JohnVIII;8533929]I can’t go through this response to my posting and comment because you have got several things in it mixed up. May I try to just straiten out the matter of the various people names “James” in the New Testament
.
I have no problem with James/ Jacob theories and the like. So you can respond to my posts of Jesus building His Church upon Peter, commisioning Peter to Shepherd His flock on earth before He ascends into heaven and places an eternal life of no taste of death upon Peter until the Kingdom of God is revealed.
I was always under the impression that James bishop of Jerusalem was the brother of Jesus. Recent historians disagree and remains in debate today.
When Paul lists James before Cephas and John in Galatians, it is because Paul is visiting the first Church who the bishop happens to be James. Peter had already baptized thousands there, James became bishop to over see the Church Peter had built in Jerusalem. Just as Peter did in Antioch, later sends Mark to Egypt then back to Rome.
**Your James again becomes debatable. When Peter’s position is clearly recorded and stated by Jesus himself. Here is the test. Who would carry more weight? the Gospel writers recording Jesus building His church upon Peter and giving Peter authority in the keys of heaven on earth and shepherding His flock? and who witnessed Jesus doing and recorded Jesus sayings.
Or an epistle later written to the Gentile Galatian church of an apostle who later was called after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus sent out to the Gentiles by a converted Pharisee Jew who persecuted the Church by the name Saul now named Paul?**
Paul here is teaching and confirming with the Galatians that the Jewish convert Bishop of Jerusalem James, which at first glance carries with it lot of weight on the surface to conclude, that Paul is right in not having his Gentile converts be circumcised, because James the bishop of Jerusalem Peter and John “who were reputed to be pillars” agreed with Pauls teachings and gave him their blessings. This reveals Pauls early distance from the Apostles in the beginning as recognizing only the bishop of Jerusalem who agrees with his preaching, comes from an established apostolic ordained bishop of the first Church in Jerusalem, which probably was well known and respected to the new Church’s being built througout Palastine.
**In summary I am not discounting James the bishop of Jerusalems authority over Jewish converts and Gentile converts being burdened by Jewish converts including Pauls evangelized communities such as Galatians. Jesus never builds nor places James in any authoritative position over the whole flock as Jesus relates His office to Peter alone by the 4 Gospel writers.
In fact if you are wanting to use a later epistle after the fact Galatians records Paul after recieving his vocation from Jesus, informs the Galatians what he did first to confirm this teaching to be true;
It is from your own Galatians source that records Peter being mentioned before James here in verse 18 which contradicts your theory that James is always mentioned first before Peter.**
Galatians 1:15 But when [God], who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleasedk 16to reveal his Son to me,l so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood,* 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia* and then returned to Damascus.
18*
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.m 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles,n only James the brother of the Lord.** 20(As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying.)
What I find interesting is that since Peter walked the earth. society has always stereotyped Peter as a simple humble largy of a man who can easily be influenced. Jesus knew this, that promised Peter to be with him always. The interesting part is that Orthodoxy and protestantism is still applying the same stereotypes to Peter as one not being set apart as Paul was set apart, yet both ended in Rome where Peter remains today.
The authority of St Peter is a teaching authority, he was not a ruler over the Church. Once again, the foundation of the Church is not the beginning and the end, the first and the last, the alpha and the omega! Peter was made the foundation of the Church (according to the Greek Matthew), but every calling in the Church is needed, Peter’s calling is important, but it is not the only calling, nor was it even the highest calling (in terms of episcopal authority)
Until you can prove Jesus lied from his own words of building His Church upon Peter, giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to bind and loose on earth Jesus will bind and loose in heaven, and prove Jesus lied when He commanded Peter to feed, teach, and tend His flock until He returns.
You are hard pressed in relating other sciptures to override what Jesus revealed, commanded and commissioned upon Peter and then in a secondary authority to the other apostles, that is why Peter went to Jerusalem to reveal what God has spoken to Peter to be universal teaching in all the Church not just Jerusalem.
Peace be with you
But of course the teachings of universal jurisdiction and infallibility (all truth) - is not defined, solely, by Jesus re-naming Simon - Petros, the masculine for petra, aka Cephas. Jesus seems to be simply telling Simon (name meaning to hear/obey) - that He will build His one church (I will build my church, as opposed to autonomous churches) - on a sold foundation, which suggests that Jesus’ church will remain intact until His return, at least to me anyway.
