Peter or Paul for Church leadership?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DustThouArt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, it can be very much like banging your head against a brick wall. My go-to argument for anything related to scripture is asking about the Bible itself. Where did we get it? Does it, in fact, declare itself the sole rule of faith, and is that confirmed via the writings if the Early Church? How do you know which books ought to be in your Bible? How do you know you’re interpreting it correctly? So it ultimately becomes a question of authority, but I’ve found it’s a good foothold in debates with dispensationalist or fundamentalists because they do hit you with a machine gun-like barrage of attacks from Scripture. Also the ones I’ve known are heavy on literalist interpretation and “works of the law”, to the point that one individual admitted that since the doctrine if the Trinity isn’t explicit within Scripture, it isn’t necessary. They may even say baptism is just a work of the Law, man-made ideas and rules come to pollute the pure and simple gospel. In which case you’ll be forced to ask how their man-made and relatively new hermeneutic is excluded from said man-made errors. Regarding the literal interpretation of Scripture, it’s no secret they don’t take John 6 at face value, but we know the early church did. The problem with verse slinging is anyone can choose an arbitrary hermeneutic and then proceed to read their doctrines into scripture (think Jehovas Witness), so to circumvent that whole mess you can try going right to the source- Scripture itself.
 
Paul never even knew Jesus. Sure his transformation was amazing but shouldn’t we take the words of those who actually followed Christ on earth and not the guy who was trying to kill them?

A lot of Paul’s words do NOT match with what Christ taught on earth.
 
And their interpretation works on paper IF you concede their premise- which is that God has dealt and deals differently with different groups of people. Yet if that were true, we would have historical evidence of such a faction. The very fact that early Jewish converts were trying to sort out what transferred from the Old Covenant into the New suggests no such split was even possible- they’re trying to hammer the thing out from Day 1 (more or less). If they truly had a separate dispensation, why the fuss over circumcision and dietary laws and the rest?
 
You might also want to read the introduction to Karl Keating’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”. While it may not give you the apologetic ammo you’re looking for it does a good job at concisely summarizing the how and why of fundamentalism, dispensationalism and millenialism.
 
RKS89 said:
And their interpretation works on paper IF you concede their premise- which is that God has dealt and deals differently with different groups of people. Yet if that were true, we would have historical evidence of such a faction. The very fact that early Jewish converts were trying to sort out what transferred from the Old Covenant into the New suggests no such split was even possible- they’re trying to hammer the thing out from Day 1 (more or less). If they truly had a separate dispensation, why the fuss over circumcision and dietary laws and the rest?
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct.

Do not give them the premise that they depend on. “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” (Matt 24:14) This is Jesus speaking saying that his gospel would go to the whole world to all nations, not one gospel to one group of people and another gospel to another group of people. See also Mark 16:15.

Peter is also given the command to preach to the gentiles (Acts 15:7)
Paul states that it is the Gospel of God (Romans 1:1), which is the gospel of Jesus (Romans 1:16).
This same gospel is the gospel to the gentiles (Romans 15:16).
Paul’s gospel is the same as Jesus gospel (1 Cor 9:19).
There is no other gospel than Paul’s gospel, which is Jesus’ gospel, which is God’s gospel (Gal 1:8).

Peter is preaching the same gospel of God (1 Peter 4:17).

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people. (Revelation 14:6).

There is only one gospel, the everlasting gospel of God preached by Jesus, all of the apostles including Peter, and also preached by Paul.
 
jas84173 said:
Paul never even knew Jesus. Sure his transformation was amazing but shouldn’t we take the words of those who actually followed Christ on earth and not the guy who was trying to kill them?

A lot of Paul’s words do NOT match with what Christ taught on earth.
Click to expand...
Actually, the only difference I see is that St. Paul was hammering in the Teaching of the Sacraments. The famous “justification by faith alone” doctrine, is Luther’s misunderstanding of St. Paul’s explanation of that justification which occurs in Baptism. As opposed to the justification we will all experience in the Judgement. This is most clearly explained in Titus 3:5. Where it is clear that God is pouring out His mercy on those who have done righteous works. Not those who haven’t. See also Matt 25:31-46.
 
Maybe. James sure would agree though. I feel like Luke sugarcoated the events where Paul was summoned to Jerusalem. Some claim the people Paul speaks of " If anyone comes to you claiming a different Gospel than the one I preached to you, let that one be accursed". I have read some hypothesize these others were followers from the Church in Jerusalem being sent by James to correct errors in Paul’s preaching.

We will never know though since Jerusalem was leveled in 70 A.D. and the Jewish Christian Church lead by James was lost and now we basically only have Paul’s interpretation of Chist. One letter of James. 2 of Peter.3 of John. 1 of Jude. 14 of Paul.

Josephus speaks of James being beheaded. James was a respected person in Jerusalem.
 
Last edited:
Peter would disagree as would John and James. Paul went to all three of those guys to check notes.

Galatians 2
And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

2 Peter
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

And you got your Jameses mixed up. The James who got beheaded was the son of Zebedee. The James who Paul saw was James the Just.
 
Are you sure? How many James were there? I know James the Just lead the Church in Jerusalem but I always thought the other James was martyrd in Spain?

Josephus " Antiquity of the Jews" bk XX ch 9

Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.
 
Yes. Act 15. Thank you. I got it all mixed up in my head. 😳
Sign I should re-read the New Testament.
 
Anyone who thinks that Peter was not primary is woefully ignorant of scripture. Jesus changed Simon bar-Jonah’s name.
He does that for a reason.
Peter is named 195 times in the NT. The closest is John “whom Jesus
loved” at just 29 times. All of the rest even less. Peter is always
named first, Judas last. Here is a partial list of unique aspects of Peter:

Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven.
Jesus declared Peter to the the rock.
Jesus made Peter shepherd (Feed my sheep).
Jesus told Peter only to strengthen his brothers
Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter.
Jesus preached from Peter’s boat.
Jesus told Peter to “Follow me” at the sea of Tiberias.
Jesus called only Peter to Him across the water.
Jesus predicted Peter’s three-fold denial.
Jesus predicted Peter’s repentance and three-fold affirmation.
Jesus prophesied only Peter’s death.
Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times.
Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane.
Peter is always listed first.
Peter alone received the revelation of Jesus as Messiah.
Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration.
Peter pointed out the withered fig tree.
Peter entered the empty tomb first - John deferring to him.
Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas.
Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost.
Peter was released from prison by the Angel.
Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council.
Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Saphira.
Peter’s shadow healed.
Peter declared the sin of Simony.
Peter explained the salvation of the Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem.
The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter.
The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them.
At the empty tomb, the Angel said, “Go tell His disciples, and Peter.”
Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple.
The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter.
Peter’s words silence the first council in Jerusalem.
Peter alone received the revelation of the end of the world (elements melting).
Peter alone received the revelation of Christ’s descent to hell/sheol.
Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain.
And on and on and on.

So, one can deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing disregard of scripture and history to do so. As Fr. Mitch Pacwa says: Peter was in management. Paul was in sales.
 
po18guy said:
So, one can deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing disregard of scripture and history to do so. As Fr. Mitch Pacwa says: Peter was in management. Paul was in sales.
Click to expand...
LOL, thanks for this. I’m going to have to remember that one. Pretty much what I was alluding to in a previous post.
MT1926 said:
Second, let’s say they are correct. Think about this logically. We have 12 guys sitting in one place and one guy running all over the place doing the heavy labor. What does that sound like to you? Sure sounds like a hierarchical business model to me. You got your board of directors sitting around making all of the decisions of what the labors must do.
Click to expand...
That list is awesome as well.

God Bless
 
2 Peter is almost universally accepted as pseudeonomous . It’s a wonder how it is in the New Testament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top