Proof of Pope

[mercygate]

James said “My judgement is…”; He made a judgment and not just a proposal. It was actually the last act and after that, letters were sent to Gentiles to propagate the decision.

James was not just the ‘host’. Jerusalem was the central seat of the church government and that’s where dispute was settled.

What was missing in history is when did this seat transferr to Rome?

It transferred to Rome when Peter died there. Moreover, it is not “missing.”

And if you accept Eusebius’ chronology, Peter got there in 42 A.D. Thus, following Paul’s statement that “after 14 years” he went up to Jerusalem, then that would be about 45 A.D. So Peter had to come back to Jerusalem for the Jerusalem Council. This supports the idea that a) Jerusalem was still considered to be the center of Christianity as a Jewish sect and b) Peter was considered important enough to ask back for the council.

 

[Menorrah]

Well, it’s impossible to be “wrong” in interpreting Mt 16:18 as singling out Peter for SOME kind of primacy. Put that together with the “strengthen your brethren” in Luke & that whole thing in Jn 21 about “feed my sheep” and I would suggest to you that anyone who thinks the Catholic interpretation deserves “more” reexamination than any alternative needs to reexamine his own position.

Well, if you think “it’s impossible”; then you are not open to a intelligible and open-minded discussion. It is very hard to further discuss if that’s the case.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It transferred to Rome when Peter died there. Moreover, it is not “missing.”

And if you accept Eusebius’ chronology, Peter got there in 42 A.D. Thus, following Paul’s statement that “after 14 years” he went up to Jerusalem, then that would be about 45 A.D. So Peter had to come back to Jerusalem for the Jerusalem Council. This supports the idea that a) Jerusalem was still considered to be the center of Christianity as a Jewish sect and b) Peter was considered important enough to ask back for the council.

Galatians shows St. Peter wasn’t “asked back,” he came to Jerusalem to get an answer as did St. Paul.

 

[Menorrah]

Eusebius chronology doesn’t answer the question.

 

[po18guy]

The most ancient tradition, that held by the Orthodox to this day, is that James and the other Brothers of the Lord were step-brothers, sons of Joseph by his first, deceased, wife.

THAT I can agree with. You must grudgingly admit that the Catholic tradition is exactly as old.

I overreacted to that anticipated “Mary had lots of children” rubbish.

 

[Bwsherman]

We cannot just ‘never mind’ historical evidences and accounts in the book of Acts and the writings of the early church fathers simply because it contradicts your interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Why don’t you reexamine your interpretation, it maybe wrong!

You are right that if one were to take Matthew 16:18 alone, it might be able to be disproved by the Book of Acts. However, when one looks at Matthew 16:18 and compares it with Is. 22:20-24 it is quite evident what Jesus is doing is earth shattering and would have effects on the Church just as it did in the Davidic Kingdom. No other Apostle was given such a task and that fact alone sets Peter in a primacy function.

 

[MarcoPolo]

There is no record of St. James appealing to St. Peter.

See again post #19.

 

[MarcoPolo]

When did the seat of power of the Christian church transfer from Jerusalem to Rome and who was the first bishop of Rome?

The “seat” was never “at Jerusalem” in the sense that the Jerusalem bishop was the primal bishop. The “seat” is Peter’s office. As to who was Rome’s first bishop, Eusebius is pretty clear it was Peter:

He first states:After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle. (Church History, 3.2.1)

And shortly thereafter he singles out Peter as the single head as even testified by Paul:Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there (Church History, 3.4.9)

Hegissepus, ca. 160 AD, also wrote that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. (Church History, 5.3.22): *…Rome in the time of Anicetus, the tenth bishop after Peter…*The story is the same with Irenaeus (ca 180), Julius Africanus (ca 200), Hippolytus (ca 270), Jerome (ca 370), and Augustine (ca 390), etc…

 

[Menorrah]

There is still the missing link which does not satisfy what was left of the apostles according to the holy scriptures and what we found in history of the church.

In Acts 15, it is clear that everyone went back to Jerusalem at a council meeting.

Acts 15:2
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Jerusalem was the center of Christianity and that’s why in Revelation, there was a promise of “new Jerusalem”; symbolical of new home.

Another question that must be answered is that why the young church then, which were mostly composed of Jews at the time of James, Peter and John, would establish the ‘central seat’ at Rome, which was predominantly pagan and where persecution was greater?

 

[Bwsherman]

There is still the missing link which does not satisfy what was left of the apostles according to the holy scriptures and what we found in history of the church.

What history of the Church are speaking of, that found in scripture or that found in the early church fathers?

Another question that must be answered is that why the young church then, which were mostly composed of Jews at the time of James, Peter and John, would establish the ‘central seat’ at Rome, which was predominantly pagan and where persecution was greater?

God has always exposed Himself through His children to the leading world powers. One only has to look at the location of the land of Canaan taken over by the Israelites for proof. Rome being the leading power of the day had the ability to do exactly what God utilized it for and that is to propagate the truth found in the Church which is of course Christ.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .

Another question that must be answered is that why the young church then, which were mostly composed of Jews at the time of James, Peter and John, would establish the ‘central seat’ at Rome, which was predominantly pagan and where persecution was greater?

Note that the First Martyrs of Rome died with Sts Peter and Paul in the persecution by Nero. From what I can recall persecution in Rome was rare until that time. Most of the earlier persecution occurred in Jerusalem.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Galatians shows St. Peter wasn’t “asked back,” he came to Jerusalem to get an answer as did St. Paul.

Where did St Peter ask a question? He appears to have been setting policy, not asking a question in Acts 15"7-11. Note that his words ended the discussion,.

And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12 And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

St James then directed the implementation St Peter’s policy.

 

[Menorrah]

Persecution occured mostly where they were. They were in Jerusalem and for that reason, that’s where they were persecuted. As a matter of fact:

Acts 6:7
And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Acts 8:1
And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

I need to highlight that despite the persecution, Apostles stayed in Jerusalem.

James oversaw the whole church; while Peter was for the Jews and Paul for the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:7
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

 

[Menorrah]

Where did St Peter ask a question? He appears to have been setting policy, not asking a question in Acts 15"7-11. Note that his words ended the discussion,. St James then directed the implementation St Peter’s policy.

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

James made the final judgment.

 

[mercygate]

Well, if you think “it’s impossible”; then you are not open to a intelligible and open-minded discussion. It is very hard to further discuss if that’s the case.

Exactly. I’m not only Catholic, I’m a convert. So when I “opened my mind” I saw that the Catholic position comprehends the evidence with higher probability than the alternatives. So for me, the case is closed. Is that closed-minded? I think it’s simply a matter of accepting the evidence.

 

[mercygate]

Galatians shows St. Peter wasn’t “asked back,” he came to Jerusalem to get an answer as did St. Paul.

In Galatians Paul mentons two trips to Jerusalem. The first, at 6 years following Paul’s conversion (counting the three years in Arabia followed by another three years of preaching) and then the second for “the council” after another 14 years. It is not inconsistent either with Eusebius’ chronology or with Paul’s that Peter had left Jerusalem a couple of years before the council and would have returned for that meeting.

 

[Menorrah]

Exactly. I’m not only Catholic, I’m a convert. So when I “opened my mind” I saw that the Catholic position comprehends the evidence with higher probability than the alternatives. So for me, the case is closed. Is that closed-minded? I think it’s simply a matter of accepting the evidence.

Yes, that’s close-minded. At the instance you used the word “impossible (to break)” in defence an existing position, that is already a sign of not being open to ‘other’ proposition.

Being a convert doesn’t translate to “open-mindedness”. There are people who are typically in the defense once their existing belief or position is under fire.

Anyway, that is not the point of discussion in this thread. Just tell me once you’re ready to an open-minded discussion regarding Matthew 16:18, I am willing to discuss it further with you.

 

[mercygate]

Yes, that’s close-minded. At the instance you used the word “impossible (to break)” in defence an existing position, that is already a sign of not being open to ‘other’ proposition.

Being a convert doesn’t translate to “open-mindedness”. There are people who are typically in the defense once their existing belief or position is under fire.

Anyway, that is not the point of discussion in this thread. Just tell me once you’re ready to an open-minded discussion regarding Matthew 16:18, I am willing to discuss it further with you.

Discussing Mt. 16:18 without discussing all of the other points of Scripture that stand in affirmation of it is unreasonable. It is not an solitary text. Taken in itself, the meaning might not be clear. Taken in the context of the rest of Scripture and in the context of the early Church, it is clear.

 

[Menorrah]

What history of the Church are speaking of, that found in scripture or that found in the early church fathers?

God has always exposed Himself through His children to the leading world powers. One only has to look at the location of the land of Canaan taken over by the Israelites for proof. Rome being the leading power of the day had the ability to do exactly what God utilized it for and that is to propagate the truth found in the Church which is of course Christ.

I was talking about “both” scriptural and historical. The missing link is the when and why. There are a lot of theories (unproven beliefs) regarding this. Your second paragraph is one of them.

The devil can also utilize the leading power to do exactly what he wants. He is willing to give power and glory to anyone who will accept the bribe. Even Jesus he tempted:

Matthew 4:8-9 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

How do we know whether some of the early church didn’t accept the same bribe from the devil?

And it was foretold:

1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

 

[Menorrah]

Discussing Mt. 16:18 without discussing all of the other points of Scripture that stand in affirmation of it is unreasonable. It is not an solitary text. Taken in itself, the meaning might not be clear. Taken in the context of the rest of Scripture and in the context of the early Church, it is clear.

I did not say that we will only talk about Matthew 16:18. I’d say it would be the central theme of our discussion. And yes, taken with the rest of the scripture and early church, that’s what I was proposing even at the start. I can’t remember if it was you who said “never mind”, referring to Eusebius’ Church History where it was stated that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem.