Peter and Paul?

[4givemeasinner]

As Catholics we have primacy of Peter, etc. obviously Peter is an important guy (<understatement). But why is so much of the NT by Paul? I don’t know I’ve just always wondered.

 

[dronald]

It’s a 2000 year old problem that Paul didn’t agree with:

1 corin 1:12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul, " or "I follow Apollos, " or "I follow Cephas, " or "I follow Christ. "

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,

15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.

16 ( I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else. )

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

 

[TimothyH]

Peter was a fisherman.

Paul, on the other hand, was a highly educated scholar and rabbi, a master of the Old Testament scriptures who studied under Rabbi Gamaliel. Gamaliel is a towering figure in rabbinical Judaism and wrote of Paul that he was a prodigy. Paul spoke at least three languages - Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and probably spoke Aramaic.

Given the two men it is easy to see how the latter would write more.

-Tim-

 

[Protector]

4givemeasinner;11150595]As Catholics we have primacy of Peter, etc. obviously Peter is an important guy (<understatement). **But why is so much of the NT by Paul? ** I don’t know I’ve just always wondered.

Could have something to do with Paul being the Apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter being the Apostle to the Jews. However, Peter did preach to Cornelius and his household in obedience to a vision.

***"By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name; "***Romans 1:5 (D-R)

and,

***“Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God. For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,” *** Rom. 15:15-18 (KJV)

Protector.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Paul was a missionary and was establishing churches all over the place, in which most of his writing were written to those churches and to their pastors, while Peter was the Roman Pontiff, which the need for writing so many letters would have been something Paul would have had a greater demand to supply rather than Peter. It has nothing to do with importance, rather it was all about what their jobs demanded. I imagine their are clergy in the Church that write more than the Pope while the Pope is in charge of governing the Church.

 

[Protector]

COPLAND 3;11151509] Paul was a missionary and was establishing churches all over the place, in which most of his writing were written to those churches and to their pastors, while Peter was the Roman Pontiff, which the need for writing so many letters would have been something Paul would have had a greater demand to supply rather than Peter. It has nothing to do with importance, rather it was all about what their jobs demanded.

I imagine their are clergy in the Church that write more than the Pope while the Pope is in charge of governing the Church.

Therefore, as “governor of the Church” he would not take orders from anyone correct? So how do we explain the following:-

“Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they **sent Peter **and John to them.”

The biblehub.com commentary has it as follows:-

Pulpit Commentary:
“Verse 14. - The apostles (see ver. 1). They sent unto them Peter and John. The selection of these two chief apostles shows the great importance attached to the conversion of the Samaritans. The joint act of the college of apostles in sending them demonstrates that Peter was not a pope, but a brother apostle, albeit their primate; and that the government of the Church was in the apostolate, not in one of the number.”

Protector.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Therefore, as “governor of the Church” he would not take orders from anyone correct? So how do we explain the following:-

The biblehub.com commentary has it as follows:-

Protector.

Being Pope means you are the head pastor of the Church, not a tyranical dictator, but a servant the way that Christ taught, as Christ Himself who is God in the flesh came to serve.

 

[Protector]

COPLAND 3;11153230]Being Pope means you are the head pastor of the Church, not a tyranical dictator, but a servant the way that Christ taught, as Christ Himself who is God in the flesh came to serve.

Certainly true of recent popes COPLAND, but history tells us that it was not all “sweetness and light”. Nonetheless, a pope **SENDS **emissaries, he is not SENT by his subordinates. But we digress.

I think that the answer to the OP’s question is, (as you have said) Paul started more churches than any of the other apostles, and as he had stated an aversion to building on the foundation of others he would have taken the responsibility of keeping in constant communication with those churches that he had started.

"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:" Romans 15:20 (KJV, D-R et al)

So, shall I state the obvious here (without meaning to ofend), because Paul wrote that to the Romans, that does seem to indicate that he started the Church at Rome.

Protector.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Certainly true of recent popes COPLAND, but history tells us that it was not all “sweetness and light”. Nonetheless, a pope **SENDS **emissaries, he is not SENT by his subordinates. But we digress.

I think that the answer to the OP’s question is, (as you have said) Paul started more churches than any of the other apostles, and as he had stated an aversion to building on the foundation of others he would have taken the responsibility of keeping in constant communication with those churches that he had started.

"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:" Romans 15:20 (KJV, D-R et al)

So, shall I state the obvious here (without meaning to ofend), because Paul wrote that to the Romans, that does seem to indicate that he started the Church at Rome.

Protector.

No doubt that the spirit of Judas has been among some of the clergy of the Church and even some popes, but that does not invalidate anything, no more than a percentage of Christians are bad Christians invalidating Christianity. You appear to be trying to subtlety sneak a subject into this thread that is your agenda and not of the OP.

As for who founded the church of Rome, St. Irenaeus says it was Peter and Paul.

Here is what the Douay-Rheims Study Bible has concerning Acts 8:14

Some Protestants use this place to prove Peter not to be head of the Apostles, because he and John were sent by the Twelve, by which reason they might as well conclude he was not equal to the rest, for commonly the Master sends the man, and the Superior the inferior, when the word of sending is exactly used. But it is not always so taken in the Scriptures, for then could not the Son be sent by the Father, nor the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son: nor otherwise in common use of the world, seeing the inferior or equal may entreat his friend or superior to do his business for him, and especially a body Politic or a Corporation may by election or otherwise choose their Head and send him, so may the Citizens send their Mayor to the Prince or Parliament, though he be the head of the city, because he may be more fit to do their business, also the superior or equal may be sent by his own consent or desire. Lastly, the College of the Apostles comprising Peter with the rest, as every such body implies both the head and the members, was greater than Peter their head alone, as the Prince and Parliament is greater than the Prince alone. And so Peter might be sent as by authority of the whole College, notwithstanding he were the head of the same.

 

[Protector]

COPLAND 3;11156977] No doubt that the spirit of Judas has been among some of the clergy of the Church and even some popes, but that does not invalidate anything, no more than a percentage of Christians are bad Christians invalidating Christianity.

I totally agree COPLAND - I had expressed the same sentiment in a different thread when I was defending the reputation of Opus Dei.

You appear to be trying to subtlety sneak a subject into this thread that is your agenda and not of the OP.

Not so COPLAND - subtlety is definitely not one of my attributes (I’m not that intelligent), with me, “what you see is what you get”

As for who founded the church of Rome, St. Irenaeus says it was Peter and Paul.

Strange that St Iranaeus should have said that since it is nowhere stated positively in the NT. However, I accept your statement.

Now then, what of the OP’s question - has it been adequately answered?

Protector.

 

[gus]

As Catholics we have primacy of Peter, etc. obviously Peter is an important guy (<understatement). But why is so much of the NT by Paul? I don’t know I’ve just always wondered.

Maybe because his writings were very early and recopied enough to make them available. Also since they are not a direct witness to Christ they offer a supliment to the Gospels.
Peter was probably illiterate as were most of the apostles.
there testimony is the oral form, teaching generations.

 

[gus]

Peter is the prime source of Marks Gospel also
a prime source for the book of Acts.
There is no way a man like Luke wouldn’t have sought out Peter.Luke was a meticulous historian.
Just because they didn’t write doesn’t mean they weren’t influential. Christianity was primalarily orally transmitted using the master deciple tradition.
Writings only become important when you can’t go to a Peter, John, or Thomas or one of their direct decipals

 

[COPLAND_3]

Strange that St Iranaeus should have said that since it is nowhere stated positively in the NT. However, I accept your statement.

Protector.

Not so strange since Irenaeus was taught by St. Polycarp, and Polycarp was taught by the Apostle John. There is a lot that we know from the men who were taught by the Apostles and those who succeeded them, such as what the Early Church believed and things that happened. Keep in mind that Christianity did not come from the New Testament, but the New Testament is a product of Christianity, and those books were defined as canonical and inspired by the Catholic Church.

 

[kentuckyliz]

Pitting Paul and Peter against each other is a false dichotomy.

Peter was the first to go to the Gentiles (Cornelius) and the church at Rome had both Gentiles and Jews, so it is too sharp of a distinction to say that one was for the Jews and one was for the Gentiles.

 

[Bookcat]

As Catholics we have primacy of Peter, etc. obviously Peter is an important guy (<understatement). But why is so much of the NT by Paul? I don’t know I’ve just always wondered.

He did a lot of letters

 

[Randy_Carson]

"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:" Romans 15:20 (KJV, D-R et al)

So, shall I state the obvious here (without meaning to ofend), because Paul wrote that to the Romans, that does seem to indicate that he started the Church at Rome.

Protector.

Not even close.

Who is Paul writing to? The Church in Rome! And yet, Paul had never even been there. So, how could he have been the founder of that Church? Expanding the passage you quoted for context we see the following:

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. 21 Rather, as it is written:

“Those who were not told about him will see,
and those who have not heard will understand.”[g]
22 This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you.

Paul’s Plan to Visit Rome

23 But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to visit you, 24 I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to see you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while.

Peter had been to Rome, but even more likely is the fact that many from Rome were probably in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when the Spirit fell and 3,000 were added to the church in one day. When they went home, they took the gospel with them.

Later, Peter went to Rome. How do we know? Well, aside from the fact that half a dozen or more Early Church Fathers tells that he did, Peter himself tells us:

“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox).

Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1).

Eusebius Pamphilius, in History of the Church, composed between the years 300 and 325 AD, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon” (2, 15, 4).

 

[kentuckyliz]

There are churches named Ss. Peter and Paul and the iconography shows the complementary roles of these two great men. Some of the icons show Peter holding keys and Paul holding a pen; others show them embracing. This is the spirit of unity and complementarity that I think we should keep in mind as we consider these two great fathers in the faith.

 

[kentuckyliz]

Not to mention that they were martyred on the same day and that feast day is celebrated each June 29. The readings for this day are great, highlighting both of them.

usccb.org/bible/readings/062913-vigil-mass.cfm

usccb.org/bible/readings/062913-mass-during-day.cfm

Jesus knew that the infant Church needed both the charism of Peter’s Rock leadership and Paul’s conversion, mission, and writing. That’s why Christ himself called and deployed these men in their work and mission. I do not doubt Christ’s decision and actions.

Remember, Peter had a couple of letters too and they contain material not elsewhere found. Don’t forget his unique epistolary contributions.

 

[Protector]

COPLAND 3;11160437] Not so strange since Irenaeus was taught by St. Polycarp, and Polycarp was taught by the Apostle John. There is a lot that we know from the men who were taught by the Apostles and those who succeeded them, such as what the Early Church believed and things that happened. Keep in mind that Christianity did not come from the New Testament, but the New Testament is a product of Christianity, and those books were defined as canonical and inspired by the Catholic Church.

Can’t argue with that COPLAND. but I think you’ll agree that third hand information is not the same as that “from the horses mouth”, so to speak, and such an important event as Peter being in Rome should have rated a mention from Paul - unless Paul thought it prudent to give that information by word of mouth only, as he had done on a previous occasion, viz 2 Thessalonians 2:7.

However, back to the OP’s question - as others have said, Paul was a missionary, and his mission field took in a great part of the Gentile world so it is not surprising that he should have been a relatively prolific writer. That does not diminish the work of St Peter however, as his writings, although light on quantity were abundant in doctrine and encouragement. Also, Peter most probably frequently visited his relatively smaller number of churches and would therefore have passed on much information by word of mouth.

Protector.

 

[Protector]

kentuckyliz;11161762] Pitting Paul and Peter against each other is a false dichotomy.

Not “pitting” kentuckyliz, as my previous post to COPLAND will show, I state that Paul’s greater contribution to the NT does not in any way diminish St Peter’s importance as one of the chiefest apostles (2 Cor. 11:5)

Peter was the first to go to the Gentiles (Cornelius)

I already stated that in my first post to the OP*!*

kentuckyliz quote:- the church at Rome had both Gentiles and Jews,

As there were in nearly all the churches, but I imagine the Jews would have been few being in the very heart of the Roman Empire where Judaism was tolerated, but Christianity was viewed as a seditious sect.

and the church at Rome had both Gentiles and Jews, so it is too sharp of a distinction to say that one was for the Jews and one was for the Gentiles.

I’m not the originator of that statement - St Paul was.

“For I say to you, Gentiles: as long indeed as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I will honour my ministry,” Romans 11:13,

“Whereunto **I am appointed **a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.” 2 Timothy 1:11

"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:" Galatians 2:9 (Douay-Rheims)

Protector.