Notably, at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, Peter spoke before Paul to give the Apostles’ final decision. Paul himself didn’t really add a whole lot at the time, with his words not being recorded, but the decision was mostly fronted by what Peter and James had to say. Paul offered more of a supportive voice to what they declared.He met with the apostles and argued with them at least once. I don’t see any evidence that he led the apostles.
Criticizing a leader, even if done correctly, doesn’t make the one offering the criticism the leader.Didn’t he have to correct Peter at one time?
If Paul was THE leader, he would not have had to submit the gospel he was preaching to “those who were of repute” for approval, as he said, “… lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.”Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. (Galatians 2:1-2)
I’ve certainly heard non-Christians, including pseudo-Christians like Gnostics, claim that Paul ran his own movement within Christianity that ultimately won out over the other ones. As far as I can tell, it sort of betrays a belief that the Church is more a movement within Christianity, not the body of Christianity itself, which is obviously runs contrary to how Catholics see it. Even accounting for Orthodox and Protestants, we still see them as joined, albeit imperfectly to varying degrees, with the Church.Wasn’t there a book or something a few years ago, that pointed out how with the Epistles, all I will say, was there was a great Paulist-type movement within Christianity.
Protestantism would absolutely look different. It may not even exist without the letters of Paul, or it would have adopted wildly different doctrine. For instance, Sola Fide would not exist in any capacity.If one did not have the Epistles of St. Paul; perhaps the Church would look differently.
What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?
Yes indeed. Paul brought a lot to the Church. We know that several of the apostles were fishermen, one was a tax collector, and we are not sure what the others did for a living, but as far as we know, none was a scriptural scholar or educated like Paul. Did they know how to read and write, beyond that needed for their professions? (Bear in mind that public schools and universal literacy are relatively recent developments.)If one did not have the Epistles of St. Paul; perhaps the Church would look differently.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htmAnd why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.
Yes–but he was also a greek speaking citizen of Rome . . .Just to clarify: Paul was not a Gentile. He was a Jewish man of the strictest sense (a Pharisee) prior to his conversion.