Peter

[Nine_Two]

I know that you don’t like to change things. That is both good and bad. And it would be a shame if Constantinople is lost totally. It pains me that the Hagia Sophia is a mosque now.

This ties into one of the things that I have trouble with in Orthodoxy. There is a major resistance to anything new. However, everything about the faith was new at one time. For example, do you think that the Apostles would have liked the idea of an emperor calling Church Councils?

I agree that the resistence to anything new is a double edged sword, however it is what has allowed the faith to survive as it has, in spite of persecution.

I’m not sure what the Emperor calling Councils has to do with anything, since Catholics follow those same councils.

 

[ralphinal]

I agree that the resistence to anything new is a double edged sword, however it is what has allowed the faith to survive as it has, in spite of persecution.

I’m not sure what the Emperor calling Councils has to do with anything, since Catholics follow those same councils.

It is an example of one thing that would have been an innovation at the time. The Orthodox fix the faith at a point in the past (which is not bad per se), and call everything after that an innovation. What is missed is that everything BEFORE that was an innovation as well.

 

[Madaglan]

I know that you don’t like to change things. That is both good and bad. And it would be a shame if Constantinople is lost totally. It pains me that the Hagia Sophia is a mosque now.

This ties into one of the things that I have trouble with in Orthodoxy. There is a major resistance to anything new. However, everything about the faith was new at one time. For example, do you think that the Apostles would have liked the idea of an emperor calling Church Councils?

They’d be thrilled to hear the Roman emperor had become Christian.

 

[Nine_Two]

It is an example of one thing that would have been an innovation at the time. The Orthodox fix the faith at a point in the past (which is not bad per se), and call everything after that an innovation. What is missed is that everything BEFORE that was an innovation as well.

Innovation is not inherently bad though. Yes everything which has changed since the time of the Apostles is an innovation. Our Liturgy is an innovation, the way we distribute communion is an innovation, they way we build our churches is an innovation. I’m still not seeing what this has to do with anything. We know there are innovations within the ways we practice the faith.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I asked this on “Ask an Apologist” last wk but it hasn’t been answered and I saw not all questions are answered there. So posting here if that’s ok.

I’m not sure it says in Scripture if Peter went to Rome or not. So far from what I can find the earliest Church father to write about Peter’s whereabouts was Clement of Rome sometime between yr 70 (which as I understand would have been only a few yrs after Peter’s death) to as late as yr 96. Other ECFs wrote about this even later.

 

[Madaglan]

Innovation is not inherently bad though. Yes everything which has changed since the time of the Apostles is an innovation. Our Liturgy is an innovation, the way we distribute communion is an innovation, they way we build our churches is an innovation. I’m still not seeing what this has to do with anything. We know there are innovations within the ways we practice the faith.

I do not think the word innovation (introduced earlier in the thread for what came before 1054) is the best descriptor. Certainly, in the Orthodox Church as well as in the Catholic Church, there have been additions made to the liturgy, to church structures, to how communion is distributed, etc. However, these additions are not without continuity of some kind. The Divine Liturgy, for example, in many of its prayers, has its roots in the Jewish worship at the time of Christ. Many early Christian churches base their interior architecture on Jewish temples, even as there are modifications in the design. Other churches emulate the basilica design already used by the Romans.

Latin Catholic beliefs like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception are, by the standards of the development of doctrine, not new, novelties or innovations but always have been believed by the Church, although not with the precision of further development.

I prefer the word “trimmings”

 

[Nine_Two]

I do not think the word innovation (introduced earlier in the thread for what came before 1054) is the best descriptor. Certainly, in the Orthodox Church as well as in the Catholic Church, there have been additions made to the liturgy, to church structures, to how communion is distributed, etc. However, these additions are not without continuity of some kind. The Divine Liturgy, for example, in many of its prayers, has its roots in the Jewish worship at the time of Christ. Many early Christian churches base their interior architecture on Jewish temples, even as there are modifications in the design. Other churches emulate the basilica design already used by the Romans.

Latin Catholic beliefs like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception are, by the standards of the development of doctrine, not new, novelties or innovations but always have been believed by the Church, although not with the precision of further development.

I prefer the word “trimmings”

The distinction though is Orthodox have some innovations in practice, though we try to keep these to a minimum, and Catholics have innovation in doctrine.

 

[Madaglan]

This is summed up in protocol, and the main event which precluded the council record in Acts 15, comes from Acts 10 when God gives Peter the vision of allowing Gentiles into the Kingdom of God, by baptism not circumcision. Peter armed with this divine commandment from God, attended the Jerusalem council to which James was the overseer (Bishop). After Peter speaks, signs and wonders follow with a silence. James concluded the council in support of Peter’s message from heaven, because it was James Jewish community with problem of cirucmcision, not Peter. Peter instructed the council what Heaven has spoken, with his Keys in the binding and loosing on earth, as Jesus does the same binding and loosing in heaven. Peter excercised his authority with grace. James and the others fell in agreement.

 

[CMatt25]

Gabriel, thanks so much.

 

[Madaglan]

The distinction though is Orthodox have some innovations in practice, though we try to keep these to a minimum, and Catholics have innovation in doctrine.

I agree with the “essence” of what you are saying.

Perhaps I dislike the word innovation because I see it as an antonym to tradition. Innovation, to me, suggests not something passed down but invented without precedent.

 

[Nine_Two]

I agree with the “essence” of what you are saying.

Perhaps I dislike the word innovation because I see it as an antonym to tradition. Innovation, to me, suggests not something passed down but invented out of the blue.

I can see the validity of that argument.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

A silence also follows Barnabas and Paul, who relate the signs and wonders worked amongst the Gentiles.

Interesting, I only find one silence after Peter spoke followed by Paul and Barnabas confiming the Heavenly message for the Church through Peter with signs and wonders; Where is the second silence?

Nowhere in Acts 15 does Peter mention his vision from heaven. He gives an argument. James points out that Peter’s words on how God chose amongst the Gentiles agree with the prophets, and James uses the testimony along with confirmation from the prophets to form a judgment. There is no mention of James and the Apostles falling under Peter in agreement. In fact, subsequent to James’ decision, it is “the apostles and elders, with the whole church” who choose men to send to Antioch. The Apostles all work together in harmony and grace.

Amen, it is so as you stated; for the fact it has already become common knowledge through Paul and Barnabas that Peter’s vision from heaven was believed in from the apostles. The jews just needed to hear it from Peter himself, so they fell silent when they heard from God through Peter himself.

I would ask you to re-read Acts 10, and then Acts 15 before making your conclusion that James never confirmed Peter’s message and followed it with his own discipline for his community to adhere to the baptism, not circumcision for the gentiles. From Peter’s message removed all debate and doubt, so that all the other were to unite for agreed prescriptions given by James for his Jewish community.

 

[Madaglan]

Amen, it is so as you stated; for the fact it has already become common knowledge through Paul and Barnabas that Peter’s vision from heaven was believed in from the apostles. The jews just needed to hear it from Peter himself, so they fell silent when they heard from God through Peter himself.

I would ask you to re-read Acts 10, and then Acts 15 before making your conclusion that James never confirmed Peter’s message and followed it with his own discipline for his community to adhere to the baptism, not circumcision for the gentiles. From Peter’s message removed all debate and doubt, so that all the other were to unite for agreed prescriptions given by James for his Jewish community.

Acts 15:12, subsequent to Peter’s speech, includes the Greek word sigao, meaning “kept silence.”

Acts 15:13 uses the same word, *sigao, *after Barnabas and Paul have spoken.

While one may speculate that Peter did in fact relate his vision, the text of Acts 15 itself does not indicate this. What Peter says is verified by Barnabas and Paul and declared in agreement with the prophets. In light of this, James makes his decision. There is no textual evidence here that James and the Apostles fell in agreement with Peter because he was Peter who had a vision.

 

[Bill_Pick]

When Juses was talking in Greek Matt 16-18 and Peter in greek is the rock and the word Babylon is the code word for Roam

 

[Bill_Pick]

When Juses was talking in Greek Matt 16-18 and Peter in greek is the rock and the word Babylon is the code word for Roma

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Acts 15:12, subsequent to Peter’s speech, includes the Greek word sigao

, meaning “kept silence.”

Acts 15:13 uses the same word, *sigao, *after Barnabas and Paul have spoken.

There is only one silence after Peter’s speech, "And all the assembly “kept silence” and they listened to Barnabas and Paul. When did the first silence ever get broken by the council, so that a second silence began? The council remained silent in the “kept silence” while Paul and Barnabas spoke. We know the book of acts was recorded after the fact in greek, but is it revealed in which language the Jewish member council spoke? be it, Hebrew, Aramaic or koin Greek or other?

Here is the Navarre bible quote; Acts 15:12 And all the assembly kept silence; an they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 after they finished speaking, James replied, “Brethern, listen to me”.

The one silence confirms there were no more debates or discussions after Peter spoke followed by Paul and Barnabas signs and wonders during the silence of the council.

Is your translation from the King James version of the bible? because for some unknown reason Protestants wish there to be a second silence, thinking a second silence gives presedence over Peter’s speech. Can you show me when and where the breaks are between the two assumed silences? because my translations don’t reveal two silences.

While one may speculate that Peter did in fact relate his vision, the text of Acts 15 itself does not indicate this. What Peter says is verified by Barnabas and Paul and declared in agreement with the prophets. In light of this, James makes his decision. There is no textual evidence here that James and the Apostles fell in agreement with Peter because he was Peter who had a vision.

While one may speculate that Peter’s speech does not relate to his God given vision, because it is “common knowledge” among the apostles, elders etc; Here is the evidence; Acts 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, **you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth **the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.”

Here is James with common filled knowledge that God had spoken to Peter about the Gentiles; Acts 15:13… James replied, "Brethren, listen to me. 14 Symeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles,** to take out of them a people for his name. 15** And with this the words of the prophets agree**, as it is written, …**

There is only one silence after Peter’s speech, "And all the assembly “kept silence” and they listened to Barnabas and Paul. When did the first silence ever get broken by the council, so that a second silence began? The council remained silent in the “kept silence” while Paul and Barnabas spoke. We know the book of acts was recorded after the fact in greek, but is it revealed in which language the Jewish member council spoke? be it, Hebrew, Aramaic or koin Greek or other?

James introduces dietary laws, which the council agreed upon to send in a letter and by word of mouth; Acts 15: 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity…

Peter’s vision to allow Gentiles in the Kingdom of God, by baptism not circumcision was already common knowledge and in practice outside of Jerusalem, the dietary law from the “whole” council not James is what was contained in the letter. The coucil of Jerusalem was for the Jewish converts not to burden their gentile converts anymore with circumcision, the council letter confirmed Peter’s teaching and revelation, already in practice and accepted outside of Jerusalem, for gentiles to follow the council’s findings to follow the dietary laws set by the “Whole” council.

The total agreement to Peter’s revelation to burden the gentile no more with circumcision, is confirmed by all, because what followed was not a change in Peter’s revelation but an addition of dietary laws, and circumcision removed and baptism accepted. Keeping this short record of the council in full context falls upon Peter’s speech, which silenced all debates and arguments, which confirmed Peter’s vision from heaven which is common knowledge to recieve the gentiles through baptism, not circumcision.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I asked this on “Ask an Apologist” last wk but it hasn’t been answered and I saw not all questions are answered there. So posting here if that’s ok.

I’m not sure it says in Scripture if Peter went to Rome or not. So far from what I can find the earliest Church father to write about Peter’s whereabouts was Clement of Rome sometime between yr 70 (which as I understand would have been only a few yrs after Peter’s death) to as late as yr 96. Other ECFs wrote about this even later.

My question about this is if the ECFs wrote about Peter’s whereabouts so many yrs later, how do we know they were correct if it’s not in Scripture?

Also was Peter the Bishop of Antioch? If so why was the Bishop of Antioch not considered his successor?

From Scripture, we know Peter was in Antioch - and it’s likely he was the bishop there.

Scripture does not specifically state that Peter was ever in Rome. Paul writes to the Romans in 55 AD. He makes no mention of Peter whatsoever - which seems profoundly odd if Peter had been there or had anything at all to do with the congregation there. Luke writes Acts perhaps 62 AD when the history there stops rather abruptly. It does not have Peter in Rome at that time, in fact, as we read Acts - Peter almost entirely drops out of the picture. But it’s thought Peter died in 67 AD so there are perhaps 5 years in which Peter could have arrived at Rome (to a very well established congregation, one where Paul was probably dominate). We just have no biblical or contemporary history to support that.

Nonetheless, the tradition that Peter was there - indeed was a bishop there - while a bit late (and for that reason, historically a bit problematic) is nonetheless never challenged at that early date and very ecumenical. For that reason, it is not challenged. Now, whether he was the first “pope” in any modern sense of that, whether he was regarded as “infallible” in 66 AD - that’s a whole other issue. But his being in Rome and being a bishop there, I don’t think that is seriously disputed.

And in Acts 15 after a long debate we are told Peter gets up to speak. He did that a lot in the early Acts. But James ends the debate. (Acts 15:13-20) Why then does that not suggest the 2 were co-chairs at this council?

Acts 15 is very interesting! Yes, obviously James is the chair here. And it’s unclear WHICH James. It could not be James the Greater, and it’s unlikely it’s James the Lessor. But it’s clearly not Peter. Many speak at the meeting, of which Peter is simply one. Not the first, not the last. And NOTHING is said there about Peter being infallible or the Vicar of Christ or “whoever hears him, hears Jesus.” And there’s nothing to indicate that he made the decision. Actually, it’s almost shocking how little importance is giving to him. Just as interesting, the “rule” here is not Peter but is Scripture. James says the decision is good NOT because it conforms to what Peter said but because it conforms to what Scripture says - going on to quote Scripture and to not so much as mention Peter.

Finally, if all the disciples were given the power to bind and loose in Matt 18 after Peter was given the power in Matt 16, why is it not thought that all shared equal powers? I know Peter was given keys but the function of keys are to bind and loose. So why could not keys and the power all the disciples were given have been the same?

You need to have a good conversation with a solid Greek Orthodox teacher!

As a Protestant, I think Jesus gave the “keys” to the confession of Peter - and yes, belong, collectively, to all that share that faith. If not, then why do we pray that God would forgive us AS WE forgive those who sin against us - if we have no authority to proclaim and apply God’s forgiveness? Why does Scripture so very often command us to forgive if we can’t?

WHEREVER your quest leads, I affirm your journey! Blessings!

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

From Scripture, we know Peter was in Antioch - and it’s likely he was the bishop there.

Scripture does not specifically state that Peter was ever in Rome. .

It’s likely?

Heb 13:24 Salute all your prelates and all the saints. The brethren from Italy salute you.

Where was Peter martyred, or should I say, where is it ‘likely’ that he was martyred?

I think it’s ‘likely’ that the early Church fathers know.

**Dionysius of Corinth

You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).

Irenaeus
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).**

 

[Bill_Pick]

From Scripture, we know Peter was in Antioch - and it’s likely he was the bishop there.

Scripture does not specifically state that Peter was ever in Rome. Paul writes to the Romans in 55 AD. He makes no mention of Peter whatsoever - which seems profoundly odd if Peter had been there or had anything at all to do with the congregation there. Luke writes Acts perhaps 62 AD when the history there stops rather abruptly. It does not have Peter in Rome at that time, in fact, as we read Acts - Peter almost entirely drops out of the picture. But it’s thought Peter died in 67 AD so there are perhaps 5 years in which Peter could have arrived at Rome (to a very well established congregation, one where Paul was probably dominate). We just have no biblical or contemporary history to support that.

Nonetheless, the tradition that Peter was there - indeed was a bishop there - while a bit late (and for that reason, historically a bit problematic) is nonetheless never challenged at that early date and very ecumenical. For that reason, it is not challenged. Now, whether he was the first “pope” in any modern sense of that, whether he was regarded as “infallible” in 66 AD - that’s a whole other issue. But his being in Rome and being a bishop there, I don’t think that is seriously disputed.

Acts 15 is very interesting! Yes, obviously James is the chair here. And it’s unclear WHICH James. It could not be James the Greater, and it’s unlikely it’s James the Lessor. But it’s clearly not Peter. Many speak at the meeting, of which Peter is simply one. Not the first, not the last. And NOTHING is said there about Peter being infallible or the Vicar of Christ or “whoever hears him, hears Jesus.” And there’s nothing to indicate that he made the decision. Actually, it’s almost shocking how little importance is giving to him. Just as interesting, the “rule” here is not Peter but is Scripture. James says the decision is good NOT because it conforms to what Peter said but because it conforms to what Scripture says - going on to quote Scripture and to not so much as mention Peter.

You need to have a good conversation with a solid Greek Orthodox teacher!

As a Protestant, I think Jesus gave the “keys” to the confession of Peter - and yes, belong, collectively, to all that share that faith. If not, then why do we pray that God would forgive us AS WE forgive those who sin against us - if we have no authority to proclaim and apply God’s forgiveness? Why does Scripture so very often command us to forgive if we can’t?

WHEREVER your quest leads, I affirm your journey! Blessings!

Pax

• Josiah

.

Babyllon was a code word for Rome

 

[jmcrae]

From Scripture, we know Peter was in Antioch - and it’s likely he was the bishop there.

Scripture does not specifically state that Peter was ever in Rome. Paul writes to the Romans in 55 AD. He makes no mention of Peter whatsoever - which seems profoundly odd if Peter had been there or had anything at all to do with the congregation there. Luke writes Acts perhaps 62 AD when the history there stops rather abruptly. It does not have Peter in Rome at that time, in fact, as we read Acts - Peter almost entirely drops out of the picture. But it’s thought Peter died in 67 AD so there are perhaps 5 years in which Peter could have arrived at Rome (to a very well established congregation, one where Paul was probably dominate). We just have no biblical or contemporary history to support that.

Nonetheless, the tradition that Peter was there - indeed was a bishop there - while a bit late (and for that reason, historically a bit problematic) is nonetheless never challenged at that early date and very ecumenical. For that reason, it is not challenged. Now, whether he was the first “pope” in any modern sense of that, whether he was regarded as “infallible” in 66 AD - that’s a whole other issue. But his being in Rome and being a bishop there, I don’t think that is seriously disputed.

He was appointed Chief Shepherd of the Church by Jesus in John 21:15-19.

He was the highest-ranking Christian in Rome (thus “Bishop of Rome”) at the time of his death. (He died by crucifixion at the order of Caesar Nero.)

Because he was dead, he needed a successor.

Linus became his successor because Linus was the highest-ranking Christian in Rome (thus “Bishop of Rome”) at the time, and because St. Peter had appointed him for that office.

Acts 15 is very interesting! Yes, obviously James is the chair here. And it’s unclear WHICH James. It could not be James the Greater, and it’s unlikely it’s James the Lessor.

I agree that the James in question could not have been James Zebedee, because he was dead, but why couldn’t it have been James Alphaeus?

But it’s clearly not Peter. Many speak at the meeting, of which Peter is simply one. Not the first, not the last. And NOTHING is said there about Peter being infallible or the Vicar of Christ or “whoever hears him, hears Jesus.”

When I read it, I find it very unclear. I can’t even discern that James is the Bishop, let alone whether Peter is in charge, or not. That’s probably just an issue with my own reading comprehension, however. Where it is clear to me, is in John 21:15-19, where Jesus is emphatically putting Peter in charge of the Church, and in Matthew 16:18-19, where Jesus is emphatically giving Peter authority over the discipline of the Church, and giving him the backing of God Almighty to ratify his every decision on behalf of the Church.

And there’s nothing to indicate that he made the decision. Actually, it’s almost shocking how little importance is giving to him. Just as interesting, the “rule” here is not Peter but is Scripture. James says the decision is good NOT because it conforms to what Peter said but because it conforms to what Scripture says - going on to quote Scripture and to not so much as mention Peter.

You know, I don’t even see that, since the whole decision goes completely against Scripture as they had it up to that time. The Law of Moses is crystal clear - converts to Judaism must be circumcised, and they must take on the kosher laws of food and clothing, etc. Christianity at that time was still a sect of Judaism - the split didn’t occur until after the fall of the Temple in 70 AD.