JFJ Forums

Where do we find in scripture that Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome?

I don't even find any allusions to, much less quotes of, his direct leading/teaching in the writings of the early RCC church fathers.

I see Paul as the Apostle to Rome, hence the Letter to the Romans.

Who can shed some light on this? (Even you wk...but something concrete, not speculation/oral tradition.)

I think the Roman legend and fabrication initially had its roots in the New Testament.

Maybe historically they are referring to his apostleship from a spiritually perspective... when Peter opened the door to the Gentiles at Caesarea with the key of Yeshua's Name?

This truth was probably manipulated and perverted over time and hence most Catholics think Peter was the Roman Pope as they have them today which the church had to claim to win over the illiterate masses as everyone knew in that time the Jews were the true techears of the Gospel. Since the church separated itself from the Jewish interpretation of scripture and became a law onto themselves heresy followed and the contention for Peter's body and Mosaic idols were formed not according to revealed knowledge.

Obviously this has even further been manipulated by the church into actions (persecution) as a believing Jew (who read and thought for himself) was always a great threat to the hierarchy of the gentile church which separated itself from its Jewish roots (people). They tried to cover their rebellion from the Jews (called by G-d) by substituting the Mosaic Law in their teaching and hence opposing spirit filled new covenant Hebrew Jews and the Spirit of Grace.

Act 10:44 NIV  While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.

OH! For cryin out loud! I did it! I put those pesky "quotation marks" in the thread title!!!

PLEASE FORGIVE!

3 years ago... or thereabouts I could not even find a chronology of the pope's that agreed. Every 2nd or 3rd web site had a different "first" pope. Maybe some of the funding for these sites were protestant.

That leads me to believe it may not be necessary to place responsibility
for ex-communicata doctrine on the Roman Catholic heirarachy.

___________________________________________________________
Ripley's wrote:

Who can shed some light on this? (Even you wk...but something concrete, not speculation/oral tradition.)
____________________________________________________________

I had secretly desired Paul to be the first pope.

The only biblical evidence I know of is in 1 Peter.  In the closing he sends “greetings” from a “sister” in “Babylon”.  Babylon was understood to be a code name for Rome.  Early historians believe this letter was written from Rome. Not sure what modern scholars believe.

The rest of the evidence is from the writings of the early church, including the well known historian Eusebius (though he and many martyrs “probably manipulated and perverted it over time … to win over the illiterate masses .. because Jews were a threat to the hierarchy”):

“"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The Apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303])

There is also disputed archeological evidence including the tomb of Peter and inscriptions in the catacombs of Rome that seem to corroborate this.

Antioch- first mentioned in Acts 11:19-->> on.

The person sent from Jerusalem was Barnabbas. Then, Barnabbas went to Tarsus and got Paul and brought him back to Antioch.

Gal. 2:11- Furthermore, when Kefa came to Antioch,... Paul was already there, the church in Antioch was (already) ESTABLISHED by Paul.

1 Peter 5-- "Babylon"~ Although it could mean Rome, it could also mean, um, Babylon.

Why must we assume that Antioch means Rome, when Rome is mentioned by name elsewhere?

In light of Paul's extensive letter to the Romans, in Rome, mentioned by name, it is quite apparent that HE is the Apostle to Rome, not Peter. No mention of Peter anywhere in the (long) letter.

Again, look in Romans 16:

Phebe, Priscilla, Aquila, Epaenetus, Mary, Andronicus, Junia, Amplias, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus' [household], Herodion, [household] of Narcissus, Tryphena, Tryphosa,  Persis, Rufus, and his mother, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.  

All those names and no mention of Peter?

Had Peter gone to the Circumcision in Rome in advance? Well, look at Acts 28: 17-23- Paul met with the Jewish leaders there and they said this: vv 21, 22 CJB-- "They said to him, "We have not received any letters about you from Y'hudah, and none of the brothers who have come from there has reported or said anything bad about you. But we do think it would be appropriate to hear your views from you, yourself; for all we know about this sect is that people everywhere speak against it."
-emphasis mine-

No mention of "the guy who was here before you..."

It is a debated verse. So in itself is not evidence at all. Since it does not specifically say Rome but rather Babylon. And that is subject to a possible interpretation of it being literal Babylon. To me at least it does not matter if it is a code name for Rome or not. As I said it does not prove if Peter was Bishop of Rome or not. Even in 1 Peter 1:1 and 5:1-6 Peter calls himself an Apostle and a fellow " Elder "  meaning he viewed himself not as head of the universal church on earth but just rather an Apostle and as fellow Elder.  




That is false information. Peter went to Rome 3 years prior to his death. So that places him being there about 62 ad.  In fact Irenaenus claims that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome. Though he list both Peter and Paul as founder of the Church of Rome. The claim of Peter being Bishop of Rome much less for 25 years is just is not a proven fact. We only knew that Peter died in Rome and even that has little evidence. If Peter was Bishop of Rome would you care to explain why Paul did not include Peter in his greeting of people in Romans 16 ? It makes no sense at all to exclude Peter if he was Bishop there at the time.  It is to be noted prior to 145ad that the Church of Rome has many elders/bishops. The concept of a single Bishop was after 145ad.

Chafer – Here you are playing semantics again.  1 Peter is EVIDENCE not PROOF.  I find it interesting that when it comes to the “Whore of Babylon”, this definitely means Rome and the Catholic Church but when Peter says he’s writing from Babylon, it can’t possibly mean Rome.

There is ample evidence from the early church writings that Peter was indeed in Rome along with Paul.  Whenever I bring up evidence like this, all I ever hear is “yes but these men were fallible, all we can ever trust is scripture.  I’ll accept from the ECFs what confirms my tradition from scripture but will reject as infallible that with which I disagree”.

The fact that in scripture, Peter never acknowledging himself as the leaders of the Apostles proves nothing.  Jesus’ words should be proof enough.  A mature Christian does not go around bragging about his credentials or the special gifts God has bestowed upon them.  Nor would they draw special attention to themselves while under such extreme persecution, thus the cryptic language about where he is writing from.

Read 1 Peter 5 in context instead of just picking the verse that suits your purpose.  Peter is addressing the rest of his fellow leaders.  Sort of like the captain of a team addresses his fellow players.  He is instructing them on how to lead.  This is leadership.

False information?  Mine is a direct quote from Eusebius, a noted Church historian.  Where is your evidence that Peter was in Rome 3 years before his death?  Please provide this evidence.  It will help those who don’t believe Peter was ever even in Rome. Unfortunately though you’ll have to contend with the “that’s not from infallible scripture so we can’t believe it” crowd.
(cont …)

(… cont)
Don’t forget to include the context of Irenaeus’ letter.  He doesn’t just state that Linus was the leader of the church in Rome.  He specifically states that Peter and Paul “committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate”.  In other words, they “semicha’d” Linus into this position. Someone (either Peter or Paul) must have already been in the position of leadership if they were committing this role to Linus.  So here again is evidence that Peter was already in Rome and was involved in the installation of Linus as the Bishop of Rome.  We have evidence that the Apostles went about “semicha”ing Bishops as leaders of the churches of various cities and regions (we call them diocese today).  Yet some Fundies and Evangelicals completely reject the notion of Bishop on grounds that it was an invention of the Paganized Roman Catholic Church.  Which group do you fall under Chafer?

And the concept of a “single” Bishop after 145???  Then why does Irenaeus say “To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place FROM THE APOSTLES, Clement was allotted the bishopric”, and later goes on showing the Apostolic Succession of subsequent leaders.

In future posts, we can deal in more detail with what Ignatius, Tertullian, and Augustine have to say.  And once again, I’ll be asking for evidence that their views were opposed by anyone prior to the Reformation.

You did not deal with my position there. I am saying 1 Peter 5:13 is inconclusive for the claim of the Church of Rome in itself. As it can't be shown exegetecially that it refers to Rome at all. As I said before it may very well be a code name for Rome but is also equally possible for it to refer to literal babylon. That is my argument. As for Rev 17 I personally do not hold that it means the RCC in itself at all. I personally hold that the woman the false church of Rev. 17 consist of all false Christian churches together as one during the great tribulation. That is a false Christianity. I do not believe it refers to the true universal catholic church which consist only of those who are born again. I do not single out the RCC when it comes to Revelation 17. So please do not use this type of argument on me since I don't hold to that.





That basically begs the question. I stated already that Paul and Peter went there. I never denied that part at all. My claim is that Peter went there several years before he was killed there. And did was not a Bishop of Rome for 25 years as the Church of Rome claims. The ECF's do not agree with you on this. Their listings of Bishops of Rome contradict one another in most cases. I have a good sourceswhich support what I said. They are Irenaeus and list Linus as the first Bishop at Rome. Hence refutes the concept of Peter of being the first Bishop of Rome. The problem is the ECF's does not agree with the contention of the RCC.