Numbers Game on Paul and Peter

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoeyWarren
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Atemi…

Agree completely… No matter what level of disdain we are given… we should never return that evil…

It is how we respond to hatred that truly tests our Faith…

In Christ
The shame is to equate not carrying Catholic Bibles, or the strong believe that the Catholic canon is incorrect, as hatred.

Such thinking always belittles what true hatred really is and thus muddles the lines of morality.

Some people like to feel hated because it gives them the fuel they need for holding any particular position. Just a cursory look at our society today with all its “victim” classes plays this point out all the time.
 
Greetings everyone :tiphat: I don’t think it really matters whether the name Paul appears more in the Bible than Peter’s or vice versa. 🤷 It’s quality, not quantity.

I’ll leave it at that because I already have my hands full in other threads. I may be God’s gift to this forum :cool: , but I must admit that I have my limitations. 😦

God Bless,
Michael
 
Not carrying a catholic bible is not the hatred being displayed. Poor choice maybe, but a choice all the same. the problem comes in when those that run the store exhibit disdain for those that are catholic, and yes, it does border on hatred for some. Not all, but some.

Disagree is one thing. It is the way you present that disagreement that is important. If you completely disagree with the statement of another. fine… do so in a Christ like manner… Get huffy and holier than thou is NOT the proper way. Its not the disagreeing we are talking about. It is the way it is presented.

Catholics can be hated just like anyone else. Is that playing victim? no, I hate playing victim, just a statement of fact
 
Rom 12:17 “Do not repay anyone evil for evil”

1Th 5:15 “See that no one repays another with evil for evil”

1Pe 3:9 “Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling”
Satan, get behind me!
 
That is not enough exclusions.

Almost all of John refers to Peter as one name: “Simon Peter.”

I counted those as one mention of His person, because that is what it was.

Also, there are more "Simon"s that need to be removed from your counts. There are "Simon"s in the Gospels and Acts that need to be removed.

As I said, this cannot be done via computer, it must be done by hand, which I did.

The numbers I came up with remain true.

…
Atemi, read the posts I made. There is no need to do by hand. The search feature in E-sword gives both the verse count and the occurrence(hits).

Read the post Atemi. 200 verses with 244 hits. Do you know what that means? It means that of the 200 verses, at most 44 verses have 2 occurrences such as “Simon Peter” As I pointed out before 8 verses reference other Simons.

SO

192 distinct verses have either Peter, Simon, or Cephas or a combination of Peter Simon.

192 INDIVIDUAL VERSES.

SIMON, OR PETER OR CEPHAS APPEARS 236 TIMES WITHIN 192 VERSES!

WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

HERE ARE ALL 200 VERSES, CHECK THEM YOURSELF!

Mat_4:18; Mat_8:14; Mat_10:2; Mat_10:4; Mat_13:55; Mat_14:28; Mat_14:29; Mat_15:15; Mat_16:16; Mat_16:17; Mat_16:18; Mat_16:22; Mat_16:23; Mat_17:1; Mat_17:4; Mat_17:24; Mat_17:25; Mat_17:26; Mat_18:21; Mat_19:27; Mat_26:6; Mat_26:33; Mat_26:35; Mat_26:37; Mat_26:40; Mat_26:58; Mat_26:69; Mat_26:73; Mat_26:75; Mat_27:32; Mar_1:16; Mar_1:29; Mar_1:30; Mar_1:36; Mar_3:16; Mar_3:18; Mar_5:37; Mar_6:3; Mar_8:29; Mar_8:32; Mar_8:33; Mar_9:2; Mar_9:5; Mar_10:28; Mar_11:21; Mar_13:3; Mar_14:3; Mar_14:29; Mar_14:33; Mar_14:37; Mar_14:54; Mar_14:66; Mar_14:67; Mar_14:70; Mar_14:72; Mar_15:21; Mar_16:7; Luk_4:38; Luk_5:3; Luk_5:4; Luk_5:5; Luk_5:8; Luk_5:10; Luk_6:14; Luk_6:15; Luk_7:40; Luk_7:43; Luk_7:44; Luk_8:45; Luk_8:51; Luk_9:20; Luk_9:28; Luk_9:32; Luk_9:33; Luk_12:41; Luk_18:28; Luk_22:8; Luk_22:31; Luk_22:34; Luk_22:54; Luk_22:55; Luk_22:58; Luk_22:60; Luk_22:61; Luk_22:62; Luk_23:26; Luk_24:12; Luk_24:34; Joh_1:40; Joh_1:41; Joh_1:42; Joh_1:44; Joh_6:8; Joh_6:68; Joh_6:71; Joh_12:4; Joh_13:2; Joh_13:6; Joh_13:8; Joh_13:9; Joh_13:24; Joh_13:26; Joh_13:36; Joh_13:37; Joh_18:10; Joh_18:11; Joh_18:15; Joh_18:16; Joh_18:17; Joh_18:18; Joh_18:25; Joh_18:26; Joh_18:27; Joh_20:2; Joh_20:3; Joh_20:4; Joh_20:6; Joh_21:2; Joh_21:3; Joh_21:7; Joh_21:11; Joh_21:15; Joh_21:16; Joh_21:17; Joh_21:20; Joh_21:21; Act_1:13; Act_1:15; Act_2:14; Act_2:37; Act_2:38; Act_3:1; Act_3:3; Act_3:4; Act_3:6; Act_3:11; Act_3:12; Act_4:8; Act_4:13; Act_4:19; Act_5:3; Act_5:8; Act_5:9; Act_5:15; Act_5:29; Act_8:9; Act_8:13; Act_8:14; Act_8:18; Act_8:20; Act_8:24; Act_9:32; Act_9:34; Act_9:38; Act_9:39; Act_9:40; Act_9:43; Act_10:5; Act_10:6; Act_10:9; Act_10:13; Act_10:14; Act_10:17; Act_10:18; Act_10:19; Act_10:21; Act_10:23; Act_10:25; Act_10:26; Act_10:32; Act_10:34; Act_10:44; Act_10:45; Act_10:46; Act_11:2; Act_11:4; Act_11:7; Act_11:13; Act_12:3; Act_12:5; Act_12:6; Act_12:7; Act_12:11; Act_12:13; Act_12:14; Act_12:16; Act_12:18; Act_15:7; 1Co_1:12; 1Co_3:22; 1Co_9:5; 1Co_15:5; Gal_1:18; Gal_2:7; Gal_2:8; Gal_2:9; Gal_2:11; Gal_2:14; 1Pe_1:1; 2Pe_1:1;
 
Greetings everyone :tiphat: I don’t think it really matters whether the name Paul appears more in the Bible than Peter’s or vice versa. 🤷 It’s quality, not quantity.

I’ll leave it at that because I already have my hands full in other threads. I may be God’s gift to this forum :cool: , but I must admit that I have my limitations. 😦

God Bless,
Michael
So Peter is a higher quality of Apostle?

Is that what the Holy Spirit said?

Amazing.
 
So Peter is a higher quality of Apostle?

Is that what the Holy Spirit said?

Amazing.
In the sense that Jesus named Peter the rock, gave him the keys (Mt 16), and asked him to watch over the flock (Jn 21), sure. Absolutely.

Paul was a mighty evangelist, a great theologian, no question. But it wasn’t his calling to be the head of the Church.

Peter may have written little of the NT personally, but he was in charge nonetheless.

This is almost like asking a bunch of kids which of their parents they love the most - Mom or Dad. Mom takes care of them predominantly (be honest, guys), but Dad is still the boss (be honest, gals). So, Paul may have been planting more local Churches, but Peter was ultimately responsible for them all.

You disagree, of course, but that’s my take.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
**So Peter is a higher quality of Apostle?
Is that what the Holy Spirit said?**
In the sense that Jesus named Peter the rock, gave him the keys (Mt 16), and asked him to watch over the flock (Jn 21), sure. Absolutely.
And this is the problem. These events are misinterpreted over the centuries and then the true witness of the Scriptures is lost or ignored.

What did the Holy Spirit say of Paul?

2Cr 11:5 “not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.”

2Cr 12:11 “in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles”

**Not in the least…

In no respect…**

The Holy Spirit repeats Himself because He finds such a point that important.

And who would Catholics refer to as the most eminent Apostle?

Peter.

The Holy Spirit said Paul is in no respect inferior to Peter…or John…or James…

…
 
And this is the problem. These events are misinterpreted over the centuries and then the true witness of the Scriptures is lost or ignored.

What did the Holy Spirit say of Paul?

2Cr 11:5 “not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.”

2Cr 12:11 “in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles”
Not in the least…

In no respect…


The Holy Spirit repeats Himself because He finds such a point that important.

And who would Catholics refer to as the most eminent Apostle?

Peter.

The Holy Spirit said Paul is in no respect inferior to Peter…or John…or James…

…
Nor would I say that my wife is inferior to me. But I’m still the head of my house just as Peter was the head of the Church

But to provide some context for those less familiar with the Word of God:

"But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles. I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge.” (2 Co 11:5-6)

Was Peter a “trained speaker”? I seem to remember him as a fisherman, so it can’t be Peter.

No, Atemi, you might want to consider Apollos as a candidate for the smooth, polished apostle that had so delighted the Corinthians. He’s mentioned quite a few times in the first letter to the Corinthians…for example:

"4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men? 5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. (1 Co 3:4-6)

The Corinthians were so taken with Apollos that some of them claimed to be followers of Apollos even though Paul had "planted the seed’. He must have been some orator, huh?

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
Atemi, read the posts I made. There is no need to do by hand. The search feature in E-sword gives both the verse count and the occurrence(hits).
No, it must be done by hand…even with E-sword.
Read the post Atemi. 200 verses with 244 hits. Do you know what that means? It means that of the 200 verses, at most 44 verses have 2 occurrences such as “Simon Peter” As I pointed out before 8 verses reference other Simons.

SO

192 distinct verses have either Peter, Simon, or Cephas or a combination of Peter Simon.

192 INDIVIDUAL VERSES.

SIMON, OR PETER OR CEPHAS APPEARS 236 TIMES WITHIN 192 VERSES!

WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
There is no need to grow offensive. You have made some errors because you did not double check your work. This is why it must be done by hand.

You have not removed enough "Simon"s. E-sword will not remove them for you.

These are more "Simon"s that must be excluded:
  1. Simon the Apostle
  2. Simon of Cyrene
  3. Simon the leper
  4. Simon the father of Judas
  5. Simon, Jesus’ brother
  6. Simon the Pharisee
  7. Simon the tanner
  8. Simon the sorcerer
HERE ARE ALL 200 VERSES, CHECK THEM YOURSELF!
I already did: by hand.

If this is to be accurate at all, we cannot have computers do this.

…
 
duly noted.

But I will tend to the issue that of post #1 except you can deduct a dozen from Peter’s count.
 
I’m interested to see the final count…but let me understand this correctly.

Paul is arguably one of the greatest theologians of all time and he writes half the New Testament.

Peter is some dumb fishermen who denied Jesus three times.

And they’re still neck and neck in terms of frequency of mention?

Wow.

That Peter must have been one heck of a guy to rank with Paul!

😛
 
Yes he must have…:extrahappy:

The anti-christian(oops meant anti-catholic:D ) will also point out that Paul wrote more books than people. What they fail to understand is that Paul and Peter were two different types of people as Randy noted above.

Paul was at least a scribe if not a Pharisee. Before his conversion he had gone on a rampage of either murdering(more euphemistic term is execution) or imprisoning Christians. His authority had to come from the Pharisees and he had to have been known to be a ranking official through-out the known world in order for his Orders to be carried out.

Peter on the other hand was just a fisherman, which just the minimum reading and writing skills he acquired in his youth. He was not acustomed to reading and writing as someone of Paul’s position dictated.

Peter was more busy running the church from Rome doing such things as sending out the Apostles to different areas. Peter probably only wrote his Epistles because Paul’s writings were already beginning to be taken out of context because of the inherent “Pharisee Nature” of his writings. Peter even made the point of stating that Paul’s writings are hard to understand. So Peter provided some clarification on some issues. The Church also made the effort to place Peter’s, Jude’s, John’s, and James’ writings after Paul to help clear up any confustion.

Also Paul was preaching to the Pagan Gentiles who were a little reluctant to give up some pagan traditions. These issues got back to Paul, who was prompted to “Write to these Churches” because he may have not adequately taught the Gentiles in the first place. If he had preached to them in the manner of Christ instead of preaching in the manner of a Pharisee then the need of writing letters might never had come to fruition.

This makes it apparent why Jesus chose non-pharisees, non-scribes, and non-sadducess to be his Apostles initially. Imagine Jesus teaching the narrow minded Pharisees instead of ordinaries.

IMHO, there is only one reason Jesus appeared to Paul. Paul was on the verge of exterminating Christianity. If Jesus had not intervened, I doubt we would even be having this debate right now. Christianity would not have survived…
 
Nowhere shown to be the case in either Scripture or early history.

Peter was a leader in the early church, but there is nothing that says he was THE leader in the early church.

All that talk came later.
.
(Mt 16:13-20) start with verse 17: “Jesus said to him in reply, Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my heavenly Father

18 And so I say to YOU, YOU are PETER, and upon THIS ROCK I will build my Church, and the gates of the nether world will not prevail against it. 19 I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. What ever YOU bind on earth will be bound in Heaven; and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

When all 12 Apostles are named together Peter is always named first. Guess who is always named last, Judas. This is a measure of importance. Examples are (Mt 10:2-5; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13)

Also many times when they list the Apostles and they don’t list all of them, they say “Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” Examples are (Lk 9: 32) “Peter and his companions had been overcome by sleep……;” (Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37)

How do you explain this?
 
duly noted.

But I will tend to the issue that of post #1 except you can deduct a dozen from Peter’s count.
The numbers still remain.

You still have not shown your hand counted tally.

I took the time.

I took your replies seriously and double checked.

We are still at:
  • Paul: 187 mentions
  • Peter: 183 mentions
 
I’m interested to see the final count…but let me understand this correctly.

Paul is arguably one of the greatest theologians of all time and he writes half the New Testament.
Great theologian?

I would call Paul a lot of things, but a great theologian is not one of them.
Peter is some dumb fishermen who denied Jesus three times.
This is so utterly silly, that I really do not know how you expect anyone to reply to it.

Creating caricatures are too easy. No one I know ever held Peter in such low esteem. I bet no one you know does either.
And they’re still neck and neck in terms of frequency of mention?

Wow.

That Peter must have been one heck of a guy to rank with Paul!
Actually, if we count unique mentions, Paul is far out mentioned by the Holy Spirit.

Peter does have the benefit of his unique mentions being repeated about 4 times.

Paul only had single shots at mention for the most part.

Either way, though novel, this stuff is truly meaningless…except if you need to make papal claims.

…
 
Great theologian?

I would call Paul a lot of things, but a great theologian is not one of them.

This is so utterly silly, that I really do not know how you expect anyone to reply to it.
Then you’re saying it’s even sillier to respond? 🙂
Either way, though novel, this stuff is truly meaningless…except if you need to make papal claims.
No worries.

Our claims are made of much more potent stuff than this…
 
Actually, if we count unique mentions, Paul is far out mentioned by the Holy Spirit.
The holy spirit did not mentioned Paul or Saul. Luke, Paul, and Peter mentioned Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore as I stated before, 150ish were mentioned by Luke only in order to emphasize who said what since the latter half of Acts is about Paul’s travels and escapades. Paul is not mentioned in the same manner that Peter is in the Gospels and Acts. Paul does not speak for others in a group nor is he listed first in a group.

What is your definition of “Unique Mention”
 
Our claims are made of much more potent stuff than this…
But even 4/5 of the Catholic Church in 1054 didn’t even believe them.

How you expect non-Catholics to believe what 4/5 of the Catholic Church itself already rejected one thousand years ago is unreasonable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top