"whom they seek to kill" - The First Pope, Not Paul?

Tokyo

The First Pope, Not Paul?

St. Peter is a mysterious man, though he is positioned as the first Pope while St. Paul was not.

About halfway through, the Acts of the Apostles turns its attention away from Peter and to the activities of Paul, and the Bible is mostly silent on what occurred to Peter afterwards. 

The church in Rome was already flourishing when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans about AD 57,[34] he greets some fifty people in Rome by name,[35] but not Peter whom he knew. There is also no mention of Peter in Rome later during Paul's two-year stay there in Acts 28, about AD 60-62. Church historians consistently consider Peter and Paul to have been martyred under the reign of Nero, around AD 65 such as after the Great Fire of Rome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#Role_in_the_early_church 

However, as the Vatican puts the highest priority on the church but not on the Bible, the linkage between St. Peter and Christ Jesus is a key to its claim for the supreme power in the Christian world.

According to the Vatican, Christ Jesus is God and He chose Peter as His successor in leadership of the church.  So, everything crucially important was handed over to Peter.  Every secret in Christianity was provided for Peter in a spiritual manner.  And every Pope after St. Peter has also received this tradition.  Therefore, a Pope at any era has been a holy deputy of Christ Jesus.

But if the holy authority of St. Peter should be denied, the Vatican would lose its ground for leading Christians in the world.

And as everybody knows, the Acts of the Apostles depicts Paul as the true leader of early Christians.  On the other hand, Peter's acts are not clear.  Even where Peter had been and how Peter reached Rome were unclear.  Suddenly, they claims, Peter died in Rome around the same time when Paul was executed.  It is mysterious.  It is as if the author of the Acts of the Apostles Luke had had no expectation that Peter would become the first Pope.

In Jerusalem, the church of early Christians or more correctly Christian Judaists was led by James, a younger brother of Christ Jesus.

In the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, Jesus names James his successor: "The disciples said to Jesus, 'We know that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?' Jesus said to them, "Where you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into existence.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

So, all the Christian Judaists, who were left by Christ Jesus and lived around Jerusalem, respected and followed James.  But this church in Jerusalem was terminated by violence in internal conflicts among Israelites when James the Just was killed.

According to a passage found in existing manuscripts of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, (xx.9) "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" met his death after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus but before Lucceius Albinus had assumed office (Antiquities 20,9) — which has been dated to 62. The High Priest Hanan ben Hanan (Anani Ananus in Latin) took advantage of this lack of imperial oversight to assemble a Sanhedrin (although the correct translation of the Greek synhedrion kriton is "a council of judges"), who condemned James "on the charge of breaking the law", then had him executed by stoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

So, it looks reasonable that Peter ran away from Jerusalem and Judea as the High Priest and his followers must have intended to kill Peter, too.  Peter fled to Rome as Paul and other believers caught already some followers who accepted the teaching by Paul.

The Vatican could not recognize James as the first Pope since he was the leader of Christian Judaists in Jerusalem.  But the Vatican neither recognized Paul as the first Pope since he had never seen Christ Jesus living and preaching.  The only choice was Peter, though Peter was very mysterious and his acts having been conducted between Jerusalem and Rome were mostly unknown even if he had power to work miracles.    

The point at issue is how much more the Vatican did inherit information about Christ Jesus directly from St. Peter than the Gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke and John.


In addition, there are many people today who doubt justification for the Vatican introduces Peter as the first Pope.

Was Peter Bishop in Rome?

A side note. There is no scriptural proof that Peter was the founding bishop in Rome. When Paul writes to Rome, he never greets Peter in the letter, which proves conclusively that Peter was not in Rome so he could not be the founding Bishop. It is true, he probably was crucified in Rome, but dieing there does not make you a bishop there.

At one time Peter was probably in Rome, for he mentions it in 1 Peter 5:13: She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. It can be argued that Babylon was the code name for Rome; however, some believe Babylon was an actual location that Peter was in, and not Rome. Regardless of one’s view of Babylon, it does not mean Peter was the founding bishop there. He may have been there at one time, but there is no reason to assume that Peter was setting up headquarters in Rome and thus setting up the pontificate. So if Peter was not the founding Bishop in Rome, how could the Roman Catholic Church argue that Peter was the first Pope?

I think the burden of proof is on the Catholic Church to prove otherwise, and there is no scriptural proof that Peter was the first Pope. On the contrary, there is plenty of scriptural proof that Peter was not the first Pope.

http://www.tbm.org/was_peter_the_first_pope.htm

Of course, only Christ Jesus who secretly helped Paul and Peter, in addition to James, preach and teach gentiles as well as Hebrews after resurrection could authorize Peter to assume the title of the First Pope.  But we have no record on this holy authorization even when we refer to ancient documents discovered around the Dead Sea and the Nile River in the 20th century or so.




*** *** *** ***



Joh 7:25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill?
Joh 7:26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?
Joh 7:27 Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.
Joh 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.