Was Saint Paul more instrumental than Saint Peter in laying a foundation for a universal Christianity...

>modern pussy progressive views
No. Christfags will be the first to go on the day of the rope.

Day of the rope is common for Christians in all ages.

What about the Incident at Antioch?
We will never really know for sure at the end of the day as our only source is the Book of Acts, which was written decades later and isn't exactly an objective historical account.
Personally, the fact that Paul and his cronies were the only ones running around the Empire setting up churches and going out of their way to bring Gentiles into the fold is pretty telling.

Paul most likely did not want to start a new religion. He was about bringing Gentiles into the fold of Judaism.
oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-16
^ This guy explains it pretty well

It seems that James, rather than Peter, was the big kahuna at the Jerusalem Church, and he wasn't particularly keen on Paul's vision. IIRC there's no evidence that Peter went to Rome, let alone acted as a "bishop" (a role which didn't even exist in his day).

There is an exact account of every bishop after Peter and the 3rd one left extensive writings. He has also personally known Peter and confirmed he was indeed in Rome.

Source?

The Fathers by Joseph Ratzinger, first chapter

Is it Pope Clement you're referring to?

Yes.

The only letter he left behind was the First Epistle of Clement, written towards the end of the century and doesn't claim to know much about Peter let alone have met him. Numerous other letters were attributed to him by church tradition but these turned out to be forgeries/pseudepigrapha

There's clearly some disagreement on that

Were that the case we would have seen greater disputes and disunity. The fact that Pauls teachings were accepted universally is pretty telling.

Peter embodies everything bad about Christianity. The institutionalized pedophilia Jewry... Paul embodies everything good: the evangelical message, the mystical, spiritual side, its universality and difference from Judaism.

Argument from silence is problematic

>disputes and disunity
What, in the churches Paul himself founded?

We don't really know how united or divided the churches were in the first century AD as they didn't leave behind a whole lot of writings (most likely because they thought the Second Coming would take place in their lifetimes).

At the same time it's obvious not everyone took Paul seriously, and there's evidence that Jewish Christians in particular objected to him (e.g. Ebionites)

>What, in the churches Paul himself founded?
>We don't really know how united or divided the churches were in the first century AD as they didn't leave behind a whole lot of writings (most likely because they thought the Second Coming would take place in their lifetimes).
No, Paul was the extensive writing of the first Christians as well as other Acts and you can gather a lot from that.

>The fact that Pauls teachings were accepted universally is pretty telling.

They weren't universally accepted. As late as 160 AD, Justin Martyr did not recognize Paul, presumably due to his association with Marcion. Paul was regarded as the father of heresies.

Acts was a fiction written in the middle of the 2nd century that attempted to spin a tale to paper over differences between the Ebionites and Marcionites after their merger.

Source for this ridiculous claim please

>Paul's teachings went down a-okay with everyone because Paul said so

It's quite clear that he has always had a large degree of acceptance in the Christian community. He didn't need absolute support from every community.
None

westarinstitute.org/store/the-mystery-of-acts/

It is now the consensus view among scholars.

'scholars' are not present in this conversation so please provide answers instead of pointing towards people

He asked for a source, I gave the source. What are you not understanding?

It depends on how you look at it. After all, St. Peter had the Petrine office and his death and those who took hold of it carried a lot of weight, but St. Paul's letteres were preserved and surely spread a lot of insight. But let us not imagine the Bible existed then as it did now. Therefore I would actually be inclined to say that there were many others except Paul, and then all of their teachings were referred to the Apostolic office, where they were then kept or discarded... It's tricky. Maybe yes, but maybe no.

>biblical scholars
mighty keks ever since 19th century germans

>It depends on how you look at it. After all, St. Peter had the Petrine office and his death and those who took hold of it carried a lot of weight, but St. Paul's letteres were preserved and surely spread a lot of insight. But let us not imagine the Bible existed then as it did now. Therefore I would actually be inclined to say that there were many others except Paul, and then all of their teachings were referred to the Apostolic office, where they were then kept or discarded... It's tricky. Maybe yes, but maybe no.

What a load of horseshit. Stop making stuff up - it only showcases your ignorance.

>mighty keks ever since 19th century germans

The point is that even NT "scholars" from theological institutions recognize that Acts is full of shit.

>mighty keks ever since 19th century germans
>Being this mad that nobody wants to sit around reading crusty old Vulgate Bibles and relying on muh church tradition

What exactly was he making up, mate?

>stop making stuff up is an argument
It's clearly documented how the Christian world relied on and referred to Rome to know what it's true teachings were for a very long time, even after tensions between East and West started to arise. I only assume that's what you have an issue with.

>biblical scholars
>not the crusty ones
m8

>it's true
shit

all is lost, lads

Bitch ass nigga