Peter, The First Pope?

[Katy-follower]

Did you not post this implying Peter died in Jerusalem?

Yes, I posted it because someone else asked me when I mentioned Peter's gravestone had been found in Jerusalem. It was in response to that person.

I don't base my beliefs on these things though, scripture takes priority and scripture does clearly point out that Peter was not in Rome. There are numerous scriptures that prove how false the Catholic doctrine is. No Catholic bashing here, just defending the truth and hoping to bring Catholics out of that church, including you.

Hugs Nikki

 

[Katy-follower]

I have never in my life heard this, that Simon was the first pope. Please cite a source because this sounds like more anti-Catholic propaganda not based in fact, like most of the anti-Catholicism here at CC

As I said in my post, there is no biblical evidence for it (so in other words it can't be trusted as truth). We should only trust what scripture says

 

[Nikki84]

I grew up a Catholic. Educated in Parochial Schools, Baptized, Confirmed, Altar Boy speaking in Latin the responses from the priest.
I'm the Only one in my Family God had mercy on to call me out, I got converted IN 1987. I have been a Missionary to a Dominant Catholic Nation, and learned from reading the KJV what a hoax this Church is. God was merciful unto me to send me a Born Again Child of God who became my wife, and she never begged me to come to Church..God talked to me one day..and I know it had to be God, because Satan is'nt going to tell anyone in a strong clear voice "Go to That Church Tonight"!...Twice in 5 minutes!!

They were having a Revival with a visiting Evangelist, I surrendered after I heard his message...no more drinking...Smoking..Cursing..Being stupid in various ways...BOOM...gone all of it. God is good dear people!!

Great story and I'm glad you are happy. I've been to those types of services and they have a heavy emotional response. I can't get around how Protestants have to keep bringing in a "New Revelation" to keep their people coming back. Take this hyper-grace stuff for example. They are telling people that you are saved and it doesn't matter what you do, you're in. That's what the world wants, religious leaders telling them you have a one way ticket to Heaven whether you continue in your sin or not. Its up to you. I can't support this at all. It is unbiblical and might be heresy

 

[Ugly]

Great story and I'm glad you are happy. I've been to those types of services and they have a heavy emotional response. I can't get around how Protestants have to keep bringing in a "New Revelation" to keep their people coming back. Take this hyper-grace stuff for example. They are telling people that you are saved and it doesn't matter what you do, you're in. That's what the world wants, religious leaders telling them you have a one way ticket to Heaven whether you continue in your sin or not. Its up to you. I can't support this at all. It is unbiblical and might be heresy

Actually it's primarily Charismatics that believe in all the new revelation stuff. I'm Protestant and don't believe in that, nor do most Christians I know.

 

[Nikki84]

Actually it's primarily Charismatics that believe in all the new revelation stuff. I'm Protestant and don't believe in that, nor do most Christians I know.

That's great to hear!!!! My exposure here has almost convinced me to wash my hands of Protestants. It is a hard time here for Catholicism. The myths are flying around as if they are truth and whenever I/we try to set the record straight, it gets worse.

 

[RBA238]

So I ask you this....

Do you believe that all you need to do is cling to Jesus ALONE to save you?

Do you believe then that Jesus ALONE saves and that we cannot cling to anything else, which includes not clinging to sacraments (works) because nothing we do can save us. Only Jesus can...

I can answer That Question..Jesus told all of us 'I am The WAY, THE TRUTH. AND THE LIFE. NOONE comes to The Father, EXCEPT BY ME".

We can't receive Jesus or The Holy Spirit, unless we fully surrender unto him, and him alone. Mary is in heaven, with zero power to take prayer requests, or does Jesus listen to her pleading with him..
Jesus is Almighty God. Why would he need a Mediatrix to bring him prayer requests and petitions from people alive on earth.? Again, no person on earth or heaven can ever be a Mediator or Mediatrix to The Lord.

God is God, no match for any human, and he is on call 24/7 365, never on Vacation, or too tired to hear the crys of his children.

 

[Eternallife]

Sometimes when we see people following false doctrine we become angry or feel like we our being insulted. However, the more I study the word the more I understand that while God is full of mercy He is still going to punish the wicked through all eternity. So we ought to put away the pride we feel ( if we do feel) about people "disrespecting" us because we believe in Christ and seriously keep our candles lit through prayer until Christ returns.

 

[RBA238]

Sometimes when we see people following false doctrine we become angry or feel like we our being insulted. However, the more I study the word the more I understand that while God is full of mercy He is still going to punish the wicked through all eternity. So we ought to put away the pride we feel ( if we do feel) about people "disrespecting" us because we believe in Christ and seriously keep our candles lit through prayer until Christ returns.

AMEN! One of my favorite verses is this: John 4 verse 24: " GOD IS A SPIRIT....and those who worship him MUST worship him In Spirit , and IN TRUTH."

Makes no difference if you read your Bible cover to cover 10,000 times and can quote every scripture...If you are in False Doctrine, and refuse to beleive you are wrong simply means God won't deal with anyone until they humble themselves and throw away pride.

This is why in many cases,it is hard to teach or show them the correct thing they must do to be in compliance with the teachings of The Lord and His Original Alostles..Read Acts 2 verse 42 and I Timothy 4 verse 16.

 

[Nikki84]

I can answer That Question..Jesus told all of us 'I am The WAY, THE TRUTH. AND THE LIFE. NOONE comes to The Father, EXCEPT BY ME".

We can't receive Jesus or The Holy Spirit, unless we fully surrender unto him, and him alone. Mary is in heaven, with zero power to take prayer requests, or does Jesus listen to her pleading with him..
Jesus is Almighty God. Why would he need a Mediatrix to bring him prayer requests and petitions from people alive on earth.? Again, no person on earth or heaven can ever be a Mediator or Mediatrix to The Lord.

God is God, no match for any human, and he is on call 24/7 365, never on Vacation, or too tired to hear the crys of his children.

Do you really think that Jesus Christ does not know what "Honor thy mother and thy father" means? So if you make it to Heaven, Jesus Christ won't listen to you? Pretty strong accusation against Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! I can't wait to talk with my Lord and Savior face to face!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PilgrimPassingThru]

Someone had mentioned something about how could some people believe Peter (who would be crucified John 21:18) would be so in Jerusalem but couldnt Matthew 23 apply to Peter death or no?

Since Jesus said to them of Jerusalem they would crucify some of those he sent

As Jesus also said,

Because it seems that even in the midst of persecution the apostles remained in Jerusalem

Even after Saul (in the above) is Paul going up to the apostles before him Peter is here

Whereas Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews

Writing from Rome here in 1 Tim only Luke is with Paul

So I think I would lean moreso with Katy-follower as I cant see Peter in Rome

 

[RBA238]

Do you really think that Jesus Christ does not know what "Honor thy mother and thy father" means? So if you make it to Heaven, Jesus Christ won't listen to you? Pretty strong accusation against Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

First off, thank you sincerely for your reply. Secondly let me use what you stated as a teaching moment you can store in your mind and help you possibly.

First: We all Agree Mary is The Mother of Jesus, Noone can ever deny this and claim they are a Christian.

God Chose her to bear his Son, meaning himself in a Human Body through Mary. She was a Virgin, agreed. Why did'nt God The Father just make himself a Human form instead of using a Young Virgin, Jewish Woman?
Because the Sacrifice of his "Son", his Body.had to be from Humanity for the blood in that body he shed at Calvary. If you read Hebrews Chapter 9, it tells us how and why it had to be that way. Mary is indeed The Mother of the body Jesus, but she is not THE MOTHER OF GOD. What? She is not The Mother of God, because God never had a Mother or Father, etc
Read in Hebrews 7 verse 3 for proof.
"HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER one of the 10 commandments is for we blood and Flesh humans. Jesus was God in a human body, but was also God Almighty in human form, who created Mary, you, me, and everyone reading this.

There is not one scripture that shows Jesus ever, ever addressed her as "Mother" or "Mom" etc. He did address her as "Woman" in John 2 at the feast of Cana, when she asked him (Knowing his power and who he really was) to make Wine for the Wedding party. When he was dying on the cross in John he also stated :
"Woman, behold thy Son" and he assigned one of his disciples to let him be her son after he died. Read it..Another thing to consider us that
Mary, came through a royal bloodline beginning with Ruth.Her Husband Joseph came from Royalty also through the lineage of King David you can read that in Chronicles.

Jesus was God Almighty robed in a human body. Read in Hebrews 9, the blood sacrifice had to be pure, not from anyone but a Spotless human. God himself was/is the only.one who would ever be born as Pure, And Umblemished.

There you have it, I gave you chapters and verse to read it for yourself..Amen

 

[Nikki84]

First off, thank you sincerely for your reply. Secondly let me use what you stated as a teaching moment you can store in your mind and help you possibly.

First: We all Agree Mary is The Mother of Jesus, Noone can ever deny this and claim they are a Christian.

God Chose her to bear his Son, meaning himself in a Human Body through Mary. She was a Virgin, agreed. Why did'nt God The Father just make himself a Human form instead of using a Young Virgin, Jewish Woman?
Because the Sacrifice of his "Son", his Body.had to be from Humanity for the blood in that body he shed at Calvary. If you read Hebrews Chapter 9, it tells us how and why it had to be that way. Mary is indeed The Mother of the body Jesus, but she is not THE MOTHER OF GOD. What? She is not The Mother of God, because God never had a Mother or Father, etc
Read in Hebrews 7 verse 3 for proof.
"HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER one of the 10 commandments is for we blood and Flesh humans. Jesus was God in a human body, but was also God Almighty in human form, who created Mary, you, me, and everyone reading this.

There is not one scripture that shows Jesus ever, ever addressed her as "Mother" or "Mom" etc. He did address her as "Woman" in John 2 at the feast of Cana, when she asked him (Knowing his power and who he really was) to make Wine for the Wedding party. When he was dying on the cross in John he also stated :
"Woman, behold thy Son" and he assigned one of his disciples to let him be her son after he died. Read it..Another thing to consider us that
Mary, came through a royal bloodline beginning with Ruth.Her Husband Joseph came from Royalty also through the lineage of King David you can read that in Chronicles.

Jesus was God Almighty robed in a human body. Read in Hebrews 9, the blood sacrifice had to be pure, not from anyone but a Spotless human. God himself was/is the only.one who would ever be born as Pure, And Umblemished.

There you have it, I gave you chapters and verse to read it for yourself..Amen

Hey RBA!!!!!I agree with most of what you posted here. My main concern was when you said Jesus does not listen to Mary's pleading. I became alarmed. According to that statement , He isn't talking to anyone. I'm sorry, I just don't think Heaven is like that. Why would He ignore us in Heaven? That makes no sense to me. Revelation speaks of prayer ongoing in Heaven.

 

[posthuman]

They are telling people that you are saved and it doesn't matter what you do, you're in. That's what the world wants, religious leaders telling them you have a one way ticket to Heaven whether you continue in your sin or not. Its up to you. I can't support this at all. It is unbiblical and might be heresy

a "sure hope" is not unbiblical. it is very biblical.

We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf.
(Hebrews 6:19-20)

​

[HR][/HR]
this is often mischaracterized -- even the very first believers were mischaracterized this way; Paul says in Romans 3:5-8 that the believers ((in the actual gospel)) were being "slanderously accused" of pretty much the same thing - of going on sinning because they had the grace of God which covers all sins. this is what people mocking Barnabas and Paul and the others preaching the true gospel were saying about them: that they were preaching licentiousness, because they were preaching freedom from and forgiveness of all sin.

this condemnation is nothing new at all, nor is the grace of God. what shall separate us from His love?

the thing that is not comprehended, is that the very Spirit by which we are sanctified and marked as God's possession is the same Spirit that transforms us into new creatures whose desires are not after the flesh. it is this same Spirit we received that assures us we are sons and daughters and heirs of the Kingdom of God, having been given the righteousness of Christ by imputation, not by our effort or desire, but His mercy, that causes us to mortify the deeds of the flesh.

[HR][/HR]
if you think that those who are sealed, predestined and called by His name, and have full assurance that they are His own and that they cannot lose the precious gift and promise of God, who is faithful to complete the work that He began, are in danger of continuing in their sin and living 'however they see fit' -- then i think you do not know that Spirit as i know Him.

[HR][/HR]

"their condemnation is just!"
(Romans 3:8)
​

says Paul -- who also says

"there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death."
(Romans 8:1-2)
​

[HR][/HR]
((i know this is off-topic of 'Peter the pope?' -- but i'm frankly kind of tired of hearing that false accusation made without understanding. is it so, that no catholic knows of this truth? golly, i hope not! Nikki -- please go now tell every catholic the truth!!))

 

[TonyJay]

The logic of some of the posts in this thread defy understanding.

Several posts have indicated that because Peter was never recorded in Rome by the Bible that it could not have happened.

Does anybody believe that Paul was executed in Rome?
There is extra-biblical evidence for this but none in the Bible - does this mean that it never happened?
Does anybody believe that Thomas ended up in southern India and founded a church that exists to this day?
There is no biblical evidence for this but there tens of thousands of Christians in southern India - all with the last name Thomas.
Does the fact that it is not recorded biblically mean that it never happened?

Now the fact that Peter's death, as well as what happened to him toward the end of his life, is not recorded in the Bible is simply no proof that he could not have been in Rome at the time of his death.

I do not know unequivocally that Peter died in Rome - I used the phrase "according to tradition" because that is a phrase used by church historians when they cannot verify what occurred with contemporary or near contemporary written records.

The post of Katy-follower of the gravesite in Jerusalem is interesting and intriguing and may show Peter's resting place. But, then again it may not.

On a larger note:
One of the reasons that I (we?) know just how ironclad the accounts of the New Testament are is because there are other contemporary historical accounts of what went on at that time.
Of course those historians were not in the least bit interested in a seditious rabble-rouser (Jesus) and his band but many of the more outlandish events that did take place in the Gospels and Acts and referred to in the various letters written by the intrepid apostles are recorded by these historians that certainly did not record what they recorded to corroborate the truth behind the emergence of the nascent church.

The same goes for the anthropologists, archeologists, geologists, and others of our age who provide comprehensive evidence (proof) for the existence of countless biblical personalities, people groups, empires, events, and battles that until very recently were regarded as the stuff of myth and legend.

So, then, when we are called on to justify why the Bible can be regarded as authority - i.e. truthful in what it does say - it is very helpful to be able to show all these varied fields of study corroborating what might otherwise be rightfully regarded as the mere product of a febrile imagination.

So, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater!

 

[Eternallife]

The logic of some of the posts in this thread defy understanding.

Several posts have indicated that because Peter was never recorded in Rome by the Bible that it could not have happened.

Does anybody believe that Paul was executed in Rome?
There is extra-biblical evidence for this but none in the Bible - does this mean that it never happened?
Does anybody believe that Thomas ended up in southern India and founded a church that exists to this day?
There is no biblical evidence for this but there tens of thousands of Christians in southern India - all with the last name Thomas.
Does the fact that it is not recorded biblically mean that it never happened?

Now the fact that Peter's death, as well as what happened to him toward the end of his life, is not recorded in the Bible is simply no proof that he could not have been in Rome at the time of his death.

I do not know unequivocally that Peter died in Rome - I used the phrase "according to tradition" because that is a phrase used by church historians when they cannot verify what occurred with contemporary or near contemporary written records.

The post of Katy-follower of the gravesite in Jerusalem is interesting and intriguing and may show Peter's resting place. But, then again it may not.

On a larger note:
One of the reasons that I (we?) know just how ironclad the accounts of the New Testament are is because there are other contemporary historical accounts of what went on at that time.
Of course those historians were not in the least bit interested in a seditious rabble-rouser (Jesus) and his band but many of the more outlandish events that did take place in the Gospels and Acts and referred to in the various letters written by the intrepid apostles are recorded by these historians that certainly did not record what they recorded to corroborate the truth behind the emergence of the nascent church.

The same goes for the anthropologists, archeologists, geologists, and others of our age who provide comprehensive evidence (proof) for the existence of countless biblical personalities, people groups, empires, events, and battles that until very recently were regarded as the stuff of myth and legend.

So, then, when we are called on to justify why the Bible can be regarded as authority - i.e. truthful in what it does say - it is very helpful to be able to show all these varied fields of study corroborating what might otherwise be rightfully regarded as the mere product of a febrile imagination.

So, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater!

I don't understand your post?

 

[TonyJay]

I don't understand your post?

What don't you understand?

 

[Eternallife]

] we are not really called on to justify the Bible. Creation shows enough proof of God's existence that no one has an excuse not to believe. I don't mean to sound rude but you are kind of acting as if we are all currently posting on a Catholic website telling people to repent on this thread when that isn't the case. We are ( well we are supposed to be) all Christians on here having a discussion about why Catholics consider Peter he first Pope.
I don't mean to sound rude as I wrote earlier.

 

[Eternallife]

Hey RBA!!!!!I agree with most of what you posted here. My main concern was when you said Jesus does not listen to Mary's pleading. I became alarmed. According to that statement , He isn't talking to anyone. I'm sorry, I just don't think Heaven is like that. Why would He ignore us in Heaven? That makes no sense to me. Revelation speaks of prayer ongoing in Heaven.

I don't mean to sound rude but people need to wake up. Jesus wasn't bluffing when He said unless we repent we will all parish. If you can't see the error of the Catholic Church praying to Mary as wrong you do not understand scripture very well at all. God is really going to sentence people to eternal damnation for people who love darkness more than light. I tell you the truth I don't even argue are get upset with people who don't believe because when scripture says let those who don't love Jesus be accursed it isnt bluffing either.

 

[Nikki84]

The logic of some of the posts in this thread defy understanding.

Several posts have indicated that because Peter was never recorded in Rome by the Bible that it could not have happened.

Does anybody believe that Paul was executed in Rome?
There is extra-biblical evidence for this but none in the Bible - does this mean that it never happened?
Does anybody believe that Thomas ended up in southern India and founded a church that exists to this day?
There is no biblical evidence for this but there tens of thousands of Christians in southern India - all with the last name Thomas.
Does the fact that it is not recorded biblically mean that it never happened?

Now the fact that Peter's death, as well as what happened to him toward the end of his life, is not recorded in the Bible is simply no proof that he could not have been in Rome at the time of his death.

I do not know unequivocally that Peter died in Rome - I used the phrase "according to tradition" because that is a phrase used by church historians when they cannot verify what occurred with contemporary or near contemporary written records.

The post of Katy-follower of the gravesite in Jerusalem is interesting and intriguing and may show Peter's resting place. But, then again it may not.

On a larger note:
One of the reasons that I (we?) know just how ironclad the accounts of the New Testament are is because there are other contemporary historical accounts of what went on at that time.
Of course those historians were not in the least bit interested in a seditious rabble-rouser (Jesus) and his band but many of the more outlandish events that did take place in the Gospels and Acts and referred to in the various letters written by the intrepid apostles are recorded by these historians that certainly did not record what they recorded to corroborate the truth behind the emergence of the nascent church.

The same goes for the anthropologists, archeologists, geologists, and others of our age who provide comprehensive evidence (proof) for the existence of countless biblical personalities, people groups, empires, events, and battles that until very recently were regarded as the stuff of myth and legend.

So, then, when we are called on to justify why the Bible can be regarded as authority - i.e. truthful in what it does say - it is very helpful to be able to show all these varied fields of study corroborating what might otherwise be rightfully regarded as the mere product of a febrile imagination.

So, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater!

I have always considered the Bible as truth. I was raised to never doubt it. Contrary to what some may think, i was encouraged to read the Bible when I was young and still encouraged on a weekly basis by my priest to read the Bible.

 

[TonyJay]

] we are not really called on to justify the Bible. Creation shows enough proof of God's existence that no one has an excuse not to believe. I don't mean to sound rude but you are kind of acting as if we are all currently posting on a Catholic website telling people to repent on this thread when that isn't the case. We are ( well we are supposed to be) all Christians on here having a discussion about why Catholics consider Peter he first Pope.
I don't mean to sound rude as I wrote earlier.

I don't think you are rude at all!
I don't have a problem with my posts being questioned - it's actually the best way to learn.

Perhaps "justify" was the wrong word to use.
Nonetheless the principle of what I wrote is still valid.
I accept that you and other Bible-believing Christians do not need to be convinced as to the truth, validity, and authority of the Bible.
However this is not so as regards the unsaved.

As for the issue of papal apostolic succession there is no Biblical evidence for such a doctrine.
My beef was directed at the illogical assumptions that because Peter was never recorded in the Bible as visiting Rome then that somehow serves as proof he was never there.