soundoff
Unregistered User
(3/30/02 5:44 am) Reply
Was Peter a Pope?
It behooves me the Catholics have misconstrued the scriptures and has made Peter as being the first Pope. I understand their argumentum for Peter being the first Pope by the Catholics. They who use biblical verses to twist the scriptures for their own self-customized theology appall me.
At the same time they become hypocrites with absurd nonsensical theological concepts. One reason is they say that sola scriptures are not the only valid source for knowledge and wisdom but they have the gull to claim that oral tradition is equaled to what is written. In their self-proclamation they want to claim that the bible is not the sole authority. I will take what is written down before I will believe in an oral one. As if the church has the right to decide what is biblical instead of the bible saying what is biblical.
My main focus is not to target on what I said above but to show how Peter is not our first Pope. If Peter was the first Pope then we can see that the Popes had detracted from the values that Peter would have wanted them to be.
We can read in Peter who taught being godly is a great virtue. This is something that the Popes have not shown throughout the history of the Catholic Papacy.
Peter had a wife and Jesus came into Peters home as we read the following verse:
Mat 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
We can see that this verse would dispute the very idea of Peter even sanctioning the practice of celibacy for the Priesthood.
Lets observe and investigate this verse that I will now show below:
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Notice that this verse is proof that Peter is not a Pope. The reason is the Apostles sent Peter and John. The Body of Christ is always superior to the one who is sent.
The Body of Christ sent Peter and he was not superior to the ones who made up the body in Jerusalem.
In this case it was an Apostolic Body in Christ.
In conclusion the Catholics claim that any one who does not follow their doctrines is not of the truth and all who do are following a heretic doctrine.
I believe that this should be reversed and that the Catholics are following deception and an abrupt damnable lie:
John Gill said it well in his commentary of the NT Exposition:
2Th 2:11 - And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,....
that they should believe a lie; that the pope is Christ's vicar on earth, and has power to forgive sins; that the bread and wine in the Lord's supper are transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ; with other lying tenets spoken in hypocrisy concerning good works, merit, pardon, penance; &c. with a multitude of lying wonders and false miracles, of which their legends are full; and this is the first and more near end of strong delusion or efficacious error being sent them; the more remote and ultimate one follows.
JaRay
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 59
(3/30/02 6:09 am) Reply
Re: Was Peter a Pope?
Well said.
"The Ishmaelites hear, in this place, the same sentence that was pronounced against them, which overthroweth the Jews, Grecians, Romans, and all others which persecute the Church of Christ. The self-same sentence shall also overthrow the papists, and all that trust in their own works, and yet boast that they are the true people of God, and the true Church; which also trust that they shall receive the inheritance, and judge us that rest upon the promises of God, not only to be barren and forsaken, but also heretics cast out of the Church, and, therefore, that it is impossible that we are sons and heirs. But God overthroweth their judgment, and pronounceth sentence against them." Luther, Commentary on Galations, 4:30
-J
S.D.G
iHs Registered User
Posts: 12
(3/31/02 11:44 am) Reply
Re: Was Peter a Pope?
Allow me to quote 'The Peoples New Testament';
Mat 16:18 -
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. This is the first time Jesus speaks of his church, and here, as not yet founded. Three terms are to be noted: (1) Peter, in the Greek, Petros, meaning a single stone; (2) Rock, in the Greek, Petra, which means the solid, immovable bed-rock, a great mass like a cliff, and (3) church, Greek, ecclesia, those "called out," the fellowship of believers, the organized society of Christ, the kingdom of heaven on earth.
4073 - Greek
4073 petra pet'-ra
feminine of the same as 4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):--rock.
4074 - Greek
4074 Petros pet'-ros
apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:--Peter, rock. Compare 2786.
There is probably no passage in the word of God that has called forth more discussion. The Papal church insists that Peter is the rock upon which Christ founded his church. The Catholic position is based upon the fact that Peter means a stone (see Joh_1:42), and the Savior's language might be rendered, "Thou art a stone, and upon this rock I will build my church." The Catholic view is untenable, for 1. The Savior does not say, "Thou art a stone, and upon thee I will build," etc., or "Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build." He changes the word in the Greek from Petros (Peter, a stone) to Petra, a rock, or ledge of rock--a solid bed-rock. 2. Every saint is a stone (see 1Pe_2:5). The Lord declares that Peter is one these living stones, made such by his confession of faith, and ready to be built into the church, the spiritual temple, formed of living stones, and built upon the rock. So is every confessor of Christ. In order to settle what the Savior does mean by the rock, we must consider Mat_16:18-19 together, and keep in mind the entire figure. This figure portrays (1) a Builder, Christ; (2) a temple to be built, composed of lively stones, the church; (3) a foundation for that temple, the rock; (4) the gates of an unfriendly city or power which shall seek its destruction, hell, or more correctly, Hades, the unseen abode of the dead, the grave; (5) a door-keeper of the church, or spiritual temple, with his keys, Peter. Peter's place in the figure is not that of the foundation, but that of the key-holder, or turnkey. The only difficulty is in settling what the Lord means by the rock. Since this rock is the foundation of the church, the central principle, the fundamental idea, we are aided to a correct decision by the teachings of the Word elsewhere. We learn from 1Co_3:11, "That other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." This excludes Peter or any human platform. Christ is often called a stone: "the stone that the builders rejected," "the chief corner stone," "the stone that is the head of the corner," "the spiritual rock which is Christ." Faith in Christ held in the heart, and confessed with the lips is the very foundation of the spiritual life and of the church. This constituted the fundamental difference in apostolic days between Christians and unbelievers, the church and the world. It does still. It is the essence of the teaching of the New Testament that the platform or foundation of the Christian society, the church, is this belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is then Peter's grand confession, faith in the Spiritual Rock, the faith that lays hold of Christ, belief that he is the Anointed of God, the Divine Savior, that the Lord pronounces the rock upon which he will found his church. That this view is correct is shown by a correct understanding of the declaration, The gates of hades shall not prevail against it. From the gates of the city always marched forth its armies. The powers of hades are represented by its gates. Hades is not hell (Gehenna), but the unseen abode of the dead that holds the departed within its gates. Just after these words the Lord talks of his death, or entering hades. Six months later the Sanhedrim sent him to death for making the same confession Peter had just made. See Mat_26:64-67. They expected to demonstrate that the confession of his divinity which he had made was false by sending him to hades, which they supposed would hold him and prevail against the confession of the ROCK. He was sent there from the cross, but the gates of hades did not prevail, for they could not hold him, and the living Savior, rising triumphant from the tomb, was the unanswerable argument that his own and Peter's confession was a rock that could never be moved. His resurrection demonstrated that he is the Rock. Hades did not prevail.
Now allow me to quote Robertson's Word Pictures;
Mat 16:18 -
And I also say unto thee (kagw de soi legw). "The emphasis is not on 'Thou art Peter' over against 'Thou art the Christ,' but on Kagw: 'The Father hath revealed to thee one truth, and I also tell you another" (McNeile). Jesus calls Peter here by the name that he had said he would have (Joh_1:42). Peter (Petrov) is simply the Greek word for Cephas (Aramaic). Then it was prophecy, now it is fact. In verse Mat_16:17 Jesus addresses him as "Simon Bar-Jonah," his full patronymic (Aramaic) name. But Jesus has a purpose now in using his nickname "Peter" which he had himself given him. Jesus makes a remarkable play on Peter's name, a pun in fact, that has caused volumes of controversy and endless theological strife.
On this rock (epi tauth th petrai) Jesus says, a ledge or cliff of rock like that in Mat_7:24 on which the wise man built his house. Petrov is usually a smaller detachment of the massive ledge. But too much must not be made of this point since Jesus probably spoke Aramaic to Peter which draws no such distinction (Khfa). What did Jesus mean by this word-play?
I will build my church (oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian). It is the figure of a building and he uses the word ekklhsian which occurs in the New Testament usually of a local organization, but sometimes in a more general sense. What is the sense here in which Jesus uses it? The word originally meant "assembly" (Act_19:39), but it came to be applied to an "unassembled assembly" as in Act_8:3 for the Christians persecuted by Saul from house to house. "And the name for the new Israel, ekklhsia, in His mouth is not an anachronism. It is an old familiar name for the congregation of Israel found in Deut. (Deu_18:26; Deu_23:2) and Psalms (Psa_22:36), both books well known to Jesus" (Bruce). It is interesting to observe that in Psa. 89 most of the important words employed by Jesus on this occasion occur in the LXX text. So oikodomhsw in Psa_89:5; ekklhsia in Psa_89:6; katisxuw in Psa_89:22; Xristov in Psa_89:39, Psa_89:52; aidhv in Psa_89:49 (ek xeirov aidou). If one is puzzled over the use of "building" with the word ekklhsia it will be helpful to turn to 1Pe_2:5. Peter, the very one to whom Jesus is here speaking, writing to the Christians in the five Roman provinces in Asia (1Pe_1:1), says: "You are built a spiritual house" (oikodomeisqe oikov pneumatikov). It is difficult to resist the impression that Peter recalls the words of Jesus to him on this memorable occasion. Further on (1Pe_2:9) he speaks of them as an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, showing beyond controversy that Peter's use of building a spiritual house is general, not local. This is undoubtedly the picture in the mind of Christ here in Mat_16:18. It is a great spiritual house, Christ's Israel, not the Jewish nation, which he describes. What is the rock on which Christ will build his vast temple? Not on Peter alone or mainly or primarily. Peter by his confession was furnished with the illustration for the rock on which His church will rest. It is the same kind of faith that Peter has just confessed. The perpetuity of this church general is guaranteed.
In summary I post the following;
The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, Article XIX
Of the Church:
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
If Peter was a Pope
A simple question here. If Peter was the Pope why didn't they mention this in the bible and address Peter being the Pope. Surly a name or a title would of been given to him besides just being called an Apostle.
We should of seen some kind of indication that Peter was called a Pope. All I see is Peter was called fellow Apostle and I never seen this position mentioned by the other Apostles. I never seen Paul say that God gave gifts to the church as Apostles, prophets and teachers. What happened to the gift of being a Pope? It is not even listed among the gifts.
Sure seems strange that a Position like this would be ignored in the bible and made light of by not mentioning anything about it. If this position was so important then we would of known by the other Apostles that Peter was a Pope.
TopHat
PaperCup Registered User
Posts: 30
(4/1/02 11:35 pm) Reply
Re: If Peter was a Pope
Ok, I can accept that Peter isnt the first Pope, however, let us concentrate on who was teh second Pope.
The second Pope, obvisouly, is the first Pope.
St. Linus(67-76) is the second known Pope, and if Peter isnt the first Pope then its evident that St. Linus was.
Here is the list of Popes, with explanations about them.
After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy.
2 Timothy 4:21 Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.
Personally, the RCC have there own doctrine outside of the bible, we can confirm accuracy of course with there doctine.
Of course Soundoff is right, anyone can twist scripture to suit the needs of the individual, I agree, that the RCC has done that very thing, there is no formal proof that the RCC is the so called church that peter was to have founded.
Now, this raises another question, if RCC is the founded church by peter, then where is the church that peter started??
Yes, the body of beleivers are the church, however, if that is all it is, is the body of beleivers, what did Peter actually do to create this.
The way i see it, Peter, preached what took place with christ and what christ had taught him. A few men were ordained to be bishops.
Kjv 1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
Kjv Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Evidently, Peter did form an organization. If its not the Catholic church, then were is this church Peter founded ??
PaperCup
PaperCup Registered User
Posts: 31
(4/1/02 11:37 pm) Reply
Re: If Peter was a Pope
I would like to add that there are 7 churches in revelation, These churches i assume is what Peter founded, so we need to concentrate on these 7.
If not the catholic church, then who or what are these 7 churches ??
In conclusion, Jesus is not very please with these churches.
Re: If Peter was a Pope
Rev. 17:9 ...the seven heads are seven hills, where the woman sits on them.
"Septimontium," the [Roman] "feast of the seven-hilled city" (Plutarch); "...on the imperial coins, just as here, she is represented as a woman seated on seven hills. ("Coin of Vespasian," described by Captain Smyth; Roman Coins, p. 310; Ackerman, 1, p. 87)"
-J
S.D.G
iHs Registered User
Posts: 23
(4/2/02 8:02 pm) Reply
Re: If Peter was a Pope
The true issue, it seems to me, is this;
Is the office of pope, and all that the roman catholic dogma attaches to it, biblical?
If not, it doesn't matter who the first pope was, because he is contrary to the Bible.
Cyril, Cyprian, and a host of other early church fathers all interpreted Matt. 16:18 as refering to ALL bishops, every single one in every Church, not just the Roman bishop.
There also wasn't any mention of Linus, etc. until AFTER Gregory I (the Great) decided that he was the pontificus maximus of all Churches and had to eisegete his "office" into history--i.e. the list of popes up to Gregory (A.D. 590-604) is false (yes, false--now, that doesn't mean that all of the men on the list were not real, or were not Roman bishops--just that they wouldn't have the foggiest idea what a "pope of popes" was, or that they were it).
P.S. For anyone interested there is a good debate (in realaudio) on the topic "How Biblical and Ancient is the Papacy" between Jim White and Fr. Mitch Pacwa here.
"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges....If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail." (Cn. Nicea, VI. [325 A.D.])
Re: If Peter was a Pope
When i debate on the matter of Peter being the first pope, alot point to (1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.) as proof that Peter was in rome, and if so this Babylon must then be the same Babylon, talked of in revelation.
Revelation 14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Encarta
According to tradition, Rome was founded in 753 BC on one of the Seven Hills—a term used for centuries to describe the Capitoline, Quirinal, Viminal, Esquiline, Caelian, Aventine, and Palatine hills surrounding the old community.
Re: Peter the Pope
Not to dis-Peter but if he was the first pope the infallible issues would be out the door. Peter was wrong to separate himself from the Christian gentiles when other Jews showed up.
They will point the pope is only infallible when sitting in his certain chair at certain times, as if its some kind of a magic chair, so then that would have made Peter fallible always, having not the chair, even though he met the Lord, he was not His infallible representative to mankind, but other popes were? Well no, because others didn't have the chair either. So this pope speaks as God, or for God (Depending on the catholic your debating.) and Peter and the first popes didn't?
One of the best arguments against the primacy of Peter is the fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves over which of them should be the greatest.
Luke 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Second James was the head of the church at Jerusalem. Solomons porch, so the first pope was subject to another man on earth?
Again not disssssssing Peter, mind you, in fact of them all, I think I am most like him... 'other then the denying Christ bit, BUT that in-itself is another debate' but this retort is bible based not RC authority based, the fact is they have no true concrete evidence he was daaa pope. (I myself, don't see the catholic church going back that far.)
Quote: When i debate on the matter of Peter being the first pope, alot point to....1 Peter 5:13
Yet, it is very unreal that this is true. Early Church History records 2 visits by Peter to Rome (1) Sometime during 40-45 A.D. (before the coucil of Jerusalem) and (2) 68 A.D. - his martyrdom. Correct me if I am wrong on the dating of this on Early Church Fathers.
The leter of 1 Peter, however, dates to either summer or fall of 58 A.D. Plus the dialect of the letter by linguists say that the letter is Middle Eastern dialect - not to mention Peter actually mostlikely dictated the letter since it was Silvanus (v.12)
Dating by RCC officals point that Peter was bishop of Rome since anywhere 0-5 years after Jesus died and rose again. This is impossible, however, fore there was no church in Rome at the time.
To quote an introduction to the first epislte of Peter:
Quote: The part played by Silvanus in the writing of the epistle helps us also to understand the circumstances in which it was written. The identification of ‘Babylon’ with Rome fits in with the general later tradition of Peter’s presence at Rome, and although many scholars dispute the historical value of this tradition which they hold to be ultimately derived from the misinterpretation of this very verse in I Peter, a Roman origin for the epistle cannot be ruled completely out of court. Yet there is a real difficulty in accepting the identification. Quite apart from the absence of any intelligible reason for Peter using such a cryptic term for Rome in an epistle in which he bids his readers honour the Emperor (2:17), no convincing evidence has so far been adduced for Rome being called Babylon before the Jewish War of A.D. 70 had fanned the flames of Jewish hatred.
Re: If Peter was a Pope
Re: If Peter was a Pope
Re: If Peter was a Pope
Re: Peter the Pope
Re: If Peter was a Pope. . .
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies