ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Was Peter The First Pope

Much has been said about the infallibility of the Pope and that Peter was the first pope. I wonder if our catholic friends here ever read the account in Galatians of Peter being caught up in the heresy of the day and how Paul had to set him straight.

Join Our Christian Chat and Take The Apostasy Bible Quiz
 ---Bruce5656 on 4/26/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (7)

Post a New Blog

Mima, since the last 2000 years there have been hundreds of Ipso facto meaning anti- pope.
So, let me define this for you as given best by EWTN - An antipope is a person claiming be Pope who was not duly elected or proclaimed while a duly elected Pope was still in office.
So, to answer your question - Only the Pope elected duly is the one who has the Protection by the Holy Spirit when officially speaking about FAITH AND MORALS is Infallible at this moment with these matters ONLY.
---Nicole on 4/29/08

Mima, no the Pope and the anti-pope did not call each other anti-christ, they call each other anti-pope.
To show how silly your question is, I will ask you a same style of question to you.
Many people today are calling themselves jesus christ. So, which one of these jesus christs have you accepted as your Lord and Savior?
---Nicole on 4/29/08

To say that Peter is NOT the FIRST Pope is saying Jesus Christ is lying and not faithful to His OWN WORDS, and He can not be trusted when He Promised His Protection in Matt 16:17-18.."Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah. For flesh and blood hs not revealed this to you, but my Heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are PETER, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the GATES OF THE NETHERWORLD SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT."
Peter---(history)----Benedict XVI---until Jesus returns.
---Nicole on 4/30/08

Samuel, please do us a favor and give your proof for sources in defining the word Pope.
Pope comes from the Greek word "PAPAS"
meaning Bishop, Patriarch of father.
---nicole on 4/29/08

There are two popes now, Mima. The White Pope and the Black Pope (head of the Society of Jesus). At one point in history there were three popes. The Borgias were a dynasty of popes, whereby the popehood went from father to son. They were friendly with Leonardo da Vinci.
---frances008 on 4/29/08

Samuel::You are wrong.The keys spoken of in Matt16:17-19 represent the authority of The King.Names and diction may change but the word in its essence stands as firm as the ROCK which christ spoke of.Your disbelief as others does not alter the TRUTH which STANDS,as you will discover . Matt12:30-32The word of the H/S is in His church.
---Emcee on 4/28/08

A question for Catholics, who believe in the infallibility of the pope. For a period of four years there were two popes, so which of these popes was infallible. during that time? Or were they both infallible? If you say both. There's a little problem they called each other the Antichrist.
---Mima on 4/28/08

Pope is a man made title from papa in latin. The office itself is not found in the bible. Some of the title of the Pope are taken from the titles of the Cesars who the popes tried to imitate.
---Samuel on 4/28/08

Isn't the pope a man-made title? Is there actually something in the Bible about the pope?
---Dan on 4/28/08

Impossible! I think the bible would record such an event!
Further, at that time there were 'followers of Christ', NO denominations!
---NVBarbara on 3/21/07

.ruben, that is a figure of speech, and not a literal definition of the word father. We all have forefathers who are predecesors, but that does not mean that we are related to them. When God looks upon man, he sees only one of two literal Fathers, either 1- the devil of hell, who is the father of all the unregenerate and the wicked sinners; or 2- God Himself of heaven, who is the Father of all the born-again and the righteous. All of the other so-called fathers fall under one or the other of these two.
---Eloy on 6/21/06

Do you think that possibly the acct of Peter's mistakes is there to show us God's mercy? Even Peter who first recognized Jesus, who was given the keys, who was told to tend to the flock, could be weak, too. WE are also shown how Peter reconciles. AS far as Paul 'setting him straight, this shows how the Holy See is set up. One man does not control the church for the church depends on the Holy Spirit. If you want to know what your 'catholic friends' are taught learn from a reputable Catholic source.
---cole on 6/20/06

If Peter was the first pope, then why is the pope forbidden to marry?

Matt 8:14 "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever."
---tofurabby on 6/20/06

If Peter was the first pope then should popes accept the worship of multitudes? Look at Peters reaction when Cornelius tried to worship him:

"And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." Acts 10:25-26
---tofurabby on 6/20/06

Eloy-: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8). : "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16).In Acts 7:2, Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."
---ruben on 6/20/06

.mikem, you err. There has been a temple for the people of God, Bethel, ever since Genesis; and for Christ also his followers worshipped him ever since the New Testament. For wherever two or three are gathered together in his Name, there he is in the middle of them.
---Eloy on 6/20/06

Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service

.ruben, "An elder not overscold, but urge as a father; younger as brothers: old women, as mothers; younger as sisters, in all innocence." I Timothy 5:1,2.
---Eloy on 6/20/06

.ruben, You mistranslated I Corinth.4:14-17. From the original Greek it reads: "Not shaming you I write these things, but as children my beloved I preach. If for ten thousand tutors you have with Christ, even not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus for his gospel I engendered you. I request then you, become imitators of me. On account of this I sent to you Timothy who is a child, my beloved, and true in Lord, who you will remember my ways ordered in Christ, as everywhere in every church I teach."
---Eloy on 6/20/06

There was no 'church' in those first few centuries. There was a miasma of beliefs, and scriptures(about 30 books)-but no monolithic Church. Many groups claimed authority, gnostic or otherwise. The line of succession from Rome was one of those claims. The stronger argument is the history of the RCC from the time of political ascent.(325AD) through the middle ages.
(John T, the only healing I need is from a broken femor, you use that to avoid, stonewall on issues I raise)
---MikeM on 6/19/06

Mike- Pope Clement (88-97) wrote to the Church in Corinth in the year 96 to tell them to make changes in their attitudes and practices.Pope Victor (189-199) ordered Easter to be celebrated throughout the world on Sunday, rather than on the 14th Nisan, whichever day of the week it happen to fall. All of the churches adopted Easter Sunday except those in Asia Minor. Pope Victor then excommunicated all the bishops in Asia Minor.
---ruben on 6/19/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


I put it where I was sure you would read it.

Do you think it is NOW TIME to heal, and become whole?
---John_T on 6/19/06

Clement Of Rome was a Bishop. The term 'Pontiff' was how the emporers were addressed. It was Constantine that gave the Roman Church its political power and authority. Many groups in Rome were claiming apostolic authority, the one that survived was just one, empowered by the emporer.

(John T; What does that subject, right or wrong, have to do with the present discussion on this thread?)
---MikeM on 6/19/06

Helen-( the first pope did not come along until some hundreds of years after Peter! ) "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."Pope Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).
---ruben on 6/19/06

Jesus was and is the first Papa, and Jesus was and is the last Papa. "Then Jesus spoke to the people, and to his disciples, saying, Upon the chair of Moses have set the Teachers and the Ministers. And he whoever father, call not yours upon earth: for one is your Papa which is in heaven." Matthew 23:1,2,9.
---Eloy on 6/19/06

Send a Free Funny Ecard

As a former RC, catholics falsely believe they are worshipping God when in fact they are worshipping IDOLS! The cross is an idol. Statues -tho' christian in content-are indeed idols.
---Eve on 6/18/06

Pope is a term the RCC took from the roman empire not from Yeshua's church
---Eve on 6/18/06

Mike M:

On other posts you admitted abuse by pentecostal churches. I truly regret that others sinned against you, using the name of Christ. He will deal with them in due time.

Nevertheless, do you think it is NOW TIME to heal, and become whole?

If you do not become whole, hoarding anger at the abuse will SURELY DESTROY you.
---John_T on 6/18/06

Not only that but the first pope did not come along until some hundreds of years after Peter!
---Helen_5378 on 6/17/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services

PAUL shouldve been the first pope if this is all true. first of all, paul REBUKED Peter!! some pope huh?
---r.w. on 6/16/06

Dale, you said, the RCC worships idols INSTEAD OF GOD. Are you sure about that?
---A_Catholic on 5/2/06

Eloy-(uben, According to verse 1 Jesus is not talking about your earthly father, but the men pertaining to the ministry; for by doing so is idolatry. Then explanied this verse "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:1415).
---ruben on 5/1/06

Peter was not a Pope. God does not recognize the man made office of Pope. It's as simple as that.
---Peter on 4/30/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores

Bruce-Cont-2 Peter 3: 15-16 " And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things HARD TO UNDERSTAND that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures."He who listens to you listens to me and he who rejects you rejects me." Luke 10:16( Scripture and Tradition)
---ruben on 4/29/06

Cont- Bruce there are two verses i want you to ponder. 2 Peter 1:20-21 "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a MATTER OF PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, for no prophecy ever came through human will, but rather HUMAN BEINGS beings moved by the holy spirit spoke under the influence of God. Something you are doing here, your OWN INTERPRETATION, I have scared Scripture and Scared Tradition.
---ruben on 4/29/06

If Peter was the top disciple, then apparently nobody told them, because it is clear from Acts 15:13-20 that James had the final say of the group. If anyone was to be the first pope, it would have to be James. Besides, Christ is the ROCK upon which our Church is founded.
---jerry6593 on 4/29/06

Bruce-(You are once again avoiding the reality of what Peter did.) Again you are wrong,Paul sees Peter as not living out in his teachings, Paul rebukes Peter for the example he is giving. Popes are not perfect in everything they do, Infallibility does not cover who they eat dinner with! I would also say that the Church does not teach that Peter, or any other pope, is perfect and without fault.Cont
---ruben on 4/29/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training

Jesus told the people to do what the scribes and Pharisees say (obey the law) not as they do (they were hypocritical in that they did not obey the law themselves.)

If it is to be the same with Peter, you are saying, it is "Do as I say, not as I do?" It is ok for the first "pope" "the Vicar of Christ" to do what ever he wants so long as he tells his people to do the right thing?

You are once again avoiding the reality of what Peter did.
---Bruce5656 on 4/29/06

Bruce-( His flirtation with heresy is inconsistent with the Catholic view of the papacy) Maybe this verse will help you. You will agree that Jesus was real hard on the Pharisees and scribes, but in Matthew 23: 1-4 it reads" Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his DISCIPLES, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the CHAIR OF MOSES (Peter). Therefore, DO AND OBSERVE all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example."
---ruben on 4/29/06

ruben, According to verse 1 Jesus is not talking about your earthly father, but the men pertaining to the ministry; for by doing so is idolatry. "An older man not overscold, but urge as a father; younger as brothers." I Timothy 5:1.
---Eloy on 4/29/06

Do catholics even realize that Peter was called to be preacher to the Jews and Paul was given the gospel of grace? I think that is where RCC gets its doctrins backwards..following Peter and his teachings instead of Pauls teachings. If you think about it and study you will find that Acts capt 2 in its entirity only applies to the Jews at that time. Not the gentiles.
---Steve on 4/28/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Software

Re: the "on this rock." That is way off subject.
He did what he did. Diversion is a popular tatict when faced with information that contradicts ones point of view.

There is no disputing the significant role Peter played in the first century church. But none of that dispenses with what he did. His flirtation with heresy is inconsistent with the Catholic view of the papacy (Peter being the "first pope" and all.)
---Bruce5656 on 4/28/06

Bruce-(Nothing you have said address the question.) I did, but you will not listen. If you are going to hang your hat one scripture, I have many scriptures that say otherwise. Pete name is change to Rock, Peter is the only one to have the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Peter is the only one told to tend the flock(us) and Peter stood up in Act 15 and scripture says "anyone fell silent". Other then the name of Jesus, Peter name is mention more often then any other name.
---ruben on 4/28/06

Eloy-("And he whoever father, call not yours upon earth: for one is your Papa which is in heaven. Neither be you all called guides, for one is your Guide, the Christ." Matthew 23:9,10.) So why does the fourth commandment have honor your FATHER and mother?
---ruben on 4/28/06

"And he whoever father, call not yours upon earth: for one is your Papa which is in heaven. Neither be you all called guides, for one is your Guide, the Christ." Matthew 23:9,10.
---Eloy on 4/28/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising

It is a historical fact that many Popes were lustful, corrupt, and elected due to the politics of Rome. Pontiff was a title of the emperers. Once a lady Pope, 'Joan,' sat as Pope of Rome, who when found out was killed. Peter, specifically means little rock-petro-petra refers to bedrock, earth. It's a play on words. Peter was apostolic authority, but from him to others is shaky. I believe the church went into apostasy AFTER PETER, as Romes history is less than holy, its fruits not Christlike.
---MikeM on 4/27/06

Nothing you have said address the question. What Paul did or did not do does not account for Peter's - "the Vicar of Christ" actions.
---Bruce5656 on 4/27/06

What ever Paul did or did not do does not excuse Peters (the first pope, the vicar of Christ) actions. We are told specifically that he was being hypocritical in that he was turning his back on the gentile converts to side with those who taught a heresy.

Peters actions were not only inexcusable, he also led others astray:
---Bruce5656 on 4/27/06

Galatians 2:12-13 he withdrew and separated himself (from the Gentile brothers), fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
---Bruce5656 on 4/27/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders

As for Paul, there is a fundamental difference between what Paul did and what Peter did. Paul had Timothy circumcised so that he would not be an offense to the unconverted, unreached Jewish population. Paul said 1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
---Bruce5656 on 4/27/06

Paul was more interested in reaching the Jews and letting nothing be a barrier to that outreach, than he was Timothys ahhmm pain threshold shall we say. There was no principle at stake in the circumcision of Timothy.
---Bruce5656 on 4/27/06

Lets imagine a modern day lady missionairy. For the sake of example, lets say she was going to reach a culture where they believed that a woman with long hair was a harlot. She would be very unwise to leave her hair long. Better to cut the hair than be rejected and not able to bring them the Gospel.
---Bruce5656 on 4/27/06

On the other hand, when the those of the concision insisted Paul have Titus circumcised because they did not believe him to be a Christian if he were not, Paul refused. On principle.
---Bruce5656 on 4/27/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages

This would be like the lady I mentioned above having false (so called Christian) teachers tell her that she was not a Christian if she did not cut her hair. On principle she should not cut her hair to prove the point that salvation is not in what you cut or dont cut. (Hair or otherwise.) That is why Paul did not have Titus circumcised.
---Bruce5656 on 4/27/06

It on account of those same false teachers, however, Peter compromised his testimony. He was refusing to take a stand on the side of righteousness in the face of the false teaching of those men.
---Bruce5656 on 4/27/06

Peter, or Petra means 'ROCK.'
Yes, even AFTER the Father made His revelation to Peter, he was the only one who denied even knowing Jesus when the going got tough. Some "Pope!" Do any Popes truly know Him?
---NV_Barbara on 4/27/06

Bruce ... In my last blog, I meant I had no problem with Peter being fallible.
As for his hypocrisy, I think you do over-egg it when you saay two faced, although of course you hasve only adopted taautology. I think we all, being fallible are hypocritical in some ways, and I do not think Peter was more than misled and misguided and perhaps a little bit easily influenced. Peter had always had a mixture of over & under confidence.
---alan8869_of_UK on 4/27/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair

Bruce ... I have no problem with Peter being infallible, and I do not think it conflct in any way with the infallibility of the Pope. For various reasons, firstly that I do not think Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, and secondly, even if he was, I am sure he would not have claimed infallibility, and thirdly, I do not think the Popes claimed infallibility until centuries later, and (sorry, Ruben) unjustifiably.
---alan8869_of_UK on 4/27/06

Bruce also in Acts 16: 1-13,18:18, 21:18-26, and some others, it seems to me that Paul learned from Peter's good example in Galatians chapter 2 and imitated it in order to shepherd those in weak in their faith.
---ruben on 4/27/06

Bruce you can call Peter whatever you want, But remember the heavenly father reveled to Peter only who Jesus was, also he was the only one who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the only one that was told to lead the flock and whose name was change to Rock.
---ruben on 4/27/06

Bruce if you are going to use the word "sunupokrinomai" then you can applied this also this Paul: Acts 21:18-26, "He reached derbe and Lystra where there iwas a diciple named timothy and Paul wanted him to come along with him. On account of the Jews of tha region, Paul had him circumised, for they all knew his father was a Greek."
---ruben on 4/27/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products

Lupe not true-Irenaeus "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]). nst the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).The Little Labyrinth "Victor . . . was the THIRTEENTH bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
---ruben on 4/27/06

4. who was himself a disciple of John the Apostle. He enumerated all the Roman bishops up to the twelfth, Eleutherius. According to Irenaeus, the first bishop of Rome was not Peter or Paul but Linus. The Apostolic Constitution in the year 270 also named Linus as first bishop of Rome, appointed by St Paul. The Catholic Church has made it a point of faith that popes are successors of Peter as Bishop of Rome. But Peter never had that title.
---Lupe2618 on 4/27/06

3. Todays historians suggest that Peter lived in Rome for three or four years at most. There is no record that he took charge of the community there. It cannot have been automatic. He had not even been bishop in Jerusalem after Jesus death. James, the Lord's brother, was. Then there is this starling fact; in the earliest lists of bishops of Rome, Peter's name never appeared. For example, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons from 178-200 was the disciple of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna,
---Lupe2618 on 4/27/06

2. God used all kinds of writers to bring His inspired word to all of us. As for Peter being the first pope that is not in the history of the Catholic Church. Moreover, it was only in the year 1073 that Pope Gregory VI forbade Catholics to call anyone pope except the Bishop of Rome. Before then, many bishops were fondly addressed as "pope" or "papa". Even the title "Bishop of Rome" is now weighted with dignities it did not always have.
---Lupe2618 on 4/27/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce

Alan, I think you have to seperate the Word of God,(Peter's Espistle) and the person mention in the word of God, (Peter). All people were fallible, except God when mentioned in Scripture. I say this because you brought up a question, if Peter is fallible then the Epistle could be fallible. I believe that is what you were saying, I might be wrong and read it wrong and just wanted to mention that part. God's Word is infallible.
---Lupe2618 on 4/27/06

2.The early church was not monolithic, but a miasma of groups, beliefs, and doctrines. Some were very esoteric (gnostic) some were not. The Greek speaking groups were influenced by greek philosophy, the ones in the west by pelagious and western ideas. Rome was the heart of political power and wealth. As wealty Christians gave the 'church' money, it gained power, political power, and ascended as the 'correct' visable church in the late 280'sAD ( I admit a gross simplification)
---MikeM on 4/27/06

1.I understand the Roman Church's claim. Here is the problem with it. Upon this rock (Peter-Latin, little rock) Yes, Peter is given apostolic authority. Two words for rock, petra(bed rock, earth)and Petro, seperate rock, as in Peter. The claim 'after' Peter is somehow transfered to petra, meaning Roman itself as a visable church, is one claim. MANY groups claimed apostolic authority, the one that ascended to power in Rome was one of those groups.
---MikeM on 4/27/06

I have no difficulty what so ever with the falibility of Peter. What I was looking for was the Roman Catholic stand on what he did given their insistance that he is the foundation of the Church and the Vicar of Christ and the first pope.
---Bruce5656 on 4/27/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage

As for his hypocrisy,
Galatians 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
That sounds hypocritical to me.

In fact, the word dissembled is from the Greek sunupokrinomai which means:
1) to dissemble with
2) to act hypocritically with
---Bruce5656 on 4/27/06

Bruce ... In defence of Peter ... No man is infallible, and that includes the Pope, Peter, and I am sure Paul.
Surely, Peter was mistaken, misled, but not a bare-faced hypocrite. That would make most of us one, since we all have major deficiencies in our faith and understanding.
What do you think of Peter's Epistle? That of a man who was at one time fallible? Or was he fallible in what he wrote there?
---alan8869_of_UK on 4/27/06

Yes Bruce I was just answering the Moderator's question.
However I am familier with that scripture, and Simon Peter was far from perfect, let alone infallable!
---NVBarbara on 4/26/06

It was all about a matter of faith. Peter had sided with those who taught that you had to be circumcised to be saved. Paul had to stand up to him and tell him he was wrong.

At the best, he was a two faced hypocrite.

At the worst he was endorsing a false gospel of which Paul said that any one propogating it was to be accursed. Gal 1:8
---Bruce5656 on 4/26/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation

Wouldn't the concept of Peter being the foundation of the church and the "Vicar of Christ" etc lead one to believe that Peter would never be found in such a position of lending his support to the false teachers of his day?
---Bruce5656 on 4/26/06

Peter was not the first Pope. In fact, if the Catholic Church was around in the first century when Peter was still alive, he would have denounced the Catholics, who place their
Pope and so called Church above Jesus Christ.
The Pope is just a man. He is not God's Advocate on earth. Jesus Christ is our only Advocate. The Catholic faith is a false one just like Islam and Mormons and some others. The Catholic faith worships idols instead of God, Father Almighty and Our Lord Jesus Christ.
---Dale on 4/26/06

Bruce-( I wonder if our catholic friends here ever read the account in Galatians of Peter being caught up in the heresy of the day and how Paul had to set him straight.) First of all this had nothing to do with faith and morals with is what infallible means. The issus was his actions, not his teaching. So when jesus said "Blessed are you, Simon
son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. The Heavenly Father revealed this to him..thus infallible.
---ruben on 4/26/06

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.