Was Peter The Rock Upon Which the Church Was Built? Doctrines of Men: RESOLVED

Doctrines of Men: RESOLVED. It is the claim of the Pope that his position originates in Matthew with Peter being called the Rock upon which the church is built. However, is this what Matthew says? We will examine and resolve the Doctrine of Men. Was Peter the Rock Messiah is talking about here? Is he even the topic of the passage? Was Peter the First Pope? Let’s look at the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, cross-reference with like scriptures, and review this passage in context. Does it pass or fail? Prove all things especially the claim of any man. Yah Bless


Matthew 16:13-15 – Jesus Confirms Himself Christ

Matthew 16:18 – Papacy is a Lie, Peter by Any translation is only a piece of the Stone that is Yeshuah. The Rest of this section of scripture is about Yeshuah, not Peter, for full context, beware following fragmentary doctrine.

Isaiah 28:16 – Also mentions this Stone.

1 Peter 2:6 – Peter himself quotes Isaiah, he understood this Greater Stone.

1 Peter 2:7 – Peter himself quotes Psalms (118:22), he understood this Greater Stone.

Acts 4:8-11 – Peter again affirms


Ephesians 2:20 – Yeshuah is the chief corner stone




Peter Meant Piece of The Rock - Not The Rock, Which is Yeshuah
Peter Meant Piece of The Rock – Not The Rock, Which is Yeshuah



Simon A Rock
Simon A Rock


A Rock
A Rock


The identity of the first Roman pope – it was not Peter, apostle of Christ!

Martin, Ernest L. - Simon Magus and His Universal Church


Peter Never Even Went to Rome:



“This ancient Christian burial ground shows that Peter died and was buried in Jerusalem, which is easily understandable since neither history nor the Bible tells of Peter’s having been in Rome. To make matters more clear, the Bible tells us that Peter was the Apostle to the Jews. It was Paul who was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and both history and the Bible tells of his being in Rome. No wonder that the Roman Catholic Bishop, Strossniayer, in his great speech against papal infallibility before the Pope and the Council of 1870 said, ‘Scaliger, one of the most learned men, has not
hesitated to say that St. Peter’s episcopate and residence in Rome ought to be classed with ridiculous legends.’ Eusebius, one of the most learned men of his time, wrote the Church history up to the year 325 A.D. He said that Peter never was in Rome….

“Mark you, all the priests agree that the Vatican and St. Peter’s were built over a pagan cemetery….You realize surely that Christians would never bury their dead in a pagan cemetery, and you may be very sure that pagans would never allow a Christian to be buried in their cemetery. So, even if Peter died in Rome, which is out of the question, surely the pagan cemetery under St. Peter’s Basilica would be the last place in which he would have been buried….

“… But they have said that after all these years of excavation under the Vatican, they have discovered Greek words which read, ‘Peter is buried here,’ and it gives the date 160 A.D. First of all, the very structure of the sentence immediately gives one the impression that either quite recently or long ago, someone put the sign there hoping that it would be taken as authentic in order to establish that which then, and even now, has never been proven. Then there is a discrepancy in the date, for Peter was martyred around the year 62 A.D. and not 160 A.D. Thirdly, why is it that they mention nothing about finding bones under or around the sign? While visiting the Catacombs, one sees a few things which are not becoming to Christians but which tend to indicate that the Christians had some pagan practices similar to those of Rome today. Nothing is said about them, and only after persistent questioning will the Roman Catholic priest, who acts as guide, tell you that those things (images, etc.) were placed there centuries after the early Christian era.

“In 1950, just a few years prior to the discovery of the Christian burial ground in Jerusalem, the Pope made the strange declaration that the bones of St. Peter were found under St. Peter’s in Rome. Strange it was, for since beginning to build the church in 1450 (finished in 1626) they erected St. Peter’s Tomb (?) under the large dome and Brandini serpentine columns. Since then multiplied millions were thereby deceived into believing that the remains of St. Peter were there, which the hierarchy had all along known was not true, as is proven by the late Pope’s declaration. The following was published in Newsweek of July 1, 1957:

‘It was in 1950 that Pope Pius XII in his Christmas message announced that the tomb of St. Peter had indeed been found, as tradition held, beneath the immense dome of the Cathedral (there was, however, no evidence that the bones uncovered there belonged to the body of the martyr).’ …

“To make an announcement of such importance when there is absolutely ‘no evidence’ is rather ridiculous as was also brought out in Time Magazine of October 28, 1957 …
‘A thorough account in English of the discoveries beneath St. Peter’s was now available … by British archaeologists Jocelyn Toynbee and John Ward Perkins. The authors were not members

Peter’s Tomb Recently Discovered in Jerusalem

3 of the excavating team, but scholars Toynbee (a Roman Catholic) and Perkins (an Anglican) pored over the official Vatican reports painstakingly and examined the diggings. Their careful independent conclusions fell short of the Pope’s flat statement.’ (The Pope’s statement that the remains of St. Peter were found under St. Peter’s in Rome.) The excavation under St. Peter’s for the remains of St. Peter was still going on secretly, in spite of the Pope’s declaration of 1950.

“Then in 1965, an archaeologist at Rome University, Prof. Margherita Guarducci, tells of a new set of bones belonging to Peter. The story was fantastic but lacked common sense and even bordered on the infantile … the Palo Alto Times (California), May 9, 1967, came out with an article on the subject, and I quote, ‘Other experts, among them Msgr. Joseph Ruysschaert, vice prefect of the Vatican Library, are not convinced by Miss Guarducci’s evidence. “There are too many unknowns,” he told reporters on a recent tour of the Vatican grottoes, “There is no continuous tracing of the bones. We lack historical proof. They could be anyone’s bones.”

The Vatican would seem to be on the monsignor’s side because so far it has taken no steps to officially recognize the bones as St. Peter’s,’ continues the article. “… In spite of the statements by the high Papal authority above and the resultant lesson that should have been learned, the Pope, a year later claimed the Prof. Margherita bones as those of St. Peter.


Catholicism – The Scarlet Whore of Babylon

In case you missed it:

Is This Why Kanye is Mad At The Jews?

Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion

TheSerapeum.com is 100% listener funded. Thank you for your support in our mission to Break the Cycle of Fake News.

If you value our work please consider supporting us with our vetted patriot sponsors!


RedPillLiving.com - Health & Beauty - Value Holistics & Quality CarbonShield60 - Doubled Lifespan in Mammal Studies! TimeStop - The Worlds Premier Beauty Cream! With CarbonShield60!

TheGreatAwakeningCoffee.com - Gourmet Coffee for Patriots!

TheGreatAwakeningBooks.com - Censored Books for Patriots.

Other Links:
Join our Telegram chat: TheSerapeum.com/chat!