http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briefe_des_Paulu...

evtl. gibt dieser Artikel Aufschluß oder doch zumindest eine Anregung, in welche Richtung weiter zu suchen ...

re #1: I don't see how that Wikipedia page relates to this question. Can you explain? It's usually better to copy a citation and explain why it's relevant, not just paste a link.

I'm also not sure that 'Bekenntnis' is the right word. The formal creeds of the church were written by committees, centuries after both Peter and Paul.

It's true that Peter was considered in later centuries to be the founder of the church in Rome, based mainly on legend, so in the popular mind he was connected with Catholicism.

The only thing I can think of is that when the early Christians were spreading across the Mediterranean, Paul was more open to welcoming Gentiles without dietary laws and circumcision, whereas Peter was initially more conservative, like the Jerusalem church led by James, which wanted to keep the movement more Jewish. (See Acts 10 for Peter's perspective, and Galatians 1:18–2:14 for Paul's [Cephas = Peter]).

So it's possible that people might have seen the conservative, traditional Catholic faction as analogous to Peter and the Jewish Christians, upholding the letter of the law and barring outsiders, and the reformist Protestant faction as analogous to Paul and the Gentile Christians, breaking down formal barriers and hierarchies in a growing movement toward equality. In that sense, it really does matter which you choose; you can't let people in while keeping them out.

However, it's also possible that the story is just meant to reveal Tornefeld's narrowmindedness. In the early church, after the initial disagreement, both Peter and Paul end up accepting Gentiles, and Paul explicitly says that he doesn't want the early Christians to divide into factions, some following him, others following Cephas [= Peter] or Apollos (1 Cor. 1:10-13). Maybe Tornefeld forgot that passage, and the one where Paul says he has become all things to all people (1 Cor. 9:19-22).

Or maybe it's just a proverb and doesn't really have any deep meaning?



>>zum Wort, das sie sollen lassen stahn

Sorry, what is 'stahn'?

'stehen'

stahn former version of stehen

I'm not very fond of organised religions, but the sentence :
Zum besseren Verständnis der Gemeindesituation in Korinth und des teilweise heftigen Briefstils des Paulus hat der evangelische Pfarrer und Erwachsenenbildner Hans Frör den Briefwechsel "fiktiv rekonstruiert", d.h. auf der Basis der paulischen Aussagen und der exegetischen Forschung Anfragen der Gemeinde "fundiert erfunden", hierzu passende Kapitel aus dem Briefcorpus ausgewählt und beides kontrastiert. [1] Er löst also die beiden Briefe in eine Vielzahl von Einzelbriefen auf. Zugleich ist das Buch eine Verlebendigung der frühchristlichen Geistesströmungen.

might be an indication for further searches ...

Es handelt sich um ein Zitat aus "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott". In der englischen Version "A mighty fortress is our God" heißt es an dieser Stelle: "That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth".

Man kann nicht petrisch und paulisch zugleich sein.

I think this isn't a specific reference to two different confessions. I think it is simply a way to say, "You can't have it both ways", but using religious terms. The background, of course, is the famous confrontation between Paul and Peter in the church at Antioch (cf. Galatians 2). In addition, as has been mentioned earlier, there is the whole mindset of ministering primarily to Jews or to Gentiles. (Paul says Peter had an "apostleship of the circumcision" while Paul was sent to the Gentiles. Gal. 2:8) As much as we might like to idealize the early church, you couldn't really have both a petrine ministry and a pauline ministry; you basically had to choose where you were going to evangelize.

Later, there was a process by which specifically Roman practices supplanted other, local practices. In Spain the Mozarabic rite, in the British Isles the Celtic rite, and in Gaul the Gallic rite were replaced by the Roman rite. (There remain some vestiges of the older rites, such as in Toledo and Lyon.) As part of the "romanization" of British Christianity, the pauline tonsure was supplanted by the petrine tonsure. (Pauline tonsure was either a fully-shaved head or a fringe around the lower part of the head; the petrine tonsure is well known. Some people suggest that these two tonsures developed from the way in which the two men went bald.) People were presented with a choice; they couldn't maintain two separate systems; it was always either/or.

So, I think the speaker is simply presenting that either/or choice in terms familiar to someone in the church.
-You can't be at the pole and the equator at the same time
-You can't eat your cake and have it too
-You can't be in and out at the same time
are other phrases that express the same idea.

Danke. Auf die Möglichkeit, dass es einfach eine Redensart sein könnte, bin ich gar nicht gekommen.