Dear readers,
Thank you for watching my new documentary An Inconvenient Religion! Some information was cut for the sake of time, like the connection, or apparent lack thereof, between Peter and The Vatican.
A Literal Leavening
As Christians, we follow the authority of Scripture and believe that Jesus Christ’s words are true and hold significant meaning. The world has created many traditions not found in Scripture. In light of this, we must examine certain historical claims and traditions. For example, St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Why was it named after Peter?
According to the Catholic Church, the answer to that question can be found in Matthew 16:13-19. Before we get to how Peter became the ‘founder’ and ‘first Bishop of the Catholic Church’, let’s get some context and look at what Jesus was telling the disciples before verses 13-19.
The disciples misunderstood what Jesus meant when He said, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They heard ‘leaven’ and immediately started talking about bread and how they had forgotten to bring any. Jesus reprimanded them and said He wasn’t talking about literal ‘bread’, but using it to make a point. Then He asked them if they had already forgotten the times He fed thousands. He said they had ‘little faith’. They realized He wasn’t talking about bread but about the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which is their teachings, or doctrine.
Leavening in the Bible often refers to sin due to the nature of something small permeating throughout something. For example, in Leviticus 23:6-8, leavening symbolizes corruption and sin, emphasizing the need to remove leaven during the Feast of Unleavened Bread as a reminder of God's deliverance from bondage to sin. In the New Testament, Paul warns the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 5:1–8 about tolerating sin using leaven as a metaphor, emphasizing how a little yeast can permeate the whole batch of dough, urging them to purge out the old leaven and live a new unleavened life.
Jesus used ‘leaven’ as a metaphor in Matthew 16:5-12. The disciples took it literally. Jesus used the metaphor of a ‘rock’ for Peter. The Catholic Church tends to take it literally.
When analyzing the verse in Matthew 16:18, where Jesus refers to Peter as the "rock" upon which He will build His Church, it's essential to understand the context and the figurative nature of Jesus' statement. In context, this verse is not meant to be taken literally, as if Peter himself was the literal foundation of a physical Church. Jesus responds not by saying Peter is the rock, but by saying Peter's confession of faith is the rock on which he will build his church.
The Greek word used for "rock" in this verse is "petra," denoting a solid, immovable foundation. This interpretation aligns with Scripture's consistent emphasis on Jesus Christ as the sole foundation of the church.
In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul says that Jesus himself is the foundation:
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (KJV)
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus Christ is described as the cornerstone and foundation of the church, not Peter (Isaiah 28:16, Ephesians 2:20). Jesus is also called the "head of the church" (Ephesians 5:23). This indicates the church is built on Christ, not Peter. As a matter of fact, Peter himself describes Jesus as the cornerstone and living stone on which the church is built (1 Peter 2:4-8). He points people to Jesus, not himself, as the foundation.
The Catholic Church does claim that the basilica was built over the remains of St. Peter. The Vatican, specifically St. Peter's Basilica, is believed to be constructed on the tomb of St. Peter, the ‘first pope’ according to Catholic tradition. Despite some doubts and debates surrounding the discovery of St. Peter's bones, the Catholic Church maintains that the basilica stands over the apostle's final resting place.
Some Catholics would argue they do not believe the church was literally founded on Peter’s remains and that the idea was more metaphorical, however, that belief is even more problematic. The Church often claims that it was built on the authority given to Peter by Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches believe that this authority was passed down from Peter to his successors, the popes, through a process called Apostolic Succession. This succession of authority forms the spiritual foundation of the Church, which is why the Catholic Church considers itself to be "built on Peter."
To the contrary, the New Testament emphasizes the priesthood of all believers, rather than a select few with special authority. The New Testament does not provide a clear lineage of successors to the Apostles. Instead, it focuses on the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding and empowering the Church, which is made up of the body of believers, not a single entity. The idea of Apostolic Succession implies that the Church's authority rests in a specific group of people, rather than in the Word of God. Historically, there have been breaks in the supposed line of succession, such as during the Great Schism, which calls into question the validity of Apostolic Succession as a continuous line of authority.
The true foundation of the Church is not a line of human authority, but rather the Word of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Constantine the Not-So-Great
The history of paganism's influence on the Catholic Church can be traced back to the time of Constantine. While Constantine is often credited with bringing Christianity into the Roman Empire, his actions also had profound effects on the Church's practices and beliefs. Constantine, in an effort to unify his vast empire, sought to incorporate various pagan beliefs and practices into Christianity to make it more appealing to the Roman population, as well as make Christianity less of a threat to Rome’s power and control. As a result, many pagan rituals, festivals, and symbols were adopted or reinterpreted within the Christian context.
Constantine is credited with the construction of St. Peter's Basilica. He chose to build this basilica on the site of the Circus of Gaius and Nero, where Peter is said to have been crucified. However, it is important to note that the decision to build a basilica on this site was primarily motivated by political and religious ideas rather than historical accuracy. By building a grand basilica over Peter's supposed tomb, Constantine sought to consolidate his power and legitimize his reign. While the Basilica holds significant religious and historical importance to Catholicism, it is essential to separate Biblical truth from the myths and legends that have grown around it.
The Piazza San Pietro, prominently displays an ancient Egyptian obelisk, in front of St. Peter's Basilica.
A remnant of Rome's pagan past known as the Vatican Obelisk, (let that sink in. The Vatican has an obelisk named after it) was originally from Heliopolis, Egypt, and was a symbol of sun worship. The obelisk was brought to Rome during the reign of Caligula and placed in the Circus of Gaius and Nero, where countless Christians suffered martyrdom. The fact that this pagan symbol stands prominently in St. Peter's Square understandably raises questions. Some even argue that this obelisk, dedicated to the sun god Ra, now stands as a trophy of paganism's victory over the one true living God.
Peter the Roman?
Interestingly, the Bible never mentions Peter ever traveling to Rome. The question then becomes, what was Peter’s role in establishing the Catholic Church in Rome?
According to Biblicalarchaeology.com, “When the gospels end, Peter is in Jerusalem. It’s the same in the Book of Acts. The apostle Paul, in his letters, also talks about meeting Peter in the eastern Mediterranean. After Jesus’ death, Paul says that Jesus’ brother, James, and Peter are the co-leaders of the “church,” (or assembly), of Jesus’ followers in Jerusalem.
In short, there is no early textual evidence for Peter in Rome, so for some people, it’s very hard to believe that he ever traveled there. Not only is it a very long way, but according to the New Testament, Peter was a fisherman who was not very educated and who spoke only Aramaic; he was not the type of person that might travel widely across the Roman Empire to a large city where Latin and Greek were the dominant languages.
The absence of connection between Peter and Rome in the New Testament, the lack of references to him in the earliest Roman Christian literature, and what we know of Peter’s background and character all combine to make it unlikely, to my mind, that he ever went to Rome.”
The Letter of Gaius and the Epistle to Gaius
One of the primary sources often cited by the Catholic Church to support the idea of Peter being in Rome is a letter written by a Christian deacon named Gaius. However, it is essential to note that this letter was written around 170-180 A.D., approximately 100 years after the Epistle to Gaius was written in the New Testament. The ‘epistle’ or ‘letter’ to Gaius is found in 3 John. This chronological inconsistency makes it highly unlikely that the person named Gaius, who wrote about Peter's presence in Rome almost one hundred years later, is the same individual John mentioned in the New Testament.
Burial Site and Lack of Evidence
Another significant aspect of the discussion surrounding Peter's connection to Rome is the question of his burial site. St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City is commonly believed to be the apostle's tomb. However, archaeological investigations conducted at the site have not uncovered any evidence to support this claim. No grave or skeletal remains have been found beneath the so-called tropaion, a word that does not refer to a burial place in the Roman context, but rather to a war memorial or cenotaph.
A tropaion (Greek: τρόπαιον, Latin: tropaeum), from which the English word, "trophy", is derived, was a monument erected to commemorate a victory over one's foes by the ancient Greeks and later, by the Romans.
A cenotaph is a tomb or a monument erected in honor of a person or group of persons whose remains are elsewhere.
Why would they use the name for a war memorial to mark Peter’s supposed grave? Why is Peter a ‘trophy’? These are interesting questions to consider. In addition, a second site in Rome, known as the Memoria Apostolorum, has also been associated with Peter's burial. Pilgrims visited this site for centuries, but similar to St. Peter's Basilica, no evidence of a tomb has ever been unearthed.
It’s also important to note that Peter's martyrdom is not mentioned in the Bible. We have no reliable historical material recording Peter’s mode of death.
Even if Peter did go to Rome, there is no evidence he established a formal church structure, ordained bishops, etc there. The structure of the present-day College of Cardinals with the Pope at the head is essentially identical to the College of Pontiffs from Babylon and Ancient Rome with the Pontifex Maximus at the head.
So it may be overstating it to say Peter "founded" the Roman Catholic Church there. The early church had a plurality of leaders and centers of influence. Some scholars argue the importance of Peter in early Roman Christianity was exaggerated later to bolster papal claims to authority. Politics and power may have motivated the elevating of Peter's role.
The Catholic Church was officially founded in 325 A.D. after Constantine convened the Council of Nicea, three hundred years after Peter’s death.
Various historians argue the link between Peter and Rome emerged later, not in the 1st century, and was influenced by theological debates, power dynamics, and the political status of Rome itself.
For example, Raymond Brown, in his book, The Question of Peter's Roman Residence and Episcopate, explains that the tradition linking Peter to early Roman episcopacy appeared suddenly in the 3rd century due to changing historical circumstances and the need for the Roman Catholic Church to claim authority.
Peter Lampe’s book, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (p. 397), argues that the Roman primacy of Peter emerged later and "was introduced much more slowly and cautiously for theological reasons.”
He also says, "There is no serious proof that Peter worked and died in Rome" and “the later legend exaggerated Peter's role in the Roman church.”
While St. Peter's Basilica may hold historical and cultural significance, it is essential to approach its claims and traditions critically. Jesus did not intend the verses in Matthew 16 to be taken as meaning Peter would be the literal foundation of an organized church.
A critical examination of the available evidence challenges the traditional narratives that depict Peter as a prominent figure in Rome and suggest he was buried there. The absence of early textual references, linguistic and cultural barriers, and inconclusive archaeological findings raise serious doubts about these claims.
The involvement of Constantine in the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica was driven by political rather than purely religious motives. Furthermore, the presence of the Egyptian obelisk from Heliopolis (City of the Sun) Egypt, serves as a stark reminder of paganism's influence on Christianity, as well as their ‘trophy’ claiming Peter’s remains are buried under the Basilica, literally building the Church on Peter.
As Christians, we must remain grounded in the authority of Scripture, discerning truth from tradition. Jesus Christ is the firm foundation of our faith.
The passage from Ephesians 2:19-22 describes the unified body of believers as a holy temple in the Lord, with Jesus Himself being the chief cornerstone. He is the foundation upon which it is built and the key component that holds everything together. Ephesians 2:19-22 highlights that in Christ, all believers find their identity and purpose, collectively growing into a holy dwelling place where God's presence resides.
Thank you for reading,
Alexandra
For more information:
• MY LINKS •
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrbpH5eUxuaiyaDNVIEvYzw
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/probablyalexandra/
Telegram: https://t.me/improbablyalexandra
Website: https://www.probablyalexandra.com
Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=RTAVAGUUA6ALC
Thank you for the follow up with the added detail Alexandra. Most of my extended family and friends are catholic and many devoutly so (including my dad, aunts, and uncles). This one is always tough, because they point to it in the Protestant bible and that Jesus said it to Peter directly as their justification. I admit I often struggle with the phrasing myself because although I recognize it's the profession of faith that is the cornerstone in the context of the passage, it's not easy to grasp at first when you are wanting to challenge their statements. The books of the Apocrypha are easy to explain away, the fact that the church was founded by Constantine to try and consolidate power and keep the Roman Empire together 300 years after Peter's death are straight forward, and the fact that Peter established other churches also, was married, and may never have even gone to Rome are all very logical. Of course, when someone is emotionally invested and may not have the Holy Spirit within them, it is hard for them to take an honest look at the evidence and suddenly challenge what they've been taught their entire lives. So we continue to pray for them unceasingly, and ask the Holy Spirit to use us where He can, and to convict them of their diversion from the Truth so they can be given the wisdom needed to put their faith and trust in the Lord Jesus. Thank you again for your great work! Your brother in Christ, -Dan
Thanks for the excellent video and the follow up,and for the reminder CHRIST is the cornerstone,unfortunately I now believe that the true light of our LORD is not in any organized religion,may you continue to put out exceptional videos and articles,and may our LORD continue to bless and keep you,I sincerely thank you.