Jesus said Peter will be the one he will build his church on (something like that).So why is there mostly Paul

Question

Why did Saul/Paul upstage Peter?

Answer 1

Paul was a rich man and was supported by the churches he founded. He never met Jesus. He never talked to Jesus about morality, laws, tolerance. Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef spent years training his disciples to continue his teachings, but long after he died Paul came along and took over. Makes no sense, does it? Especially when according to the gospels Jesus warned that his teachings would be corrupted by those following after him who would profess to 'know' him.

Answer 2

If Peter had indeed been the foundation upon which the congregation was built, why did the apostles argue on three different occasions as to who was the greatest among them? If the church had been built upon Peter, there would have been absolutely no basis for such contention.

Moreover, Acts 15:6 states that the apostles and older men gathered to deal with the dispute of circumcision. If Peter was head of the church, what need would there be for any input from the other apostles and older men? And why did James, Barnabas and Paul stand to speak if Peter was the primary?

Furthermore, if Peter was head of the church, why did Paul rebuke Peter publicly for his unscriptural behavior (the account of which is recorded at Galatians 2:11-14)? Clearly, the church is not founded on Peter. The church is founded on Christ.

As to Paul, he did not upstage Peter at all. Paul was directly chosen by Christ even as Peter was. Whatever work Paul did, and however many Bible books Paul wrote, all of it was directed by the head of the congregation - the cornerstone: Jesus Christ.

Answer 3

Paul didn't upstage Peter. Paul was an sent to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Peter preached to the Jews.

And sunestauromai is correct. Jesus didn' t say He would build the church on Peter. He said upon Peter's confession.

Answer 4

This is a passage frequently misquoted out of context and was used by the Catholic church to blend Judaism and Christianity, which isn't a blend at all and is only a cult religion, to appease the Romans and Jews as a means of worshiping without having to give up Roman idolatry and perversions and yet appeal to the Judaic customs that did not want to accept Jesus Christ.

The reference is as Jesus and Peter are walking along and two Greek words are used, that did not translate well, one meaning, in reference to Peter, a small pebble, and the other meaning, in reference to Christ, a large bounder of a rock that could not be moved in that time by feasible ways and means.

Paul's "upstaging" of Peter was that Christ called Paul to be an apostle unto the Gentiles - those that were not Jews and entitled to the same salvation of the only Christ.

Answer 5

Err. . . I would rather put it this way. In the Acts, it was both actually. But Peter was kind of reaching to Jews, but Paul to Gentile.

It is not that Peter don't preach to Gentile, and Paul don't reach to Jews. But their focus are different.

Another point is, it is not just depending on charisma, but theological training is equally important. Paul was a Pharisees, and thus a learned man. In is inevitable for him to write.

But Peter, a fisher man, is not so incline to write. Again, it is by no means that fisher man can not read or write. All Hebrews boys can read and write.

From the Acts, Paul in a sense, still subject to the authority in rheJerusalem. In Jerusalem, Peter is sill a major figure, and not Paul. It seems like the leadership in Jerusalem rotate amounf the original group of Apostle. SOme time James, some time Peter.

Answer 6

Paul did not "upstage" Peter. They were both very intrical parts of the first Christian church. Peter did much of the mission work after Christ's death and resurrection. Both were very important to the beginning of the Christian faith. Paul definitely seems to have written more letters to churches, but that is what we have. There is no way of knowing all the writings of Peter and Paul.

Answer 7

Because Paul/Saul of Tarsus did extensive traveling to spread the word and because - also unlike Peter - Paul felt that non-Jews or Gentiles should also be part of the new church. Another reason is because the letters or epistles of Paul were used extensively (decades after he was beheaded by the Romans) to further Christianity and to crystallize the then new holy book.

Just to illuminate a comment made earlier...

Paul was a tentmaker by trade and not wealthy by any means. Which is why he relied on the hospitality of the towns he visited - for food and a place to sleep. It would have been much easier for Paul in his ministry and travels if he were rich.

The point should also be made that Yuz Asaf/Issa/Jesus was an angel prophet, not a god.

Paul changed his mind about Jesus' divinity after he died and saw clearly that the power of Issa/Jesus/Yuz Asaf was a Group Entity in the Mid Realms of Spirit.

Answer 8

What makes you think Paul upstaged Peter? Because he has more things in the bible?

Paul deferred to Peter on everything, because he was the man in charge, put there by Christ Himself. Even the Bible says that it's not the definitive end-all for Christian teaching.

Answer 9

The Romans were well known for assimilating anything that they could not beat militarily. They recognized that Christianity had grown so large that they could not possibly stamp it out.

So they did the same thing that they always did when they found themselves in this position. Paul was roman one of the first roman undercover agents, if you will to gain prominence in the Christian hierarchy. His job was to subvert the faith correct the teachings so they were more palatable to roman tastes and take over and control as much of the leadership as possible. His cover story about being blinded and thrown from his horse was designed to play right into the Christian idea of a forceful Jesus that was the defender of the faith.

He was accepted by most of the Christian world and eventually trumped Peters wishes on many issues. Apparently everyone thought that Jesus had made a mistake in selecting Peter to take care of running the faith because Paul was and is still taken quite seriously.

Christianity is barely recognizable today if you compare it to what Jesus actually taught. If you read closely you can still see occasional glimpses of Jesus’ teaching in and among the nonsense that was overlaid on it by Paul and others. The roman conquest of Christianity took quite some time, but was completed in the 4th century around the time of the council of Nicea when the current bible was compiled.

Constantine also had one of these miraculous encounters with Jesus that lead to his conversion, but oddly continued to worship roman gods in private right up to his death. In public of course he was a true Christian.

The new faith that replaced the one Jesus entrusted peter with was called the universal, or Catholic Church. It is better known as the Roman Catholic Church. I guess you could call that a hint.

A truly brilliant plan actually. Made possible by the efforts of a roman double agent named Paul who called himself an apostle, but never actually met Jesus. For his loyalty and meritorious service he was later killed to cover up the truth.

Answer 10

I think that in some ways this is really just the way that history played out. I dont think Paul 'upstaged' Peter. He happened to write some letters that churches collected and used as part of early liturgical services.....He was a very well educated man, Peter was 'just' a fisherman.....God uses each of us in unique ways---

Answer 11

CHRIST IS THE ROCK THE CHURCH IS BUILT ON--NOT PETER! The Greek term for Peter was "stone" or "little pebble",while the Greek for Jesus was "ROCK"! He simply informed Peter of the enormous job he would have as an Apostle with the other men. Paul did not "upstage" anyone! He called himself "The chief of sinners"...He simply was of more emotional caliber than the often-impatient Peter! You might find it interesting that,according to Historical Tradition,Peter requested to be crucified upside down--stating he was not worthy to die as his Savior did. The main focus is on GOD THE ALMIGHTY--not puny,weak men.....