Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomyris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy_Carson said:
Nope.

You’ve missed the point of Paul’s trip to Jerusalem entirely.

Galatians 2:2
I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Doubt had crept into Paul’s mind. He was sure…well, pretty sure…but he wanted to be completely sure. He went to Peter, and Peter “strengthened” his brother, Paul, just as Jesus had commanded him to do many years earlier. (cf. Lk 22:32)

That’s what popes do.
Click to expand...
You seem to have missed “them”. I made it a little bigger 😃
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
You seem to have missed “them”. I made it a little bigger
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe that I do not know who Paul met with in Jerusalem? Twice?

2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised.** 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

Even Paul calls Simon by his new name, Cephas.**
 
Randy_Carson said:
Do you honestly believe that I do not know who Paul met with in Jerusalem? Twice?

2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised.** 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John**, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

Even Paul calls Simon by his new name, Cephas.

Check your original post.

Them. “I presented to them” not to Peter but to THEM. That IS what Gal. 2:2 says. THEM.
Click to expand...
 
When looking at the context of Galatians 2:1-10, I see the main reason for Paul going to Jerusalem was to clarify the church’s position on circumcision in relation to the Gentiles, look at verse 3 specifically and following. Even though Paul’s gospel came by way of a revelation from Jesus Christ himself, not a human being, he still wanted to run it by the church leaders for approval, and to see if they wanted him to add anything to his gospel that he was not already preaching. Getting your gospel directly from Jesus, one would think that would be more than sufficient proof of it being correct, which obviously it was, however, Paul still acknowledged the authority of the “church” in all teachings, which is exactly how Jesus intended to establish it, so basically Paul on his part was fulfilling that duty to get the church’s blessing on his gospel.
 
Randy,

Your response was:
Randy_Carson said:
Nope.

You’ve missed the point of Paul’s trip to Jerusalem entirely.

Galatians 2:2
I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Doubt had crept into Paul’s mind. He was sure…well, pretty sure…but he wanted to be completely sure. He went to Peter, and Peter “strengthened” his brother, Paul, just as Jesus had commanded him to do many years earlier. (cf. Lk 22:32)

That’s what popes do.
​
Click to expand...

​

Now you say:
Randy_Carson said:
“Them…James, Cephas and John”.

That’s what Paul says in Galatians 2.
Click to expand...
Instead of making a case for the Church you go and make it for Peter. :confused:

Peter is mentioned enough times, so there is no need to have to make it about him.

Paul presented to THEM. IOW: The Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.
 
JMM1957 said:
When looking at the context of Galatians 2:1-10, I see the main reason for Paul going to Jerusalem was to clarify the church’s position on circumcision in relation to the Gentiles, look at verse 3 specifically and following. Even though Paul’s gospel came by way of a revelation from Jesus Christ himself, not a human being, he still wanted to run it by the church leaders for approval, and to see if they wanted him to add anything to his gospel that he was not already preaching. Getting your gospel directly from Jesus, one would think that would be more than sufficient proof of it being correct, which obviously it was, however, Paul still acknowledged the authority of the “church” in all teachings, which is exactly how Jesus intended to establish it, so basically Paul on his part was fulfilling that duty to get the church’s blessing on his gospel.
Click to expand...
Hey everyone. Nice to see this thread still alive :rolleyes: I see this as Paul preaches to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. Anyone else see that? Anyways, if you want Peter to be the head of your church, so be it. But Jesus has to be the head of mine. I hope He is the head of yours also. I guess maybe i will have to ask another question about praying to anyone other than Jesus in another thread. Should be lossa fun!
 
Jesus is the head of the Church but His representative is peter in whom Jesus built His Church. That Church is the Catholic Church and since its beginnings has never once changed what Jesus taught.
 
Even So #1001
Anyways, if you want Peter to be the head of your church, so be it. But Jesus has to be the head of mine.
Click to expand...
Ignoring Jesus while claiming to accept Him as the “head” of a “church” demonstrates an intrinsic contradiction:
  1. There are thousands of differing sects claiming that.
  2. It ignores Jesus Himself who irrevocably and clearly conveyed and mandated His authority in teaching, ruling and sanctifying to His own, sole Church which He built on and through St Peter:
    **Jesus made four promises to Peter alone: **
    “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
    “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
    I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
    “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]
**Jesus gave Peter sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Randy,

Your response was:

Now you say:

Instead of making a case for the Church you go and make it for Peter. :confused:

Peter is mentioned enough times, so there is no need to have to make it about him.

Paul presented to THEM. IOW: The Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.
Click to expand...
Nope.

Paul did not meet with “the Church” which would have been a public gathering of many people. He met privately with the leaders of the Church. As I pointed out in my first post, Paul wrote:

Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.

Initially, Paul does not name them, but then he writes:

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised.** 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

Those who were held in “high esteem” in Jerusalem - the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem - gave Paul the right hand of fellowship. And who were these leaders, Isaiah? James, Cephas and John.

Paul is establishing his credentials as a true apostle because some people were bewitching the Galatians with a different Gospel and trying to downplay Paul’s importance. This is why he pens the dismissive phrase “those held in high esteem - whatever they were makes no difference to me”, and he goes to great lengths to point out to the Galatians that he had even “opposed Peter to his face”.

Who would care what Paul said to Peter unless it was plain to all that Cephas was the head of the universal Church? Paul’s “correction” of Peter is intended to prove to the Galatians that Paul was somebody important in the overall hierarchy of the Church.

He has to deal with the same problem in Corinth when he talks of the “super-apostles” like Apollos who, apparently, was a gifted orator. (cf. 2 Co 11:5, 12:11) It is thought by some that Paul may have had a speech impediment or been less accomplished as a public speaker than Apollos.

So, all of this bluster is about Paul’s efforts to overcome the charges that he was not as important as the other apostles and that the Galatians should listen to his gospel rather than accepting the false message being preached by others who had slipped into Galatia in his absence.**
 
Even_So said:
Hey everyone. Nice to see this thread still alive :rolleyes: I see this as Paul preaches to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. Anyone else see that? Anyways, if you want Peter to be the head of your church, so be it. But Jesus has to be the head of mine. I hope He is the head of yours also. I guess maybe i will have to ask another question about praying to anyone other than Jesus in another thread. Should be lossa fun!
Click to expand...
Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church, but He left Peter (and Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome) in charge during His absence just as a king leaves his royal steward in charge while he is away.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
Randy_Carson said:
Nope.

trimmed out of context material
Click to expand...
Yup. Read your post.

**Paul ***said ***them **and you went off to Peter.

Yup.

Also, it is presumptive to think that the esteemed leaders are limited to the esteemed pillars. When in fact it allows for more than those 3 pillars. To include, but not limited to, Peter.

Yup.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Yup. Read your post.

**Paul ***said ***them **and you went off to Peter.

Yup.

Also, it is presumptive to think that the esteemed leaders are limited to the esteemed pillars. When in fact it allows for more than those 3 pillars. To include, but not limited to, Peter.

Yup.
Click to expand...
Of course, I “went off to Peter.” Because PAUL DID. Paul compares himself with Peter for a reason.

IN CONTEXT, Paul emphasizes Peter again and again and again.

Galatians 1:18-20
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas** and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Galatians 2:8-9
8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.

Galatians 2:11
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Read 2 Corinthians 10-12. Paul is constantly on the defensive about his credentials.

He is forced to compare himself with Peter throughout the course of his ministry.

I will leave to the readers of this thread to judge between you and me on this issue.

Out. 👋**
 
Randy_Carson said:
Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church, but He left Peter (and Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome) in charge during His absence just as a king leaves his royal steward in charge while he is away.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
It seems to me that if Jesus had not left Peter in charge that Christianity would have become nothing but anarchy and chaos.
 
Prodromos #1010
You have such little faith in the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, those who have less faith in the Holy Spirit are not Catholic as they do not acknowledge His full guidance – “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15) the guidance that Christ ensured: “

Therefore, they reject primacy and infallibility – so that the Orthodox Churches reject the infallible teaching against contraception, deny the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the permit divorce and remarriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top