Was Peter the first pope.

Was the Church built on Peter or was he the first pope.

This subject is of extreme importance because it foundation that the Catholic Church uses to hold people captive. They use this argument to try and prove they are the only true church.

Mat 16:18 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” Is the rock Peter or the confession that Jesus was the Christ the rock to which Jesus was referring in this Mat. 16. The problem with the Catholic interpretation is that Jesus uses two different words here "you are Peter (the word used here is petros meaning small rock or pebble) and on this rock (the word used here is petra meaning large rock or bolder). Also the word used for Peter is in the masculine tense and the word petra is in the feminine tense. It is very unlikely that Jesus would use a noun in the feminine tense to refer to Peter. Because of these things it is much more likely that  Peter is the little rock and the confession that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God is the big rock that the church is built on.

The other thing that the Catholic Church uses is in Mat 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  The claim that this promise was made to Peter, The problem is that the same promise is made to all the disciples in Mat 18:18 "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Jesus also tells all the disciples in Mat 13:11  "And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven"

The rest of the New Testament says that the church was not built on Peter

Eph_2:20 says the church was “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,” not on Peter.

1 Corinthians 3:11 “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ”. Again it does not say the church is built on Peter.

Act 2:42 “And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” Notice they did not devote them selves to Peter’s teachings.

If Peter was pope he would have been the apostle to everyone. Galatians 2:8 says “For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.” Galatians was written around 50 AD. So the Bible tells us that Peter was not the pope at this time.

In acts 15 at the council of Jerusalem, Peter did not preside over the meeting. James presided over the meeting. If Peter had been pope then he would have provided over the meeting. Also if Peter had been pope the meeting would not have been needed. Catholics like to say the James presided over the meeting because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem and the pope could not usurp his authority. That is simple not true for several reasons. First in the Catholic Church the pope supersedes any bishop where ever he is. Second and most important is in the Catholic Church a local bishop can not make decisions for the entire church. This council meeting was for gentile church outside of Jerusalem. If there were a pope only he could make the decision that effects the entire church. Especially when you see the decision was made by James alone and not the entire council. 

In Peters own writings he refers to himself as an apostle and fellow elder. He never refers to himself as one who has a special position above others.

If Peter were pope Paul would not have rebuked him publicly. Galatians 2:11-15 " When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

Gal_2:9  “and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” If Peter was the first pope and the church was built on him then it would Paul would not have said that these 3 were reputed to be pillars. If Peter were the Pope why did address James first and why are James and John mentioned at all. If Peter was the pope it would be crystal clear he was the leader of the church and not just reputed to be a pillar. 

If Peter was the first pope why is he not mentioned as being pope in the first 3 hundred years of early church writings?  (There is not one mention of anyone being pope or universal leader of the church during this time.)