Bible lesson # 6: Pope: Peter first Bishop of Rome. Bible: Married Peter wrote from Babylon

The Papal system stand and falls with their claim to be the successor of the apostle Peter. They claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

The problems with this Vatican claim, is that it can not be confirmed by the Bible. That Peter ever was in Rome can neither be confirmed, nor does it make sense.

In Rome an idol of Peter is worshiped, and Rome has placed a Papal crown on his head.

In Rome an idol of a man claimed to be Peter is worshiped, and Rome has placed a Papal crown on his head.

The Apostle Peter was first of all married, and by this set a biblical example to be followed by all deacons, Bishops and overseers after him. The Roman Bishops have to the radical opposite been forbidden to merry up to this day.

Matthew 8:14
When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.

Lets put human reasoning aside, and take a look at The Word of God.

That Paul was in Rome, is confirmed by the scriptures:

Romans 1:15
That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

Paul, who de facto was in Rome, use the word Rome, when He writes a letter to the first believers in Rome.

Since Paul was in Rome, and could have been the first Bishop of Rome. But that view does not fit the papal doctrine of succession through Peter. If Peter was chosen among the apostles to be the Bishop of Rome, why does Paul not even mention Peter when he greets almost 20 people at the end of the letter to the Romans?

The book of Acts say that Paul was an apostle to the gentiles, and that includes the pagans in Rome. Peter was an apostle to the Jews. The book of Acts does not mentioned any plan by Peter to go to Rome. Nor does the letters of Paul, John, the Apostle Jude or the letters to the Hebrews.

Strange, is it not. If Peter was going to become such an VIP in Rome?

Lets take a look at what Peter writes:

1 Peter 5:13

She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.

There was de facto a couple of cities in Assyria with the name Babylon. There was also one in Egypt. But the main Babylon is the city where the Jewish people were exiled. During Peters time, the city was still full of Jews that had nor returned to Jerusalem. One of the Apostles had to go there and preach about the Messiah. Because Jesus said: «To Jew first».

The Assyrian Church of the East are backed up the the Bible when they claim that Peter visited the Jews in their region. Peter planted Churches in Assyria, and had a good reason for greeting others from their «sister» in the city of Babylon.

Rome defends its teaching by claiming that Peter was afraid of persecution, and used the word «Babylon» as a code word for Rome. Thats again a Papal claim that does not make sense. Because Paul who De Facto was in Rome, used the word Rome for Rome. There was no need for a «code», just a plain Biblical truth.

The Roman Catholic Church needs to twist the Word of God or deny the Word of God, to defend their non-biblical papal doctrines of Peter as the first Bishop of Rome.

51 responses to “Bible lesson # 6: Pope: Peter first Bishop of Rome. Bible: Married Peter wrote from Babylon

  1. The problem with your claim (that it’s not in the Bible) is that you are missing two legs of the three legged stool.

    But whether you believe or not, the truth is…his body was buried on the spot of St. Peter’s Basilica. Those that witnessed it marked his grave, came back, and preserved his remains.

  2. who cares where he was buried. he was from Israel. a jew. and was married. and no biblical evedence of raising a church in Rome.

    • Dear Branwen

      Shalom, and thanks for this comment.

      You are right about Peter. He was married, and the Papal system has banned their priests from having a wife. That is by it self a contradiction. If the Emperor of Rome and his popes had been smart, they would have claimed that Paul was the first Bishop of Rome. A man that came to Rome, was not married, and might have formed secret fellowships in the capital of the Pagan world before he was beheaded.

    • For 1500 years, the Bible was not the only source of Christianity and Christian thought. So, because it isn’t found in the Bible is not relevant. Even so, the question, while interesting historically, doesn’t seem to be crucial to the real issue, whether the papacy was founded by Christ. But yet, we have his bones, they were marked by his followers, and later removed to a sacred burial site. Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.
      In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

      Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

      Ivar, it makes no difference whether Peter was married. And there is nothing in canon law that absolutely prohibits married priests. In fact there are quite a number of married priests. Most of these converted from Anglican and Lutheran traditions.
      But celibacy was, in fact practiced, most notoriously by Jesus and Paul. Paul even recommends celibacy for those who are capable of it. But it’s neither doctrine, nor dogma. It’s a discipline practiced by priests.
      You claim Peter was beheaded and formed secret fellowships…evidence, please?

      • Dear David.

        Shalom, and welcome back home, not to Rome, but to this site.

        You wrote:

        You claim Peter was beheaded and formed secret fellowships…evidence, please?

        My reply:

        I wrote that Paul might have been beheaded, and formed secret fellowships. When its is not mentioned in the Bible, and the historical records are disputed, He should use the term «might». That included your version of what happened to Peter.

        Since there are Biblical support of Paul being in Rome, and plain common sense supports my views, I guess I stand stronger than you? Because it still does not make any sense to claim that Peter even went to Rome, less settled over there, and became the first Bishop of the churches and fellowships in the pagan capital of the Word.

      • Dear David.

        You wrote:

        Ivar, it makes no difference whether Peter was married.

        My reply:

        It does make a difference. Because the Roman Catholic Church bases the full defense of the Apostolic succession on Peter. If the Roman Catholic Church had made a claim on such succession on Paul, it would not have been an issue. When Rome claim Peter as the first pope, and demand celibacy after Paul, you make a mockery out of either Peter`s apostleship or the Papal priesthood. Now you chose.

        Did Jesus say: Only unmarried men can follow me? There were even a married woman in his inner circle, who followed him and looked after his needs.

      • IT doesn’t make any difference because the Church does not require that all priests be unmarried.

        the context of 2 Timothy 3:16–17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = “God-breathed”), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:14–17).

      • Sorry, my post is wrong…

        It doesn’t make any difference because the Church does not require that all priests be unmarried.

        Biblical evidence for the discipline of celibacy can be found in both the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old, Jeremiah was forbidden by God to take a wife in order to enable him to fulfill his ministry better. “The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’” (Jer. 16:1-2).

        Also in the Old Testament, God asked even married couples to practice celibacy on certain occasions. For example, Moses asked the Israelites to abstain from marital intimacy while he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15), and Jewish tradition attests that he remained celibate for life following the command of Exodus 9:15 and Deuteronomy 5:28. The Lord also asked that the priests refrain from sexual relations with their wives during their time of service in the temple. In yet another example, the priests ordered King David and his people to abstain from marital relations on the occasion of eating the holy bread (1 Sam. 21:4).

        In all these instances, there is a theme of abstaining from marital relations due to the presence of something very holy. It is not that the marital act is sinful, but that when one is in such proximity to God, it is right to offer him an undivided mind, heart, and body. If it was fitting under the Old Covenant to serve the temple, to approach God, and receive the holy bread with a consecrated body, it is no surprise that permanent celibacy is fitting for a Roman Catholic priest, since his priestly service is continual.

        In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus states, “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” (19:12 NAB). This is an invitation from Christ to live as he did, and there can be nothing unacceptable in that.

      • Dear David.

        Your comment:

        Sorry, my post is wrong…

        It doesn’t make any difference because the Church does not require that all priests be unmarried.

        My reply:

        I am sorry to say that both your first and second explanation is based up on human made wisdom. The Pope of Rome does not allow the Roman priests to be married. This is the truth. Who do you think you are fooling? You are only fooling your self.

        The Bible says the Radical opposite of the teaching of Rome. Even Paul, who was not married, permitted elders to be married. He in fact told us that they should be married. Read the letters to Timothy. Peter the apostle, regardless if you call him priest, pastor or Bishop, was married. This is a fact.

        The Catholics need to twist and quot the Bible out of context to make their doctrines sounds biblical. Since you do not believe in the divine inspiration of scripture, you will live in error whatever you will try to tell us.

      • So I quote scripture, and it’s human wisdom? It’s God’s infinite wisdom. And then I ask you, your wisdom is better than the wisdom of 2000 years? Why is that?

        Ivar, there are married priests today. Celibacy is a discipline that most priests give to God. But it’s not required in every case.

        The letters of Timothy do not say a bishop has to be married. It says he may be married. So says the Catholic Church. A priest may be married.

        It’s you twisting the words. You give me two verses, I show you two more adjacent to it that disproves your point. And I’m twisting scripture.

        Stop trying to tell me what I believe, Ivar. I know Scripture is inerrant. It’s what men believe scriptures to say that is in error. The difference between your interpretation and mine is that mine has the power of the Holy Spirit to guide it, through the representatives of Christ on Earth.

      • Dear David.

        Married deacons:

        1 Timothy 3:12
        A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. (NIV).

        1 Timothy 3:12
        Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. (King James).

        1 Timothy 3:12
        Let deacons be the husbands of but one wife, and let them manage [their] children and their own households well. (Amplified version).

        Titus 1:6
        An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. (NIV)

        Now: Based up on which Bible version am I twisting the scripture?

        The Pope in Rome do not allow their priest to GET married. What you claim is simply a lie. You will not find a single Roman Catholic Bishop that has been married in the Church, and only Cardinals who have never had a wife, nor have raised children. There are Catholic priests who have left other Churches, and joined the Roman Catholic Church that is married, but they have been pardoned by the Pope because they got married in ignorance of the true Catholic doctrine.

      • Neither do the scriptures you quote say anything about GETTING married. Neither do they show any requirement to get married.

        You’re twisting the meaning of what these very scriptures say.

      • Dear David.

        Lets go back to the beginning of the debate:

        The Pope do not allow the Catholic priest to get married. The Jewish Apostle Peter was married. This is a simple fact. Now since the Bible is open to both married Peter and unmarried Paul, the true Church will follow the Biblical truth.

        If you cant except this, David: What are you trying to prove to us?

      • Actually, when priests are ordained they ARE married…that’s the simple fact. They are bonded by covenant to God. That’s the biblical truth.

        That they cannot get married once ordained is nothing. Priests are taught to remove themselves from worldly things, this is why they vow poverty, chastity and obedience. Marriage is a worldly thing.

      • Dear David.

        1 Peter 2:9
        But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

        We are all priest in the Royal priesthood of Jesus. The moment Rome elevated some men, and called them «Father», the Church tried its best to delete the Royal Priesthood. You can serve Jesus as a married man, you can serve Him as single. But we are all called to be «priests». (ministers of the Word of God). Both men and women.

        Galatians 3:28
        There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

      • And yet there ARE Jews and Greeks, slaves and freemen, males and females, priests and laymen.

        Actually, God instituted the priesthood in Genesis…Melchisedek. And what about the priesthood of Aaron?? No priesthood, huh?

        You don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re just spouting your opinion.

      • Dear David.

        There are still Jews and Greek, and male and female. But they are all supposed to be One on Christ. Thats my point. There are also priests and laymen, which is another issue. Jesus wanted all of us to be his students. Ministering the Word of God to others. I never said that there are no priesthood. I said we are ALL called to be priests, and are equal in the Messiah.

      • Ivar, how does having a consecrated priesthood detract in any way from all of us being called, each in our own way, to serve and honor Christ? The Catholic hierarchy are actually serving Christ by serving the people of God.

        The problem with you is that you think in either/or terms. It can only be one, never the other. Catholics know that their faith is both/and. In this way, we Catholics know we have the fullness of the truth, while all other faiths have some.

      • Dear David.

        Mark 7:6
        He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: ” ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

      • I can’t, and don’t judge everyone’s hearts, Ivar, but I know I for one, worship with both lips and heart. And I think most of my friends do.

        What’s your point?

  3. Pingback: Bible lesson # 6: Pope: Peter first Bishop of Rome. Bible: Married … - Christian IBD·

    • Um… you do know St. Peter (the St. Peter) is buried under St. Peter’s Basilica, which is, as you know, IN ROME!! The bones were even examined by scientists, who confirmed that it is, in fact, St. Peter. Yes, Peter was married, but they early Christians felt that one could not serve the lord as well when providing for a family (was stated in the bible) so they felt it would be best if the church leaders did not marry.

  4. I read all the comments and found them very interesting. Perhaps David can explain now what the Lord, God, the Creator is saying here:
    1) (Gen: 1:28 God blessed them (Adam & Eve) and said, “Be fertile, increase in number, fill the earth, and be its master…) Did GOD say practice CELIBACY and then rape boys and girls, or to become one in MARRIAGE in HIS presence and be blessed with children?

    2) Do you seriously believe that a human being, (the pope) is a MATCH for the Holy, Pure and Great God of Heaven and Earth? And that the pedophile priests can forgive the sins of people? lol !

    David wake up from dreamland or else you will only open your eyes in hell face to face with Lucifer who was kicked out of heaven for wanting to take the place of God … Hope you get the message here..

  5. Hi.
    Very interesting post and yes i do agree with your thought pattern.
    The church is what Paul made of it, not what Peter or Christ intended.
    Something that has bothered me for a long time is ,that if you look at Jewish tradition in the period Jesus was preaching you must ask yourself the question more then once they refer to Jesus as a teacher (A Rabbi).
    then according to Jewish tradition shouldn’t he have been married?Was it not unheard of a Rabbi who was unmarried in that period of time?
    So why wouldn’t Peter be?It’s only Paul and his followers who advocated celibacy.
    Will.

    • Dear Will

      Shalom, and thanks for this comment:

      I do not agree with you on this.

      1 Corinthians 7:36
      If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

      Paul do not ban Christians from marrying. Neither laymen, nor overseers and leaders. There is no Biblical support for people who wants to enforce celibacy.

      Paul was not married because he was called to travel 12.000 Km as an ambassador for Lord Jesus. If He had chosen to have wife and Children He could not have completed his mission.

      Jesus him self was not marred because people would have started to worship his wife and children in the flesh. We face enough problems with Roman Catholics who have started to worship his Jewish mother, despite Jesus warning us not to elevate her.

    • Hi Will,
      Its interesting that you should mention Paul because I always wondered how did he (Saul / Paul) the self proclaimed apostle bulldoze his way among the Chosen Apostles of Jesus.

      He was the 13th apostle. The Khazars are known to be the 13th tribe. Paul also claimed that he was from the tribe of Benjamin referred to as the “RAVENOUS WOLF” – However, the names of the 12 Chosen Apostles are written on the gates of Heaven (Rev.21:12-14 “AND THERE WERE NAMES WRITTEN ON THE GATES, which are the names of the Twelve Tribes of the Children of Israel. And the wall of the City had twelve foundations”–or twelve levels–”& in them are the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb”) The Bible is the INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD, hence, we can figure out by the scripture that the 12 Apostles of the Lord are from the 12 tribes of Israel. Good heavens!! Where will Paul’s name fit in? Something to ponder on.

      • Dear Lone Eagle.

        Shalom.

        I think is wrong to elevate the 12 apostles. There are hundreds of thousands of students and apostles of Jesus today.

        Galatians 2:11
        [ Paul Opposes Peter ] When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

        Peter was not any day better than anyone else. He renounced his faith in Jesus after walking with Him for three years. Peter even called down curses on his own head.

        Thank you Jesus for saving a wreck like Peter, and a wreck like me.

  6. There’s another scripture besides the one you mention that makes it very clear that the apostle Peter was married -
    1 Corinthians 9:5 which in New International Version reads: “Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas[a]?”

    Footnotes:[a]That is, Peter

    • Dear Mike

      Shalom.

      This verse is also important in regards to celibacy. It is an Biblical option, not a demand. Since the Bible explains that God created woman to be a helper to the man, I guess male pastors and priests should not reject his kind of godly blessing on their life?

  7. Thank You Ivarfjeld. Keep quoting Scripture.

    1 Timothy 4:3 and 4:4

    1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

    2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,

    3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.

    4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;

    5for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

  8. Matthew 16:18

    Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.

    Prior to this verse Peter had just declared that Jesus was the Son of God.

    I’m going to suggest that stating Jesus is the son of God is the rock of Christianity. Peter was not much of a rock, who when it came down to it denied knowing Jesus three times. So in my opinion it is very questionable whether Peter was ever given charge over the church of Christ. It’s even stated that Christ is the head of his church. Also written that the heart justifies the tongue and the tongue saves a soul from death. So it just makes sense that stating Jesus is the son of God, being justified by your belief is the rock and foundation of Christianity.

    But I’m sure there is a purpose why he named Simon Peter (the rock); to leave the door open to believe Peter is the rock and the Church of Rome, Christs church. Jesus called Peter Satan, also says that he uses Satan for his own purposes, and the Vatican has kept the new testament scriptures for a long time. It’s the way the world is that the bigger fish swallows up the littler fish, So perhaps necessary that the wicked could have their time but the testimony of Jesus be kept safely in its belly.

    • Dear Ed.

      Shalom.

      Matthew 16:18 covers an interesting statement from Jesus, in regards to Peter, whose name was Chepas. This Hebrew name literally means “small stones” .

      Lets translate.

      For I say that, you are small stones. On this rock I will build my Church.

      That is surely a deep statement.

      First of all. Jesus had also said to Peter: Get behind me, Satan. Not because Peter was Satan, but surely a tool the devil now used to block the Messiah from going the whole way to the cross.

      Second: Since Peters name means “small stones”, something has to happen to Peter, before He can become a rock. Third: Peter is not going to build anything. It is Jesus that is the builder.

      We also have to find the reason, why Jesus plays with words in this way.

      Jesus could have said something plane and simple like:

      - Peter you are the Rock. And on you, I will build my Church.

      Jesus could not say that, because the Bible says there is only one Rock of our salvation. And that is God him self.

      2 Samuel 22:47
      “The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior!

      Psalm 89:26
      He will call out to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.’

      Isaiah 44:8
      Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

      (end of scriptures).

      Could it be, that Jesus pointed towards Him self, saying that on Him self (Rock), He would use a small stone like Peter, and build His Church?

      The debate is going on and on, up to this day.

      • Perhaps but since God knows all from beginning to end, could be even 2,000 years ago he knew the great irony that the Catholic church would claim to be successors to Peter and in the end deny christ as it seems the direction they are moving. Also calling Peter Satan does not indicate some sort of perfection and infallibility like the pope claims to have.
        Jesus said he laid the foundation for others to build on. The foundation, the disciples and believers in him. Not to be confused with the foundation under the foundation. The rock under the foundation, as opposed to sand or clay. Small stones make up the foundation walls in a building, but without solid ground under the foundation walls the whole thing would fall apart.

  9. Where in the Bible does it say Peter was to have successors? This type of practice of succession by the Catholic religion is not biblical.

    • Dear Victoria.

      Shalom.

      Matthew 16:19
      I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

      The whole idea is that Peter had the keys. If you take a look at the Vatican, the whole St.Peters square is formed like a key. The RCC claims that the key of Peter now is with the Pope.

      The Bible does not say that Jesus handed over “a key” to Peter. Neither does the Bible say that is was only Peter who was going to know the full truth about the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven.

      • Yes, the Catholics claim their Popes are successors to Peter. But the Bible does not even say for there to be a successor to Peter.
        Nor was Peter called “Pope” or “Father” by the other Apostles, nor by any of the believers, as the Catholics do with their Popes. Jesus said they are all “brothers”.
        Now, Judas had to be replaced.

        “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— he was one of our number and shared in this ministry” Acts 1:16-17.
        “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
        “‘May his place be deserted;
        let there be no one to dewell in it,’
        and,
        “‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Acts 1:20

        It is not even biblical to have successors to Peter for any reason.
        The Catholics are wrong on more than one account, about their practice of Apostolic succession from Peter.
        The RCC misunderstands scripture about Peter. And, no where does it say to have a successor to Peter, nor any of the Apostles, of course only Judas, who had to be replaced.

      • Dear Victoria.

        Shalom.

        I totally agree with you.

        Even in the Church of 325 A.D, there was stiff opposition to the idea that the Bishop of Rome should have some kind of supreme seat over all other synods and Bishops. The synods of Edessa, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Babylon among others, opposed the very idea of having a Pontifex Maximus, a name used by the pagan Emperor of Rome. It was basically the idea of the Emperor of Rome, Constantine the “great” to have a Pope. In this way, the Church could become a tool for his Worldly kingdom.

        When the Papacy was forced up on the Church, the Assyrian Eastern Church broke free. Christianity from Syria and Iraq towards the distant costs of Kerala in India never accepted the supremacy of the Western Roman Church empire. The other synods were either brought in submission or silenced. The Baptist Church again became an underground movement, which Church history has never been written.

  10. Matt. 23:8-12 (NLT): “Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters. And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father. And don’t let anyone call you ‘Teacher,’ for you have only one teacher, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you must be a servant. 12 But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

    • Dear Lujack.

      Shalom, and welcome to this site.

      There in no proof that Peter even visited Rome. Most likely He did not, since He was a Apostle to the Jews, and traveled eastwards to Iraq and ancient Babylonia. Paul visited Rome, and He was more than capable of handling the small numbers of believers in the capital of the pagan Roman empire.

  11. There was no Roman Catholic Church before emperor Constantine.Can you imagine all the so-called popes from Peter to Constantine in Rome watching Christians being fed to the lions? Wouldn’t the popes have suffered the same fate? Should they have been popes they would have merely watched Christians being slaughtered?

  12. ivarfjeld,

    I’m just curious if the Assyrian Church of the East ever claimed St. Peter as their own bishop? I’ve been searching for a reference, but couldn’t find any.

    • Dear Phllip.

      Shalom.

      Here is some information from wikipedia.

      Under pressure from the King of Persia, the Assyrian Church sought increasingly to distance itself from the Roman Catholic Church. In 424 the bishops of the Persian Empire met in council under the leadership of Catholicos Mar Dadisho I (421-456) and determined that they would not, henceforth, refer disciplinary or theological problems to any external power, and especially not to any bishop or Church Council in the Roman Empire.[9]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church_of_the_East

      • Thanks ivarfjeld. But, while the link does say somehing about Papal Primacy, I don’t think it says anything about Peter’s never being in Rome.

      • Dear Philip.

        Shalom.

        We do not have any record of Peter saying He was never in Rome. It would be strange, if you would be able tell me everywhere you will not visit. Paul wrote the letter to the believers in Rome. He wrote about a lot of people. Not a single word, or hint, that Peter will come, and will get a special role to play.

        We do not know if Peter ever was in Rome. But we do know, that Paul was there. But since Paul did not have the “key’s” to the Kingdom, the Papacy made a “petrine theology”. Claiming that Peter was there, and was appointed the fist Bishop of Rome.

      • ivarfjeld, I too don’t believe in Papal Primacy, but I don’t think it’s fair for us to use 1 Peter 5:13 to argue that Peter was never in Rome. If Peter had lived in Babylon till the end of his life, the Assyrian Church of the East would have been the first to contest the Roman Church’s claim of Peter’s martyrdom (and bishopric) in Rome.

        Peter might have been in Babylon, but he could still travel to Rome afterwards.

      • Dear Philip.

        Shalom.

        We seems to agree. “Petrine theology” is all about Papal supremacy. That there should be a supreme Bishop of Rome, that should rule as leader of the “Mother Church”.

        In regards to Peter ever traveled to Rome, we do do not know. Neither is it of Biblical significance. Paul was there, and could very much have become such an overseer of the Church in Rome. But there is no historical claims to such an office held by Paul.

  13. I find it unusual how Peter can be the “infallible pope” based on these circumstances:

    1. He was rebuked by Paul for his error in doctrine so he couldn’t have been infallible like Catholics say Pope are today.This shows that Paul didn’t believe that Peter was above him.
    2. He considered himself a “fellow elder” and never affirmed himself as a supreme being in all his writings. (1 Pet. 5:1-2. Both Paul, Luke, John, and James never gave a hint of a “supreme leader” or a succession of a supreme leader in their writings as well.
    3. A catholic pope is the head of the entire church, yet Peter was only in charge of the Jews while Paul was the leader of the Gentiles. Shouldn’t the entire church also include Gentiles as well? This shows that each disciple had authority over different areas and that there wasn’t a “universal” authority.
    4. He was rebuked by Jesus and Jesus called him Satan. He also used violence by cutting the ear off a guard and was rebuked again by Jesus. What an infallible role model.
    5. He denied Jesus, not once, but three times
    6. Bible makes it clear he was married. Priests and bishops aren’t even allowed to be married AFTER being inducted as a priest yet Catholics insist its “just a discipline”. Catholics also claim that he left his family to serve Jesus. So the papal system was based on a wife deserter? How can Peter abandon a marriage that God united man and woman to be as one yet break that Godly union to follow the same God that recognized it in the first place? Doesn’t make sense
    7. In both Luke 9:46-56 and Mark 33, the disciples argue who is the greatest disciple and Jesus did one once acknowledge Peter. If it was obvious that Peter was the greatest, there wouldn’t have been any arguments.
    8. Mark 10:42-44 shows once again the disciple were arguing for the greatest position yet Jesus rebuked them that he was against the earthly pyramided structure of authority, that no man is the head of the Gentiles. In other words, Jesus was against bureaucratic structure of the church such as the papal system. He even clearly said that none of the disciples would be the authority when he said “but none of you”. That is as clear as it can get.
    9. There was no “pope” title or “supreme head” of the entire church. The title of pope didn’t occur till after 200 years later. You can read every single early church father documents for the first 200 years such as Polycarp, Ignatius, Ireneus, Clement. None of them ever acknowledge a pope like figure in any of their writings (what a surprised). There is no evidence to support that.
    10. If a pope is supposed to be passed on to one person, why is that Peter passed on his authority to both Clement and Linus according to the early church fathers, St Ireneus and Tertullian? Even Catholics today aren’t certain who the next successor of Peter was. Ireneus even goes on to say that both Paul and Peter gave handed over the office to Linus. If that were the case then that would make Paul equal to Peter for his ability to pass on to the next successor.
    11. In Matthew 18:1, we have another case of the disciples asking again who is the greatest? Once again Jesus never declares Peter is but tells them ALL to be servants. If Peter was the greatest, Jesus would of said it and there would’ve never been an argument about it.
    12. In Matthew 18:18, Jesus tells ALL his disciples that whatever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. This isn’t addressed exclusively to Peter but to ALL the disciples.
    13. The first church headquarter and council was actually in Jerusalem with James as the leader, not in Rome with Peter was the leader.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s