Paul did not write Hebrews; we do not know who did

[Hoping]

Anyone that reads the Bible with even the tiniest bit of understanding.

You would have me believe that Jesus' apostles were not part of the churches they founded?
Too much of a stretch for me to believe that.

 

[Derf]

You quoted Acts 2:4 (KJV)..."And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
All of them received the Holy Ghost, and all of them spoke in tongues.

Then you agree with what I was saying--Matthias wasn't specially indicated by the Holy Spirit's interventions of the day more than others.

 

[Right Divider]

You would have me believe that Jesus' apostles were not part of the churches they founded?
Too much of a stretch for me to believe that.

You're confused again.

 

[Derf]

Since Clete already addressed this, I'll just say again that there is no evidence that indicates that he should be, only evidence that Matthias took over Judas's office, and in agreement with Clete, the only reason to think Paul was the twelfth is to satisfy the needs of one's doctrines.

No, I don't think that's true. Paul had an obvious role in the spread of the gospel. He was obviously chosen by Christ as an apostle. He provided the bulk of church doctrine. The only reason not to consider him as the replacement for Judas in the mind of Christ is if you are pushing a different gospel for the Jews. I'll repeat that there's nothing wrong with considering Matthias as Christ's replacement for Judas, either, and Paul being a special thirteenth apostle for the Gentiles. My doctrines allow for either. Yours don't.

Clete addressed this sufficiently in his post.



So is Peter, just a few verses after Matthias was numbered "with the eleven."

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. - Acts 2:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts2:14&version=NKJV

By your same reasoning that Matthias possibly couldn't be the twelfth, so too you could reason that Peter wasn't one of the Twelve, using that verse.

No, I've stated (and restated above) that Matthias COULD be one of the twelve. And indeed he was considered to be so by those in Jerusalem and even Paul.
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: [1 Corinthians 15:5 KJV]

But we're talking about the eternal twelve, and assuming that's what Christ meant when He said they would sit on twelve (and only twelve) thrones.

But scripture, being the word of God, is clear. Luke, inspired by God to write Acts, included Peter "with the eleven." Who were the eleven, if not for James, John, Matthew, Bartholomew, Thomas, Andrew, Simon, Philip, Matthias, James son of Alphaeus, and Judas Thaddeus. At that point in time, Paul wasn't even in the picture. He doesn't show up until later.

In other words, God had already considered Matthias to be the Twelfth, because "he was numbered with the eleven" just as Peter stood up "with the eleven."

You keep bringing this up, and I don't deny that he was "numbered with the eleven"--by Luke, by the eleven, by the people that saw them at Pentecost, and by Paul. What we don't have is Christ, or anyone, giving a list of the twelve, like you've done here, of the eternal twelve.

I'm willing to wager that if this doesn't convince you, Derf, that "The Twelve" were Peter and the eleven people I just listed, not including Paul, then nothing at all will convince you, because you are so committed to your belief that Paul was the twelfth, and not Matthias that you're not willing to give it up. I advise you to humble yourself and ask God for understanding.

I'll take that under advisement, as long as you do as well.

And supra.

You're grasping at straws, hoping to find a rescue device for your doctrine.

My doctrine doesn't depend on it either way. No grasping needed.

The problem is that, by all indications, Judas is in Hell. He never repented of what he did, at least according to Scripture. Whether he did so and it's just not recorded is unknown, but it's almost completely certain that he didn't.

You've read some of my thoughts on whether anyone is really in hell right now--prior to judgment.

The other problem is that the twelve, who had the authority to act as they saw fit, determined that Judas Iscariot's position as the twelfth was now empty, and needed to be filled. They COULD have left it empty, if Judas were to return as the twelfth. But they didn't, and they chose someone else to fill that role, and scripture clearly indicates that the one they chose was accepted by God as the twelfth to replace Judas.

No, just that of the two selected, God supposedly picked one. But with the lots never being mentioned again, some think this is more of a denouncement of the process of casting lots, now that we all have the Holy Spirit (and Paul says we are all to judge the world and angels, and it seems unlikely we will do it by casting lots).

I don't have time to finish this right now. I'll try to get back to the rest later.

 

[Idolater]

The evidence that maybe Paul is Judas's authentic replacement are Paul's 13 (and maybe 14, which is the OP's topic) letters /epistles in the New Testament.

Whereas nobody has ever heard from Matthias ever again.

To be clear it's not the content of Paul's epistles, it's their very presence in the Bible, which is evidence he is numbered among the Twelve. The New Testament was authored by Apostles, Peter wrote two, Matthew wrote one, John wrote five, and Paul wrote 13 or 14. And Peter called Paul's letters "Scripture."

 

[Clete]

Let's consider the "numbered with the eleven apostles" phrase. Matthias isn't the only one it is used of in Acts 1. Judas was the other one.

So is Peter, just a few verses after Matthias was numbered "with the eleven."

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. - Acts 2:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts2:14&version=NKJV

By your same reasoning that Matthias possibly couldn't be the twelfth, so too you could reason that Peter wasn't one of the Twelve, using that verse.

Okay, so you're post was really long and so I wanted to bring special attention to this particular point for fear that it would get lost in the length of your post.

What a great response to Derf's argument! It shows a familiarity with the text that I envy. Great job!

Clete

 

[Idolater]

... Peter, just a few verses after Matthias was numbered "with the eleven."

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. - Acts 2:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts2:14&version=NKJV

By your same reasoning that Matthias possibly couldn't be the twelfth, so too you could reason that Peter wasn't one of the Twelve, using that verse.

But scripture, being the word of God, is clear. Luke, inspired by God to write Acts, included Peter "with the eleven." Who were the eleven, if not for James, John, Matthew, Bartholomew, Thomas, Andrew, Simon, Philip, Matthias, James son of Alphaeus, and Judas Thaddeus. At that point in time, Paul wasn't even in the picture. He doesn't show up until later.

In other words, God had already considered Matthias to be the Twelfth, because "he was numbered with the eleven" just as Peter stood up "with the eleven."

... the fact remains, "Peter stood up with the eleven" is not referring to "Peter and a random group of eleven people."

1 + 11 = 12 in both Peter's case and Matthias's case.

Acts 9
27 But Barnabas took him [Paul], and brought him [Paul] to the apostles, and declared unto them how he [Paul] had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he [Paul] had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

28 And he [Paul] was with them [the Apostles] coming in and going out at Jerusalem.

 

[Derf]

Continued...

Do you have any evidence that he would, when he had repeatedly made clear that His calling was to the Gentiles?

[Acts 28:23-31 KJV] And when they had appointed him a day, there came many {Jews} to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening. And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and [that] they will hear it. And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all {Jews and Gentiles} that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

The message was the same, for Jews or for Gentiles. It was about "the kingdom of God" and "those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ".

As indicated by Acts 2:14, mentioned above, the decision had already been made by God by that point, and the only rational explanation is that Matthias was the one chosen, unless you're willing to argue that Paul was numbered with the eleven, despite him being completely hostile to the believers at that time.

Hostility kept him from being used by the Spirit? Hardly!

Meaning, something had changed, that required God to choose someone other than the Twelve to accomplish His goals.

Or God chose to have one of the twelve concentrate on the Gentiles.

What about them?

Paul didn't separate himself from their ministries. Well, he did from Barnabas, but not over content.

Rather, we're not assuming it was different. The only assumption is that God's word means what it says. Our evidence to the former is that the Bible shows huge differences between what Paul taught and what the Twelve taught.

Jesus and the Twelve taught that one must keep the law.
Paul taught don't keep the law, or you'll be cursed.

Jesus and the Twelve told their converts to give up everything they had.
Paul collected offerings from his converts to give to the congregation of Israel, who had given everything up but were struggling to live, because Christ had not returned yet.

Jesus and the Twelve taught "ye must be born again."
Paul taught we are a new creature, that the old man is dead, so put on the new man.

Jesus and the Twelve taught faith plus works.
Paul taught "grace through faith."

James wrote, "a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."
Paul wrote, "to him who does not work but believes... his faith is accounted for righteousness.

A few verses before the above, James challenges the notion that Abraham wasn't justified by works when he offered Isaac on the altar.
A few verses after the above, Paul states, unequivocally, that if Abraham was justified by works, then he has something to boast about, but not before God.

Yep, same gospel. The fact you have a hard time with it is evidence that I'm getting it right. (I think I heard that from you, once.) Not everything that is said is part of the gospel, just because someone said it.

Jesus and the twelve believed that Jesus would return within the lifetime of the Twelve ("If John remains until I return" and "you will not make it through all the cities of Israel before I return"), but Christ clearly did not do so.
Paul states almost explicitly that Israel has been cut off until the "fullness of the Gentiles has come in."

Ok, but not part of the gospel.

Jesus and the Twelve teach that believers will go through the Great Tribulation, which isn't comforting.
Paul taught that we will be caught up before it, and that his words should be a comfort to believers.

Jesus and the Twelve taught and preached what was recorded in the scriptures of their day (what we today call the Old Testament).
Paul taught and preached what he called a mystery, something that had never been revealed, that was kept secret since before the world was.

Great tribulation wouldn't be "good news" to anyone, Jews or Gentiles. Why do you include it as part of the gospel?

The twelve never referred to what they taught as "my gospel."
Paul, on the other hand, CONSTANTLY referred to what he taught as "my gospel" and "I, not the Lord, say."

Are you saying Paul was preaching the gospel when he was explaining when divorce was or wasn't appropriate? That's his gospel? Really?
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. [1 Corinthians 7:12 KJV]

Why were they hard to swallow, if they're part of the same thing he with the eleven were teaching?

You'd think if it were part of the same gospel, it would just slot right into what Peter and the eleven were teaching. But in many cases, as I listed above, what Paul taught directly contradicts what the twelve and even what Jesus Himself taught!

Because they were so conditioned that the Messiah was for the Jews only, that they couldn't fathom anything else. Just like when Jesus kept telling them that He was going to die, and they didn't understand that He meant He was really going to die. People are hard-headed, as you know well after participating in this forum for years.

You seem to keep forgetting that Acts 15 took place about 14 years after Paul's conversion. They had convened to resolve the conflicts they had encountered, whether the Gentiles whom Paul had converted (to the Body of Christ) should keep the law, which was part of the New Covenant.

And they already knew the answer, since Acts 10, as Peter affirms. The conflicts weren't with different gospels, but to whom THE gospel was to be preached.

Just as with the four gospels, which sometimes each only contain some portions of events that are included or excluded in the other books, so too does Acts 15 and Galatians 2 give different parts of the whole.


"Gospel" just means "good news."


The problem was that Peter was being a hypocrite.

He taught "keep the law" yet lived like he didn't have to keep the law.

That wasn't the hypocrisy Paul was writing about. The hypocrisy was that Peter went back to keeping the law when the men from James showed up. You can see this in the Gal 2 text, if you'll allow yourself to read it honestly. He lived (normally) like he didn't have to keep the law because he KNEW he didn't have to keep the law--but just as he sank when walking to Jesus on the water, Peter fell back into old habits.

No, he didn't.

He agreed to go to the Gentiles, yes. But not with the same good news.

Yes, it was the same good news.

There's a reason Paul makes the distinction:

But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter . . . and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. - Galatians 2:7,9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:7,9&version=NKJV

The "gospel for the uncircumcised" and "gospel for the circumcised" were given to two different people. What more indication do you need to tell you that they're different?

If they were the same gospel, why not just say "But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel had been committed to me, as it was to Peter..."?

That's actually closer to how the passage reads.
[Galatians 2:7-9 KJV] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Note the bracketed words in the King James, above, mean those words were inserted for readability, but you can read it without those words just fine. Since "the gospel" is not repeated in vs 7, the emphasis is on the different recipients, not on the different content. Vs 8 backs that up by using the word "apostleship" of the circumcision, i.e., Peter was sent to the circumcision with the same message. If two times wasn't enough, Paul says it again in vs. 9 "that we unto the heathen and they unto the circumcision.

Do you not recognize the figure of speech?

I don't. Can you explain?

Because the Holy Spirit asked for a year to work, to fertilize.

That's entirely what Pentacost was about!

Do you not see the connection?

Here, let me show you:

He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ” - Luke 13:6-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke13:6-9&version=NKJV

The owner of the fig tree is Jesus.
The groundskeeper is the Holy Spirit.
The three years refers to Jesus' ministry, which was 3 years long.
He came for three years, and found no fruit. Israel, whom He ministered to for three years, produced no fruit, and He even said it will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than it will be for the three cities in which He did most of his miracles in, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum.
He wanted to cut down the tree, but his groundskeeper requested another year to work on it. The Holy Spirit came upon Jesus' disciples at Pentacost, and nearly a year later, Israel had completely rejected her Messiah, even going so far as to kill His mesengers, so God cut off unbelieving Israel, and grafted in the Body of Christ. That was when Christ confronted Saul on his way to Damascus.

That wasn't the first time Saul had been confronted by Christ. Remember that he had been "kicking against the pricks"?

Sure. But even so, there is significance in certain numbers. Take the number three for example.


Sure, but when certain numbers in the Bible are consistently used in conjunction with certain things, it becomes a pattern that should at the very least be investigated, not simply dismissed out of hand.

Yes, but the significance those numbers convey is not always clear. To pick a significance and run with it without question is dangerous in many cases.

Agreed. But the fact remains, "Peter stood up with the eleven" is not referring to "Peter and a random group of eleven people."

1 + 11 = 12 in both Peter's case and Matthias's case.

I don't deny that Matthias was numbered with the eleven by someone. My hesitations are "by whom" and "for what purpose".

 

[Hoping]

Then you agree with what I was saying--Matthias wasn't specially indicated by the Holy Spirit's interventions of the day more than others.

Oh I disagree with that.
God's apostles used a method long used by the servants of God to determine the answer to questions.
I don't know enough about it to go into it too deeply, but it was the use of the ummin and thurman.
BibleGateway.com didn't recognize either term, so the spelling must be wrong...
Further study produced the info I was looking for.
It is the Urim and the Thummim the OT judges used.
It is written..."And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the Lord: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually." (Exod 28:30)
And..."And when Saul enquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets." (1 Sam 28:6)
I don't know how close this is to flipping a coin or drawing cards to determine something, but if done in the name of the Lord, I would expect a true judgement.
It was the Spirit of God's will that Mattias take the bishopric of Judas Iscariot.

 

[Hoping]

You're confused again.

1 Thes 2:14..."For ye, brethren, (of Thessalonica), became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:"
The church of Judea was the same as the church of the Thessalonians.
Both are the body of Christ.
Both are "in Christ Jesus".
May all the praise go to God !

 

[Hoping]

No, I don't think that's true. Paul had an obvious role in the spread of the gospel. He was obviously chosen by Christ as an apostle. He provided the bulk of church doctrine. The only reason not to consider him as the replacement for Judas in the mind of Christ is if you are pushing a different gospel for the Jews. I'll repeat that there's nothing wrong with considering Matthias as Christ's replacement for Judas, either, and Paul being a special thirteenth apostle for the Gentiles. My doctrines allow for either. Yours don't.

No, I've stated (and restated above) that Matthias COULD be one of the twelve. And indeed he was considered to be so by those in Jerusalem and even Paul.
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: [1 Corinthians 15:5 KJV]

But we're talking about the eternal twelve, and assuming that's what Christ meant when He said they would sit on twelve (and only twelve) thrones.

You keep bringing this up, and I don't deny that he was "numbered with the eleven"--by Luke, by the eleven, by the people that saw them at Pentecost, and by Paul. What we don't have is Christ, or anyone, giving a list of the twelve, like you've done here, of the eternal twelve.

I'll take that under advisement, as long as you do as well.

And supra.

My doctrine doesn't depend on it either way. No grasping needed.

You've read some of my thoughts on whether anyone is really in hell right now--prior to judgment.

No, just that of the two selected, God supposedly picked one. But with the lots never being mentioned again, some think this is more of a denouncement of the process of casting lots, now that we all have the Holy Spirit (and Paul says we are all to judge the world and angels, and it seems unlikely we will do it by casting lots).

I don't have time to finish this right now. I'll try to get back to the rest later.

There may have been hundreds of apostles by now.
Your only concern seems to be who are the twelve who will judge the Jews on the last day and who are indicated by the twelve tiers of jewels in the base of the new Jerusalem.
The first will include Matthias, but the last may be names you have never heard of...or not.

 

[Derf]

There may have been hundreds of apostles by now.
Your only concern seems to be who are the twelve who will judge the Jews on the last day and who are indicated by the twelve tiers of jewels in the base of the new Jerusalem.
The first will include Matthias, but the last may be names you have never heard of...or not.

I'm always hesitant to allegorize to much, but in this case, it might take us back to the topic of the thread. Jesus told us His church would be built on the foundation of Peter's confession:
Matthew 16:18 (KJV) 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.
Peter's confession is essentially the gospel, the foundation of the New Jerusalem, but it is twelve-fold, meaning all of the twelve were involved in forming the foundation. We can see this foundation today through the writings of some of the original apostles, which is why much is made of them over later "apostles". If that's what the symbolism in Rev 21 means, then Paul's contributions to that foundation can't be overlooked. And if he didn't write Hebrews, it certainly seemed to be someone closely associated with him, based on the allusion to Timothy.

 

[Right Divider]

You have evidence for that, or are you speculating?

My speculations are reasonable based on the rest of scripture. Yours are not. The idea that Paul should have been the replacement for Judas Iscariot is pure speculation. There is not one shred of Biblical evidence to support that idea.

I don't see the connection.

Why not? Jesus told them that He would return very shortly. Therefore, there needed to be twelve apostles to sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Paul was a LONG way off.

We've been through this. If they had full authority, and were using it, they wouldn't need to cast lots.

So, your idea is that since they had full authority, they should NOT look to the Lord for help?

That Paul met Jesus' requirements to be an apostle? You're joking, right?

No, I'm not. As I mentioned, Jesus gave them (the eleven) a FORTY day training course on "the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" and you don't think that the replacement policy was discussed? Paul did NOT meet those requirements for the REPLACEMENT of one of the twelve. Paul was LATER chosen to be that other, different ONE apostle. The "apostle of the gentiles" according to scripture.

I'm not seeing the connection here, either.

I'm not surprised.

2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Thanks for an irrelevant Bible verse.

 

[Derf]

My speculations are reasonable based on the rest of scripture. Yours are not.

Hahahaha!

 

[Right Divider]

@Derf As of yet, you've provided not a single argument as to why Paul should have been the replacement for Judas Iscariot. Whereas, I've shown you plenty of support as to why Matthias was God's choice.

Get real or get lost.

 

[Derf]

@Derf As of yet, you've provided not a single argument as to why Paul should have been the replacement for Judas Iscariot. Whereas, I've shown you plenty of support as to why Matthias was God's choice.

Get real or get lost.

One is if he wrote the book of Hebrews. Two is if he wrote other books of scripture. Three is if Jesus selected him. Four is if Matthias wasn't really the one Jesus picked. I've discussed most, if not all of these already. Whose posts are you reading, if not mine? Or do you merely speculate as to what I write without reading them? Is that how you read scripture?

 

[Right Divider]

One is if he wrote the book of Hebrews.

So an IF is an argument? Get real.

Two is if he wrote other books of scripture.

Argument from silence and an IF (not an argument).

Three is if Jesus selected him.

So another IF... without ANY evidence. You're on a roll.

Four is if Matthias wasn't really the one Jesus picked.

Fourth IF... again without ANY evidence.

I've discussed most, if not all of these already. Whose posts are you reading, if not mine? Or do you merely speculate as to what I write without reading them? Is that how you read scripture?

Funny as can be. I've shown scripture that supports what the Bible ALREADY says. You've provided NO such thing to support your claims.

 

[Derf]

So an IF is an argument? Get real.

Argument from silence and an IF (not an argument).

So another IF... without ANY evidence. You're on a roll.

Foutth IF... again without ANY evidence.

Funny as can be. I've shown scripture that supports what the Bible ALREADY says. You've provided NO such thing to support your claims.

You shouldn't need to show scripture for what the Bible says. That's redundant. But maybe you're imagining that what you say is the same as what the Bible says, which it isn't, necessarily--that's why you need scripture for what you say. You seem to be putting the wrong cart before the horse.

 

[Right Divider]

You shouldn't need to show scripture for what the Bible says. That's redundant.

I didn't "need to"

This is enough:
Acts 1:26 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:26) And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

But maybe you're imagining that what you say is the same as what the Bible says, which it isn't, necessarily--that's why you need scripture for what you say. You seem to be putting the wrong cart before the horse.

Welcome back to my ignore list, you Bible doubting hack.

 

[Hoping]

I'm always hesitant to allegorize to much, but in this case, it might take us back to the topic of the thread. Jesus told us His church would be built on the foundation of Peter's confession:
Matthew 16:18 (KJV) 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.
Peter's confession is essentially the gospel,

I agree that the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, (Peter's profession), could be construed as "good news".

the foundation of the New Jerusalem,

I hesitate to see Peter's profession as the foundation of the new Jerusalem.

but it is twelve-fold, meaning all of the twelve were involved in forming the foundation.

The foundation would have stood without any of the 12 apostles.
The 12 were, however, key to the relating of the gospel/good news.

We can see this foundation today through the writings of some of the original apostles, which is why much is made of them over later "apostles". If that's what the symbolism in Rev 21 means, then Paul's contributions to that foundation can't be overlooked. And if he didn't write Hebrews, it certainly seemed to be someone closely associated with him, based on the allusion to Timothy.

Thanks be to God for loyal believers in the years of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
Just remember, none of them told their stories for personal glory.