ArchivedApostolic succession?If you accept that the Babylon mentioned by Peter in 1st Peter is Rome, then you must agree that mystery Babylon in Rev is also Rome, and that the whore who rides the beast in Rev 17 has to be the only organization in Rome with worldwide influence.
Act 12 does not state Peter went to Rome, it states he went to another place. This other place could be anyone of a dozen cities in Palestine. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles and Peter was the apostle to the Jews. There is no Biblical evidence other than the Babylon reference in 1 Peter that shows Peter was a Bishop of Rome. St. Irenaeus compiled the first list of Bishop's of Rome in 178 A.D., almost 100 years after the traditional death of Peter. The Orthodox Churches never gave the Bishop of Rome the title Pope and never viewed the Bishop of Rome as the head of the visible church. It was during the 7 century the Bishop of Rome took the titles that had previously been applied to Constantine and later passed to the Bishop of Damascus. If you want to view Peter as the first in a long line of Bishop's of Rome that is fine but to use revisionist history and erroneous translations of Scripture to establish this doctrine is nothing more than RCC propaganda developed to gain spiritual and political control of the Western Empire. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame