Paul Did NOT See Peter as Head of the Church

[Mystophilus]

It is against forum rules to doubt the sincerity of a member’s posts, Mystophilus.

Just a FYI.

I am not doubting the *sincerity *of your posts. I am, however, noticing that you are dismissing what I say as irrelevant to your interests (“I’m not that interested in reading about Anglicanism which may not even represent your theology”), and thus trying to force the conversation in a particular direction, which is an interrogation, not a dialogue, and that you are persistently not listening to what I say.

I shall, therefore, stop speaking.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not doubting the *sincerity *of your posts. I am, however, noticing that you are dismissing what I say as irrelevant to your interests (“I’m not that interested in reading about Anglicanism which may not even represent your theology”), and thus trying to force the conversation in a particular direction, which is an interrogation, not a dialogue, and that you are persistently not listening to what I say.

I shall, therefore, stop speaking.

As you wish.

 

[PRmerger]

And that’s what we call the fallacy of the excluded middle.

If I couldn’t name a belief which I had changed to conform with God’s view, that could mean a/ that God agrees with everything I think, or b/ that I know that God disagrees, but I continue to believe what I believe, or c/ that I do not know what God thinks.

Ignoring b/ and c/ in order to presume a/ is illogical. Ignoring b/ and c/ to presume a/ when I have already stated that I believe myself to be wrong much of the time either ignores that previous statement or presumes that I believe God to be wrong much of the time. As a final comment, I will note that the last presumption would be inaccurate.

None of the options that Mystophilus offers are desirable for Christians.

Esp. B, the “excluded middle”, which is astonishing that any Believer would actually consider that option.

As far as C…well, that’s a rather illogical option for a Believer to embrace. One believes because one has knowledge of what one believes. Otherwise, it’s simply Fideism which one is embracing…and that makes no sense for folks who are presenting apologia for their beliefs.

 

[stewstew03]

And that’s what we call the fallacy of the excluded middle.

If I couldn’t name a belief which I had changed to conform with God’s view, that could mean a/ that God agrees with everything I think, or b/ that I know that God disagrees, but I continue to believe what I believe, or c/ that I do not know what God thinks.

Ignoring b/ and c/ in order to presume a/ is illogical. Ignoring b/ and c/ to presume a/ when I have already stated that I believe myself to be wrong much of the time either ignores that previous statement or presumes that I believe God to be wrong much of the time. As a final comment, I will note that the last presumption would be inaccurate.

And that’s what we call the Fallacy of Suppressed evidence. PR obviously was operating under the assumption that ‘b’ would be out of the question for a professed believer (even an Anglican). You know that God disagrees with [fill in the blank], and yet you would continue to believe to the contrary?? Yikes!

Prayers for you Mystophilus… sincerely.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And that’s what we call the Fallacy of Suppressed evidence. PR obviously was operating under the assumption that ‘b’ would be out of the question for a professed believer (even an Anglican). You know that God disagrees with [fill in the blank], and yet you would continue to believe to the contrary?? Yikes!

Prayers for you Mystophilus… sincerely.

Isn’t option “b” what mortal sin is?

Doing exactly what God disagrees with in full knowledge?

 

[YADA]

Palope and yourself are getting it wrong.

The argument is that from Paul’s letters there is nothing to indicate that he thought anything special of Peter. Any argument that he did would be an argument from silence.

The ample amount of times Peter is mentioned (whether negatively or positively) Paul never once takes a moment to acknowledge that Peter is somehow the greatest Apostle. Instead Paul speaks of people like yourselves who make claims about “following Peter” when we all follow Christ.

There is not one tiny hint that Paul taught Peter’s supremacy.

There are arguments from Matthew and history; but not at all from Paul. Not one bit. I’m surprised at the straws being grasped to try and prove so.

The idea that Paul did not acknowledge Peter’s primacy is also an argument from silence … Paul never says that …

Perhaps if Paul was writing for the purpose of the organization of the Church structure and the organization chart - he would have not have forgotten to make clear references to Peter’s primacy - fact or fiction.

However, Peter was not the subject of Paul’s writings … though there is some mention of the organization and various roles - the primary focus [and references to same] are related to the problems in local communities … even those epistles [called catholic] not attributed to Paul directly are focused on problems, issues and local communities …

The other focus Paul has is in overcoming opposition and distrust related to hos own role … he was accused of mishandling funds donated, not being a ‘real’ apostle and dislike due to his personally persecuting the Church …

Far better to look at the scripture Jesus quoted when Jesus made Peter His Royal Steward and changed Simon’s name to Rock …

And though some have tried to claim Paul’s name was changed from Saul … Jesus did not change Paul’s name … Peter joins many others who had God specifically change their name precisely so they could fulfill an important role in salvation history.

 

[stewstew03]

Isn’t option “b” what mortal sin is?

Doing exactly what God disagrees with in full knowledge?

Indeed…

 

[MartinJordan]

I follow Christ…DId Paul say one shouldn’t?

MJ

 

[Mystophilus]

And that’s what we call the Fallacy of Suppressed evidence.

Actually, no: far from selectively presenting only a limited and convenient sample of the available data, which is what the fallacy of suppressed evidence is, I was presenting a range of possible cases, and thus demonstrating the illogicality of the presumption that there was only one option.

Prayers for you Mystophilus… sincerely.

I will presume that that was charitably meant as a “May God bless you”, and not judgementally as a Christian euphemism for “You need help”, and will thus thank you accordingly.

 

[Mystophilus]

Isn’t option “b” what mortal sin is?

Doing exactly what God disagrees with in full knowledge?

I believe that, so long as it concerns “a grave matter”, it fits the criteria, yes.

It is rather more common than some people seem willing to admit, however.

 

[benhur]

Interesting you would choose that passage.
Let’s place the emphasis on that passage where it should be

What “you say” must be in context of who “I am”.
And please note the setting of this question. This question is posed to the community, not to individuals in an exclusively personal sense. He is not asking Peter for his individualist expression of who Jesus is. When Jesus asks for “your” affirmation of faith, he is addressing the small community of disciples. This becomes the setting for Christ’s appeal to authoritative expression of truth.

Hi Clem . Yes and no . He asks “men” not the Pharisees, not the Saduccees, not the Sanhedrin, not the high priest but “men”. Now of course all those I listed are comprised of men, and all are in the community, God’s community, counterpart of our Church, Israel/Judaism, and He came to and for and thru that community…

I really see it as an individual question/ response besides community. The apostles answer with “some say”. I am sure one rabbi says this and another that . Maybe even one Pharisee this and another that etc etc.

The question is the posed to the apostles and of course they were apostles , but men first, individuals first, and also apostles of Jesus in the Judeo community, each to answer as he saw fit.

When Peter takes Christ aside to rebuke him with his private understanding, Christ rebukes him while gazing on the community!

I understand what you mean by private, as apart from God. But I also see his non-private correct response as apart from the magisterium, apart from the Sanhedrin, and many Pharisees.

Private is apart from God, not apart from what others may say or not say.

The community and its institutions as a whole were apart from God, had it wrong, had private answers,fleshly, on this issue of who Christ was. But certainly individuals within that community and institutions had it right, though very few at first.

Who is the “I Am” of Jesus’ question?
He is the way, the truth, the life. He is the source of a community. Christ asks Peter to give truthful expression to His person, but only in the context of His community, not his personal ramblings.

Do not follow. The question was to Peter, as he was, as he felt, as he thought, as he believed, as a man, as an apostle, as a Jew, etc…

We cannot know who Christ is outside his Mystical Body. (this is not a mandate to be explicitly Catholic, but an observation that Christ acts through His Body, by definition of his Incarnation).

Just remember that the OT “body”/Israel was not on target, and divine revelation, individual divine revelation was the key, for the individual as well as the community as a whole as it always has been.

Christ reveals himself incarnate, in the flesh. To become flesh is to become part of the human community. Christ becoming part of the human community propels us toward unity even while we are scattered.

don’t get the third sentence . Christ draws, calls out (ecclesia) men to His Body, but also others stumble away.,

Authority is exercised in the context of His Body which accepts this unique charism as his grace, not the yoke of slavery.

Amen

 

[Tomyris]

The idea that Paul did not acknowledge Peter’s primacy is also an argument from silence … Paul never says that …

Perhaps if Paul was writing for the purpose of the organization of the Church structure and the organization chart - he would have not have forgotten to make clear references to Peter’s primacy - fact or fiction.

In places he was. 1 Cor 12:28, for example, and Ephesians 5.

However, Peter was not the subject of Paul’s writings … though there is some mention of the organization and various roles - the primary focus [and references to same] are related to the problems in local communities … even those epistles [called catholic] not attributed to Paul directly are focused on problems, issues and local communities …

As with the Romans? Curious that Peter is not mentioned in Romans 1. The epistle is to the Romans, not to its ‘bishop Peter’. As they knew each other, it is quite striking. And Peter is not mentioned in the greetings in the final chapter.

The other focus Paul has is in overcoming opposition and distrust related to hos own role … he was accused of mishandling funds donated,

where?

not being a ‘real’ apostle and dislike due to his personally persecuting the Church …

Far better to look at the scripture Jesus quoted when Jesus made Peter His Royal Steward and changed Simon’s name to Rock …

That is another thread.

And though some have tried to claim Paul’s name was changed from Saul … Jesus did not change Paul’s name … Peter joins many others who had God specifically change their name precisely so they could fulfill an important role in salvation history.

Have you read Acts?

Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,

Acts 13:9. Apparently the Holy Spirit changing someone’s name is insufficient for you? Are you saying Paul had no important role to fulfill in salvation history? I have encountered non-Pauline Messianic Jews who would agree with you here, but I think that idea is incompatible with Catholicism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Curious that Peter is not mentioned in Romans 1. The epistle is to the Romans, not to its ‘bishop Peter’. As they knew each other, it is quite striking. And Peter is not mentioned in the greetings in the final chapter. where?

Was Peter actually in Rome at the time wrote this letter? Scholars date the writing of Romans somewhere between late 55 and early 57.

AD 43-49 - Peter was in Rome. All the Jews were expelled from Rome in AD 49,

AD 49 - In Jerusalem for the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) in AD 49. Then Peter left for “another place” - Antioch.

AD 49-54 - In Antioch.

AD 54/55 - Peter returns to Rome.

At the time of Paul’s letter to the Romans, Peter may have been there…in which case, would Paul have wanted to put that into writing which may have fallen into Roman hands? Or in an age when communication was difficult, did Paul even know that Peter had returned to Rome?

Finally, does Paul allude to Peter’s missionary efforts in the following passage?

Romans 15
18 I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done— 19 by the power of signs and wonders, through the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. 20 It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.

Who had been preaching in Rome to the extent that Paul did not want to build upon that man’s foundation? Apollos? Or Peter?

Have you read Acts? Acts 13:9. Apparently the Holy Spirit changing someone’s name is insufficient for you?

Yes, I have read Acts many times.

Many people had a Jewish name as well as a Roman name. Saul of Tarsus was a Roman citizen and may have gone by the name of Paul in his dealings with officials of the Empire. Thus, Paul was not a God-ordained name change.

Simon’s name was changed to Kepha/Cephas/Rock/Peter by Jesus. (cf. Mt. 16:18-19)

 

[benhur]

Was Peter actually in Rome at the time wrote this letter? Scholars date the writing of Romans somewhere between late 55 and early 57.

AD 43-49 - Peter was in Rome. All the Jews were expelled from Rome in AD 49,

AD 49 - In Jerusalem for the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) in AD 49. Then Peter left for “another place” - Antioch.

AD 49-54 - In Antioch.

AD 54/55 - Peter returns to Rome.

At the time of Paul’s letter to the Romans, Peter may have been there…in which case, would Paul have wanted to put that into writing which may have fallen into Roman hands? Or in an age when communication was difficult, did Paul even know that Peter had returned to Rome?

Finally, does Paul allude to Peter’s missionary efforts in the following passage?

Romans 15
18 I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done— 19 by the power of signs and wonders, through the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. 20 It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.

Who had been preaching in Rome to the extent that Paul did not want to build upon that man’s foundation? Apollos? Or Peter?

Yes, I have read Acts many times.

Many people had a Jewish name as well as a Roman name. Saul of Tarsus was a Roman citizen and may have gone by the name of Paul in his dealings with officials of the Empire. Thus, Paul was not a God-ordained name change.

Simon’s name was changed to Kepha/Cephas/Rock/Peter by Jesus. (cf. Mt. 16:18-19)

Randy, not sure I asked before but when was Peter’s name changed, at he very beginning or later in the gospels?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, not sure I asked before but when was Peter’s name changed, at he very beginning or later in the gospels?

John 2.

Or Matthew 16.

 

[dronald]

The idea that Paul did not acknowledge Peter’s primacy is also an argument from silence … Paul never says that …

I disagree…

1 Corin 3:4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?

5** What then is Apollos? What is Paul?** Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building…

21 So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

It’s not an argument from silence because Paul wrote explicitly on Cephas and never stopped the confusion by saying “But Peter is slightly greater than I, and the others.” Rather he says the opposite… Paul clearly had no idea if you read his writings.

Perhaps if Paul was writing for the purpose of the organization of the Church structure and the organization chart - he would have not have forgotten to make clear references to Peter’s primacy - fact or fiction.

However, Peter was not the subject of Paul’s writings … though there is some mention of the organization and various roles - the primary focus [and references to same] are related to the problems in local communities … even those epistles [called catholic] not attributed to Paul directly are focused on problems, issues and local communities …

Obviously the Catholic Church is then over emphasizing the Bishop of Rome’s primacy if Paul had absolutely no interest in it when setting up the roles of the Church.

The biggest thing for the CC is that everyone recognizes that the Bishop of Rome is number 1; and yet Paul had nothing to say on that matter. In fact, quite the opposite as I have proven.

 

[YADA]

I disagree…

1 Corin 3:4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?

5** What then is Apollos? What is Paul?** Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building…

21 So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

It’s not an argument from silence because Paul wrote explicitly on Cephas and never stopped the confusion by saying “But Peter is slightly greater than I, and the others.” Rather he says the opposite… Paul clearly had no idea if you read his writings.

Perhaps if Paul was writing for the purpose of the organization of the Church structure and the organization chart - he would have not have forgotten to make clear references to Peter’s primacy - fact or fiction.

Obviously the Catholic Church is then over emphasizing the Bishop of Rome’s primacy if Paul had absolutely no interest in it when setting up the roles of the Church.

The biggest thing for the CC is that everyone recognizes that the Bishop of Rome is number 1; and yet Paul had nothing to say on that matter. In fact, quite the opposite as I have proven.

I disagree … it was to Peter that Paul went to make sure he was teaching an authentic Gospel.

The focus of Pauls’ writings was to the body of the Church … the people - the followers who were coming to grips with living the “Way” as a follower of Christ // his focus was not to write a primer on the Royal Steward - Peter - the Rock upon which Jesus established His Church.

Paul is the Roman equivalent of Saul - not a God given name Change like Abram to Abraham and Simon to Peter … in fact the only direct address of God to Paul - he is referred to as Saul in Acts … nowhere does God refer to Paul as Paul.

I read the scriptures … you may read them and interpret them differently than I do … what’s to say your understanding is any better then mine?

Jesus quotes Isaiah almost word for word when he make Jesus the Royal Steward of His Perpetual Davidic Kingdom … you ignore and argue with … Peter and Peter alone received the “Keys” of that office … Paul never held them nor any of the other Apostles … only Peter and Peter’s successor

Jesus prayed specifically and singularly for Peter three times and gave Peter a specific mission related to the caring for and strengthening the Church - both its people and its leadership …

Peter is identified far more by name then any of the other Apostles

You read the scriptures and force your interpretation [non-Catholic] on them … I understand that … though I have to say - Protestant arguments like yours and their various disagreements and differences in belief between the various Protestant Christian traditions [Mainline, Evangelical and Bible Believing] followed by an in depth study of the Scriptures in totality - Hebrew Texts and New Testament - and in context and within the cultural Jewish society along with the early Christian writings is exactly why I am a Catholic Christian today … along with a great deal of prayer … I have great respect for my early Christian experience and exposure to the love of Christ I received there … but there is much division and even moral relativism that exists there … Jesus is not the Lord of confusion and evolving truth … Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow … The Church is in its foundation the same today as when it was founded … sadly Protestantism cannot say that

 

[benhur]

John 2.

Or Matthew 16.

That is what I thought .Thanks, was John 2 at the beginning of ministry when he chose the apostles , earlier than Mat 16, or is John 2 referring to Mat 16 , as far as timeline ?

 

[dronald]

That is what I thought .Thanks, was John 2 at the beginning of ministry when he chose the apostles , earlier than Mat 16, or is John 2 referring to Mat 16 , as far as timeline ?

John 2 came first; even prior to their meeting in the boat.

 

[benhur]

John 2 came first; even prior to their meeting in the boat.

But it was future tense (John 1:42) ? Apparently deserving of it in Mat 16 ? Jesus otherwise called him Simon, even after Mat 16