Two fold question on the Primacy of Peter and the "brother"of Jesus, James

  • Thread starter Thread starter graceandfaith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

graceandfaith

Guest
I recently got into a discussion with a Protestant friend who said:

"To say Peter was the leader of the early church is incorrect. Josephus and Eusibius both said it was James (the brother of Jesus) and no known historical document from that time period says it was Peter. I do believe Peter was key in building the church as it was his words that brought the first converts after the Holy Spirit came down in the upper room.

That being said, while there are leaders in the church, the church is not an entity. It is a group of people who have given their lives to Christ. We are all royal priests, a chosen generation, a holy nation, called out of darkness to proclaim his gospel and declare his praises. We are all the King’s delegates, His vicars and His shepherds."

First off are his claimes about the words of Josephus and Eusibius correct? Secondly, Is there evidence that the Primacy was indeed given to James the “brother” of Jesus? I don’t believe his claims to be correct…I am just having trouble digging for the documents or letters of early Church Fathers that would disprove his claims about the Primacy of Peter and the Church as an actual institution. Thanks so much!

Thanks so much!
 
He is ignoring huge chunks of the bible. Starting with the NT, in which Peter is named 195 times. Next closest is John, at 29 times. The rest are named even less than that. Peter is chosen by Jesus, given the keys to the Kingdom, walked on water, Raised the dead, paid the tax for himself and Jesus, was called upon to strengthen his brothers by Jesus, was sent to the Gentiles, was consulted with by Paul. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and presided at the council in Acts 15, but it was Peter’s words that silenced them all. Paul went to Peter, not the other way round. On the day of His resurrection, of the twelve, Jesus appeared first to Peter. Jesus preached from Peter’s boat. It goes on and on.

As to the universal priesthood, yes, it exists. BUT, why are: Bishops, Deacons Priests, the first Church council (which Paul went to for a solution to the circumcision question) all mentioned? Why were they placed in charge of the various communities? Why was there hands-on ordination?

He is ignoring what he does not agree with. The joy of being Catholic, is not only that we ignore no scripture, but also that we have all of it in the first place. That, and, like Paul, we can go to the Church for answers that are guaranteed to be correct.

He obviously has great faith and love of Christ, but he ignores so much of scripture in support of his beliefs.
 
Thanks so much! I didn’t realize that James had presided over the first council.
 
Ask this person to demonstrate when such an argument was first proposed.

If it’s something that was not argued until the 1500s (Reformation period), then was the Church in complete error for nearly 1,500 years?
 
Ask this person to demonstrate when such an argument was first proposed.

If it’s something that was not argued until the 1500s (Reformation period), then was the Church in complete error for nearly 1,500 years?
Precisely! In one rerspect, the reformation makes Jesus a liar by alleging that the Church somehow failed. Our Lord said it would not, and I believe Him.
 
Hard to argue with James being the leader of the Jerusalem Christian in its early years.But he had rabbinic ties with the Second Temple, apparently, where Peter did not. Peter could have been one of the early ones rousted out of Jerusalem by Jonathan, Saul, et. al. shortly after the crucifixion, where as James was not.

You can make the case that when James and the Christians leaders were executed by the Sanhedrin in A.D. 62, that Peter became the default leader of the Church, even though he was in Rome. Of course, both Paul and Peter were executed shortly afterward, in late A.D. 64.
 
Hard to argue with James being the leader of the Jerusalem Christian in its early years.But he had rabbinic ties with the Second Temple, apparently, where Peter did not. Peter could have been one of the early ones rousted out of Jerusalem by Jonathan, Saul, et. al. shortly after the crucifixion, where as James was not.

You can make the case that when James and the Christians leaders were executed by the Sanhedrin in A.D. 62, that Peter became the default leader of the Church, even though he was in Rome. Of course, both Paul and Peter were executed shortly afterward, in late A.D. 64.
From the mountain of scriptural evidence that Peter was chosen by our Lord from among the Apostles, it is very clear to a thinking Christian that something was special about him. Also, by his own words in Acts 15:7, we know that he was destined to leave Jerusalem. Someone had to be left in charge back home, and that was James.
 
It is obvious that the Church organized itself from the very beginning. The very fact that James was the Bishop of Jerusalem is testament to that fact. My only question being…are there any documents written in the 1st century from early Church Fathers that support the Primacy of Peter as head?
 
It is obvious that the Church organized itself from the very beginning. The very fact that James was the Bishop of Jerusalem is testament to that fact. My only question being…are there any documents written in the 1st century from early Church Fathers that support the Primacy of Peter as head?
There likely are, but I am weak in that area :o Will a protestant accept anything outside of the bible?

Try this link: catholicsource.net/articles/petertherock.html
 
I don’t know if most Protestants would…but this one would I’m sure of it. He’s very objective and analytical. A “leave no stone unturned” kind of guy. If you look at he said (my first post) he does refer to documents that are not Scripture in a round about way. Thanks for the link!
 
Ask this person to demonstrate when such an argument was first proposed.

If it’s something that was not argued until the 1500s (Reformation period), then was the Church in complete error for nearly 1,500 years?
No, because the Church for nearly 1500 years did not uniformly believe in the universal primacy and jurisidiction of the Bishop of Rome; witness the entire Christian East.
 
I don’t know if most Protestants would…but this one would I’m sure of it. He’s very objective and analytical. A “leave no stone unturned” kind of guy. If you look at he said (my first post) he does refer to documents that are not Scripture in a round about way. Thanks for the link!
He might like some of Mark Shea’s writing. By What Authority? is a good one. This is my Body is another.
 
Consider , first Clement
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Below is my recollection of the people addressed in the verse

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired [to have] you(plural), that he may sift [you] (plural)as wheat:32 But I have prayed for thee, (singular)that thy (singular)faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
 
No, because the Church for nearly 1500 years did not uniformly believe in the universal primacy and jurisidiction of the Bishop of Rome; witness the entire Christian East.
I would also say that since the “great schism” between East and West…that the Eastern Churches have remained for the most part dis unified regionally to this day. Within themselves they do not even acknowledge the primacy of the several different Patriarchs. With the fall of the Byzantine Empire…the Eastern Church become more and more fractured. I say we all pray for Church unity! That they may always be “one”.
 
=graceandfaith;9073120]I recently got into a discussion with a Protestant friend who said:
"To say Peter was the leader of the early church is incorrect. Josephus and Eusibius both said it was James (the brother of Jesus) and no known historical document from that time period says it was Peter. I do believe Peter was key in building the church as it was his words that brought the first converts after the Holy Spirit came down in the upper room.
That being said, while there are leaders in the church, the church is not an entity. It is a group of people who have given their lives to Christ. We are all royal priests, a chosen generation, a holy nation, called out of darkness to proclaim his gospel and declare his praises. We are all the King’s delegates, His vicars and His shepherds."
Thanks much!
No, there is No evidence that james was given the position. The confusion is that James was made [BY PETER} the Bishop of Jerusalem while Peter was still there dealing with the “Universal Church”
The Bible and Early Church History verify Peter as the First Pope::).

Matt: 16:15-19 and Matt.10: 1-2+ “And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity. The names of the twelve apostles are these: **first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother”

I HAVE A DOC I CAN SEND TO ANYONE W/ 50 BIBLICAL PETER FIRST JUST SEND ME A “PM”

***The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome
The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church. ***

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

God Bless,
Pat /PJM
 
James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html

This is from the earliest Christian historian.

Irenaeus is also quoted as well. He is quite early. I say read for yourself and not take quotes of context. I personally think the earliest historians and writers portray Paul and Peter as equals and do not show Peterine primacy before 200 AD.
 
PJM,

Thanks so much for you very very informative reply! That is exactly what I’m looking for. I have noticed just like the above poster that many times, first century Church Father’s do compare Peter and Paul as equals…do you know why this is? Or did the fact that Peter’s voice silenced everyone at the first council in Jerusalem (dealing with circumcision) is testament enough to the fact that all the early leaders in the church aknowledged Peter as the leader and head of The Church?
 
No, because the Church for nearly 1500 years did not uniformly believe in the universal primacy and jurisidiction of the Bishop of Rome; witness the entire Christian East.
WRONG!!! The schism did not occur until the eleventh century. For the first millenium the primacy of Peter was not in doubt. The Orthodox paid a heavy price for the schism losing their capital church, the Church of the Holy Spirit, the Haggia Sophia in Constantinople as well as most of their land to the forces of Islam.

As early as the first century the east looked to Rome and the successors of Peter for guidance and direction as evidenced by the church at Corinth. Of course, in the first century Constantinople did not even exist except as a nondescript fishing village named Byzantium.
 
St. Paul when speaking about St. Peter calls him “Peter” or Cephas several times.

Im very sure Paul although making a fraternal correction, respects St. Peter’s Office status. St. Paul knew the hierarchy that St. Peter was the head honcho (so to speak:D). Otherwise shouldn’t he while talking about St. Peter by naming him “Simon” to put him in his place?

*When Peter (Cephas) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to **Peter ** (Cephas) in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? *

(Galatians 2 : 11-14)

MJ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top