Author Topic: Peter or Paul  (Read 8429 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58679
  • Reputation: +3057/-173
Peter or Paul
« on: May 11, 2008, 08:01:17 AM »
Last night, as I was crying over the deathbed scene of John D. Rockefeller in 1937, as described in Titan, the mind wandered, and I suddenly recalled a conversation I had with a Talmudic scholar in Kharkov, Ukraine, about eleven years ago.

The guy was a relic, whose line had surprisingly survived the socialist dictatorship, not to mention the German occupation.....although it's probably superfluous to point out the attrition in his family tree was enormous; perhaps five or six live today, where five or six hundred might be living if all this repression and death had not happened.

Anyway.

I forget how our conversation got to this point, but he mentioned that Judaism had been founded by God, while Christianity had been founded by a mere mortal, Paul.

Okay, I was not going to argue this point, especially since my host was not denying Christ as the Foundation of Christianity; only that Christ provided the ball, but then Paul got the ball rolling.

And so that thought lay fallow in the mind for eleven years.

While while having increased secretions of the lachrymal glands over the death of John D. Rockefeller, out of the blue something suddenly occurred to me.

What about Peter?

That event where Christ told Peter that whatever he bound on earth would similarly be bound in Heaven, surely occurred years and years and years before Saul of Taursus was illuminated on the road to Damascus.

Now, I do NOT want to turn this into a Catholic-vs-Protestant discussion; I just need some historical enlightenment here.  I'm curious as to why the Talmudic scholar "blamed" Paul and not Peter.

Does anybody know what Peter was doing, between the Death and Resurrection of Christ, and the emergence of Paul?  Perhaps--and I mean this honestly--Peter was just wandering around, not sure what he should be doing, and so generally doing nothing?

I assume Peter was not as extroverted and outgoing as Paul, and so it's easy to understand how the more forceful personality would emerge as the "leader."  And, obviously, it didn't hurt that this second personality had prolific writing skills, as compared with the first.

Any historical illumination on this?
apres moi, le deluge

Offline SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23048
  • Reputation: +2232/-269
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2008, 08:11:16 AM »
Peter was just trailer park trash...but Paul had been one of THEM. He had studied at the feet of one of the great Talmudic teachers, Gamaliel. He betrayed them.

Also, as Paul was the most prolific writers by pure per capita his writings are cited in the bastardizations of Holy Writ used to exterminate and exile Jews. It would take me days to expound on the pro-Hebraic references, injunctions and observances of Paul. If anyone were to use Paul to justify anti-semitism they are far too ignorant of scripture to be allowed to comment with any presumption of authority.
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58679
  • Reputation: +3057/-173
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2008, 08:18:15 AM »
Peter was just trailer park trash...but Paul had been one of THEM. He had studied at the feet of one of the great Talmudic teachers, Gamaliel. He betrayed them.

Actually, sir, you might have hit the nail on the head.

But in all due respect to this guy who made the comment eleven years ago, remember that given the circumstances of the preceding 80 years in that place, involuntarily insulated from the world, he was probably relying upon pre-1917 Jewish philosophy, as he didn't have access to anything newer.

At times, being in the socialist paradises of the workers and peasants was like being in a time machine, one forcefully shoved three or four generations backwards.....or in the case of the peasants, three or four hundred years backwards.
apres moi, le deluge

Offline TheSarge

  • Platoon Sergeant
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9557
  • Reputation: +411/-252
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2008, 08:22:35 AM »
Frank if I remember scripture correctly Peter was trying to keep as low a profile as possible.

Remember he denied who he was when recognized shortly after the death of Christ and he fufilled the what Jesus said in Mark 14:30 "Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times"


As to why that scholar would blame Paul...I don't know.
Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years.  The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

If it walks like a donkey and brays like a donkey and smells like a donkey - it's Cold Warrior.  - PoliCon



Palin has run a state, a town and a commercial fishing operation. Obama ain't run nothin' but his mouth. - Mark Steyn

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2008, 08:22:53 AM »
Since Christ designated Peter to be the head of His Church (the first Pope), we must assume Peter was busy doing all the mundane organizing necessary to establish a solid religion -- determining the organization, establishing rules and doctrine, shoring up bonds, visiting the different areas, etc.

Freed of all that stuff, Paul was able to spend time pontificating (and, come on folks, admit it) and emphasizing his misogyny.


If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58679
  • Reputation: +3057/-173
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2008, 08:28:32 AM »
Since Christ designated Peter to be the head of His Church (the first Pope), we must assume Peter was busy doing all the mundane organizing necessary to establish a solid religion -- determining the organization, establishing rules and doctrine, shoring up bonds, visiting the different areas, etc.

But was Peter really doing that?

I get the impression Peter was lost.

What Mr. Snuggle Bunny says rings true; that the Twelve Apostles were of the non-respectable classes or socio-economic castes, unsure, hesitant, whereas Paul was educated and assertive.

We all know what Peter was doing after the emergence of Paul, but until the emergence of Paul, is there any record what Peter was doing?
apres moi, le deluge

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2008, 08:36:51 AM »
Since Christ designated Peter to be the head of His Church (the first Pope), we must assume Peter was busy doing all the mundane organizing necessary to establish a solid religion -- determining the organization, establishing rules and doctrine, shoring up bonds, visiting the different areas, etc.

But was Peter really doing that?

I get the impression Peter was lost.

What Mr. Snuggle Bunny says rings true; that the Twelve Apostles were of the non-respectable classes or socio-economic castes, unsure, hesitant, whereas Paul was educated and assertive.

We all know what Peter was doing after the emergence of Paul, but until the emergence of Paul, is there any record what Peter was doing?

I think part of the problem is the Bible was written between 50-200 years AFTER the deaths of the Apostles.  Paul was certainly the charismatic one and it looks like James was the enforcer.  So, since Peter didn't write a lot and certainly did not have a silver tongue he isn't mentioned a lot after Christ's death.

We know he and Paul were close and probably counseled each other, since they were martyred together.

Just like in 50 year when they are writing about CC (and they will), there will be a lot about Franksolich (prolific and erudite) and not that much about Freedumb2003 (smart ass, more often than not)
.
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58679
  • Reputation: +3057/-173
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2008, 08:41:35 AM »
I think part of the problem is the Bible was written between 50-200 years AFTER the deaths of the Apostles.  Paul was certainly the charismatic one and it looks like James was the enforcer.  So, since Peter didn't write a lot and certainly did not have a silver tongue he isn't mentioned a lot after Christ's death.

We know he and Paul were close and probably counseled each other, since they were martyred together.

I always thought it a magnificent display of God's power, Christ selecting a weak man to lead a church.

Usually when a weak man leads anything, it crumbles along with him.

But in this brilliant instance, Christ obviously meant to illustrate that God is so Eternal, so Powerful, that a weak man even at the driver's wheel could do God no harm.
apres moi, le deluge

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2008, 08:46:19 AM »
I think part of the problem is the Bible was written between 50-200 years AFTER the deaths of the Apostles.  Paul was certainly the charismatic one and it looks like James was the enforcer.  So, since Peter didn't write a lot and certainly did not have a silver tongue he isn't mentioned a lot after Christ's death.

We know he and Paul were close and probably counseled each other, since they were martyred together.

I always thought it a magnificent display of God's power, Christ selecting a weak man to lead a church.

Usually when a weak man leads anything, it crumbles along with him.

But in this brilliant instance, Christ obviously meant to illustrate that God is so Eternal, so Powerful, that a weak man even at the driver's wheel could do God no harm.

That explains why DU doesn't really bug The Almighty.  Kind of like the classic sig line "God is dead": Nietzsche -- "Nietzsche is Dead": God.
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline TheSarge

  • Platoon Sergeant
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9557
  • Reputation: +411/-252
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2008, 09:16:24 AM »

I always thought it a magnificent display of God's power, Christ selecting a weak man to lead a church.


It seems to me that Jesus' entire adult life he would put ordinary people in extrodinary situations and they would excel.

It's akin to a recovering alcoholic becoming the biggest advocate around against drinking.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2008, 09:18:51 AM by TheSarge »
Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years.  The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

If it walks like a donkey and brays like a donkey and smells like a donkey - it's Cold Warrior.  - PoliCon



Palin has run a state, a town and a commercial fishing operation. Obama ain't run nothin' but his mouth. - Mark Steyn

Offline SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23048
  • Reputation: +2232/-269
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2008, 09:38:44 AM »
Peter was just trailer park trash...but Paul had been one of THEM. He had studied at the feet of one of the great Talmudic teachers, Gamaliel. He betrayed them.

Actually, sir, you might have hit the nail on the head.

But in all due respect to this guy who made the comment eleven years ago, remember that given the circumstances of the preceding 80 years in that place, involuntarily insulated from the world, he was probably relying upon pre-1917 Jewish philosophy, as he didn't have access to anything newer.

At times, being in the socialist paradises of the workers and peasants was like being in a time machine, one forcefully shoved three or four generations backwards.....or in the case of the peasants, three or four hundred years backwards.
I don't think his geo-political circumstances would have much to do with it as the Talmud was codified at the cusp of the Diaspora, 70 to 135 AD and that is where the devout draw the large balance of their doctrinal interpretations. One of the things that has allowed Jewry to survive as such a singular entity is its reliance on established precedent as expounded in Talmud, Mishna and Midrash. The Hebrew orthodoxy hasn't altered its opinions of Paul regardless of time or place...though the misconduct of centuries has exascerbated their already low opinion of him.
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."

Offline MrsSmith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5977
  • Reputation: +465/-54
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2008, 01:10:42 PM »
Having read Paul's writings in the Bible, I'm sure they "blame" him because he understood the God more than most people ever will, and was able to translate that understanding into words for the rest of us to study.  Peter is the basis of the church, but Paul explained the theology.  Mr Smith has often referred me to Paul's writings when I was trying to understand real Christianity, instead of the christianity-lite garbage that is common knowledge.

And freedumb, I'd have to say the you've missed most of it if you find it misogynistic.  Someone who carefully cherry-picks a handful of verses could come to that conclusion, but that would be the only possible way.
.
.


Antifa - the only fascists in America today.

Offline SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23048
  • Reputation: +2232/-269
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2008, 05:22:26 PM »
And freedumb, I'd have to say the you've missed most of it if you find it misogynistic.  Someone who carefully cherry-picks a handful of verses could come to that conclusion, but that would be the only possible way.
Indeed.

Consider: The husband is the head of the wife; but the word head is kephale which descends from the root klapto, to seize. It had a military implication in its day and it referred to the soldiers who were the first over the walls of a besieged city. It has interesting implications.
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."

Offline FlaGator

  • Another Pilgrim
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5279
  • Reputation: +925/-31
  • Democracy can survive anything except Democrats
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2008, 07:03:01 PM »
Frank if I remember scripture correctly Peter was trying to keep as low a profile as possible.

Remember he denied who he was when recognized shortly after the death of Christ and he fufilled the what Jesus said in Mark 14:30 "Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times"


As to why that scholar would blame Paul...I don't know.

Peter gave up the very low profile approach after the events of the Pentecost. As Acts demonstrates, he became a very vocal promoter of the Christian religion. He was jailed and beaten for speaking out in Christ's name more than once in his life. He was eventually martyred because of his outspokeness and if legend is correct then he was crucified upside down.

As for the Jewish hatred of Paul, well not only was he a turn coat in their eyes who went from being the biggest persecutors of the Christian Jews to the most vocal evangelist of the Christian faith he also committed one of the biggest blasphemies in the Jewish faith. He said that God was offering salvation to gentiles who were considered dogs by Jews. The Jews see themselves as the only ones who have access to the Creator and gentiles will always walk apart from God. Paul had the nerve to state that since the Jews had rejected the Messiah, then God was offering salvation to everyone, Jews and gentiles alike. All one had to do was to accept that Christ died and was resurrected to redeem those who believe and to  call on God, repent and renounce the sinful nature. The Jews don't like this one bit because it puts them on par with gentiles.
"My enemy's enemy is the enemy I kill last."
Klingon Proverb.

Offline FlaGator

  • Another Pilgrim
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5279
  • Reputation: +925/-31
  • Democracy can survive anything except Democrats
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2008, 07:11:15 PM »
Since Christ designated Peter to be the head of His Church (the first Pope), we must assume Peter was busy doing all the mundane organizing necessary to establish a solid religion -- determining the organization, establishing rules and doctrine, shoring up bonds, visiting the different areas, etc.

Freed of all that stuff, Paul was able to spend time pontificating (and, come on folks, admit it) and emphasizing his misogyny.




For the record, Peter was not the first Pope. Although he was the 'Rock upon which' Christ will build his Church, Peter was the chief Apostle and who the other Apostles deferred to when disputes arose between them and he was changed with Evangelizing the Jews. The Pope is strictly a Roman Catholic Church position. The first Pope is considered to be Gregory the Great who became head of the Roman Catholic Church (Bishop of Roman) in 590 A.D. It was he who instituted much of the dogma that defines the Catholic Church.
"My enemy's enemy is the enemy I kill last."
Klingon Proverb.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58679
  • Reputation: +3057/-173
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2008, 07:38:15 PM »
For the record, Peter was not the first Pope. Although he was the 'Rock upon which' Christ will build his Church, Peter was the chief Apostle and who the other Apostles deferred to when disputes arose between them and he was changed with Evangelizing the Jews. The Pope is strictly a Roman Catholic Church position. The first Pope is considered to be Gregory the Great who became head of the Roman Catholic Church (Bishop of Roman) in 590 A.D. It was he who instituted much of the dogma that defines the Catholic Church.

What was going on shortly ("shortly" = circa 200, 300 years) before Gregory the Great was that the Romans gradually abandoned Rome for the safety of Constantinople, far from the barbarians.

Rome had been a large, complex, society, and this desertion by the government and institutions of Rome left a void, left the place in utter chaos and anarchy.

This created a vaccuum, a void, that needed filled.

As the church was the only "institution," such as it was, the church evolved into filling this vaccuum, this absence of order and authority.  A natural evolution; when something's gone and there's an empty space, something else comes along to replace it.

By 590, Gregory the Great, drawing upon scattered bits-and-pieces of precedence and history, formally established the church as an official entity, including the official role of the Pope.

This of course meant the "politicalization" and "formalization" of the church, against which many rebelled circa 900 years later, the Reformation.

One could argue on and on whether this was a good thing or a bad thing, but final judgement is left to God.

However, from a sociological viewpoint, the whole thing was a natural and inevitable evolution; something, anything, had to fill that void.
apres moi, le deluge

Offline FlaGator

  • Another Pilgrim
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5279
  • Reputation: +925/-31
  • Democracy can survive anything except Democrats
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2008, 07:52:20 PM »
Since Christ designated Peter to be the head of His Church (the first Pope), we must assume Peter was busy doing all the mundane organizing necessary to establish a solid religion -- determining the organization, establishing rules and doctrine, shoring up bonds, visiting the different areas, etc.

But was Peter really doing that?

I get the impression Peter was lost.

What Mr. Snuggle Bunny says rings true; that the Twelve Apostles were of the non-respectable classes or socio-economic castes, unsure, hesitant, whereas Paul was educated and assertive.

We all know what Peter was doing after the emergence of Paul, but until the emergence of Paul, is there any record what Peter was doing?

I think part of the problem is the Bible was written between 50-200 years AFTER the deaths of the Apostles.  Paul was certainly the charismatic one and it looks like James was the enforcer.  So, since Peter didn't write a lot and certainly did not have a silver tongue he isn't mentioned a lot after Christ's death.

We know he and Paul were close and probably counseled each other, since they were martyred together.

Just like in 50 year when they are writing about CC (and they will), there will be a lot about Franksolich (prolific and erudite) and not that much about Freedumb2003 (smart ass, more often than not)
.


The Pentateuch is credited to Moses. Many Christian scholars believe that it was first written in mass around 800 B.C during the exile to Babylon in order for the Jews to maintain their heritage while in captivity. Ther rest of the books of the old testement were written between then and about 300 B.C. The oldest books of the new testement are the Epistles of Paul. The earliest ones Paul wrote around 50 A.D. (20 years after the Ascension of Christ). The earliest fragments of the Gospels is of the Gospel of Mark and it seems that it was written around 45 to 60 A.D. Mark, Luke and Matthew are thought to be based on two works written earlier than 45 A.D.

At any any rate, the original Christian Old Testament was put together around 120 A.D. It was based on what was being used in the near east synagoges at the time The books that ended up being contained in the New Testement for first assembed by a theologian named Athanasius in a letter dated 367. The Christian Bible as we know it today was first assembled following the The Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. 

For information on the earliest examples of the Gospels and Epistles know to exist, the following web site is useful.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html
« Last Edit: May 11, 2008, 09:00:49 PM by FlaGator »
"My enemy's enemy is the enemy I kill last."
Klingon Proverb.

Offline FlaGator

  • Another Pilgrim
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5279
  • Reputation: +925/-31
  • Democracy can survive anything except Democrats
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2008, 08:09:16 PM »
For the record, Peter was not the first Pope. Although he was the 'Rock upon which' Christ will build his Church, Peter was the chief Apostle and who the other Apostles deferred to when disputes arose between them and he was changed with Evangelizing the Jews. The Pope is strictly a Roman Catholic Church position. The first Pope is considered to be Gregory the Great who became head of the Roman Catholic Church (Bishop of Roman) in 590 A.D. It was he who instituted much of the dogma that defines the Catholic Church.

What was going on shortly ("shortly" = circa 200, 300 years) before Gregory the Great was that the Romans gradually abandoned Rome for the safety of Constantinople, far from the barbarians.

Rome had been a large, complex, society, and this desertion by the government and institutions of Rome left a void, left the place in utter chaos and anarchy.

This created a vaccuum, a void, that needed filled.

As the church was the only "institution," such as it was, the church evolved into filling this vaccuum, this absence of order and authority.  A natural evolution; when something's gone and there's an empty space, something else comes along to replace it.

By 590, Gregory the Great, drawing upon scattered bits-and-pieces of precedence and history, formally established the church as an official entity, including the official role of the Pope.

This of course meant the "politicalization" and "formalization" of the church, against which many rebelled circa 900 years later, the Reformation.

One could argue on and on whether this was a good thing or a bad thing, but final judgement is left to God.

However, from a sociological viewpoint, the whole thing was a natural and inevitable evolution; something, anything, had to fill that void.

I understand that. I have been educating myself in the history of the Christian church lately. The question is did the Roman Catholic church fill in the a void in the line of Peter, or did that line instead move to Constantinople when Roman transferred it's seat of power?  The conclusion that I have is that Peter stands as the rock of what is referred to as the invisible Church, the true body of Christ that is a part of all denominations and transends the different variations in beliefs and worship. In this case I believe that Christ was not referring to a building or a denomination but to a common set of beliefs and behaviors that have been manifest in the regenerate via the Spirit of Truth. Just my opinion
« Last Edit: May 11, 2008, 09:01:37 PM by FlaGator »
"My enemy's enemy is the enemy I kill last."
Klingon Proverb.

Offline FlaGator

  • Another Pilgrim
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5279
  • Reputation: +925/-31
  • Democracy can survive anything except Democrats
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2008, 08:16:03 PM »
Since Christ designated Peter to be the head of His Church (the first Pope), we must assume Peter was busy doing all the mundane organizing necessary to establish a solid religion -- determining the organization, establishing rules and doctrine, shoring up bonds, visiting the different areas, etc.

But was Peter really doing that?

I get the impression Peter was lost.

What Mr. Snuggle Bunny says rings true; that the Twelve Apostles were of the non-respectable classes or socio-economic castes, unsure, hesitant, whereas Paul was educated and assertive.

We all know what Peter was doing after the emergence of Paul, but until the emergence of Paul, is there any record what Peter was doing?

Read Acts. Peter was very involved in the spread of Christian before Paul was converted.
"My enemy's enemy is the enemy I kill last."
Klingon Proverb.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58679
  • Reputation: +3057/-173
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2008, 08:21:23 PM »
By the way, FlaGator, have you ever read Paul Johnson's History of Christianity?

A really big scholastic work, from the late 1970s, I think.

Awesome book, powerful book, a book one has to read all the way through before putting it down.

apres moi, le deluge

Offline TheSarge

  • Platoon Sergeant
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9557
  • Reputation: +411/-252
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2008, 08:41:50 PM »

Peter gave up the very low profile approach after the events of the Pentecost. As Acts demonstrates, he became a very vocal promoter of the Christian religion. He was jailed and beaten for speaking out in Christ's name more than once in his life. He was eventually martyred because of his outspokeness and if legend is correct then he was crucified upside down.

As for the Jewish hatred of Paul, well not only was he a turn coat in their eyes who went from being the biggest persecutors of the Christian Jews to the most vocal evangelist of the Christian faith he also committed one of the biggest blasphemies in the Jewish faith. He said that God was offering salvation to gentiles who were considered dogs by Jews. The Jews see themselves as the only ones who have access to the Creator and gentiles will always walk apart from God. Paul had the nerve to state that since the Jews had rejected the Messiah, then God was offering salvation to everyone, Jews and gentiles alike. All one had to do was to accept that Christ died and was resurrected to redeem those who believe and to  call on God, repent and renounce the sinful nature. The Jews don't like this one bit because it puts them on par with gentiles.

So in one instance you have someone who denied he'd even known Jesus becoming his mor vocal supporter...and a former persecutor of Jews becoming their leader.

Both brought together in life changing ways by one man.

Seems to me that the lesson here is that no matter what you've done in the past...you can change if you believe.
Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years.  The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

If it walks like a donkey and brays like a donkey and smells like a donkey - it's Cold Warrior.  - PoliCon



Palin has run a state, a town and a commercial fishing operation. Obama ain't run nothin' but his mouth. - Mark Steyn

Offline FlaGator

  • Another Pilgrim
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5279
  • Reputation: +925/-31
  • Democracy can survive anything except Democrats
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2008, 08:51:30 PM »
And freedumb, I'd have to say the you've missed most of it if you find it misogynistic.  Someone who carefully cherry-picks a handful of verses could come to that conclusion, but that would be the only possible way.
Indeed.

Consider: The husband is the head of the wife; but the word head is kephale which descends from the root klapto, to seize. It had a military implication in its day and it referred to the soldiers who were the first over the walls of a besieged city. It has interesting implications.

Let's look at that:
First Kephale (κεφαλὴ) which is translated as head. This word is used through out the New Testement to refer to the head of a human body or in a metaphorical sense as the foundation or basis of an organization . For example:

Do not swear by your head (Matt 5:36)
Give me the head of John the Baptist (Matt 14:8)
Christ is the head of every man (1 Corinthians 11:3)

In Luke 20:17 "The stone the builders have rejected has become the capstone" (cornerstone in other translations)

I could not find any examples in the New Testement of the world Kephale being used in a military way.

As for the statement that the husband is the head of the wife, I tend to use Scripture to clarify Scripture. On the surface this sounds very misogynistic.

Quote
Ephesians 5:22-23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

But other verses put this in to some perspective and falsify the misogynistic aspect of the above verse.

Quote
1 Corinthians 7:3-5
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

That's just my two cents... for what it's worth.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2008, 09:07:43 PM by FlaGator »
"My enemy's enemy is the enemy I kill last."
Klingon Proverb.

Offline FlaGator

  • Another Pilgrim
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5279
  • Reputation: +925/-31
  • Democracy can survive anything except Democrats
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2008, 08:57:36 PM »

Peter gave up the very low profile approach after the events of the Pentecost. As Acts demonstrates, he became a very vocal promoter of the Christian religion. He was jailed and beaten for speaking out in Christ's name more than once in his life. He was eventually martyred because of his outspokeness and if legend is correct then he was crucified upside down.

As for the Jewish hatred of Paul, well not only was he a turn coat in their eyes who went from being the biggest persecutors of the Christian Jews to the most vocal evangelist of the Christian faith he also committed one of the biggest blasphemies in the Jewish faith. He said that God was offering salvation to gentiles who were considered dogs by Jews. The Jews see themselves as the only ones who have access to the Creator and gentiles will always walk apart from God. Paul had the nerve to state that since the Jews had rejected the Messiah, then God was offering salvation to everyone, Jews and gentiles alike. All one had to do was to accept that Christ died and was resurrected to redeem those who believe and to  call on God, repent and renounce the sinful nature. The Jews don't like this one bit because it puts them on par with gentiles.

So in one instance you have someone who denied he'd even known Jesus becoming his mor vocal supporter...and a former persecutor of Jews becoming their leader.

Both brought together in life changing ways by one man.

Seems to me that the lesson here is that no matter what you've done in the past...you can change if you believe.

You are exactly right my friend! Today being the day that Pentecost celebrated in Church is a good day for this lesson. I know that the Holy Spirit changed me from the wicked sinner that I was in to the God loving repentant sinner that I am today. It wasn't that long ago that I would have been right their with Owl telling you Christians what fools were and now, 2 years later I'm considering going to seminary. Funny what the Lord will do with us when we give Him the chance.

"My enemy's enemy is the enemy I kill last."
Klingon Proverb.

Offline FlaGator

  • Another Pilgrim
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5279
  • Reputation: +925/-31
  • Democracy can survive anything except Democrats
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2008, 08:59:19 PM »
By the way, FlaGator, have you ever read Paul Johnson's History of Christianity?

A really big scholastic work, from the late 1970s, I think.

Awesome book, powerful book, a book one has to read all the way through before putting it down.



Right now I have my hands full with 'The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity' and Martin Luther's 'Table Talk'. But I will pick up and copy of that next time I order from Barnes and Nobles.
"My enemy's enemy is the enemy I kill last."
Klingon Proverb.

Offline Splashdown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6729
  • Reputation: +475/-100
  • Out of 9 lives, I spent 7
Re: Peter or Paul
« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2008, 09:09:00 PM »
For the record, Peter was not the first Pope. Although he was the 'Rock upon which' Christ will build his Church, Peter was the chief Apostle and who the other Apostles deferred to when disputes arose between them and he was changed with Evangelizing the Jews. The Pope is strictly a Roman Catholic Church position. The first Pope is considered to be Gregory the Great who became head of the Roman Catholic Church (Bishop of Roman) in 590 A.D. It was he who instituted much of the dogma that defines the Catholic Church.

With respect, Peter IS considered the first Pope in the Catholic Church. He was the bishop of Rome, and that's where he was executed. The second Pope, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, was St. Linus. According to Roman Catholic tradition, there were 63 Popes before St. Gregory the Great (Although you are definitely correct about Gregory's  importance. We're still using his calendar, for example.)

Catholic Encyclopedia

Let nothing trouble you,
Let nothing frighten you. 
All things are passing;
God never changes.
Patience attains all that it strives for.
He who has God lacks nothing:
God alone suffices.
--St. Theresa of Avila



"No crushed ice; no peas." -- Undies