Why do Protestants Avoid St. Peter So Much?

[flameburns623]

Why do Protestants Avoid St. Peter So Much?

---

Well y’know: seeing as how ol’ St. Pete has been kind of out of the picture for lo these two millenia—I don’t know that I personally have had to go out of my way to avoid the fellow all that often.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times

(162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas).

John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.

Some other interesting facts– I haven’t checked them all so i can’t say how accurate these are. A few of them caught my attention though.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Really? Which Protestant groups would these be?

Well for thanksgiving I went to Wisconsin with my family and my step mom’s uncle runs a local church down there and he’s the preacher and that service he said that obviously Pual not Peter was the inteded person.

 

[rr1213]

Well for thanksgiving I went to Wisconsin with my family and my step mom’s uncle runs a local church down there and he’s the preacher and that service he said that obviously Pual not Peter was the inteded person.

What’s the name/denomination of your step mom’s uncle’s church?

 

[Syele]

I think your sample pool of sermons is skewed. I have personally heard about 6 sermons mentioning Peter lately and one mentioning Paul. I’m not nearly so concerned about Peter vs. Paul-- both were followers of Christ and their writings are inspired by God and they are there to enlighten us about Jesus and His teachings.

 

[Tom]

I welcome Y’shua the Messiah after all He is the Messiah not Peter or Paul…and btw the word “Church” was never uttered by Christ the word "church"never existed until the 14th century.

Welcome to the forums. Your assertion that the word “church” was never uttered by Christ, although technically correct since He did not converse in modern English, is incorrect and misleading. He never uttered the name “Jesus” either, however that is the name we know Him by isn’t it? The word Church is in Scripture as well as in the writings of ALL of the Apostolic fathers (from the first century of the “Church”). I just did a quick search for the word “church” in www.drbo.org it is in the NT 77 times, and the OT 26 times. So no, the first time it was used is NOT the 14th century.

 

[Nevim]

Welcome to the forums. Your assertion that the word “church” was never uttered by Christ, although technically correct since He did not converse in modern English,is incorrect and misleading.

Thanks for the welcome, however the word "church’ is misleading and incorrect, even if Y’shua conversed in modern English He still would not have use the word church. Both the Hebrew version of Matthew ( Matthew was orginally written in Hebrew) , or the Greek version the proper English Translation is the word “Assembly” Greek (ekklesia) Strongs # 1577
Meaning: an assembly, or in the Hebrew “qahai” Strongs # 06951 meaning an assembly. Both words Tom mean the same thing so no Y’shua did not use the word “church” and the magisterium is well aware of that fact. A church is a building an assembly is a body of believers. The lines the definition of the word church is blurred. So I can see that “build my church” and “build my assembly” are two different things as evidenced by Acts 24
NET Acts 24:5 For we have found this man to be a troublemaker, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
So we see the orginal faith of the Apostles was a sect of Judiaism called Nazarene Judiaism. FYI the Romans would not allow a new religion in Israel anyway.

Tom:

He never uttered the name “Jesus” either, however that is the name we know Him by isn’t it?

Changing His name was an attempt to de-Judaize the Messiah, the word “Jesus” has no meaning in any language and cannot be translateriatied back into Hebrew. His name is Yahshua meaning “God’s salvation” the word Yahshua is all throughout the Older Testament.

 

[Tom]

Thanks for the welcome, however the word "church’ is misleading and incorrect, even if Y’shua conversed in modern English He still would not have use the word church. Both the Hebrew version of Matthew ( Matthew was orginally written in Hebrew) , or the Greek version the proper English Translation is the word “Assembly” Greek (ekklesia) Strongs # 1577
Meaning: an assembly, or in the Hebrew “qahai” Strongs # 06951 meaning an assembly. Both words Tom mean the same thing so no Y’shua did not use the word “church” and the magisterium is well aware of that fact.
A church is a building an assembly is a body of believers.

What the magisterium is well aware of is the fact that a word has more than one meaning. The word “Church” refers to more than a building as you infer.
From wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church

This article is about the group of people who share faith based in Christianity. For other uses, see Church (disambiguation).
Church refers to the group or body of persons who share faith based in Christianity. All other uses of this term extend from this (Judeo-Christian) and related contexts.
[edit]
Origins
The Christian concept “Church” (Greek ??? - ekklesia, ref. Strong’s Concordance - 1577) is mentioned in the New Testament. Of the 114 occurrences of the term in the New Testament three are found in the Gospel accounts, all in the Gospel according to Matthew on the lips of Jesus: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my ekklesia, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (Mt 16:18); and “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the ekklesia; and if he refuses to listen even to the ekklesia, let him be to you as the Gentile and the tax-collector” (Mt 18:17).
The Greek term ??? - ekklesia, literally meaning a “convocation”, was a governmental and political term, used to denote a national assembly, congregation or council of common objective (see Ecclesia (ancient Athens), Ecclesia (Church)). It was a team that worked together to resolve a problem faced by the wider community or society, but did not signify a “building”.
The Christian use of this term has its direct antecedent in the Koine Greek translation of the Old Testament (see also Septuagint), where the noun ekklesia has been employed 96 times to denote the congregation of the Children of Israel, which Christians regard as a type of the “Body of Christ”, as they also call the Christian Church of Christ.

[edit]
Attributes
The Church, as described in the Bible, has a twofold character that can be described as the visible and invisible church. As the Church invisible, the church consists of all those from every time and place, who are vitally united to Christ through regeneration and salvation and who will eternally united to Jesus Christ in eternal life. The Church visible consists of all those who visibly join themselves to a profession of faith and gathering together to know and serve the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ. The visible church exists globally in all who identify themselves as Christians and locally in particlar places where believers gather for the worship of God. The visible church may also refer to an association of particular churches from multiple locations who unite themselves under a common charter and set of governmental principles. The church in the visible sense is often governed by office-bearers carrying titles such as minister, pastor, teacher, elder, and deacon.
Major forms of church government include hierarchical (Roman Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodoxy), presbyterian (rule by elders), and independent (Baptist, charismatic, other forms of independency).
As an institution of the Lord Jesus Christ, the church has power over doctrine and ordinances. Doctrine or matters of faith have often been codified in statements of faith, creeds, and confessions. Ordinances have included public worship, the Sabbath, church government, and the sacraments (Baptism, the Lord’s Supper).
On many occasions Jesus used the term “temple” (e.g. Mark 14:49 ??? - hieron, ref. Strong’s Concordance - 2413); but this use of “church” was something clearly disparate. The temple was an expression of the church. Christ showed His zeal for His Bride, the Church, when he cast out the money changers and those who were selling doves while quoting Isaiah 56:7 where God’s temple mountain is described as “a house of prayer for all people” (See Matthew 21:12-17). Christ’s zeal for His Church in this incident is also expressed as “the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up” (See Psalm 69:9,John 2:17). Jesus Christ has promised that he will gather people to himself in the church. He promised, “I will build my church…” (Matthew 16:18).

 

[Luke77]

I am a Catholic but I have Proestant friends who have talked about this topic. I think it depends on who you talk to but someone once told me that he thinks churches should not be named after saints John, matthew, paul ect. And he thinks the only saints that should be mentioned are ones in the bible. Saint paul wrote alot of books in the Bible and in my opinion he would appeal to prostants becasue he did alot of preaching and instruction on the faith. On the other hand in the bibical story peter is more involed in the last days of Jesus ect so he is not seen in the way saint paul is. Also for a Protestant to acknowalge Saint Peter the first thing to come to mind would be Rome. So he is not appealing because he has become so revered by catholics.

 

[Tom]

FYI the Romans would not allow a new religion in Israel anyway.

If I recall correctly the Romans did not “allow” the Christian religion, in fact they attempted to destroy it.

Changing His name was an attempt to de-Judaize the Messiah, the word “Jesus” has no meaning in any language and cannot be translateriatied back into Hebrew. His name is Yahshua meaning “God’s salvation” the word Yahshua is all throughout the Older Testament.

I realize you are trying to make a point, but, honestly, do you truly believe if you mention the name “Jesus” anywhere in the world, everyone around you would be confused as to whom you are speaking? Words are a basis of communication, if I say Jesus, and you understand to whom I refer, the name does in fact have a meaning.
This is getting way off of the subject of this thread. That’s called hijacking a thread, and I apologize to the OP for hijacking your thread.

 

[Tom]

I am a Catholic but I have Proestant friends who have talked about this topic. I think it depends on who you talk to but someone once told me that he thinks churches should not be named after saints John, matthew, paul ect. And he thinks the only saints that should be mentioned are ones in the bible. Saint paul wrote alot of books in the Bible and in my opinion he would appeal to prostants becasue he did alot of preaching and instruction on the faith. On the other hand in the bibical story peter is more involed in the last days of Jesus ect so he is not seen in the way saint paul is. Also for a Protestant to acknowalge Saint Peter the first thing to come to mind would be Rome. So he is not appealing because he has become so revered by catholics.

Welcome to the forums Luke,
Interesting idea, but I question why John, Paul, Matthew, Peter, etc. would be included since they are not referred to as saints, by name, in my Bible. I could only find one instance of the term saint used in the DR New Testament, Philippians 4, 21 Salute ye every saint in Christ Jesus. So why exactly should we be restricted to naming Churches by the names of the saints in the Bible?

 

[Nevim]

How the Translations of the Bible in English Have Promoted Error
Regardless of what is about to be written, I want you to know that the errors in English translations of the Bible have not stopped G-d from forming valid and effective relationships with many people. G-d, because of who He is, can do a great work in His people despite the general incapacity of human flesh, however He does not want His people ignorant.
While G-d is not limited by our ignorance, we surely are. Only by facing what we find to be an error of our ignorance, and correcting it, are we people of truth and honesty. What a terrible mistake it would be to remain in ignorance, or resist changing from our view, while G-d’s enemies become aware of errors in our faith! There is no real truth which mankind could discover that could dishonor G-d. But our vain attempts at protecting Him through our unwillingness to face facts does dishonor Him.
When Copernicus and Galileo came along and proved, scientifically, that the earth was round and orbited the sun, the church at that time opposed them, even condemned them to hell. The church had a pet doctrine which they thought would come unraveled if people accepted the findings of Copernicus and Galileo. That doctrine was their belief that mankind was the center of the universe. Now, most believers have come to the realization that mankind does not need to be the center of the universe for G-d to be true. In fact, only G-d is the center of the universe, so the viewpoint that Copernicus and Galileo brought actually gave more light and emphasis toward’s G-d’s place in the universe, instead of our place in it.
Knowledge, when ultimately revealed and understood, always causes us to see that G-d is true. While knowledge alone cannot cause us to know G-d, the lack of knowledge can keep us from understanding the work of G-d, and the wrong thinking which comes from an error in knowledge can and has caused us to act in ways contrary to His will. Proper translation of the Bible from the original languages is critical to our ability to understand the plan and purpose of G-d. He has shown Himself merciful to us in our ignorance, much as parents do to their children. As a child grows he learns not to be fooled by other children. Parents do not want their children to be taken advantage of by others, so they slowly teach them the facts of life. So G-d works toward us. It is not that He has changed or that something is happening that never was. It is only that we are discovering what was always there. To us it is new. To G-d it is not.
Today knowledge is bursting forth. Knowledge can be used for evil or good. Our job is to make sure it is used for good. I intend that what I am about to say is used for good: to glorify G-d and to mature us. If G-d is allowing things to be known now that were once hidden, He has a good purpose in it.
The English translations of the Bible today really try to make the message therein more accessible to more people, by updating the language to modern idioms. However, present and past English Bible translators have made some terrible mistakes. They have continued to obscure many important things through the carry over of expected jargon. The “expected jargon” are those words which through repetition in time take on a meaning of their own, and even become venerated concepts that create a religion which is not in the Bible. These venerated words are NOT in the original texts of the Bible. Their use has become a religious crust rising up and over the truth of the Word. They bias and color the Word. Many believers find it nearly impossible to think of the Bible without these words, which have become to them sacred concepts (cows?) that no one dares question. It seems there has been a conspiracy of translation taking place since the invention of the printing press. If believers do not wake up and accept the facts of the error, they will continue in the darkness while pretending to be in the light. They will bring a reproach on their faith and their enemy will have won. The Most High said, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
There are too many incidents of a translation conspiracy in the English Bibles to deal with all the examples here, but let us examine the primary one, that one that does not take a scholar to understand, and of which we have had the light for centuries.

 

[Nevim]

CHURCH
The word church is not in the original Bible. The word church comes from the old English and Germanic word kirke, (pronounced “keer - kay”), and which itself came from the Babylonian for the goddess Circe (pronounced “seer-say”). This is the word from which we get circle, circumference, circumstance, circumvent, etc. The goddess Circe was thought to be connected with the power of the sun, which is round, and thus the connection to Circe, a circle. In anglo-saxon history, the pagans worshipped the sun standing in a kirke, a circle. These pagan worshippers became known as the circle, or the kirke, then ultimately the church. Yes, pagans were called the church before Christians were called the church. Therefore, church means, at the least, a pagan circle for worship, and at the worst, the worship of the goddess Circe, or the worship of the sun.
It was a direct willful act of English translators in the 1500’s to translate the Greek word ekklesia as church. They did this, most probably, because the pagans who accepted some form of Christianity retained the word church from their pagan circle to refer to their Christian meeting. They called ekklesia church in order to keep a conceptual link between paganism and Christianity. Ekklesia actually means called out. Every instance in your English Bible where you see the name church it should be called out, or called out ones. Now, consider this:
(Exo 23:13 KJV) “And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.”
We are commanded not to even mention the names of other gods! What does that portend for the ubiquitous use of the word church, which is the name of a pagan god? And to add insult to injury, notice how the King James says, “be circumspect” which is a form of the root Circe! Actually the word in Hebrew is shamar, which means to guard against. The L-RD has commanded us to guard against the mention of any other god, not to make a circle against it. See how far we have been from the truth! G-d help us.
Once we know this we cannot do it anymore. The word church is not in the Bible and it is from the name of a pagan god, and to me that means it is off the list of acceptable verbage, especially in defining or identifying any form of the people of G-d. The people of the One True G-d are not and cannot be the church.

 

[Nevim]

CHURCH
The word church is not in the original Bible. The word church comes from the old English and Germanic word kirke, (pronounced “keer - kay”), and which itself came from the Babylonian for the goddess Circe (pronounced “seer-say”). This is the word from which we get circle, circumference, circumstance, circumvent, etc. The goddess Circe was thought to be connected with the power of the sun, which is round, and thus the connection to Circe, a circle. In anglo-saxon history, the pagans worshipped the sun standing in a kirke, a circle. These pagan worshippers became known as the circle, or the kirke, then ultimately the church. Yes, pagans were called the church before Christians were called the church. Therefore, church means, at the least, a pagan circle for worship, and at the worst, the worship of the goddess Circe, or the worship of the sun.
It was a direct willful act of English translators in the 1500’s to translate the Greek word ekklesia as church. They did this, most probably, because the pagans who accepted some form of Christianity retained the word church from their pagan circle to refer to their Christian meeting. They called ekklesia church in order to keep a conceptual link between paganism and Christianity. Ekklesia actually means called out. Every instance in your English Bible where you see the name church it should be called out, or called out ones. Now, consider this:
(Exo 23:13 KJV) “And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.”
We are commanded not to even mention the names of other gods! What does that portend for the ubiquitous use of the word church, which is the name of a pagan god? And to add insult to injury, notice how the King James says, “be circumspect” which is a form of the root Circe! Actually the word in Hebrew is shamar, which means to guard against. The L-RD has commanded us to guard against the mention of any other god, not to make a circle against it. See how far we have been from the truth! G-d help us.

 

[Nevim]

Once we know this we cannot do it anymore. The word church is not in the Bible and it is from the name of a pagan god, and to me that means it is off the list of acceptable verbage, especially in defining or identifying any form of the people of G-d. The people of the One True G-d are not and cannot be the church.
This has been done in ignorance by most, but knowlingly by many in the pulpit, who have been afraid, apathetic, or just too pathetic to tell the truth. If we continue to do this once knowing, then we show ourselves to love our language, our traditions, and our religion, rather than loving G-d. Remember, there is a demon by the name of Circe who is somewhere watching and enjoying the game that has been played. To let that demon have any glory is a dishonor to the One True G-d. But there is an even worse crime.
The Hebrew word for ekklesia is miqra. The Septuagint, which is the Greek text of the Hebrew scriptures, was translated by a council of rabbis long before Yeshua came. They chose the Greek word ekklesia to translate the Hebrew word miqra for one good reason: they mean exactly the same thing – called out. Miqra is the word that the English Bibles usually translate as convocation, as in “it shall be a holy convocation unto you” (Lev. 23:36). So in the Old Testament the phrase called out is translated as convocation and in the New Testament the same phrase is translated as church. However, they are the same, but because of the different English words they are made to seem different from each other. The entire concept of the church is based on this willful deception, making the doctrine of the church, as traditionally put forth, a false doctrine. This makes the Apostles Creed section which states,“We believe in the holy catholic church,” a pledge to a lie.
The fact of the original language Bible texts is, that there is no difference between the people of the Most High in the Old or New Testaments. The called out are the called out. G-d has one name for all who are His, and there is no difference in His view. Yeshua did NOT start something new when He said, “I will build my called out, and the gates hell will not prevail against them.” Yeshua was only affirming what He had said all along. “Come out from among them (the world) says the L-RD and touch not the unclean thing.”
The original language does not support the formation of a new institution apart from Israel. The building up of the called out is the purifying of Israel; the fulfilling of the promises to Israel. Israel shall succeed. Hell will not overcome it. Messiah was promising to see to that!
The centuries long attempt by the church (now you really know who that is) to divorce itself from Israel, and even to destroy Israel, is fruit enough to show that what is called the church is not what Yeshua, the Lion of Judah, had in mind. It should shake us to the foundations. One can only suppose there has been a conspiratorial rebellion against the truth. At least the Faithful should no longer be a part of perpetuating a lie.

 

[Nevim]

If I recall correctly the Romans did not “allow” the Christian religion, in fact they attempted to destroy it.

I realize you are trying to make a point, but, honestly, do you truly believe if you mention the name “Jesus” anywhere in the world, everyone around you would be confused as to whom you are speaking? Words are a basis of communication, if I say Jesus, and you understand to whom I refer, the name does in fact have a meaning.
This is getting way off of the subject of this thread. That’s called hijacking a thread, and I apologize to the OP for hijacking your thread.

G-d names people for a reason, evidently what the truth is, doesn’t really concern you Bill or is it Joe ? Oh right it’s Tom… you get the point yes Tom ? Or is it a matter of Wine Skins…?

 

[Eireann]

CCC 751 **The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose. Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people. By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means “what belongs to the Lord.” **

 

[Grace_Angel]

I welcome Y’shua the Messiah after all He is the Messiah not Peter or Paul…and btw the word “Church” was never uttered by Christ the word "church"never existed until the 14th century.

Dont be silly Nevim of course the word “church” as we know the spelling didnt exist, but you might find ekklesia (I would spell it in Gk for you except I dont have the facility on my computer). However, I would suggest to you that there are 110 place in the new Testament where the word ekklesia is used. Then we have the early church fathers which all denominations of Christianity agree on and look to eg
Clement of Rome, Letter to Corintians, (c96-98) St irenaeus (c180) St Clement of Alexandria (after AD202) St Cyprian (c254) St John Chrysostom (386-387) The Council of Trent and the Catechism (1566) and of course the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church (AD1992) but of course you would not accept these is valid.
So Nevim if you are looking for a meaning like the 30,000 denominations which exist today where anyone who is disgruntled with their church, sallies forth and starts a new “church” in a community hall, well no that did not exist or begin to exist till the destabilising of Christiantiy began with the so called reformation. Which is all that it was, a ploy of satan to destabilise, divide and conquer. Those who thought they could call any conglomoration “church” have splintered and resplintered, those who call themselves catholic remained whole. Yes there have been sinful members of the Church but also magnificent saints in the “Church”. The Church which Jesus Christ founded has the promise of the Holy Spirit, never to teach error, and the gates of hell would not prvail against it.
The magisterium of the Church is protected from error. It teaches with authority. It teaches truth. On faith and morals it cannot ever err. It can make a mistake about advising what to have for breakfast, but on issues of aith and morals it cannot err. Have a good day.
Grace Angel.

 

[BryPGuy89]

What’s the name/denomination of your step mom’s uncle’s church?

One of those ever growing non-denominational churches, like the one my parents go to in our state.

 

[Integritus]

Peter was never a Catholic, but stayed a Jew

Being a Jew historically meant two implications: ethnicity and religious. When the Messiah with the New Convenant came into the world, Peter ultimately accepted Him, so in a certain sense, he ceased being a Jew in the religious faculty, as one still waiting for the Christ, and not ethnicity. At the same time, Peter becomes a most obedient and fulfilled Jew, by recognizing Jesus as the Messiah and as the fulfillment and promise of the Jewish law (religion).Therefore, to be a follower of Christ, is to fulfill the Jewish law, and therefore, Christianity is not separated from its Jewish roots, because one without the other makes our faith and hope a hoax. For me, it really isn’t enough to say during the Messianic era, that Peter or especially Jesus was a (devout) Jew, underscoring one’s religious obedience. Considering also, that Peter from Jesus taught a new law (ie: circumsion not needed), and to the Gentiles, which standard Jews of their time surely considered blasphemous. So the application “devout Jew” to those early Christians is lost in full meaning by many. My opinion.

You might begin with a simple question: Is it right to call Peter a Christian? (but that’s for your own home study, I wish for us not to hijack this thread’s topic, thanks).