Do You Catholics read the Bible to see if it substantiates your churches claim that Peter was the first Pope? Or do you just trust that they are telling you the truth. For those of you who have not bothered investigating on your own I offer a brief study for you.
1. Peters commission was to the Jews NOT the 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). Peter was the Aposle to the circumsized, Paul was the Apostle to the uncircumsized. It was Paul that wrote the Epistle to the Romans, not Peter.
"And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9)
And again here Paul mentions that it is he that is Apostle to the Gentiles.. II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." Nowhere in the NT is Peter mentioned as Apostle to the Gentiles.
2. Paul even directly tells the Roman Gentiles he was their Apostle.
"I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16).
3. Paul specifically mentions that he NOT Peter would establish the Church at Rome.
"I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11).
Amazingly enough the Cathlolics will try and tell you that the church had been established ten years prior to this epistle! Pure nonsense in my opinion. It should be coming pretty obvious that Peter had nothing to do with any church at Rome let alone a Catholic church.
4. Paul clearly states he would never build upon another mans foundation, yet we see from the above verses he did want to establish a chuch at Rome.
"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). Does anyone really think Paul would mention this if Peter had actually established the church at Rome ten years prior??
5. When Paul finishes his letter to the Romans he greets 28 different people. Funny how he does NOT mention Peter. Seeing how Paul wrote the epistle about AD 55 it certainly seems odd. Unless of course Peter was not there.
6. When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that "˜"˜as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Now how can these Jews know so little if Peter (a very partisian Jew) had been there preaching for fourteen long years?? Because Peter was not in Rome is the only logical answer.
7. Paul lived in his own hired house in Rome for two years. He wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn"™t there
8. Four years later (about 65 A.D.), Paul was sent back a prisoner to Rome. He had appeared before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes this situation in II Timothy. Regarding his trial, note what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul"™s trial takes quite a stretch of the imagination.
9. Paul again tells us Peter was not there in AD 65. "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). So Paul wrote to Rome, and even wrote six epistles from Rome all the while not once mentioning Peter. Pretty amazing since the Catholic church would have you believe Peter was there all the while founding and leading the church there!!
10 Peters death foretold by Jesus. (John 21:18-19.) "œ. When you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."
11. Where than was Peter, if not in Rome?
45 AD Peter was cast into prison at Jerusalem. (Acts12:3,4).
49 AD Still in Jersualem at the Jerusalem council.
51 AD Peter is in Antioch Syria in a dispute with Paul. Why? Because Peter would not sit or eat with Gentiles.
65 AD Peter is in Babylon amongst the Jews. (1Peter 5:13) (Remember Peter was Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED).
What will you believe, What the Word of God tells you or what mortal man tells you. Further proof that Peter was not the first Pope is found in Gal. 1:6. Peter would hold fast to the Gospel that was preached. He would not change the gospel as catholics have done.
"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"
Don't be decieved into believing anyone or anything can alter the word of God. Ask your self this.. Why would God give us and preserve for us his Holy word in the Bible, only later to have it altered and subverted? Of course he would not do that as we can see by the scripture.
Pope Peter??
May The Sheep Be With You
but high marks for accuracy. I highly recommend it to you. You won't really learn anything by reading Catholic bashing pamphlets or searching for stuff in the catechism with which you disagree. I can pretty much assume, at this point,that you disagree with most Catholic teachings so you don't really need to tell me. 
. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
