Johnny Skeptic

Paul scolded Peter to his face for being afraid to teach the Gospel message when Jews were around. That does not suggest that Paul considered Peter to be the first Pope.

The New Testament says that Peter, James, and John were the most prominent apostles.

Paul basically says that he is not inferior to any of the other apostles.

Regarding Jesus telling Peter that he was "the rock," a reasonable explanation is that Jesus was referring to Peter's confession of faith, not to Peter himself.

Consider the following Scriptures from the NIV:

Matthew 16:13-17

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

It is reasonable to assume that "this rock" refers to Peter's confession of faith, not to Peter himself.

Considering the many atrocities that the Roman Catholic Church has committed, not the least of which was the selling of indulgencies, it is doubtful that a loving God had anything to do with it.

The pomp, pageantly, wealth, and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church are far removed from the simple lives that Jesus and the disciples led.

I assume that Jesus and the disciples would have strongly opposed church services being given in Latin for many centuries. In 1st Corinthians 14, Paul scolded the Corinthians for speaking in tongues that the audience did not understand unless someone interpreted the message.

If the Roman Catholic Mass is so beneficial, why has God deprived hundreds of millions of people of participating in it for thousands of years? My word, what do beautiful, expensive robes and funny looking hats have to do with pleasing God?

Of course, the Roman Catholic Church has done a lot of good things, but so have many other organizations.

The Dagda

If you want proof that say James the Just first Bishop of Jerusalem or anyone else was a candidate for "Pope" then their is no canonical record of this, and in fact its believed that some of the records that asserted this were burnt, later coming to light when copies were found and promptly being accorded the status as at best apocryphal at worst heresy. This is not an esoteric opinion though the Eastern Orthodox church takes its first "Pope" from James or more correctly Jesus and is second only to the Catholic church in size, and this and other political and cultural reasons was the motivation behind the first schism.

ksen

None.

TheRealityOfMan

It certainly seems from the epistles that Paul was focused more on the Roman Empire and Peter was more focused on the Jerusalem side.

Peter was the first Pope.

Adam was the first man.

The Sun Goddess gave birth to a child that became the first Emperor of Japan.

The Dalai Lamma is...

etc.

beforHim

None, really. Peter was obviously important, but the scriptures they use don't seem to imply this at all (but I'm just one guy, of course).

douglas

It's further complicated by the fact that Jesus renamed Simon with the aramaic name Cephas (the rock) which was translated into greek as Petros (Peter) which also means The Rock.

In the end, my preferred intepretation depends on who I'm trying to annoy at the time. If I'm talking to a Catholic, "the rock" surely refers to the rock-solid faith that Peter represents, and not Peter himself. If I'm trying to piss off a protestant apologist, then the rock reference clearly refers to Peter himself.

Huon

What was the definition of "pope" before Nicaea ? What were the administrative relations between a "pope" (a "father") and a bishop (episcopos) ?

Johnny Skeptic

There is not any credible history that shows that Jesus intended for Peter to be the first worldwide leader of the Christian church. That includes the Bible, since it does make a credible case that Peter was the first worldwide leader of the Christian church.

douglas

Catholic apologists have never been able to answer this question to my satisfaction. If Jesus was going to assign someone the responsibility of leading his "church" after his death, wouldn't he have given it to the "beloved disciple?" The BD is obviously a different person than Peter.

James Tabor and Barrie Wilson both argue that the beloved disciple is James, Jesus' brother. Leadership of the "Jesus movement" was passed to James, and the movement died with James. The "Christ movement" was concocted by Paul, who's primary goal was to cover-up the Jesus movement and create a new movement/church with himself as the grand-puhbah.

Imnotspecial

I think Catholics can make a fairly good case for it. All authority comes from Jesus and is passed on to the apostles and their successors. Apostolic succession is an important part for Christianity. There have been huge arguments about this in the past which means that those guys recognized that importance. Otherwise guys like Jim Jones can claim to be ministers of God.

Peter probably never thought of himself as the first pope and I suggest that the Church has made him such in retrospect. Any organization needs a head. The papacy and the primacy of the see of Rome became only gradually recognized. Scriptures like the "upon this rock will I build my Church" and the rock being Peter, references to laying on of hands to choose successors of apostles are used to prove that there is legitimacy to this claim. History itself attest to that. It was only questioned when the protestant revolt took place.