over other bishops. however, that does not prevent them from recognizing the history behind the Papacy and Peter's role in it.

If it were a legend, it would be advantageous for the EO churches to preach so, yet, they do not.

Quijote said:

This is the third time I ask this of the OP.

Maybe now I'll get an answer

Click to expand...

Well, historians give more credibility to evidence the closer it is to the event. And consider the objectivity of the evidence and to confirmation. I don't think there's any magical, percise boundries here, but there does come a point when it would not be seriously considered and would be apt to be regarded as "legend" - something EVENTUALLY told but which may or may not be true, there's little to no reliable historical evidence.


As to the date of 393 AD. That, of course, would be some 360 years AFTER Peter supposedly received the 'keys' (however all that is understood - we all know the RC Denomination has a very interesting view of all that). Let's say that in 1877, a single Lutheran wrote that it was actually Jesus who posted the 95 Thesis to the door in 1517 - Jesus guided Luther's hand, but it was Jesus putting up those 95 Thesis. A Lutheran claimed such in 1877, 360 years after the event. Later, other Lutherans agreed. I doubt too many historicans would give unbounded, enthusiatic support for this and would teach such as "OBJECTIVE FACT" the way Catholics here at this forum keep writing about "OBJECTIVE FACT" often in capitolized or embolden or colored font (or all 3). I doubt it. Of course, one could accept it by faith - and that's cool, but to claim it's historical or verifiable, well....


Some of our unseparated Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, equally a part of the one holy catholic church, have insisted that HISTORY be the "norma normans" for us to evaluate their self-claims. So, threads like this seem very reasonable and exactly what the RC Denomination desires.


BTW, when the RC's finally got around to listing the books of the Bible in some official way is pretty moot. All agree that the books come from the First Century - most before 70 AD. Most of the NT Canon was not in dispute after 125 (although a FEW books remained so well into the middle ages). With the possible exception of John's books, the biblical record (written, in black and white, for ALL to see) is within 40 years of the events they record, in large part by eye-witnesses. I think that would be considered more credibly than something claimed 360 years later relating something they were told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who was told, and on and on.


MY $0.01...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Well, we're discussing history here..
Historical evidence.

It's been suggested that Catholicism be held accountable to HISTORY as it's norma normans, so that seems reasonable for the OP to ask this as a HISTORY issue.

Historically speaking, on that basis, verification coming from a single source, in passing, more than a century after the fact IMO wouldn't be overwhelmingly convincing to most historicans. And others agreeing but 200, 300, 400, 1000, 2000 years later would be given even less credability. For historicans, I think this is what is considered a legend.

If we were only taking history, nothing more than did that nice guy Peter ever get to Rome, was he ever a pastor there - it wouldn't matter much. Frankly, I see no reason to reject the idea. But there IS much, much, MUCH more here. Catholics are asking us to look to this as their evidence, their NORM, that the very basis of their self-claim about being "THE CHURCH" comes not only on Peter, as a person, receiving the keys (an odd interpretation that you must accept because your denomination tells you it's correct and you must) and that it was to some office so that it continued past him (that, IMO, totally unrelated OT passage - from Isaiah, isn't it?). But those two biblical verses so interpreted would still mean nothing if Peter moving to Rome and becoming the first Roman Pope cannot also be solidly verified. Otherwise, we just have a legend and a self-claim, both of which could be correct or not, but there is no support, biblical or historical.

Again, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying it seems there extremely little to no historical support and obviously no biblical support. That doesn't mean it's wrong, of course. But I would hope the realization of such might give cause for our UNseparated, full brothers and sisters in Christ who participate in congregations of the RC Denomination to realize why not all place their salvation in this particular denominational's self-claim.


Thank you!


Pax


-Josiah


.

Click to expand...

If we are talking history then your conclusion are still not adding up. We have far more on the side that he was than he wasn’t.

Where is your evidence to show that he was never in Rome nor was the bishop of Rome or that he wasn’t martyred in Rome? Where is it? And I expect an answer from you and not any more run around.

Peter says in the BIBLE he was in Rome, In the BIBLE Paul call Peter Cephas, in the BIBLE his epistles are recorded. We have Orthodox and Protestants who do not deny Peter was in Rome and the first bishop of Rome, and martyred in Rome and is buried in Rome.

There evinced is there and clear to anyone who has eyes to see it but for those who do not want to see it any loophole/excuse will do. The consensus is there, stop being in denial.

*OrthodoxyUSA makes a fresh batch of popcorn and waits*

Drinks are in the fridge... help yourself.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Well, historians give more credibility to evidence the closer it is to the event. And consider the objectivity of the evidence and to confirmation. I don't think there's any magical, percise boundries here, but there does come a point when it would not be seriously considered and would be apt to be regarded as "legend" - something EVENTUALLY told but which may or may not be true, there's little to no reliable historical evidence.

Click to expand...

All right, Shelb5 quoted these earlier in this thread:

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars[of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. "
Clement of Rome,The First Epistle of Clement,5(c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:6

Click to expand...

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you."
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans,4(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:75

Click to expand...

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth."
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter,fragment in Eusebius' Church History,II:25(c.A.D. 178),in NPNF2,I:130

Click to expand...

The dates: A.D. 96, A.D. 110, and c.A.D. 178. Is that close enough for ya?