A
agname
Guest
I hope the info helps. Have a good day.
- Status
C
Calvin
Guest
QUOTE=jimmy]
14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written:
How does James make the decision in Acts 15? He is agreeing with Peter.
Where do you get this quote from? I don’t see it anywhere in Acts 15. I also did an internet search for it and nothing came up.
It’s in there no internet search required.
You need to note that in verse 13 it is St. James who is speaking (“Then James arose and said…”) then read down to verse 19.
Acts 15:19
New American: “It is my (James) judgment therefore…”
Douay-Rheims: “For which cause I (James) judge…”
Vulgate: “propter quod ego (James) iudico…”
The events at the council are pretty straightforward:
It does mean, however, that you cannot use this passage to argue for Papal primacy. If anything it argues for the primacy of the primate of Jerusalem! St. James does cite St. Peter’s vision in making the decision, but it is St. James who makes the decision after considering the evidence put forward by the parties in the events above numbered 1-3. Acts 15 reads like a court case. The parties are Sts. Peter, Paul and Barnabas versus the Judiazers. The parties present their arguments and St. James (the judge) renders his decision. Now perhaps St. Peter agreed with the decision, but you cannot get around the fact that is was St. James who made it.
Cheers,
-C
14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written:
How does James make the decision in Acts 15? He is agreeing with Peter.
Where do you get this quote from? I don’t see it anywhere in Acts 15. I also did an internet search for it and nothing came up.
It’s in there no internet search required.
You need to note that in verse 13 it is St. James who is speaking (“Then James arose and said…”) then read down to verse 19.
Acts 15:19
New American: “It is my (James) judgment therefore…”
Douay-Rheims: “For which cause I (James) judge…”
Vulgate: “propter quod ego (James) iudico…”
The events at the council are pretty straightforward:
- The Judiazers spoke (v.4)
- St. Peter spoke (v. 6-11)
- Sts. Paul and Barnabas spoke (v. 12)
- St. James speaks and gives the judgement of the council (v. 13-21)
It does mean, however, that you cannot use this passage to argue for Papal primacy. If anything it argues for the primacy of the primate of Jerusalem! St. James does cite St. Peter’s vision in making the decision, but it is St. James who makes the decision after considering the evidence put forward by the parties in the events above numbered 1-3. Acts 15 reads like a court case. The parties are Sts. Peter, Paul and Barnabas versus the Judiazers. The parties present their arguments and St. James (the judge) renders his decision. Now perhaps St. Peter agreed with the decision, but you cannot get around the fact that is was St. James who made it.
Cheers,
-C
J
jimmy
Guest
New American: “It is my (James) judgment therefore…”
Douay-Rheims: “For which cause I (James) judge…”
Vulgate: “propter quod ego (James) iudico…”
Judgement can mean like opinion it does not mean decision in tis text.
It is my judgement therefore that you are wrong about this passage.
Douay-Rheims: “For which cause I (James) judge…”
Vulgate: “propter quod ego (James) iudico…”
Judgement can mean like opinion it does not mean decision in tis text.
It is my judgement therefore that you are wrong about this passage.
J
John_Higgins
Guest
Was Peter a Pope? Yes he was and no he wasn’t.
Analogy: Super Bowl I was only called that in retrospect. It wasn’t the Super Bowl when it was held. Similarly World War I wasn’t that until there was WW2.
John
Analogy: Super Bowl I was only called that in retrospect. It wasn’t the Super Bowl when it was held. Similarly World War I wasn’t that until there was WW2.
John
C
Calvin
Guest
Spoken like a good Baptist…
-C
S
Serafin
Guest
Dear Jimmy:
Since your judgement is not infallible I respectfully disagree! Without an a priori supposition of papal primacy and infallibility, there is just no way one can objectively use this text from Acts to ilustrate your claims. Even if it is true that Peter received the “stewardship” and the “keys” and the charism of infallibility and “they all understood it” as was claimed on a previous post…This text does not seem to show that! One does not have to be a theologian or Protestant to deduce that from the reading and you would do well to admit that. I agree with C…!
This text which by the way is the only one in scripture that ilustrates a Church Council just does not present the picture Papal primacy and infallibitity the RC now atrributes to the Pope.
If this is true, what is the sense of a Council anyway? All that talking and arguing for nothing? Just ask Peter!
“propter quod ego (Serafin) iudico…”…not infallibly of course.
Blessings
Serafin
S
Serafin
Guest
**"Vulgate: “propter quod ego (James) iudico…”
**
Acts 15:19
New American: “It is my (James) judgment therefore…”
Douay-Rheims: “For which cause I (James) judge…”
Vulgate: “propter quod ego (James) iudico…”
The events at the council are pretty straightforward:
It does mean, however, that you cannot use this passage to argue for Papal primacy. If anything it argues for the primacy of the primate of Jerusalem! St. James does cite St. Peter’s vision in making the decision, but it is St. James who makes the decision after considering the evidence put forward by the parties in the events above numbered 1-3. Acts 15 reads like a court case. The parties are Sts. Peter, Paul and Barnabas versus the Judiazers. The parties present their arguments and St. James (the judge) renders his decision. Now perhaps St. Peter agreed with the decision, but you cannot get around the fact that is was St. James who made it.
Cheers,
-C
I agree with you the events are very straightforward, even with your charitable concession!
Blessings
Serafin
**
You need to note that in verse 13 it is St. James who is speaking (“Then James arose and said…”) then read down to verse 19.
Acts 15:19
New American: “It is my (James) judgment therefore…”
Douay-Rheims: “For which cause I (James) judge…”
Vulgate: “propter quod ego (James) iudico…”
The events at the council are pretty straightforward:
- The Judiazers spoke (v.4)
- St. Peter spoke (v. 6-11)
- Sts. Paul and Barnabas spoke (v. 12)
- St. James speaks and gives the judgement of the council (v. 13-21)
It does mean, however, that you cannot use this passage to argue for Papal primacy. If anything it argues for the primacy of the primate of Jerusalem! St. James does cite St. Peter’s vision in making the decision, but it is St. James who makes the decision after considering the evidence put forward by the parties in the events above numbered 1-3. Acts 15 reads like a court case. The parties are Sts. Peter, Paul and Barnabas versus the Judiazers. The parties present their arguments and St. James (the judge) renders his decision. Now perhaps St. Peter agreed with the decision, but you cannot get around the fact that is was St. James who made it.
Cheers,
-C
I agree with you the events are very straightforward, even with your charitable concession!
Blessings
Serafin
S
Serafin
Guest
Thankyou for the list! The question for me is not in the sucession to the see of Rome !..by the way, the Anglicans can produce one like this to autheticate their own episcopate…paper will hold what you write on it I guess!
The question is, wether the way “Pope” and the perrogatives of that office as presently understood, would apply to Peter! The behaviour and words of Peter and his peers as found in Scripture, do not seem to correlate to what we now mean when we say Pope!
Blessings
Serafin
T
Tom
Guest
Some wonderful points and counter points. If everyone would take 30-45 minutes or so to do a little Scriptural research we could probably solve this question.
Go to a Non-Catholic bible reference site on the internet. I like www.bible.com . Do a New Testament search for each of the names of the original Apostles; leave Peter for last, write down how many times each is referred to in Scripture. You’ll note that Peter is referred to more than all the others combined. Now numbers don’t tell the story, so, read ALL of those verses which mention Peter. It doesn’t take long, but, it is oh so illuminating.
Go to a Non-Catholic bible reference site on the internet. I like www.bible.com . Do a New Testament search for each of the names of the original Apostles; leave Peter for last, write down how many times each is referred to in Scripture. You’ll note that Peter is referred to more than all the others combined. Now numbers don’t tell the story, so, read ALL of those verses which mention Peter. It doesn’t take long, but, it is oh so illuminating.
C
Calvin
Guest
I went to www.unboundbible.org. I like that site because it has the Catholic Bible (DR version) with deutrocanonicals and Protestant Bibles and original language transcripts. Highly recommended.
In the New American Standard, “Peter” came up 153 times and “Paul” came up 159 times. In the Douay-Rheims, “Peter” came up 152 times and “Paul” came up 154 times. Since St. Paul alone is referred to more times than St. Peter, there is no way St. Peter can be referred to, “more than all other (Apostes) combined.”
Also it is important to note that many of the references to St. Peter come from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). The Synoptics, as is well known, basically tell the same story (~70% of Mark is quoted verbatum in Matthew and Luke). So for example St. Peter’s denial of Jesus is found in Matthew 26:75, Mark 14:72, and Luke 22:61. I think it is a valid question of whether those should count as three separate references to “Peter” or one reference to “Peter.” There are about 63 references to “Peter” in the synoptics, if this number was divided into a third, there would be even less references to “Peter” (111) than to “Paul” (159).
Now of course the content of those references is a slow waltz in another cafe… I do find the passages about St. Peter to be very moving and powerful. We Protestants don’t pay his successors the honor they are due.
-C
D
David_F
Guest
Hello Serafin,
Questions I have in the above reference paragraph.
- “Peter’s beahvior…rather odd”
-What did you find “odd” about Peters behavior? I find not one reference to Peter acting odd or even unsure.
-Sort of, but not entirely the way you present it.
It is my take that from Acts 15:1-5 the purpose for the meeting was to discide on circumsion. Wouldn’t you agree?
From vs 6-12, it appears there was discussion, Peter spoke, the fell silent on the matter (circumcision). From this I interpret the matter on circumcision was settled. Ther didn’t seem to be a dissenting voice recorded after Peter spoke, correct me if I am wrong. Then Paul and Barnabas describe their witnessing accounts.
From vs 13-21, I read of James agreeing with what Symeon (Peter) in regards to circumcision and then throws in some remnants of the Law that should be maintained.
From vs 22 we read that it was unanimous. No dissentions, including Peter. I offer, if there was anything that went against the teachings of Christ, Peter would have let them know as he did a few verses earlier.
"What is wrong with that picture, do not they realize Peter is the steward with the authority and the keys and all? "
Nothing is wrong with this picture. But you might want to look into the film your using. They most certainly realize the authority given to Peter. It doesn’t mean that God will not use other people He has placed with Peter to speak to him. Peter is there to serve the Church. Not the other way around. Such is the case today with the holy father.
Peace be with you Ser., Is there anything in which you would like for me to pray?
YBIC,
David
S
Serafin
Guest
Hi David:
Thankyou for your response!
On the matter of prayer requests…as a matter of fact yes…new glasses for both of us and greater unity among Christians.
About the rest…respectfully noted, redead text and still unimpressed by your paraphrase!
Blessings
Serafin
Thankyou for your response!
On the matter of prayer requests…as a matter of fact yes…new glasses for both of us and greater unity among Christians.
About the rest…respectfully noted, redead text and still unimpressed by your paraphrase!
Blessings
Serafin
T
Tom
Guest
. I like that site because it has the Catholic Bible (DR version) with deutrocanonicals and Protestant Bibles and original language transcripts. Highly recommended.Thanks for the site.
I said the “original” Apostles, Paul was not one of the original, actually as you well know he was persecuting the Church in those first days. So Paul could not have been the first “leader”. So subtract the references to Paul, and I believe you’ll find Peter mentioned more than ALL of the “original” Apostles.
The references to any Apostle would be duplicated so if you divide the references to Peter do the same for the rest, you’re stretching it.
Amen, and that was my point. I understand as a Catholic I read from my experience and training and as a protestant you read from yours, to me the evidence is obvious to others perhaps not so much, but, I do understand anyone questioning it.
D
David_F
Guest
You bet. I will continue to pray for our unity. About your response…Hi David:
Thankyou for your response!
On the matter of prayer requests…as a matter of fact yes…new glasses for both of us and greater unity among Christians.
About the rest…respectfully noted, redead text and still unimpressed by your paraphrase!
Blessings
Serafin
I was trying to get your (name removed by moderator)ut from the post section by section. I know you may not have had the time or interest, but if you do, I would appreciate your insight. Thanks.
Also, I do have something I would like for you and anyone else who reads this post. My niece has converted to Islam. We are asking for people to pray the the Holy Spirit guide our discussions towards a more clear understanding of the truth. Thanks in advance for your prayers.
YBIC,
David
P
Pro_Iesu
Guest
Hey guys i’ve read your thread and all of you have missed 
probably the biggest giving of authority to peter by Christ in front of the apostles after the resurrection. St John’s Gospel states NAB Catholic edition
Gos. Jn 21
14 This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to his disciples after being raised from the dead. 15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Amen, amen, I say to you, 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.” 19 He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. He tells peter to watch and teach his lambs and sheep who are us! This right here I believe is where the Papacy officially began.
and anyways it would never have been Paul IMHO because St. John (the beloved disciple) was always by Jesus’ side or St James who with St Peter and St John was one of Jesus’ closest friends and apostles.
probably the biggest giving of authority to peter by Christ in front of the apostles after the resurrection. St John’s Gospel states NAB Catholic editionGos. Jn 21
14 This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to his disciples after being raised from the dead. 15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Amen, amen, I say to you, 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.” 19 He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. He tells peter to watch and teach his lambs and sheep who are us! This right here I believe is where the Papacy officially began.
and anyways it would never have been Paul IMHO because St. John (the beloved disciple) was always by Jesus’ side or St James who with St Peter and St John was one of Jesus’ closest friends and apostles.
C
Calvin
Guest
Yes you did. I’m sorry I didn’t catch that. I’d delete my response if I could because what I wrote is irrelevant!
I would imagine that St. John (or “the disciple whom Jesus loved”) is probably a close second but I recon you are probably right that, of the originals, St. Peter probably has the most references in the NT.
-C
C
Calvin
Guest
Pro Iesu:
-C
IMO THIS is the strongest argument for papal supremacy.Hey guys i’ve read your thread and all of you have missed
-C
J
jimmy
Guest
serafin
I wasn’t using it to support the papacy. I was just showing that his arguement is flawed.
I wasn’t using it to support the papacy. I was just showing that his arguement is flawed.
A
agname
Guest
It’s good that you read that post…now read my others.
Finally, the Anglican paperwork points to King Henry VIII.
A
agname
Guest
Eusebius of Caesarea:
“A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom” (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).
“Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches” (ibid., 24:18).
“A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom” (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).
“Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches” (ibid., 24:18).
- Status