Peter an Apostle Not a Replacement of Jesus the Messiah

Peter an Apostle of Jesus, not a replacement:

A Historical and Scriptural investigation explaining how Peter is not the rock intimated byMatthew 6:17-19, nor is he be the first bishop of Rome; and that the Old Syriac texts used tosubstantiate said conjectures derive their personhood from the Pishetta, which supports Jesusthe Messiah as the only Rock and foundation of the New Testament Scriptures.

Yahweh of War Ministries

1

CONTENTS

Peter, an apostle of Jesus not his replacement .................................................................................................................... 2Death of Peter and Paul in the city of Rome ....................................................................................................................... 3On church Government in the 1

st

Century: Evidence against early

Catholicism

................................................................ 6Further explanation on the lack of Supremacy of a single Bishop in the second century................................................... 7Errancy of tradition and the imperfect reliance upon the unfaithfully named “church fathers” ......................................... 9The Peshitta as source text for the Old syriac and not vice versa ..................................................................................... 12Peshitta’s explanation of rock ........................................................................................................................................... 17True meaning of upon this rock I will build my church ................................................................................................... 17Final Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 20

2

Peter, an apostle of Jesus not his replacement

It is important to understand that the specially ordained apostles who founded the churches of the first centurywere those from whom such churches gained their credence and possibility. We know as direct fact from theHoly Scriptures that Paul was the single apostle directly sent to the gentiles (Rom 11:13, Gal 2:7-9), and that hewas the only one sent to found the Judeo-Christian church in the city of Rome; we also know that this churchcontained both Jewish and gentile converts just like the many other none Israel based assemblies (Rom 7:1):therefore the Roman church was not entirely gentile. This is significant because Paul’s mantle (

if

it werepassable, dealing in hypothetical’s also disregarding the passing of Elijah’s mantle to Elisha) would have beengiven to the many keepers of those many churches in which he founded, and no single assembly would havebeen able to lay claim to his singular power and or authority, such would be accurate because his authority wasdistinctly derived from the direct meeting with the Messiah Himself, and Paul of his own power could not granthis authority, place or call to any other especially if they had not fulfilled the criterion of being an actualApostle; that is if they were not directly ordained from Jesus Himself (Acts 26:16, 1cor 9:1 &c). The names of the other apostles remained on the ecclesia’s they consecutively founded, and discipleship was passed ontoelders who were much later titled bishops, after the image of the church in Jerusalem, and this action of consecrating an elder did not actuate a literal passing on of the power of powerful miracles, nor did itnecessitate a new generation of apostles that would continue to usher in the creation of the New TestamentGospels. Scripture testifies to Saint Paul as the founder of the Judaeo-Christian church at Rome, sopreponderant assertions about Peter passing on his (assumptive) mantle to one church or bishop, one notpossibly nor remotely founded by him nor ordained (due to his duty of founding ecclesia’s chiefly in the realmof the circumcision only (Gal 2:7)), is a dream without reward nor warranty. More realistically, if such apassing on of place and authority had existed then Paul would have passed on his mantle to the Elder/bishop of Rome not Peter, for this church was under his protection and care. Even with such a possibility existing, thepassing of power from one Apostle to another would not be designated as factual in the scriptures, and wewould have to rely upon fancy and even worse exaggerated supposition founded on grossly exaggeratedexegesis in order to craft and maintain this unnecessary tale: for without the Word of Yahweh designating andbacking it, nothing is bound or loosed on earth or in heaven. Evidence that the Apostles were one of a kind andafter their death such an apostolic dispensation was ended is seen in their twelve names existing as 12foundations in New Jerusalem (Rev 21:13), all other saints if they are true saints as displayed by their actionsand love and patience for

all

the brethren (1john 4:7-8 1pet 3:8-9) and through remaining in sound doctrine(1john 2:4, Titus 1:9), will have their place in the house of Yahweh but will not be named as ascribedfoundations.