fnr… There has “never” been a Primacy of Jeruselem its not specifically stated in the Bible nor by any Early Church Fathers, its speculation and a proposed side of a debate, where in the world does this idea come from, show me a link from the Early Church Fathers. If you believe this then you must prove it. Nothing supports this as has been stated. There was a See established there, the first. There was a Council of the Apostles there. James is the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Primacy ummm NO. This doesn’t superceed St Peters position of Divine Institution, nor does it make Jerusalem the Primacy first established.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGgQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffatherjoe.wordpress.com%2Finstructions%2Fcatechesis%2Fquestions%2Fthe-primacy-of-peter-the-council-of-jerusalem%2F&ei=3Q0ZUOGxOsbH6AGijoGYBg&usg=AFQjCNESZjm6yHOCoQ1qDxl2WtPLknLCpg&sig2=xRoYLLVJ8hqDW8XFF9jHhw
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&sqi=2&ved=0CF8QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fisheaters.com%2Feasternfathers.html&ei=sxQZULKlEqGf6AHxxoGgCA&usg=AFQjCNEcFVg8dqm-E3pwRBBfIURGjDBbzg&sig2=ccvHmZ6y6nWgRXrpVTWvyw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Patriarch_of_Jerusalem
The term “primacy” is a development of later years, so it wouldn’t be in the Bible. Christians didn’t even use the term “Christianity” until after a Latinization of Greek Christians, which is documented in Acts 11:26. Prior to that, Christianity was called “the Way.”
In 70 AD, Jerusalem was destroyed as a punishment for Jewish uprising. Plain and simple. There’s evidence that the Church there fled to Pella on the far side of the Jordan. In that the only writings we likely have from before the destruction of Jerusalem are the 7 genuine Pauline epistles (1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and Philemon), and possibly the Gospel of Mark (minus its beginning and end after 16:8).
According to the New American Bible, among the epistles that Paul actually is believed to have written, Romans is probably the latest and reflects the most mature of his theological writings. Romans was written around 56-58 AD. Notably, if Peter was in Rome, Paul snubbed him terribly by failing to mention him in the greetings in chapter 16: 3-16. Further, in Romans 16: 17-20, Paul has to warn personally against “those who create dissensions and obstacles.” If Peter was in Rome at the time, or had already been martyred there, wouldn’t Paul probably have mentioned it in his letter to the city with “primacy?”
Earlier, we can place Peter in Jerusalem, pretty reliably in the late 30s-early 40s AD. It’s in Galatians 1 that Paul describes his chronology. Paul’s Damascus road experience probably took place about 1-3 years after the Resurrection (itself probably taking place probably in 33 AD, and definitely before 36 AD – the last year of Pilate’s tenure in Roman Palestine). That puts Paul’s initial conversion between 34-36 AD. Galatians 1 is probably the best documentation of Paul’s chronology (Acts was probably written 20+ years later by the author of the Gospel of Luke). In Galatians 1:17, he says he “went into Arabia, and then returned to Damascus.” In 1:18, he says, “I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.” So, that puts Paul’s first visit to Peter in Jerusalem at 37-39 AD.
14 years later, in Galatians 2, Paul writes that he "again went up to Jerusalem (curiously he insists that he went “in accord with a revelation” while Acts 15 says he was summoned). In Acts 15, it says, “it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.” Peter is there and we have two accounts of “the Council of Jerusalem” in Galatians 2 and Acts 15. This puts Peter in Jerusalem around 51-54 AD, going by the chronology above.
In the New American Bible introduction to Paul’s epistle to the Philippians, the Christian community in Philippi was the “first Christian community in Europe,” the result of his second missionary journey in 49-50 AD. If Philippi was the first in Europe, Rome wasn’t there yet. (Circumstantial evidence that Peter wasn’t resident in Rome). According to the NAB, there’s uncertainty about the date of this letter, between 55-63 AD.
In 1 Corinthians 1:12, there’s a reference to people saying “I belong to Cephas” or “I belong to Paul,” which he corrects. Still, the NAB introduction suggests that Peter may well have visited Corinth. The NAB estimates that 1 Corinthians was written in 56 AD.
You’re right about his concern for poverty in Jerusalem. In Romans 15: 26, he writes, “for Macedonia and Achaia have decided to make some contribution for the poor among the holy ones in Jerusalem.” However, in 15: 30-31, he writes, “I urge you, [brothers,] by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in the struggle by your prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the disobedient in Judea, and that my ministry for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the holy ones.” In this verse, Paul seems to be submitting himself to review by “the holy ones” in Jerusalem. Who would this be but Peter and the other apostles?
From this chronology, it seems very much that Peter was in Jerusalem as late as the writing of Romans in 56-58 AD, and probably wasn’t in Rome as late as the writing of Philippians in 55-63 AD. Peter was, without a doubt, traveling, but it seems very much that he focused on “apostolate to the the circumcised” (Galatians 2:8). Since the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans didn’t start until 70 AD, that means that Peter was probably in Jerusalem until very close to the Jewish war. The Jewish rebels occupied the city in 66 AD, which probably was a very clear sign of coming trouble.
John 21: 18-19 feature our Lord talking to Peter: " “when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God.” In that the Gospel was probably written in the 90s AD, there is suggestion here that the author knew that Peter had already died by crucifixion.
1 Clement (First letter of Clement to the Corinthians), in part 5, refers to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. 1 Clement was written probably in the last decade of the 1st century. He wrote from “the Church of God which sojourns in Rome.” Notably, it makes no reference to Peter and Paul being martyred in Rome itself.
The last we have of Paul in the Bible is Acts 28, where Paul spends two years under house arrest. Acts doesn’t say what happened to Paul, but there’s good evidence that he was martyred in Rome. There is simply no documentation of what happened to St. Peter.
I understand the context we have discussed this. Makes for a good thread.