++++Historical proof of Peter’s apostolic succession is located in these previous thread posts:+++
We are looking for INFALLIBLE evidence not Catholic historians
The problem is that scripture never puts peter in Rome but as a prisoner .
When Paul writes to Rome, he never greets Peter in the letter, which proves (to my mind anyway) 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.
AS the 1st church met in Jerusalem it was presided over by James not Peter.
Paul confronted Peter as an equal.
It was the custom in those times to place the most important person first on the list. Peter is placed first when it comes to the list of the twelve original apostles,
however, James becomes a believer after the resurrection, and interestingly appears to be the leader, and Paul affirms it by placing his name first on the list. The Catholic Church cannot scripturally make a claim that Peter was the first Pope when the scriptural evidence clearly demonstrates that he was not even the chief apostle
It is clear here that james was in charge of that council and that it was James that made the final ruling.
Peter was the problem not the solution
Please READ the words of James
Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me:
Not to Peter , listen the ME
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
That is James making the decision NOT PETER
Can the Pope be OVERRULED in matters of faith? That should be your first clue that he was not in charge and that he was not infallible .
Peter never claimed headship for himself. He was a humble man that would rebuke what is said of him today
Peter was the apostle to the Jews ..not the Roman gentiles
“The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)” (Gal. 2:7-8).,P>It was Paul not Peter that wrote doctrinal letters to the Romans and Ephesian Church
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This would have kept him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile church.
It is paul that wanted to build the church at Rome. That fact proved that Peter was not the “bishop “ of Rome. As Paul told us he would not build on another foundation.
“Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION” (Rom. 15:20).
When paul wrote to the church at Rome Peters name is no where listed
Around 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles.
66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED.History shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine.
Peter was an obedient apostle Of Christ and he carried out with honor the work the Lord had ordained for him to do , and that work never included being a bishop to a gentile church
Why such falsities? I pointed you to a Protestant history. Find one recent credible historian anywhere who doubts that Peter was executed and succeeded in Rome.
The problem is that scripture never puts peter in Rome but as a prisoner.
How is that a problem? History leaves no doubt. Do you also doubt that Caesar and Cleopatra were in Rome? You cannot support your assertion.
AS the 1st church met in Jerusalem it was presided over by James not Peter. Paul confronted Peter as an equal.
What is your point? Popes are able to delegate and to accept correction.
James becomes a believer after the resurrection, and interestingly appears to be the leader, and Paul affirms it by placing his name first on the list.
That is unauthoritative subjective opinion.
Peter never claimed headship for himself. He was a humble man that would rebuke what is said of him today
He did not have to. He was anointed by Jesus as Rock-Peter-Cephus and the Apostles always obeyed him. Never did they disobey.
Can the Pope be OVERRULED in matters of faith? That should be your first clue that he was not in charge and that he was not infallible.
Peter was never overruled. Never. Not once. He voluntarily accepted correction from Paul because Paul was right, no because Paul, "least of the Apostles," had higher rank.
When paul wrote to the church at Rome Peters name is no where listed
So? Probably Peter had not arrived by that time. Peter eventually retraced the path of Paul to confirm what he had taught, finally ending up in Rome where he was executed.
Peter was an obedient apostle Of Christ and he carried out with honor the work the Lord had ordained for him to do , and that work never included being a bishop to a gentile church
It was Peter who was first divinely inspired to liberate Gentiles from the OT laws at the Gentile household of Cornelius.