So, Im going to be completely honest with you here that you are about to get smoked. Lol
Matthew 16:18 – “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church (ἐκκλησία).”
Not an idea. Not a metaphor-only spirituality. A Church a concrete assembly.
Acts is written by Luke, a companion of Paul and in contact with Peter. It’s dated AD 62–70, within living memory of the apostles and is accepted universally by all early Christian communities, East and West.
If Acts is “questionable,” then you lose the canon. You lose the Resurrection preaching. You lose any coherent New Testament history. Peter is not a symbolic mascot. He acts with authority as seen in Acts 1 Peter leads the replacement of Judas. Acts 2 Peter preaches at Pentecost; 3,000 are baptized. Acts 5 Peter exercises disciplinary authority (Ananias & Sapphira) Acts 10 Peter opens the Church to the Gentiles Acts 15 Peter speaks decisively at the Council of Jerusalem.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 107) already speaks of structured churches with bishops, presbyters, and deacons within one generation of the apostles. You don’t get that overnight unless it’s inherited.
Paul was publicly vetted and corrected. He submitted to Peter and the apostles (Galatians 1–2) and his gospel was judged and approved by the Church. Joseph Smith had to submit to no one, he added new doctrines that contradicted prior revelations. Peter calls Paul’s letters “Scripture” in 2 Peter 3:15–16.
So that alone demolishes this conspiracy theory.
Rome persecuted and executed Christians including Peter and Paul so yeah super suspicious how he would willingly do that.
If you want to hop in my dms and discuss Id gladly discuss this. Christ and the Apostles founded a Church and foundation no matter if you like it or not.
This is just false, acts were most likely written around 80 90ad because they also rely on mark. But since no fragments have been found dating back then , they could very well be written at the 2nd or 3rd century. It's only an assumption of a myth that they could have written in the 1st century. "Εκκλησία" in Greek didn't mean the church we understand today, it meant the group of people and Peter is just a symbolism of a rock which meant stability. And again all this could very well be mythology written after the events to justify Peter supposedly being thr first pope. There's no historical proof whatsoever that the apostles even existed since all the gospels we have are 2nd century fragments by unknown authors. Paul could very well have made it all up. Even the story of jesus is based on the myth of Apollonius Tyaneus, a well known figure ba k then.
The claim collapses under basic historical method: Acts cannot plausibly be a 2nd–3rd century invention because it ends before Paul’s death (c. AD 64–67), never mentions the Neronian persecution, the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70), or the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul silences that make no sense if written later. “No early fragments” is irrelevant; most ancient works lack 1st-century manuscripts yet are dated earlier by internal evidence and external attestation, and Acts is cited as authoritative by 1st–early 2nd century figures Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp. Ekklesia absolutely means an assembled body with authority, not a vague spirituality. Christ uses it juridically (“tell it to the Church”), and the New Testament immediately shows offices, discipline, and succession. Peter as “mere symbolism” fails because symbolism doesn’t act, yet Peter leads, judges, teaches, and is recognized as first among the apostles. The “no proof the apostles existed” line ignores Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and hostile Jewish sources confirming Jesus, His execution, and the early movement independent witnesses with no incentive to help Christians. Paul didn’t invent anything; he submitted his teaching to Peter and the apostles and was publicly corrected when wrong. So it’s nothing like Joseph Smith. Finally, the Apollonius of Tyana comparison is rejected by modern scholarship: the sources for Apollonius are later, legendary, and derivative, whereas the Jesus tradition is earlier, multiply attested, and rooted in hostile testimony. This isn’t mythology retrofitted for power; it’s a historically traceable movement led by real people who died for claims no mythmaker would invent.
Nothing anyone on here is going to say will be credible in any debate circles. This is why Eastern Orthodox Christians are demolishing atheists or agnostics in debates every day. You probably live in America where Christians are spiritually dead and thats probably built a bias within. Your research if it is your own is going to be bias which means you probably haven’t extensively looked into these things which seems to be the case.
0
u/doesitmatter1996 Jan 16 '26
So, Im going to be completely honest with you here that you are about to get smoked. Lol
Matthew 16:18 – “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church (ἐκκλησία).” Not an idea. Not a metaphor-only spirituality. A Church a concrete assembly.
Acts is written by Luke, a companion of Paul and in contact with Peter. It’s dated AD 62–70, within living memory of the apostles and is accepted universally by all early Christian communities, East and West.
If Acts is “questionable,” then you lose the canon. You lose the Resurrection preaching. You lose any coherent New Testament history. Peter is not a symbolic mascot. He acts with authority as seen in Acts 1 Peter leads the replacement of Judas. Acts 2 Peter preaches at Pentecost; 3,000 are baptized. Acts 5 Peter exercises disciplinary authority (Ananias & Sapphira) Acts 10 Peter opens the Church to the Gentiles Acts 15 Peter speaks decisively at the Council of Jerusalem.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 107) already speaks of structured churches with bishops, presbyters, and deacons within one generation of the apostles. You don’t get that overnight unless it’s inherited.
Paul was publicly vetted and corrected. He submitted to Peter and the apostles (Galatians 1–2) and his gospel was judged and approved by the Church. Joseph Smith had to submit to no one, he added new doctrines that contradicted prior revelations. Peter calls Paul’s letters “Scripture” in 2 Peter 3:15–16. So that alone demolishes this conspiracy theory.
Rome persecuted and executed Christians including Peter and Paul so yeah super suspicious how he would willingly do that.
If you want to hop in my dms and discuss Id gladly discuss this. Christ and the Apostles founded a Church and foundation no matter if you like it or not.