storytime

Jesus didn't start a new religion. His way, truth and life was that in Judaism. "Salvation is of the Jews". Peter, on the other hand, goes against the Law and creates a new religion wherein Gentiles are made equal to the Jews without observing the same Laws and tradition as handed down by the prophets,priests,sages,elders and whomever else within Judaism.

According to Jesus, Peter had yet to be converted. But isn't Peter recognized as a Jew, or maybe a proseltyte not fully considered "Jewish" but in the process of becoming legalized, according to the Jewish custom?

Why would any Jewish authorities in those days have allowed Peter to give equal rights to Gentiles? Equal rights meaning, equal inheritors to the promise[promised land]?

Without Peter's vision, where would Christianity be today?

show_no_mercy

Paul's letters and the Pseudo-Clementines make it obvious that Peter remained a Jew and only preached to Jews. It was Paul who is more responsible for Christianity than Peter. Without Peter, Christianity would be exactly how it is right now.

ApostateAbe

show_no_mercy is right--it was Paul who preached Christianity to the Gentiles. If you mean Paul, then without Paul Christianity would have remained an obscure sect of Judaism and it likely would have died and remained unnoticed by history. But Peter was still important--he was the one most likely to have strongly advocated the idea that Jesus resurrected (Peter was the immediate leading successor to Jesus).

storytime

But without Peter's vision of Gentiles believed by James and the other disciples, Paul would not have received permission to take his gospel to the Gentiles telling them that they need not observe the Jewish tradition of circumcision. This then shows how Peter is responsible for creating a new religion instead of Paul. Paul merely followed the lead of Peter.

Without Peter Christianity could not have established itself as a religion.

Did Peter's vision make God a liar? Would God not have demanded the same traditional custom for the Gentiles as He did for the Jews? (observance of circumcision and Law)

aa5874

But, isn't the Pseudo-Clementines forgeries?

And Peter was supposed to be the 1st bishop of Rome, not Paul.

aa5874

The disciples of Jesus went all over the world according to Church writers, not only Paul. John the apostle was in Ephesus, and even Mark was in Alexandria.

Peter wrote letters to people in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia and Bithynia based on the Epistle with the name Peter.

There is simpy no evidence that Paul started Christianity, not even in the Pauline Epistles.

storytime

Thanks to you both for responding but I disagree. Paul may have preached his gospel to the Gentiles but it was Peter's vision that got the ball rolling, so to speak.

What do you think about Peter? A patriot of Judaism or a traitor, therein called "Satan"? Jesus had told his disciples: "Have I not chosen twelve and one is a devil?"

I tend to speculate a lot on the story, like why Peter would purposefully go against the commandments of his god? Paul had confronted Peter to his face about his hypocrisy because Peter had been living in the manner of the Gentiles. Evidently Peter had been preaching a double doctrine or something. After Paul's exposing Peter's hypocrisy to the other disciples, Peter tucks his tale between his legs and goes back to Jerusalem with James and the other disciples.

Peter also seems to be the cocky one among the crew and the one that Jesus paid most attention to. His eagerness to be the head disciple, delegating assignments to the others, declaring himself the one god had chosen to lead them. Proud and pompous was this character Peter.

So.. why would a learned Pharisee such as Paul who should have known his Jewish laws, permit Peter's lie to be expanded in a gospel?

show_no_mercy

What vision? You think Acts of the Apostles is history? Paul explicitly rebukes Cephas (assumed to be Peter) for his hypocrisy in table manners between Jews and non-Jews in his letter to Galatians. Which contradicts the Acts of the Apostles idea that Peter came up with it first. It was Paul's idea, not Peter's.

Acts of the Apostles is mid/late 2nd century catholicizing, trying to limit the popularity of Paul and shift everything to the "historical" witnesses.

OneInFundieville

The character Peter provides a number of things.

He's a witness character. We observe things through his eyes.

He's an identifiable character. He tries and fails. He flubs things up. He speaks "inside words" of his thought space that a more polished character would refrain from speaking. We observe things through his thoughts.

He's a continuity character. He provides a character for bridge stories between the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition. It's very important that the bridge and appeal to ancient tradition be instrumental in the founding of the new religion.

The canonical and non-canonical stories generally follow these types of themes though they vary in details.

Rick Sumner

I'll play devil's advocate.

Even discounting Acts here, Paul's rebuke in Galatians seems to be rooted in the suggestion that Peter is breaking his promise. The charge is hypocrisy.

That charge doesn't make much sense if Peter had never had any thoughts in favour of the inclusion of Gentiles. It would seem at least plausible to suggest that the idea didn't start with Paul.