Peter and Paul

[reteeks21]

I have a couple questions. Since catholics believe that Peter was the first pope based on that chat he and Jesus had why is he not mentioned more in scripture?

Since the cc canonized the Bible why were Paul’s works put in there more than anyone else’s? Where there no other writings attributed to Peter at that time that were known to not be forgeries?

Why didn’t Paul ever mention Peter being the “rock”? Would it not stand to reason that if Peter were the “rock” the church was built on wouldn’t Paul say that? Would he not have mentioned his primacy?

Just some thoughts.

 

[ralphinal]

I have a couple questions. Since catholics believe that Peter was the first pope based on that chat he and Jesus had why is he not mentioned more in scripture?

Peter is mentioned more than all the other followers of Christ combind. He is even mentioned more than Mary. I think that his name appears 163 times, or something like that.

Since the cc canonized the Bible why were Paul’s works put in there more than anyone else’s? Where there no other writings attributed to Peter at that time that were known to not be forgeries?

Paul had a role of church-planter and spreader of the faith. As such he founded more Churches than Peter and thus had more people to write to. He also travelled far more and encountered more folks, again giving him more people to write to.

Why didn’t Paul ever mention Peter being the “rock”? Would it not stand to reason that if Peter were the “rock” the church was built on wouldn’t Paul say that? Would he not have mentioned his primacy?

Just some thoughts.

He called Peter “Cephus” which means "Rock.’ Further, he mentions going to Jerusalem to speak to him before he began his ministry.

 

[paarsurrey]

I have a couple questions. Since catholics believe that Peter was the first pope based on that chat he and Jesus had why is he not mentioned more in scripture?

Since the cc canonized the Bible why were Paul’s works put in there more than anyone else’s? Where there no other writings attributed to Peter at that time that were known to not be forgeries?

Why didn’t Paul ever mention Peter being the “rock”? Would it not stand to reason that if Peter were the “rock” the church was built on wouldn’t Paul say that? Would he not have mentioned his primacy?

Just some thoughts.

Hi

The true Christians, in my opinion, must believe what Jesus and Mary believed; and the true Christian should do what Jesus and Mary did and shouldn’t attend to Paul, who was an outright enemy of Jesus and his friends and the Rock, in my opinion, also betrayed at the hour of need, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

 

[reteeks21]

Peter is mentioned more than all the other followers of Christ combind. He is even mentioned more than Mary. I think that his name appears 163 times, or something like that.

Paul had a role of church-planter and spreader of the faith. As such he founded more Churches than Peter and thus had more people to write to. He also travelled far more and encountered more folks, again giving him more people to write to.

He called Peter “Cephus” which means "Rock.’ Further, he mentions going to Jerusalem to speak to him before he began his ministry.

Okay, I see the validity in your points. Believe it or not, I am trying to see this from a rc position. I know the dudes who canonized scripture were simply putting into book form what they already believe, but why not more stuff about or by Peter? I am not arguing AGAINST Peter at all. I am just wondering why the dudes who considered Peter the first pope didn’t put him in there a little more. Was it because they just assumed everyone already knew that?

Here’s another one. I know the arguement over the Greek and Aramiac translations regarding Peter being the “rock”; I got that. But why did the fellas NOT canonize something so important in the original language? Why put it in something that was the opposite in translation? That doesn’t make much sense to me.

 

[Evan]

Here’s another one. I know the arguement over the Greek and Aramiac translations regarding Peter being the “rock”; I got that. But why did the fellas NOT canonize something so important in the original language? Why put it in something that was the opposite in translation? That doesn’t make much sense to me.

Peter is called the Rock (Cephas or Petros) is from the Gospel of Matthew (16:18)… Which was written in Aramaic (probably), although we no longer have a copy in the original language.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Eusebius (Church History III.24.6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be home in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.

It was the gospel that was cannonized, not a particular translation. So the aramaic, greek, syriac, … are not the canonized gospel, it is the Word of God that is cannonized.

We try to get an English translation using all available expressions. When it comes to a particular word, how are we to translate a meaning except by using words in the target language. Because Greek is not Aramaic, the translators did what they could.

 

[ralphinal]

Okay, I see the validity in your points. Believe it or not, I am trying to see this from a rc position. I know the dudes who canonized scripture were simply putting into book form what they already believe, but why not more stuff about or by Peter? I am not arguing AGAINST Peter at all. I am just wondering why the dudes who considered Peter the first pope didn’t put him in there a little more. Was it because they just assumed everyone already knew that?

Here’s another one. I know the arguement over the Greek and Aramiac translations regarding Peter being the “rock”; I got that. But why did the fellas NOT canonize something so important in the original language? Why put it in something that was the opposite in translation? That doesn’t make much sense to me.

Evan hit on a good point. The other issue is that the Gospels may not have ever been written in Aramaic. John and Luke were, as far as I know, only in Greek. The other two, to my knowledge, were as well.

I did not think that you were attacking the Catholic position. What you asked is a good question for discussion

 

[reteeks21]

Evan hit on a good point. The other issue is that the Gospels may not have ever been written in Aramaic. John and Luke were, as far as I know, only in Greek. The other two, to my knowledge, were as well.

I did not think that you were attacking the Catholic position. What you asked is a good question for discussion

I guess it just seems to me that if it is THAT important of a thing, you (the writers and/or those that did the canonizing) would make SURE there was no confusion.

 

[ralphinal]

I guess it just seems to me that if it is THAT important of a thing, you (the writers and/or those that did the canonizing) would make SURE there was no confusion.

Would you say that Jesus being God is more important?

Would you say that the proper understanding of the Trinity is more important?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have a couple questions. Since catholics believe that Peter was the first pope based on that chat he and Jesus had why is he not mentioned more in scripture?

Since the cc canonized the Bible why were Paul’s works put in there more than anyone else’s? Where there no other writings attributed to Peter at that time that were known to not be forgeries?

Why didn’t Paul ever mention Peter being the “rock”?

Because he knew that Christ was, as in 1 Cor.10.4 ? **FWIW, Peter was never a Pope: the use of the title implies a degree of development & organisation in the Church that came only much later; it is misleading & inaccurate to apply it to Church matters as they stood in the first century. It would be like calling Titus a Vicar Apostolic or Mark a Patriarch; all of this also came much later. **​

Would it not stand to reason that if Peter were the “rock” the church was built on wouldn’t Paul say that? Would he not have mentioned his primacy?

Just some thoughts.

**The NT is not intended to be complete - the letters are occasional productions, writen to meet specific needs. As for primacy, Christ was the Primate over all things for St. Paul. As applied to rank in the Church, the only “****rank” ****he knew was that of love; haggling ****between very-high ranking bishops over who is top bishop could not happen until there were very-high ranking bishops to do the haggling. In the first century, none of that ****had ****developed - the Church was too small to need bishops over bishops, & ****more bishops over them. **​

**All this nonsense of vying for pre-eminence & domi****nion in the Church would surely have appalled this Apostle. ****Peter’s “primacy” & following of Christ was best expressed when he died a death like his Master’s - any other kind of primacy is so much trash. Peter was in that sense the only ****Pope ever. **

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I guess it just seems to me that if it is THAT important of a thing, you (the writers and/or those that did the canonizing) would make SURE there was no confusion.

The new testament is a testimony to the truth, not an exposition.

Jesus founded a Church, he didn’t write a book.

The early Church accepted the papacy.

Don’t you think that the early popes’ exercise of authority would have led to protests unless Christians acknowledged his role?

 

[reteeks21]

The new testament is a testimony to the truth, not an exposition.

Jesus founded a Church, he didn’t write a book.

The early Church accepted the papacy.

Don’t you think that the early popes’ exercise of authority would have led to protests unless Christians acknowledged his role?

I am not sure if I am being explicit enough, or if I am just dense. I KNOW that the early fellas had NO problem with it. I was just curious as to know why they would use a different translation that could (and obviously has) cause confusion. The only reason I ask this question is that this is an issue I am struggling to come to terms with. I just don’t understand why the Greek would not have said it, or that they would not have found a way to make sure there was no confusion.

And I figured Paul would have no problem mentioning Peter’s place of “authority” especially since Peter was given the keys before Paul was converted. That’s all I’m saying.

Note: My father-in-law, who is a Baptist minister, had some folks put up a Christmas tree in church. One Sunday I noticed that the symbols on it were all Catholic in origin. It took all I had NOT to laugh out loud in church. They had the Keys symbol that is onthe Vatican flag all over the tree! How crazy is THAT?!

 

[Genesis315]

Peter is mentioned a ton in the Gospels and Acts; he is always placed first, and sometimes it even just says “Peter and the Apostles” or “Peter and the Eleven.” Peter also answers questions addressed to the Twelve.

Paul calls him Cephas, which means rock. Paul was also a “second generation” Apostle, so to speak, along with Barnabas. He clearly was sent by Peter and other Apostles. He looked to especially Peter, James, and John, as his superiors (even though they were all Apostles). In fact, Paul calls himself the least Apostle.

Also, total amount of writings does not make one leader of the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote more than all the Pope he lived under combined. Similarly, of the 33 Doctors of the Church, only two were Popes.

 

[ralphinal]

Would you say that Jesus being God is more important?

Would you say that the proper understanding of the Trinity is more important?

Just to be sure that you did not miss these questions.

 

[Ruthie]

Here’s another one. I know the arguement over the Greek and Aramiac translations regarding Peter being the “rock”; I got that. But why did the fellas NOT canonize something so important in the original language? Why put it in something that was the opposite in translation? That doesn’t make much sense to me.

OK, just to be certain, you already understand that, in Aramaic, there is no difference between Kepha the name and kepha, a rock. And that the difference in Greek is a matter of gender; petra, the feminine, being changed into a masculine form to name Petros, the rock.

So how did we wind up with Peter?

A simple answer is that it is the English version of Petros. Somewhere, before the Bible was ever translated into English, the name Peter had evolved from the Latin Petrus. It’s even in the earliest English Bible, from the 1300’s:

And I saye also vnto the yt thou arte Peter: and apon this rocke I wyll bylde my congregacion.

“Peter” is so widely understood, throughout the NT, to mean Peter that it would be quite difficult to change. Sure, we could go through all our Bibles and change “Peter” to “Rock.” but we’d still have to contend with common knowledge. Ask any Catholic who the first Pope was, and they’ll say “Peter.” Ask any Christian who the Apostles were, and they’ll include Peter, not “Rock.”

After all, all those English speakers who named their children after the Apostle Peter can’t be wrong, right?

Blessings,

Ruthie

 

[reteeks21]

OK, just to be certain, you already understand that, in Aramaic, there is no difference between Kepha the name and kepha, a rock. And that the difference in Greek is a matter of gender; petra, the feminine, being changed into a masculine form to name Petros, the rock.

So how did we wind up with Peter?

A simple answer is that it is the English version of Petros. Somewhere, before the Bible was ever translated into English, the name Peter had evolved from the Latin Petrus. It’s even in the earliest English Bible, from the 1300’s:
“Peter” is so widely understood, throughout the NT, to mean Peter that it would be quite difficult to change. Sure, we could go through all our Bibles and change “Peter” to “Rock.” but we’d still have to contend with common knowledge. Ask any Catholic who the first Pope was, and they’ll say “Peter.” Ask any Christian who the Apostles were, and they’ll include Peter, not “Rock.”

After all, all those English speakers who named their children after the Apostle Peter can’t be wrong, right?

Blessings,

Ruthie

I THINK I see what you are saying. If Peter was the “rock” the church was built on, why didn’t Jesus say “and on YOU (Peter) I will build my church”? I’m not trying to be hard-headed. I just want to genuinely GET this.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**The true Christians, in my opinion, must believe what Jesus and Mary believed; and the true Christian should do what Jesus and Mary did and shouldn’t attend to Paul, who was an outright enemy of Jesus and his friends and the Rock, in my opinion, also betrayed at the hour of need, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.**

**But you DON’T believe what either Jesus or Mary believed, paarsurrey.

And the Jesus and Mary you claim to love are not the real ones, but entities you’ve made up out of your own head.

So your “opinion” about what make true Christians doesn’t matter.**