Skip to main content
DOMINOES BANNER V2

Updated: Nope To Pope

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the apostle Peter was pope in Rome from 33 to 67 CE, with 33 CE1 being their traditional date for Christ’s crucifixion. According to the Biblical record, the earliest record we have of Peter even being in Rome is not until 65-66 CE. Peter never was pope of the Catholic Church, aka Mother Rome or the Mother Church as some Protestants call it. He did not start the Roman Catholic Church. It’s a wholly apocryphal PR job. Or as we're apt to say today, pure propaganda.

As we’ve mentioned many times previously, Peter presided over the first day of Christianity in Jerusalem. In fact, Christ commanded Peter and the other apostles and disciples “… that they should not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father ….” [Acts 1:4].

Peter began the true church in Jerusalem as Christ commanded, where Peter addressed his remarks to the House of Israel, the same people Christ said he only was sent to. [Mat. 15:24]. Peter admonished them to be baptized that they should receive the Holy Spirit. And as we are told, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added about three thousand souls.” [Acts 2:36-41]. This all took place in Jerusalem. It is important to remain clear that Christianity began in Jerusalem, the Catholic Church in Rome. Catholicism is not Christianity. Do not conflate the two. [See the Feature article, Moving Forward].

The ekklesia are the House of Israel as the prophecies state, beginning with the prophet Samuel. [See Acts 3:24-26; also the Feature article, We're Abraham's Seed And Heirs]. In Jerusalem, at Solomon’s porch in the temple, when a lame man was healed, he held on to Peter and John so they could not leave. People rushed over to see what was going on. Then Peter said to the gathered crowd, “You men of Israel [not "You men of Rome ..."], why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or holiness we had made this man walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [Israel], the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus ….” [Acts 3:12, 13]. Five thousand became believers that day. [Acts 4:4]. Again it’s very clear, Peter was performing miracles and the church was growing in Jerusalem, not Rome. For as it was written, "The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." [Acts 2:47; see the Sneakers article, Seven Prophecies, Seven Churches].

Up to the time of Stephen's stoning in Jerusalem, the church grew mightily there. We read repeatedly in Acts that the church grew by multitudes in Jerusalem. The apostles were healing people of their sicknesses, so much so that sick people were put out into the street in hope that Peter's shadow falling across them would make them whole. And not just those in Jerusalem either. "There came also a multitude out of the cities round about Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and every one was healed." [Acts 5:16]. But upon Stephen's stoning, " ... there was a great persecution against the church; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles." [Acts 8:1]. The region of Judea would belong to the House of Judah. The region of Samaria, prior to the Assyrian Captivity, belonged to the nations of the House of Israel. There is no record of anything like this taking place in Rome, muchless by Peter.

In the early days of the church, whenever the apostles gathered together for meetings, they always did so in Jerusalem, which was the headquarters for the apostles. By the middle of the first century, whether or not the doctrine of circumcision was still valid became a heated issue. Some men of the House of Judah, the Jews, taught the brethren that it was still a requirement. Paul and Barnabas greatly disputed with them. This was a momentous event for the young church in that it was Old Covenant versus New Covenant ... Moses versus Abraham. It was not Old Covenant versus gentiles of the world. 

In order to resolve the issue, the brethren “ … determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and the elders, about this question.” [Acts 15:2]. Why Jerusalem and not Rome if Peter had been pope there for sixteen years as the Roman church claims? And no, circumcision is not a requirement of the New Covenant.

Biblical scholars place this circumcision conference in Jerusalem about 49 CE. Peter, who had been out preaching the gospel to the nations, went to Jerusalem for this eventful meeting. [Acts 11:2]. According to the Roman Catholic Church, Peter was supposed to be in Rome. But here he was in Jerusalem again saying, “Men and brethren, you know how that a good while ago God made a choice among us, that the nations2 [“ … of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [Israel] … ”] by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” [Acts 15:7, Mat. 10:5, 6]. So why wasn’t this meeting with the alleged pope, the apostles and elders taking place in Rome? The simple answer is because Peter hadn't been in Rome. By definition and commission, Peter was out preaching among the nations of the House of Israel.

After Peter had established the church in Jerusalem, he left and was preaching the gospel to the nations of the House of Israel as he was chosen to do by Christ. [See Mat. 16:18, Acts 8:14]. The apostle James remained at the Jerusalem headquarters. We have record of Peter in Caesarea, Joppa and Antioch [Acts 10:24-26, 9:38, Gal. 2:11], coastal areas of Israel and the Med, but no record that he went to Ostia, Antium and Tarracina, first century coastal areas of Italy just south of Rome. If Peter was pope in Rome, these places were on his doorstep. Why make arduous trips to go thousands of kilometers away when James easily could have done so from Jerusalem?

Not only was Peter not building the Catholic Church in Rome, but he was out preaching the gospel in the opposite direction, as far east as Babylon. [See the Feature article, What Exactly Is The Gospel?]. In his first epistle, he sent greetings from the elect, including his son Marcus [Greek, huios, meaning a son, offspring] in Babylon, to the ekklesia in Asia, Galatia, Pontus, Bithynia and Cappadocia, areas likely to have been established by Peter given his commission. [1 Pet 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:13]. This area encompassed what essentially is all of northern west Turkey today. Now, if Peter was in Rome from 33-67, what was he doing in Babylon, with his son no less, sending greetings to the brethren in such a large geographic area, but excluding greetings to those in Rome, supposedly the home base of the celibate church?

Some scholars have suggested that maybe Peter’s reference to Babylon really is a reference to Rome. But keep in mind, Christ sent his apostles to go only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. [Mat. 10:5, 6]. In 732 BCE the Assyrians, beginning with the nations of Zebulon and Naphtali, took captive the House of Israel. Over the next 65 years those of the House of Israel were scattered throughout the Assyrian Empire, whose territory included what was ancient Babylonia. None of the Assyrian territory came close to including Rome. [See the Feature article, Damascus A Heap Of Ruins].

The prophet Ezekiel, in the 6th century BCE, was made a sign to the House of Israel after their captivity. [See Eze. 12:6]. And the Book of Ezekiel, including its prophecies for the House of Israel, was part of the first century scriptures read and used by Peter and the other apostles. [See the Sneakers article, Our History In Context]. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for Peter to be in Babylonia, as Ezekiel had been, with the elect from the House of Israel who were still in residence all those centuries later. [See the Sneakers article, This Old House].

It’s not like Peter hopped on a flight to Babylonia from Rome for the day, which is about 4000 kilometers distant. If Peter started the church in Babylonia as is most likely the case due to his commission from Christ, it would be logical to think he spent a fair amount of time in Babylonia. By comparison, Paul spent about a year and a half in Corinth preaching the gospel there. [See Acts 18:11]. Yet, according to the Roman Catholic Church, Peter was supposed to be building the church in Rome during this period, not Babylon.

And if Peter was in Rome from 33 CE, supposedly establishing the Roman church, why was the apostle Paul in Corinth writing a letter in 55-56 CE to believers in Rome saying “I long to see, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to the end that you may be established.”  [Rom. 1:11]. If Peter had been in Rome for 22 years at this point, why hadn’t he, as "pope," established the church after all that time?

Why would Paul tell those in Rome he needed to give them a spiritual gift in order to get them established? As the alleged pope in Rome, this would be a slap in Peter’s face. And why would Paul not mention Peter in his salutation to those in Rome? A double-slap. And why would Paul say in his letter to the Philippians in 60-61 CE that he sends greetings from Rome, chiefly those who are of Caesar’s household, and not chiefly from Peter if Peter, who supposedly is the pope, had established the Roman Catholic Church? A triple-slap. [Phl. 4:22]. None of this makes any sense. [See the Feature article, Moving Forward]

And why does the Biblical record tell us that Paul must bear witness of Christ in Rome, as opposed to Peter? "And the night following, the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as you have testified of me in Jerusalem, so must you bear witness also at Rome." [Acts 23:11]. And why would Paul have said in his letter while in Corinth in 55 CE, “So much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.” [Rom. 1:15]. It begs the question, what then was Peter allegedly preaching to the Romans for more than 20 years if not the gospel? The correct answer is nothing. Upon establishing the church in Jerusalem, Peter was out preaching the gospel in person to the nations of the House of Israel just about everywhere except Rome. And no, Paul did not start the Roman Catholic Church either.

The only Biblical record of Peter being in Rome was when Peter visited Paul, who was a prisoner there, when he was gathering Paul’s letters to be sent to the apostle John who put the New Testament canon together so that we would be in remembrance of those things taught by Christ and the apostles in the first century. [See 2 Pet. 1:12-15]. Peter wrote his second epistle, this one from Rome and not Babylon, about 65 or 66 CE. Shortly thereafter, about 66, 67 CE, both Paul, and then Peter were executed in Rome,the fourth head of the beast in Daniel 2.

Led by Peter, the true church began in Jerusalem on the first day of Christianity. Peter didn't establish the Roman church. And Peter never was a pope. It’s all myth and legend to give the “Mother” Roman Catholic Church a credibility it doesn’t deserve.4


1 As we’ve noted in other articles, Biblical scholars place the birth of Christ sometime between 3-7 BCE and not 1 CE. Therefore, the Roman church claim of the 33 CE date is spurious, an anachronistic guess at best, merely based on Christ having lived for 33 years. Therefore, 3 to 7 years would have to be deducted for the year of the first Christian Pentecost, making it sometime between 26-30 CE. [See The Feature article, The Relevance Of the Holy Days In The Plan Of God In The Last Days].

2 Please note that throughout the Book of Acts, and the New Testament for that matter, the King James scholars incorrectly translated the Greek word ethnos as Gentiles. Even a little bit of thought shows that Peter referred to the brethren as men of Israel, and the nations are the House of Israel. [See the Feature articles, Moving Forward and The Tale Of Two Covenants].

3 The apostle James was killed c. 62 in Jerusalem. While Paul and Peter had been killed in Rome by the late 60’s, the Roman army waged war on Jerusalem and its population beginning in 66 CE, having kicked all Jews out of Rome. By 70 CE, the temple in Jerusalem had been completely razed to the ground by the Roman army fulfilling Christ’s prophecy in Mat. 24:2 that “not one stone shall be left upon another.” Jerusalem was laid waste. According to the contemporary historian Josephus, 1.1 million died in Jerusalem, either by the sword, starvation or fire. Dead bodies covered every part of the city. And 97,000 others were either sent to work in the mines in Egypt, used as entertainment in gladiator games, or were paraded in Rome and put into slavery. The desolation of Jerusalem was complete. The first chapter of Christianity had drawn to a close. [For the prophetic duality of the desolation of Jerusalem under Edomite rule, see the Sneakers article, The Context Of Prophecy].

The apostle John remained alive until the end of the first century. During this time, he organized the written record, made only by those who were directly taught by Christ, which became the canon, our New Testament. The second chapter of Christianity had begun.

4 "On December 10, 2015, the Vatican’s COMMISSION FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS published a remarkable document in which they proclaimed Catholicism to be a child of Judaism, praying to the same god and casually rejecting Jesus as living God, but talking about Him as a Talmudic teacher. [Note: The Babylonian & Jerusalem Talmuds are comprised of non-Biblical, Antichristian writings, Satanic Talmud, two to five hundred years after Christ, see Talmud, also see Dan. 11:37; also the Feature article, The Tie That Binds. The Roman church is denying that Jesus Christ was Jehovah, the anointed one is salvation, that is, he was the son of God in the flesh. They are saying he's just another guy. This is the Antichrist, or those not of God, that the apostle John warns us about in 1 John 4:1-3, 1 John 4:15]. They branded millions of Catholics as lesser Jews who reject the divinity of Christ."

"They reminded that 'The permanence of Israel is to be perceived as an 'historic' fact and a sign to be interpreted within God’s design.' They said that Judaism is not to be considered simply as another religion; the Jews are instead our “elder brothers” (Saint Pope John Paul II), our "fathers in faith." ... I have no doubts that this hastily and poorly written document was published by the Vatican two months after the [Eastern Orthodox] Russians coming to the Middle East with one aim, to place on the millions of deceived papists an unduly burden to defend “The permanence of [Zionist, Babylon the Great] Israel” as a part of “God’s design,” And how exactly should we count Jesus’ promise “You see all of these things, do you not? Truly I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down” into this “design of the permanence of Israel?” [thesaker.is, June 30, 2017; see the updated Feature article, Damascus A Heap Of Ruins; and the Sneakers article, One World Peace And Security].

It should be pointed out that in 70 CE, the city of Jerusalem, ruled over by the Edomite Herods since 37 BCE by proclamation of the Roman Senate, was totally and completely obliterated and the site remained fallow until 135 CE or thereabouts. As the first century historian Josephus noted, "The Romans built a city on the site and called it Aelia Capitolina in honor of the Roman Empire's emperor." It remained a Roman city until the Ottomans took the city about 500 years later in 638 CE. It wasn't until 1948 that the Zionists, who are not descended from the tribe of Judah, but are descended from Edom, the Herodians of the first century, had partial control of Jerusalem. The battle for control of all Jerusalem by the Zionists continues today, prior to the establishment of Babylon the Great, the Beast and False Prophet.

Also remember, Jerusalem was the capital of the Roman province, Judea, under Edomite rule and was not the capital of the nations of Israel as the nations of the House of Israel had been divorced and scattered for centuries by then. As the first century historian Josephus wrote, “The Romans, though it was a terrible struggle to collect the timber, raised their platforms in twenty-one days. As described before, the whole area was stripped in a circle round the city to a distance of ten miles. The countryside, like the city, was a pitiful sight. For where there once had been a lovely vista of woods and parks, there was nothing but desert and stumps of trees. No one, not even a foreigner who had seen the Old Judea and the glorious suburbs of the city, and now set eyes on her present desolation, could have helped sighing and groaning at so terrible a change. Every trace of beauty had been blotted out by war. And nobody who had known it in the past, and came upon it suddenly, would have recognized the place. For when he was on site [of Jerusalem], he still would have been looking for the city.” [Compare this to the prophecy in Revelation 18:10 and 18:21]. Books of the History of the Jewish [nee, Edomite] War Against the Romans, Flavius Josephus, c. 75-78 CE.

The so-called sacred walls of Jerusalem are not from the first century or the 2nd temple there as Josephus noted, and as Christ said. The current day walls were built by the Islamic Ottomans. It should be noted that Jews were not allowed into the Roman city of Aelia Capitolina under penalty of death, except on the one day of Atonement, Yom Kippur. And then they had to be out of the city by sunset.

The Catholic Church "downgraded" Christ's status [more fake news from the author of the lie], as if they had any authority to perform this nonsense. It appears they are oblivious to the prophecies spoken by Yehovah against these latter day liars and deceivers. This evil deceit is driven by the Zionists [Beast] and the Roman church [False Prophet]. According to the Vatican, our Lord and Savior, is no longer the son of the living God, who is the God of the living, as in eternal life. [See the Sneakers article, One, Two, Three More Or Less]. The Roman church considers him to be a Talmudic teacher. Thus, by their own admission, any claim the Roman church made to being a Christian church has vanished. It has become antichristian. [1 John 2:22].

It's one more reason to leave Catholicism. "And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods." [Dan. 11:36]. The road to perdition has been paved. But, we haven't heard about this at all in the media have we? If you are a Catholic reading this, ask your priest if he knows Christ was downgraded from the son of the living God to a satanic Talmudic teacher by Rome. Nevertheless, when the time comes, it will be proclaimed to all by Babylon the Great. [See the Feature article, Easter, Babylon And The Antichrist].


Italics, underline and [ ] are the author’s.

© copyrighted material 2007-2024. www.redshoe.com All rights reserved.

Notice to readers. All redshoe generated articles may be hyperlinked or copied to PDF format for use as long as no editing or alteration of content is made. See Menu banner for other terms of use.