Did Peter establish The Church "at" Antioch?

[Hesychios]

Do you have anything to support you unorthodox belief that it doesn’t?

A lesson in logic for you:

One cannot prove a negative.

Another lesson for you:

The Ancient canons cover this.

Again…common understanding disagrees with you.

Wrong again! Too bad for you.

Dictionary.com

Main Entry: supremacy
Definition: domination
Synonyms: absolute rule, ascendancy, authority, command, control, dominance, dominion, driver’s seat*, lordship, masterdom, mastery, paramountcy, power, pre-eminence, predominance, preponderance, prepotence, primacy, principality, sovereignty, superiority, supreme authority, sway, transcendence

One who dominates is de facto first.

But one who is first does not necessarily dominate.

Do you have a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order hanging around?

I guess the whole “make disciples of all nations” is open for interpretation for Orthodox Christians then, huh?

You are grasping at straws. Placing this point here is ridiculous and off topic…

Our Most Holy Lord was not speaking to one person in particular, and he did not say “subordinate all people to you”.

He said…make disciples.

 

[2ndGen]

But Jerusalem was under St. James, and had been, according to St. Clement since after the Ascension. Acts (and Galatians) testifes to this.

It was “after” Peter preached there. Peter converted the 3,000, left James there to run things.

That is, unless you can find a scripture that confirms that James was the leader of the Church at Jeruselum “before” Peter preached the first Post Upper Room Sermon.

 

[2ndGen]

Well, then. Who did the sending in 11:22 (with the result in verse 26)? Peter was still in Jerusalem. Peter leaves in 12:17, St. Paul is ordained by someone in 13:3 in Antioch.

Btw, it is the successor of St. Peter at Antioch, St. Ignatius I, who coins the term “Catholic Church.”

Again…“when” did Paul begin His ministry?

What Peter’s subordinates do has nothing to do with “when” Paul was “allowed” to begin his ministry.

When? Before, or “after” he “tarried” with Peter?

(Wow…that would tell you then that the original Church in antioch was The Catholic Church (not The Orthodox Church). )

 

[2ndGen]

Would your nameless experts care to specify said beliefs?

 

[2ndGen]

A lesson

 

[deacon_d]

2ndGen;:

I wasn’t counting on that one, the first two are good enough. Besides, I like quoting “complete” definitions even if those definitions strengthen my case.
Do you have anything to support you unorthodox belief that it doesn’t?
Again…common understanding disagrees with you.
Dictionary.com

Main Entry: supremacy
Definition: domination
Synonyms: absolute rule, ascendancy, authority, command, control, dominance, dominion, driver’s seat*, lordship, masterdom, mastery, paramountcy, power, pre-eminence, predominance, preponderance, prepotence, primacy, principality, sovereignty, superiority, supreme authority, sway, transcendence

2ndgen here’s an interesting question for you. I’m well aware of your clever answers so I expect nothing less

If a synonym for Primacy is Lordship then how do you defend Peter’s Primacy when Jesus says the following: (I know you are familiar with this but I’ll quote anyway):

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. 26 But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must become your slave.

Hmmm what do you think???

I guess the whole “make disciples of all nations” is open for interpretation for Orthodox Christians then, huh?

 

[RAR]

If a synonym for Primacy is Lordship then how do you defend Peter’s Primacy when Jesus says the following: (I know you are familiar with this but I’ll quote anyway):

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. 26 But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must become your slave.

Hmmm what do you think???

Lord is not being used in its normal context… I wouldn’t say this is a very compelling argument.

Much more compelling would be when Jesus told Peter he was the rock upon which he would build his church.

It seems to be that when comparing these two verses, the one reads very plainly and the other by way of example.

RAR

 

[2ndGen]

2ndgen here’s an interesting question for you. I’m well aware of your clever answers so I expect nothing less

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It was “after” Peter preached there. Peter converted the 3,000, left James there to run things.

That is, unless you can find a scripture that confirms that James was the leader of the Church at Jeruselum “before” Peter preached the first Post Upper Room Sermon.

Going solo scriptura on me? St. Clement specifies after the Ascension. I’m not sure it is specific enough to say exactly when. All Acts says is that the Ascension occured and St. James was in the Upper Room, a change from his image in the Gospels. St. Paul is who tells us that the Lord specifically appeared to St. James between the Resurrection and the Ascension. St. Epiphanius goes in some detail in this, but I do not have the Penarion right on me.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Again…“when” did Paul begin His ministry?

What Peter’s subordinates do has nothing to do with “when” Paul was “allowed” to begin his ministry.

When? Before, or “after” he “tarried” with Peter?

(Wow…that would tell you then that the original Church in antioch was The Catholic Church (not The Orthodox Church). )

The ultramontanists have an impasse on their claims on Antioch at the succession of St. Meletius to St. Ignatius (and St. Peter): the line Rome picked, Paulinus (who ordained Jerome) died out. All 3 (4) bishops that Rome claims in Antioch all try to trace their succession through St. Meletius, none through Paulinus.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, hello

Why should they?

Their not challenging me here.

(bob and weave, bob and weave)
.

There actually has be something to bob and weave around.

You said your people at the They Institute, claiming to be Orthodox (I presume), said the beliefs here were not Orthodox. As Father, Scripture and Council has been cited, they would be hard pressed to make an Orthodox case against said beliefs.

What’s PoM? Patriarch of Moscow?

I love those Russians and Greeks…their soooo “orthodox”!

yes, that Orthodox Faith that the Fathers keeps going on.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

.

Peter was clearly the first one to do everything (for better or for worse) pretty much.

Has Peter ever been recorded to have argued about “who” was the greatest? Every time that argument came up, he was never mentioned.
Wasn’t excluded either.

He was a reluctant leader (skills he had as a captain of a fishing vessel), but once he was annointed in Acts, nothing stopped him from doing his job.

Even Paul (the most boisterous of all the post-Christ Apostles), had to submit to Peter’s authority.

That’s not what Galatians tells us.