upon which He would build his church. I hear so much about Paul but very little about Peter. Historically speaking, the two didn't get along very well but if you think about it, Peter was Jesus actual apostle and Paul was roaming around murdering Christians before his conversion. Why trust Paul at all?
2007-07-20 07:43:52 · 15 answers · asked by Yogini 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
good question - during Paul's time he was not very well liked and the Christians of the time didn't trust him or acknowledge him as an apostle but mostly a trouble maker. Paul took it upon himself to declare he was an appointed apostle and his writings demonstrate that he knew very little if anything about Jesus or what he taught. He seems, rather, like an opportunist - a conman if you will.
BTW, this kind of insight and knowledge only comes from unbiased study - you can give me a thumbs down but remember, I know more about the Bible than you do.
2007-07-20 07:49:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is a very good question. I've never really thought of it like that. I guess I don't know why we wouldn't trust Paul though. Jesus chose Paul to be the apostle to the gentiles (albeit according to the testimony of Paul and a couple others) while Peter stuck primarily with the Jews.
Our test for accuracy must always be to look back at what Jesus taught, and I have had no reason to doubt the teachings of Paul.
If you want more teachings about Jesus that don't come from Paul, try the Book of Mormon.
2007-07-20 07:52:39 · answer #2 · answered by Casey C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Four things.
1. More of Paul's letters survived, so more of his views and sayings survive, making him more influential in history.
2. Without Peter, there would be no Paul or work for Paul to do, so Peter is still the foundation.
3. Although they did not always get along, there is no evidence that they were opposed to one another. They disagreed on a couple of things. That is it. For the most part, however, when you read their writings in the Bible, the message is more or less the same.
4. Paul's past is irrelevant. Don't forget that Peter denied Christ three times and let him die. What's the difference? The whole point of Christianity and Christ's message is redemption and forgiveness, so their pasts don't matter. It is the message that matters.
2007-07-20 07:48:50 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Peter was the head of the church. Paul was in charge of missionary work. That they did not always immediately agree is a good thing. The apostles did not act unless they had the guidance of the spirit. Paul was the catalyst for changes, that only Peter had the power to authorize.
2007-07-20 08:46:21 · answer #4 · answered by Isolde 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Paul is bigger because he made a religion out of Jesus. Personally, I think Paul was wrong. He never had actual contact with Jesus (other than claims he appeared to him). Paul implies that salvation is by faith, which has become (to many Protestants anyway) that "being born again" is all that's required to go to heaven. This seems to negate everything Jesus did. If belief in Jesus was all that was required to go to heaven, Jesus must really have liked to hear himself talk. He did an awful lot of it for no apparent reason.
2007-07-20 07:52:28 · answer #5 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When Jesus told Peter thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church He wasn't calling Peter the rock. Taking this in proper context He was speaking about Himself as the rock.
Paul was a great apostle and so was Peter. They were not one above another. Paul was used more in writing epistles and building churches because that was his ministry. Peter had a different calling and was also used mightily of God.
BOTH DIED FOR THEIR FAITH - AND THAT IS THE MOST ANYONE COULD ASK OF A DISCIPLE.
2007-07-20 07:50:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Peter's statement of "You are the Christ, The Son of the living God" was the rock Jesus was referring to. Not Peter himself. Paul, was appointment an Apostle also. Your past has nothing to do with the giftings and calling God places on ones life. Once you are in Christ, old man is done, new man begins.
2007-07-20 08:01:22 · answer #7 · answered by A Voice 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think its because Paul was the one who fought the others over gentiles not having to be circumcized and not having to abide by the Hebrew dietary laws. So basically Paul was the more gentile-friendly of the apostles. I also think that his having been on the other side of the fence made a big difference too. If we get to pick our faves, I'd choose James, but nobody ever seems to ask that one.
2007-07-20 07:48:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read it again.
Jesus was telling Peter that the rock that was the cornerstone that the builders had rejected.
Now, who was rejected by the builders? Jesus was rejected by the leaders of the temples, not Peter.
SO, Jesus is the rock, that the church was to be built on, not Peter. We are to follow Jesus, NOT peter.
Peter was never rejected, this is very important and life changing for many who will read it and finally understand that Jesus is whom we need to follow, not Peter, not Apollos, not Paul.
2007-07-20 07:48:44 · answer #9 · answered by cindy 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Peter was already dedicated to God, so Jesus said "I'll build my kingdom on people like you". But Paul was an awful man before he found Jesus. Jesus trusted him because he changed. Jesus also said, "I am not here to help those faithful to me. I am here to save those who are not".
2007-07-20 07:49:37 · answer #10 · answered by beth_ragle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋