Numbers Game on Paul and Peter

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoeyWarren
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Atemi said:
This is another myth that is all too common in the RC apologetic, but it is not true. It is this kind of claim that creates threads like this.

Peter is not always mentioned first in order.
Click to expand...
True, one or two verses do not list him first, those verses are written either by Paul or Luke.
 
Also, I see you remove the Holy Spirit’s mention of Paul’s name from his epistles (the majority of the NT), but counted Peter’s name in those same epistles.
Click to expand...
Yes I excluded where the “Human Author” wrote his own name. Just as I did with Peter when he wrote his own name.
 
Atemi said:
This is another myth that is all too common in the RC apologetic, but it is not true. It is this kind of claim that creates threads like this.
Click to expand...
Atemi-

Since you are relatively new here, perhaps you are unfamiliar with how often this charge against Peter comes up.

You see, the average Catholic couldn’t care less which of our early Church leaders is mentioned most frequently in the pages of the New Testament. Peter, James, John, Paul…we love them all equally for all of their contributions to the foundation of our Church.

However, some outside the Church and some who are connected to it “imperfectly” have on not a few occasions attempted to justify their lack full communion with the Body of Christ by appealing to the prominence of Paul in the New Testament.

However, the knowledgeable Catholic **apologist **only needs to:
  1. Point out the obvious data Joey supplied; and
  2. Refer the wayward soul to 1 Corinthians 12.
    In this chapter, Paul points out that just as there are many parts of the one body, so there are many gifts and “There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.” (1 Corinthians 12:5)
Paul was truly gifted and served the Lord wholeheartedly in his role as evangelist, preacher and author, etc… Peter did likewise in his role as leader of the Church as appointed by Jesus.

Like I said, this is not something that tends to come up when Catholics are speaking amongst themselves, but we mention it when necessary to non-Catholics so that you may see and believe.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
Thanks Randy for that much needed extra information.

Atemi, my Apologetics Ability comes from a different aspect than most Catholic Apologist. I come from the genre of “Logic Thinkers”. I am a Programmer/Analyst by Profession. I question everything and disect it to it’s individual components and controls.

A thorough study of “Factual History” and “Ancient Judaic Culture” and “Scripture” proves to me thru “Infallible Logic” that Catholicism is the “Real Deal”.
 
Atemi said:
This is another myth that is all too common in the RC apologetic, but it is not true. It is this kind of claim that creates threads like this.

Peter is not always mentioned first in order.
Click to expand...
Please…show me the scripture so that I might learn and improve my own understanding…

Thanks and God Bless…
Teresa
 
Lillith said:
Please…show me the scripture so that I might learn and improve my own understanding…

Thanks and God Bless…
Teresa
Click to expand...
Lilith, he is right on this account. There is one exception to this but it is not in the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles, it is in an Epistle of Paul. I will take it as an oversight on Paul.😃

Gal 2:9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:

But for all intentional purposes, “always” is permissible sense the current usage of the word does not always mean “without exception”

Example:

“You are always late, you will probably be late for your own funeral”. Does “always” here mean without exception in context? I would say no as the person being accused would say…
 
JoeyWarren said:
Lilith, he is right on this account. There is one exception to this but it is not in the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles, it is in an Epistle of Paul. I will take it as an oversight on Paul.😃

Gal 2:9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:
Click to expand...
From Haydock’s commentary, emphasis mine:
Ver. 9. James, and Cephas, and John.
Click to expand...
No proof of any greater authority can be drawn from the placing or numbering of James first, which perhaps St. Paul might do, because of the great respect he knew the Jewish converts had for St. James, bishop of Jerusalem, where the ceremonies of the law of Moses were still observed. Several Greek copies have Peter, James, and John. So we also read in St. Jerome’s Commentary, p. 240, and St. Chrysostom in his Exposition, p. 729, has Cephas, John, and James. (Witham)
I thought it was interesting
 
WOW…thanks for that Joey and Ziggy. I now have that understanding I requested:D
 
JoeyWarren said:
Lilith, he is right on this account. There is one exception to this but it is not in the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles, it is in an Epistle of Paul. I will take it as an oversight on Paul.😃
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit does not make “oversights,” Joey.
But for all intentional purposes, “always” is permissible sense the current usage of the word does not always mean “without exception”
Click to expand...
This is silly.

Lily was not using hyperbole. She meant what she said and even admitted as much.

You said you are all into logic, but this response was not very logical.

Many Catholics do indeed believe Peter is ALWAYS mentioned forst because that is what they learned from other RC apologists.

…
 
Randy_Carson said:
Since you are relatively new here, perhaps you are unfamiliar with how often this charge against Peter comes up.
Click to expand...
No. The whole reason there is this thread is because the opposite claim was made by a Catholic.
You see, the average Catholic couldn’t care less which of our early Church leaders is mentioned most frequently in the pages of the New Testament.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. As Lily was sure to point out, Peter is always mentioned first.

And as Manny was sure to quote Scripture Catholic:

“Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times.”

I belive this is Scripture Catholic’s first proof on Peter’s primacy.

Catholics “couldn’t care less”?

I wish. The reality of the matter says otherwise.

Don’t blame these debates on non-Catholics. It is Catholics who constantly bring it up, as recent threads show.

…
 
Peter is frequently given precedence over the other apostles. For example:

Mark 20:7 (KJV)

7But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

Note that the angel singles out Peter.

God Bless,
Michael
 
Randy_Carson said:
“Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times.”

…
Click to expand...
Hi Randy:D , I don’t know bout you but I consider Paul an apostle!
And scripture catholic fails to point out they didn’t use Paul in the equation.
 
mikeledes said:
Peter is frequently given precedence over the other apostles. For example:

Mark 20:7 (KJV)

7But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

Note that the angel singles out Peter.

God Bless,
Michael
Click to expand...
Clement saw it differently…

Clement of Alexandria in Outlines Book VI(quote by Eusebius)

Quote:

Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-emincence because the Saviour had specially honoured them, **but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem. **

Hmmm, I believe the first church was here also…
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Clement saw it differently…

Clement of Alexandria in Outlines Book VI(quote by Eusebius)

Quote:

Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-emincence because the Saviour had specially honoured them, **but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem. **

Hmmm, I believe the first church was here also…
Click to expand...
Praise be to God that the writings of Clement are not in the Bible!😃 Holy Spirit intervention?👍
 
Atemi said:
No. The whole reason there is this thread is because the opposite claim was made by a Catholic.

Incorrect. As Lily was sure to point out, Peter is always mentioned first.

And as Manny was sure to quote Scripture Catholic:

“Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times.”
I belive this is Scripture Catholic’s first proof on Peter’s primacy.

Catholics “couldn’t care less”?

I wish. The reality of the matter says otherwise.

Don’t blame these debates on non-Catholics. It is Catholics who constantly bring it up, as recent threads show.

…
Click to expand...
You have not been around long, especially at the anti-God websites such as BaptistBoard.com and CARM.com?
 
I belive this is Scripture Catholic’s first proof on Peter’s primacy.

Catholics “couldn’t care less”?
Click to expand...
Because the first proof from the unwitting followers of Satan point out first that Paul is mentioned more than Peter. Which by the way, I have proven to be false in the first post.
 
Atemi said:
Actually, it is Catholics who constantly mention that Peter is mentioned the most. This is in all the run-of-the-mill apologetics material.
Click to expand...
If I recall all the “run-of-the-mill apologetics material” I’ve read it says of the original Apostles, Peter is mentioned more than all the rest. This would make sense since the leader would have been established during the period of time (40 days, Acts of the Apostles 1) between the resurrection and the ascension and only one of the the original 11 (I think we can conclude Judas wasn’t the leader) would have been chosen by Jesus to lead His Church. I agree the number doesn’t much matter, it’s what’s in those references that cements Peter as the first leader (Pope).
The idea of Paul being the first leader is truly ridiculous since during the first several years of the Catholic Church Saul was persecuting the Church. Hardly one who could be considered the leader during those first years.
 
Let’s do a search the other way by where we search for individual instances.

Simon is found in 71 verses
Peter is found in 157 verses
Cephas is found in 6 verses

Paul is found in 159 verses
Saul is found 25 verses

Simon, Peter, Cephas = 234
Paul and Saul = 184

Peter still beats out Paul

I did the same search with Esword:

Peter = 162 Hits
Simon = 68 Hits (76 total hits includes 8 for the other Simons mentioned earlier
Cephas = 6 Hits

Paul 162 Hits
Saul 26 Hits

Paul, Simon, Cephas = 236 instances
Paul, Saul = 188 instances

Peter still beats Paul.

Furthermore of the 6 instances of Cephas, Paul uses it 5 times and John once.

Recap:

Ignoring repeat hits and going by verse count alone:

Peter, Simon, Cephas = 192
Paul, Saul = 180

My database search including multiple instances

Peter, Simon, Cephas = 234
Paul, Saul = 184

Esword Search on Hits

Paul, Simon, Cephas = 236 instances
Paul, Saul = 188 instances

no matter how you slice it and dice it, Peter comes up on top.

Should I do some statistical analysis on this? What say you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top