Peter was indeed the first Bishop of Rome and head of the Church. As proof let’s first consider all of the words used to set the scene for the dialog in Matthew 16.
Let’s first consider all of the words used to set the scene for the dialog in Matthew 16. Following the feeding of the 5,000 near Capernaum and the dialog in the Synagogue in which Jesus declared His body the Eucharist and real food Jesus took Peter and along with the other Apostles and Disciples up to Caesarea Philippi to reveal his papacy to him. The selection of the location is far from a coincidence and not casually identified in the Gospel. Caesarea Philippi is a 25 mile, two day hike from Capernaum through some pretty rough country. Jesus took them there for a reason.
Caesarea Philippi is located near the Golan Heights. The city, previously known as Panis, was built above a huge rock wall that was known in ancient times as the “Rock of the Gods”. It was a very important location militarily, and had been a place of temples and worship dating back thousands of years before the first century.
At the base of the cliff is a massive grotto that at the time was a natural cistern that the Greeks and their predecessors believed was a gate to the underworld. The waters from the springs in the area are literally the headwaters of the Jordan River. Ancient practice was to perform blood rituals in the cistern and predict the mood of the Gods and the future by observing blood in the nearby springs. Physically, and to the observers that rock wall stood between a city of temples and the gates of hell.
It was before this wall, with the temple to Pan, the Greek God of chaos and confusion, that the conversation took place. In the presence of the massive rock that was a foundation to a holy city Jesus told Peter that he was a smaller rock, and that upon it, like the larger rock upon which was built the city before them, He would build His Church and that it would stand forever against the gates of hell. A side note is that all of this arguing about the relevance of Petros versus Petra is foolish in the context of that location. Jesus often used wordplay and humor to convey His message.
Jesus began the dialog by asking His Apostles and Disciples who the people said He was. He was demonstrating His rejection of a democratic, self-interpreting Church. The response to the question was varied. Some said John the Baptist, some said Elijah, some said one of the prophets. All were wrong.
Jesus then asked the Apostles collectively who they thought He was and there was silence and He then rejected an oligarchical or elite governance. Then, without consulting the other Apostles, Peter stepped forward and declared that Jesus was indeed the Son of the Living God, which was the correct answer. Jesus acknowledged this and declared that Peter could only have learned this from God, designating that like the He had throughout the history of His people God had chosen one person to be the spiritual leader to carry on after Jesus. And there, before the rock that stood between the ancient temple city of Caesarea Philippi and the cave grotto that was known to the people on the region as the gates or jaws of hell declared, it was upon Peter that he would found his Church, His Ekklesia, His Qahal.
Peace be with you.
[ “1) Peter was the first Pope!...” ]
That was a question not a statement..
That Peter was a Pope is extremely specious.. except in RCC church history..
Which is the point...
The whole specious tale of Peters role in church history is conflated in RCC church history..
The whole concept of clergy was suspicious to all the apostles.. being Jews..
Clergy murdered Jesus... and are still trying to murder his memory..
The RCC can conflate church history all they want but that does not make it true.. or even accurate..
Not that it all is not true, just conflated.. but some is not true..
The reason I selected Peter as one of the RCC bases is much of their “dogma” is based in it..
WRONGLY but honestly probably..
So it was with Jesus speech at the end of the Passover feast to Jews by a Jew at a Jewish feast about Jewish things.. Which the RCC conflates into extreme fiction.. i.e. missa(wafer)
I mention this for discussion not for argument..
Its true many lurkers may only know of the RCC Tale of this saga even a few protestants accept but there are other views of it.. Which I attempt to “bring out” or encourage some to research..
Expecting Jews most whom didn’t have a bible or could even read(mostly) would not, even could not, think as the RCC conflated fiction purports..
I mention this for research purposes.. your last diatribe(post) was weak..
Sorry but it seems that way to me..