Did Peter ever teach Apostasy?
923456
no not apostasy as such, for he fully believed in Christ but he did make a few blunders.
493391
To pink_maltese8, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not all apostles. Matthew and John were, but Luke was not and Mark was a disciple of peter and wrote down the teachings of Peter but never actually sat under Christs teachings. I am not trying to be mean but you obviously attend church because that is where you find the most people that know very little about the Bible yet think they have it down pat.\n\nRegarding the question: I would think that you are referring to the Catholics and JW's but I may not know your thinking. My personal opinion is that if they have a religious denominational name then they probably aren't Christians at all. There are very few Christians involved in any type of religion, the true believers won't tolerate the lies spewed from the pulpits. "come out of her my people".\n\nJoin the Revolution\nReject Religion\nTurn to Christ
703390
peter\n\nMatthew 14:30\nThen Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
508608
He has a long list of accomplishments both before and after election to the papacy.\n\nHe has a long list of documents, books, plays and articles written by him.  If he were an professor, he would have been considered very accomplished.\n\nHe was an accomplished actor and athlete.  He was an avid downhill skiier and I have heard he represented Poland in Rugby.  I don't know if the last part is true or not.\n\nHe spoke fluently at least 12 languages and tried to learn the languages of every country he visited, he made 104 overseas trips.\n\n\nHe visited more countries than any other pope including Peter.\n\nHe has an extensive list of apologies for past wrongs committed by Christians.\n\nHe went a great distance in healing the rift with the other patriarchs, split since the Great Schism in Christianity.\n\nHe did a lot to bring down Communism both before and after election.\n\nEven his funeral brought about accomplishments.  The President of Iran and the Prime Minister of Israel were accidently seated near one another.  Iran has vowed the death of Israel.  The President got up, walked over to the Prime Minister and wished him well and spoke about how they grew up only sixty miles apart.  Prime Minister Sharon has since had a stroke, but you never know what can happen when avowed enemies spend even a moment together as people.
720134
peter was upside down on the cross. and it was in rome.\nthe word babylon is your past.and it doesn't say who was killed first peter or paul.
161703
haha male chicken. i like that!\nActually, it was a bit of both. The bible says, "those he foreknew, he predestined, to become children of God." meaning, he does know, but at the same time, we are not puppets. We have a choice to do right or wrong. A free will.Peter chose wrong, was sorry for it later,and was forgiven.
757908
Catholics believe that Jesus comisioned St Peter as the first leader of the Church. Matthew's gopel has the most direct biblical indication of the papacy: And I tell you, you are Peter (literally meaning rock) and on this rock i will build my church.... I will give you thekeys of the kingdom of heaven. (Mt 16:18-19)  based on the statement of Jesus Himself, peter is clearly portrayed in the New Testament as the leader of the disciples. a pope can make infalliable, dinging pronouncements under certian conditions. infalliability doesn't mean that absolutely everything a pope says is free from error. all Christians believe that God protected Holy Scriptures from error by means of inspiration, even though sinful falliable men wrote it.  we catholics also believe that God the Holy Spirit protects His Church (Jn 14:16) even though sinful, imprefect men are involved in it.\n\nthe pope is like the head of the organization.  in the episcopal they they their archbishop (i think that's his title) in othes it's the president of the association. even the first baptist churches, church of God in Christ, methodist, protestant, etc all have a leader at the helm trying to lead the entire masses. this person is to spend their life in prayer and learning trying to help thoseof us who, while we can think and pray for ourselves, often need study groups or other places to asnwer questions.  without a leader/guide, to whom would questions be asked - each other is surely one asnwer but do we all have time to dedicate 24/7 to prayer and learning.  while i wish it was so, it is not.\n\nGod bless!
303588
I have not read anywhere that Jesus instructed anyone to write anything. The man was a walking contradiction, and his apostles were divided about what he taught. Jesus was used by others to start a revolution. This happens every so often, and the world needed it to happen at that particular time. I don't believe Jesus taught what the Christian bible says.
1001335
"Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons," is the actual quote.  It is taken from Acts 10:34.  The NIV translates this as, "“I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism."  The New American Standard translates this as, "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality."\n\nThe Apostle Peter is speaking, his full statement is, "“I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."\n\nThe basic meaning is that God does not favor one person over another but will accept anyone who chooses to receive him.\n\nThe context of the statement is when Peter was at the home of Cornelius, a Roman Centurian, who wanted learn more about the gospel.  Up to that time in the New Testament church, the belief among the bretheren was that only Jews could become followers of Jesus Christ.  God used Peter and Cornelius to show the brethern in Jerusalem that the gospel message was intended for all people, not just the Jews.
665103
When Jesus chose the Apostles they were just ordinary people, no different than you are I. \n\nThey were not superstars. Peter was always putting his foot in his mouth and he denied Christ three times.\n\nBut they were willing to follow Jesus, listen to what He said, and live their lives accordingly. All but one were eventually martyred.\n\nWe are called to do the same, follow Jesus, listen to what He teaches, and live our lives accordingly. Most of us will not have to make the ultimate sacrifice of martyrdom.\n\nWith love in Christ.
1091269
If I had to pick...it would be hard..not because of their sins and imperfections...but because of their relationships. Peter had a close relationship with Jesus...who is the image of God...BUT...Moses got to speak to God himself...and David...well...he had a LOT of confidence in God...that's why he was forgiven to begin with.\n\nI guess...hmm...Peter...because of the work he did through the help of God's holy spirit. I think that being with Christ helped him...and through all of his teachings...he learned a lot. Besides...the first christians were really living in hard times...but yet they managed to spread the good news all around...and their labor is an example for us today. So I guess I'd pick him.
704518
Jesus Himself asked Peter, "Do you love me?   ...then feed my sheep!"\n\nLove is not turning our backs to our brothers and sisters who do not know Christ (though it often times involves less conflict and persecution). That is the opposite of love (and it is sad that such apathy toward the calling to share the Gospel often comes under the deceptive banner of "tolerance").
783303
For the most part, yes. There are certain denominations that I'm aware of that "train" their Bible scholars to memorize scriptural passages in a particular sequence as their method of rebuttal in the event that certain, specific confrontations occur.\n\nSomething that is akin to "if" and "then" type of programming. "If" such and such is mentioned, "then" use the following verse... and on and on, ad infinitum. Naturally they are all primed to regurgitate certain verses and then tested [POP QUIZ!] to find out if they know their stuff before moving on to the next lessons...\n\nSo, yes.\n\nPeace be with you!
259921
Since Peter was christian & not jewish, he's not in heaven!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (it's a joke)
965122
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost". Acts 2:38\n \nNotice it says Peter told them to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ."  This is right after holy spirit was given on the Day of Pentecost, ten days after Jesus ascended into heaven. \n\n\n"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Acts 10:48\n \n\nNotice that Peter commanded the household of Cornelius "to be baptized in the name of the Lord."  Apparently, no one's reminded him what Jesus said, since Acts 2. \n\n\n"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 19:5\n \nThese were the believers in Ephesus.  Notice it says, "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." \n\n\n"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Galatians 3:27\n\nNotice this is talking to those of us who "have been baptized into Christ". \n\nAccording to the evidence I've check and gathered, it's probable that Jesus and the original Matthew 28:18-20" really said, \n\nAll authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.  Go, therefore, disciple all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.  And lo, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. \n\nIt appears that Jesus wasn't talking about baptizing at all, but rather, making disciples of all the nations in his name.\n\nThe oldest manuscripts in existence today that contain this section of Matthew say, "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".  But, they're from the fourth century, a time when trinity was becoming an established doctrine of the Christian church.  There are only two such fourth century manuscripts, and none older.  However, They still have earlier writings that quote Matthew 28:19.\n\nJesus did not tell the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19.  In fact, he wasn't talking about baptism at all.  Rather, he commanded them to go, disciple all the nations in his name, teaching them to observe all of his commandments.  And then he promised them that he would be with them until the end of the age.
599348
If Nesmas Kol CHa is the book I think you're reffereing to it was not written by Saint Peter but is a book written by Agnostic writes, who would often use the name of various Chrsitian saints to try and create a set of canon for thier relgion is place of the Christian Gospels. the gospel of St. Judas and St. Thomas are similar cases.
373608
Well, that depends on who you ask and what qualifies as "start." :)\n\nJesus told Peter he was to be "the rock" on which he (Jesus) would build his church. Catholics take that to refer to Peter as the head of the church - then they see Peter as the Bishop of the Church in Rome, which would make him the first Pope. They see each successive Bishop of Rome as being Pope, as well, in a line of succession from Peter. \n\nSo, you could point to Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit comes down on the Apostles in Acts), as the start of the church itself. Or, you could see it, in a way, as being when Jesus named Peter.\n\nAs to the history, we know Bishops of Rome were pretty powerful at least as early as the 2nd century, but we really don't have evidence of them being considered the universal head of the church (ie-the Pope) until the 3rd or 4th century.