PETER IS NOT THE "ROCK" UPON WHICH GOD BUILT HIS CHURCH

Brother Jorge  
(Dr. Jorge Mata-Torres)
Chosen of Israel Author & Publisher

 



Peter is NOT what the Church of God is built upon

We look at the scripture used to "justify"  the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church:


"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  Matthew 16:18


Now let's simply back up a bit and read 5 verses earlier:


When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”  And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "I also say to you that you are Peter (petros - little stone, pebble: http://biblehub.com/greek/4074.htm), and upon this rock (petra - rock, boulder, cliff, ledge:  http://biblehub.com/greek/4073.htm
I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  Matthew 16:13-18


Once you read the context of the conversation prior to Christ's declaration of what (who) is  "the Rock", He is clearly and exclusively speaking of Himself - NOT Peter. Common sense clearly shows that the ROCK upon which the Messiah will build HIS CHURCH (His followers) are those who keep testimony (bear witness) that He (the Messiah) is the Son of the living God.  It's as simple and straight-forward as that - even Peter himself was to proclaim that the Messiah is the “living stone” (1 Pet.2:4)


Rome's claim that Peter is upon which the church was built gets only worse...


There is nothing in scripture that suggests that Peter's place of death (which is not known as a certainty) should become the permanent headquarters for the true church. Nor is there any indication that the true Church should be forever based out of a single city or from Rome.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits this about Peter,

...we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

No precise information means that the Roman Church has essentially relied on after the fact writings, nearly all of which were written over 100 years after Peter's death, that say that he was in Rome and/or died in Rome. But even those accounts suggest that he was not there very long. (It should be noted that there are later accounts that Peter actually died in Jerusalem or Asia Minor, but they also are of questionable reliability.)

Thus the earlier claim about Peter that "Early Christian history tells us that before his death, he fixed his residence at Rome" is clearly false.

Furthermore, according to Catholic sources, there were no bishops in Rome prior to the second century (and Peter died in the first century):

We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).

Notice what the 20th century Franciscan scholar Jean Briand reported:

Everyone knows the Church grew out of Jerusalem…From Jerusalem, Judeo-Christian communities spread out through Palestine and beyond Transjordan and Syria.  We also find Judeo-Christans in Asia and other parts of the Empire…The mother Church…which remained for a long time at the head of the Judeo-Christian movement was in Jerusalem.  It was at first headed by the Apostle Peter himself and then, after his departure from the Holy City, by James, “the brother of the Lord… (Briand J. The Judeo-Christian Church of Nazareth.  Translated from the French by Mildred Duell. 1st edition, Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, 1982, pp. 10-11,13)

The true Church of God spread from Jerusalem into Palestine, Syria (Antioch), Asia Minor, and elsewhere. The Church that Peter headed had what are called Judeo-Christian practices.

Interestingly, a Catholic respected scholar, Origen of Alexandria, wrote this about Peter:

Peter himself seems to have observed for a considerable time the Jewish observances enjoined by the law of Moses, not having yet learned from Jesus to ascend from the law... Peter "went up into the upper room to pray about the sixth hour. And he became very hungry, and would have eaten"...Peter is represented as still observing the Jewish customs respecting clean and unclean animals. (Origen. Contra Celsus, Book II, Chapter 1)

So, Peter was believed to have Jewish practices as late as the time of Origen, and according to the Bible never ate unclean meat (Acts 10:14).
Source: http://www.cogwriter.com/peter.htm


Common sense should tell you that Peter NEVER went to Rome - if he had Christians would be keeping THE LAW (TORAH) - but just the opposite is the case - they practice LAWLESSNESS - and who was the one that is documented to have gone to Rome AND taught a Lawless gospel?   Paul.   Be sure to read the "False Apostle Paul" chapter.

 

St Peter was not the first Pope and never went to Rome, claims Channel 4

St Peter's journey to Rome led to the spread of Christianity in the West and the foundation of Roman Catholicism, so the Church has always taught.

But a new documentary will challenge the link as nothing more than a "conspiracy of faith". In it, prominent academics accuse the Vatican of misleading the world over the fate of the man regarded as Jesus Christ's closest disciple. In allegations likely to spark controversy, they accuse the Church of fabricating a connection with the apostle to validate giving ultimate power to the papacy.

Catholicism has taught for centuries that Peter was martyred and buried in Rome and that all popes succeed him, but the documentary will challenge this by asserting that he never reached the Italian city. Instead, it will accuse the Church of ignoring the discovery of a tomb in Jerusalem that archaeologists believe contains the bones of Peter. 

Leading theologians said that these views were an "attempt to smear Catholicism" and criticised Channel 4 for allowing such "outlandish" claims to be broadcast. 

They expressed concern that they would appeal to people who are easily persuaded by conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene, as proposed in Dan Brown's best-seller The Da Vinci Code. 

Dr Robert Beckford, a theology lecturer at Oxford Brookes University, who presents the documentary, denied that this was an attempt to attack the Catholic Church. "This is about looking at what the pillars of power are founded on and examining the scholarship that most Catholics take for granted," he said.

"We found that there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that Peter was buried in Rome, but yet the rival theory has not got out because it challenges the Church.

"If you undermine its basis for power you undermine the Church. It's tragic that the faith gets reduced to manipulating the facts and to one Church trying to make itself superior to others."

As Christianity spread following the crucifixion of Jesus, it became important for the new churches to claim a link with the disciples and led the Catholic Church to establish a connection with St Peter.

Catholics believe the proof that Christ constituted St Peter head of His Church is found in the two Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17. In Matthew, the office is solemnly promised to the apostle as Jesus addresses him: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

Roman Catholicism holds that the Pope, also known as the Bishop of Rome, is the sole successor to the "supremacy" or primacy of Peter and is thus the "Vicar of Christ" for the world.

It is traditionally believed that he was crucified in Rome and buried where the Basilica of St Peter was later built, beneath the high altar.

In 1939, the Vatican announced that the bones of Peter had been found in Rome during an archaeological dig. But the documentary casts doubt on this, questioning why the dig was carried out "in total secrecy", and led by a "personal friend" of the Pope.

"The Pope's authority over the world's one billion Roman Catholics derives from the belief that Peter died and was buried here almost 2,000 years ago," said Dr Beckford.

The documentary, The Secrets of the Twelve Disciples ­(Channel 4 today at 5.45pm), suggests it that is much more likely that St Peter was buried in an ossuary found in Jerusalem with the inscription Shimon Bar Jonah - Simon son of Jonah - the Hebrew name for Peter.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582585/St-Peter-was-not-the-first-Pope-and-never-went-to-Rome-claims-Channel-4.html