Was the apostle Peter the first Pope?
 |
Read the apostle's own testimony! |
 |
|
|
"And as Peter was coming in,
Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and
worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying,
Stand up; I myself also am a man."
ACTS 10:25,26.
How different is Peter from the
Papacy that exalts itself and claims the chair of St.
Peter.
Here is a picture showing a Cardinal
bowing down to the Pope, i.e. one bishop worshipping
another:
- Veneration and adoring is worship, and
worshipping anything else than the invisible GOD, is
idolatry forbidden by the Ten Commandments but
allowed by the Church of Rome putting itself in the
place of GOD and JESUS CHRIST whom He had sent.
- The clown dresses they are wearing is
unchristian and comes from the cult of Mythra.
JESUS did not say to Peter, on you I will built My
Church! He said, you are Peter [Petros meaning a
small stone], and upon this rock I will built My
Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against
it. [Matthew 16:18]
JESUS used a play on words.
Peter himself testifies that JESUS is the foundation
stone against whom hell did not prevail [1.Peter 2:9;
Matthew 21:42-44]. GOD is called the Rock in the
Old Testament and Paul confirmed that CHRIST is the
rock [1.Cor.10:4]. Hell did prevail against
Peter when he denied his Lord and Saviour three times
with cursing and swearing. Please compare the
lowly Lord JESUS and Peter with the self exalting
haughty Papal See.
Nowhere is there evidence that Peter was in Rome.
Paul was. And he was especially chosen as an
apostle to the gentile [non Jewish] world, while Peter
looked after the Jews and James was mostly presiding
over the Jerusalem Council meetings.
For a human being to claim to be the
rock or foundation of Christianity, is pure blasphemy.
"Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple
crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower
regions."
(#13. Hinc Papa triplici corona coronatur tanquam rex
coeli, terre et infernoram.")
Source: Lucius Ferraris, “Papa,” art. 2, in his
Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis,
Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica.
(“Handy Library”), Vol. 5, published in Petit-Montrouge
(Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition, column 1823,
Latin.
Claiming even to be the king of heaven.
Isn't that speaking great words against the Most
High? [Daniel 7:25].
Did he think to change times and laws of GOD?
They removed the second of the Ten Commandments in
order to bring images and idolatry into Christianity
by force. Millions have been tortured on the
rack and burned at the stake for refusing to agree
with their idolatry. Daniel had prophesied that
he would wear out the saints of the Most High GOD.
See Daniel 7:25. Times were also changed from
Saturday to Sunday and from GOD's time of sundown to
the darkest hour of midnight by pope Gregory.
The
Claim of the Apostolic Succession
A fatal blow to the Catholic view of
the "Petrine Primacy," is the lack of any New
Testament support for the primacy of Peter in the
Apostolic Church. If, according to the Catholic
claim, Christ appointed Peter as His vicar to govern
the church, then we would expect Peter to function
as the leader of the Apostolic church. But this is
hardly the case.
For example, there are no
indications that Peter ever served as the presiding
officer of the Jerusalem church. The organizational
structure of the Jerusalem Church is characterized
as collegiality with a presidency. But there are no
indications that Peter ever served as the presiding
officer of the church. At the Jerusalem Council, it
was James, not Peter, who presided in the
deliberations (Act 15:13).
Furthermore, the ultimate authority
of the Jerusalem Church resided, not with Peter, but
with the apostles, who were later replaced by
"elders." For example, it was "the apostles" who
sent Peter to Samaria (Acts 8:14) to check on the
new Christian communities. Had Peter been the leader
of the apostolic church, he would have counseled the
apostles to send him to Samaria, rather than being
told by the apostles to go there.
It was the "apostles" who sent
Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11:22). It was "the
apostles and the elders" who sent Judas and Silas to
Antioch (15:22-27). It was "James and the elders"
who advised Paul to undergo a rite of purification
at the Temple (Acts 21:18, 23-24). Had Peter been
appointed by Christ to serve as the Head of the
Church, he would have played a distinctive
leadership role in the decisions mentioned above.
Paul Did not Acknowledge Peter as the Head of the
Church
Moreover, there are no indications that Paul viewed Peter as the leader
of the church. We are told that when Peter went to
Antioch, Paul "opposed him to his face, because he
stood condemned" (Gal 2:11). Paul's action hardly
suggests that Peter was recognized and respected as
the infallible head of the church.
Furthermore, Paul explicitly says that Peter was entrusted with
preaching the Gospel to the Jews, while his
mission was to preach to the Gentiles (Gal 2:7).
This suggests that Peter's mission was
predominantly to the Jews, and not over the
whole church.
Paul refers to the "pillars"
of the Apostolic Church as being "James, Cephas,
and John" (Gal 2:9). The fact that "James," the
Lord's brother, is mentioned before "Cephas,"
the Aramaic for of "Peter," indicates that
James, rather than Peter, served as the leader
of the church. Had the apostles understood that
Christ had appointed Peter to serve as the Head
of the church, they would have entrusted to him
the leadership of the church. But the fact is
that Peter is never seen in the NT as the sole
or chief leader of the Apostolic Church.
HOME
|
 |
Info box |
 |
|
Peter's Mother in Law was
sick [Matthew 8:14,15] from this we know that
Peter was married.
|
 |
Info box |
 |
|
Y
|
|
|
Info box |
|
|
Y
|
|
