The King James Bible Church
HARLEY
HITCHCOCK
Catholics believe Peter was the rock on which the church was built. Are they right? Was Peter the rock?
Was he the
first pope?
1.
Peter was never in Rome
(a)
After
being
the bishop of Rome for twenty five years, Roman Catholicism claims that
Peter
was a martyr along with Paul.
Now,
accepting that Paul’s death was in 66 AD, this places Peter in Rome
from 41 AD
to 66 AD.
But
the following dates show otherwise:
44
AD - Peter
was in prison in Jerusalem (Acts 12)
52
AD – Peter
was in the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15)
53
AD – Peter
is at Antioch and joined by Paul (Gal
2:11)
58
AD – Paul
writes his epistle to the Romans, in which he greets 27 people,
but
doesn’t mention Peter. Surely this would a slap in the face to the
supposed
head of the church there?
(b) Furthermore,
in none
of the Paul’s church epistles written from Rome
(Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, 2Timothy), is Peter ever mentioned.
(c)
In
his
last letter in 66AD, Paul’s second time in prison, he says “At
my
first answer (the first time he was in prison in 64 AD)
no man
stood with me, but all men forsook me: ….” (2 Tim 4:16). Where
was Peter if he was in Rome?
(d)
Just
before his martyrdom in 66 AD, Paul writes “Only Luke is with
me…” (2 Tim 4:11). Where is Peter?
(e) In the book of
Revelation, Rome
is only likened spiritually to Babylon (Rev
14:8,
Rev
16:19 etc).
Because
Peter writes from Babylon around 65 AD (1Pet
5:13), Rome using ‘the pea under the cup’ routine, claims therefore, he
wrote from Rome. Surely a deceitful claim!
The
facts are:- Paul had written to Rome, been in
Rome and written
from Rome, but he never mentions Peter. Peter was never
in
Rome, never written to or from Rome, was never
the bishop
of Rome, and never the pope.
2.
Peter had a wife
The
scriptures say “And when Jesus was come into Peter's
house, he
saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.” (Matt
8:14) and again “But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of
a
fever ….” (Mark 1:30).
How
can Rome justify its position in condemning Luther because he had a
wife? Why
shouldn’t all priests and popes have wives if Peter had one? After all,
he is
the pattern after which Rome models itself.
These
unfortunate scriptures for Rome are explained away as follows. They say
that Peter
ceased to live with his wife. Now if this was the case, did Peter’s
wife
walk out on him or was he a wife deserter? Were they not suited to each
other?
Why not? If there was a separation or divorce between Peter and his
wife,
surely this would not auger well for the foundation of the church? Why
would
Christ place Peter in such an awkward position?
Could
it just be, that Peter and his wife never separated at any time? Is
Paul lying
by stating the following -
“Have
we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other
apostles,
and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Cor 9:5)?
(Peter
was referred to as Cephas).
And
surely God is not saying one thing and meaning another, when he has
Timothy
declare “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband
of one wife
…” (1 Tim 3:2)?
Now
we all agree, that not all ministers, priests or bishops are to have a
wife,
but Rome forbids any priest, pope or bishop to have a wife.
In
addition, if Rome wants their priests and popes to be holy, what could
be
better than to let them have a wife? After all Rome calls marriage a
Holy
Sacrament! Surely Rome is being inconsistent.
The
fact is there is no scripture requiring celibacy for any leader
of any
church. Going back 3,400 years, even the Old Testament priests were
allowed to
marry (Ex 6:23-25). However, surrounding nations like Babylon had
their pagan priests, who didn’t have wives, so that they could indulge
in fornication
with temple prostitutes.
Indeed
we are warned that a time would come when “… some
shall depart
from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of
devils;
…Forbidding to marry…” (1Tim
4:1-3).
There
you have it, God says that this doctrine of Rome is the doctrine of
devils.
3.
Peter refused the worship from others
There
are no scriptures that say that anybody ever kissed Peter’s feet or
hands and
we don’t read where Peter ever washed anybody’s feet either.
In
fact the opposite is true, when Cornelius fell at his feet, “…
Peter took
him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. (Acts
10:26)
Furthermore,
when Paul and Barnabas, after healing the impotent man at Lystra, were
mobbed
by the people saying “…The gods are come down to us in the likeness
of men.”
(Acts 14:11), “…they rent their clothes, and ran in
among the people, crying out, And saying, Sirs, why do ye these
things?
We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye
should turn
from these vanities unto the living God, …” (Acts
14:14-15)
Now
the question is “If Peter was the first pope, would he want to be
‘out-humbled’
by his friends by receiving adulation and worship?” Of course not, but
the
present day pope doesn’t follow Peter’s example.
4.
Peter never wore a crown
There
are no scriptures indicating that Peter had a coronation with a tiara
placed on
his head. This is unlike the present popes that receive the blasphemous
abomination of a tiara with three crowns representing ‘Father of
princes and
kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Saviour Jesus Christ!’ Peter’s
coronation day is coming along with all those in Christ, when “…the
chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory
that
fadeth not away.” (1 Peter 5:4). While all popes are wearing their
earthly crowns, Peter is
still waiting for the real crown of glory.
There
are no scriptures to indicate that Peter ever had a throne to sit on.
Where
do we find in the scriptures that Peter solicited and accepted money
and gifts
to be gathered for himself and put into a special treasury named after
himself?
In fact the opposite is true. Furthermore, unlike Rome that peddles
artifacts,
indulgences and trinkets, Peter refused to sell any gift for money
saying “…Thy
money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God
may be
purchased with money.” (Acts
8:20).
If
any doubt would still exist in the mind of the reader, Peter is on
record also
saying “…Silver and gold have I none ....” (Acts
3:6)
How
did Peter become infallible? A pope in 1870 said so. Amazing isn’t it?
No-one
knew this before then. Why? People were reading their Bibles that said
the
opposite. There are no scriptures to indicate that Peter was
infallible, in
fact, the opposite is true.
If
Rome is reading the same scriptures as the rest of us, surely they must
read
the account of Peter denying the Lord, first of all when “..a damsel
came
unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he
denied
before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest." and
the second time “…another maid saw him, and said unto them that were
there, This
fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied
with an
oath, I do not know the man.”
and the third
time “…Peter,
Surely thou also art one of them; …Then began he to curse
and to
swear, saying, I know not the man …” (Matt
26:69-72,73-74)
Is
this the infallible man of Rome upon which Christ’s church was built?
Surely
not.
Of
course, then we are reminded of Paul’s words “But when Peter was
come to
Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
(Gal
2:11). Is this infallibility?
If
Pope Honorious I, after his death, was denounced as a heretic by
the
sixth Council in the year 680, and confirmed by Pope Leo, how can Rome
claim
infallibility for popes?
Pope
Liberious denied
the deity of the Lord. Is this infallibility?
Pope
Vigilius
condemned certain books and then retracted his decision, only to
condemn them
again, then retract the condemnation, only to condemn them once more.
Is this
infallibility?
Of course the only infallible book we have is the King James Bible, but
Rome
thinks otherwise saying “We confess that the Pope has the power of
altering
Scripture, or increasing and diminishing it, according to his
will.”
Furthermore, Rome states “We confess that Holy Scripture is imperfect
and a
dead letter, until it is explained by the Supreme Pontiff.”
It
has been said “The pope’s infallibility depends on his own word and
his word
depends on his own infallibility.” Surely, Rome exercises circular
reasoning.
Harley Hitchcock
www.
AustralianBibleMinistries
.com
Continued
in Was Peter the first pope?”
Pt 2 of 3.
“CONTACT US”
Australian Bible Ministries, PO
Box 5058 Mt. Gravatt East 4122 Qld, Australia
www.AustralianBibleMinistries.com