Who started the Christian Church?

[pathfinder7]

Jesus told Peter nothing of the kind. Jesus told Peter the opposite. He told Peter “Very truly, I tell you, when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go.” 19(He said this to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God.) After this he said to him, “Follow me.” John 21:18-19

Peter was in Rome against his will, because he was following Jesus. Peter was arrested for his faith, detained, and executed.

You forgot something: St. Peter’s actual bones are physcially UNDER the Church (basilica?) in Rome. So Peter is literally the rock upon which the Church is built (even physically).

and as you know (but Protestants don’t), the bones of saints have been known to heal people… (etc, etc…)

 

[pathfinder7]

Well I don’t like to argue but I must say I disagree with you completely. First of all I agree with Jesus and totally disagree with Luther. ***I do not follow luther ***I follow what Jesus said. ?

 

[rinnie]

You forgot something: St. Peter’s actual bones are physcially UNDER the Church (basilica?) in Rome. So Peter is literally the rock upon which the Church is built (even physically).

and as you know (but Protestants don’t), the bones of saints have been known to heal people… (etc, etc…)

Oh I get it upon this rock I will build my church, Peter is the rock and the church is build up on him. Good one! No one can dispute that one, not even the protestants!

 

[pathfinder7]

Oh I get it upon this rock I will build my church, Peter is the rock and the church is build up on him. Good one! No one can dispute that one, not even the protestants!

yeah, but they will anyway… just give them time…

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I’m really not trying to start an argument here. I just was thinking that Protestants tend to emphasize St. Paul’s teachings, more than Catholics do. But I could be very wrong on this.

Protestants do emphasize St. Paul more than the Catholic Church. Paul’s ‘justification by faith,’ which Luther changed to ‘faith alone,’ is the cornerstone of their belief system. Also, as St. Peter warned, St. Paul’s letters are sometimes hard to understand and very easy to manipulate. WIth some protestants, Paul’s words are more important than those of Jesus Himself!

 

[rinnie]

If I could add we love St Paul, and believe everything he taught also, but we believe that St Peter was the one that Jesus picked to lead all of the Apostles. And also as far again as one being more important than another, one could not pick. They both taught us what Jesus wanted us to know.

 

[rinnie]

If protestants really did listen to St.Pauls teachings, then they would oblige to Peter’s authority as Paul did, along with Peter’s succession of authority, Pope Benedict.

AMEN!

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

If I could add we love St Paul, and believe everything he taught also, but we believe that St Peter was the one that Jesus picked to lead all of the Apostles. And also as far again as one being more important than another, one could not pick. They both taught us what Jesus wanted us to know.

Thanks for adding that. I intended to mention it but left it out.:

 

[pathfinder7]

Protestants do emphasize St. Paul more than the Catholic Church. Paul’s ‘justification by faith,’ which Luther changed to ‘faith alone,’ is the cornerstone of their belief system. Also, as St. Peter warned, St. Paul’s letters are sometimes hard to understand and very easy to manipulate. WIth some protestants, Paul’s words are more important than those of Jesus Himself!

i agree. But i don’t really think Peter’s words are all that hard to figure out. could you give an example?

I don’t know why someone would favor paul’s words over Peters… I tend to think Paul talks about unimportant things too much… like when he goes on and on in Philemon… I don’t understand why htat book was added to the Bible… (and some other examples i don’t have time to add)…

i think Protestants dislike the part in Peter where it says that no scirpture is open for private interpretation…

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

This whole discussion of “Peter vs. Paul” seems a bit strange to me, as neither of them would’ve embraced such a dichotomy. On reading the opening of this thread, my mind immediately jumped to 1 Corinthians 1:12-13:

What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

 

[JLSamuel818]

This whole discussion of “Peter vs. Paul” seems a bit strange to me, as neither of them would’ve embraced such a dichotomy. On reading the opening of this thread, my mind immediately jumped to 1 Corinthians 1:12-13:

What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

She gave me and IDEA.

We all MUST follow, and OBEY Christ our Lord and Savior. Right?

No matter what [Christian] religion you are in. Protestant, Lutheran, Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, ect. You MUST oblige to His teachings.

Our Lord has made it CLEAR. “Upon this ROCK I will build my CHURCH” Either you listen to Him or you don’t.

Whether you like it or NOT, He has spoken.

He didn’t say “I will build my Church, BUT I will let a man name Martin Luther destroy it one thousand five hundred years later to make a Protestant Church”. NO!

He said He will build Hid Church upon Peter, THE ROCK.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

i agree. But i don’t really think Peter’s words are all that hard to figure out. could you give an example?

Please re-read my message.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I’m really not trying to start an argument here. I just was thinking that Protestants tend to emphasize St. Paul’s teachings, more than Catholics do. But I could be very wrong on this.

You seem to assume that they taught something different.

Do you believe that?

 

[Pier]

Catholics always say that Peter was the first pope, the rock, the key holder of the Catholic Church. But what about Paul? In a way I think Paul really made Christianity what it is today. He was the one who declared all Gentiles were part of the kingdom of Israel, descendants of Abraham, just as the Jews were. He was the one who denounced the Jewish laws (such as circumcism and dietary restrictions), and told all people that they could be saved only by grace and the crucifixion of Jesus.

What do you think, both Catholics and non-Catholics? Who was most important, Peter or Paul?

Haven’t read all the responses, so please excuse if this has been said already, and better…

You are obviously speaking of the work they have done. I do not understand why they are compared one to the other (generally speaking - I know they are unnecessarily compared to each other by some - a waste of time IMO)… As they had their missions that they each had to do for the One Body of Christ, which as we know, has many different members with their different gifts - which are to be used in their different ways to give glory to God, which both of these men did.

 

[JLSamuel818]

He didn’t say “I will build my Church, BUT I will let a man name Martin Luther destroy it one thousand five hundred years later to make a Protestant Church”. NO!

He said He will build Hid Church upon Peter, THE ROCK.

I thought I should re-quote it.

 

[guanophore]

While I agree that the scripture that you quoted is correct, I do not agree with your understanding if it. Jesus would never take away our free will. Yes Peter was arrested, and killed but it was his choice, He loved Jesus enough to die for him. Granted he knew his fate but he also accepted it by his own free will. He could have refused it. But he accepted it knowing that pain and death would welcome him.

It was his choice to be a disciple of Christ, but he did not choose to be arrested and crucified. Like Paul, if he could have stayed longer to shepherd the flock, he would have done so. It was not his choice to be arrested and killed. He was led where he did not wish to go. He went because he would never again forsake His Lord. I agree, Peter loved Jesus enough to die for Him, but like all of us, he did not seek death. He knew that whatever fate awaited him, it was fitting for him to follow his Lord. He could have refused it, but he allowed others to take him where he did not wish to go,…even to the cross.

 

[JLSamuel818]

It was his choice to be a disciple of Christ, but he did not choose to be arrested and crucified.

Not true, he knew very well that he was going to be arrested and crucified. For it is written.

“You know that in two days’ time it will be Passover, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” Mathew 26; 2

He knew very well what was going to happen to Him. He CHOSE to to let them crucify Him.

Like Paul, if he could have stayed longer to shepherd the flock, he would have done so. It was not his choice to be arrested and killed.

Not true, he knew very well of the dangers of speaking in His name at the time. He still chose to preach in the name of the Lord. He did run from those who persecute him yes. But he knew very well that if he continues preaching in His name, he will be killed.

He was led where he did not wish to go. He went because he would never again forsake His Lord.

I agree. He still CHOSE to go where he did not want to go.

I agree, Peter loved Jesus enough to die for Him, but like all of us, he did not seek death.

Not true. THEY WANTED to be put to the death in His name. They WANTED to be persecuted in his name. Read Acts 5; 17-39

It ends with the apostles leaving prison "rejoicing that they had been found worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name [Jesus]."

This is assuming you were talking about eh Apostles not wanting to die for Jesus.

He could have refused it, but he allowed others to take him where he did not wish to go,…even to the cross.

The Lord was scared, He was made flesh, for He himself admitted that “The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak”. He is a testament and proof that even though He did not wish to, He CHOSE and willingly let them arrest Him.

With Love and Grace,
_[Samuel]

 

[guanophore]

Not true, he knew very well that he was going to be arrested and crucified. For it is written.

“You know that in two days’ time it will be Passover, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” Mathew 26; 2

He knew very well what was going to happen to Him. He CHOSE to to let them crucify Him.

I think you are not following the conversation, JL. I was speaking about Peter. Peter did not know his exact fate, but Jesus had told him that when he was old, he would stretch forth his hands, and be taken where he did not want to go. He went to Rome, and was martyred there.

Not true, he knew very well of the dangers of speaking in His name at the time. He still chose to preach in the name of the Lord. He did run from those who persecute him yes. But he knew very well that if he continues preaching in His name, he will be killed.

Yes, I agree. However, it was not his preference that he be killed. He was not seeking to be a martyr. If following his Lord would cost him his life, it was a price he was willing to pay, but he did not pursue death.

I agree. He still CHOSE to go where he did not want to go.

He chose to follow Christ, even if it meant to the cross.

Not true. THEY WANTED to be put to the death in His name. They WANTED to be persecuted in his name. Read [Acts 5; 17-39](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXZ.HTM)

It ends with the apostles leaving prison "rejoicing that they had been found worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name [Jesus]."

They did not want to be persecuted or die. They wanted to be like Christ, in the fellowship of his suffering, and the glory of His resurrection. Jesus had taught them that, if they wanted to follow Him, they would have to take up their cross.

This is assuming you were talking about eh Apostles not wanting to die for Jesus.:shrug:

It is an abberation to “want to die”. God made human beings with the innate desire for life, and nature to cling to life. This is what Jesus struggled against in the Garden, sweating as it were great drops of blood. If we are to die, however, then let it be for our faith in Jesus. We do not go about seeking death in His name, but seeking to follow Him, unto death if necesasary.

The Lord was scared, He was made flesh, for He himself admitted that “The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak”. He is a testament and proof that even though He did not wish to, He CHOSE and willingly let them arrest Him.

I agree - a death He freely accepted. Yet, if that cup could have passed by Him, He would have avoided it.

 

[rinnie]

No, Jesus sent the HS to be in charge of starting a visible church on earth. The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets. Such a foundation is not restricted to any one city.

Jesus told Peter nothing of the kind. Jesus told Peter the opposite. He told Peter “Very truly, I tell you, when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go.” 19(He said this to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God.) After this he said to him, “Follow me.” John 21:18-19

Peter was in Rome against his will, because he was following Jesus. Peter was arrested for his faith, detained, and executed.

Again this is what I responded to, Peter was not in Rome against his will. He choose to go there and stay there. Again that is where he was to start the Church. Yes Jesus did warn Peter that he would be put to death, again just like Jesus a death he freely accepted. While I agree that Peter was arrested for his faith, I do not agree he was there against his will. And while I agree Peter was guided by the Holy Spirt on how to guide the Church, it still does not change that Jesus appointed Peter to be the leader, the Rock. And the Mother Church is still in Rome. So as much as I hate to I have to disagree with you totally on this.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Peter was not in Rome against his will. He choose to go there and stay there.

Actually, tradition has it that Peter was on his way out of Rome when he met the Lord on the Appian Way and asked him, “Quo vadis, Domine?” The Lord said, “I’m going to Rome to be cricified again.” whereupon Peter turned back and went to his fate. Voluntarily, as you said.

As to some of the martyrs wanting to die for the Faith, St. Ignatius of Antioch couldn’t wait to get to Rome to have his “bones ground by the teeth of wild animals.”