Was Peter the First Pope ?
A Closer Look at what the Bible says
Who is "the Rock" ?
Scripture tells us over and over again that the Lord God is the Rock.
Here are some verses that demonstrate where the Lord God is referred to as "the Rock"
Deu 32:4 [God is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.
Deu 32:15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered [with fatness]; then he forsook God [which] made him, and lightly esteemed
the Rock of his salvation.
Deu 32:31 For their rock [is] not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves [being] judges.
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and
that Rock was Christ.
Roman Catholic Church didn't Start with Peter
It is regretable that many Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have been told that the Christian Church started with the Roman Catholic Church. The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church was not founded until
AFTER the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
It is routinely stated that Constantine was supposedly a convert to Christianity. But the facts do not support this - at least not until he was at death's door. According to what
Eusebius said, (the bishop of Constantine) he wrote that Constantine WANTED to become a Christian but Eusebius talked him out of it, suggesting that he delay until he was on his deathbed.
Not very "Christian" of his bishop, though it was very political. And
where would the SOUL of Constantine be, if Constantine would have died - PRIOR
to his very late conversion to Christianity...on his deathbed ??? And what does
the willingness of his Bishop Eusebius, to allow Constantine to die in his sins,
tell us about Eusebius, and what kind of a bishop he truly was ?
Constantine followed the advice of Eusebius. For all of his life, Constantine was a worshipper of the Sun
god Sol Invictus (better known as Mithras/Mitra). Catholics are often told that Constantine was converted by his vision of a cross. But a vision does not save anyone. Charles manson had visions, did that save him ?
And the vision itself was NOT of Christ, nor of the Christian Cross. On the contrary, the "vision" that Constantine experienced was an Occult vision of a Pagan symbol. If Constantine was to conquer in the name of the sign of the cross that he saw, it would be an occult and pagan symbol. The records in the Greek text of Eusebius make it very very clear just what kind of a cross that Constantine saw. And it was not Christian, but rather Egyptian.
The record of what Constantine saw when he supposedly saw his cross, was not a cross in
any Christian sense: The records very precisely describe what today is known as an
"Egyptian Ankh", an egyptian symbol of paganism. At best, Constantine was a very confused person.
Faking History: The creation of the "Bishop of Rome" as though it were special in Early Christianity.
The position of the Bishop of Rome was a voluntary and honorary position. It carried no force of law, and there was no ecclesiastical law. It would take the backing of the Roman Emperor to turn the position of the Bishop of Rome into the Roman Catholic Papacy.
With the backing of the Roman Emperors, more than Three HUNDRED Years after
Jesus Christ and the work of the Apostles to ALREADY spread Christianity all
over the world and the Roman Empire, despite Severe Persecutions (thanks to the
Roman Emperors) - the newly politicized Pope began to claim sole authority for himself. The records of history are clear that over and over, he was repeatedly rebuked for his
claims by the Other Churches . Were the other Christians around the Roman Empire
(and beyond) suddenly acting in a rebellious manner ?
Not at all. Even in the 300s, those early Christians were telling the Pope that a Christian's allegiance is to Jesus Christ, not to a political
institution like the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. This brings us to the question:
If the Catholic Church did not exist until after it was set up by Constantine
AFTER the Council of Nicea, then
how did the world hear about Christianity BEFORE the creation of the Roman Catholic Church ?
The answer is by the Disciples and Apostles that Jesus had originally sent out. It was not 12
Disciples "under Peter". It was the disciples and apostles, that worked together, and all of them were submissive to each other in accordance with Biblical principles.
Those Disciples - like Paul - went all over the Roman Empire, preaching the gospel. The Roman Empire responded by persecuting them. The Christian Church was mostly an underground church for the fist 3 centuries. Where was the Pope at that point ?
To be a leader of the Catholic Church was a position of wealth and prestige. But for the first 3 centuries, there was No Pope.
Is there any evidence that Peter was ever Pope ? not the slightest. Is there any evidence that any of the
disciples of Jesus ever recognized Peter as being the first Pope ? Not in the least.
If the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus would have wanted to, they could have set themselves up as Kings and Popes. Instead they concentrated on the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the Bible.
One of the better indications of the Lack of Pope & Catholic Church is the record left to us by
Polycarp, who was discipled by John. It is interesting that Polycarp is one of the few known
disciples of those original disciples of Jesus. Polycarp could have made the case, either that Peter was
the first Pope, or that He - Polycarp - should have been included in the line of succession.
But that is not what happened. Polycarp omitted any mention of a Pope. The position had not even been invented. The only Church at the outset which existed was the true church of the true Christians.
It predates the Roman Catholic Church by 300 years. The lines of succession of the Pope and the Papacy for the first 325 Years of the Roman Catholic Church are entirely
fictitious. They are made up. Many of them are non-existent persons of
"history". As with the forged "Donation of
Constantine", the Catholic Church Hierarchy is well known for simply inventing history when it is convenient to suit themselves.
In addition, the lines of succession from Peter to Constantine have been replaced. At one time, certain people succeeded each other as "Pope". But in other Catholic Documents, the line of succession for the first 300 years is entirely different. Much of this is referenced in the book
"Vicars of Christ:
the Dark side of the Papacy" by Peter deRosa, as well as in the
many books offered here on the true and
documented history of the Roman Catholic Church.
Roman Catholics laymen are well meaning and well intentioned. Yet many of them do not know that the rituals practiced by their church were never there originally. Those rituals are merely later additions, brought in to the Catholic Church to detract from the simple message of Jesus Christ, and corrupt Catholicism into a system of salvation by works. Peter was not the first Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church was never the "Church" that the disciples and apostles wrote about in the
Bible.
The True Church of Jesus Christ is only in the Hearts of Men. It is called the fellowship of believers. A person becomes a member of the Church - based solely on their own individual relationship with Jesus Christ, in whom a person either places their faith in - or does not.
No human priest has ever forgiven the sins of anyone.
It is beyond their capacity. The sins of all Catholics - after they have gone to each and every confessional - remain with them - Just as much as the moment they ever walked
into the confessional.
The Bible says that only Jesus Christ can forgive us of our sins. Placing our faith in a priest to do this only means that those who do this have misplaced Faith. At that point, their faith is in the priest and
in the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church cannot save anyone. Those who have
died in the Catholic Church receiving the blessings of the priest, but deciding to reject the exclusive claims of Christ to save a person through Faith in Him alone, have died
unreconcilled to God.
There is no purgatory. It is either Hit or Miss. there is no in-between. There is no second chance. Faith in the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy and their teachings never produced one catholic going to heaven,
unless it is that Catholic picking up the Bible and reading what Jesus Says and believing this instead of the rituals of the Roman Catholic Church.
Remember the goal of many who have power is to make sure that those who are trying to learn about true spirituality never find the answers that they are looking for. The goal - by the spiritual rivals of Jesus Christ - is to make sure that no one ever picks up a copy of the New Testament and starts to read it for themselves. (the book of John is a good place to start). If people started to read the New Testament for themselves, they would find out that their spiritual needs can be met, and that they can go directly to God through Jesus Christ. And not only can God forgive them of their sins, but they do not need a priest to do this for them, ever. Imagine how fearful some would be, understanding that the Bible and reading it for yourself, can bring a degree of personal freedom and strength that many pray you will never find out about.
The technique is simple: delay, delay, delay. Just put it off..."one more day". The idea is often to sell you the concept that you can always take care of this...later. Even with purgatory, the concept is that spiritual matters can be taken care of later. But if that is not true, then the ONLY time we can take care of our spiritual needs is before we die, and actually making sure that our Faith is correctly placed...in what will determine our personal destiny...for ever.
When people believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose again, and when they place their faith in His Sacrifice alone, without any additions such as mass, rosary, confessional, scapulary, indulgences or any other man-made devices, only then can that person be saved and have eternal life.
QUESTIONS ANSWERED
Some have tried to recast the word "rock" as though Peter were talking about himself:
Here is that quote:
"By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock"."
Reply:
It should be noted that to try to describe the words of Peter as being in Aramaic is a very odd way to go about "defending" either the Bible or Christianity, since the New Testament was written in Ancient Greek.
[And not to mention - {see above} - that the explanation about the Aramaic omits the Historic Jewish characterization of "THE ROCK" as being a title reserved for God Exclusively]
Since the words of the New Testament are written in Greek, the words of Peter are in Greek and Not Aramaic. Therefore to present them AS IF they were in Aramaic ends up being a distortion, a mistranslation of the words of Peter. What Peter said as recorded in the Greek New Testament is what Peter said. The New Testament was written in GREEK, and Not Aramaic. (See our book section on Aramaic if interested).
The story about Peter being characterized as being part of the Rock of Christ is found in the Gospel of Matthew. One of the interesting things about the Gospel of Matthew is that it existed early amongst the Jews, and those early copies were still written in Greek, not Aramaic. The area of Palestine was very heavily "Helenized" [immersed in Greek culture] at the time of Christ, and many Jews were fully familiar with Greek, which was the common language of the Roman Empire. The Early copies of the gospel of Matthew which have been found are written in Ancient Koine Greek, Not Aramaic.
Marc (author of the Gospel of Marc) was historically known as the Scribe of Peter, and yet Marc is written in Ancient Greek and Not Aramaic. In addition there are the two Epistles of Peter that are in the New Testament written by Peter himself, and they are written by St. Peter in Ancient GREEK, and not Aramaic. (See our book section on Aramaic if interested).
Maybe it would be just a good idea, to take what Peter said in Greek, and read it in Greek, and believe what the Greek says. The reason why some resist doing this ...is because the Greek words explains and makes clear the differentiation between Christ as THE ROCK, and Peter as only a PIECE of the Rock of the Church of Christ (which is made up of the SOULS of the Christians, and neither their buildings, nor their denominations or official organizations)
What does History & the Bible teach about Peter being the First Pope
Vatican Abuses - Pontifex Maximus
- stigmatta - Mother
Teresa - Power Grab
Pope Appoints Cardinal
- Apocrypha - Donation of Constantine
More on United Religions Initiative
IF you are not familiar with the New Age Movement, start Here
Core Universal Rights
The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one's belief or religion
The right to join together and express one's belief
Vatican Abuses - Pontifex Maximus
- stigmatta - Mother
Teresa - Power Grab
Pope Appoints Cardinal
- Apocrypha - Donation of Constantine
Please
Note: We do try to be accurate. If you see anything which you believe
Is not
correct on our website, please do bring it to our attention.
Thank you
We invite your questions and comments, so please do not hesitate to contact us at
The Eastern Orthodox Church and the KGB
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0517570270/qid=1063900100/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-5601961-0256152?v=glance&s=books