Logic, man! Not your self-serving lies in place of Biblical History
History written only within the capacity of man is not always reliable.
Take the history of the Assyrian empire. In the entire history of the empire, there was no mention of King Sargon. However, the Bible mentioned a man, whom the Bible called King Sargon of Assyria recorded in the book of Isaiah.
In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it;
But to confirm the historicity of the bible, very recently, proofs of the reign of King Sargon was revealed. A myth he was for a long time, now archeology is helping Biblical truth prove his existence.
Sargon II was considered a Biblical myth throughout modern history until the archaeological excavations of the French scholar, Paul Emile Botta. Botta unearthed Sargon’s mighty palace at Dur Sharrukin (Khorsabad), just north of Nineveh near the Tigris river. This remarkable discovery had inscriptions on palace walls which proved many events in history and those mentioned in the Bible.
One of the inscriptions reads: "At the beginning of my rule, in the very first year I reigned…I set siege to and conquered Samaria…I carried away into captivity 27,290 persons who lived there; I took fifty fine chariots for my royal equipment." http://www.bible-history.com/destruction_of_israel/destruction_of_israel_sargon_ii.html
The events comes full circle, tying the future, past and present so that often, we read of the expression, “I have told you before….” The connotation is that there is always the involvement of The Almighty in the order of things who is the “of Him, through Him and to Him are all things.” This is where the Bible is outstanding.
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.
An account of the alleged history that under the St. Peter’s Basilica there were graves found with inscriptions “Buried near Peter.” This is surely self-serving! After all, a pope was the one who allegedly revealed it. But is this actual history with tangible evidence investigated to be true? Notice this lie where in the first place Peter had never been in Rome. Here’s an excerpt -
What about the archaeological evidence? In the middle decades of this century scientists conducted digs under St. Peter's Basilica to verify or disprove the tradition that the church had been constructed over Peter's tomb.
And what do you think they found? That's right: the tomb. Pope Paul VI was able to announce that conclusive proof had been discovered--for instance, neighboring crypts on which were written grafitti such as, "Buried near Peter." (http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/the-bible-says-that-peter-wasnt-in-rome-so-how-could-he-be-its-first-bishop)
Peter could not have been a pope in Rome. Why? The assignment in Biblical context is clear.
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
We must remember that earlier the original twelve were forbidden to go to the places of the Gentiles.
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
It was when the Apostle Paul and Barnabas were called, that there were legitimate apostles destined to Gentile nations.
THE ACTS 13:46-47
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
THE ACTS 13:1-2
1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
THE ACTS 26:17-18
17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
It would be very unbecoming of Peter, who was destined to the Israelites, to sit as a reigning pope in the territory of the Gentiles. It is not only unbecoming but also illogical. It is against the will of the Lord. The Lord, who destines or designates, chose Paul to be an apostle to the Gentiles, including Rome. So why will Peter substitute himself for Paul, chosen by the Lord Himself?
It is not very easy to tell and relate the truth. Because of this blog, I have received not a pocketful but a bucketful of defamations from Catholic defenders.
Still and all, despite what defamers can do to me, no history - biblical or otherwise - will back up the claim that Peter stayed in Rome as the first pope. The history written in the Catholic encyclopedia by Catholics themselves, that the word “pope” was just invented in 521 AD used by Ennodius 400 years after the death of Peter, is a very clear proof of the fallacy of that claim that Peter was the first Pope!
The apostles may augment the shortcomings of each one because it is a law of Christ. They were told to help each one meet the deficiencies of the other.
Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
Peter, sometime, because of the proximity to the place of necessity, was sent to witness unto a Gentile by the name of Cornelius - but not be an Apostle to the Gentiles.
THE ACTS 10:1-3
1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always.
3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
The God of the Bible is an exact God. He made Paul and Barnabas to be Apostles to the Gentiles - not so with Peter. So why will Peter go to Rome, reign as a pope, be crucified in the inverted manner, and die in Rome, while it was not his place of authority and designation? In fact, the Apostle Peter himself was submissive to the wisdom and ability of the Apostle Paul in administering the churches of the Gentiles.
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen (Gentiles), and they unto the circumcision. (Cephas is Peter.)
In his farewell letter to Timothy, when his days were counted, the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy the second letter, written in Rome in 65 AD, tasking Timothy to come to him the earliest possible time.
II TIMOTHY 4:6-9
6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
9 Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me:
The tone suggests a clear possibility that the Apostle Paul would be dying in Rome where he was at that time. In the spirit, in practice, and history of the Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church Peter could not have been a pope! Here are four reasons:
First, Peter was married. As a supposed Pope, Peter would prohibit his successors to marry. As a married man in reality, would he do that when he, himself is married? Would it not be unfair? It most certainly is unfair.
I CORINTHIANS 9:1-4
1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?
5 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?
(Cephas is Peter.)
Second, the character of Peter is such that he will not allow his subjects, being the highest authority, to call him “Pope,” because he is an obedient apostle. Pope means “papa” or Father.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
The word “pope” was never used by this apostle. The fact that “pope” is not written in the New Testament is an evidence against it as bright as the noonday sun. Third, the Apostle Peter will not allow his constituents to bow down before him as the Popes have been practicing for the past centuries. This is a form of idolatry.
THE ACTS 10:25-26
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
The practices of the popes now, accepting the praises and the kneeling down of people before them, is a clear indication that they are not successors to Peter.
Fourth, Peter is not power-hungry. He cannot be, from the start, a bishop of Rome that eventually rose to the power of being the overall leader of the Catholic Church. Consider power and the greed for more power as described below -
Why not Peter? Because biblically speaking, Paul was the bishop of Rome - considering places of assignment. Paul established the church in Rome and was the caretaker of the church in Rome. How can Peter be the bishop in Rome? Peter would never compete with Apostle Paul. It is reflective in Peter’s letter that tells the first century Christians his respect for the wisdom of Paul.
II PETER 3:15-17
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.
THIS IS THE TRUTH!!!! Biblical history, logic, and the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ together deny the alleged papacy of Peter.
More to come, God willing.
God bless you.