Note: The context indicates that the reference is to the final authority vis-à-vis spiritual questions. No man can assume this role.
2 - If Peter and the disciples had understood the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 as establishing Peter’s supremacy and leadership position, why a little later the disciples disputed who would be the greatest amongst them?
2 - If Peter and the disciples had understood the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 as establishing Peter’s supremacy and leadership position, why a little later the disciples disputed who would be the greatest amongst them?
Note: They would rather be disputing the number 2 position, not the number 1, since that would have been already assured to Peter by Jesus.
3 - If Peter was the head of the Church, why wasn’t he who presented the final decision of the Jerusalem Council, but James (see Acts 15)?
3 - If Peter was the head of the Church, why wasn’t he who presented the final decision of the Jerusalem Council, but James (see Acts 15)?
Note: He only delivered an introductory speech, but James was the Christian leader who spoke on behalf of the body of apostles, which can be concluded reading carefully the entire chapter, especially verses 12ff.
4 - If Peter was the head of the Church, why was he sent by the Church to Samaria with John (see Acts 8:14)? As the No. 1 leader of the Church, he would be sending missionaries.
5 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did he himself attribute to Christ the role of the basic rock, and never claimed to himself or mentioned any special leadership role in the Church (see 1 Peter 2:6-8)?
6 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why didn’t Paul confirm this in 1 Corinthians 10:4, as he assured that Christ is the rock?
7 - If Peter was the first Pope, how could Paul reprimand him so severely because he acted in a wrong way (see Galatians 2:11-14)?
Note: Nowhere in the writings of Paul does he confer any primacy to Peter whatsoever. On the contrary, when he had the opportunity to call Peter the Rock of the Church, Paul said that there's no other foundation other than Christ. I Cor 3:11.
8 - If Peter was the first Pope, why does Paul say that the Church is built on the human foundation of the apostles and prophets, without discriminating Peter as the most important of these (see Ephesians 2:20)?
8 - If Peter was the first Pope, why does Paul say that the Church is built on the human foundation of the apostles and prophets, without discriminating Peter as the most important of these (see Ephesians 2:20)?
Note: Christ in this text is presented again as the Church’s cornerstone.
9 - If Peter was the first Pope, why didn’t Paul discriminate Peter as the principal one, as he made reference to Peter, together with James and John as the columns of the Church (see Galatians 2:9)?
9 - If Peter was the first Pope, why didn’t Paul discriminate Peter as the principal one, as he made reference to Peter, together with James and John as the columns of the Church (see Galatians 2:9)?
Note: He mentions James in the first place.
10 - If Peter was the first Pope, why didn’t the final authority of the Jerusalem church remain with Peter, but with the apostles, later substituted by “elders”?
10 - If Peter was the first Pope, why didn’t the final authority of the Jerusalem church remain with Peter, but with the apostles, later substituted by “elders”?
Note: Besides having been “the apostles” who sent Peter to Samaria (Acts 8:14) to supervise the new Christian communities, they also did the same sending Barnabas to Antioquia (Acts 11:22), later Judas and Silas to the same place (Acts 15:22-27).
11 - If Peter was the first Pope, why were “James and the elders” the ones who recommended that Paul submitted himself to a purification rite in the Temple (Acts 21:18, 23-24)?
12 - If Peter was the first Pope, why does Paul make clear in Galatians that he did not consider Jerusalem a divinely appointed administrative center for all the congregational activity?
11 - If Peter was the first Pope, why were “James and the elders” the ones who recommended that Paul submitted himself to a purification rite in the Temple (Acts 21:18, 23-24)?
12 - If Peter was the first Pope, why does Paul make clear in Galatians that he did not consider Jerusalem a divinely appointed administrative center for all the congregational activity?
Note: After his conversion Paul did not go to Jerusalem, to seek guidance from Peter and the leadership of the Church there, but to Damascus.
13 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul, after his conversion, receive divine instructions through a native of Damascus, called Ananias, and not through Peter?
Note: In Galatians 1: 16, 17 he says clearly that after his conversion he did not resort to any human source of authority.
14 - If Peter was the first Pope, why did Paul travel to Jerusalem only three years later and declared that he only saw Peter and James, and no other apostle in his fifteen-day sojourn there?
15 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul set Antioquia as the base of his operations, and although that city was near Jerusalem he did not see a reason to address himself to the capital of the Judea.
16 - If Peter was the first Pope, why don’t the stories of Paul’s missionary trips ever indicate that he undertook them under the recommendation of any “administrative board”, and with a route and a budget duly approved by an ecclesiastical leader (Acts 13, 15, 20, etc.--especially 15:36)?
17 - If Peter was head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul go back up to Jerusalem only after fourteen years, accompanied by Barnabas and Titus and not Peter, and that because he had a “revelation” from the Lord (see Gal. 2: 1, 2)?
18 - If Peter was the first Pope, why the only Biblical manuscripts after the fall of Jerusalem, from the apostle John, written decades after the desolation of Jerusalem, don’t ever mention any Church leader [or Pope] or Christian administrative center in his days, having a Peter as the top leader?
19 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why does John in the book of Revelation, portray Christ as sending messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor, not any Pope (Rev. 1 to 3), and in none of these messages is there any suggestion or indication that those congregations were under an external direction, but that of Christ Himself?
20 - If Peter was the first Pope, why, in the available writings of Christian authors from the second and third centuries, nothing is indicated regarding the existence of a centered administration to supervise the numerous Christian congregations, under the command of Peter?
Note: The history of the period discloses, in contrast, something much different--that the centered religious authority was the product of a post-apostolic and post-Biblical development.
14 - If Peter was the first Pope, why did Paul travel to Jerusalem only three years later and declared that he only saw Peter and James, and no other apostle in his fifteen-day sojourn there?
15 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul set Antioquia as the base of his operations, and although that city was near Jerusalem he did not see a reason to address himself to the capital of the Judea.
16 - If Peter was the first Pope, why don’t the stories of Paul’s missionary trips ever indicate that he undertook them under the recommendation of any “administrative board”, and with a route and a budget duly approved by an ecclesiastical leader (Acts 13, 15, 20, etc.--especially 15:36)?
17 - If Peter was head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul go back up to Jerusalem only after fourteen years, accompanied by Barnabas and Titus and not Peter, and that because he had a “revelation” from the Lord (see Gal. 2: 1, 2)?
18 - If Peter was the first Pope, why the only Biblical manuscripts after the fall of Jerusalem, from the apostle John, written decades after the desolation of Jerusalem, don’t ever mention any Church leader [or Pope] or Christian administrative center in his days, having a Peter as the top leader?
19 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why does John in the book of Revelation, portray Christ as sending messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor, not any Pope (Rev. 1 to 3), and in none of these messages is there any suggestion or indication that those congregations were under an external direction, but that of Christ Himself?
20 - If Peter was the first Pope, why, in the available writings of Christian authors from the second and third centuries, nothing is indicated regarding the existence of a centered administration to supervise the numerous Christian congregations, under the command of Peter?
Note: The history of the period discloses, in contrast, something much different--that the centered religious authority was the product of a post-apostolic and post-Biblical development.
21 - If Peter was the Rock, why didn't Jesus plainly say, 'UPON YOU', will I build my Church?
Note: Obviously because Jesus was referring to another Rock, the truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. He was obviously contrasting the character of Peter as expressed in the Gospels with the solid and unshakeable rock of Jesus.
22 - If Peter was a solid Rock, why did Jesus severely rebuke him shortly after? Matthew 16:22-23
Note: Jesus rebuked Satan who was speaking through Peter. So, if Peter had just been considered by Jesus as a 'rock', how could he have become so quickly an instrument of Satan?If Jesus had just established Peter as the foundation of the Church, this episode would clearly demonstrate that Jesus made a gross mistake, which is of course, absurd. Therefore, rock CANNOT be referring to Peter.
23 - If Peter was the Rock, why didn't Jesus commission Peter to build his church, instead of saying I WILL BUILD my church?
Note: Jesus is the builder and maker of the church and its foundation. "For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." I Cor. 3: 11.
24. If Jesus' statement in Matthew 16 was so important to the establishment of the Church, why do all the other Gospel omit these words altogether?
Note: If all we had were the other 3 Gospels, the Catholic Church would not have ANY biblical basis for their Papacy. But then again, the Catholic hierarchy DOES NOT need the Scriptures to invent new dogmas, they resort to their own tradition to supplant the Scriptures.
25. If Peter was the solid rock, what does his denial of Christ reveal about Peter's total inability to be the foundation of anything?
Note: Apparently, Peter continued to show his unstableness as a sinner long after that night of denial, and had to be confronted by Paul because he was changing his approach to please different groups of converts. (See Galatians 2:11-14 for full account.)
___________________________
Since Peter was not the rock has been clearly demonstrated here, Jesus' statement "I will give you the keys of the kingdom" cannot refer to Peter either. Rather, Jesus says this again to all his disciples in Matthew 18:18 as the Church that Jesus HIMSELF would build. Because Peter had no primacy in the foundation and establishment of the Church in the early Church, the Papacy does not follow any so-called "line of apostles" after Peter and therefore their arrogance of the title of the Church that Peter built is based on a fallacy.
Furthermore, because the history of the Roman Catholicism clearly demonstrates how it has dishonored the name of Christ by replacing the true Gospel with its own saving rituals and false beliefs, claiming the Bible is insufficient to instruct in righteousness, persecuting those who would hold the Scriptures as their only norm of faith, claiming the Pope is God on earth, the Roman Catholic Church and its false system should here be interpreted as the "gates of hell", who stand in direct opposition to the true Church of Christ, those who have "kept the commandments and have the faith of Jesus" (Rev. 14:12) in all centuries, all over the world.
We urge our sincere and faithful Catholic brethren who love Christ and find themselves inside the Roman Catholic Church to heed the invitation of Christ in Revelation: "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, MY PEOPLE, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Rev. 18:4.
"But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men." Mat 15:9:
No comments:
Post a Comment