I can see whee Timothy may have been taught to look to Paul as sort of a boss, but?

Question

I cannot find any evidence that any of the chruches that Paul was mentoring during the beginnings of the church, that had anything to do with Peter.

My question is, How can Peter be the first Pope and also the leader of the only church in existance until the time of the Protests if he never even knew about the churches that Paul was mentoring.

This is a bit complicated, but important to me. I do not want to be involved with any organization that goes against the bible and I need to find in the bible where it states that the Catholic church is indeed the first and only church.

Somewhere, there should be a verse or a place that ties all the apostles together under the authority of Peter. I can only find verses that support that they were all under the authoity of Jesus Christ.

Answer 1

the Protestant Reformation was not the first split in the church. I believe that the Bible suggests that the Gentile Churches under Paul had already begun to break from the Jewish-Christian Church in Jerusalem.

Basically, The Catholic church may have been one of the first churches, but they were not the only church established.

Peter and Paul and Apollos all tried to stop the splitting off of churches to follow different teachers instead of Jesus Christ, but the people did not listen and did it anyway.

This does not mean that they do not believe in the same things, it does mean that they found one persons teachings easier to understand and thus followed the person.

Remember, we didnt have the new testament written down for ease of figuring out questions yet.

Answer 2

Your question is not an easy one to answer. Let me try to clarify. The Catholic Church nor any other church is listed in the Bible. The reason for that is we have given the churches their names.

Secondly, the Protestant Reformation was not the first split in the church. I believe that the Bible suggests that the Gentile Churches under Paul had already begun to break from the Jewish-Christian Church in Jerusalem.

Thirdly, we know that Peter has been to some of the churches though he may not be mentioned. Paul mentions his name a couple of times as a person who has been at the church or has influenced the church.

The designation of Peter as the first Pope is where things get complicated. I am making the assumption that you are Roman Catholic from what you are saying. The Catholic Church bases the Papacy on Jesus' statement to Peter "on this rock (Petros) I will build my church. One of the early Ante-Nicene Fathers interpreted this passage to mean that Jesus had established Peter as the Pope.

The Catholic Church relies on both scripture and tradition (the teaching of the Ante and Post Nicene Fathers). They believe that you cannot interpret the scripture correctly without first understanding the teaching of the fathers.

The Protestant Church believes that the fathers are important and need to be considered but that scripture must stand alone for its own words and truths (Sola Scriptura).

Before you make any changes, please talk to your priest and let him help you understand some of these things better.

Pastor John

Answer 3

Paul preached to the Gentiles, Peter to the Jewish. Peter was run out of Jerusalem and went to Rome in or about 49AD and that is where Peter stationed the Catholic Church.

Around or about 45 AD, Peter went to Rome and from there lead the Catholic Church. As of today, there have been 263 Popes in direct succession to Peter. The position of Pope was established by Christ and the office has been maintained in an apostolic manner since the time of Christ. Although the Church has fragmented since the time of Christ with various leadership centers emerging, the apostolic line of succession in the Church is seated in Rome until this very day. Many throughout time have tried to rationalize away and deny the authority and structure of the Church as established by Jesus.

“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, ). Babylon is a code-word for Rome.

Answer 4

My friend you are going in the right direction. I applaud your efforts to learn the truth. You are correct in thinking that Peter never hand any connections with the churches Paul mentored. You have to go back to where Jesus was telling Peter that "on this rock He would build His church". The Catholics say that the Rock is Peter and this is where Jesus is calling Peter the first Pope. That is however false. Jesus was stating that He (Jesus the Christ) is The Rock that the Church would be built on.

Answer 5

Keep in mind that the Holy Bible didn't exist until the 4th century!! It is by the authority of the Roman Catholic Church around 397 a.d. that we know which books belong to the Bible! Martin Luther took out 7 books from the O.T. during the Protestant reformation in order to start his own Church (He even wanted to take out "The Book of Revelation"). Catholics still use the same original God-inspired Bible for 1,600 years! Before the Bible was compiled, there were already 400 years of Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Magesterium (Catholic Church leaders). Therefore, in truth, The Bible is not the sole piece of authority, but A piece of authority along with Tradition and the Bishops of the Catholic Church. Not everything was written down! No where in the Bible does it state that it is the sole piece of authority. God bless!

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught, whether by word of mouth OR by letter from us" 2 Thess. 2:15

"You are Peter, and I can guarantee that on this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell will not overpower it. " Matthew 16:18

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep" John 21:17

Answer 6

Oh oh, you are dangerous to Catholics, you actually read the Bible and believe it. They will hang onto Matt. 16:18 & 19 as their proof text, but fail understand what it is really saying. There is really no solid evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, started any churches and in fact, was head of the church in Jerusalem along with James and John. You will not find anything that establishes Peter as a pope in Scripture, it is simply not there. The papacy wasn't in existence until about 300 years after the apostles had died. Jesus is the head of the Church, the rock on which the Church is built.
Here is piece by James R. White, a Christian apologist and theologian:

"Now, allow me to be perfectly clear. I reject everything the Pope says here as being true. I accept his authority to define these things for those who follow him. I simply reject that he is an authority for Christians, anywhere (including Rome). He is not the Holy Father (a term used by Jesus of God, the Father, alone), he is not the Vicar of Christ (a term describing the Holy Spirit), and he is not the successor of Peter. I reject the Papacy in its entirety and its particulars; I reject Rome's pretensions to define Christ's body, and her wicked usurpation of the ultimate authority of God's Word in matters of faith and morals. I knowingly, purposefully, and with all my heart, reject his teachings and his heresies. As such, again, I happen to be standing firmly in the middle of the historical stream marked "Reformed Baptists."
I echo his sentiments.

To the person who said "Babylon" is code for Rome, do you really want to stand on that ? If so, then what do you do with these verses?

Rev 14:8 And another angel followed, saying, The great city, Babylon, has fallen, has fallen because of the wine of the anger of her fornication she made all nations to drink.

Rev 16:19 And the great city came to be into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And Babylon the great was remembered before God, to give to her the cup of the wine of the anger of His wrath.

Rev 17:5 And on her forehead was a name having been written: Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of the Harlots and of the Abominations of the Earth.

Answer 7

>>Somewhere, there should be a verse or a place that ties all the apostles together under the authority of Peter.<<

Matthew 16:19 and John 21:15-17 aren't enough for you?

Answer 8

i'm not going to tell you what you should and shouldn't believe but i'll give you the scripture you can decide...

And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.
Matthew 16:16-20 (NAS)

from this come 2 points of view: 1, the catholics beilieve it is peter that jesus is refering to as the rock (since peter means pebble or stone) and since peter is the rock he then gets the keys and has the church built upon him... hence pope and all that goes along with it
2. protestents believe that since there are 2 words used in the greek one for Peter, "Petros," meaning "a rock or a stone" then the word translated rock which is "petra" meaning "a rock, cliff or ledge
a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
b) a rock, a large stone"
so to protestents they see Jesus calling Peter a "petros" makes him just a pice of the larger "petra" which would then not be Peter but his confession of Jesus being the Christ. So to a protestent the church is built upon the confession of Jesus being The Christ not upon Peter.

Answer 9

Just because something isn't mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean that it's against the Bible. If the Sacred Scriptures are silent on something, then it simply means there was some information the Apostles chose not to commit to writing.

The Church is a living organism, not a book. The book but is one of the pillars of our Faith. The Scriptures themselves never say they are the sole infallible rule of faith.

The Scriptures never even say that the epistles of St. Peter are Scripture! Yet you believe that they are. It was the Church which first affirmed these books to be Scripture, as opposed to say, The Acts of Peter and Paul. But there was not a word from Scripture to tell them this. It was the Sacred Tradition of the Church (i.e., the inspired, spoken Word of God in the Church) that allowed the Church to do this.

The Apostles, without one word from Scripture, declared that Gentiles need to be circumcised. It was their Magestarial prerogative and duty to do this. If you had dared to stand up and challenge their edict based on your reading of the Scriptures, the next thing you would have experienced was excommunication.

Answer 10

Read Acts. Luke did a thorough job of chronicalling the early church history.