HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
The Apostle Paul also called Jesus the Rock. He said:
"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:1-4, emphasis added)
Did Peter act like he was in charge of the early Church? The Book of Acts describes a controversy about whether or not gentile converts to Christianity should be required to be circumcised and to follow the Jewish dietary laws. Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles about it. (Acts 15:2-4) Peter and other people spoke. (Acts 15:7-13) Following a period of silence, James (not Peter) made the final decision in the matter. He called it a "sentence." According to Strong's Concordance, the word means a judicial sentence, a decree, or a judgment. The Bible says:
"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:13, 19-20, emphasis added)
This is the last mention of Peter in the Book of Acts. The Book of Acts is the history of the early Church up until a few years before Peter's death. If Peter was "the first Pope," and the officially recognized head of the Church, would we not expect that the Biblical history of the early Church would have said more about him?
The Book of Acts says nothing about Peter being in authority over the whole Church. It shows no connection between Peter and Rome.
Acts 28:14-15 tells how Paul met with the "brethren" in Rome, but it makes no mention of Peter. As we shall see, when Paul met with Peter in Jerusalem, Peter was identified by name.
Acts 2:14 and Acts 8:14 say that Peter was in Jerusalem. Acts 9:36-43 says that Peter went to Joppa, which is near Jerusalem. In chapter 10 of the Book of Acts, Peter is still in Joppa. Acts 11:2 says that Peter returned to Jerusalem.
Joppa is about 30 miles from Jerusalem. If the Book of Acts records this much detail about Peter's visit to a nearby town, wouldn't it tell us if Peter went all the way to Rome? Particularly since it does tell us that Paul went to Rome.
Acts 15:1-20 tells how Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to meet with the "apostles and elders" of Jerusalem. Peter is identified as being one of the apostles of Jerusalem. The Bible says:
"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." (Acts 15:1-7, emphasis added)
The Apostle Paul identified Peter as being an apostle in Jerusalem. He said:
"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Galatians 1:18-19, emphasis added)
The Book of Romans was written by the Apostle Paul. He addressed it to: "all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints " (Romans 1:7, emphasis added) In Romans 16:1-15, Paul greeted 26 people by name. He never mentioned Peter. If Peter was the leader of the Church in Rome, then why didn't Paul mention him?
Paul wrote five letters from a Roman prison (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon). He never mentioned Peter. The man who stayed with Paul in Rome, to help him and encourage him, was Lukenot Peter. (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11)
Paul only mentioned Peter in one of his epistles. In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul said that he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and James. In Galatians 2:8, Paul said that he preached to the gentiles and Peter preached to the Jews (the "circumcision").
In Galatians 2:11-15, Paul recounted how he publicly rebuked Peter, because Peter had become so intimidated by the Judaizers that he "walked not uprightly." Evidently, Paul's public correction of Peter did not cause a problem between them. Peter loved and respected Paul as a brother. He exhorted the Church to heed Paul's wisdom. Peter said:
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things " (2 Peter 3:15-16, emphasis added)
(Can you imagine what would have happened if a Catholic cardinal had publicly rebuked Pope Innocent III and openly accused him of not walking uprightly?)
Legends and Traditions
When I was in school, I was taught that, when he was a boy, George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and confessed his transgression to his father. Parson Weems' biography of George Washington is the source of that story. According to modern historians, the cherry tree event never happened. I was quite surprised to hear that, because I had never questioned the story.
Some people say that Parson Weems deliberately created the cherry tree legend some time between 1800 and 1809. But perhaps Parson Weems wasn't deliberately deceiving people. Perhaps he was simply passing on a story that he believed to be true. Either way, modern biographers of George Washington say that the cherry tree episode never really happened. (Information about this is online.)13
If we hear a story repeated often enough, then we tend to believe it. The idea of questioning it becomes almost unthinkable, because the story is so familiar and so widely accepted.
I believe that something similar has happened with the Catholic Church's stories about Peter. These traditions have been repeated so often that many people never question them.
The "Early Fathers"
Catholic apologists often quote the "Early Fathers" in support of Catholic doctrines, the papacy, and other Catholic claims. Who were these people?
There were many early Christian leaders, including priests, bishops, and scholars. There were a lot of these men. They had a wide variety of opinions on religious matters. Their theological differences were as widely varied as those of theologians from different denominations are today.14
So one person finds some Early Fathers to support one position, and another person finds some other Early Fathers to support the opposite position. But it's not a level playing field. Among all of those early Christian leaders, who decided which ones qualified to be called Early Fathers? The Catholic Church.
There is also the problem of knowing which documents are authentic. Some documents were forged. They were falsely attributed to Early Fathers, in order to give them credibility. Some genuine documents were changed by forgers, in order to give credibility to papal claims of power and authority. (See the chapter, "Forged Documents and Papal Power.")
Apostolic Succession
The Roman Catholic Church paints a picture of an orderly succession of popes, who faithfully followed in the footsteps of the Apostle Peter. However, according to Biblical standards, some of these men were not fit to rule a house church, let alone be bishops. (This is discussed in the chapter, "Ungodly Popes and Papal Authority.")
One example was Pope Benedict IX (1033-1045). He had sex with boys, women, and animals. He practiced witchcraft and Satanism. He gave orders for people to be murdered. He filled the Lateran Palace with prostitutes.15
In spite of all that, Catholic doctrine says that Benedict's decisions about theological matters were infallible. (This is online
TBC
"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:1-4, emphasis added)
Did Peter act like he was in charge of the early Church? The Book of Acts describes a controversy about whether or not gentile converts to Christianity should be required to be circumcised and to follow the Jewish dietary laws. Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles about it. (Acts 15:2-4) Peter and other people spoke. (Acts 15:7-13) Following a period of silence, James (not Peter) made the final decision in the matter. He called it a "sentence." According to Strong's Concordance, the word means a judicial sentence, a decree, or a judgment. The Bible says:
"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:13, 19-20, emphasis added)
This is the last mention of Peter in the Book of Acts. The Book of Acts is the history of the early Church up until a few years before Peter's death. If Peter was "the first Pope," and the officially recognized head of the Church, would we not expect that the Biblical history of the early Church would have said more about him?
The Book of Acts says nothing about Peter being in authority over the whole Church. It shows no connection between Peter and Rome.
Acts 28:14-15 tells how Paul met with the "brethren" in Rome, but it makes no mention of Peter. As we shall see, when Paul met with Peter in Jerusalem, Peter was identified by name.
Acts 2:14 and Acts 8:14 say that Peter was in Jerusalem. Acts 9:36-43 says that Peter went to Joppa, which is near Jerusalem. In chapter 10 of the Book of Acts, Peter is still in Joppa. Acts 11:2 says that Peter returned to Jerusalem.
Joppa is about 30 miles from Jerusalem. If the Book of Acts records this much detail about Peter's visit to a nearby town, wouldn't it tell us if Peter went all the way to Rome? Particularly since it does tell us that Paul went to Rome.
Acts 15:1-20 tells how Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to meet with the "apostles and elders" of Jerusalem. Peter is identified as being one of the apostles of Jerusalem. The Bible says:
"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." (Acts 15:1-7, emphasis added)
The Apostle Paul identified Peter as being an apostle in Jerusalem. He said:
"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Galatians 1:18-19, emphasis added)
The Book of Romans was written by the Apostle Paul. He addressed it to: "all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints " (Romans 1:7, emphasis added) In Romans 16:1-15, Paul greeted 26 people by name. He never mentioned Peter. If Peter was the leader of the Church in Rome, then why didn't Paul mention him?
Paul wrote five letters from a Roman prison (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon). He never mentioned Peter. The man who stayed with Paul in Rome, to help him and encourage him, was Lukenot Peter. (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11)
Paul only mentioned Peter in one of his epistles. In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul said that he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and James. In Galatians 2:8, Paul said that he preached to the gentiles and Peter preached to the Jews (the "circumcision").
In Galatians 2:11-15, Paul recounted how he publicly rebuked Peter, because Peter had become so intimidated by the Judaizers that he "walked not uprightly." Evidently, Paul's public correction of Peter did not cause a problem between them. Peter loved and respected Paul as a brother. He exhorted the Church to heed Paul's wisdom. Peter said:
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things " (2 Peter 3:15-16, emphasis added)
(Can you imagine what would have happened if a Catholic cardinal had publicly rebuked Pope Innocent III and openly accused him of not walking uprightly?)
Legends and Traditions
When I was in school, I was taught that, when he was a boy, George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and confessed his transgression to his father. Parson Weems' biography of George Washington is the source of that story. According to modern historians, the cherry tree event never happened. I was quite surprised to hear that, because I had never questioned the story.
Some people say that Parson Weems deliberately created the cherry tree legend some time between 1800 and 1809. But perhaps Parson Weems wasn't deliberately deceiving people. Perhaps he was simply passing on a story that he believed to be true. Either way, modern biographers of George Washington say that the cherry tree episode never really happened. (Information about this is online.)13
If we hear a story repeated often enough, then we tend to believe it. The idea of questioning it becomes almost unthinkable, because the story is so familiar and so widely accepted.
I believe that something similar has happened with the Catholic Church's stories about Peter. These traditions have been repeated so often that many people never question them.
The "Early Fathers"
Catholic apologists often quote the "Early Fathers" in support of Catholic doctrines, the papacy, and other Catholic claims. Who were these people?
There were many early Christian leaders, including priests, bishops, and scholars. There were a lot of these men. They had a wide variety of opinions on religious matters. Their theological differences were as widely varied as those of theologians from different denominations are today.14
So one person finds some Early Fathers to support one position, and another person finds some other Early Fathers to support the opposite position. But it's not a level playing field. Among all of those early Christian leaders, who decided which ones qualified to be called Early Fathers? The Catholic Church.
There is also the problem of knowing which documents are authentic. Some documents were forged. They were falsely attributed to Early Fathers, in order to give them credibility. Some genuine documents were changed by forgers, in order to give credibility to papal claims of power and authority. (See the chapter, "Forged Documents and Papal Power.")
Apostolic Succession
The Roman Catholic Church paints a picture of an orderly succession of popes, who faithfully followed in the footsteps of the Apostle Peter. However, according to Biblical standards, some of these men were not fit to rule a house church, let alone be bishops. (This is discussed in the chapter, "Ungodly Popes and Papal Authority.")
One example was Pope Benedict IX (1033-1045). He had sex with boys, women, and animals. He practiced witchcraft and Satanism. He gave orders for people to be murdered. He filled the Lateran Palace with prostitutes.15
In spite of all that, Catholic doctrine says that Benedict's decisions about theological matters were infallible. (This is online
TBC