Paul & Christianity

[PoetPhilosopher]

I have a feeling there may be errors in my premise or conclusion, but here goes...

I have thought about the possibility that when Jesus basically gave Peter the keys to heaven, yes I think it's symbolic, that Peter went on to found Catholicism.

When I presented this theory to someone one time, they basically said, to paraphrase: "I fathom you may be right. But other Christianity existed, as Paul founded churches." I think they eventually made the case that Paul's churches were kind of like the Protestanism of today had Protestantism existed back then.

So here's the curveball I present. A couple of people on this forum say that Paul was crazy and not inspired. In doing so, are they unintentionally and indirectly making the argument, if my argument is correct, that if you choose Christianity, the true path is pretty much, more or less Catholicism?

 

[Twilight Hue]

If I was a Christian, I would say Paul followed a false Christ.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I have a feeling there may be errors in my premise or conclusion, but here goes...

I have thought about the possibility that when Jesus basically gave Peter the keys to heaven, yes I think it's symbolic, that Peter went on to found Catholicism.

When I presented this theory to someone one time, they basically said, to paraphrase: "I fathom you may be right. But other Christianity existed, as Paul founded churches." I think they eventually made the case that Paul's churches were kind of like the Protestanism of today had Protestantism existed back then.

So here's the curveball I present. A couple of people on this forum say that Paul was crazy and not inspired. In doing so, are they unintentionally and indirectly making the argument, if my argument is correct, that if you choose Christianity, the true path is pretty much, more or less Catholicism?

Um, No.

 

[InChrist]

I have a feeling there may be errors in my premise or conclusion, but here goes...

I have thought about the possibility that when Jesus basically gave Peter the keys to heaven, yes I think it's symbolic, that Peter went on to found Catholicism.

When I presented this theory to someone one time, they basically said, to paraphrase: "I fathom you may be right. But other Christianity existed, as Paul founded churches." I think they eventually made the case that Paul's churches were kind of like the Protestanism of today had Protestantism existed back then.

So here's the curveball I present. A couple of people on this forum say that Paul was crazy and not inspired. In doing so, are they unintentionally and indirectly making the argument, if my argument is correct, that if you choose Christianity, the true path is pretty much, more or less Catholicism?

I don't think Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven has anything to do with the Roman Catholic church because according to other statements of Jesus the way to heaven was and is the gospel and belief in Him.
So I see that Jesus was giving Peter the commission to spread the gospel which Peter did uniquely as he preached the gospel on day of Pentecost as he opened the door of the gospel to the Jews. Peter was the first to preach the gospel to the Jews, the message that Christ had died for our sins, was buried, and rose again. And again it was Peter in Acts 10, who shared the gospel with Cornelius’ household, the first Gentile that we know of who became a believer. I would say that he used the key to the kingdom of heaven which is the gospel in a unique way, initially for the Jews and initially for the Gentiles.

 

[74x12]

I have a feeling there may be errors in my premise or conclusion, but here goes...

I have thought about the possibility that when Jesus basically gave Peter the keys to heaven, yes I think it's symbolic, that Peter went on to found Catholicism.

When I presented this theory to someone one time, they basically said, to paraphrase: "I fathom you may be right. But other Christianity existed, as Paul founded churches." I think they eventually made the case that Paul's churches were kind of like the Protestanism of today had Protestantism existed back then.

So here's the curveball I present. A couple of people on this forum say that Paul was crazy and not inspired. In doing so, are they unintentionally and indirectly making the argument, if my argument is correct, that if you choose Christianity, the true path is pretty much, more or less Catholicism?

Catholicism was hijacked and steered off course long ago. Paul wasn't crazy either. Peter and Paul were birds of a feather to be honest.

 

[1213]

..., the true path is pretty much, more or less Catholicism?

I think, the true path is to follow Jesus and his teachings. Christian originally meant a disciple of Jesus, and if one is really Christian, he is faithful to Jesus.

… It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 11:26

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

Catholics are not really very faithful to Jesus, they ignore many things Jesus said.

 

[crossfire]

I have a feeling there may be errors in my premise or conclusion, but here goes...

I have thought about the possibility that when Jesus basically gave Peter the keys to heaven, yes I think it's symbolic, that Peter went on to found Catholicism.

When I presented this theory to someone one time, they basically said, to paraphrase: "I fathom you may be right. But other Christianity existed, as Paul founded churches." I think they eventually made the case that Paul's churches were kind of like the Protestanism of today had Protestantism existed back then.

So here's the curveball I present. A couple of people on this forum say that Paul was crazy and not inspired. In doing so, are they unintentionally and indirectly making the argument, if my argument is correct, that if you choose Christianity, the true path is pretty much, more or less Catholicism?

This is the test Jesus put forth by which his disciples could be recognized:

John 13:34-35
34 “I give you a new command: Love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”​

 

[Ellen Brown]

This is the test Jesus put forth by which his disciples could be recognized:

John 13:34-35
34 “I give you a new command: Love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”​

Parallel with Micah 6:8. So sad that humans don't want simple. They want lots of rules and many in authority over them.

 

[MikeDwight]

Of Course many of the 12 Apostles founded Churches today not in Catholicism. Peter Seemed like the Least faithful Apostle, he's not the first-called Saint Andrew, he denied Christ 3 times by the time the rooster crowed, no specificity past the renaming of the brother as Peter and that he will be the Church.
I like the premise about the 7churches and Protestantism. We do note early orthodox Iconoclasm associated with Dutch Iconoclasm in the Reformation. The Icons that people thought Contained gateways to God were destroyed by Christians both by the Iconoclasts and the Iconoclasm of the Dutch Reformed.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

the first Gentile that we know of who became a believer.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought there were several Greeks and Romans in the gospels themselves who converted.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

A couple of people on this forum say that Paul was crazy and not inspired. In doing so, are they unintentionally and indirectly making the argument, if my argument is correct, that if you choose Christianity, the true path is pretty much, more or less Catholicism?

You know how there are so many old testament verses about Jesus, he constantly quotes the old testament pointing out many of the verses he says he is fulfilling. So logically in order to have this discussion, why does it seem like the old testament (where all the verses that need fulfilling are) doesn't often the discussion in such a sense with the apostles?

 

[Deeje]

I have a feeling there may be errors in my premise or conclusion, but here goes...

I have thought about the possibility that when Jesus basically gave Peter the keys to heaven, yes I think it's symbolic, that Peter went on to found Catholicism.

When I presented this theory to someone one time, they basically said, to paraphrase: "I fathom you may be right. But other Christianity existed, as Paul founded churches." I think they eventually made the case that Paul's churches were kind of like the Protestanism of today had Protestantism existed back then.

So here's the curveball I present. A couple of people on this forum say that Paul was crazy and not inspired. In doing so, are they unintentionally and indirectly making the argument, if my argument is correct, that if you choose Christianity, the true path is pretty much, more or less Catholicism?

None of the above actually......according to Bible prophesy, Jesus and his apostles warned about a coming apostasy....a falling away from the truth taught by Christ.

In his parable of the "wheat and the weeds" Jesus said that the devil would sow fake "wheat" in the same field as Jesus had sown fine wheat. The illustration makes perfect sense if you understand what seed it was that the devil sowed. In Bible times there was a toxic weed named "bearded darnel" sometimes called "wheat's evil twin".
Wheat's Evil Twin Has Been Intoxicating Humans For Centuries

It mimics wheat in the early growing period, but as the harvest approaches the two take on different characteristics. Then the reapers can go out and remove the weeds before the final harvest.

In the days of the apostles there was already some who wanted to deviate from the truth....the apostles whilst they were alive acted as a restraint for this apostate thinking...but after the apostles passed away, the apostasy gained ground....doing what "weeds" do best.

Paul warned that Jesus would not come again unless this apostasy took place first. (2 Thessalonians 2:3) He speaks about the restraining influence of the living apostles....

"And now you know what is acting as a restraint, so that he will be revealed in his own due time. 7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way."

Once the apostles passed away there was nothing to stop the rot setting in.....Christendom was born with Roman Catholicism and its reign of bloodshed and torture proves that Jesus Christ was never in it.

Where was the love Jesus promoted? A love even of one's enemies? (Matthew 5:44-45)
"By their fruits" Jesus said we would recognize his true disciples.....by the love they had for one another. (John 13:34-35)

So neither Catholicism nor Protestantism is genuine Christianity....all teach the same errors....things that Christ never taught.
1) That Jesus is God and part of a triune godhead.
2 That humans have an immortal soul that departs from the body at death.
3) That God punishes the wicked in a blazing fire for all eternity.

None of those things are found in ancient Judaism or in early Christians teaching.

According to Daniel, it was not going to be until "the time of the end" that there would be a cleansing and refining of people. (Daniel 12:9-10) These processes require the removal of stains or impurities....and Christendom was full of them. Those who refused the cleansing would understand nothing.

Jesus' words at the judgment say it all.....
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’" (Matthew 7:21-23 NASB)

Notice that Jesus is rejecting those who claim him as their "Lord" but he says outright that he "never knew" these ones......"NEVER" means "not ever".....let that sink in for a moment. He is calling these 'fake Christians' those who "practice lawlessness". These are the weeds sown by the devil who were only going to be identified at "the time of the end" when Jesus would sent out his reapers to harvest the weeds first and throw them in the oven to destroy them completely. Then he will gather the wheat into his storehouse. (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43; Revelation 18:4-8)

That, I believe, is how the Bible explains it.

 

[metis]

A couple of people on this forum say that Paul was crazy and not inspired. In doing so, are they unintentionally and indirectly making the argument, if my argument is correct, that if you choose Christianity, the true path is pretty much, more or less Catholicism?

I don't see that as being any direct connection, but let me just add that I don't think that Paul threw Jesus under the bus.

However, Jesus said that he would guide his Church until the end of time, and the only church that could fit that bill is the Catholic Church since it can rather easily be traced back to Jesus and the apostles. Therefore, the concept that some have that the CC slipped into apostasy would basically make Jesus wrong on this, as the Church is cited in the NT as being "one body", to use Paul's words. And that "one body" chose the canon of scripture used by the vast majority of Christians. .

 

[InChrist]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought there were several Greeks and Romans in the gospels themselves who converted.

While there were those Romans and Greeks mentioned in the gospels who believed in Jesus, the gospel message which Peter proclaimed : the life, death, and resurrection of Christ for forgiveness of sins and eternal life was not preached until after the cross and resurrection. The book of Acts gives an overview of the beginning of the church and spread of the gospel and chapter 10 appears to indicate that Cornelius was the first Gentile Peter shared the gospel with who was converted.

 

[Ellen Brown]

While there were those Romans and Greeks mentioned in the gospels who believed in Jesus, the gospel message which Peter proclaimed : the life, death, and resurrection of Christ for forgiveness of sins and eternal life was not preached until after the cross and resurrection. The book of Acts gives an overview of the beginning of the church and spread of the gospel and chapter 10 appears to indicate that Cornelius was the first Gentile Peter shared the gospel with who was converted.

I "FEEL" that the book of acts is a mean spirited change in direction from the four Gospels. Yes, Jesus says some very hard things but I have not doubted his authority to do so. In Acts, Ananias and Sapphira were murdered despite the lack of an Order to give all their belongings away. Some will argue that Jesus gave that order in the Gospels but I do not see it that way.

It is interesting that even after Saul's conversion, it was more than a dozen years before he was accepted, I am told.

 

[Politesse]

I think they eventually made the case that Paul's churches were kind of like the Protestanism of today had Protestantism existed back then.

...

A couple of people on this forum say that Paul was crazy and not inspired. In doing so, are they unintentionally and indirectly making the argument, if my argument is correct, that if you choose Christianity, the true path is pretty much, more or less Catholicism?

I don't see how Paul is any less responsible for the founding of the Roman church than Peter. Paul's words are quoted in every liturgy. Almost all doctrine is tied to his works somehow. Nary an encyclical fails to mention one of his works or hymns. He was a part of the Roman church before Peter was; his letter to the Romans predates Peter's tenure in that place. I acknowledge that Protestants like to see themselves in Paul's career, but he can hardly be considered an analogical Protestant when his teachings form so much of the core of Latin orthodoxy. Luther was very much inspired by Paul, it is true, but Paul was already heavily emphasized by the Augustinian order to which Luther belonged. A Pauline focus was not his invention alone.

 

[MikeDwight]

7 paragraphs of maybe 40 in John Knox's "1st Blast of the Trumpet on the monstrous regiment of women" mention Augustine of Hippo by name. The general traditional findings mostly, about the fall of Eve by her own devices leading to a sort of stewardship by Adam. As far as organized Church otherwise? I find it kind of a joke. Were they going to write histories of themselves while they were doing it? Who exists between the 300 ad Nicene Creed and the 100 AD final Chapters of the Bible? Even More Ridiculous to be quoting at us about the "Roman Church" , I have no idea. Paul leading the Roman Church? The Roman Church puts on blinders to ignore 12 Apostles and carries Great Weight on direct descent of Peter and his Keys. Popes have a lineage.
Augustine of Hippo - Wikipedia

 

[Ellen Brown]

7 paragraphs of maybe 40 in John Knox's "1st Blast of the Trumpet on the monstrous regiment of women" mention Augustine of Hippo by name. The general traditional findings mostly, about the fall of Eve by her own devices leading to a sort of stewardship by Adam. As far as organized Church otherwise? I find it kind of a joke. Were they going to write histories of themselves while they were doing it? Who exists between the 300 ad Nicene Creed and the 100 AD final Chapters of the Bible? Even More Ridiculous to be quoting at us about the "Roman Church" , I have no idea. Paul leading the Roman Church? The Roman Church puts on blinders to ignore 12 Apostles and carries Great Weight on direct descent of Peter and his Keys. Popes have a lineage.
Augustine of Hippo - Wikipedia

Salvation is not in the Organized Church. Jesus said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." I wonder when we'll start acting that way? So far, so many of the religions act like it is their own private dominion and in the most demeaning and offensive way. Letting go of all that and loving God in the way most pleasing to him seems beyond us. From Muslim to Mormon our ways are an offense.

 

[MikeDwight]

Salvation is not in the Organized Church. Jesus said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." I wonder when we'll start acting that way? So far, so many of the religions act like it is their own private dominion and in the most demeaning and offensive way. Letting go of all that and loving God in the way most pleasing to him seems beyond us. From Muslim to Mormon our ways are an offense.

Should have told me this a few minutes before I went to all this trouble over here about the last time we had any Organized Church in the world!
End of Organized Christians by Country

 

[Ellen Brown]

Should have told me this a few minutes before I went to all this trouble over here about the last time we had any Organized Church in the world!
End of Organized Christians by Country

I looked at your link. Does this mean that the countless other denominations are either not valid or simply an offshoot of another original church? What about Foursquare International, Apostolistic Faiths, Mormons, Amish and countless others? The Mormons cured me of the arrogance of ever thinking I could be part of a denomination and please God. It seems as though NO Pastor or Pastoral organization can rule for God. I've been a slow learner. I repent and ask God for forgiveness through Jesus the Christ.

I still seek out a body at times where I can take the Sacrament of Jesus Christ in obedience to his wishes.

Thinking about the Prophet Hosea who God told to marry a harlot. I wonder if anyone has understood that?