about Peter

 PETER  

Ephesians 5:23-“even as Christ is the head of the church:”

ROME  SAYS

Matthew 16:18- “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”  The rock is Peter and the church was to built upon him.  He was the Bishop of Rome and hence the first Pope. He ministered in Rome for twenty-five years beginning in about AD45.  Contrary to the Protestant translation of rock as a small stone, the disciples and Jesus spoke in Aramaic.  The word for rock is Cephas and means a large rock.  There is no Aramaic word for little stone.

After Peter’s profession of faith, Christ determined that His church would be built upon Peter and he would be the first Pope.   The clear evidence of this is found in verse 19 where Peter is given the keys of the Church.

All true Bible scholars must admit that Peter was in Rome and was the first Bishop of Rome.  To deny that is just not factual.  The early church Father, Tertullian states, “Clement was ordained by Peter,” so Peter must have been the Pope in Rome.  Saint Peter’s name appears on all the various official lists of Popes as the first Pope.  Protestants attempt to disprove that Peter was actually in Rome by stating that his name is not mentioned in Romans chapter 16 where the Apostle Paul specifically mentions twenty-seven people by name from the Church of Rome.  The answer is quite obvious, Peter was simply out of town when Paul wrote this chapter.

St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles.  It is quite evident from Acts 15 that Peter was in charge of the Jerusalem council and in fact issued the final results of the council.

The word Babylon mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13 is actually a code word for Rome.  Peter was afraid of being persecuted by the Jews if he came right out and stated that he was in fact in Rome.

Many Catholic apologists claim that Christ’s words to Peter in John 21:15-17 (“Feed my lambs…..Feed my sheep”) gave Peter the unique authority as the first Pope

THE BIBLE SAYS

On this one verse alone, taken completely out of its context, the whole Roman Catholic system either rises or completely collapses.  If Christ did not in fact appoint Peter the first pope, the whole papal system collapses.  Disprove the primacy of Peter, and the foundation of the papacy is destroyed.  Destroy the papacy, and the whole Roman hierarchy topples with it.  The entire system depends absolutely upon the claim that Peter was the first Pope of Rome and all succeeding Popes were his successors.

In order to understand what is happening here, we must carefully examine the entire passage beginning in verse 15.  Matthew 16:15-18- “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am.  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona:  for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

It is very interesting the Jesus did not say, “and upon you I will build my church.”  The simple reason is because Peter had just stated in verse 16 that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God.  Peter clearly acknowledges the Deity of Christ.  In all actuality, Jesus is making a play on words in verse 18.  The New Testament was originally written in Greek and the Greek word for Peter is petros       (a masculine noun) and means a little stone.  If the apostles and Jesus were speaking Aramaic here, then they must have also been speaking Aramaic in John 1:42- “And he brought him to Jesus.  And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas (Peter), which is by interpretation, a stone.”  In this verse, Jesus plainly tells us that Peter’s name is a stone.  WOW!  Rome just completely overlooks this verse.  Rome simply is just not being completely honest that Cephas cannot be translated as a stone.  The bottom line is, DON’T ARGUE WITH ME OR CALL ME NAMES.  TAKE IT UP WITH THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. 

The Greek word translated rock in verse 18 is petra in the feminine gender and means a solid rock as in bedrock.  Had Christ intended to literally say that the Church would be founded on Peter, it certainly would have been ridiculous for Him to have shifted from the masculine form to the feminine form of the word in mid sentence.  If we are to believe the Catholic version of Jesus’ words the following would be true.  “And I say unto thee, that thou art Mr. Rock, and upon this, the Miss Rock, I will build my church.”  The New Testament teaches us that Jesus Christ was in fact the ROCK upon which the Church was to be built.  The apostle Paul clearly tells us that Christ was the rock.

1 Cor. 10:4- “… for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them:  and that rock was Christ.”

1 Cor. 3:11- “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”  Saint Peter himself also affirms that Christ is the  Rock.

1 Peter 2:6-8, he clearly states that Jesus Christ is, “The Chief Corner Stone and the Rock that the builders rejected.” 

If Peter was the first Pope, Paul surely would have mentioned him by name in Romans chapter 16 where he mentions twenty-seven people by name.  To say that he must have been out of town is just pure nonsense.  Eusebius Pamphilius wrote in page 100 of Ecclesiastical History that “Linus, bishop of the church of Rome, transferred (this office) to Anacletus” whom he earlier described as “the second bishop of Rome.”  Therefore, Linus would have to have been the first bishop of Rome.  There are in fact four supposed lists of Popes all sanctioned by the Roman Catholic and all are different and all have a different number of Popes.

Furthermore, we know from the New Testament that Peter was married.  We are also clearly told in 1 Corinthians 9:5, “Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethern of the Lord, and Cephas.” It is quite evident then that Peter and the other apostles took their wives with them on their preaching trips.  We are also told in Matthew 8:14-15, “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.  And he touched her hand, and the fever left her:  and she arose, and ministered unto them.”  With a wife naturally comes a mother-in-law.  How can the first Pope be a married man?

In 1 Peter 5:1, he refers to himself as a ‘presbyter’ but not a Pope.  In 2 Peter 1:1, he refers to himself as a servant (literally a bond slave).  Also in 1 Peter 5:3, Peter says, “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”  This certainly is a far cry from the actions of the Popes of Rome.  Nowhere in the New Testament is Peter ever referred to as the Pope.  The apostle John was the last of the New Testament writers writing his five books from AD90 to AD96.  He certainly does not refer to Peter as the Pope who by this time had been dead almost thirty years.

Peter was the only apostle to deny the Lord Jesus and he did it three times even cursing with oaths that he “didn’t know the man.”  Peter was also the only apostle that Jesus accused of being full of the Devil when he said to Peter, “Get thee behind me Satan.” Matt. 16:23  Furthermore, at the council in Jerusalem in AD52, we are told in Acts 15, that James was in charge and not Peter.  According to the passage in Acts 15, Paul actually called for the council to be convened and not Peter.  In fact, according to Galatians 2:11-12, Saint Paul had to openly rebuke Peter because he was guilty of teaching false doctrine.  Finally, a Pope certainly would not be sent anywhere; however, we find in Acts 8:14 that the apostles sent Peter and John to Samaria.

Nowhere in the entire New Testament do we actually have any record of Peter ever being in Rome.  The word Rome occurs nine times in the New Testament, and never is Peter mentioned in connection with it.  Rome certainly is not mentioned in either of his epistles.  On the other hand, the apostle Paul’s journey to Rome is mentioned in great detail in Acts 27 and 28.  We certainly find Peter in Jerusalem, Samaria, Antioch, Joppa and Caesarea but never in Rome.  If Peter was in fact the Bishop of Rome, why did the apostle Paul even go to Rome to minister?  The apostle Paul clearly tells us in Galatians chapter 2 that Peter was to be the apostle to ‘the circumcision’ or Jews and he (Paul) was to be the apostle to the Gentiles.  Is not the Pope supposed to be the head of all the Church?  Peter clearly tells us in 1 Peter 5:13-“The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.”  If Babylon is really a code word for Rome, then the Roman Catholic Church falls into its own trap.  In Revelation 17, the harlot Babylon must then also refer to Rome and therefore, Catholicism must admit that they are in fact the “harlot” mentioned in chapter 17.  In reality, Peter ministered in Babylon and not Rome.

John 21:15-17 is actually a rebuke to Peter.  Notice the Greek word ἀγαπᾷς (agape) in verse 15.  Jesus is asking Peter if he loves Him with that deep all abiding love.  Peter answers that he has a φιλῶ (philo) or merely affection for Christ.  In verse 16 Jesus asks Peter the same question again using the Greek ἀγαπᾷς and once again Peter answers that he merely has an affection φιλῶ for Christ.  Then the actual rebuke of Peter comes in verse 16 where Jesus changes verbs and asks Peter if he even has an affection for him φιλεῖς. Peter then realizes that he is being rebuked.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF PETER THE APOSTLE. Part 1

The following chronology of the apostle Peter’s life and ministry will be established. Catholic tradition states that Peter was in Rome for 25 years from the year A.D. 42 until A.D. 67, when he was martyred. However, there is no credible historical or biblical evidence to substantiate this Catholic tradition. Peter’s actions and his whereabouts can easily be traced biblically, to disproves his Privacy and his alleged position as Bishop of Rome and the first pope.

Christ’s ascension, Peter is in Jerusalem (Acts 1:9). A.D. 33

The apostle Paul was converted around A.D. 37 (Acts 9). Paul states in the first chapter of Galatians, versus 13 – 18, that after his conversion he went into Arabia, “then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and abode with him 15 days.” This takes us to A.D. 40, and Peter is still in Jerusalem.

Peter and John are sent to Samaria to eight Philip (Acts 8) in A.D. 40.

Sometime during those days Peter made his missionary journey through the western part of Judea, to Lydda, to with Jappa, to Caesarea, and back to Jerusalem (Acts 9: 32 through 11:2) in A.D. 41.

Then came the imprisonment under Herod Agrippa I and the miraculous deliverance by the angel of the Lord (Acts 12). Peter then “went down from Judea to Caesarea and there abode” (Acts 12: 20-23). Josephus, the historian, says that the death of Agrippa would have occurred in the fourth year of the reign of Claudius. This would be about AD 45 and Peter is still in Palestine.

Paul writes in the second chapter of Galatians that 14 years after his first visit to Jerusalem to visit Peter he went again to see him. The first journey occurred in A.D. 40. So, 14 years later brings us to A.D. 54 and Peter is still in Palestine (Galatians chapter 2)

Peter speaks at the Jerusalem assembly (Acts 15:7 – 11) in about A.D. 52.

Peter returns to visit and goes to Antioch where Paul is working. This occasioned the famous interview between the two recorded in Galatians 2:11 – 14. Peter is still in Palestine and not Rome in about A.D. 54.

After A.D. 54, and after the Antioch visit, the apostle Peter makes an extensive missionary journey to the Roman provinces of the East. On this missionary journey Peter takes his wife (I Corinthians 9:5). They labor in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. So vast a work and so great a territory must have consumed several years, this would take us to at least A.D. 60 and Peter and his wife are still not in Rome.

Peter writes his Epistles from Babylon and not from Rome in A.D. 60 (I Peter 5:13).

Paul writes to Rome but not to Peter in A.D. 60 (Romans 16).

Around A.D. 60, Paul wrote a letter to the church at Rome. In the last chapter of that Epistle, Paul salutes some 28 people, but he never mentions Peter. In Romans 1:11, Paul wants to impart special gifts and in Romans 1:15 he is ready to prepare there. If Peter was the first pope and in Rome, it is most strange that Paul should never refer to him.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF PETER. Part 2

Romans 1:13 shows that the church at Rome was a Gentile church. At the Jerusalem assembly (Galatians 2:7 – 9), it was agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

The gospel ministry of Paul was motivated by a great principle which he clearly repeats in Romans 15:20: “yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation.” Where no other apostle has been, there Paul wanted to go. Having written this plainly to the people at Rome, his desire to go to the Roman city would be inexplicable if Peter were already there or had been there for many years.

In A.D. 61, Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome and a certain brethren go to meet him but not Peter (Acts 28:14).

Paul’s first Roman imprisonment took place around A.D.61 to A.D. 64, from his prison the apostle to the Gentiles wrote five Epistles: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and II Timothy. In these letters and mentions many of his fellow believers who are in Rome, but he never once refers to Peter. Also, at Rome Paul writes to the Galatians and mentions Peter, but not as being there or as having been pope for 20 years.

From Rome also Paul’s last letter is written (the second Epistle to Timothy). He says, “At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me” (II Timothy 4:16). So, if Peter were Bishop of Rome, he enjoyed any immunity with which was not accorded to Paul and is guilty of having forsaken him. (Around A.D. 66)

So, Paul had written to Rome, he had been in Rome, and at the end he writes from Rome, and not only never once mentions Peter, but declares, “Only Luke is with me.” Also at Rome, Paul writes to the Galatians and mentions Peter, but once again not as having been there or as being a pope.

Paul’s second Roman imprisonment brought him martyrdom. This occurred around A.D. 67. Just before he died, Paul wrote a letter to Timothy which is II Timothy. In that final letter from around A.D. 67, the apostle mentions many people will but plainly says that “only Luke is with me”. There is never a reference to Peter.

Paul is imprisoned in Rome and makes his defense without Peter’s presence (IITimothy).

As of the year A.D. 67, Peter still had not arrived in Rome. We have traveled throughout the years of A.D. 42 to A.D. 67, the years that the Roman Catholic Church claims Peter was supposed to have been in Rome, and the first pope. There is not a single suggestion anywhere that such a thing really took place! Rather, the New Testament clearly and plainly denies this Catholic fiction.

Not one word of historical proof outside of the Roman Catholic Church can be produced to clearly show that Peter was the first Pope or even was in Rome.  The whole claim of the the Roman Catholic Church concerning Peter is based on mere tradition and deception that has been manufactured by Romanism to support their bogus claims.