Skip to main content

The Papal Claim of Peter as First Pope Debunked

Roman Catholics claim to be the one true Church that Christ built. However the previous entry you have read why the Roman Catholic Church is NOT Christian. So it's time to promptly debunk the stand of the Vatican in trying to prove that the Popes succeeded from the line of Peter. Now let's get straight to debunking this fraud.

Okay first if you happen to be a Catholic, you'd say, "That's not right. Read Matthew 16:18.". However that verse is frequently taken out of CONTEXT just as most are (which this blog will do later with every other cult) however fails to see that the Rock could NOT be Peter. Peter was Petros or the small stone and the rock is Petra the big rock. In other words, it will be like this, "You are Peter and upon this rock (the Good News Version renders it as you are the rock and upon this Rock still differentiating Peter from the Rock) I will build my church." in which Peter is told that upon the rock, Jesus will build His church. He is appointing Peter as the first New Testament pastor and soon others will. Later in Matthew 18:18 (another verse taken out of context by Catholicism and other cults) EVERY disciple is given the power to loose and bind- which relates to the Gospel and NOT being the final authority instead of Scripture.

Now here are also some things to prove Peter could not be the Pope:

1.) The Bible says that Jesus is the Rock of Ages (1 Corinthians 10:4, 1 Peter 2:8).

Paul and Peter agreed in their apostolic writings that Jesus is the Rock. Jesus is the Rock as God is the Rock and Jesus is the second Person of God Almighty. Everywhere in the Old Testament, the Rock was always the LORD. For Peter to claim to be the Rock is to dare and usurp a title belonging to God alone. This makes the Pope an antichrist himself.

2.) The Bible is clear that Jesus is the Head of the Church NOT Peter (Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:18-24).

 The Popes do not only blaspheme Jesus when they claim to be the Rock but also when they claim to be the Head of the Church. Since there can only be ONE HEAD and NOT TWO HEADS therefore, either the Pope is the head of the Church or Jesus is. It can't be both as the Popes throughout the centuries contradicted their predecessors and the Bible.  Peter would not dare claim himself as the Head of the Church!

3.) Peter was married (Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38).

 That's one truth. So now in a hasty attempt to justify the papacy, they say that Peter forsook his wife by quoting Luke 18:28 but it's again OUT OF CONTEXT. However if Peter neglected feeding his family he would be worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8). What Peter really meant to forsake is that he chose Jesus above everything else. 1 Corinthians 9:5 affirms Peter was still with his wife except he was called Cephas. Also Peter in 1 Timothy 3:1-6 would affirm Peter's pastorhood to be valid as Peter was a husband of one wife.

4.) Papal infallibility could not apply to Peter by any means (Galatians 2:11-12).

Peter later committed doctrinal error. However in a grave attempt to defend the claim, some Catholic faith defenders and their mentors can also resolve to more word games like saying, "Papal infallibility means the Holy Spirit guides the Pope to avoid making error in terms of doctrine." Another crazy word game that can be played is if the Pope is wrong then he is not speaking in authority. Then again, it leads to another truth revealed in Mark 7:8-13 about how men's decisions fall into frequent error. Then they say, "Peter accepted correction." but Peter was already wrong in areas of doctrine. Would have Peter been wrong about about something else aside from doctrine then Papal Infallibility and Peter as the first Pope would've worked. 

5.) Peter regarded himself not as lord of other pastors but simply as another elder of the Church (1 Peter 5:1-3).

 Examining 1 Peter 5:1-3, Peter rejected the idea of being elder over elder and lords over God's heritage which is what the Catholic church is teaching. In 1 Peter 1:4 the Shepherd can only be Jesus Christ otherwise he would be contradicting with John 10:1. Verse 5 requires humility. The Popes are mostly show-offs. Peter as another elder would be too different than the idea that Peter is the elder of elders. He was a fellow pastor not the supreme pastor. The central government of the Church is in Heaven! Nowhere in the Bible is Peter recognized above the other apostles! Galatians 2:9 lists him as the SECOND PILLAR OF FAITH not the first!

6.) The letter of Paul to the Romans, Peter was NOWHERE to be found at the last greetings.

This again challenges the claims of the papacy of Peter as the bishop of Rome. Peter may have gone to Rome later but he didn't stay there as he was a pastor in Jerusalem. Galatians 2:7 shows the apostolic work of Peter was to be circumcised but Paul was the apostle to the uncircumcised. If Peter were the bishop of Rome, Paul would have greeted him with the other believers or also he would have not have to write to the Romans if Peter were there. Some may argue that he was out of town. But even if Peter were out of town but think but Paul would still ahve gien his regards.

7.) Also, in Mark 16:9-11, the risen Jesus showed Himself first to Mary Magdalene.

 That would also be a little bit of a challenge isn't it? Peter didn't get the privilege. 

8.) Paul wrote more of the Bible than Peter did!

Paul wrote most of the doctrine of the New Testament than Peter did although they DID NOT contradict with each other (1 Peter 3:16).

9.) Peter rejected men bowing down to him reverently (Acts 10:26) while the Popes do.

 For Catholics to say they are not worshiping the Pope can't be denied. They do more than bow down in respect, by calling him "holy father" that's already worship.

By looking at it, Peter could not be the first Pope as Catholics claim. This article is bound to get many angry but the truth must be told!  Here's a disturbing quote from the Vatican Council I about my stand that Peter could not be the first Pope:
"If any one, therefore shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church, or that he directly directly and immediately received a primacy of honor only and not of true and proper jurisdiction- let him be anathema." 

Seriously Roman Catholics need to reexamine Peter closely especially his two writings, his first apostolic sermon and so on. In fact, if there are any real apostolic successors, it would be the fundamental Christian pastors who stick their customs and traditions SOLELY on God's Word and not man's ever changing tradition. 

Popular posts from this blog

Hebrews 6:4-6 Explained

Hebrews 6:4-6 says, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."
This verse is another that is being used by the works salvation crowd as a means to prove again that salvation can be lost.  However what does this mean?  This again shows the fact that once a Christian, always a Christian and that means, you cannot lose your salvation.  So notice the words "IF they fall away" but as said, Christians DO NOT fall away from the faith even if they fall into sin because they are still sinners (1 John 1:8, 1 John 2:1) but they have power over sin because of the Lord Jesus Christ's grace in their lives (Titus 2:11-15).  As said, Christians are now partakers…

What's Wrong with the Ang Dating Daan Movement?

The Ang Dating Daan movement is by the Members Church of God International spearheaded by its pastor (and so-called "prophet") Eliseo Soriano.  While claiming to be an expositor of the Scriptures with his "Itanong Mo Kay Soriano" or "Ask Soriano" In English, this religious group actually isn't Christian as some of the ignorant would want to believe.  Though the group claims the Bible is their only authority (as some cults do) but the problem is that they believe only Eli Soriano may interpret the Scriptures.  This is utter heresy!  Not even a great man in the Scriptures, Charles Spurgeon ever made such a preposterous claim!  This is no better than the "true church" movement by Darwin Fish which is exposed by Pastor Phil Johnson as a heretical movement.  In fact, I'm not going to waste my time debating with ADD members, they are a total waste of my time as every other debate.
Unlike John F. Macarthur of Grace to You that actually encoura…

Misunderstanding "Turn the Other Cheek" Can Be Life Threatening

One of the biggest misconceptions is the statement of "turn the other cheek"? Does that mean that Christians are taught not to sue anyone and not to do self-defense? It's best to understand what turn the other cheek in Matthew 5:39 means.

So what does a slap in the face mean? A slap isn't always a literal slap. It should be known that a slap may also mean an insult or name-calling. The Jewish culture in Jesus' day had already misused and abused the eye for eye and tooth for tooth rule in Exodus 21:24. Instead of using it as a standard for punishing offenses, they have misused it in order to pursue personal revenge or think that God allows personal revenge. They took the whole verse out of context ignoring verses in the Old Testament that clearly forbade revenge. Did they even read Deuteronomy 32:39 that says that revenge is not ours but God's? It's probable that their culture that day that even a mere insult already warranted someone the right to hit the…

Honoring Martin Luther King Jr. as a Hero Continues the Counter-Reformation

The celebration of the 500 years of the Reformation last October 31, 2017 doesn't mean that the Vatican won't continue to celebrate the Counter-Reformation. The Counter-Reformation celebrated its 470th year last December 13, 2015 since it started last December 13, 1545. It was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday day yesterday. Celebrating his day should never be associated with born again Christians regardless of denomination. Whether they're Baptist or Protestant, it's an insult to blend in with the celebration of Dr. King's birthday. If Martin Luther started the Reformation then Martin Luther King Jr. was certainly a tool for continuing the Counter-Reformation.

If a Baptist pastor or a Protestant pastor gets honors and recognition from the Vatican, or is openly working with them -- then that's a time to sound the red alarm that a wolf in sheep's clothing is around. How can any Baptist or Protestant pastor even think for a second that the Reformation…

Professional Christian Apologists Should Avoid Having Formal Discussions With Amateur (or Self-Proclaimed) Catholic Apologists

I remembered watching a couple of old discussions conducted by professional Roman Catholic apologists such as Mitch Pacwa SJ and Dr. Taylor Marshall (the owner of the video above). I have seen through the debates between Evangelical vs. Roman Catholic in the John Ankerburg show or those conducted by Dr. James R. White of the Alpha and Omega Ministries (AOM). But there's a specific group of people that should be brought up namely amateur (or self-proclaimed)Catholic apologists. 
What's with dealing with amateur or self-proclaimed Catholic apologists? Unlike their fellow Roman Catholic apologists that I have mentioned or others who have had a formal debate with Dr. White, these people are merely self-proclaimed. You can check their background and you may find that they don't have any real training in how to be an effective apologist. They may have simply made themselves as apologists without any real training.

You can observe the big difference between the self-proclaimed C…

Warning: Unsaved Pastors Are Seeking to Destroy the Flock

Whether you believe it or not unsaved pastors do exist. They are pastors in name only but not pastors whom God has appointed in Ephesians 4:11 and Jeremiah 3:15. Anybody can be a pastor but not anybody is truly a man of God. The book of Jeremiah is so full of condemnation of wicked pastors (shepherds) and priests who were not men of God. Jeremiah 5:31 has the priests getting popularity as they bear rule by their means. Today, you've got pastors becoming popular as they run things not the biblical way but their own twisted way. It bothers me to think how some quack pastors are  They are the erring pastors in Jeremiah. In the Old Testament, they are comparable to the priests who have erred in so much error. It's just like how the sons of Eli were indeed priests in the Old Testament but the sons of Satan who is also called Belial in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 2:12).

2 Timothy 4:3-5 warns that the last days will be full of false teachers. These are pastors who don't teach the…

The Horrors of the Horrid Family: The Herods and Inbreeding

So here is the family tree of the Herods which I would say is not a happy family.  One can think about the incest and intrigue of this family or the whispers of the world "incestuous" about them considering these events that had transpired in the family tree to the point it's best to call them the Horrids or the Horrors whatever name will fit them better:
1.) Herodias (or Horridias as I want to call her) is the daughter of Aristobulus a much older son of Herod the Great by Mariamne I was married to her half-uncle, Herod Philip I and had a freak daughter named Salome.  Salome wouldn't be a normal child either considering she was born of incest between half-uncle and half-niece.  So she was both granddaughter and great-granddaughter to the wicked Herod the Great.  I guess Salome was a retard too though she did live long enough.  Note also that Herodias was the sister of Herod Agrippa I who was later eaten of worms as the throne was later lost out of her greed.  Also H…

What Does Pisseth Against the Wall Mean?

It's really getting bad for some of my Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren to actually even take the words "pisseth against the wall" which appears at least six times in 1 Samuel 23:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8 where the King James actually has the words "pisseth against the wall".  Now I am a King James only-ist but I do not support the stupid interpretation of "pisseth against the wall" by some IFB preachers who have become in some way similar to the Catholic Faith Defenders that they argue against when they should spend their time soulwinning.  Actually I even heard that rather outrageous "pisseth against the wall" sermon by Steven Anderson that was so taken out of context.
So what does pisseth against the wall mean? Let us take a look at these six verses and take it on a exegetic view NOT an eisegetic (out of context) view:
1 Samuel 23:22- "And so more also do God unto the ene…

Paul Washer's Quote to Slam the Prosperity Gospel

I really am so annoyed with all the prosperity gospel garbage because it is not biblical doctrine.  When I became a Christian, it is not about what it has done for me but what I have done for God.  If I am going to follow Christ, I can only expect to be ridiculed and persecuted.  If I am going to follow Christ then I expect the whole world to leave me behind.  Why do I expect that?  John 15:18-19 warns that the Christians are not of the world.  James 4:4 warns that you cannot be a friend of both the world and of God.

It is utterly foolish to say, "Receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and you will get healing and prosperity.  You will get a Mercedes Benz."  The more I read through the words of Jesus, the more I realize He did not promise any of those garbage that the prosperity crowd promises.  Instead, I read more warnings about persecution for His Name's sake.  Being a Christian can also mean being unpopular, hated, rejected, a laughingstock for the wrong reas…

Do You Give Your Tithes and Offerings from a Loving Heart?

It's time to talk about the topic of giving. This would be a very touchy topic because man is inherently selfish after the fall. I remembered reading across the rules on offerings and one verse struck me the most. I remembered what Malachi 3:10-11 says that people can rob God in tithes and offerings. The tithes and offerings were used to support the Levites' work. Anyone who says tithes are unbiblical need to reread that verse.

Tithing has been silent in the New Testament. I haven't read much about tithing being emphasized. Instead, we have the emphasis of the cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:7). It's amazing how some pseudo-Christian sects and some churches that's supposedly Christian (ex. some Baptist and Evangelical churches) have even gone as far as to monitor and chase their members for not tithing. While I do still believe in tithing is necessary to help maintain the local churches but no church should coerce the tithes out of their members.

Do you know that w…