Peter or Paul for Church leadership?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DustThouArt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jas84173 said:
James sure would agree though.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Although many of St. James’ followers were confused by what St. Paul was saying, St. James was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit would have instructed him that St. Paul was Teaching the Word of God.
 
jas84173 said:
2 Peter is almost universally accepted as pseudeonomous . It’s a wonder how it is in the New Testament.
Click to expand...
We follow the infallible Catholic Church. Don’t let those, so-called, “theologians” confuse you.
 
“Almost” is not “is” The fatal flaw in most modern scholars’ thinking is that, the further away they are from a given incident, the more they know about it. In truth, the more they must make up - entropy applies to all things on this earth.

If a signature is required as a determinant of authenticity, then most of the scriptures are invalidated. Regardless of authorship, the Church looked at the content. What man derides, the Church decides.
 
Tyndale? The infamous heretic? Follow his followers at your own risk. OK, to be fair, I just bought their Catholic Edition of the New Living Translation. It is not bad, but certainly still contains some agenda in translation.
 
DustThouArt said:
In debating with protestants of different persuasions I encounter the argument that Paul, and not Peter was the apostle of the gentiles and thus the defacto apostle who instituted the early Christian Church. Further it is argued that his epistles are the source for all Christians in this age( argued by dispensationalists) and Peter along with the other 11 apostles were ministering to the Jews only. I have read and studied the Scripture quoted by these individuals to prove their claims. Can you assist me with an argument to rebut this position? Thank you.
Click to expand...
The difference is that Paul was primarily focused on gentiles. Peter ministered to both Jews and gentiles.

Peter was the first Pope, and one of the first diocesan bishops, along with the other 11. Paul on the other hand was a missionary, traveling to set up dioceses, and then would move on. He was basically a missionary Bishop who would travel around and set up dioceses; similar to Franciscan Friars who would travel throughout Mexico and Southwestern United States setting up churches and then moving on to the next place to establish a new mission. However, unlike the Friars who were setting up missions and parishes, St. Paul was setting up dioceses.

God Bless
 
Again, a mere opinion, as the author has zero authority to decide one way of the other.

Strongly held opinions do not canonicity make.

Either there is truth or fiction reigns.

Jesus did not leave us orphans.
 
First, you have to remember that the NAB is an ecumenical Bible:

Some fifty scholars collaborated on this project; these were mainly Catholics, but, in accord with the suggestion of Vatican II that “with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers” so that “all Christians may be able to use them” (Dei Verbum, No. 22), non-Catholics also participated in the work.

bible.usccb.org

Preface, PREFACE TO THE REVISED NEW AMERICAN BIBLE OLD TESTAMENT

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
bible.usccb.org bible.usccb.org

Since they had very little say in actually translating anything, except where they agreed with Catholic Doctrine, they probably had more (name removed by moderator)ut in the footnotes and intros.

However, as you can see, the Catholic Church has kept the book in the canon and anyone who denies it’s authenticity, is anathematized by the Council of Trent.

Yeah, that means you. 😉
 
Last edited:
I’m not denying it’s status in the Canon I’m just saying it wasn’t written by St. Peter. There’s books not in the Bible that were written before it, possibly even the Apocalypse of Peter.

Doesn’t mean it isn’t inspired. Just was not written by Peter.
 
Well even early Church Fathers questioned it. Eusebius in his Church History( 325 A.D.) calls these antilegomena or “disputed writings” which were writings widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. The term “disputed” should therefore not be misunderstood to mean “false” or “heretical”. There was disagreement in the Early Church on whether or not the respective texts deserved canonical status.
 
So why do we not celebrate the Mass of Pope Pius V propagated by the council of Trent anymore as an ordinary Mass?
 
I don’t think so? Just don’t know why everyone defends the council of Trent except for what they set as the universal norm of the Mass.
 
jas84173 said:
I don’t think so? Just don’t know why everyone defends the council of Trent except for what they set as the universal norm of the Mass.
Click to expand...
Yeah it sounds like you want to start another topic. I follow the Church, not your interpretation of any Church document.
 
You’re going on liberal Protestant websites to back your claims? Hmm…
 
These latest posts exhibit part of the same issue I run into with Evangelicals and dispensationalists.
The reformed(Calvinist) crowd are big on Higher criticism and use Bibles based on Westcott-Hort work in the late 1800’s which hold to earlier, although fewer manuscripts.
The dispensationalists and fundamentalists are KJV only, pointing to the work of Wycliffe, Tyndale and their followers using the Textus Receptus based on the work of Erasmus who rather than using St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, translated from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Erasmus questioned the accuracy of St. Jerome.
So when you try to discuss or debate with these groups you immediately realize you are coming from different foundations. I argue from the Douay-Rhiems, they come back with KJV, ASV or ESV. I point to Scripture and Tradition and they counter that Sola Scriptura is the only foundation.
I am coming to the point of “agree to disagree” and just try to live in harmony on the points we agree on.
I guess at some point one must just accept the fact that those who wish to find fault, to find cracks in theology, who wish to dispute and challenge the Faith will always be able to do so.
I will stand with the Church and Her Magisterium.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Quote from the Book of Dispensationalism 16:18
 
Your “friends” don’t actually know much about the bible, OR history for that matter.

Space permitted:rofl:😅 I COULD provide a list of 50 PETER first [it can be GOOGLED]; can “your friends” come close with Paul?

Peter was NOT even Bishop of Jerusalem [James was], as Peter had to take care even then of the UNIVERSAL Catholic Church

I give then a C- for their effort though

GBY
Partick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top