Where in the Bible does it say that Peter was the first Pope?

Nowhere.

It was 530 AD when we have record of the first bishop of Rome calling himself the pope.

Prior to that there was no pope, only 7 or 5 bishops who seemed to be equal in power.

In fact at the council of Nicea Constantine presided and called the council because there was no Pope.

It was early in the 4th century when the bishop of Rome started hinting that they were more powerful than the other bishops, and it was a hundred years later that the title pope was taken upon themselves and retroactively placed on previous bishops who lived and died having no idea that they were ever the pope.

Matthew 16: 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

It is debated as to whether or not this verse implies that Peter was made the leader of Jesus's church, however those who debate it will seldom tell you of this verse that follows shortly after.

19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

This implies to me that Jesus in-trusted a great deal of power to Peter. Also some would say that the power that was given to Peter, was meant only for Peter, and as such it died with Peter. But even this doesn't make sense do to a great deal of verses that teach about the holy spirit being passed on from one person by touch, so to speak. And the verses below support this belief.

[Acts 1:20-26; 6:6-7; 13:1-3; 8:18-19; 9:17-19]; [1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22]; [2 Tim. 1:6-7].

To Sunny, just because Peter was married dosent mean he couldnt be the Pope, as celabacy wasn't adopted till about 385 a.d. The first Popes, Peter included, for the churchs first 270 years were actually married men, and some fathers.

They generally called themselves apostles. In the epistle of Peter, probably written by the apostle Peter, Peter calls himself apostle.

John the Evangelist (probably the apostle) may have been called father by his circuit of churches since he calls his disciples, especially the new ones "dear children". He also calls people advanced in the faith "fathers". So John was as much a 'Pope', or father to immature believers, as Peter

Catholics believe that the Jesus' response when Peter said He was the Messiah is a prophecy about Peter establishing the church - "on this rock I will build my church". The word for rock matches the name Peter - a pun and possibly an absolute match in Aramaic. I think he was just referring to Peter's important role; on the day of Pentecost Peter was the key human leader. He also remained an important leader - Paul mentions his teachings' influence in Corinth, and talks of his involvement with the Antioch church. He is believed by tradition (Eusebius and others, I think) to have been a leader of the Roman church.

Gospel of Matthew. However, no "proof" is sufficient if the person doesn't want to believe. In Matthew 16:18 our Lord promised to build His Church on Peter, the Rock (see the first question in this section). In John 21:15-17 Jesus, the Good Shepherd, turns His flock over to Peter with the admonition to "Feed my lambs . . . Take care of my sheep . . . Feed my sheep" (NIV). In Acts 15:7-14, at the council in Jerusalem, it is Peter who provides the solution and ends the discussion on the problem of how to admit Gentiles into the Church. Throughout the Bible whenever the Apostles are listed, Peter is always listed first; an indication of his primacy.

there is plenty of evidence from scripture and the early writings of the church fathers that show us that peter was the first pope, although he was not titled pope at the time, pope comes from the latin word for father. the pope is simply head bishop of the universal church,

the bible is a catholic book and the books included in the bible were decided by the catholic bishops, therefore if you think the bible is the inerrant word of god then the bishops had to be infallible on the canon of scripture. you then must accept that the catholic church is infallible on matters of faith and morals or else you negate the ability they had in deciding the canon of scripture.

read matthew 16 with isaiah 22 for the office of pope, the links will show further.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/index2.htm

to all protestants here is a challenge

http://www.fisheaters.com/challenge.html

http://www.fisheaters.com/responses.html

the bible no where states rapture,sola scriptura,once saved always saved,sola fide yet many claim it is biblical despite the terms or even theories being in the scriptures. no offence inteneded but many are trying to negate the truth, there is evidence of peter being in rome, try the bones they found of his body in rome, i would think that is assurance enough.

Peter never said to be called "papa"Peter never said he was in rome to preach to the gentiles and Peter was 800 miles away from Rome! Peter will never want that title or teach others to have a title Jesus never told him to have. Jesus said to wash anothers mans feet, not put himself on a throne as a all knowing infallible "papa" Peter was never a pope or the first pope1

That will not be found in the bible, neither will the concept of pope. Jesus strictly forbid anyone 'lording' over His church. Peter was given the privilege of preaching the first gospel messages to the Jews and then the Gentiles, which is the meaning of the keys to the kingdom. He opened the doors of the kingdom of heaven first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. Peter never had primacy and would not have wanted it.

The term Pope came later, but Jesus gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom," which is symbolic of the spiritual authority that he was to have. Christ also said, "Upon this rock (petros is a play on words for the name Peter), I will build my Church."

In the original language, the word 'this' is "tautē," which means "the same." (Strong's Concordance, #5026.) It would have been obvious to anyone listening to the conversation that Christ was referring to Peter as being the same "rock" upon which He was to build His church.

Jesus clearly gave the job of head of the Church to Peter, and that authority was passed down through his successors even until today. The Protestant Church can't make that same claim, since we know that it began with Luther's heresies and rebellion.

Oh, and incidentally, "Sola Scriptura" is an unscriptural doctrine in itself. Judging from what they say, a fair number of Protestants worship the book, not the Author.

Absolutely nowhere.

At some point Christ tells him he has the keys to the kingdom, and when peter died (outside the temporal scope of the gospels) someone came out and claimed he was Peter's spiritual heir to those keys. I don't know this person's motivation, but I'm inclined to believe his statement false, and know for a fact that that event is when the papacy was born (though it was not called such for another nearly 500 years, see the first answer).

It does not say that he was the Pope at all. Peter was not a pope. Peter was married and both he and his wife were crucified, Peter was made to watch his wife die or renounce his belief in Christ. Peter was crucified upside down. The Catholic Church did not exist in Peters day.