Did JESUS or the Apostles nominated Peter to be a pope?
Discussion
172 comments
-
not that i know of. ? maybe depends on the definition. he was definitely appointed to lead a church. following!
-
God one! Very funny!!
-
At Peters is named after Peter but neither Jesus or any other made Peter the Pope.
-
Saint
-
No
-
i always ask why priests arent allowed to be married even though their first pope was
-
No
-
Peter was *never* a pope
-
Neither
-
Uhhhhh Peter was an Apostle not a pope. And Jesus said you are Peter and on this rock ill build my church and the gates of hell will not overcome it. The Pope and the Roman Catholic Church have nothing to do with Peter nor any of the Apostles.
-
Very interesting question? ?
-
Either Jesus or apostles.
-
Neither. Peter was never pope
-
Jesus had no pope in his vocabulary
-
Peter pop up for everything but not Pope.
-
First Popes likely not until after Constantine??? 400’s???
Mixing paganism with Christianity???
Catholic Church tries to teach it differently I think??? -
didn’t early translations of the original term pope mean ‘holy father’? I seem to recall that Jesus explicitly stated that his disciples were to call no one father, for we all have only one father, who is in heaven
-
According to Catholics because God said he’ll build his church with Peter, that makes the pope , who is Jesus on Earth
I don’t get it
-
No.
-
Where to you people come up with this stuff
-
Peter was not a pope
-
No. Peter never went to Rome.
-
On this rock I will build my church…
The rock is Christ- …
the Cornerstone
Pope is of the devil -
“upon THIS rock I will build my church”.
If only there had been some kind of visual context to the pronoun “this”.
Alas, we have to wait til Paul to find out what that is.
-
No
-
I finished my 50-day Bible Reading Challenge for myself (Gen to Rev) and i missed that part that ‘Jesus or any from Apostles nominated Peter as Pope’ where did you get that idea? Doctrine of Men?
-
That question is just for fun, But detrimental to the enemies’ kingdom.
-
Big joke that many gullibles took it as truth.
-
First Pope was over 300 years after Peter
-
Peter was not a pope…ever
-
No. There was No Pope until the Emporer Constantine set up the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus is the Head of His Church. For there are Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost and these three are One. 1John 5:7 KJV.
-
Nope, just a rock
-
The pope is a false prophet. He calls himself father. We only have one Father.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Matthew 23:9 KJV -
NKJV 1 Peter 5:1The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed. He is a fellow elder of the church which is a council not as he leads alone. Not like a pope that alone leads the his church that considers himself as god.
-
No, Christ asked Peter to lead His Church. Catholic church came about much later
-
??♂️
-
Nope. A total fabrication by the Catholic Church
-
No one did
-
Neither lol
-
It’s the catholic’s story and they are sticking to it
-
No, the Devil did…!
-
Neither
-
The idea that Jesus created a papacy in Matthew 16:18 is obviously ex post facto rationalization for the papacy based on a string of non-sequiturs. Here is the sequence:
1. Peter was the rock on which the church was built. The text says “you are Petros and upon this Petra will I build my church. Petros means little stone while Petra refers to a large boulder. If Jesus wanted to say he was building the church on Peter why did he not say you are Petros and upon this Petros will I build my church? It would then have been clear.
2. Designating Peter as the rock meant that he was sovereign over the other apostles. That simply does not follow. There is simply no evidence of that in the NT either from Peter or anyone else. In Galatians 2:9 when Paul talks about those esteemed as pillars of the church he gives three names: James, Peter and John in that order and without distinction otherwise.
3. It is assumed that this quality of being the rock was something that Peter possessed personally so that he could pass on to a successor.
4. It is claimed that Peter was the first bishop of Rome although the earliest lists of the bishops do not name him as bishop of Rome but rather Linus who was appointed by Paul. Peter as an Apostle traveled around and founded a number of churches and would not have belonged to any local congregation as its bishop. Instead the apostles appointed others as bishops.
5. It is assumed that Peter’s rock status was transmitted through his successors as bishops of Rome.
If Peter were to be bishop of any church why would it be Rome? Wouldn’t it make more sense if the Apostle to the Jews were bishop of the church at Jerusalem which was headquarters after all rather than a Gentile church in a far off city?
-
Apostle Peter had no idea he was become Pope.
-
NO
-
The Papacy comes from the word Papa in Greek. The Jewish Kings have Royal Stewards who carry the keys to the kingdom and will be like a father or Pope to the people of the kingdom. Christ is a Davidic King and has his Vicar or representative on Earth who we call the Pope.
-
No one did… The title Pope wasn’t even given by Jesus
-
No is the short answer.
-
Jesus said He would build His church on Peter’s FAITH. Now, previously I’ve been convinced that the church itself was built on Peter, but I’ve changed my view on what I believe to be very compelling evidence.
-
NO
-
No
-
I’m trying to figure how they came to that conclusion
-
Nope… yeah, no.
-
No!
-
Not at all.
-
All 12 disciples were chosen by Jesus. It was RELIGION of man that later started calling Peter a “Pope”. Jesus never called him that nor is the word “pope” found anywhere in scripture.
“But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Matthew 23:8-12 NKJV -
*** JESUS ****
-
No. Paul said he is below the most eminent Apostle (not even naming names) in nothing. If one Apostle was the Pope, Paul was the Pope. Catholics base their claim of the papacy on one verse: Matthew 16:18. Historically, this verse had 4 interpretations, with the overwhelming majority of Church “Fathers” taking the interpretation that Peter’s confession “you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” is the rock upon which Christ builds His Church. This is also the most popular Protestant interpretation, meaning this is actually one area where Catholics can’t even begin to make the Church history argument.
-
No one did, scripturally, but someone did religiously, which is the real issue.
-
Uh NO!!
-
Church history. 2000 years.
You logic is post historical.“To be well grounded in history is to cease to be Protestant “
-
No
-
None of the above… nor did his wife.
-
I don’t think peter knew he was made pope.
-
where is pop in the bible ?
-
Nope
-
Yes. Pope is just a bishop or elder or an overseer of an ecclesiastical body or the church..
-
There was no Pope or Papacy in the 1st-Century Church…there was not even a hint of Catholicism until Constantine and the Edict of Milan in 312-313AD and the merging of Roman Paganism and Christianity.
-
YESSSS
-
No
-
^_^ No. And there is no Office in the Church on such title. It’s unbiblical, in fact it’s against the Words of God. Ü (y)
-
Where do these thoroughly stupid questions come from??
-
Jesus appoint Peter to be first among equals
-
Nope. Rome crowned Peter as Pope when Peter was no longer on the face of the Earth. That way, you can’t have Peter objecting to whatever Rome started concocting.
-
Yes. Matthew 16, Luke 22, John 21, Acts one. All of these passages show a mission to Peter that was specific or in the first chapter of acts him confirming his brothers like Jesus said in Luke 22.
-
Neither
-
No…
-
Who said Peter was a pope?
-
Popery is blasphemy against God and His Word.
-
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church
in the greek, when referring to Peter, Jesus uses the word petros or little rock, and when He say upon this rock will build my church, Jesus uses the work petra which is like a great mountainous rock. also petros is masculine while petra is feminine.
-
Nope. No evidence but human imsgination by Roman catholic.
-
There is no pope in the Bible
-
None ! Neither !! Not ever !!!
-
He said he wanted a universal Church ! Church means the believers or body of Christ. He wanted Jews and Gentiles to have the same belief. Catholic means universal. He did not ever say to make a CATHOLIC church like they have now. Nor would he ever. He made fun of the Pharisees for dressing all important and having important seats in the front of the temple and to expect important public greetings , just like the Catholic church does today. There is ZERO in the Bible about what you see to this day !!
-
No man is more Holy than another. We are all filthy rags. Jesus wants you to be close to Him, not some pope. Who are priests to forgive us or to make us do things for our sins? Jesus did it all.
-
CHRIST HIMSELF IS THE HEAD OF HIS CHURCH.
-
Nope.
When he said “on this rock I will build my Church”
Jesus was referring to a physical temple in Cesarea Philippi (the Las Vegas of the ancient world)
The temple was a pagan one called “the rock”.
Jesus said it to show his supreme authority even among pagan nations.Archeology and history supports this.
-
The issue of the Pope being the head the Church or Vicar (representative) of Christ on earth is antichrist. Pope was 3 bishop of Rome when Emperor Constantine was there. When Constantine moved to Constantinople which is Instabul now we had a bishop there too. The bishop of Rome had prominence than the rest earlier because of being in contact with tge emperor all the time. Now this privilege was threatened and he seceded taking with him Western part of Europe bishops, the situation that has lingered to present. No bishop was higher than others at that time but the bishop of Rome self exalted himself above the rest. The Church or seven churches were centralised in Turkey where the last apostle of Jesus John was the bishop of Ephesus. The Church had now been divided itself becoming worldly according to the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s metallic man dream about the legs which represented Rome. We now had the right leg Western Churches and left leg Eastern Churches. We are the products of Western Churches. Remember what the prophecy says about the end time Church :
Ephesians 4:11-14
[11]And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
[12]For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
[13]Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
[14]That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; -
Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine and his successors promoted progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.
Following are a few examples:
Most Roman Catholic beliefs and practices regarding Mary are completely absent from the Bible. Where did those beliefs come from? The Roman Catholic view of Mary has far more in common with the Isis mother-goddess religion of Egypt than it does with anything taught in the New Testament. Interestingly, the first hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.
The Lord’s Supper being a consumption of the literal body and blood of Jesus is not taught in the Bible. The idea that bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) is not biblical. However, several ancient pagan religions, including Mithraism, which was very popular in the Roman Empire, had some form of “theophagy” (the eating of one’s god) as a ritualistic practice.
Roman Catholicism has “saints” one can pray to in order to gain a particular blessing. For example, Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is the patron saint of fertility. Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of animals. There are multiple patron saints of healing and comfort. Nowhere is even a hint of this taught in Scripture. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these and many other categories. Many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, and the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for cities as well.
The idea that the Roman bishop is the vicar of Christ, the supreme leader of the Christian Church, is utterly foreign to the Word of God. The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, again, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. After the western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus.
Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and church tradition. Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.
The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the idolatrous people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.
Second Timothy 4:3–4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
-
No. Upon Peters confession that Jesus is The Christ of God or son of God. Upon that confession Christ will build His Church.
-
Jesus passes his ministries to the 12 apostles, not His position and title
-
The Pope is a form of antichrist, so no
-
Absolutely not, a ghastly thought. What has status to do with following Christ.? Jesus taught one is your master and all ye are brethren. And call no man on earth father.
-
Peter wasn’t a pope so the question doesn’t arise.
-
Hardly … Peter would have to have lived 300 years to do so
-
Peter died a [Christian] he would have never believed in a trinity, worshiped Idols, prayed to Mary, forbid marriage among priest, kissed anyones ring, etc, etc…
-
A big No, a delirious concept.
-
The keys to the Kingdom were given to Peter and he started the church, the Catholic Church stole that Ferrari and have been doing laps ever since.
-
Jesus Christ is the Cheif cornerstone. Peter say thus to end the discussion
-
According to the Bible, there is only father and you can call only Him father, and that is the Father in Heaven, our God.
-
No. Not written in the BIBLE.
-
No…
-
Nope.
-
The whole sorry edifice of the Roman Catholic system is built upon lies, fear, faux piety and spectacle, encrusted with dazzling gold and jewels but rotten to the core, topped by a usurper who dares to call himself the ‘vicar of Christ’ through the falsehood which is Apostolic Succession allegedly passed on by Peter.
I think I’m trying to say NO!
-
No
-
Peter wasn’t a pope.
-
Nope,herecy from catholosism..Bible study shows it wass Apostle Paul who started the church building…
-
No and Peter called himself an elder.
-
Popery is blasphemy against God and His Word.
-
Jesus is the rock brothers!!!
-
Not found in the Bible. It was Pope Leo who order the papacy of Peter.
-
Only God should be called “Father” in a spiritual sense.
-
No …its not even scriptural
-
According to the Bible, we’re to be called brothers and sisters. Matthew 23:8-11 so my answer is NO.
Call no man father for you have one FATHER, and he is
The one and only GOD ALMIGHTY. Neither be called instructor, for you have one instructor, the
CHRIST. again the answer is
NO. -
People of Rome decided to nominate Peter to be a pope. Jesus and any of the disciples were totally out of the picture.
-
Peter was never a pope.
-
What is a pope? It’s not biblical, doctrinal, or theological… it’s a title that the nicolations gave to the bishop, who was first amongst equals… it’s a title used by the holyroman church it’s not part of Christ’s kingdom, it represents the vicar of satan, all the idol worship of Babylon the god Marduk and Ishtar
-
Did the Apostles nominate Peter to be Pope? Nobody nominated Peter, and there was no Pope for over 400 years. The Catholics created the story of Peter being the first Pope. ?
-
Yeshua sais call no one papa except your Heavenly Father, the pope is nothing more then an imposter, an antichrist in the place of Christ.
-
James 5 19-20
-
Peter is often depicted as holding keys. Keys are the authority delegated by God to lead his Church. The Savior chose Peter to be the chief apostle after his departure. This scripture from Matthew 16:15-19 is significant:
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
After the Savior died he returned and helped Peter to understand his role. Three times He asked Peter, “Lovest thou me?” And three times He told him, “feed my sheep” “feed my sheep” “feed my lambs.” Thus Peter came to understand what the Savior had given him keys to do and which he began to honor and do. As the chief apostle. Later the opposition began that led to the death of Peter and the other apostles and the centuries of seeking out and killing all believers. My favorite story is when peter began to act under the authority he had with faith and confidence to heal others: -
Acts 10:25
Peter Wouldn’t allow Cornelius
to bow down to him why would the Pope allow people to bow down to him? Appears to me that to Pope wants to be worshiped. Seems to me the Pope is a lot like satan he wanted to be worshiped and he got kicked out of heaven. Pope has a lot in common with satan!!!!! -
As far as the priests of the Roman Catholic Church having the authority or ability to forgive sins, that is hogwash. The priest is supposedly Christ on earth, and you are confessing your sins to the representative of Christ. You can straight to God to ask to be forgiven.? The rock upon which Jesus Christ was building His church was the admission that Jesus was the Son of the living God. But who knows if Peter thought Jesus pre existed, and everybody knows he did not believe in the Trinity. ?
-
Not Jesus, not the apostles. All the apostles knew that the Rock Jesus spoke about was himself. The Rock that the builders rejected.
-
That’s ridiculous. Peter’s very words will be rising up shortly against those who have claimed his keys. Keys that were his alone.
Question: Paul was Apostle to the gentiles primarily. Why have Catholics claimed Peter then… who was Apostle to the Jews primarily? Hmmm….
-
No because they would have drawn straws
-
The Roman Catholic church
-
Neither. There is no evidence in the Bible that any hierarchy among the apostles was ever set up or even sought. Furthermore, it is highly doubtful that Peter was ever in Rome at any time. He was in Antioch at that time, so how could he have been the bishop of Rome?
-
I believe the Catholic church wrongly took the scripture literally, believing they were the authirity:
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
John 20:23 NKJV
https://bible.com/bible/114/jhn.20.23.NKJV -
The Apostle Peter WAS NEVER A POPE!!!!!
-
Jesus appointed all of the Apostles. Read at Matthew Chapter 10
-
No
-
No way.
-
Nope ???
-
Nope.
-
If Jesus appointed Peter to be the first pope in Matthew 16, there should have been no question as to which apostle was the greatest among them. But there is no mention of a pope in the Scripture at all. A year after the events in Matthew 16, they are still arguing among themselves which one was the greatest (Luke 22:24-26). The papacy is a fraud.
-
It’s not found in Scriptures.
Matthew 16 : 18 – 20; teaches us that on the truth of Peter’s confession, “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This truth was revealed to Peter by the Holy Spirit. So, the true church of God will populated by those who are enabled to confess what Peter confessed. Lastly, the passage gives responsibility to all elders to teach that Christ is the Messiah of the OT prophecy. -
No
-
Neither. It was when baal worship was incorporated into the church
-
No where in scripture that I’ve ever read that Peter was named Pope! Man made religion
-
No where in the entire bible is a pope mentioned. Peter, a stone as the Lord Jesus named him cephas was never in one time the pope. The roman catholic is just a mere religion.
-
No
-
Nope to Pope!
-
Funny. God elected Jesus to build His Church and said the gates of Hell will not be penetrated. The name Peter (Gk., Petros) means “rock” or “rock-man.” In the next phrase, Christ used petra (upon this rock), a feminine form for “rock,” not a name. Christ used a play on words. He does not say “upon you, Peter” or “upon your successors,” but “upon this rock”—upon this divine revelation and profession of faith in Christ. Rev. 21:14). Still, other scholars say that the church is built on Peter’s testimony. It seems best to understand that Jesus was praising Peter for his accurate statement about Him, and was introducing His work of building the church on Himself (1 Cor. 3:11). There is no Pope in the Scriptures thankgoodness with all the negative history.
-
Not correct.
-
There were no popes until like the 5th century
-
Popery is antichrist.
-
Neither. I see no evidence that Peter had primacy amongst the Apostles, and no Biblical evidence that he went to Rome, and one reference from a contemporary that he was there. James was the leader in Jerusalem, the first church, until his death, and Jerusalem would have been the centre for the early church. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Peter ws a leader. But not pope. The claim that he was is an early example revisionist history making.
-
In my Bible James, the half brother of Yeshua/Jesus, also known as Ya’akov, which translates to Jacob, seemed to running things. He dressed Paul down and rendered judgements of the Jerusalem council. He is also known as James the Just.
-
Peter was never made the pope. The papacy is the invention of man, and worse, it is an anti-christ (i.e. “other christ”)
-
Peter was never Pope, he never even was in Rome
-
Most definitely!!! This can be traced all the way back to Peter and the apostles up to date.
-
Popery is blasphemy against God and His Word and is the ultimate form of anti Christ.
-
i grew up a cradle catholic (roman catholic) and in 1979 began reading the Judeo/Christian Scriptures for the first time and i left the catholic church to follow Jesus Christ and touching lives with the love of God and the gospel of reconciliation throughout the world.
-
No scripture proof.
-
No pope. Word pope does not exist in scripture.
-
Pope, joke
-
Nope
-
What is a pope?
-
A lie from the pit of hell invented by the Roman Catholics.
-
Wayne Capell Randall Grosvenor The conversion of Constantine has always been whether it was sincere or true. Paganism already entered Christianity before that. Polycarb, who lived to a very old age, died in 155 AD, before there really was a Roman Catholic church. ??
-
neither…
-
No, No way. Peter was a Christian Apostle, Not a catholic pope.
-
Neither, Peter is not a Pope. No scriptural authority for that. If anything, James was the leader of the early church.
-
No.
-
Frequently people stated that James was more prominent than Peter in Acts 15. This article, I believe, makes a good representation of several scholars on that. But then refutes that interpretation quite well. Please consider reading this article with an open mind. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/was-james-the-real-leader-of-the-early-church
-
Peter and anybody else in scripture when they were given a name, there was a role given to them as well. Simons name was changed to Kepha or large rock. We can see the same correlation in Isaiah 22 with Eliakim and Peter. Eliakim was given an ongoing office, and Peter was given the key/s to the Kingdom of David. In Acts 15 at the council of Jerusalem, James the current bishop of Jerusalem at the time issues a pastoral creed ending the debate on the dogmatic creed Peter was making.
-
James worked out of Jerusalem.
-
Absolutely not! Peter was the leader of the 12 after Jesus ascended, but that was leader of the 12, NOT a pope. Popes are not in the Bible and the whole idea is idolatry and breaking of the 2nd of the 10 Commandments which Roman Catholics took out of and made the 10th Commandmnet, coveting, into two commandments.
Comments