08-07-2007, 02:14 PM
( continued from Peter and the Pope )
It was not until the time of Calixtus, who was bishop of Rome from 218-223, that Matthew 16:18 was first used in an attempt to prove that the church was built on Peter and that the bishop of Rome was his successor.
Let us now take a closer look at Peter -- let us compare him with the popes -- and it will become apparent that Peter was not a pope at all!
1. Peter was married. The fact that Peter was a married man does not harmonize with the Catholic position that a Pope is to be unmarried. The scriptures tell us that PETER'S WIFE'S MOTHER was healed of a fever. (Mar 1:30; Mat 8:14). Of course there couldn't be a "Peter's wife's mother" if Peter didn't have a wife!
However, some try to explain this discrepancy by saying that Peter ceases to live with his wife. If so, did his wife leave him? Why? Was it incompatibility? Or maybe he left her? If so, he was a wife-deserter. In either case, he was a poor foundation upon which to build a church!
But the Bible plainly shows that Peter did NOT leave his wife! Twenty-five years after Jesus went back to heaven, the Apostle Paul mentioned that the various apostles had wives -- including Cephas. (1 Cor 9:5). (Cephas was Peter's Aramaic name -- John 1:42). Obviously Peter had not left his wife.
2. Peter would not allow men to bow down to him. When Peter was coming into the house of Cornelius, we read that "Cornelius met him, and fell down at this feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself am a man" (Act 10:25, 26). This was quite different from what a pope would have said! Men bow to the pope and he loves to have it so.
3. The popes place tradition in a place equal to the Word of God. But Peter -- to the contrary -- had little faith in "traditions from your fathers" (1 Pet 1:18). Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost was filled with the Word of God, not traditions of men. And when the people asked what they should do to get right with God, Peter did not tell them to have a little water poured or sprinkled on them. Instead, he said: "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Act 2:38).
4. Peter was not the pope, for he wore no crown. Peter himself explained that God's people were not to wear crowns in this life, but that when the chief shepherd shall appear, THEN shall we "receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away" (1 Pet 5:4). Since Jesus has not yet appeared again, the crown that the Pope wears is surely not one that is bestowed upon him by Christ!
In short, Peter never acted like a Pope, Peter never dressed like a pope, Peter never spoke like a pope, Peter never wrote like a pope, and people did not approach him as a pope. Why? Because Peter was not a Pope!
In all probability, in the very early days of the church, Peter did take the most prominent position among the apostles. This we do not deny. It was Peter who preached the first sermon after the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost and 3,000 were added to the Lord the same day. Later, it was Peter who first took the gospel to the Gentiles. Whenever we find a list of the twelve apostles in the Bible, Peter's name is always mentioned FIRT (See Mat 10:2; Mar 3:16; Luk 6:14; Act 1:13). But none of this -- not by any stretch of the imagination -- would indicate that Peter was the Pope or Universal Bishop of bishops!
While Peter apparently did take the most outstanding role of the apostles at the very beginning, yet later, PAUL seems to have had the most outstanding ministry. As a writer of the New Testament, for example, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter only wrote 8 chapters with 166 verses. Thus Paul's ministry became more far-reaching that that of Peter's.
In Galatians 2:9, Paul spoke of Peter, James, and John as pillars in the Christian church. Yet Paul could say "In NOTHING am I behind the very chiefest apostles" (2 Cor 12:11; 11:5). But if Peter had been the SUPREME pontiff, the Pope, then certainly Paul would have been somewhat behind him! Obviously this was not the case. Then in Galatians 2:11, we read that Paul gave a rebuke to Peter "because he was to be blamed." From this it seems evident that Peter was not regarded as an "infallible" Pope!
It was Paul that was "THE apostle of the Gentiles" (Rom 11:13), whereas Peter's ministry was "unto the circumcision" (Gal 2:7-9). This fact -- in itself -- would seem like sufficient proof that Peter was not Bishop of ROME, as Catholics are taught, for Rome was a Gentile city. All of this is indeed highly significant, especially when we consider that the entire framework of Roman Catholicism is based on the claim that Peter was Rome's first bishop!
It is claimed that Peter went to Rome about 41 A.D. and was martyred there in about 66 A.D. But there is not one bit of proof that Peter ever even went near Rome! Instead, the evidence is to the contrary. The New Testament tells us that Peter went to Antioch, to Samaria, to Joppa, to Caesarea, and other places, but never does it say he went to Rome! This is a strange omission, especially when we remember that Rome was the Empire's capitol and was considered the most important city in the world!
Yet it is claimed that Peter suffered martyrdom there after a pontificate of 25 years. If we accept 66 A.D. as the date of his martyrdom, this would mean that he was bishop of Rome from 41 to 66 A.D. But about 44 A.D., he was in the Council of Jerusalem. (Act 15). About 53 A.D., Paul joined him in Antioch. (Gal 2:11). About 58 A.D., Paul wrote his letter to the Christians at Rome in which he sent greetings to twenty-seven persons, but never does he mention or greet Peter! Imagine a missionary writing to a church, greeting 27 of the most prominent members, but never mentions the pastor!
I know of multiplied thousands who have bowed before what they believe is a statue of Peter (but it is actually an idol of non-Christian origin).
Since a study of the scriptures reveals that Peter was not the bishop of Rome, that he was not the first Pope, and that the Papal office was not instituted by Christ, when then is the real origin of the Papal office and the ideas that would attempt to link Peter with Rome? These things are ready to be discussed here...
Quote:
satan would dearly love to get rid of the Holy Catholic Church, because if he did, he would be getting rid of the largest, oldest, and most unified body of believers that stand against him.
"And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?... And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end." (Mar 3:23, 26).
It was not until the time of Calixtus, who was bishop of Rome from 218-223, that Matthew 16:18 was first used in an attempt to prove that the church was built on Peter and that the bishop of Rome was his successor.
Let us now take a closer look at Peter -- let us compare him with the popes -- and it will become apparent that Peter was not a pope at all!
1. Peter was married. The fact that Peter was a married man does not harmonize with the Catholic position that a Pope is to be unmarried. The scriptures tell us that PETER'S WIFE'S MOTHER was healed of a fever. (Mar 1:30; Mat 8:14). Of course there couldn't be a "Peter's wife's mother" if Peter didn't have a wife!
However, some try to explain this discrepancy by saying that Peter ceases to live with his wife. If so, did his wife leave him? Why? Was it incompatibility? Or maybe he left her? If so, he was a wife-deserter. In either case, he was a poor foundation upon which to build a church!
But the Bible plainly shows that Peter did NOT leave his wife! Twenty-five years after Jesus went back to heaven, the Apostle Paul mentioned that the various apostles had wives -- including Cephas. (1 Cor 9:5). (Cephas was Peter's Aramaic name -- John 1:42). Obviously Peter had not left his wife.
2. Peter would not allow men to bow down to him. When Peter was coming into the house of Cornelius, we read that "Cornelius met him, and fell down at this feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself am a man" (Act 10:25, 26). This was quite different from what a pope would have said! Men bow to the pope and he loves to have it so.
3. The popes place tradition in a place equal to the Word of God. But Peter -- to the contrary -- had little faith in "traditions from your fathers" (1 Pet 1:18). Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost was filled with the Word of God, not traditions of men. And when the people asked what they should do to get right with God, Peter did not tell them to have a little water poured or sprinkled on them. Instead, he said: "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Act 2:38).
4. Peter was not the pope, for he wore no crown. Peter himself explained that God's people were not to wear crowns in this life, but that when the chief shepherd shall appear, THEN shall we "receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away" (1 Pet 5:4). Since Jesus has not yet appeared again, the crown that the Pope wears is surely not one that is bestowed upon him by Christ!
In short, Peter never acted like a Pope, Peter never dressed like a pope, Peter never spoke like a pope, Peter never wrote like a pope, and people did not approach him as a pope. Why? Because Peter was not a Pope!
In all probability, in the very early days of the church, Peter did take the most prominent position among the apostles. This we do not deny. It was Peter who preached the first sermon after the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost and 3,000 were added to the Lord the same day. Later, it was Peter who first took the gospel to the Gentiles. Whenever we find a list of the twelve apostles in the Bible, Peter's name is always mentioned FIRT (See Mat 10:2; Mar 3:16; Luk 6:14; Act 1:13). But none of this -- not by any stretch of the imagination -- would indicate that Peter was the Pope or Universal Bishop of bishops!
While Peter apparently did take the most outstanding role of the apostles at the very beginning, yet later, PAUL seems to have had the most outstanding ministry. As a writer of the New Testament, for example, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter only wrote 8 chapters with 166 verses. Thus Paul's ministry became more far-reaching that that of Peter's.
In Galatians 2:9, Paul spoke of Peter, James, and John as pillars in the Christian church. Yet Paul could say "In NOTHING am I behind the very chiefest apostles" (2 Cor 12:11; 11:5). But if Peter had been the SUPREME pontiff, the Pope, then certainly Paul would have been somewhat behind him! Obviously this was not the case. Then in Galatians 2:11, we read that Paul gave a rebuke to Peter "because he was to be blamed." From this it seems evident that Peter was not regarded as an "infallible" Pope!
It was Paul that was "THE apostle of the Gentiles" (Rom 11:13), whereas Peter's ministry was "unto the circumcision" (Gal 2:7-9). This fact -- in itself -- would seem like sufficient proof that Peter was not Bishop of ROME, as Catholics are taught, for Rome was a Gentile city. All of this is indeed highly significant, especially when we consider that the entire framework of Roman Catholicism is based on the claim that Peter was Rome's first bishop!
It is claimed that Peter went to Rome about 41 A.D. and was martyred there in about 66 A.D. But there is not one bit of proof that Peter ever even went near Rome! Instead, the evidence is to the contrary. The New Testament tells us that Peter went to Antioch, to Samaria, to Joppa, to Caesarea, and other places, but never does it say he went to Rome! This is a strange omission, especially when we remember that Rome was the Empire's capitol and was considered the most important city in the world!
Yet it is claimed that Peter suffered martyrdom there after a pontificate of 25 years. If we accept 66 A.D. as the date of his martyrdom, this would mean that he was bishop of Rome from 41 to 66 A.D. But about 44 A.D., he was in the Council of Jerusalem. (Act 15). About 53 A.D., Paul joined him in Antioch. (Gal 2:11). About 58 A.D., Paul wrote his letter to the Christians at Rome in which he sent greetings to twenty-seven persons, but never does he mention or greet Peter! Imagine a missionary writing to a church, greeting 27 of the most prominent members, but never mentions the pastor!
I know of multiplied thousands who have bowed before what they believe is a statue of Peter (but it is actually an idol of non-Christian origin).
Since a study of the scriptures reveals that Peter was not the bishop of Rome, that he was not the first Pope, and that the Papal office was not instituted by Christ, when then is the real origin of the Papal office and the ideas that would attempt to link Peter with Rome? These things are ready to be discussed here...
Quote:
satan would dearly love to get rid of the Holy Catholic Church, because if he did, he would be getting rid of the largest, oldest, and most unified body of believers that stand against him.
"And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?... And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end." (Mar 3:23, 26).