Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Actual First Pope

You know, every time that I hear about Peter being the first Pope, it burns me up to no end. And that was one great link, (bookmarked).
 
I wonder why they still hold to this, even when you prove it to them, they still will say Peter was the first pope.
 
Lewis W said:
I wonder why they still hold to this, even when you prove it to them, they still will say Peter was the first pope.
That is the basis of their authority. Without the link to Peter through the verse of scripture where Jesus comments on the Church being built on Peter's admission that Jesus is the Christ, they take it that Peter is the Rock that the Church will be built upon. Without this, they have no authority. They even deny that Peter was the apostle to the Jews, and Paul was the apostle to the gentiles.
 
Their whole doctrine and reason for being hinges on Peter from being the first pope to being the "rock"...little "r". Petros and petra have been covered before so, I'll not indulge in that again.

Deuteronomy 32:4 (KJV) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

This is the first time God is called a rock, in the Bible. It expresses his durable and unchanging perfection, and the safety of trusting in him and reposing on him our hopes for eternity.

Deuteronomy 32:15 (KJV) But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.

We're not talking about Peter here either....

Deuteronomy 32:18 (KJV) Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

1 Samuel 2:2 (KJV) There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

2 Samuel 22:2 (KJV) And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;

1Corinthians 10:4 (KJV) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

That staute of "Peter" that's in Rome, if you look good and know a bit of history on that figure, was in actuality, Jupiter before it was called St. Peter. Notice the two fingered salute...that ain't no peace sign, brother! That symbolism can be seen in much of Catholic art...even on Jesus portraits and many times on pictures of PiusXII. And, just as the figure and representation of Mary they so lovingly declare they don't worship, had another name also...Semiramis, Venus, Isis, and many other names down through the ages. A cover up for all things is evident. Taking something pagan and trying to cover it up with somethng Christian. And, they do decieve the masses (no pun intended). :)

stpetersta0nc.jpg
 
That staute of "Peter" that's in Rome, if you look good and know a bit of history on that figure, was in actuality, Jupiter before it was called St. Peter. Notice the two fingered salute...that ain't no peace sign, brother! That symbolism can be seen in much of Catholic art...even on Jesus portraits and many times on pictures of PiusXII. And, just as the figure and representation of Mary they so lovingly declare they don't worship, had another name also...Semiramis, Venus, Isis, and many other names down through the ages. A cover up for all things is evident. Taking something pagan and trying to cover it up with somethng Christian. And, they do decieve the masses (no pun intended).
Right on D46
 
I don't personally have an oppinion on Peter being a Pope or not but I don't have an issue with the idea that he was the leader of the Church to begin with and that Christ placed him in this position.
 
There is not a single scripture calling Peter a Pope.

The reason for that is that it is unsriptural.

The RCC has given "Mary" the title "Queen of the Apostles".

The mythological Peter is out shown by the false head of the church of Catholicism.

Mary rules. :-?
 
Lyric's Dad said:
I don't personally have an oppinion on Peter being a Pope or not but I don't have an issue with the idea that he was the leader of the Church to begin with and that Christ placed him in this position.
Lyric's Dad,
Do you believe that Peter was given the position as leader of the Church to both Jews and Gentiles?

In Galatians 2 it clearly shows that Peter was the Apostle to the circumcised (Jews), and Paul was the Apostle to the uncircumcised(Gentiles).

John was also a leader of the early Church having written five books of the scriptures that we have today.

Peter was not given a hierachal position in the Church to be handed down through the generations of the Church. The position of the head of the Church is Jesus Christ, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The pope is not the head of the true Church.
 
Does anyone actually construct their own arguments anymore or do they just cut and paste?

If you want to have a real discussion, then do the following-
Read a source
Read a counter-source
Construct your own argument, without directly copying what the sources said.
Make a topic.

It took you all of 5 seconds to find that site and I'm not going to spend 100x time that amount of time writing up something you are going to ignore anyways.

Peter was in Rome and he wrote from Rome in the bible, it even SAYS SO. Yesh.

None of you are interested in the truth or having an actual discussion. You just want to cut and paste from hateful websites and pretend you are doing the will of God.
 
bibleberean said:
There is not a single scripture calling Peter a Pope.

The reason for that is that it is unsriptural.

The RCC has given "Mary" the title "Queen of the Apostles".

The mythological Peter is out shown by the false head of the church of Catholicism.

Mary rules. :-?

Mary is not "Queen of the Apostles".

Peter is not the "Pope", his actual title is "Bishop of Rome".
Bishop was a title in the New Testament :)

"All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace [be] with you all. Amen. [[[It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia.]]]" - Titus 3:15 (KJV)

If Titus was the bishop of the Cretians, who was bishop of Rome?
We know that Paul wasn't a bishop and that Peter was the only other apostles in Rome :)
Remember, you can only use your bibles now!
 
stray bullet said:
Does anyone actually construct their own arguments anymore or do they just cut and paste?

If you want to have a real discussion, then do the following-
Read a source
Read a counter-source
Construct your own argument, without directly copying what the sources said.
Make a topic.

It took you all of 5 seconds to find that site and I'm not going to spend 100x time that amount of time writing up something you are going to ignore anyways.

Peter was in Rome and he wrote from Rome in the bible, it even SAYS SO. Yesh.

None of you are interested in the truth or having an actual discussion. You just want to cut and paste from hateful websites and pretend you are doing the will of God.
Peter was not in Rome, and he did not write in the Bible from Rome. He is buried in Jerusalem where he was the Apostle to the Jews. Paul was in Rome, Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles in Rome. Paul wrote portions of the scripture while in Rome. Paul never mentions that Peter was in Rome.
 
Solo said:
Peter was not in Rome, and he did not write in the Bible from Rome. He is buried in Jerusalem where he was the Apostle to the Jews. Paul was in Rome, Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles in Rome. Paul wrote portions of the scripture while in Rome. Paul never mentions that Peter was in Rome.

Wrong.

"The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son." 1 Peter 5:13

Remember, Babylon was often used as a codeword for Rome at the time. Babylon does not have seven hills, Rome does.

There is no place in Jerusalem that claims to be Peter's resting place. There is only one place in the world that claims that- Rome.
 
Peter wrote the first book from Babylon. Notice that the audience is the Jews who were scattered from Babylon and the order of nations mentioned in Peter's greeting is ordered from Babylon, not Rome.

First verses of 1 Peter:

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 1 Peter 1:1-2


Last verses of 1 Peter:

13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. 14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen. 1 Peter 5:13-14


There also is no convincing evidence that Rome was called Babylon in code before the Jewish war of 70AD.
 
Solo said:
Peter wrote the first book from Babylon. Notice that the audience is the Jews who were scattered from Babylon and the order of nations mentioned in Peter's greeting is ordered from Babylon, not Rome.

First verses of 1 Peter:

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 1 Peter 1:1-2


Last verses of 1 Peter:

13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. 14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen. 1 Peter 5:13-14


There also is no convincing evidence that Rome was called Babylon in code before the Jewish war of 70AD.

Babylon does not have seven hills, Rome does.

On the beginning of 1 Peter, he is sending greetings to people in his letter. You don't greet people in a city you are already in.
Your understanding of the region is shown by the fact Babylon is not part of ANY of those locations.
Babylon is part of Mesopotamia. The regions referred to are well beyond other nations.

Galatia_Map.png
 
Well I know that the Babylon of Revelation is Rome, and will eventually be destroyed as prophesied, but Peter was writing to those of the dispersion from the real Babylon, and it is that Babylon that I believe he wrote 1 Peter from.

The verses of scripture in Revelation paint a pretty grim end of Rome:

1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Revelation 17:1-5



And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Revelation 18:2



Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
Revelation 18:10
 
Solo said:
Well I know that the Babylon of Revelation is Rome, and will eventually be destroyed as prophesied, but Peter was writing to those of the dispersion from the real Babylon, and it is that Babylon that I believe he wrote 1 Peter from.

Babylon was a codeword because of the sensitivity of the letters. If this wasn't the case, Revelation wouldn't have bothered to use it.

The verses of scripture in Revelation paint a pretty grim end of Rome:

1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Revelation 17:1-5



And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Revelation 18:2



Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
Revelation 18:10

Yup- at the time, Rome was the capital of the pagan, sinful empire. It represented the ills of humanity.
The pagan, sinful world will come to an end. How much more Rome represented, we'll have to see.

What we do know is that Rome feel to its knees and died- from the ashes rose Christianity all over the empire in the lands the empire repressed.
 
stray bullet said:
Solo said:
Well I know that the Babylon of Revelation is Rome, and will eventually be destroyed as prophesied, but Peter was writing to those of the dispersion from the real Babylon, and it is that Babylon that I believe he wrote 1 Peter from.

Babylon was a codeword because of the sensitivity of the letters. If this wasn't the case, Revelation wouldn't have bothered to use it.

The verses of scripture in Revelation paint a pretty grim end of Rome:

1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Revelation 17:1-5



And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Revelation 18:2



Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
Revelation 18:10

Yup- at the time, Rome was the capital of the pagan, sinful empire. It represented the ills of humanity.
The pagan, sinful world will come to an end. How much more Rome represented, we'll have to see.

What we do know is that Rome feel to its knees and died- from the ashes rose Christianity all over the empire in the lands the empire repressed.
Babylon was also a real city where the Israelites were dispersed throughout asia from, and that is to whom Peter was writing. God had Paul in Rome and throughout the Mesopotamia region, and Peter was in Jerusalem where he was ministering to the Jews to whom he was called. The Church was persecuted in Rome during Peter's lifetime, and it would have been very dangerous for him to be in Rome. Paul was a Roman citizen and had some priviledges that Peter did not have. Not one time did Paul write of Peter being in Rome, nor did Peter write saying that he visited Paul. I expect that that information would go against the RCC tradition and purpose for hanging on to Peter inspite of the truths revealed in scripture, but if you want to believe that Peter was in Rome and the first bishop of the RCC, knock yourself out. Many of the joint heirs of Jesus Christ that will reign with Him judging even the angels, know better.

I might add that those that are a part of the RCC religious system might want to beware of the impending wrath of God being poured out on the Mother of Harlots.
 
Back
Top