Four Proofs That Peter Was Not the First Roman Pope 02/26/2013


by Moody Adams
Rome is in Italy, a Gentile nation. The apostle Paul was ordained to be the apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter. Paul wrote this to the Gentile Romans: “That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable…” (15:16). Galatians 2:7, wrote this about Peter: “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision [Gentiles] was committed unto me [Paul], as the gospel of the circumcision [Jews and the other tribes of Israel, was unto Peter…”

2. Paul concludes the Roman letter in chapter 16 with separate greetings to 30 different people in Rome—Mary, Andronicus, Junia—(these last two were probably apostles; Rom. 16:7)—Amplias, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles and 23 others— with no reference to the one who was supposedly the Pope, guiding the congregation and the entire New Testament Church from that city. No reasonable person could believe that Paul would so insult his own spiritual superior!

3. Galatians 1:18-19 and 2:7 demonstrate that Peter was based at Jerusalem, from where he periodically traveled to places like Bithynia, Northern Galatia and Babylon, and other places where Israelites had migrated, from AD 38 to AD 49—the dates of these events described in Galatians.

4. In II Timothy 4:11, Paul, commonly understood to be writing this epistle from Rome, states, “Only Luke is with me.” This makes no sense if the “Pope”—Peter—had been present.
(Excerpts from: http://paradoxparables.justparadox.com/2012/02/06/10-proofs-that-peter-was-not-the-first-pope/)


comments powered by Disqus