Prove that Peter was the first Pope.

[Lewis]

Will somebody please give prove in this thread that Peter was the first Pope.
I am tired of all this talk, prove it, and I'll shut up.

 

[ttg]

If you're looking for the words Pope Peter in the Bible we can end this thread now. And do we really need to get into the pebble vs. rock again, when Jesus would have spoken to Peter in Aramaic, putting the "pebble" falacy to rest?

But if you want to see evidence that Peter was Jesus' representative on Earth, we can go with that.

From Scripture:

Matthew 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matthew 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matthew 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matthew 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matthew 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

From the Early Church Fathers:

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

"The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To the bishops of Thessaly (c. A.D. 420).

 

[golfjack]

reply

There is no such think as Peter or any other man being a Vicar of Christ.

Does anyone have an Idea of who the last Pope will be, and what his name will be? Or do you think that Pope Benedict is the last Pope?



May God bless, golfjack

 

[Lewis]

This is from my very first website that I owned, I Lewis, it was called Revelation 21. I had it for 3 years. Sorry for the length vic, but I have to get my point across. And my friend no longer has his website, from where I got this stuff below from.

Before you read this information, I must tell you that I do not usually post information on my site that I didn't compile or write myself. However, I came across some extremely important information compiled by a friend of the ministry that is simply mind boggling to say the least.

I implore you to read the two studies below. You will be genuinely shocked at what the author unveils! The first study gives ample Biblical as well as historic proof that the Apostle Peter could not possibly have been the first pope. I do allude to this reality in many areas on my site already using similar facts. However, I do appreciate the way this study puts all that data in one place.

The next study on the page is a REAL SHOCKER! You have got to read it! When you find out WHO the real first Pope was, and how his name was actually used to fabricate a boldface lie so as to make it appear to be the name of SIMON PETER the Apostle, you will be genuinely amazed!

Simon Peter and Apostolic Succession

One of the pillars that the Rome Catholic Church states that they are the first and true church of Christ that had there beginning from the apostle Peter. They claim that the line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. In its concrete form, apostolic succession is the line of bishops that goes from Rome stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops claim to have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles; specifically the apostle Simon Peter who is stated to be the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in The Bible.

Today, as we look at The Bible and the Roman Catholic Church we can see that there are many differences concerning doctrine. These differences are not a simple misunderstanding but at times appear to be the complete opposite of The Bible. When one studies out the major differences between the Church of Rome and The Bible it is not difficult to see that they have not preserved the doctrine of Christ or The Bible. If anyone were to study such subjects as infant baptism, the mass, Immaculate Conception of Mary, eternal torment in hell, engraven images, or the Sunday Sabbath they would not be able to support these ideas from The Bible. In fact, as stated earlier, these doctrines are completely opposite of The Bible. These ideas and practices have their roots in Paganism and Babylonian religions.

Where did the departure of simple Bible truth enter the church? Like any seeker of truth, let’s go back to the beginning to see where these false doctrines came into the church. With the claim of apostolic succession, we’ll go back to the apostle Peter himself and see how the departing of the truth came to be. When we look in The Bible there is no recorded of the apostle ever being in Rome much less being the head of the church. There are countless supposed historical accounts that Peter was in Rome but they all come from Catholic sources and are not first hand accounts. The earliest accounts are of Catholic fathers but even they do not agree with The Bible. So let’s look to The Bible and see why the apostle Peter was never in Rome and couldn’t be the founder of the Roman Catholic Church.

Below are eleven major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. These biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice what God tells us! The truth IS conclusive!

PROOF ONE: We should consider Christ’s commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised 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).

Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN’T 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). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."

PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.

PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "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). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."

PAUL Established the Only TRUE Church at Rome during the apostolic era.

PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter –who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.

PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation. "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). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church. Peter Not in Rome

PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn’t there!

PROOF SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter’s meeting with Paul.

Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!

PROOF SEVEN: 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). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn’t.

Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. No Mention of Peter in Paul’s Letters

PROOF EIGHT: After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time 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!

PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Paul’s two year’s imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice 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! Peter once denied Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul’s trial, is untenable!

PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!

PROOF ELEVEN: Peter’s death is foretold by Christ himself (John 21:18-19.) “. 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.†Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Hmm, it sounds like Christ himself said that Peter would die of old age. Why would Peter’s death in old age glorify God? Peter was the one that ran from Christ the night of his trial and crucifixion. This exchange is after Christ rose from the tomb and Peter was forgiven three times, just as he denied his master three times before the cock crowed that fateful night of Christ’s trial.

Where was Peter the apostle of Christ? At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows that he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By paying attention to God’s own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!

Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect.

At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. As previously mentioned there are many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome but none of them are first hand accounts and should not be put above the many accounts of The Bible.

We know from The Bible that the apostle Peter was not in Rome. There was a Simon Peter in Rome after the death of Christ but it is not the apostle Peter that was a fisherman from Jerusalem. Who is this Simon Peter that was in Rome during the middle of the first century? This is how the great false Church of Rome got its start; along with the first leader Simon Peter not the apostle Peter.

 

[Vic C.]

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

ttg, are you sure you want to use this as proof text for your argument? RCs go to great lenghts for disprove Rome as being the Whore in Revelation. Even I don't believe they are. Are you saying you do?

 

[Lewis]

If you're looking for the words Pope Peter in the Bible we can end this thread now. And do we really need to get into the pebble vs. rock again, when Jesus would have spoken to Peter in Aramaic, putting the "pebble" falacy to rest?

But if you want to see evidence that Peter was Jesus' representative on Earth, we can go with that.

From Scripture:

Matthew 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matthew 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matthew 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matthew 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matthew 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

From the Early Church Fathers:

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

"The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To the bishops of Thessaly (c. A.D. 420).

HUH!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Imagican]

Amazing, isn't it?

There is NO proof that the APOSTLE Peter had ANYTHING to do with the FORMATION of the RCC. THEY 'claim' that he did, but the 'truth' is, there is NO proof WHATSOEVER that their 'truth' is THE TRUTH.

MEC

 

[Poke]

Matthew 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

The NT is full of people who received divine knowledge.

Matthew 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

The NT says Jesus is the cornerstone. It also says the foundation is the apostles and the prophets. Matthew 16:18 calls Peter Petra, not any other word. If Jesus used an Aramaic word that is not correctly reflected, it is the Bible's author you accuse of corruption.

Matthew 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

All the saints hold the keys to Heaven. What we do in Christ's name.

Matthew 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

So, if the Tax collector had asked Judas about the tax money, Judas would be the Vicar of Christ? Judas was the one in charge of the money. He probably wasn't there when the tax collector came, else Judas Vicar of Christ would just have reached in the purse and paid the Apostles' taxes.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

Peter exhorts them as his equal "fellow elders."

I could go through the NT and quote the mentions of other Apostles (excluding a few mentions, like the doubting Thomas or the betrayal by Judas) and use those to build a similar argument that those people should be considered the first Pope (Pope, meaning Father, such as Paul, not Peter, presented himself to be to other Christians). But, none of this is compelling because all you are doing and I would be doing is trying to make verses say things they don't say (which is one of the big problems in Christianity).

 

[stray bullet]

Amazing, isn't it?

There is NO proof that the APOSTLE Peter had ANYTHING to do with the FORMATION of the RCC. THEY 'claim' that he did, but the 'truth' is, there is NO proof WHATSOEVER that their 'truth' is THE TRUTH.

MEC

Besides the fact that Peter was buried at the hill that the Vatican rests on.
Besides the fact the only historical account for the death of Peter, which Jesus fortold in John 21, was in Rome.
Besides the fact all of Christianity acknowledged and acknowledges this fact except for a handful of extremists.
Besides the fact that there are non-canonical, non-catholic writings that put Peter in Rome.
Besides the fact that Peter is the first Pope according to many ancient and independent lists about the succession of Popes.



There is no 'proof' that the Gospel is real, other than what has been passed down from generation to generation.

 

[stray bullet]

Will somebody please give prove in this thread that Peter was the first Pope.
I am tired of all this talk, prove it, and I'll shut up.

The truth is, while there is proof of Christ and his ministry, of Peter and the apostles, of the Gospel and the Resurrection- there is no absolute proof.

We believe in these things and take faith in them. We believe what we were told by the apostles, by the bible, by the Church for centuries now.

All of Christianity recognized that Peter was the first Pope- just as they recognized that Mark was patriarch (pope) of Alexandria, and Andrew of Constantinople and James of Jerusalem. These are the same people who preserved the bible and passed on the Gospel.

Was there is a massive conspiracy in Christianity? Did one day, all the Churches in all the world decide to adopt a lie about the origins of the five Sees the apostles founded?

For Peter to not have been first pope, would be a major strike against the credibility of Christianity. It would require a conspiracy on a massive, worldwide scale. It would mean the very men who were copying the Gospel from age to age, also spread lies.

 

[Lewis]

Stray didn't you read this ? Because it says it all.

PROOF ONE: We should consider Christ’s commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised 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).

Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN’T 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). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."

PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.

PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "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). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."

PAUL Established the Only TRUE Church at Rome during the apostolic era.

PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter –who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.

PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation. "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). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church. Peter Not in Rome

PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn’t there!

PROOF SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter’s meeting with Paul.

Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!

PROOF SEVEN: 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). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn’t.

Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. No Mention of Peter in Paul’s Letters

PROOF EIGHT: After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time 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!

PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Paul’s two year’s imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice 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! Peter once denied Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul’s trial, is untenable!

PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!

PROOF ELEVEN: Peter’s death is foretold by Christ himself (John 21:18-19.) “. 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.†Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Hmm, it sounds like Christ himself said that Peter would die of old age. Why would Peter’s death in old age glorify God? Peter was the one that ran from Christ the night of his trial and crucifixion. This exchange is after Christ rose from the tomb and Peter was forgiven three times, just as he denied his master three times before the cock crowed that fateful night of Christ’s trial.

Where was Peter the apostle of Christ? At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows that he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By paying attention to God’s own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!

Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect.

At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. As previously mentioned there are many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome but none of them are first hand accounts and should not be put above the many accounts of The Bible.

We know from The Bible that the apostle Peter was not in Rome. There was a Simon Peter in Rome after the death of Christ but it is not the apostle Peter that was a fisherman from Jerusalem. Who is this Simon Peter that was in Rome during the middle of the first century? This is how the great false Church of Rome got its start; along with the first leader Simon Peter not the apostle Peter.

 

[francisdesales]

PROOF ONE: We should consider Christ’s commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles.

How is this "embarrassing"? Don't you realize that the "circumcised", were located throughout the Roman Empire? The Diaspora numbered more people than in Palestine. Thus, Peter went throughout the world to evangelize. The idea that "Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles" does NOT preclude the FACT that other apostles, to include Peter, preached the Gospel to pagans throughout the world. This idea is upheld by Church historians writing of the other Apostles who spread the word from England to India.

PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "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). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."

PAUL Established the Only TRUE Church at Rome during the apostolic era.

Utterly ridiculous. The VERY FACT that Paul was writing to a Christian community that was ALREADY ESTABLISHED is proof enough that Paul had nothing to do with its establishment. Paul himself did not lay down the foundation of the Church in Rome. You twist Rom 15:16 to say "HE had been chosen to be their Apostle", when the text nowhere says that. The problem you seem to be having is the fallacy that Paul was the ONLY apostle to preach to the Gentiles!!! PETER preached to the Gentiles FIRST in Cornelius.

PROOF THREEe are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter –who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D.

Paul is writing to an established community that he had nothing to do with. Not only that, but apparently, Paul's teachings were not necessary to the Romans, since the Romans were ALREADY RENOWNED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD for their holding to the faith! The term "established" means to complete them spritually with more training. He is saying nothing about "officially" making them Roman Catholic!

PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation.

That was his policy, but that is not what happened in reality. Paul did not have problems preaching to people who had received the Good News. Paul didn't establish a Church in Antioch, but he preached there for a long time after his conversion. Paul preached in Jerusalem - did he establish that Church, as well? His policy does not indicate what he really did.

PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once!

Proves nothing. The current Pope is often times found outside of the city of Rome - yet, he remains the Bishop of Rome.

PROOF SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them.

You are confusing Acts with CNN Television. Acts doesn't mention a lot of people - does this prove they weren't in Rome? No mention of Peter means nothing in the scheme of things. Perhaps he wasn't a prisoner yet. Perhaps he was evangelizing in Spain. But silence proves nothing on this. Does the author of Hebrews greet the bishop of Jerusalem???

PROOF SEVEN:if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. No Mention of Peter in Paul’s Letters

Who said Peter was in Rome for 14 years? History says he traveled all over the Roman Empire. Secondly, the Jews and Christians were expelled from Rome during the reign of Claudius. After Claudius' death, the Christians began to return. It was in the four year time period when Christians began to return that Paul wrote his letter. Again, silence proves nothing. This disproves "Proof Eight, as well. Most Church historians agree that Peter did not return to Rome until two years after Paul was arrested.

PROOF NINE: about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice 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! Peter once denied Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul’s trial, is untenable!

You are presuming that Paul wrote this from Rome. You place it in brackets as if it were fact, but you have absolutely no evidence that Paul was in Rome when he was writing 2 Timothy, IF he even wrote it! Many scholars disagree that HE wrote it. Thus, this "proof" is worthless, because we don't even know who wrote 2 Timothy for certain. Even IF Paul wrote it, you are relying on an argument from silence - or quite simply, Peter wasn't there at the time. This doesn't prove that Peter was NEVER in Rome...

Proof Ten is destroyed in the same manner.

PROOF ELEVEN: Peter’s death is foretold by Christ himself (John 21:18-19.) “. 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.†Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God.

this is the only thing you said so far that I agree with. Peter was indeed martyred. What is interesting is that NO OTHER CITY claims Peter's death occured there - EXCEPT at Rome. It is up to you to prove that the Romans were lying and to produce and alternate place of death.

We know from The Bible that the apostle Peter was not in Rome.

We know no such thing. You logic is based on largely guessing and an argument from silence. The fact of the matter remains that basic historical study REQUIRES that we believe the testimony of history UNLESS we prove that the authors were wrong or can not be believed because of other false testimony that they give on other subjects. That is basic historical research 101, an axiom going back to even Aristotle's day...

That St. Peter was Bishop of Rome is testified by:

Eusebius, Chronicon, 74
St. Irenaeus, Book III, chapter 3.
Dorotheus, In Synopsis.
St. Augustine, Epistola 53 and Contra Epistolam Fundamenti, ch. 4, title 8; in chapter 5 he writes: "I am kept in the church by the succession of Bishops from St. Peter, to whom the Lord committed the care of His sheep down to the present Bishop."


That St. Peter died in Rome is testifed by:

St. Augustine, de Consense Evangelistarum, Book 1.
Eusebius, Chronicon 71, a Christo nato.
Paul Orosius, History, Book VIII.
St. Maximus, Sermon v on the Birthday of the Apostles.
Origen, Book III on Genesis, as stated by eusebius, HIstory, Book III, ch. 2.
St. Jerome, Book of Illustrious Men.
Calvin: "I cannot withstand the consent of those writers who prove that Peter died at Rome." Institutes, Book IV.


Are you willing to say the above men are liars? Where is the testimony that challenges them? If Peter was never in Rome, then why has no Apostolic See challenged it? Why does universal historical evidence show that he WAS in Rome? Why has no other Apostolic See claimed superiority to Rome? Why did no ancient author discount the claim made by everyone else?

Quite simply, Peter was in Rome and there is no evidence to the contrary, just your wishful thinking.

Regards

 

[golfjack]

reply

One can argue about Popes, Mary Doctrine, Purgatory, Communion, saints, prayer, the Mass, Indulgences, Rosary, Confessing sins to a priest, and many more Catholic Doctrines. But, the most important doctrine is one's salvation (the Bible way to be saved). Many Catholic's that I have ministered hardly have clue how to be saved. They say I have been water Baptized, go to mass, been confirmed, receive sacraments, and do penance. Does these things save one? There is only one way because the Bible says that Jesus is the way, truth, and life. No comes to the Father but through me. All one has to do is say what Romans 10:9-10 says. Then one can be assured of their Eternal resting place. How many Catholics believe what I just posted. Don't ever be fooled that you are in the right Church. It's too important. I would check my Bible out to see how I can have Eternal Security.



May God bless, golfjack

 

[stray bullet]

Stray didn't you read this ? Because it says it all.

It's nothing but errors and an appeal to ignorance.

Random citation:

PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation. "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). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church. Peter Not in Rome

Paul wouldn't have founded a Church on top of Peter. Firstly, no one claims that Peter founded the Church of Rome. In fact, I'm pretty sure he did not. Rather, he founded the See of Rome, long after the community was established. That is why Paul wrote to the Romans, after all.

I believe Peter and Paul were generally regarded as going to Rome, together, and having met up with the Church already there. There, Peter established the final and ultimate See, the See of Rome. Both Peter and Paul were martyred (Peter was martyred just as Christ told him he would be in John 21) and Linus become Peter's successor.

Peter's body was buried on the Vatican hill and his successors later moved there. Thus, why the Roman See is called the "Vatican".

 

[Lewis]

Peter's body was buried on the Vatican hill and his successors later moved there. Thus, why the Roman See is called the "Vatican".

That is another RCC lie, that is not Peter in that tomb, unless his body was stolen from Jerusalem.

 

[John the Baptist]

Check out this material on the left side of the page that comes up, & on The Catholic church by scripture (Mother of Harlots) part 1. I find it hard to misunderstand myself. Trace it down from Daniel 2, Daniel 7, too Revelation 13 even????

http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/ ... ellion.htm

And Rome loves her daughters, huh? :wink: The reason being, is that she needs the USA court system to have Caesars power from the then 'past' Lamb like USA, which turns into a dragon, (Revelation 13:11) to force her sabbath sun 666 mark.. That is about all that they agree on, anyway. FORCE!! It is for sure, that they do not have the power of Christ seen.

Already she has the USA Supreme court in good shape, huh? And if you don't think that the 'daughters' will break the courts religious freedom constitution with 2/3 majority? just wait for some more of satans hell to break loose, you have not seen anything yet!
---John

 

[francisdesales]

That is another RCC lie, that is not Peter in that tomb, unless his body was stolen from Jerusalem.

Another lie? What evidence do YOU have to make such a statement?
Seems like your whole argument is based on wishful thinking with absolutely no historical evidence.


Regards

 

[John the Baptist]

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

ttg, are you sure you want to use this as proof text for your argument? RCs go to great lenghts for disprove Rome as being the Whore in Revelation. Even I don't believe they are. Are you saying you do?

********
Well young'in, its good to know where you are at in you growth! :wink:

One thing is certain, we will not have long to wait to see who it is that understands the Word of Revelation 3:10, huh?

---John

 

[Lewis]

That is another RCC lie, that is not Peter in that tomb, unless his body was stolen from Jerusalem.

Another lie? What evidence do YOU have to make such a statement?
Seems like your whole argument is based on wishful thinking with absolutely no historical evidence.


Regards

Them scriptures that was in them post of mine sheds a lot of light on the issue.

 

[stray bullet]

Peter's body was buried on the Vatican hill and his successors later moved there. Thus, why the Roman See is called the "Vatican".

That is another RCC lie, that is not Peter in that tomb, unless his body was stolen from Jerusalem.

'

What is your proof that Peter died in Jerusalem?

It's good to know the very people preserving the bible and Gospel all these centuries were a bunch of liars.