If Peter is Pope why so much from Paul?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eleusis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The direct answer is that God’s ways are not our ways. Your evangelical friend should be very comfortable with that.

Further, we see Peter in various leadership roles that was not part of Paul’s ministry.

Another point might be made, that Peter spent a lot of time with Jesus, and it would seem awkward (wouldn’t it) if the leadership of the Church was vacant until Paul’s conversion? Consider that Thomas Jefferson had a significant role in drafting the Declaration of Independence, the Constititution, and the Bill of Rights, but he was not the first President of the United States, was he? I recall that he was the third man elected to that position. And, it may have turned out, although it didn’t, that he may have never served as President.

The burden is not, as your question suggests, on the Catholic Church to defend itself, although it can handily do so. The point of his question is ‘sharp’ as these kind of ‘friend’ questions can be. I think there’s ample grounds for turning the question back on him to explain why Peter should not have been the first leader (pope) of the Church. Or, the burden is on the other evangelicals who I have heard from, who feel that there is no need for such a leader in the Church at all. How do you interpret Christ’s command that we should be unified? How do you (that is your friend) interpret Jesus’ obvious decision to select a band of disciples/apostles, as conspicuously as He did? How do you interpret that they gathered in one room, together with Jesus’ Mom, and prayed and waited, until Pentecost when they became sealed by the Holy Spirit – as opposed to them immediately splitting up and setting up churches all of their own making immediately after Jesus’ ascension?

If you can catch The Journey Home program on EWTN with Marcus Grodi, he regularly interviews evangelicals who have converted and accepted Catholicism – for the reason that they were compelled to so, often at great expense and as the cost of introducing great confusion in their lives. They often relate that they most often skipped the gospel sections which are so ‘fundamental’ to Catholics, until they could no longer do so.

but, it’s good for you to be in dialogue with this fellow or gal, and to keep talking to them. I’ve been in just that situation myself.
 
40.png
eleusis:
My what a prolific group. Thank you all for your replies. Very helpful, execept for that grump who wrote “double post”. I beg to differ, similar topic but I read the other string and this discussion is quite different. Anyway, back to the studies. The prof. is not forgiving.
Click to expand...
What did I do wrong?
 
Peter was a fisherman and Paul was a scholar. Peter built the church as the ordained leader, he also dictated much of what is found in the Gospel to Mark as well as being attributed with 2 Epistles. However the lack of Petrine prose does not limit the authority, for at Jerusalem only the word of Peter could close all debate on doctrinal matters.

God Bless
 
40.png
beng:
What did I do wrong?
Click to expand...
I think **eleusis **mistakenly thought when he saw “Double Post” in #4 above that you were saying this was a duplicate thread. I’m guessing that you were deleting a duplicate post by overwriting it to say only “Double Post”. (although I could be the one who misinterpreted things).

Also, Beng, in #12 above you say you find Paul confusing. Personally, I love Paul’s writings, but I know what you mean about confusing. Paul writes from the perspective of one of the top Old Testatment Scholars of his time. He was the top student of the Top Rabbi and this top Rabbi was said to be one of the best that had ever been, until Paul came along.

I found that studying Paul with the assistance of Scott Hahn’s tapes has been extremely helpful. When you see how everything Paul says has incredible references to the Old Testament. I’ve really loved learning how the Old Testament is the new concealed and the New Testament is Old revealed. It’s amazing when you finally start studying the Old Testament to see how everything about Christ’s life was shown time and time again before He came for our salvation, so that when He finally came, it would have the full significance intended.

Oh, Sbcoral, there is definitely Historical Evidence that Peter was the first Pope. The church can easily list each and every Pope from Peter until the present, along with the specifics of when they were named Pope, when they died (or stepped down, I think a couple left office alive, didn’t they?) and who succeeded them.

And I agree with Hlgomez, post #10, above. I think the most important aspect of Peter being selected as the first leader of the Church Christ founded is to remind us all that it is only in Christ that any of us can do anything. No one can say, “Oh, he obviously had what it takes, but I, I couldn’t possibly amount to anything for God, I don’t have …” God desires to have each and every one of us step up to serve Him, according to His plan, not according to what what we believe we are capable of doing on our own. If He calls us to do it, He will conform us to His Will and provide what we need to make it happen.

CARose
 
Well the discrepancy in writing is closer than your evangelical friend thinks when you consider that Mark was really the oral gospel of Peter put in writing.

Peter most likely as a fisherman preferred to preach the gospel than write thus the need for scribes like Mark to write down what Peter preached. Paul on a mere natural level was a Pharisee and probably the master scribe of the spostles at the time of all the apostles he would be more comfortable writing than the other apostles which were comprised of rather uneducated men like fishermen and zealots and a tax collector who was better at counting than writing. It was the witness of the holy spirit that men of average talents were able to write so inspired and wise when they did attempt to write. Also it has also been suggested that even 1 and 2 Peter were written by secreteries of Peter and not Peter himself it is entirely possible peter was illiterate or was not gifted in writing in greek a common but still foreign language to the aramaic speaking jew. If you were a well educated Pharisee like Paul knowing and writing in Hebrew, Armamaic and Greek would be piece of cake for the fishermen this may have not been the case. One thing we do know Peter not Paul was present in Matthew 16 and also when there was a controversy Paul conferred to the Jewish council led by Peter in Acts 15 and not to himself he clearly did not lead this council. OF course I have heard some protestant apolgist say James not Peter lead this council when you consider that James wrote one letter comapred to the 3 books we have from Peter (Mark, 1 and 2 Peter) what happend to the theory he who writes the most is the leader?
Just goes to prove protestants will go to the very ends of scriptural exegesis to get away from the world of Christ in Matthew 16 and the clear eyewitness of the first half of Acts as Peter as the leader of the early church. Paul and James and the rest were extremely important to the early church and the apostolic age would not have been the same without them nor our holy scripture however Peter was the head of the church imagine the new testament without Peter. That would be almost impossible to do by his human weakness he taught us so much and as the saying goes the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. No wonder Christ chose his betrayer and fool of an apostle to be his rock. If Peter can be his rock surely we can be rocks of our own. The new testmaent would have been disfigured beyond recognition if Peter were not in it. I could not say the same for James or Paul despite each enormous contributions. Their letters of often for church disciplinary matters and do not concern the gospel itself. In fact Paul does not play a large role until the last half of Acts. James was one of the most important aposltes and in the inner circle who comprised of Peter, John and James but of those three you kind of figure James was the third shoe. Their could have been the gospels without James without suffering a hatchet job but without Peter who is asking the questions that Christ answers, who makes the leaps of faith nobody else does as saying Jesus is the Christ the Messiah or walking on water. Peter is the clear reprsentative of the apostles. OF course we have the papacy itselfs as our witness despite what a protestant says 2000 years of this monolith of rule has never been equaled by secular governement wheter it be Casers, Kings, or Presidents. That itslef is miracle we don’t appreciate. Like Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against the church we have 2000 years of history backing us up as that church. What does an evangelical have 50 years 100 years if he is lucky.
 
Others have covered it nicely, but here’s another thing to consider: Paul could actually write. Peter was a fisherman from what could be considered a back-water, hick area. In all likelyhood he couldn’t read or write. His letters were likely dictated, as was his Gospel, the Gospel of Mark. None of this is meant to slight him in any way, he was our Pope, and he was a rock if there ever was one. He was an incredible leader, and likely had a dominating presence and personality. I just doubt he had the necessary skills to write letters, though I have absolutely no doubt that in personal company or preaching his words held a near supernatural power even without the Holy Spirit. I can’t imagine him being singled out as often as he is in the Gospels unless he made a serious impact simply by his presence; there’s a reason he dwarfs the other apostles even as a group.
 
Is there historical evidence that Peter was really the first pope, or is this just tradition? I read recently that it was more tradition than anything.
Click to expand...
I suggest reading Steve Ray’s exhaustively researched tome
UPON THIS ROCK. which covers the scriptural, historical, and Patristic evidence of the Papal Primacy.
See also Kenneth Whitehead’s:

ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOLOSTOLIC: The Early church was the Catholic Church which uses a historical approach to cover the Church of the Apostles to end of the Arian Heresy with particular attention paid to Primacy of the Pope.
 
Another pragmatic issue to consider is that Paul’s “ministry” was quite different than Peter’s. Paul was called to convert the Gentiles who were not adherents to Judaism in the first place. That, plus the fact that he founded so many churches among the Gentiles would greatly increase the probability that these new converts would need much more instruction than those who already had a firm grasp of existing scripture. Thus Paul would have spent more time having to correct the new believers in those churches he founded.

As others have mentioned, Paul was educated and could write, thus he would be more disposed to writing letters. Perhaps Peter preferred to correct his “parishoners” in person, or by sending emissaries. We really don’t know.
 
2 Corinthians 10:10 might give us a clue, where Paul relates what some say about himself,“His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account.”
 
This is because Paul traveled widely, establishing many Christian communities along the way, which he had to instruct in the faith, hence the epistles, which are essentially letters of instructions on various matters pertaining to the Church. In addition Paul had a talent for writing, being highly educated. It is what God willed him to be. But that does not take away Peter’s preeminent position, being appointed by Jesus Himself to tend His sheep(Matt. 16:17-19).

Gerry 🙂
 
You know a good comaprision might be who was our first president of our country? George Washington right? Does the fact that he wrote very little during his lifetime negate that of course not. Jefferson, Madison wrote far more and were more intellectual and better read than Washington but Washington by the role of his leadership on the battlefield was considered more qualified despite his reptuation for not being eloqent or being a scribe. He was a simple man in comparision to Frankline or Jefferson who were the closest american have ever had to Renaissance men who do everything. But in the countires wideom it chose a Rock of a leader in Washingotn despite him not wiritng a lot he did not write the Declaration of Independance nor the Constitution but he is considered by many our greatest president and all agree he was our nations first president.
 
Why is Jesus the Christ if Paul did so much writing? Point out the incosistency with his logic.
 
Mat.16:18 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. The scholarly apologists of the RCC will tell you that this scripture has been miss-interpreted. Peter, by His own testimony, did not see himself as the rock on which the church was founded; he says that we are living stones, but Jesus is the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:4-7) The words this rock have been the source of much controversy; it is best to see them as referring to either Jesus Himself (perhaps Jesus gesturing to Himself as He said this), or as referring to Peter’s confession of who Jesus is. The power for binding and loosing may also be thought of in a rabbinic sense; of being able to set the boundaries authoritatively for the New Covenant community - this was the authority given to the apostles and prophets to build a foundation (Ephesians 2:20) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Jesus also says that Peter has the keys of the kingdom of heaven; this isn’t that he admits people to heaven, but that Peter opened the door of the kingdom to both the Jews (Acts 2:38-39) and the Gentiles (Acts10:34-44) by his recognition of the Messiah. Jesus simply stated that if Peter was able to recognize the Messiah, the rest of us could as well. The Old Testament is fraught with scripture making reference to the Lord being the Rock. Surely you don’t think Peter was, or is the Lord?
 
Who is to say that Peter did not write more than Paul? Maybe it just didn’t survive time.

This is what you throw back at your coworker. Paul wrote more than Jesus, doesn’t that mean…

Shows the wrong assumption on their part.

Matt
 
I must make one small correction. Several posters on this thread have said that Paul was not an apostle.
Paul disagrees. In the greetings of the following epistles, he defines himself as an apoostle of Jesus Christ, sometimes, “by the will of God.”
Romans 1:1, 1 Cor 1:1, 2 Cor 1:1, Gal 1:1, Eph 1:1, 1 Tm 1:1,
2 Tm 1:1
I think the criterion he is using is that an apostle is one who was taught directly by Jesus.
On the road to Damascus, when he was knocked from his horse, and for the next week when he was blind, he was most likely taught for Christ. Or maybe it was instantaneous when he fell off of his horse.
In any event, Paul obviously considers himself an apostle.
 
Strider: I don’t believe so. I think people were just saying that Paul wasn’t an apostle at the time the Church was founded.
 
A RUACH QADIM EXCERPT: By Andrew Gabriel Roth

In order to carry out “The Great Commission”, as it is often called, the disciples scattered, three going in each direction. In due time however, a certain man from Tarsus, who also had plans of his own, eventually joined them: “They (the apostles) saw that I had been given the task of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been given the task of preaching the Gospel to the Jews…James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabbas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the Jews.”
Galatians 2:7,9
What is interesting though about this and two other citations from Galatians is how hard Paul tries to come off as an independent leader. Noticing here how he says that James, Peter and John were reputed to be pillars, it can sometimes seem that Paul did not himself view them as such. Certainly these next lines from Galatians don’t help dispel the impression:
“I want you to know, brothers, that the Gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it. Rather, I received it by revelation from Y’shua the Messiah…But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was please to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach to the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.” Galatians 1:11,15-17
Certainly sounds like a rebel! However, if we read between the lines a bit, a different picture emerges. The fact is, Paul is telling the truth when he says that his initial revelation was from the Messiah, but that did not mean that he was to do everything on his own. As Acts 9 and 10 record, first Paul had to be led to Damascus to recover from his blindness, and there he also abstained from food and drink for three days.
Then Paul was healed and instructed by a disciple named Khanan-Yah before going out to preach himself. It was after this brief stint of preaching though that Paul soon found himself in danger, and so he “immediately went into” --read “fled”-- into Arabia, where he stayed for 3 years. Then, the moment the “heat” was off, this is what he did:
“I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles, only James the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing is no lie.”
Galatians 1:18-19
James and Peter just happened to be the two highest-ranking apostles in the Nazarene movement, so I have a feeling this meeting was a bit more substantive than Paul graciously giving them a bit of his time. Rather, he went to them, and so one can only speculate as to what they talked about if Peter and James were not “consulted”! Then, at the end of the fifteen days, again without any “consultation”, Paul reports that the reputed pillars agreed to let him go on his missionary journeys. So the first attempt was directly related to Messiah’s instructions, and this was followed by a second attempt blessed by Peter and James. Now, at this point many will say, “But Paul rebuked Peter, so how can he be subservient to him?” Let’s see what the Scripture says: "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

CONT…
 
The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabbas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, ‘You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?’" Galatians 2:11-14
Go Paul the Rebel…and in front of the Jerusalem contingent too! However, before we get too excited, let us look at what Paul does not say, namely:
• There is no mention of Peter apologizing for his behavior.
• The response to Paul from the Jewish contingent is also not recorded.
• There is no “agreement” that Paul is right, either from Peter or the others, as he dutifully recorded when he got his way last time, in chapter 1.
Therefore, and as Dr. Allen Callahan of Harvard pointed out on the PBS Frontline special “From Jesus to Christ”, Paul did not carry the day here. He vented his point and then, seeing that he was getting nowhere, likely walked away from the situation, only to write down his rebuke later. It also seems a safe bet that had he won this argument that he surely would have written down that victory as well. Instead, what we have is a person who is important to the Nazarene leadership to be sure, but is not in the uppermost echelons of command there. In military terms, Paul would be a captain surrounded by the
colonels and generals that direct the overall strategy of the organization. That is why he is called a “ringleader” in the first place, and not a “pillar” (Acts 24:5).
Two other instances showing Paul’s true stature in the movement are found in the Book of Acts. First, during the Jerusalem Council (chapter 15), it is Peter, not Paul, who addresses the assembly first. In addition, Peter’s words are quoted verbatim while Paul’s position is merely summarized. Second, at the end of the deliberations, Paul is the one given the task of being a courier for James–true servant work indeed! The course of action was also decided by “the apostles and elders”, of which Peter must surely be counted, for Paul and some others to accomplish. In fact, Paul does not even get to help compose the letter he is supposed to deliver!
So, while Paul’s contributions are huge to the movement, in actual fact his power was somewhat limited, as he himself says here:
“For I am the least of the apostles, and do not even deserve to be called an apostle because I persecuted the Church of God.”
1 Corinthians 15:9
 
40.png
Ghosty:
Strider: I don’t believe so. I think people were just saying that Paul wasn’t an apostle at the time the Church was founded.
Click to expand...
Ghosty,
You could be right, but it didn’t look that way on some of the posts. I was just making sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top