Every Catholic is taught and believes that the apostle Peter was the first Roman bishop—the first “Pope”—and that he resided at Rome. If this were true, God’s Word would state it. But, in fact, the Bible directly confirms the opposite. History seems to attest, however, and it is quite possible, that Peter was crucified in Rome. This said, here are a series of ten proofs, with scriptural support, demonstrating that Peter never resided at Rome:

(1) Rome is in Italy. This means that Gentile Italians live there. The apostle Paul was ordained to be the apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter. Paul wrote this to the Gentile Romans: “That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable…” (15:16). He also described himself to the Galatians as having the gospel of the “uncircumcision”—the Gentiles—committed to him (2:7).

(2) The Emperor Claudius had banished all Jews from Rome in AD 50. Acts 8:1 describes the “great persecution against the Church” and that “they were all scattered abroad” as a result.

(3) Peter wrote his first general epistle from the city of “Babylon” (5:13). Many have assumed that this is Rome, when it is actually the Babylon of Mesopotamia. It is interesting to note that historians generally confuse—switch—scriptural references to Babylon by applying those that do apply to Rome as though they apply to Babylon, and vice-versa—in other words, those that do not apply to Rome are assigned Roman designation.

(4) Paul told the Romans, “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation” (15:20). Paul’s assertion would make no sense had Peter been resident at Rome, having established this congregation.

(5) Then, in light of the previous point, why would Paul offer the following salutation to the Roman congregation, also if Peter had been there for years?: “For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end that you may be established” (1:11). Think how insulting this expression would have been to “Pope Peter,” had he been in Rome.

(6) Paul concludes the Roman letter in chapter 16 with separate greetings to 30 different people in Rome—Mary, Andronicus, Junia—(these last two were probably apostles; Rom. 16:7)—Amplias, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles and 23 others—with no reference to the one who was supposedly the Pope, guiding the congregation and the entire New Testament Church from that city. No reasonable person could believe that Paul would so insult his own spiritual superior!

(7) Galatians 1:18-19 and 2:7 demonstrate that Peter was based at Jerusalem, from where he periodically traveled to places like Bithynia, Northern Galatia and Babylon, and other places where Israelites (also see #9) had migrated, from AD 38 to AD 49—the dates of these events described in Galatians.

( Luke 22:24 states, “And there was a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.” Here is why this passage is important. This debate took place after Christ, in Matthew 16:17-19, had supposedly designated Peter as the one who would become the first Pope. While not directly involving Rome, this provides its own proof that Christ never conferred, at least from the other apostles’ perspective, the office of “Pope” to Peter.

(9) This point proves the other side of point 1. Already referenced, notice how Paul, who first describes himself, concludes his statement in Galatians 2:7, with this about Peter: “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision [Gentiles] was committed unto me [Paul], as the gospel of the circumcision [Jews and the other tribes of Israel, referenced in #7] was unto Peter…”

(10) In II Timothy 4:11, Paul, commonly understood to be writing this epistle from Rome, states, “Only Luke is with me.” Further, in verse 10, he describes how one named Demas had “forsaken” him and gone back to the “world,” with Crescens and Titus having also transferred to other places of duty. None of this makes sense if the “Pope”—Peter—had been present.

---

To find out who answered the title of a 'Peter' in Rome, please see this thread... https://www.nairaland.com/3558502/true-founder-history-catholic-church#52587802

Cc: DoctorAlien Scholar8200
You guys need see these rock solid truths, straight from the Bible.

Splinz:
You guys need see these rock solid truths, straight from the Bible.

Kudos bro. Rock solid proofs that Catholics lie when they claim Peter was the first pope! May the LORD bless you for these truths.

I'll bump this thread often to keep it afloat.

DoctorAlien:


Kudos bro. Rock solid proofs that Catholics lie when they claim Peter was the first pope! May the LORD bless you for these truths.

I'll bump this thread often to keep it afloat.

Thanks bro. Have you notice that they've all deserted this thread because of the bitter truths?

Apparently, these are hard truths too great for them to bear.

I tell you, the lies in that church is unparalleled!

Cc:
Seun
lalasticlala
mynd44

Please don't you guys think these vital truths deserved front page? Lets hear what the Catholics have to say.

Bump!

DoctorAlien:


Kudos bro. Rock solid proofs that Catholics lie when they claim Peter was the first pope! May the LORD bless you for these truths.

I'll bump this thread often to keep it afloat.

Bro do you know there's a conspiracy to kill this thread?

I've been trying to bump it in order to keep it afloat, but no. Seems Seun's mods are against these truths.

Cc
Seun

Splinz:
Bro do you know there's a conspiracy to kill this thread?

I've been trying to bump it in order to keep it afloat, but no. Seems Seu.n's mods are against these truths.

We'll never be deterred. We will continue to speak the truth bro, no matter whatever anybody's doing.

You quoting bible verse to dis prove peter as the church first pope will not change what is true; no single verse said peter was not a pope. Even the devil quote bible during the temptation of Jesus, the atheist also quote Gen4:13-17 say there other people before Adam and that God didn't create man hence HE does not exist. The traditionalist will quote 2Sam 24:1 and 1chronicles 21:1 to prove that lord= Satan, non-Catholics will quote Mat 13:55 to prove Mary has other children but just check Mat 27:55, Jude1:1, Mark 15:40 you find the real truth.

Some name we gave to things of Christian faith like Bible, Trinity can't be found in the Bible but they are realities. 2Thes 2:15 ask to hold onto the apostolic written and oral truths. That why some information are not found in the scripture but are passed down orally.

On the issue of pope(papa or shepherd) just check Mat16:18 and John21:15-17, Acts 1:15 the remains of St Peter still exist today at St Peters Basilica Rome. Whether he has ever been to Rome check 1Peter 5:13 (NLT).

Bump!

If there is no part of the new testament that says peter did not visit Rome,then ur claim is trash and misleading. Go read the church history not bible for such cases.

Bump!

Discover!

DoctorAlien:
Discover!

Bump!