Please Provide Historical Proof That Peter Was The First Pope.

jckstraw72 · #41 5th January 2006, 01:46 AM

Oh yeah, and could you please explain what purpose it served for Satan to convince EO, OO, Anglicans, Lutherans and whoever else, that Peter was the 1st Pope?

TreesNTrees · #42 5th January 2006, 01:46 AM

Have you ever noticed the meaning in this verse:

Ephesians 3:2-4

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to youward:

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
KJV

In that verse, the word "dispensation" means "ADMINISTRATION". Check out the whole context of the verse.

Several apostles and other ministries got the ball rolling, but the apostle Paul is the man the crystalized and solidified the doctrine.

Romans - Doctrine

1 Corinthians - Reproof
2 Corinthians

Galatians - Correction

Ephesians - Doctrine

Plillipians - Reproof

Colossians - Correction

1 Thessalonians - Doctrine
2 Thessalonians

The first apostles were loving ministers that spoke the Word, served God's people and taught what they knew.

But Paul is the only apostle that the Word says was committed a full "administration"

I'm not saying he was a Pope. Just that tje Word says he was responsible for an administration.

stray bullet · #43 5th January 2006, 01:51 AM

Of course, it couldn't be that Satan would want us to believe Peter wasn't Pope, now would it?

Which is more likely, he tricked all of Christianity for 1500-1700 years and most Christians living today and the minority, the fringe Christians following modern doctrines have it right...

Or the protestants witht Church history entirely not in their favor, are rewriting it to fit their modern doctrines?
Hmm.

Tonks · #44 5th January 2006, 01:55 AM

I doubt that the OP could provide sufficient documentary evidence - by his own restrictions - that shows that Peter was not in Rome.

Frankly, I find the Church Fathers compelling enough. When those bits and pieces were written there was but one Church and the Fathers are not the exclusive property of Catholicism.

stray bullet · #45 5th January 2006, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by jckstraw72

Oh yeah, and could you please explain what purpose it served for Satan to convince EO, OO, Anglicans, Lutherans and whoever else, that Peter was the 1st Pope?

Because it would hide the 'true' doctrines of Christianity which have absolutely no basis in the early Church and can't be found in patristic writings, Ecumenical Councils or Church teachings.

I guess some people think it wasn't until the Reformation that the 'true' doctrines, new though they may have been, got out!

revduane · #46 5th January 2006, 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by jckstraw72

Oh yeah, and could you please explain what purpose it served for Satan to convince EO, OO, Anglicans, Lutherans and whoever else, that Peter was the 1st Pope?

There have been leaders deceived by Satan in every denomination. What about all of the massacres that were commited in Scotland and Ireland back in the 1500s and 1600s? Thousands of protestants were massacered because of their denial of the eucharist. They were burned at the stake. Women had their beasts cut off and left to bleed to death. Pregnant women had their fetus' cut out and fed to the dogs, while their husband were made to watch. It is historical fact, and these are just a couple of examples, and it was all done in the name of God.

Yeah. There is much deceit. And Satans purpose will be revealed in a very short time, when the beast is in the picture. Our job as Christians is to get people saved, and taught correctly. People need rebirth and truth, not conversion.

jckstraw72 · #47 5th January 2006, 01:59 AM

So in other words you cant answer the question.

Tonks · #48 5th January 2006, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by revduane

Yeah. There is much deceit. And Satans purpose will be revealed in a very short time, when the beast is in the picture. Our job as Christians is to get people saved, and taught correctly. People need rebirth and truth, not conversion.

All are welcome in the Catholic Church - a bastion of Christian protection against the Reformist heresies.

As for Satan's purpose being made clear in a very short time.....I'll add that to the writings of 2000 years of Christianity when the Morningstar's effects have always been just around the corner.

jckstraw72 · #49 5th January 2006, 02:00 AM

Oh, and no one is denying that certain leaders fell into error and heresy.

TreesNTrees · #50 5th January 2006, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by stray bullet

Which is more likely, he tricked all of Christianity for 1500-1700 years and most Christians living today and the minority, the fringe Christians following modern doctrines have it right...

I have no answer for that. I was not there 1700 years ago. It's enough to try and keep the written Word intact these days. I can't tell you about history and tradition, but I can find what the Word says given a bit of time. So I usually prefer to list chapter and verse reference - "it is written".

Along that concept you mentioned, what can you find in the Word that may give insight?

Were there any extended periods in the bible where believers took the wrong path of belief?

How long until all Asia turned away from Paul?

Is there anywhere in the Old Testment where a large body of believers (not a nation or bloodline) held-fast to the accurate teaching and application of the written Word for more than 2 generations?