Lets Suppose For A Minute That Jesus Actually Existed...

[RATTER15]

and he appeared in today's world, what would he make of today's Christians, their big elaborate churches and cathedrals, the pope and the Vatican and all their wealth etc...

I would imagine he would probably collapse in tears!

[naomi24]

Mibs, good avatar.

[mibn2cweus]

While it lasted. ;o)

[naomi24]

Ha ha! A burka perhaps?

[mibn2cweus]

Perhaps they could lob off the head of the one in front . . . at least.

[Peter Pedant]

//He then passed authority to Peter : Matthew ch 16 v 18.in any version of the N.T. that I have read . //

today I wanna try:
tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam

OK OK I admit it Latin is one of the many languages I dont do

hmm study of the Early Church and its institutions - surely it all starts with study of the contemporary documents ?

The formula comes up in the election of the new pope and I was shocked to hear that none of the English RCs commenting on it, identified it. [ So obviously they didnt do Latin as well ]

we arent all saying the first Pope was Paul and not Peter are we ?
interesting point

[vetuste_ennemi]

There is no evidence of Peter's ever having been in Rome. I don't know at what time the Peter as first Pope, then Linus etc. started. Must read up a bit.
Paul was certainly in Rome for "civis Romanus sum" litigation reasons.

[SirOracle]

Vetestu, What does Rome have to do with the subject of Jesus and Peter at the formation of the Christian Church. ?

Peter Pedant. Not all are saying this .At the very least I am disagreeing(mainly with Naomi),who believes that Paul started Christianity.

[naomi24]

SirOracle, //I am disagreeing(mainly with Naomi),who believes that Paul started Christianity.//

To clarify, Paul laid the foundation for Christianity as we know it – a far cry from its Jewish beginnings.

You say you’re disagreeing with me but apart from quoting Matthew 16:18: //And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.// you’ve offered no counter-argument whatsoever.

If you’re not interested in history, allow me to offer this, also allegedly from Jesus.

//….Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matt 10:5,6//

//But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matt 15:24//

How do you reconcile that with Paul’s ministry?

[benhilton]

Naomi , sticking with the Gospel of Matthew , go to chapter 21
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat021.htm

The parable of the vineyard verses 33-45 , specifically verses 42+43 :
And Jesus said to them, Have you never read those words in the scriptures, The very stone which the builders rejected has become the chief stone at the corner; this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?[7] 43 I tell you, then, that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and given to a people which yields the revenues that belong to it. 44

Jesus makes it clear that if the Chosen Nation rejects the word , the word will be taken to other nations .

It is Peter , not Paul , who makes the decision to accept the uncircumcised Cornelius - Acts chapter 10 :
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act010.htm
Verses 34+35 :34 Thereupon Peter began speaking; I see clearly enough, he said, that God makes no distinction between man and man; 35 he welcomes anybody, whatever his race, who fears him and does what piety demands.
Also Acts 15 :
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act015.htm
Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem ( recognising the leadership of Peter ) for a decision about uncircumcised Christians . Peter takes the lead , backed up by James , deciding to impose no burden other than abstaining from idolatry and unclean meat - verses 28+29 :
28 It is the Holy Spirit’s pleasure and ours that no burden should be laid upon you beyond these, which cannot be avoided; 29 you are to abstain from what is sacrificed to idols, from blood-meat and meat which has been strangled, and from fornication. If you keep away from such things, you will have done your part. Farewell. (- i.e. circumcision isn't necessary .)

Jesus made it clear that the Word would be taken to Gentiles if rejected , Peter made it clear that he accepts uncircumcised Gentiles and it is clear that Paul accepts the leadership of Peter .

[naomi24]

benhilton, I don’t quite know where to start. // if the Chosen Nation rejects the word , the word will be taken to other nations .//

If? Did ‘God’ really have to await the outcome of what appears to have been his original instruction before changing his mind? You surely don’t take that seriously? As a Jew it is doubtful that Jesus’ intention was to found a new religion, and least of all to convert others to something he would have found abhorrent. If we are to believe scripture, he told his followers to keep the law which is no more than would have been expected of a rabbi. In their attempts to construct a history that corresponded to some degree with Paul’s version of Jesus’ mission, the unknown authors very clearly suffered a great deal of confusion. The record of Jesus’ genealogy alone indicates that a couple of them assumed his parentage was entirely human. We know that the writings have been altered many times – in that there is no dispute - and it’s clear that when these stories were embellished into something far removed from the historical Jesus, Christian ‘councils’, founded upon Paul’s philosophy were already in operation. With no possibility of contradiction, how simple it is to attribute false deeds and false words to the long dead. Perhaps we should return to SirOracle’s question and ask ‘What happened to Peter?’ Of course Christian tradition cross-references his reputation favourably– to paraphrase that well known maxim, ‘They would say that wouldn’t they’ - but as far as I can see he disappeared into oblivion whilst Paul went on to spread his own version of events to which he was never witness. This whole story is a mish-mash of several jigsaw puzzles, but however we choose to select the bits we like the look of, believing it all fits together neatly doesn’t make it so. For that to happen we would need to trim all around the edges, which is precisely what the church does.

For the record, and supernatural hocus pocus aside, I suspect it’s possible that the man Jesus may have been the rightful ‘King of the Jews’. That’s the only answer that makes any sense at all to me.