The Church's Rock Foundation: Peter or Paul?

Anonymouz · May 2006

The Roman Catholic Church's basis for its doctrine on papacy hinges on the interpretation of this verse:

Matthew 16:18-19 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. that the church was built on top of Peter. But in truth that was not what happened in history. It wasnt Jesus who created the Church, neither was Peter. IT WAS PAUL OF TARSUS. The 12 apostles established Jesus ministries that were limited to the jews, but it took just one pseudo-Apostle -Paul to establish Churches from Jerusalem all the way to Rome. It was by his verbal & written theological interpretations that christian docrines were shaped. His power grip over the converts became so overwhelming that even in the book of acts (authored by Paul as well) it was narrated that when a dispute arised between Peter and Paul the council sided with Paul. Peter was the loser.

Thats why historians credit Paul as the founder of Christianity.

And as BlueIce had proven, even the 4 Gospels were written in accordance to Paul's influence, through his follower Dr.Luke.

Peter the Rock? What a load of Catholic crap. Peter was nothing but a Mascot. Paul was the real deal. The actual Rock of Christianity. *peace*

blue[]ce · May 2006

Yes indeed. Hence the term Pauline Christianity not Peterine(?) Christianity. But I guess the christians do not know much about early christianity. Reading the book of Acts and Galatians would go a long way in proving this point

Just an additional information, the head of the Jerusalem church at the time was actually James and Peter. James being the brother of christ. This is plainly seen in the book of acts. It is James that decides on the argument regarding circumcision. We do not hear much from James as his voice has been silenced by Paul and his clique.

salermo · May 2006

So where does it say in the Bible: And I say unto thee, that thou art Saul, and upon this Paul (whatever) I will build my church et. etc. etc.... I will give you Saul or Paul the keys of the kingdom of heaven etc. etc. etc??????

salermo · May 2006

Anonymouz wrote:

Paul was the real deal. The actual Rock of Christianity. *peace*

So you are changing the meaning of Rock (cephas) as Paul?;)

Dan Brown must be addictive.

Lucca Yamazaki · May 2006

Isn't Petros the greek word for Rock?

Tessaria · May 2006

Lucca: Yes.

Although to be more precise, on Matthew 16:18: it says "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."

More can be found on . But below is a summary:

(W)hat does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesnt mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.

"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasnt contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.

Anonymouz: If you say 'historians credit Paul as the founder of history', please be creative enough to cite sources.

A tour of your local link will give you a quick overview of the history of Christianity. And you might also want to compare their descriptions of , where he is noted as the first Pope, as well as having been assigned leadership by Jesus. But then, the page is marked for possibly not conforming to neutrality.

So, this is the link to , where he is generally credited for the spread of early Christianity, and was central to its early development.

Perhaps this is what you meant?

Although if you care to cite more substantial sources for further discussion, feel free to do so.

blue[]ce · May 2006

Perhaps you would like to discuss the development of the New Testament Scriptures as to the post I made pertaining to Paul and how he stole the NT and also the thread about Pauline Conspiracy.

However way you put it, you have to acknowledge that the majority of what we consider the New Testament can be attributed to Paul. This includes Paul's letters or epistles and the book of Acts which focuses on his missionary journeys(Not including his followers Mark(John Mark) and Luke). His writings and his theology of christ has greatly influenced how christianity as we know it developed from its jewish roots.

You can argue that it came from christ but the human instrument that God used is Paul(or so he claimed).

I believe Anonymouz is stating that although Peter is the historical first pope or the one whom Christ entrusted his church, the NT itself and our current beliefs show otherwise.

easter · May 2006

JESUS CHRIST - The Foundation of Every Christian

budsbunny · May 2006

Jesus might have entrusted care of his ministry to Peter but actually, it was Paul who stole the main concept and injected his own principles into it.

whoookam · May 2006

peter = stone
Jesus is the Rock
paul's the messenger for the gentiles
peter's for the jews na naconvert to christianity

Anonymouz · May 2006

budsbunny wrote:

Jesus might have entrusted care of his ministry to Peter but actually, it was Paul who stole the main concept and injected his own principles into it.

THATS THE IDEA!

Thats why I said Peter was just a mascot. So what if Peter means stone? It was paul who did the real work.

Paul popularized Jesus.

Paul had the Gospels written.

Paul wrote most of the New Testament.

Paul created most of the essential christian doctrines.

Paul planted every gentile church in the apostolic era.

What did Peter do? Fight with Paul. He was nothing but a mascot. So at best the Catholic interpretation is incorrect. Peter was no rock. Peter was no pope. Roman lies.

Dont get me wrong, I think Paul was a great guy. A good guy. He was the foundation of Christianity. Not Peter.

blue[]ce · May 2006

and what about james?

"Council of Jerusalem" is a name applied in retrospect to a meeting described in Acts of the Apostles chapter 15. The events described there are generally dated about the year 50, some time before the death of James the Just in 62

Hmmm. So there was a so-called council of jerusalem. Why was it held?

An interpretation is that the council was convened as the result of the disagreement within the early Christian community between those, such as the followers of James, who believed the church must observe the rules of traditional Judaism1, and Paul of Tarsus, who believed there was no such necessity (see Supersessionism).

The central issue was circumcision, as the author of Acts relates the initial confrontation in Antioch, where Paul had been preaching:
"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1) KJV

Paul and his disciple, here called Barnabas, disputed fiercely2 with the Judaean Christians, so that it was determined that they "and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." (Acts 15:2). The Western3 version of Acts states those from Jerusalem ordered Paul and Barnabas and some others to Jerusalem to be judged before the apostles and elders. The author of Acts identifies the position of the Jerusalem Christians as if they were "Pharisees which believed" in Christ, a label of opprobrium for radicals like the early Christians, but one that was not strictly accurate in this case

So here we see the church hierarchy. Paul had to consult the elders about the issue of circumcision. Therefore, it would be reasonable to say that Paul was subject to the Jerusalem Council.

Ok. So we have Jerusalem Council, the established authority at that time composed of apostles and elders. Who are these?

in Galatians, Paul lists James with Cephas (better known as Peter) and John, as the three "pillars" of the Church,

Ok, so the 3 pillars are Peter, James and John. So they are the leaders of the Jerusalem church. Ok. So we have 3 names. Which of them is the leader then?

Silence again followed their words and then James made this reply: "Men and brothers, listen to me. Symeon (Simon Peter) has shown how in the first place God chose a people (the Jews) from among the nations who should bear his name. This is in full agreement with what the prophets wrote, as in this scripture:

'After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen down. I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord who does all these things. (Amos 9:11,12)

"I am firmly of the opinion that we should not put any additional obstacles before any Gentiles who are turning towards God. Instead, I think we should write to them telling them to avoid anything polluted by idols, sexual immorality, eating the meat of strangled animals, or tasting blood."

Who is of the opinion to do what? With regards to the issue of circumcision and the gentiles, James gave the decision. James was the established leader of the church that Jesus left.

Ok. So now you know who James was. What can we find of James in the Bible? He has been overshadowed by Paul. Look into the thread regarding Paul and how he stole the NT.

Anonymouz · May 2006

Tessaria wrote:

Anonymouz: If you say 'historians credit Paul as the founder of history', please be creative enough to cite sources.

Here is a couple to wet your appetite

0802801242.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

1591020212.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

The true founder of historical Christianity, of Christianity as we it know in practice, as it has played and still plays a role in the history of the West and of the world, was not Jesus, of whom we know nothing, nor his disciple Peter, of whom we know that he was a Galilean and a simple fisherman by vocation, but rather Paul of Tarsus, who was Jewish by blood, by training and by temperament, and, what is more, was a literate, learned Jew and a Roman citizen, in the same way that so many Jewish intellectuals today are French, German, Russian, or American citizens.

more to come

Tessaria wrote:

So, this is the link to Paul, where he is generally credited for the spread of early Christianity, and was central to its early development.

Perhaps this is what you meant?

Yes thats what I meant and more. Paul was central in the development & spread of early christianity. NOT PETER. Thats why if there is any human foundation of christianity, it was mostly paul and hardly peter.

If you still disagree then pray tell meWHAT DID PETER EVER DO TO DESERVE THE TITLE OF FOUNDATION?

And if you would dispute those scholarly books i posted above, then why dont you come up with a scholarly work that claims that Peter was the founder of christianity? Good luck.

Regards.

horribletruth · May 2006

How about...

The HTML version can be read here:

Or maybe this:

An easier to read version though (I don't know why Google renders it better) here:

Enjoy!

Anonymouz · May 2006

Nobody is denying the fact that 'Peter' means 'Rock' or 'Stone'. Read the posts above to learn what this thread is really all about.

horribletruth · May 2006

I don't think you even bothered to read them.

I say to you, read the above links which are replete with scholarly and academic citations and sources for proof of Peter's being the "foundation" of Christianity, complete with his divine appointment and activity record.

You asked for scholarly works, you got it.

Tessaria · May 2006

Anonymouz wrote:

Here is a couple to whet your appetite

Thanks for the links to these books. If they are available, I'm sure they are interesting reads. I'm curious, however, what the professed faiths of the two authors are-?

Yes thats what I meant and more. Paul was central in the development & spread of early christianity. NOT PETER. Thats why if there is any human foundation of christianity, it was mostly paul and hardly peter.

It is not disputed that Paul had a significant place in early Church history. In fact, his influence is still felt. What I would like to know is: what are your sources that put Paul in primacy over Peter?

No need to show me links to academic books made by speculative scholars on Paul (curiously which seems to be an addendum to the Gerd Ludemann book, Paul, the Founder of Christianity, goes to great lengths to write about Paul and not cite Biblical passages. Stuff like, oh I don't know.. what Christ actually said). Let's debate this instead:

Matthew 16:18 (New American Bible)
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Pray tell, let's discuss how this was interpreted by Gerd Ludemann (who is also a controversial figure in the German Lutheran Church. I tried Googling the author David Wenham, but I kept on getting the actor who played Faramir in Lord of the Rings. But I will keep on Googling)

If you still disagree then pray tell meWHAT DID PETER EVER DO TO DESERVE THE TITLE OF FOUNDATION?

Because, again, the title came from the source:

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it"

And if you would dispute those scholarly books i posted above, then why dont you come up with a scholarly work that claims that Peter was the founder of christianity? Good luck.

While I guess I'd need to buy your books from Amazon, here are some links from the Web:

Regards.

Same goes. Have fun reading.

blue[]ce · June 2006

from horribletruth's links

The apostolic activity of Peter in Judea and the neighboring districts after the resurrection of Jesus is recorded chiefly in Acts, although the Pauline epistles contain a few valuable allusions. It must be borne in mind that a certain amount of editorial change may be traced in the speeches ascribed to Peter in Acts, but there is no reason to doubt the essential authenticity of the facts there recorded.

and then

At the council of the apostles, moreover, he was not only sot the leader, but was even subordinate, in a sense, to James (Acts xv. 6 aqq.). In like manner Paul at first describes Peter as the leader of the church at Jerusalem (Gal. i. 18), but by the time of the apostolic council he was, although still the virtual representative of the mission to the Jews, only one of the three pillars of the church, the other two being James and John (Gal. ii. 8-9).

horribletruth · June 2006

I see no contradiction. Just because he was the foundation doesn't mean he has to be in the forefront all the time.

You very conveniently omitted the statments before your quotation, to wit:

As to the position of Peter as the leader of the apostolic church, Acts and the Pauline epistles are in full accord. He took first place in the meeting which chose Matthias to succeed Judas Iscariot (Acts i. 15 aqq.), he was the spokesman of the whole company of apostles both in winning a large body of Jewish converts (Acts ii. 14 sqq.) and in defending the Gospel against the Jewish hierarchy (Acts iv. 8 sqq., 19 sqq., v. 29 sqq.), he reformed conditions within the mother church at Jerusalem (Acts v. i sqq.), he watched over relations with other Christian communities (Acts viii. 14 sqq., ix. 32 sqq.), and he was the first to receive a pagan into the new church (Acts x. 1 sqq.).

Sure he enjoyed no ABSOLUTE preeminence in the sense that he labored in Samaria together with John (Acts viii. 14), and he was called to account for associating with gentiles (Acts xi. 3 sqq.), but he wasn't a king. He was a steward and as such, others who have been given the same mission (go and make disciples of all nations) in certain instances can be considered equal to him.

blue[]ce · June 2006

but who was it that made the pronouncement on what the gentiles can and should follow? was it peter? It was James. And his decision was written to all the churches at that time.

Peter was one of the 3 pillars of the church. The other were James and John. That fact we agree on. However, the quote you have says Peter was the leader yet in the next paragraph also says he was subordinate to James.

so which is it then?

horribletruth · June 2006

Subordinate IN A SENSE, not for all time. See the difference?

James might have made the decision, but it certainly had to have been approved by the other two "pillars of the church" as you have so kindly pointed out. If James made the decision unilaterally, he wouldn't be a pillar would he?

As you highlighted, it was a COUNCIL. What happens in any council? People put forward their opinions and other people vote for or against it. Their equal authorities were working because of their mandate (go and baptize all nations), but Peter was subordinate to James IN A SENSE that James put forward his correct opinion and Peter and John approved of his decision.

The Church's Rock Foundation: Peter or Paul?

Comments

Welcome to PinoyExchange!

Forums

In this Discussion