Why do we have so many letters from Paul proving his fundamental role as a ruler of Church and no evidence whatsoever that Peter was actually the first pope or at least the first ruler of Church?
Who was the first pope / ruler of Church?
- Thread starter Vid
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Christ is the head of the church. Not any man
Three men where the leaders of the church in Jerusalem. Not peter.
And paul never went anyplace by himself.
God never intended for anyone person to e the head. He even sent the disciples out in 2’s
The point of the supposed doctrine of apostolic succession is that a certain view of history - i.e., that there was a hierarchy in charge from the beginning - is assumed, even though Scripture and records do not support it.
That's exactly why the Catholics erected St Peter's Basilica and claimed that his bones were found in Rome: "Although it could not be determined with certainty that the bones were those of Peter, the rare vestments suggested a burial of great importance. On 23 December 1950, in his pre-Christmas radio broadcast to the world, Pope Pius XII announced the discovery of Saint Peter's tomb".
The strongest evidence that Peter had nothing to do with the church at Rome is the epistle to the Romans. There is not a single reference to Peter the "bishop" of Rome in that epistle. Why? Because Peter was involved with the church at Jerusalem as the apostle to the Jews.
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
It sure was not PETER . HE would have rebuked those big hat wearing , decked out kiss my ring popes . THE CC is deadly
and i will have the blood of no man on my hands . THUS i warn all , FLEE IT .
and i will have the blood of no man on my hands . THUS i warn all , FLEE IT .
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Rather odd that in not one single letter FROM PETER HIMSELF , or JOHN , OR JAMES
Or paul , or jude did anyone point to any pope . GUESS WHY that WAS ...............CAUSE IT DIDNT EXIST .
THIS was all done by men who loved to have the PRE EMININANCE , and by those who desired to have the occassion .
Rather odd that even when paul makes mention of the apostles that were IN CHRIST before even paul was
HE never seemed to point to peter or etc . HE SIMPLY SAID GOD respects no mans person . ROME IS FALSE
and i REFUSE ITS FALSE POPES , every last single one of them . THEY were NOT and are NOT THE CHURCH .
I am very direct , BUT WE HAVE TO BE . I DONT WANT ONE SINGEL PERSON going in the diretion of that so called church .
The basis for this lie is that it gives the church leadership a false authority over the membership. Millions in the CC have been told that the Pope has the last word in doctrine, not the scriptures. Nothing but a tool to control and keep the uneducated, uninformed in the dark and in submission.
I agree with this. But I also think God calls people to direct churches towards the will of Christ.
I agree that some are annotated to evangelise, preach and teach.
I highly doubt the Catholic Church is headed in the right direction as spelled out for bishops in the bible. But there are some churches that listen to this:
1 Timothy 3:2-12
King James Version
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
I'm sure there are Bishops and others in the CC who really in their heart love Jesus but have allowed the teachings of tradition to corrupt doctrine given clearly in the scriptures. It's like they have taken a delicious dish and sprinkled in some bitter spices to make it un-eatable. I feel it's all rooted in the Church giving leadership the authority over the Holy Spirit. A religion that is all flesh with Spiritual sound bites.
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
He does , toward the WILL of CHRIST . Any man who dresses up and has a ring on and folks kiss that ring
AINT DOING the WILL OF CHRIST . The last time i checked , JESUS wore a crown of thorns upon his head
AND HE , as you KNOW , is the one true righteous one . YET HE SAID HE came as one to serve .
PETER was not the first pope . JESUS warned us about folks who make broad their clothes and etc .
JESUS warned us , YET folks make excuse for these folks all the time .
I bet paul , peter , jude , james , john , and others never decked themselves out in some fancy clothing
and etc . SO WHY ON earth would anyone else .
Fancy hats , fancy titles like REVERAND , or most HOLY or whatever . I refuse every ounce of it .
GOD alone will be worshipped and not men . THEY are no different than anyone else , THEY JUST MEN .
Last edited by a moderator:
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
THEN they need to step down PEROID . No one who truly LOVES CHRIST could sit , year after year after year
and allow such false doctrines to be believed and teach them as well . THEY DONT LOVE CHRIST .
the PROOF is in their actions . WOULD YOU GET UP and teach such false stuff . EXACTLY .
You would not . SO WHY DO THEY .
They DO NOT LOVE JESUS . OH they may love some THINGS he taught , they may do some good works too ,
but they aint no different than i once was when i too could say the name of JESUS , yet i lived for satan .
ITS a hard fact , but its one we better learn fast . This way we can ensure no one goes in that direction .
ANY seasoned leader should long well be very well grounded in truth , before he gets appointed as a bishop or any leader .
IF NOT , go to burger king and get a job and stop living off the flock , OR at least SIT back down in that church TILL one has
truly learned that bible doctrine well . Enough with false teachers . I DONT desire their death nor damnation
but i am gonna expose every last one of them for the sake of the flock . WE must .
Bashing denominations is against the rules of this forum. The RCC dresses up in manner after the Old Testament. Are they the spawn of Satan also? God forbid. The RCC has it's faults like any church. But the hate you throw at them by calling them Satan spawned is appalling and not right. I have reported you. Stop the hate.
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
Friends of Jesus
Active Member
The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”
The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since, according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.
But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter ever being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).
Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).
What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).
Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).
The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since, according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.
But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter ever being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).
Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).
What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).
Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).
Desire Of All Nations
Well-Known Member
While John and Jesus' brother James were also pillar apostles, Peter was clearly designated by Christ to be the lead apostle in Matt. 16. The fact that Christ renamed him Peter inherently proves this because "Peter" was an ancient designation for religious leaders. Peter gave the sermon at Pentecost(Acts 2) instead of the other followers, and he was the one who was first given revelation about salvation being extended to the Gentiles(Acts 10:34-43, 15:7, 13-14).
You say God never intended for one person to be the head, but the Bible tells a different story. It has always functioned with 1 man at the top. The Bible shows Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, and Peter all being put in charge of leading God's true followers. God has never ruled His true followers through theological committees at any point in human history/ The Bible also says God is the same today as He was yesterday, so it means His true followers are also being lead by 1 man now. The fact that adherents of Orthodox Christianity reject the idea that 1 man is supposed to lead shows why the Bible is just as much a mystery to them as it is a mystery to atheists.
Your whole argument is wrong, and it's wrong because you presume that Peter was in no way given a lead role over other apostles just because Catholics falsely claim that he was the first pope and that he handed the position down to future popes. Jesus' own words in Matt. 16:19 shows Peter was to be the lead apostle:
“And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”'''
There it is, in plain, unmistakable language that Peter was ordained by God to be the lead apostle. Christ giving Peter these "keys" automatically implies Peter was elevated above the other apostles since those "keys" is symbolic of someone being given direct revelation from God. More proof lies in Jesus' statement to Peter in Luk. 22:31-32 after His final Passover as a human being:
"And the Lord said, 'Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.'"
Two enormous facts emerge from this statement:
1. Satan primarily wanted to destroy Peter's faith
2. Jesus told Peter to strengthen the other disciples' faith
If Peter wasn't supposed to have more authority than the other disciples in the future, then why would Satan aim to primarily destroy Peter's faith? Why would Jesus tell Peter to strengthen the faith of the other disciples? Wouldn't the logical answer to both of these questions be that Satan and Jesus both knew Peter was ordained to be the lead apostle?
One of the more obvious pieces of proof concerning Peter's authority lies in Paul's own testimony in Gal. 1:18. After he was personally taught by Christ for 3 years in Arabia, Paul went to Jerusalem to meet Peter. Although James also happened to be there at the time, Paul specifically stated that he was vetted by Peter for 2 weeks. Why? Because he was the lead apostle!
JohnPaul
Soldier of Jehovah and Christ
The Mitre and the Popes vestments all go back to Dagon the fish God, I've posted a link to this somewhere before.
The Statue of St. Peter in St. Peter's Cathedral is actually a pagan statue of Jupiter that was taken from the Pantheon in Rome that use to be a pagan temple and renamed Peter.
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Peter was called the rock. Christ was called the stone. That is the first thing we need to remember.
Just because peter spoke does not mean he was in fact the ne man in charge Even paul had to rebuke peter public ally for sin. You do not rebuke your leader publically
Jesus sent the disciples out in twos. Not by themselves
He had 12 disciples. Not one. Not one of them was over the either. What did Jesus say to th mother when she asked if her sons could sit on the right and left hand side (places of power?
It is dangerous to have one person in charge, If that one person gets off track, no one can keep him or her in check. And what you have in an infiltration of that persons beliefs into the system of the church your trying to build.
Sadly we have examples of this all over the history of the church. And what do we have because of it? So many different beliefs and each one telling the there’s they have the truth, and no one else does.
All because they followed one man and HIS OWN PERSONAL BELIEF SYSTEM, and stopped following God
God tells us we will be responsible for what we believe, Not what some man teaches us, He also tells us the leaders of the church will be held to a greater responsibility. They may not recieve their due in this lifetime, but mark my word, they will in the next.
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
The ceasar was the pontifus Maximus. A title given to the height priest of the pagan cult
Its funny how the pontifus Maximus of rome became the pope of the church. And all of a sudden all these pagan rituals and rites and temples are brought into the church and called christian.
- Status
Similar threads
