WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE?
The question has been asked, Was Peter the first pope? The Roman Catholic church claims that Peter was the first Pope based upon their list of Apostolic succession from Saint Peter one of the twelve original Apostles of Jesus to this present day.
And then based upon this unbroken line of Apostolic succession the Catholic church also makes the claim that Roman Catholic church is the ONLY one true church apart from which there can be no salvation.
Now some Catholics may argue and that this is simply not true, and go on to say that the Catholic church does not teach that they are the ONLY church by which people can be saved.
Now I do not disagree that you and other, as being INDIVIDUAL Catholics within the Catholic church, my very well truly and sincerely believe that there are true Christians in many of the Protestant churches, but the official stand of the Roman Catholic church according to their Vatican congregation says that the Catholic church ALONE is the ONE TRUE church.
But some Catholic may still argue and say that Vatican II made some changes and the Roman Catholic church now says that the elements of salvation do indeed exist in other churches. However if you click on the links and read more closely you will see that the Catholic church still teaches that they ALONE are the ONE TRUE church and they do NOT view the Protestant churches that separated themselves from the Catholic church as being churches at all.
Further more that Catholic church will NOT allow communion to be taken by ANYONE UNLESS they have been baptized in the Catholic church. Now again some parishes may be open to invite Christians who are NOT baptized in the Catholic church to partake of communion, but they are doing this despite the official ruling of the Bishops of the Catholic church who write the church dogma. Now there is TALK of making some changes in these dogmas, but no changes as of yet have been actually made, just TALK thus far.
So then, since the Roman Catholic church OFFICIALLY teaches that they are the ONE and ONLY ONE TRUE church ALONE, then many Catholics will not dare to QUESTION the teachings of the Catholic church to see if they are indeed being taught the TRUTH of God's word.
But I assure you my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church that she is NOT the ONLY church who teaches salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. And this study will PROVE beyond any shadow of a doubt that all anyone needs to understand the GOSPEL of our salvation is the word for TRUTH, the Holy Bible, the very word of Almighty God himself.
It is just that simple. If you want to get CLEAR, PLAIN, and SIMPLE answers to what you must do to be saved, then go straight to the SOURCE, the Holy Bible and just read the New Testament for YOURSELF.
By doing this you will find that there is NO where in the Bible where Peter is made to be the so called “SUPREME PONTIFF” over all the other apostles. Nor will you find any evidence in the Bible where Peter was ever in the city of Rome. The word “Rome” is found only 15 times in the Bible and no where is Peter found in any of the context of these passages of scripture referring to Rome. The TRUTH of the matter is that there is no mention in the Bible of Peter ever being in Rome.
Now some Catholic apologist may try and argue by saying what about 1 Peter 5:13 where Peter says,
You see, some Bible scholars believe that the name “Babylon” is a code name for the city of Rome that they early Christians used so the church at Rome would not be persecuted. Now this interpretation may be true, but other Bible scholars also say that Babylon was an actual city at that time in history according to the writings of Josephus and therefore Peter was speaking of the actual city of Babylon and NOT the city of Rome.
But either way the CONTEXT of this verse does not demand that Peter be IN the city of Rome or in the city of Babylon if they are two different cities in order to send greeting in behalf of this church where ever in may be. You see letters of greeting were sent to and from different churches all the time to see how their fellow brothers and sisters in the faith were doing. It would be no different than today if a brother or sister from another church wrote to me from Rome, a place that I have never been, and said, Mark whenever you write to the church at Galatia send them greeting for us the church that is at Babylon or Rome, if you will. in our behalf.
Please read 1 Peter 5:12,13 for yourself you you can see that this is just a greeting from Peter being giving for or in behalf of the church at Babylon or Rome if you accept no other interpretation and demand that Babylon be a code name for the city of Rome.
BY Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.(in other words, BY Silvanus, or at the REQUEST of Silvanus I Peter have written unto you who are at Galatia to exhort you and to send you greetings FROM Silvanus who is at Babylon or Rome, if you will, who speaks for...)
14. Greet you one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you ALL that are IN Christ Jesus. Amen.”
You see this one vague verse offers absolutely no sound Biblical evidence to lay the foundation for SUPREME authority to be given to ONE man over the entire church, but rather offers more evidence that Peter was never IN ROME let alone be the SUPREME PONTIFF or the POPE over the church at Rome as being the SEAT of the entire church body of believer.
Can you not see my dear brothers and sisters in our lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church, how vitally important it is to base the doctrines or the teachings of the church on what the BIBLE plainly teaches us, and NOT upon church TRADITION.
You see even in church tradition or throughout the history of the church whenever there was a DISPUTE over doctrine or an argument over what some in the church were teaching they always went back to the teachings of Jesus and the twelve original Apostles of Jesus who were eye witnesses of what actually took place and heard what was actually said by Jesus and we HAVE these writings of the first apostles recorded for us ALL to read for OURSELVES to decide for OURSELVES through the leading of the Holy Spirit what the New Testament is truly teaching.
In other words, IF it is not CLEAR, PLAIN, and SIMPLE to see and understand, then do NOT teach it as DOGMATIC DOCTRINE! And the number one thing that the Roman Catholic church DOGMATICALLY teaches is that she ALONE is the ONE TRUE church and the ONLY church who can trace her roots all the way back to PETER the very FIRST POPE.
But this is simply NOT the WHOLE truth. There are other Protestant church that make the same claim of tracing their roots all the way back to Jesus. That is another study in and of itself, but if you would like to pursue this subject further and read about the linage of these other churches then there are some websites out there showing how these other churches trace their roots back to Jesus, but I can assure you that every church that makes this claim of tracing their apostolic succession back to the early apostles teaches FALSE doctrine.
So you see, the TRUTH of the whole matter is that it does NOT MATTER whether or not you can trace your denomination church roots in and unbroken line of apostolic succession all the way back to the first apostles of Jesus. This is NOT what make any church a TRUE church that is WITHOUT ANY ERRORS in any of there teachings. Going straight to the SOURCE for YOURSELF is the only way the truly KNOW if what you are being taught is the TRUTH.
You see my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church or in any other church for that matter, is that ALL churches have at least some error in what they teach.
Now please do not misunderstand what I am saying. You see, it may not be quote unquote “ERROR” that they are teaching, but rather more so in the WAY that they explain their teachings that have cause some to NOT understand exactly what they are teaching and others think that they are teaching something that is NOT truly Biblical.
What I mean be this is that many Protestant churches have a LIST of the tenants of faith as to what they believe. They usually have this list broken down to two separate lists where the one list is labeled ESSENTIAL BELIEFS that MUST without fail be believed or you are NOT considered to be a CHRISTIAN by that particular denomination so case closed, period, end of discussion, so do NOT QUESTION our AUTHORITY to make these ESSENTIAL tenants of faith.
Then some Protestant churches are more flexible and they have a secondary list called the “DEBATABLE” teachings that are taught as truth, but yet these teachings are more FLEXIBLE and therefore they are ALLOWED to be discussed freely and debated using SCRIPTURE so long as all are in agreement NOT to get hostile and cause strife if you cannot accept what your fellow brother or sister believes. Then in this way these teachings can be REFORMED and changes made to make them more CLEARER and more easily understood so that the AGREE with the WHOLE word of God.
However the Roman Catholic church does NOT ALLOW their AUTHORITY to be QUESTIONED is ANY of there teachings. Here is the official stand of the Roman Catholic church:
QUESTION: As Catholics, do we have to accept everything the Church teaches?
ANSWER: It is important to realize that if you want to call yourself Catholic, but you want to pick and choose for yourself which of the Church’s teachings to accept and which to reject, you give everyone else who calls themselves Catholic the right to do the same thing.
For example, you believe women should be priests…in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1577 states, “Only a baptized man validly receives ordination…For this reason the ordination of women is not possible!” Perhaps you believe that contraception is okay. Paragraph 2370 says contraception is intrinsically evil.
When you choose to throw out certain teachings you don’t like, you undermine the AUTHORITY that Christ gave to the Catholic Church, and you start to follow the “catechism of your own church” rather than the teachings of Christ’s Catholic Church.
If we don’t believe in ALL of it, if we each appoint ourselves Pope and throw out a doctrine here or a doctrine there, then our faith is no longer Catholic. Yes, it can sometimes be a challenge to follow all of the teachings of Christ and the Catholic Church that carries on His.
Now the FIRST thing that I want to point out is that Jesus did indeed give his church AUTHORITY to boldly preach and teach HIS GOSPEL and not our OWN gospel. In other words, Jesus did NOT give his church the AUTHORITY to teach FALSE DOCTRINE. So HOW do we KNOW if a teaching is true of false? We go to the SOURCE, the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, the very word of Almighty God himself. Please read the study called “WHAT EVERY CATHOLIC SHOULD KNOW” for a deeper understanding of what the BIBLE teaches compared to what the Catholic church teaches, but for now let it be sufficient to say the the BIBLE teaches us that it is a very noble thing to QUESTION what we are TAUGHT by the church to the point that we go to the word of god and search the scriptures for OURSELVES in order to prove whether of not we are being taught the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of God.
The second thing that I want to point out is that the word “CATHOLIC” means universal, complete, or whole. In other words, as a WHOLE or in general there are many different groups of believers who do indeed speak the SAME thing about the CORE ESSENTIAL teaching that Jesus is the SON of Almighty God the Father and that Almighty God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to suffer and die for the sins of the whole world that WHOSOEVER of ANY person whatsoever in the whole world BELIEVES on his son Jesus shall not perish, but shall be given eternal life in the world to come. Any other teaching that goes BEYOND this central CORE UNIVERSAL believe that is accepted and believed by the WHOLE body of believers is a DEBATABLE teaching and should in no way be taught in a dogmatic way as being ESSENTIAL to salvation.
With that being said let us get back to the study at hand to examine the BIBLICAL evidence that to me clearly shows that Peter was NEVER in the city of Rome, which the Catholic church dogmatically teaches that Peter was the first PATER. Now this Latin word "Pater" is translated to the English word the first "POPE", which means “father” and therefore Pater or "Pope" means the father of all or the Father over all other church fathers, by saying that unless you believe ALL the teachings of the Catholic church, then you cannot call yourself a CATHOLIC.
We will get back to the TRUE history of the Christian church and learn exactly when PART of the true Christian church split off or separated itself from the clear, plain, and simple teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ to exalt itself as the Holy Roman Catholic church to have just ONE SUPREME PONTIFF over the whole entire church whose seat was at ROME, but for now let us focus on the Biblical evidence of Peter never being in Rome. I am going to label these facts of Biblical evidence as point #1 and so forth so that they can be gone over as a condensed list so to speak. For example all that we have already discussed in under POINT # 1 being that Peter was never in Rome, because not one single verse with the word ROME in it has any connection whatsoever with Peter therefore Peter is NOT the first Pope. So then, this brings us to point #2.
POINT #2. Peter was never in Rome because...
The Bible teaches us that Paul was called by Almighty God to preach to Rome and NOT Peter therefore Peter is NOT the first Pope.
Please read Acts 23:11, which teaches us that the Lord himself called PAUL to be a witness for him at ROME.
In other words, the Lord called PAUL to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ at Rome and NOT Peter as the Catholic church would have Catholics to believe, because if the Catholic church fails to prove without a doubt the so called AUTHORITY of an unbroken apostolic succession, then they will lose all credibility as being the ONE and ONLY TRUE church ALONE that apart from which there can be NO SALVATION and therefore they will lose members who have QUESTIONED their teaching for years, but were too afraid to leave the Catholic church for fear of going to hell.
But I want to assure you my dear brothers and sister in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church, there is not one believer in Jesus Christ who will go to hell for believing what Jesus HIMSELF teaches us in the New Testament of the Bible. So buy a copy if you do not own one and if you do own a Bible the open it up and begin reading it for YOURSELF, because this is the only way you are going to know the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God the GOSPEL of our SALVATION. The Catholic church nor any other church baptism can save you. It is YOUR personal faith in the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ that is able to save you, and the ONLY way to know for sure that you are NOT being taught a DIFFERENT gospel that is NOT the gospel of Jesus Christ is to get into God's word of TRUTH and prove it for YOURSELF. I cannot emphasize this truth to you enough.
POINT #3. Peter was never in Rome because...
The Bible teaches us that Paul was called by God to preach to the Gentiles and Peter was called by God to preach to the Jews therefore Peter is not the first Pope.
Please read Galatians 2:1-9 where Paul, Barnabas and Titus return back to the city of Jerusalem after preaching the gospel for 14 years.
“Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. (but no mention of Peter, because Peter was in JERUSALEM were Paul was being sent by the Holy Spirit by revelation to settle this argument of being circumcise in order to be saved.)
2. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them (speaking of the apostles, James, Peter, and John who were at Jerusalem, which was considered the HOME church or the city were the church began) that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
5. To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the TRUTH of the gospel might continue with you. (in other words, Paul would NOT SUBMIT himself to those who CLAIM to be someone just because they may or may not be someone, because they did NOT teach the TRUTH. It was not that Paul was some kind of rebel for NOT SUBMITTING to those who may are may not be someone of importance, but rather Paul would NOT SUBMIT to FALSE teaching.)
6. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepts no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (in other words, Paul was saying that some have seem to conference or plot together to exalt themselves to a place of authority to try and intimidate Paul, but their self appointed position of authority did not mean anything to Paul, because he KNEW that they were NOT teaching the TRUTH)
7. But contrariwise, when they SAW that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me (speaking of Paul and whosoever Paul would disciple or train was given the ministry to the Gentiles), as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter (or in the same way the gospel to preach to the Jews was given to Peter);
9. And when James, Cephas (or Peter. Sometimes Peter was called Cephas, but they are one and the same person. You will find Peter, James, and John mentioned together in several passages of scripture. Jesus calls Peter Cephas, which we will cover further on in this study.), and John, who seemed to be pillars, (and indeed they ALL were pillars in the church, but please notice that they SEAT, so to speak was the city of JERUSALEM and NOT the city of ROME as the Catholic church would have you to believe.) perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that WE (speaking of Paul and Barnabas) should go unto the HEATHEN (or that Paul and Barnabas were apostles sent to the GENTILES in which Rome was FULL of heathen gentiles ripe for the harvest, which is where PAUL was called by the Lord himself to be a witness to ROME), and they (speaking of Peter, James, and John specifically to go preach the gospel) unto the circumcision.”
Now please notice that it had been no less that 14 years after the founding of the church in the city of JERUSALEM and NOT Rome, because Paul says it was 14 years since he himself had been at Jerusalem. I am not sure the church had been in existence at this point in time, but it is for sure that it was longer than 14 years. My point is this, If the city of ROME was the SEAT of the church, then WHEN was it MOVED from Jerusalem to Rome, because the BIBLE clearly teaches us that JERUSALEM is were the first church council was held?
Now I realize that the mere facts that PAUL was called by the Lord himself to preach the gospel to the Gentiles at Rome does not prove beyond any shadow of a doubt the Peter was never called as well to preach the gospel to the JEWS at Rome. But again there is no WRITTEN evidence in the New Testament that is the UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED cannon of the early church writings that the leaders in the church deemed as worthy to be TRUSTED for the forming church DOCTRINE.
POINT #4. Peter was never in Rome because...
The is no mention of Peter in ANY of the letter written either to Rome or from Rome therefore Peter cannot possibly be the first Pope.
Now to me, this a monumental piece of sound Biblical evidence, because IF Peter were TRULY the HEAD of all the church not only at ROME but also over the whole entire church, then there should be countless evidence of Peter being IN ROME all through these letters to and from the church at Rome, but there is NOT even ONE mention of him anywhere in connection with ROME. Neither the name Peter nor the name Cephas is ever mentioned in the book of Romans. Nor again in the name Peter or the name Cephas found in any of the letter written from Rome to the other churches.
THINK about this for a moment my dear brothers and sisters, in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church, that IF Peter had indeed been the HIGHEST of all the other Bishops, being the first Bishop over all the other Bishops, the HEAD over the whole entire church as you have been taught being a Catholic by the teachings of ONLY the Catholic church and no other source of teaching, then WHERE is the EVIDENCE? Why is Peter never even MENTIONED as being in Rome even just one time, IF SO BE, that he was the POPE, the SUPREME PONTIFF, the PONTIFEX MAXIMUS of the entire ROMAN Catholic church. I mean to me IF Peter was the HEAD of all the entire church, and the SEAT of the church was indeed at ROME, then there should be tons of sound Biblical evidence of this to PROVE this teaching.
But the TRUTH of the matter is that there is absolutely no SOUND BIBLICAL evidence whatsoever to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Peter was the first POPE. However there is plenty of sound Biblical evidence to prove that Jesus never instituted HIS church to be governed in a way where just ONE man is the HEAD over all the entire church. In other words, the institution of the Catholic church were the ONE man called the Pope being over or HEAD of the entire church is NOT of God, but rather of MAN seeking to exalt himself to be something that he is NOT in the eyes of Almighty God.
Please read Matthew 21:42-44 where we are taught that Almighty God the Father chose to make his Son Jesus to be the HEAD corner stone of HIS church.
“Jesus said unto them, Did you never read in the SCRIPTURE, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the HEAD of the corner: THIS is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?
44. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken (or whosoever BELIEVES this TRUTH that JESUS ALONE is the HEAD of HIS church shall SUBMIT to this truth and accept no other teaching): but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (trust me you do not want to reject this TRUTH that Jesus ALONE is the HEAD of his own church)”
Now this scripture is speaking of the Jews who are rejecting Jesus as the HEAD corner stone and if they do not repent and believe that Jesus is the ONE whom the SCRIPTURES prophesy of coming, then the kingdom of God would be taken away from them and given to the Gentiles. In other words, Jesus is saying that Almighty God has chosen his Son Jesus to be the HEAD corner stone of HIS church.
Please read Mark 12:10-17, which teaches us that Jesus did NOT submit himself to those who were in high positions just because they were in high position, because they did NOT teach the truth by the lives that they lived.
“And have you not read this SCRIPTURE; (in other words, Jesus is saying READ the word of God for YOURSELVES and you will see the TRUTH) The stone which the builders rejected is become the HEAD of the corner:
14. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that you are true, and care for no man: for you regard not the person of men (or we know that you do not care if we be master teachers of God's word, because you do not submit to our authority), but teach the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
17. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.”
Please notice that Jesus was made the HEAD by Almighty God himself and that Jesus knowing the truth by REVELATION of the Holy Spirit of Almighty God in him knew that they did not speak the truth so Jesus as our example did NOT SUBMIT to their intimidation of being highly respected master teachers of God's word, because Jesus knew that they did not practice what they preached so to speak.
Also read Acts 4:7-13, which is right after Peter and John were used by god to heal a man in the name of Jesus that had been crippled from birth but nos was seen of many being completely made whole and they want to know by what AUTHORITY they healed this man.
10. Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that BY the NAME of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even BY HIM does this man stand here before you whole.
So then, our AUTHORITY as BELIEVERS to preach the gospel and to heal the sick comes DIRECTLY from Almighty God himself through our own individual FAITH in BELIEVING the WORDS of Jesus our Lord and savior and following the leading of the Holy Spirit. We have ONE as our HEAD and JUDGE over us and is our Lord Jesus Christ and NOT any man in the church who exalts themselves to be RULERS OVER God's children.
This will be PROVEN to you by the very word of Almighty God the Father as your continue this study in God's word to learn the TRUTH that Peter was NEVER made to be the HEAD of the church by God, but rather was exalted to this position BY MAN the leaders of the Roman Catholic church late in the 4th century. We will cover this in more detail further on in this study, but for now let us continue with the sound Biblical evidence that the man Jesus ALONE is the HEAD over HIS church.
Please read 1 Corinthians 11:1-3, which teaches us that we are to follower our elders so long as they are following the TRUE Jesus Christ and HIS TRUE gospel teaching, which means that if the elders that we are following start to teach things that are in CONTRADICTION to the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, the very word of Almighty God himself, then we are to leave OFF following these FALSE teachings. We can still follow the teachings that we have PROVEN for OURSELVES to be TRUE. But no where in God's word are we taught to BLINDLY SUBMIT to our elders just because they are elders or bishops.
In other words, Paul is saying that AS I submit myself to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ, then I ask that you submit yourselves to me so long as I am practicing what I preach and follow Jesus. But the most important thing that I want you to KNOW is that Jesus ALONE is the HEAD over you and EVERY man including me and Paul. Therefore if we or any other man or church teach you something that CONTRADICTS the WHOLE word of Almighty God, then you must KNOW that we have NO AUTHORITY to RULE over you to INTIMIDATE you in any way to believe that which you have PROVEN by the word of TRUTH to be a FALSE teaching. We are ALL part of the body of Jesus Christ so long as we believe the word of TRUTH, the gospel of Jesus Christ no matter what church we attend.
Please read Ephesians 1:15-23.
“Wherefore I also, after I heard of your FAITH in the Lord Jesus, and love unto ALL the saints,(there is only one thing that causes you to be saved and become a SAINT of God and that is your FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ. Every true believer knows within them that they must obey the words, of Jesus in order to receive their promise of reward of eternal life in the world to come.)
16. Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
18. The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,(YOU are one of God's SAINTS if so be you are a BELIEVER in Jesus Christ the Son of Almighty God. You do not have to wait to get to heaven and the Catholic church decide whether or not you are GOOD ENOUGH to be a saint. The Bible teaches us that we as Christians are ALL saints right now right here on the earth in this present world. We are ALL preiest unto God and his royal priesthood. We are ALL brothers and sisters in the Lord and we are NOT to lord over each other, but rather exhort each other to continue in the truth of God's word. NOT in what the organized Roman Catholic church demands that you as a Catholic must believe is the truth just because they said so, but rather that you believe the truth of the WHOLE word of God. And HOW are you going to KNOW what is truth, UNLESS you read Gods word for YOURSELF! I pray that your eyes of understanding be opened and enlightened in the mighty name of Jesus as you read these studies in God's word and then search the word of truth for yourself o prove to yourself that I am teaching your the truth.)
Please read Ephesians 4:11-16, which clearly teaches us that neither God nor his Son Jesus never gave the church and so called POPE to be the HEAD over all the church.
“And he gave some, apostles (plural more than just ONE apostle);and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors (or bishops, but NOT like the so called bishops in the Catholic church) and teachers;
From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which EVERY joint supplies, according to the effectual working in the measure of EVERY part, makes increase of the body unto the edifying of ITSELF in love.”
There is absolutely NO mention of any POPE or Bishop of Bishops, or Apostle over all other Apostles, but rather that we are ALL members of the body of Jesus Christ, and we ALL help it the ministry, and Jesus himself is the HEAD of the church.
Please read Colossians 2:18,19, which teaches us to NOT let any man DECEIVE us. So Again HOW are you going to KNOW whether or not the teachings of man are not DECEIVING you unless you read God's word for YOURSELF?
This verse is very important, because the Roman Catholic church is BEGUILING Catholics to ignorantly and in voluntary SUBMISSION to the teachings of the Catholic church to WORSHIP the ANGELS, which we as Christians are forbidden to do in any way shape of form. And bu doing this the Catholic church is NOT hold the HEAD of the Church, Jesus Christ in his proper place of honor and worship.
Now you may say, wait just a minute, we as Catholics do NOT worship the angles, we do not worship Mary, we do not worship the saints, nor do we worship the relics of martyrs.
But I say to you that you do indeed WORSHIP all those things including the ANGELS, ACCORDING to the teachings of the Catholic church, which you are dogmatically taught that you must ACCEPT and KEEP them ALL if you want to call yourself a Catholic. Here is the OFFICIAL stand of the Catholic church from the Catholic encyclopedia as to how Catholicism defines the word “WORSHIP”:
The word worship (Saxon weorthscipe, "honour"; from worth, meaning "value", "dignity", "price", and the termination, ship; Latin cultus) in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing. In this sense we may speak of hero-worship, worship of the emperor, of demons, of the ANGELS , even of relics, and especially of the Cross. This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the BEINGS or even to the objects which have a special relation to God.
There are several degrees of this worship:
As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728).
In other words, the WORSHIP of Mary according to the Catholic church is higher that the Catholic worship of saints or the ANGELS. But the point that I want you to see is that these DEFINITIONS of THEOLOGICAL MEN are in direct contradiction to the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, the very word of Almighty God himself. So WHO are you going to TRUST with your reward of ETERNAL LIFE? Are you going to take the CHANCE that these Catholic THEOLOGIANS are right and that it is not IDOLATRY to pray to Mary, to the saints, to bow and kneel before these IMAGES and to WORSHIP all these things including the ANGEL, because as a CATHOLIC you must ACCEPT and obey all these things? OR are you going to be absolutely SURE of your reward of ETERNAL LIFE by OBEYING the CLEAR, PLAIN, and SIMPLE word of Almighty God? Remember that THEOLOGIANS are men who THEORIZE and they are NOT necessarily Spirit filled men of God who receive true revelation and teaching from the Holy Spirit.
POINT #5. Peter is NOT the first Pope because...
The BIBLE does NOT teach the Peter is the ROCK on which Jesus promised to build his church.
Now the Catholic church INTERPRETS Matthew 16:18,19 as the apostle Peter being the ROCK upon which that Jesus will build his church and that Jesus gave Peter the KEYS of the kingdom, which the Catholic church INTERPRETS as meaning that Peter ALONE has been given ALL AUTHORITY over ALL the church. Here is what these two verse say APART from the rest of God's word, which I see can be INTERPRETED just as the Catholic church has INTERPRETED these two verses to mean.
19. And I will give unto YOU the KEYS of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever YOU shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
As I have said many times that any verse or verses when taken OUT of CONTEXT and viewed ALONE and APART from the REST of God's word may SEEM or may be MADE to say something that it is NOT TRULY saying.
So then, let us now KEEP this verse in it's CONTEXT to learn what these two verses TRULY mean in the LIGHT of the WHOLE word of Almighty God. Please read Matthew 16:13-23 where we can CLEARLY see that Jesus is talking to ALL his disciples and NOT just to Peter.
17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona: (WHY? Why did Jesus call Peter blessed?) FOR (or because) flesh and blood has NOT REVEALED it unto you, BUT my Father which is in heaven. (in other words, Jesus said you are blessed Peter BECAUSE this TRUTH that I am the CHRIST, the anointed one of Almighty God to the the Messiah has been REVEALED to you NOT by the teachings of MAN, but rather this truth that I am the Son of the living God was revealed to to by the Holy Spirit of your heavenly Father)
18. And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, and upon THIS rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Now the question is WHAT is the THIS rock that Jesus is talking about? There are three choices or three possible INTERPRETATIONS. ONE interpretation is that the THIS rock can be Peter. The THIS rock can be Jesus. Or the THIS rock can be what Jesus just got finished saying as to WHY Peter was blessed speaking of the THIS ROCK as being sure ROCK SOLID foundation of directly REVEALED KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH by Almighty God through his Holy Spirit, which the gates of hell will NEVER prevail against, because the believer who receives TRUTH REVEAL to hi or her DIRECTLY from the Holy Spirit of Almighty God will NEVER back away from the REVEALED KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH. They KNOW that they KNOW that they KNOW it is the TRUTH and NO man nor any devil can steal away that revealed truth from them.)
19. And I will give unto YOU (speaking of ALL his DISCIPLES including US) the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever YOU (again speaking of ALL believers) shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever YOU (again all of us as believers) shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20. Then charged he his DISCIPLES that THEY should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. (in other words, Jesus gave the KEYS of the kingdom of God to ALL his disciples, which includes each and every BELIEVER and follower of Jesus Christ).
21. From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Now most Protestant believers interpret this verse to mean that the ROCK that Jesus was speaking of was HIMSELF being the CHRIST the SON of the living God and I myself also agree that this is a very SOUND Biblical interpretation. But I myself also believe that it is a very SOUND Biblical interpretation to say that THIS ROCK could very well be speaking of the REVEALED KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH, any TRUTH that is taught in the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, but more particularly of the REVEALED TRUTH that Jesus is the CHRIST and the SON of the living God, the one true and only Almighty God the Father.
So I myself interpret these verses BOTH WAYS seeing that BOTH are the SURE ROCK SOLID FOUNDATIONS on which we stand as believers. You see any person can say that the believe in Jesus, but have no true FAITH, as in, the KNOWING that Jesus died for their sins and that they are TRULY FORGIVEN of all their sins and that they KNOW that they KNOW that they KNOW that they are SAVED leaving absolutely NO DOUBT. Please read the study “HOW CAN I BE SAVED?” so that you can KNOW that you are TRULY saved and that you with have this REVEALED WITNESS of the Holy Spirit deep within you that gives you a ROCK SOLID faith that NO man nor devil can ever steal from you.
But the Catholic INTERPRETATION of Peter being that ROCK SOLID FOUNDATION is NOT a SOUND Biblical interpretation, because in this very SAME context Jesus turns right around and calls Peter SATAN and for him to get behind him. So there absolutely is NO WAY that Jesus is saying that Peter is the ROCK that Jesus shall build his church upon that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church BECAUSE of this ONE MAN Peter being the ROCK SOLID FOUNDATION of the entire church. This Catholic INTERPRETATION is completely illogical because of reasons we just covered and also in the gospel of John Peter says that he will lay down his life to follow Jesus, but Jesus says back to Peter, WILL you Peter? Jesus said unto Peter, that before the cock crows Peter you will DENY me three times.
You see, Peter was not ABLE to follow Jesus UNTIL Peter was FILLED with the Holy Spirit. That leads and guides us into all truth and reveals spiritual things to us. When the Holy Spirit REVEALS to you the TRUTH about who Jesus truly is then no man nor devil can steal this revelation knowledge from you ever.
Also please carefully consider very closely the following. Please notice that the EXACT NAME that Jesus called Peter! This is a monumental clue that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus was NOT referring to Peter as THE ROCK that Jesus would build his church. Please NOTICE that Jesus did NOT say, You are PETER... Nor did Jesus say, You are CEPHAS. But rather Jesus chose his words very carefully and said,
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona: (WHY? Why did Jesus call Peter blessed?) FOR (or because) flesh and blood has NOT REVEALED it unto you, BUT my Father which is in heaven. (in other words, Jesus said you are blessed Peter BECAUSE this TRUTH that I am the CHRIST, the anointed one of Almighty God to the the Messiah has been REVEALED to you NOT by the teachings of MAN, but rather this truth that I am the Son of the living God was revealed to to by the Holy Spirit of your heavenly Father)”
Again Jesus did NOT say, You are PETER, nor did Jesus say, You are Cephas, but rather Jesus carefully chose his words and specifically said Simon Barjona perhaps because he knew that MEN would exalt Peter above all the other brethren.
So why is the difference? Is not Simon Barjona the SAME as PETER? Well if words mean anything at all, then NO, because the NAME that Jesus HIMSELF CHOSE to use being Simon Barjons and NOT Peter of Cephas has NOTHING whatsoever to do with a stone or a rock of any kind.
The name Barjona (920) means son of Jonus or son of Jonah or son of John
The name Simon (4613) means he has heard or obedient one
The name Peter (4074) means a piece of rock. It is the Greek word “PETROS” and means rock, an individual stone, or a small stone. It is translated 157 times as Peter and 4 times as Peter's and 1 time as stone, but never as “rock” in the New Testament.
When Jesus said you are SIMON BARJONA and NOT Simon PETER, but rather said You are Simon BARJONA and upon THIS ROCK I will build my church”the word “ROCK”here is the Greek word “PETRA” (4073), which means rock, bedrock, or a large massive rock formation with the implication of a solid firm FOUNDATION to build upon. This Greek word is in CONTRAST to the Greek word “PETROS” which means an individual much smaller stone.
The name Cephas (2786) is an Aramaic word for Peter which means rock. It is use 6 times in the New Testament. The Greek word is “Kephas” and means Cephas, which again is an Aramaic word that means rock. And here are ALL the verse were this name Cephas is used in the Bible.
Now in my Bible the “A” is CAPITALIZED, which signifies that Jesus was NOT calling Simon Barjona “THE” STONE, but rather Jesus was calling Simon A stone, which is exactly what the name Cephas means as we have already seen above. Also in the margin of my Bible it says that Cephas means PETER as well, which we already discovered means rock, and individual stone or a smaller stone and is never actually translated as “rock” anywhere in the New Testament. And the Bible scholars who are fluent in the Greek language define Peter or “PETROS” as being in CONTRAST to the Greek word that Jesus used as being THE ROCK, “the “PETRA” that he would build his church upon in verse 17 as a SOLID SURE FOUNDATION whereas Peter was A stone or a “petros” a smaller individual stone.
1 Corinthians 1:12,13
13. Is Christ divided ? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”
Here we see that even in the New Testament, while the apostles of Jesus were still living there were DIVISIONS in the church where some believers where being followers of MEN saying, I am of Apollos, or I am of Paul and others saying I am of Cephas. Please notice that Cephas or Peter was just ONE of these men of God who were being exalted by believers. Also notice the PAUL was one of these great men of God as well, but Paul said is Christ divided and was I PAUL crucified for you? In other words, Paul was teaching us NOT to be followers of MEN and say well PAUL says this, of Cephas says this, because we are ALL of ONE body in Jesus Christ who is the HEAD of the church.
1 Corinthians 3:18-23
Another passage of scripture that teaches us NOT to exalt our self over others brother or sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ and NOT to esteem one brother over another much like we already saw in 1 Corinthians 1:12,13 that we just read.
1 Corinthians 9:1-12
12. If others have these rights over you, don't we deserve them all the more? However, we haven't made use of this right, but we put up with everything so we don't put any obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.”
Here we see that Paul is saying that I too a an apostle. Now some say that I am not, but you who I have preached the gospel and you have believed know that I am an apostles. This is what it MEANS to be an apostle to preach to those who have never heard that gospel. Also I too have see Jesus. In another place Paul says Jesus himself taught me these things and I never learned them from ANY MAN. Paul goes on to say that even though he and Barnabas are free to eat and drink whatever the congregation offers them that he took NOTHING from the people so that the gospel would not be hindered.
1 Corinthians 15:1-11
4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (This is the core and the HEART of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. This is what is IMPORTANT. All other "DOCTRINE" in my opinion should not be made dogmatic and essential for salvation. This is what the early church contended for to preserve and many gave their lives for it. They apostles did not deem themselves over one another. It was the TRUTH that they defended. And they exhorted one another to keep the faith that was delivered to them at the FIRST.)
6. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep .
11. Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so you believed.”
Again we see that Paul is defending his apostleship as says that he is the least of the apostles, but in 2 Corinthians 11:5 Paul says that he is not behind in any of the apostles.
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace 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.”
Now one of the arguments that the Catholic church uses to EXALT Peter ABOVE all of the other apostles so that Peter could be seen as the first Catholic POPE OVER the whole church including the other 11 original apostle is that Peter was ALWAYS listed FIRST.
However. as you can clearly SEE for YOURSELF that this CLAIM by the so called INFALLIBLE Catholic church is in ERROR, because the word of TRUTH does not ALWAYS list Peter as being FIRST. Here in Galatians 2:9 you can clearly see that the ORDER of these three apostles is given as James, THEN Cephas or Peter, then John. Poor John is listed last again, but it was John the beloved that Jesus chose to give his last REVELATION to on the Isle of Patmos?
So then, clearly John was a great apostle. Clearly James was a great apostle, Clearly Paul was a great apostle and yes clearly Peter was a great apostle, but NONE were greater than the ALL others. ALL were simple APOSTLES and NONE were called the BISHOP of BISHOPS or THE Bishops OVER all the other Bishops. Peter called himself an ELDER in 1 Peter 5:1 and their were many elders in the church. Peter is also called a disciple and there are many disciples in the church. But Jesus said it best, when he said you ALL all BRETHREN, which puts us ALL on the SAME LEVEL where NONE of us are to EXALT OUR SELF to be lord over the church, nor is any of us to EXALT another to be lord over the church.
My point is that the word of TRUTH clearly teaches us that Peter is NOT the ROCK upon which Jesus built his church. The Roman Catholic church has deceived it's FOLLOWERS. So I implore you my dear brothers and sister in our Lord Jesus Christ who are in the Catholic church NOT to be followers of MEN, but rather followers of Jesus and HIS WORDS.
POINT #6. Peter was NOT this first Pope because...
The Catholic church itself did NOT have a first Pope UNTIL the end of the 4th century.
The writings of Tertullian, who is often quoted by Catholic writers at the first SEEMED to be in agreement with some of what the Catholic church teaches, but Tertullian's later writings definitely do NOT agree with the teaching of the Catholic church. You see Tertullian started to see the ERRORS of some of the many Bishops throughout the Roman empire to the point that he could no longer tolerate them and he joined with another group of believers who were teaching about the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and because of his unwillingness to SUBMIT to the false teachings of these Bishops he was called a HERETIC by them. So in return to there name calling so to speak Tertullian scoffed at the bishop of Rome with words like these:
'I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus—that is the bishop of bishops—issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.'"
This is the first time that the title Pontifex Maximus was used to designate the Roman bishop, but even Roman Catholics note that it was used in irony:
"As regards the title Pontifex Maximus, especially in its application to the pope, there was a further reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome. Tertullian, as has already been said, uses the phrase of Pope Calixtus. Though his words are ironical, they probably indicate that Catholics already applied it to the pope."
Accustomed as they had been, when they were heathen, to regard the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus with great awe, many of the Christians of the church at Rome may have held its haughty bishop in similar superstitious esteem. A well-known Roman Catholic authority says:
"It was apparently in the FOURTH century that it BEGAN to become a distinctive title of the Roman [Catholic] pontiff. Pope Siricius (d. 398) seems to so use it (Ep. vi in P. L. xiii, 1164), and Ennodius of Pavia (d. 521) employs it still more clearly in the same sense in a letter to Pope Symmachus (P. L. lxiii, 69). . . . Gregory VII finally prescribed that it should be confined to the successors of Peter."
Now let us see what happened prior to the official use of the title by Siricius, the Roman bishop in 398 that was just mentioned. Constantine I (306-337 A. D.) was the first of the Roman emperor-pontiffs to make a profession of Christianity.
A prominent Roman Catholic historian notes that "as emperor he was the head (Pontifex Maximus) of the OFFICIAL religion."
That religion was that of the Invincible Sun, whose cult was then at that time the chief pagan religion of the Roman state.
While his pagan subjects, who were by decree now Christians, but in name only, regarded him as their sovereign pontiff the way they have always viewed their priest of their religion. And his Christian subjects often spoke of him as "the most blessed prince" and "the servant of God." He must have had this combination in mind when he said to the clergy:
"While you are bishops of those within the church; also I, having been appointed by God, might be bishop of those outside the church."
In Constantine we have the curious case of the Pontifex Maximus of the official and pagan religion of the Roman state—the high priest of the Invincible Sun—professing to be a Christian at the same time! And he made Christianity the dominant religion of the empire, conferring many favors upon, and giving much aid to, the ecclesiastical party of his choice. With the exception of Julian the Apostate, his successors followed his example. Gibbon observes:
"The title, the insignia, the prerogatives of Sovereign Pontiff, which had been instituted by Numa, and assumed by Augustus, were accepted, without hesitation, by seven Christian emperors; who were invested with a more absolute authority over the religion which they had deserted than over that which they professed."
More and more gradually over time the position of the bishop of Rome became enhanced to eventually become dictator of Christendom that received the aid and support of the imperial Pontifex Maximus of Roman paganism. This strange collaboration continued until the reign of Gratian (375-383 A. D.).
On this point very interesting point that another Roman Catholic historian brings out is:
"Gratian (375-383) was the first emperor to sever the official bond linking paganism to the imperial power, by refusing to accept the insignia of Pontifex Maximus (chief priest of paganism). 'Such a garment,' he said, 'is NOT becoming to a Christian.' "
Another papal historian Dr,Philip Schaff observes:
"Under the influence of Ambrose, bishop of Milan, this emperor went a step further. He laid aside the title and dignity of Pontifex Maximus, confiscated the temple property, abolished most of the privileges of the priests and vestal virgins, and withdrew, at least in part, the appropriation from the public treasury for their support (Cod. Theod. xii. r, 75 ; xvi. 10, zo ; Symmach. Ep. x. 6i; Ambrose, Ep. xvii)."
It is sometimes said that Gratian refused to accept the insignia of Pontifex Maximus and that:
"It was owing, doubtless, to the influence of Ambrose that Gratian refused the title of Pontifex Maximus."
Gratian went a step further, for J. Gamier records:
"Fearing that religion might become disorganized, he offered the title and office to Damasus, bishop of Rome. . . . This bishop, less scrupulous than the emperor accepted the office and from that time until now the title has been held by the popes of Rome, from whom and through whom the whole hierarchy of Western Christendom have received their ordination. So also the honors and powers attached to the title, the dominion of the civilized world, previously wielded by the pontiff-emperors of pagan Rome, passed to the pontiffs and hierarchy of papal Rome, who for centuries imposed their will upon kings and held the nations in thralldom."
Damasus was bishop of Rome from 366 to 384 A. D. There is extant an edict of Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodosius, in which the Roman bishop is officially designated as "the Pontiff Damasus." It is as follows:
"It is our pleasure that the nations which are governed by our clemency and moderation should steadfastly adhere to the religion which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans, which faithful TRADITION has preserved and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the discipline of the apostles and the doctrine of the gospel, let us believe the sole deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: under an equal majesty and a pious Trinity.
We authorize the followers of this doctrine to assume the title of Catholic Christians; and as we judge that all others are extravagant madmen, we brand them with the infamous name of 'heretics' and declare that their conventicles shall no longer usurp the respectable appellation of churches. Besides the condemnation of divine justice, they must expect to suffer the severe penalties which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think proper to inflict upon the official title and office of Pontifex Maximus, established by Numa and long held by. his spiritual successors as high priest of Roman paganism, were transferred to the head of the Roman Catholic Church. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at that Siricius (384-398 A. D.), the successor of Damasus (366-384 A. D.), should use the appellation of Pontifex Maximus as "a distinctive title" of the pope. The Roman bishop had become the legal and official head of the state religion—Roman Catholicism."
Can you not see my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church that the title of Pope, the Pontifex Maximus did NOT become the OFFICIAL HEAD of the state religion called Roman Catholicism, UNTIL 384 AD.
It is true that in some of these early extra Biblical writings that Peter is said to be the FOUNDER of the church at Rome, but NONE of these extra Biblical writings are nor were ever accepted and approved by the church as being TRUSTED writings to form church DOCTRINE. So then we can NOT rely on TRADITION to form the DOCTRINE that Peter was the FOUNDER of the church at Rome, because all of the SOUND Biblical evidence found in the New testament directly CONTRADICT such a CLAIM.
You see the word of TRUTH clearly teaches us that the apostle Paul was very careful NOT to build on ANOTHER MAN'S foundation. In other words, IF Peter truly did found and establish the church at Rome, then Paul would have certainly made this point known to us. Please read Romans 1:1-7, where the apostle Paul sends greetings to ALL the BELIEVERS who are IN Rome.
3. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
It is made clear here that Paul is sending his greetings to ALL the Christians who are IN Rome. Now let us go to the end of the book of Romans and read Paul's closing salutation to ALL the Christians who are IN the city of Rome. Please read Romans 16:1-27, where you will find 27 names of different believers who are IN the city of Rome and you will not find the name of Peter nor Cephus, nor Simon Barjona among any of these names.
17. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses CONTRARY to the doctrine which you have learned; and avoid them. (meaning that if any come unto you and preach a different gospel other than that the gospel that I have preached unto you then mark them and avoid them)
25. Now to him that is of power to establish you according to MY gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ (another piece of sound Biblical evidence that Paul found the church at Rome and NOT Peter as the Roman Catholic church falsely teaches), according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began ,
Now I realize that Paul does not call everyone directly by name, but do you not think to rather ODD that Paul would list by name specifically so many brothers and sisters in the Lord and NOT mention the SUPREME PONTIFF Peter IF SO BE that Peter was indeed the founded and Bishop of all Bishops whose seat or throne was at ROME?
Well the answer is quite obvious as to WHY Paul never mention the name of Peter when he sent these greetings to Rome is because Peter was NEVER at Rome, and Peter most definitely did NOT found or establish the church at Roman, because Paul would have never built upon another man's foundation.
Please read Romans 15:19,20 were Paul clearly teaches us that he was very careful NOT to preach where someone else had already preached the gospel of Jesus Christ.
So NO! A thousand times NO my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church Peter was NOT the Pope of Rome, because Peter was never IN the city of Rome. Now was Peter the Pope of any of other city nor was Peter the Pope of the church, because the Christians church at this time in history did not have ANY Popes by ANY name. The Roman Catholic church did not take that name of have ANY Pope who was over the whole entire Catholic church until the FOURTH century.
Now some Catholic writers refuse this sound Biblical evidence and chose TRADITION over the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, and say that the early church writings clearly state that Peter founded the church at Rome and that Peter sat in the Papal chair ruling as the first Pope of Rome.
And again yes, there are statements of fact found in these early church writings of the first and second centuries, but again none of these writings were accepted and approved by the Roman Catholic church itself when the Roman Catholic leaders of the Catholic church formed the canon of the ACCEPTED books of the Bible.
So then, seeing that these extra Biblical early church writing were NOT accepted writings of the Catholic church on OTHER things found written in these writings, then to ME, it seem quite obvious that the Catholic church cherry picks ONLY the verses of these extra Biblical writings that SUPPORT what they teach, being very careful not to expose the verses in these writings that contradict other doctrines that the Catholic church teaches. So my point is this you can place your trust in TRADITION of the roman Catholic church and thereby REJECT what the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, clearly and plainly teaches us. Or you can REJECT the untrustworthy, extra Biblical, and unapproved writings of TRADITION and accept what the Holy Bible clearly teaches us.
Also you must at least CONSIDER the very real possibility that these extra Biblical writings were TAMPERED with in order to CONFORM and SUPPORT that Peter was the first Pope. Now if so be that these early writings have NOT been TAMPERED with by the Catholic church, then WHY did the Catholic church not make them a part of the accepted canon of the Bible? I mean what a perfect opportunity to settle this controversy once and for all time to have clear plain evidence actually being IN the Bible. But yet they did NOT accept these writing for some reason and add them to the Bible. So the question is WHY? Could it be that the Catholic church did indeed TAMPER with these early church writings?
Yes I did say if so be that these early writings were NOT tampered with and changed to have Peter be in Rome and to found the church in Rome and for peter to be called the first Pope of the Catholic church, the WHY were they not added to the canon of accepted books of the New Testament? Now IF they were indeed tampered with, then they would fall under greater scrutiny and the possibility of this tampering would be exposed. You see it would NOT be the first time that the the writings of the early church believers were TAMPERED with and changed or added to in a few places so that they would CONFORM to the false teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
It is common knowledge among many Bible scholars that the King James Bible has some additions made to the original text in order for this version of the Bible to CONFORM to the false doctrine of the trinity. Please check this out for yourself concerning the passage of scripture in 1 John 5:7, which says,
Now as almost always you have and argument on the other side that denies that this verse was added, and they claim that in most of the original Greek text that it was erased or removed. But if this was true then where is the evidence? Surely you have personally experienced just how difficult it is to ERASE and entire sentence and have absolutely no trace of it ever being erased. Now I am no Greek scholar nor have I personally examined any of the original manuscripts, but the evidence of other Bible scholars to me definitely point to this verse being added to eight of many original Greek manuscripts in order to CONFORM the King James Bible to the false doctrine of the trinity. Now it does not matter to me whether this verse is authentic or whether it was added, because the word that is TRANSLATED and these three ARE ONE in verse 7 is the same exact Greek word that is translated in verse 8 and these three AGREE as ONE. So this verse still does not PROVE the doctrine of the trinity. Please read the studies that are related to the trinity beginning with “WHO IS JESUS” for a deeper understanding that Jesus is indeed God, and Jesus came from God, but Jesus is not the one true and only ALMIGHTY God who ALONE is the Father.
But lets us just ASSUME for the sake of argument that all the clear, plain, simple and SOUND BIBLICAL evidence that you just read is wrong and that the TRADITION of the Roman Catholic church is right.
Let us ASSUME that Peter was indeed in Rome despite all the sound Biblical evidence against Peter ever being in Rome.
Let us ASSUME that Peter did indeed found the church is Rome despite the sound Biblical evidence that Paul established the church in Rome.
And let us ASSUME that Peter was called the FIRST POPE by UNANIMOUS agreement by the whole church despite the fact the there is absolutely NO biblical evidence for this.
And let us also ASSUME that there is indeed an UNBROKEN line of apostolic succession found ONLY in the Roman Catholic church that can be traced all the way back to Peter being the FIRST POPE.
Even IF all this were true this does NOT mean that the Roman Catholic church is INFALLIBLE and therefore she is WITHOUT ERROR in ALL her teachings, because the ONE TRUE UNIVERSAL church in the New Testament where DIVIDED and all the apostles did NOT teach the same things in ALL of what they taught.
Paul is seen rebuking Peter to his face for being in the WRONG. Please read Galatians 2:11-21 that teaches us that Peter and some other were not OBEYING the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ and they were to be BLAMED and CORRECTED for the ERROR.
“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I (Paul) withstood him to the face, because he was to be BLAMED (the word blamed here means to condemn or convict for being in the wrong. So HOW can a supposedly INFALLIBLE Pope be in the WRONG. And WHAT gives Paul a supposedly INFERIOR apostle who is UNDER the so called Bishop over all the other Bishops, the authority to rebuke Peter to the face? The TRUTH of the matter is that Peter was NEVER the pope of all the church!).
12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he (Peter, who according to the Catholic church is supposed to be the INFALLIBLE Pope and the HEAD of the whole church) withdrew and separated himself, FEARING them which were of the circumcision.
13. And the other Jews DISSEMBLED likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their DISSIMULATION.(This word “DISSIMULATION” means to HIDE from the TRUTH, to DISGUISE the TRUTH with a false appearance of the TRUTH. You see Peter FEARED to walk in the TRUTH of the TRUE Gospel of Jesus Christ because of the Jews. Peter did just fine when he was among the Gentile ONLY, but when Peter was among the JEWS Peter WITHDREW from even eating with his Gentile brothers and sisters in the Lord because he FEAR the JEWS. And Paul rebuke him for his DISOBEDIENCE to the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ and Paul WITHSTOOD Peter to the FACE in front of all because Peter was to be BLAMED and CORRECTED so that he word return to the TRUE gospel.)
14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compel you the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Why does the Roman Catholic church COMPEL Catholics to observe so called Holy days of OBLIGATION, when the word of TRUTH teaches AGAINST the observing of days and feasts under the NEW Testament?)
16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified .
20. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
The TRUTH of the matter is that ALL the apostles made MISTAKES and they all judged each other BY the word of TRUTH and NOT by the so called AUTHORITY of ONE MAN being set up as the HEAD of the church. Please read the study called “HOW DID THE CHURCH DIVIDE?” for a deeper understanding of the TRUE UNBIASED history of the church that clearly show that the church was DIVIDED over different doctrines all through the entire history of the church, but was always UNIVERSAL in the ONE CORE belief that Jesus died for the sins and that Jesus was raised form the dead and that Jesus is coming again, and that all believers are given the promise of eternal life in the world to come if they are found to be faithful unto the end.
Thanks for reading and may God bless you richly as you continue to seek the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God.
Your brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,
RETURN TO HOMEPAGE