counterfeit christianity, page-35

When and how, then, did the concept of a papacy come about? The idea that it was acceptable for one man to seek prominence over his fellow believers began to take root while the apostles were still alive. How did the apostles view such thinking?
The apostle Peter himself told the men who were taking the lead in the congregation not to be “lording it over those who are God’s inheritance”; they were to gird themselves with lowliness of mind toward one another. (1 Peter 5:1-5) The apostle Paul warned that from within the congregation, men would rise who would “speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:30) Toward the end of the first century C.E., the apostle John wrote a letter in which he strongly denounced a disciple by the name of Diotrephes. Why the reprimand? One reason was that this man ‘liked to have the first place’ in the congregation. (3 John 9) Such counsel from the apostles acted as a restraint, thwarting for a time the ambitions of those who were seeking prominence.—2 Thessalonians 2:3-8.
Shortly after the last of the apostles died, individuals began to gain more prominence. The Cambridge History of Christianity says: “Probably there was no single ‘monarchical’ bishop in Rome before the middle of the second century.” By the third century, the bishop of Rome established himself as the highest authority, at least for parts of the church. To add weight to the claim that the bishop of Rome has superior authority, some have compiled a list of Peter’s successors.
However, this list provides little support for the claim. Why? First, some names on the list cannot be verified. More important, the foundation of the list is flawed. How so? Even if Peter did preach in Rome, as some secular literature from the first and second centuries implies, there is no proof that he was head of the congregation there.
One evidence that Peter was not head of the congregation in Rome is that when the apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he included an extensive list of Christians there. Yet, he did not mention Peter at all. (Romans 16:1-23) If Peter were head of the congregation, could we imagine that Paul overlooked Peter or snubbed him?
Note, too, that about the time that Peter wrote his first inspired letter, Paul wrote a second letter to Timothy. In that letter, Paul did not hesitate to mention Rome. Actually, Paul wrote six letters from Rome, all without any mention of Peter.
Some 30 years after Paul wrote his letters, the apostle John wrote three letters and the book of Revelation. Nowhere in these writings did John mention that the congregation in Rome was the most prominent one, nor did he refer to a leader of the church who held the supreme office of an alleged successor of Peter. Neither the Bible nor the evidence from history supports the claim that Peter established himself as the first bishop of the congregation in Rome.