Please Provide Historical Proof That Peter Was The First Pope.

[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?

 

[TreesNTrees]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

So in other words you cant answer the question.

 

[Tonks]

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]

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

 

[TreesNTrees]

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?

 

[Tonks]

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

Indeed. Why people think that the EO - or even more plainly the RCC - have ever made a claim to the contrary really befuddles me.

 

[revduane]

So in other words you cant answer the question.

No I can answer it, but unfortunately the victim mentality of protestant persecution in the RCC, rarely allows for truth. The RCC, and its followers can dish out persecution, but if any is given then the heretical protestants are of course wrong, and nothing but false teachers. I pray for catholics everywhere to try and understand the peril they are in. But as far as a verbal warning, or even a written one is concerned. It falls on cynical, deaf ears.

Blessings.

 

[stray bullet]

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.

If Satan tricked all of Christianity for 1500-1700 years, then how do we know he didn't trick Christianity into altering the bible to? If they didn't get Peter right, how do we know they didn't corrupt the NT too?
Just as the bible is protected from error, so is the Church that preserves it.

 

[jckstraw72]

So what good does it do Satan to make EO, OO, Lutherans, Anglicans etc etc believe that Peter was the 1st Pope? Im just baffled as to why Satan gives a crap about that.

 

[TreesNTrees]

But as far as a verbal warning, or even a written one is concerned. It falls on cynical, deaf ears.

Blessings.

Hola, Senor...

Hey, how about coning a phrase called "GLOBAL WARNING" instead of global warming?

 

[revduane]

Hola, Senor...

Hey, how about coning a phrase called "GLOBAL WARNING" instead of global warming?

 

[revduane]

So what good does it do Satan to make EO, OO, Lutherans, Anglicans etc etc believe that Peter was the 1st Pope? Im just baffled as to why Satan gives a crap about that.

Do you know any history of WW2?

 

[TreesNTrees]

Im just baffled as to why Satan gives a crap about that.

What says Satan cares about that? It's getting people to add, change and omit a word of the Word that Satan seems to care about.

But how about a whole different way of looking at this. Since the Catholics believe one way and several other groups another or other ways.

But the Catholics - aside from tradition Do they believe this - not what I think of it - but do they believe this is at least the written Word:

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren , James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

No interpretation needed - do they just believe that's the Word? Do they believe this, including the highlighted words, meaning all the words:

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Again, interpretation is set aside. How about this:

Colossians 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

(concordance says dispensation means administrations - not sure how various versions translate)

Do the Catholics at least believe and teach that all those words are the Word of God?

 

[jckstraw72]

Yes Catholics believe every word of those verses. They dont, however, accept the recent reinterpretation of those verses.

Oh, and Rev, if you could, just answer the question. Youre so busy attacking Catholics, you dont stop to realize that the majority of Christendom agrees with them on many things, including Peter's Papacy. Yes, I realize a majority does not necessarily make it true, but you cant just say "Oh I know why the Catholics believe this blah blah" bc THEYRE NOT THE ONLY ONES THAT BELIEVE IT! Unless you can address each group that beleives it, youre not making a case at all.

 

[TreesNTrees]

If Satan tricked all of Christianity for 1500-1700 years, then how do we know he didn't trick Christianity into altering the bible to? If they didn't get Peter right, how do we know they didn't corrupt the NT too?
Just as the bible is protected from error, so is the Church that preserves it.

You know something, I can't answer that on this forum - can't supply the information. I've got info, but it probably would ruin the thread. So I will ask a question. instead.

Are you aware of the recorded history about the contents of a certain church's lake or pond? It had something in it that should not have been there. Both women and male "servants" of the church were aware of the contents since they caused the matter to go to the lake, increasing it's calcium content and reducing it's water holding capacity. It was one of the worst kinds of contamination known to God and man. If the leaders of that church carried out that certain contamination, could that church have been protected by God?