What verse in the Bible tells about Peter going to Rome to become the reigning Pope?

Question

I have read and re-read the Holy Bible...every time I get to the part about Peter going to Rome, I read the name Paul instead of Peter. I thought Peter stayed in Israel with his wife and family...Paul was the Roman citizen so was allowed to approach Cesar himself.

One of the answerers here said that if it wasn't in the Bible it still could have happened. My response to that is that indeed it could have, but it would have been in the Bible if God knew it was important enough to base doctrine on.

I was wondering if Imacatholic would answer this one. The creed of Christians at one time was "I stand alone on the Word of God." That still is my methodology. As I said earlier, the Holy Spirit allowed the councils to put what needed to be in the Holy Bible, and that which did not belong there was not. Therefore, if it is not in the Bible, it is not worthy to be taken as doctrine. As a former educator, I am fully aware that history can be written to favor the victors...or edited to favor the victors of conflicts or issues. One thing cannot be tampered with, but many have tried; that is the Word of God. From my understanding of the Apostles demeanor, they were very humble and not seeking after some kind of worldly power. They understood that the Kingdom of God was not on this Earth yet. They understood that a God centered organization cannot force others to believe as they do at threat of torture and death. Jesus never forced anyone to follow Him.

History also shows that the Way was not a popular belief system because it went against the traditions of man--pomp and pride...glory for self. When Constantine allegedly converted, he made the bishop of Rome the leader of Christianity--anyone who would not follow, would suffer all kinds of things. Peter and Paul were slain long before Constantine was even born. The Way never took on the traditions of man even to attract more people to it. God's people are to be a peculiar people...that means different from the worldly expectations. Jesus was the most humble man to ever live. When half of the world is starving to death, homeless, and clinging to their rosary beads, where is the Pope? Jesus did not even have a place to lay his head...He was with the poor in spirit, and financially disabled...the rich did not need Him--so they thought. I need Him more than I can say. Without Him, how lost I would be!

WarEagle...I don't have much problem with people interpreting scripture...so long as it is Scripture from the Holy Bible. I don't believe any other source can be construed as doctrine material. It is replacing doctrines of God with traditions of man that Jesus said we should not do.

I see several good answers here...also see several which are not based on the Bible. The question was, "What verse in the Bible tells about Peter going to Rome to become the reigning Pope?" I did not ask for words that were not from the Bible. Chris, Keevelis, Mello Yello, Jana11, ktbug333, Sweetie, cmhelp1, Lone Ranger, shjOlds, and riverkid all seem to be headed in the right direction...I don't know if I should base my vote on thumbs ups or biblical content. Hmm...a difficult task. I hope to make my decision before it goes to vote.

Answer 1

EXCELLENT QUESTION!

I too have never read or re-read this fable that Peter was a Pope of anything let alone a cult devised by Pagan liars.

True, Jesus did say in Matthew 16:18 "Now I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it."

But, what does Jesus' Church have to do with the Paganism of the Roman Catholic church?

2 Corinthians 6:15
"And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?"
-----
The Pope was derived from man-made inventions of misinterpretations of Scripture and receives its power from its inventor, Satan.

Jesus' Church maintains it's power from our Heavenly Father through His Christ and Holy Spirit - it has no place in a vulgar Satan inspired foundation.

May God Bless You

Answer 2

Jesus said "Get behind me Satan" meaning that Satan was influencing Peter at that time. If you read this whole chapter here Jesus is preparing his disciples for his up coming death. Jesus did not mean Peter was Satan. If you read further in the 2 chapter of Galatians the reason Paul rebuked Peter is" because before the arrival of certain men from James, he used to eat with people of the nations, but when they arrived , he went withdrawing and separating himself, in fear of those of the circumcised class." Gal. 2:12 In Gal 2:13 it gives further reason "The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barnabas was led along with them in their pretense" It was harder for Peter to give up the old Jewish ways and that is what he was being condemned for. No, Peter doesn't have a poor record. He was the only one that recognized Jesus as the Messiah. So he had his faults. He also had the responsibility of being a major elder at a time when the Jewish nation was dissolved and Christianity took over. Have you done anything this important? Remember the Jews mostly wanted these Christian upstarts dead. This had a big influence on Peter. He was trusted enough to write books into the Bible so I think he did a great job. Better than I could. All of Jesus' disciples had their different faults. This should show you how patient and loving Jesus and God are. Evidently Peter was truely repentant or Jesus would have gotten rid of him.

Answer 3

The Bible refer to Peter as a pebble--not a rock.

I've seen Imacatholic answer this question before. He like the rest take the Bible out of contents to fit their purpose.

In Latan and Greek it say that Simon means "sand" and Peter means "a little stone". Jesus said, "on this rock I will build my church." So Peter could never be that rock because right after that, Jesus calls Peter "Satan". Ponder that! Read 1 Tim. 3:2-5 and John 1:42, "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone." (a little pebble). Jesus and Jesus alone is the Rock!

The Bible doesn't contradict itself, religion contradicts the Bible.

Up Date:

This is how I know that the catholic church "did not" give us the Word of God:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18-19

As God promised, He has preserved His word for the English people in the King James Bible. Proverbs 16:10 says, "A divine sentence is in the lips of the KING. . ." Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a KING is, there is power . . ." King James. "James" is not an English word but a Hebrew word. Did you know the Hebrew word for James is Jacob! You'll never guess what Psalms 147:19 says, "He showeth His WORD unto JACOB..."

This proves that the catholic church had nothing to do with given us God's Holy Word.

Answer 4

There is no such scripture and no such historical proof, the "Pater" who showed up in Rome disguised as a Christian was more likely Simon Magus, the magician from the book of Acts. Google it and learn.

Other Biblical facts folks choose to ignore is that Peter was an Apostle to the circumcised, or Israelite nations, especially the Jews. Peter was in Babylon (1 Peter 5:13) where there were still Jews living from among those who were taken captive.

Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and we have Biblical record that he was indeed in Rome. As Paul said that he did not build on another man's foundation, it is safe to say that Peter was not in Rome.

Answer 5

Does anyone else find it humorous that people claim the Catholics have misinterpreted scripture for the last 2000 years, yet a new Protestant denomination pops up every other day due to some guy interpreting scripture differently than the way the other 30,000 Protestant denominations interpret it?

However, who are we to judge. If a particular interpretation helps bring you closer to God, so be it. Just have a little tolerance for those who believe differently so they can get closer to God too.

Answer 6

Peter never was the first pope. There's no biblical basis for that.

Answer 7

I don't think it's in the bible....so therefore it must not have happened....give me a break. What about all of the miracles Jesus did that were not written down. Did they not happen? The bible doesn't really say what Peter did, but it has always been accepted through other forms of evidence that he went to Rome.

Answer 8

No such bible verse in the bible exists that tells about Peter going to Rome to become the reigning Pope. Its a claim of the Catholic Church.

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")-(")
Sweetie

Answer 9

That verse wouldn't be found in the Bible. The papal office was established by the apostate church of Rome...


http://www.worldslastchance.com

Check it. Especially the videos...kinda creepy. Love in Christ, ~J~

Answer 10

the story of peter going to rome to set up his first pontificate is in the acts of peter.

interestingly when the catholics decided which books were going to go into the bible they decided to leave out the acts of peter as gnostic gospels.

so the catholics kept the wisdom, but not the text.

protestants don't bother much with the history of the bible, so you wouldn't know this.