1 Corinthians

  • Thread starter Thread starter challenger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

challenger

Guest
This is another question demonstrating my utter lack of creative thinking when it comes to Apologetics…

In the 1 Corinthians controversy about “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos,” etc., why didn’t Paul tell the Corinthians to fall in line behind Peter?
 
Oh, and what does “God shows no partiality” mean in Galatians 2:6? I think I get these questions when I don’t sleep all night…
 
Oh… and I forget why Paul wrote most of the NT and not Peter :o
 
Perhaps because Paul’s point is that Christ is the head of the Church and that only Christ died for us. Our unity is in Christ. Yes Peter may have had primacy among the apostles but his point is that Christ is head over all.

We belong to Christ as those he died for, as co-heirs of the Kingdom, as children of God.

We belong to the Pope (or Peter when Paul wrote) only as sheep in the flock which he is called, by Christ, in Christ, and under Christ, to shepherd on earth, as both earthly leader and servant to all.

In addition it is probable that factions had developed in the Church of Corinth. The faction of “I belong to Cephas/Peter” was one of the factions, not out of obedience to Christ. The faction probably consisted mainly of Jewish Christians teaching that the Jewish law needed to be kept. Whether or not Peter had been to Corinth is debated, but they had heard of his character and surmised (in error) from what they knew that he taught the law needed to be kept.

So to call on the Corinthians at that time to follow Peter would have implied calling them to follow a Judaising legalistic faction rather than to follow Christ.

Even now, though the Pope is who he is, we can say we belong to Christ, not we belong to the Pope.

Of course, all of what I’ve just typed might be wrong - but it’s my stab at an answer.
 
A good question - why did Paul write more of the NT (10 times as much) as Peter? (I’m taking the view that NT letters are written by who they say they are written by)

First, they didn’t know they were writing the New Testament. They wrote as the need arose.

Second they were writing to specific congregations in specific situations.

Paul wrote to lots of churches because he’d been to so many churches, and under the guidance and power of God been instrumental in starting most of them. His letters were pastoral to the churches he’d been to/started on his missionary journeys. They contain much doctrinal teaching but their primary purpose is usually pastoral. Many of them are written out of particular congregations falling into error.

Peter didn’t write so much in the way of pastoral letters as he didn’t travel around starting churches much.

Third, the authority of someone in the church is not dependant on how many books or letters they write. Petrine authority doesn’t depend on constant letter writing. If quantity of writing was the deciding point of authority, Ignatius of Antioch should have been Pope rather than Alexander 1, Justin Martyr rather than Pius 1 or Anicetus.

Petrine authority was given by God (as scriptures show). Regardless of how many letters he did or didn’t write or need to write his authority was there.

Again - those are just my stabs at answers and may be totally wrong. I’m not exactly an expert on the primacy of Peter.

I’ll leave it to someone else to attempt to answer the Galatians question. I’m out of time and you would in any case end up with a third set of guesses from me!

Blessings to you - hope the answers are of help or at least not too much of a confusing hindrance.
 
Hi Challenger,

Possibly the people of Corinth never saw Peter.

Paul is addressing a particular problem in Corinth, where they were evangelized by several different people. It’s as if a Chicago convert to Catholicism said, “I’ m a Fr. Murphy” Catholic, because Fr. Murphy received him into the Church. Or “I’m a Fr. DiStasio Catholic”, because Fr. DiStasio baptized him. You would not expect someone to say, “I’m a Fr. Álvarez Catholic”, if Fr. Álvarez never was in Chicago.

St. Paul’s point is, “Never mind who evangelized you, or who baptized you. You don’t belong to anybody except Christ. You are united in Christ.”

Verbum
 
Now that I’ve had some sleep, I’m thinking a little more clearly… woohoo! This is what I have so far on Galatians:

For the pillars “James, Cephas and John,” they seemed like pillars to Paul, and they were. “At a glance,” as it were, Paul would not necessarily have identified Peter as the chief apostle. The ordering seemed so unnatural to certain Fathers (like Augustine) that they re-did it, placing Cephas first. If “God shows no partiality” is to be taken as meaning “God does not grant special authority to anyone,” then Paul has no right to claim apostolic authority over the Corinthians. And yet, he does.

The question now is: What does Paul mean by God shows no partiality?
 
What one can accomplish when well-rested! Here’s my finished product:

For the pillars “James, Cephas and John,” they seemed like pillars to Paul, and they were. “At a glance,” as it were, Paul would not necessarily have identified Peter as the chief apostle. The ordering seemed so unnatural to certain Fathers (like Augustine) that they re-did it, placing Cephas first. If “God shows no partiality” is to be taken as meaning “God does not grant special authority to anyone,” then Paul has no right to claim authority over the Corinthians. And yet, he does.

Paul’s use of the same phrase (“God shows no partiality”) in Romans 2:11 refers to Jew/Gentile. The literal translation (or my literal translation :-)) of this part of Galatians 2:6 would be: “God receives not the outward appearance of man.” Outward appearance comes from prosoton, defined here. Note the definition has nothing to do with authority. It seems that Paul is speaking of God judging the heart.
 
Challenger,

I think if you look at the context, you will find that what the scripture is saying, when it remarks that no one is given preference, is that God doesn’t care how wealthy or how much earthly power you have (or don’t have) he loves you no more or less than he does the lowest of the low. You might recall Jesus tended to eat with the tax collectors and prostitutes, calling them to his Father’s Kingdom, much to the anger of the Jewish authorties. Do you think they would have crucified him if he had said that he was there for them, the leaders, and that he thought they were just the greatest thing ever? I bet not. But he showed no favoritism, unless it was for the outcast of society. I

It seems rather silly to try and take authority out of the Bible, read in Titus how much authority the Bishops in the Church had Titus 2:15. They taught witll ALL authority. Jesus himself granted the Apostles authority, indeed he gave them the same authority that His Father had given him.
Matthew 28: 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

Matthew 16:19
Code: 
      19 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
See his church has the same authority as he does, which makes sense as the church is his mystical body.

Your challenge is why should we believe that Peter was given authority greater than the other apostles, not whether he had any authority.

peace,
Sam
 
Actually BOTH Paul and Peter founded converts in Rome. They both were executed there, as the early church fathers clearly state. It is recorded that Peter was the bishop of Rome, while Paul remained a missionary. Paul never sought the office of a bishop. Peter was formerly bishop in Antioch for twelve years before coming to Rome. He only came there because of the persecution of Nero to the Christians. He felt that by having his presence there, this would strengthen the church at Rome. Some say he stayed some twenty years til his death. But Peter was indeed the declared bishop. Some early fathers refer to the chair or seat of Peter in Rome. This being a symbol of his overall authority. ( See the book, “The Four Witnesses” by Ron Bennent)
 
40.png
asteroid:
A good question - why did Paul write more of the NT (10 times as much) as Peter? (I’m taking the view that NT letters are written by who they say they are written by)
Click to expand...
Jesus commissioned Simon Peter as the foremost among the apostles because his heart was up to it. He was neither a scholar nor a rabbi, he was a simple, insightful fisherman who could see straight through to the truth when more “learned” men got trapped in technicalities. What little Simon Peter penned himself speaks for itself.

Jesus commissioned Paul as an apostle because he was a Pharisee, a learned man, a man of conviction, and also a scribe who could write easily and insightfully, reaching the multitudes whom the apostles were not able to nurse and groom in person. However, whereas the truth was obvious to Simon Peter, Paul didn’t recognize the truth until Jesus whacked him upside the head.

The man of simple faith / man of learning relationship was a little like the relationship between JPII and (then) Cardinal Ratzinger, and the relationship between John XXIII and … (oops, sorry, brain cramp :o ).
 
Good point - I hadn’t thought about the education & backgrounds of Peter & Paul when considering my answer. Thanks for those thoughts.
 
40.png
challenger:
Oh… and I forget why Paul wrote most of the NT and not Peter :o
Click to expand...
You mean there is an answer? No one knows the answer to this question. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, this isn’t really the question you want answered. Are you really seeking an answer to, " If Peter allegedly was the leader of the Church then why did so much of Paul’s writings become part of the NT? That seems to be the inherent underlying question to me - correct me if Im mistaken.

Here’s an answer to your question which is silly but as accurate as any other you get:

Paul got so many writings into the NT because he never got to be Pope like Peter!

Phil
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top