Then James says, ‘I rule, then...' Acts 15:7-21

[Cal_in_Omaha]

In yesterday’s first Mass Reading, Acts 15:7-21, the apostles meet in Jerusalem to decide what if any Jewish requirements should be placed on the Gentiles. Peter, Barnabas, Paul all get their say. Then James says, ‘I rule, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans…’ [Jerusalem Bible]

It clearly sounds like one person was in charge here and it wasn’t Peter. You could say, well James was the bishop in Jerusalem at that time, but if Peter had papal status, why didn’t he have the final word after James gave his (name removed by moderator)ut? What is the Catholic explanation for this? The protestants like to use this verse as one proof that Peter was not in charge.

 

[awalt]

Well, I checked the Greek New Testament, and the text of Acts 15:19 is

διο εγω κρινω μη παρενοχλειν τοις απο των εθνων επιστρεφουσιν επι τον θεον The Greek New Testament according to the Byzantine text form : 2000 revision, with morphology. 2002 (Ac 15:19). Bellingham: Logos Research Systems.

The third word κρίνω is defined in the Nestle-Aland Exegetical Guide as “judge”. Strong’s Lexicon shows how this specific word is translated throughout the Bible:

2919** **κρίνω krino /kree·no/] v. Perhaps a primitive word; TDNT 3:921; TDNTA 469; GK 3212; 114 occurrences; AV translates as “judge” 88 times, “determine” seven times, “condemn” five times, “go to law” twice, “call in question” twice, “esteem” twice, and translated miscellaneously eight times. 1 to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose. 2 to approve, esteem, to prefer. 3 to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion. 4 to determine, resolve, decree. 5 to judge. 5a to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong. 5a1 to be judged, i.e. summoned to trial that one’s case may be examined and judgment passed upon it. 5b to pronounce judgment, to subject to censure. 5b1 of those who act the part of judges or arbiters in matters of common life, or pass judgment on the deeds and words of others. 6 to rule, govern. 6a to preside over with the power of giving judicial decisions, because it was the prerogative of kings and rulers to pass judgment. 7 to contend together, of warriors and combatants. 7a to dispute. 7b in a forensic sense. 7b1 to go to law, have suit at law.

%between%

My conclusion, drawing any opinion that this means James “rules” is a leap. He was a respected leader, and he was making a proposal of sorts…

 

[Cal_in_Omaha]

Ok, so one valid sense of the word is: 6a to preside over with the power of giving judicial decisions, because it was the prerogative of kings and rulers to pass judgment.

I was surprised that the Jerusalem Bible, which I consider to be a Catholic version, would use the term rule.

Both the New American Bible the New International Version render “It is my judgement,…” and the RSV renders “19Therefore my judgment is that …”

I think another arguement is that not only does James appear to “preside over with the power of giving judicial decisions” but in addition he also has the last word. Peter is not heard from again. In any version, it sounds like James considers the (name removed by moderator)ut of others and then he makes the binding decision. And this was not a minor controversy for these Jews; this was a very important decision.

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

Well, from my perspective, it appears that Peter made his decree in verses 7-11, concluding that “we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, just as they will.” Then, the other bishops discuss what to do based on Peter’s proclamation. James’s decision is not a decision about whether or not Gentiles need to conform to Jewish law, but a decision on how to address the Gentiles given Peter’s statement that the Gentiles do not need to conform to the Mosaic law in order to be saved.

 

[Cal_in_Omaha]

I just reread Acts 15 hoping to get the sense you did. Admitedly, Peter’s statement sound authoritative. But James sounds more final and binding to me.

It’s interesting that in verses 22-30, it sounds like a committee decision is made to choose a delegation to Antioch. You’d think that either Peter would write the letter or at least his name would be used in to intro to give it final authority. Neither is the case.

It is my judgement therefore that scripture does not make this crystal clear and we have need of a megesterium. :banghead:

 

[JP2ImissU]

Cal, what you have too remember is that the pope dosen’t have to be the head of the council, he merley has to approve it. For example, what was supposed to be the second council of Ephesus was almost unamiously approved by the bishops of the East. When it was sent too Pope Leo I for approval, he rejected it, and today it is known as the “robber-synod”. A new council was called at Chalcedon, and this time Leo approved the results, so it is considered a true council. For more inro on this I recomend this book: shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-CB266.html?L+scstore+qzsy0999ff64ff64+1114976306

I bought it 3 months ago and really enjoyed reading it.

 

[porthos11]

Actually, the Church today still operates in much the same way. St. Peter issued the doctrinal pronouncement, James the disciplinary.

Recent example: Pope John Paul II issued the encyclical “Ecclesia de Eucharistia”, a deep, doctrinal document on the Eucharist. In it, he made a fleeting reference to the current state of liturgical abuse, but did not elaborate, but rather called for more action.

That action came into being with “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, not an encyclical but an Instruction on curbing litiurgical abuse. This Instruction was not issued by the Pope, but by the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discpline of the Sacraments, in the person of its Prefect, Cardinal Francis Arinze. Redemptionis Sacramentum is a document of a disciplinary nature. In this instance, Cardinal Arinze “ruled” just like James did.

James is speaking in this instance more as a modern-day Cardinal-prefect would.

 

[Cal_in_Omaha]

Thanks to all for your replies. Your perspectives have helped me to grasp a better understanding of this.

 

[Thal59]

Cal_in_Omaha:

In yesterday’s first Mass Reading, Acts 15:7-21, the apostles meet in Jerusalem to decide what if any Jewish requirements should be placed on the Gentiles. Peter, Barnabas, Paul all get their say. Then James says, ‘I rule, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans…’ [Jerusalem Bible]

Cal, look at it this way. The question is raised and Peter makes a decision. James concurrs. If James were to come up with something different from what Peter decided, and were Peter to stay silent afterwards, the Protestant position would carry more weight. But would would you say if, after James spoke, Barnabas stood up and concurred with James and Peter, and had the last word? Would you say that it appears that Barnabas is the leader whose word is stronger and more binding than the others simply because he spoke last?

In most concordances, like dictionaries, when several meanings are applied to a word, the list of meanings generally is listed in order of their validity or their most common usage. So, it is not a case of looking at awalt’s greek post and then selecting the meaning you like best… look at the order: let’s take the first three most valid, most commonly used, definitions.

1 to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose. 2 to approve, esteem, to prefer. 3 to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion.<<

So, rather than focus on the word “rule” as you quoted it, place the best definitions into the phrase to see what James means…

‘I choose, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans… (iow, It is my choice to agree with Peter.)

‘I approve, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans… (I approve of Peter’s decision.)

‘I deem, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans…(I am of the same opinion as Peter on this matter.)

Since Jame is the Bishop of Jerusalem, naturally he should state his position since he will be responsible for communicating the spirit of the decision to his congregation. James, therefore, states his approval, choice, preferrence etc, to be of the same opinion as Peter.

Peter had decided, James had concurred. This is why Peter said nothing afterwards. One doesn’t need to restate or argue a unanimous decision.

Thal59

 

[truthinlove]

Did Peter act like he was in charge of the early Church? The Book of Acts describes a controversy about whether or not gentile converts to Christianity should be required to be circumcised and to follow the Jewish dietary laws. Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles about it. (Acts 15:2-4) Peter and other people spoke. (Acts 15:7-13) Following a period of silence, James (not Peter) made the final decision in the matter. He called it a “sentence.” According to “Strong’s Concordance,” the word means a judicial sentence, a decree, or a judgment. The Bible says:

“And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me…** Wherefore my sentence is**, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” (Acts 15:13, 19-20, emphasis added)

This is the last mention of Peter in the Book of Acts. The Book of Acts is the history of the early Church up until a few years before Peter’s death. If Peter was “the first Pope,” and the officially recognized head of the Church, would we not expect that the Biblical history of the early Church would have said more about him?

The Book of Acts says nothing about Peter being in authority over the whole Church. It shows no connection between Peter and Rome.

Acts 28:14-15 tells how Paul met with the “brethren” in Rome, but it makes no mention of Peter. As we shall see, when Paul met with Peter in Jerusalem, Peter was identified by name.

Acts 2:14 and Acts 8:14 say that Peter was in Jerusalem. Acts 9:36-43 says that Peter went to Joppa, which is near Jerusalem. In chapter 10 of the Book of Acts, Peter is still in Joppa. Acts 11:2 says that Peter returned to Jerusalem.

Joppa is about 30 miles from Jerusalem. If the Book of Acts records this much detail about Peter’s visit to a nearby town, wouldn’t it tell us if Peter went all the way to Rome? Particularly since it does tell us that Paul went to Rome.

Acts 15:1-20 tells how Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to meet with the “apostles and elders” of Jerusalem. Peter is identified as being one of the apostles of Jerusalem. The Bible says:

“And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 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. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” (Acts 15:1-7, emphasis added)

cont…

 

[truthinlove]

The Apostle Paul identified Peter as being an apostle in Jerusalem. He said:

“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” (Galatians 1:18-19, emphasis added)

The Book of Romans was written by the Apostle Paul. He addressed it to “all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints…” (Romans 1:7, emphasis added) In Romans 16:1-15, Paul greeted 26 people by name. He never mentioned Peter. If Peter was the leader of the Church in Rome, then why didn’t Paul mention him?

Paul wrote five letters from a Roman prison (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon). He never mentioned Peter. The man who stayed with Paul in Rome, to help him and encourage him, was Luke–not Peter. (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11)

Paul only mentioned Peter in one of his epistles. In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul said that he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and James. In Galatians 2:8, Paul said that he preached to the gentiles and Peter preached to the Jews (the “circumcision”).

In Galatians 2:11-15, Paul recounted how he publicly rebuked Peter, because Peter had become so intimidated by the Judaizers that he “walked not uprightly.” Evidently, Paul’s public correction of Peter did not cause a problem between them. Peter loved and respected Paul as a brother. He exhorted the Church to heed Paul’s wisdom. Peter said:

“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things…” (2 Peter 3:15-16, emphasis added)

 

[porthos11]

truthinlove:

The Book of Romans was written by the Apostle Paul. He addressed it to “all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints…” (Romans 1:7, emphasis added) In Romans 16:1-15, Paul greeted 26 people by name. He never mentioned Peter. If Peter was the leader of the Church in Rome, then why didn’t Paul mention him?

That is because of the distinct possibility Peter wasn’t in Rome yet or at least at that moment. Whether or not Peter was in Rome at any particular moment does not detract from the fact that he holds the keys.

Paul wrote five letters from a Roman prison (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon). He never mentioned Peter. The man who stayed with Paul in Rome, to help him and encourage him, was Luke–not Peter. (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11)

Not at the same time. 2 Tim was written during Paul’s second imprisonment, while the others were written during the first house arrest. Peter was in prison during the same time as Paul by the time he wrote 2 Tim. 1 Peter alludes to his presence in Rome and the earliest writings attest to this.

Paul only mentioned Peter in one of his epistles. In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul said that he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and James. In Galatians 2:8, Paul said that he preached to the gentiles and Peter preached to the Jews (the “circumcision”).

In Galatians 2:11-15, Paul recounted how he publicly rebuked Peter, because Peter had become so intimidated by the Judaizers that he “walked not uprightly.” Evidently, Paul’s public correction of Peter did not cause a problem between them. Peter loved and respected Paul as a brother. He exhorted the Church to heed Paul’s wisdom. Peter said:

People love this passage to bash Peter. Big deal. Popes have been rebuked by LAYPEOPLE and non-clergy for a lot worse. Catherine of Siena comes to mind. So what? Fact is, the Pope is not perfect and sins just like anyone else. Peter was no different. Popes keep on encouraging people to listen to non-Papal wisdom as well.

It remains a fact that Jesus gave Peter alone the keys to the Kingdom of heaven, with the authority to bind and loose distinct from that of the other apostles.It’s a vain effort to reduce Jesus’ words to nonsense, which is what happens when Peter is just written off.

 

[RyanL]

i wasn’t going to chime in on this, but i can hardly resist…

let’s take a look at what’s going on at the start of acts 15 - namely, the problem of the judaizers (those who said you can’t be saved unless you follow levitical law and are circumcized).

1And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

so, like good christians, they go to their brother so that they might correct and gain a brother (matt 18:15). the brother (the judaizers) refuse to listen to them. so what do they do? they “then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established” (matt 18:16). and they bring a pretty good two or three - namely, paul and barnabas. a pretty good two or three, right truthinlove? and STILL the judaizers won’t listen. so what do they do? they “tell it unto the church” (matt 18:17) by going to the holy see of peter and the assembly of catholic bishops, a right course of action. this is known as the proper recognition of authority, and this is EXACTLY what we see here:

2When 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.… 4And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders…

what happens next?

7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up

a quick culture lesson - standing demonstrates a position of power. and what does peter do from this position of power? he makes an infallable declaration on a matter of faith and morals. we know this is infallable because it is NEVER contradicted and STILL remains a matter of doctrinal truth! but what of james, you ask? let’s see what james says:

19Wherefore my sentence is

this is frequently translated “therefore”. when you see therefore in scripture, you have to ask what it’s “there for”. it is BECAUSE of what peter declared that james makes his pronouncement. it is an infallable declaration on matters of faith and morals? HARDLY! it is contradicted by paul shortly thereafter in another epistle, with no subsequent protests and it is NOT a matter of doctrinal truth 2000 years later! as bishop, james was imposing a discipline on his faithful that, while not inherently sinful, would have been sinful to disobey (much like not eating meat on fridays of lent - there’s nothing wrong with meat, but there is MUCH wrong with being willfully disobedient). later, this discipline is relaxed (which is what we see in 1 cor 10:25-29), and we hear no more about this being sinful for the rest of the new testament.

as for truthinlove’s assertion that peter was never in rome:
catholic.com/library/was_peter_in_rome.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9012frs.asp
suffice it to say that this is rubbish, and has been completely debunked. to say otherwise is to try and rewrite both history and archeology - that said, i think truthinlove will still try.

in Christ,
RyanL

 

[truthinlove]

porthos11:

That is because of the distinct possibility Peter wasn’t in Rome yet or at least at that moment. Whether or not Peter was in Rome at any particular moment does not detract from the fact that he holds the keys.

Interesting straw man you have there, did you know that Peter wasn’t the only one with the “keys”? Observe…

Matt 16
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Matt 18
18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. 21Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

Peter’s superiority based on “keys” is given to all the apostles. It involves opening the kingdom of heaven(preaching the Gospel). The twelve apostles will also judge the tribes of Israel in the New Earth. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world. Christ did not institute a hierachy under Peter then or ever. Christ alone is the head of the body, what could Peter possibly be?

Not at the same time. 2 Tim was written during Paul’s second imprisonment, while the others were written during the first house arrest. Peter was in prison during the same time as Paul by the time he wrote 2 Tim. 1 Peter alludes to his presence in Rome and the earliest writings attest to this.

Where does Peter allude to this? Not very much evidence for the “rock” of Matt 16 supreme power over the infant church.

People love this passage to bash Peter. Big deal.

I quoted Scripture, I am not bashing Peter at all. If I’m bashing anything its your misrepresentation of him.

Popes have been rebuked by LAYPEOPLE and non-clergy for a lot worse. Catherine of Siena comes to mind. So what? Fact is, the Pope is not perfect and sins just like anyone else. Peter was no different. Popes keep on encouraging people to listen to non-Papal wisdom as well.

You’re right, popes have done far worse than what could ever be posted here. The phrase absolute power corrupts absolutely comes to mind. I’m not familiar with Catherine of Siena, could you enlighten me? Popes have been rebuked by sincere faithful Catholics as well. Beloved John Paul II has been seen as a false successor by many Catholics. And been adored by many other non-Catholics.

It remains a fact that Jesus gave Peter alone the keys to the Kingdom of heaven, with the authority to bind and loose distinct from that of the other apostles.It’s a vain effort to reduce Jesus’ words to nonsense, which is what happens when Peter is just written off.

I don’t think so. Read Matt 18 posted above. Bet you never heard that growing up.

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

Peter’s superiority based on “keys” is given to all the apostles.

Peter’s authority of the keys is not given to all the apostles. True, the other apostles are given the power of binding and loosing, but they are not given the keys. The passage of Matthew 18 that you quote does not mention keys.

Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world. Christ did not institute a hierachy under Peter then or ever. Christ alone is the head of the body, what could Peter possibly be?

Jesus did say that his kingdom was not of this world. I don’t see how that excludes the idea of hierarchy. Even your argument assumes hierarchy. If the superiority based on ‘keys’ was given to all apostles, it would still mean that some members of the Church had positions higher than others.

Where does Peter allude to this? Not very much evidence for the “rock” of Matt 16 supreme power over the infant church.

If you would read the articles RyanL linked to, you would find out that the allusion to Rome is in 1 Peter 5:13, when Peter refers to Babylon. Given the historical context, he could not have been refering to the actual city of Babylon. I would give the historical context here, but you can read about those from the links, and whether or not Peter was in Rome is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Church_Militant]

truthinlove:

The Apostle Paul identified Peter as being an apostle in Jerusalem. He said:

“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” (Galatians 1:18-19, emphasis added)
​

:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: SSDD…
Why is Peter named first in every list of the apostles? This was the way it was done back then (and still is today. Most important guy first.)

Why is peter mentioned more than any of the other apostles…even your alleged St. Paul?

Why does Jesus tell Peter that he will give him the keys of the kingdom (a clear meaning from the OT that he would speak with Christ’s own authority!). Look it up in your Strong’s….what did it mean for a man to be given the keys to the kingdom? You need to check the original languages here since the use is singular (talking to Cephas alone) as opposed to your contention that it was directed to all the apostles).

Why did Paul spend his 15 days with Peter as opposed to anyone else? James was the bishop of Jerusalem.

Peter’s closing remarks in Acts 15 show that he settled the issue then and there.

As for your allegation that Paul had to correct Peter’s “doctrine”…I would say you infer FAR too much, since the issue was not doctrinal at all but one of appearances and offense.

Most of all this is just your personal (or someone else’s) take and interpretation of this issue. Biased all out of proportion to scripture and history. The truth is that even before the term pope ever came into use they all knew that he was defacto pope. The office was there and the terms and hierachy came into being as the church grew.

The letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch shows this, even to a casual reader, since by the time the last apostle died the church was already calling itself Catholic. And these weren’t heretics or something they were the friends and disciples of St. John himself. catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume01/ignatius06.cfm

If Peter wasn’t the first pope then why was he the source of the first miracles and led the preaching on the day of Pentecost? Even the Jews and Romans knew he was the chief apostle because they went out of thir way to persecute and imprison him!

Your case is made up of inferences that are not in evidence and not supported by the scriptures that you claim are your infallible source of authority.
Pax tecum,​

 

[truthinlove]

1And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2When 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 (not Peter supreme apostle) about this question.

3And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

4And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders (again no mention of Peter primacy), and they declared all things that God had done with them.

5But there rose up(now the Pharisees are in authority???) certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

6And the apostles and elders(why consider it, just ask infallible Peter) came together for to consider of this matter.

7And when there had been much disputing(obviously these guys missed the rock speech of Jesus and no one corrected them), Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. (no infant baptism, eucharist adoration, prayer to Mary at the hour of death???)

8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9And put no difference between us and them(no respecter of persons remember), purifying their hearts by faith(Peter the faith alone Pope!!).

10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11But we believe that through the grace(grace alone too, go Peter preach it) of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

12Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul(but almighty Peter has spoken, what more is there to say???), declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

13And after they had held their peace(means silence…James is about to get the last word), James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me(James doesn’t see Peter’s authority):

14Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15And to this agree the words of the prophets(Peter spoke truth, not cause he was Peter but because he agrees with scripture); as it is written,

16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

19Wherefore my sentence is(James the ruler of the council, not the pope Peter???), that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

 

[truthinlove]

20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols(things made with hands and worshiped, sound familiar at mass?), and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

22Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church(looks like Peter lost his unique status, if he ever had it), to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost(not Peter?), and to us(but Peter is pope!), to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols(hmm), and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

30So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

31Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

32And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

33And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles.

34Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

35Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

36And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the LORD, and see how they do.

37And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.

38But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.

39And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

40And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren(but the pope really, see brethren means pope and magisterium) unto the grace of God. 41And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

So the Catholic Church says that Peter is the rock. But Peter(I Peter 2:3-9) declared that Jesus is the rock.

Jesus Himself said that He is the rock. He told a parable about a vineyard, with tenants who refused to give a portion of their fruit to the owner of the vineyard. The owner sent servants. The tenants beat some servants and killed others. Finally, the owner sent his own son. The tenants killed him. Jesus concluded the parable by quoting Psalm 118:22-23, which says that the cornerstone was rejected by the builders.

 

[Church_Militant]

Said by truthinlove:

Peter’s superiority based on “keys” is given to all the apostles. It involves opening the kingdom of heaven(preaching the Gospel). The twelve apostles will also judge the tribes of Israel in the New Earth. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world. Christ did not institute a hierachy under Peter then or ever. Christ alone is the head of the body, what could Peter possibly be?

This is completely wrong scripturally. There was indeed a hierarchy established since they ordained deacons as well. And you ignore the clear scriptural meaning of the giving of the keys to any kingdom as set down in the OT which Jesus knew when he said that.

If Jesus had not meant for the church to have an authority, then all the church councils all the back to the NT are wrong in your opinion?

 

[Church_Militant]

Am I the only one who can’t read the posts this guy is making because they are so messed up looking. Most of what stands out is a mocking attitude that is very close to offensive and certainly IMO denies his username’s veracity to the point of being almost reportable.

TIL,
tone it down or forget it. Also…unlike you have been told we all do have Bibles and so the long scripture posts with your commentary are not needed.
Pax tecum,