Which book "Upon This Rock", "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" or something else?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lori-H
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As you can see, from the opening of John’s gospel, Peter knew Jesus was the Christ when he was 1st introduced to Jesus. And Andrew ALSO knew. Therefore, In a sense, that takes away the Protestant argument that Peter’s confession or Peter’s faith in Mt 16 caused Peter’s name change and caused Jesus giving Peter the keys. Andrew knew what Peter knew 1st. He didn’t get name changes. He didn’t get singled out to get the keys like Peter did. Nor was he singled out all the other times like Jesus singles Peter out for specific directions and duties. So it wasn’t necessarily Peter’s faith, OR his confession…true? Can we agree then, that It was God the Father who chose Peter from all eternity, to be the Rock, and head apostle, to feed and rule the Church.
But there is no evidence that Peter fed and ruled the church or that the church was built upon him. You derive a whole lot of theology out of one little verse. Peter was a leader among the apostles that much is true, but he was not the head of the church – that title belongs to Christ. And the prophets testify of Christ not Peter.

He was also not the bishop of Rome, and according to the apostle Paul, he was not the foundation upon which the church is built. (Eph. 2:20, 1Cor. 3:10-17)
 
But there is no evidence that Peter fed and ruled the church or that the church was built upon him. You derive a whole lot of theology out of one little verse. Peter was a leader among the apostles that much is true, but he was not the head of the church – that title belongs to Christ. And the prophets testify of Christ not Peter.

He was also not the bishop of Rome, and according to the apostle Paul, he was not the foundation upon which the church is built. (Eph. 2:20, 1Cor. 3:10-17)
You men other than the words of God Himself, right?
 
But there is no evidence that Peter fed and ruled the church or that the church was built upon him. You derive a whole lot of theology out of one little verse. Peter was a leader among the apostles that much is true, but he was not the head of the church – that title belongs to Christ. And the prophets testify of Christ not Peter.

He was also not the bishop of Rome, and according to the apostle Paul, he was not the foundation upon which the church is built. (Eph. 2:20, 1Cor. 3:10-17)
Ephesians 2 says the foundation is the Apostles and Prophets, 1 Corinthians ONLY says JESUS, and Matthew 16 ONLY mentions Peter, different contexts different purposes.

Jesus said He built the Church on Peter, many Church Fathers said so, St Peter was specifically told to feed in John 21 According to just about any Father on the subject St Peter was THE LEADER of the Apostles. Christ is the Head of the Christ, and Peter who was the only Apostle mentioned as receiving the KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN make Peter His Vicar since a King gives the keys to his representative. Some Protestants have recognized St Peter did have very high authority since he was the only one given the Keys.

People share titles, God gives people authority. God is called a “shepherd” and so the bishops in the NT. God, Abraham, Peter are called Rock. Jesus and Nebechanezzer are called King of Kings. God and people in the Church are called “teacher” and “father”
 
But there is** no evidence that Peter fed and ruled the church or that the church was built upon him**.
Until you can prove otherwise, Peter did what Jesus commanded him to do.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3544884&postcount=964

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4441801&postcount=64

Since the apostles constitute the magesterium of the Church and Peter is the head of the apostles, Peter is also head of the Church.
BC:
You derive a whole lot of theology out of one little verse. Peter was a leader among the apostles that much is true, but he was not the head of the church –
[Mt 16:18…], , [Lk 22:24-26], [Jn 21:15…] offer more than 1 little verse. And Jesus is the one confiring this on Peter.
that title belongs to Christ. And the prophets testify of Christ not Peter.
Jesus, 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, the one who spoke and everything that is, came into existence, named Simon the Rock and gave him the keys to heaven, and told Peter to feed shepherd and rule His Church.
BC:
He was also not the bishop of Rome, and according to the apostle Paul, he was not the foundation upon which the church is built. (Eph. 2:20, 1Cor. 3:10-17)
Paul doesn’t support your point OR contradicts what I have posted.
 
Until you can prove otherwise, Peter did what Jesus commanded him to do.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3544884&postcount=964

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4441801&postcount=64

Since the apostles constitute the magesterium of the Church and Peter is the head of the apostles, Peter is also head of the Church.

[Mt 16:18…], , [Lk 22:24-26], [Jn 21:15…] offer more than 1 little verse. And Jesus is the one confiring this on Peter.

Jesus, 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, the one who spoke and everything that is, came into existence, named Simon the Rock and gave him the keys to heaven, and told Peter to feed shepherd and rule His Church.

Paul doesn’t support your point OR contradicts what I have posted.
I am trying to understand your logic, but it is a little confusing.

You are saying that Jesus made Peter the head of the church in Mat. 16. Then you point out that in Luke 22 the disciples disputed over which of them should be the greatest. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that if Jesus made Peter the head of the church in Matthew 16 they would not have disputed over who was the greatest in the upper room? And if for some odd reason they didn’t understand what Jesus told them before, why didn’t He explain it to them when they brought it up? It seems you have interpreted Scripture differently than those who were there and actually experienced what Jesus said.

This wasn’t the first time the disciples inquired about who would be the greatest. In Matthew 18 they asked Jesus, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus gave them the same answer; again no mention of Peter being the greatest. And in Jericho the Mother of James and John (Zebedee) ask that he grant the highest places of honor to her sons; again Jesus answers the same way. Not once did Jesus declare Peter as the greatest apostle. In fact, in response to the brother’s mother, Jesus said it was not for Him to grant.

Even after Pentecost we find evidence contrary to your opinion. In Acts 15 we find Peter not presiding over the controversy regarding the Gentile believers, as one would expect him to do if he were truly the head of the church.
 
I am trying to understand your logic, but it is a little confusing.

You are saying that Jesus made Peter the head of the church in Mat. 16. Then you point out that in Luke 22 the disciples disputed over which of them should be the greatest. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that if Jesus made Peter the head of the church in Matthew 16 they would not have disputed over who was the greatest in the upper room?
  • I used Matthew, Luke and John to make the case. Not Matthew alone.
  • Why did the dispute in the upper room happen? Jesus said Satan asked to sift THEM like wheat. The sifting was obviously already happening in the upper room. And Satan does what he does best, divide and create dissent. And It was right after receiving the Eucharist that scripture says Satan entered Judas. Satan was in the upper room DURING the Last Supper sifting them just as Jesus told them he would. And look at the trouble he started. Jesus said right after He broke up the argument, that He was going to pray specifically for Peter that his faith would not fail. And He said to Peter after you are sifted and regain yourself, strengthen your brothers after THEY are sifted. Now if you’re the apostles who were arguing over who is the greatest, wouldn’t you feel a bit dumb right at this moment? Again, in front of ALL of them, Jesus singles Peter out AGAIN, to remind the apostles who is the leader. A gentile reminder by Jesus to His disciples, that the decision has been made. There is no debate.
  • Is Satan through sifting? Not a chance. Look at all the arguing over this very same subject today by all those seperated from Peter.? Satan is doing what he does best. Divide and create dissent. And he has plenty of willing participants
BC:
And if for some odd reason they didn’t understand what Jesus told them before, why didn’t He explain it to them when they brought it up? It seems you have interpreted Scripture differently than those who were there and actually experienced what Jesus said.
Jesus DID explain it to them. He shut their arguing down by reminding them Peter is the one to confirm THEM. Go back and look at the explanation again.
BC:
This wasn’t the first time the disciples inquired about who would be the greatest. In Matthew 18 they asked Jesus, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus gave them the same answer; again no mention of Peter being the greatest.
The synoptics, while having many of the same stories, the stories aren’t told exactly the same. Luke’s gospel gives the added information not in the other 2 gospels.
BC:
And in Jericho the Mother of James and John (Zebedee) ask that he grant the highest places of honor to her sons; again Jesus answers the same way. Not once did Jesus declare Peter as the greatest apostle.
Jesus said it is not for me to say who sits in those positions,…correct? It’s the Father who makes that call. Besides, Peter didn’t lobby for the top job, and no one lobbied for him. Peter didn’t ask to be put in any position of authority, have his name changed, OR to feed and rule Our Lord’s Church. He didn’t ask for the keys of the kingdom. Unlike the account you mention where the mother of the sons of thunder lobbied to get her sons seats at the right and left hand of power… THAT’S the difference. Peter was chosen by the Father for HIS role… and the other apostles were selected for THEIR roles.
BC:
In fact, in response to the brother’s mother, Jesus said it was not for Him to grant.

Even after Pentecost we find evidence contrary to your opinion. In Acts 15 we find Peter not presiding over the controversy regarding the Gentile believers, as one would expect him to do if he were truly the head of the church.
  • Peter ended the debate with his decision in that council
  • James implemented Peter’s decision.
  • Besides, The Judaizers creating the problem with the gentiles in the first place, ergo the cause for the council, were those belonging to James. It was HIS group that caused the trouble with the gentiles. Peter stood, gave his decision, the debate ended, and James, bishop of Jerusalem, implemented what Peter decided.
 
But there is no evidence that Peter fed and ruled the church or that the church was built upon him.
Oh…writing two inspired epistles doesn’t count as feeding the flock? Sure, Paul wrote more, but remember, you said there is NO evidence. I just proved you wrong easily enough.
You derive a whole lot of theology out of one little verse. Peter was a leader among the apostles that much is true, but he was not the head of the church – that title belongs to Christ. And the prophets testify of Christ not Peter.
Christ is the head of the Church; that does not mean that he cannot leave someone in charge here on earth while He is in heaven. You might want to review Is. 22:20 and Matthew 16:18 to gain understanding about the role of the Royal Steward in the Davidic kingdom which Jesus re-established when He inherited the throne of his father, David.
He was also not the bishop of Rome, and according to the apostle Paul, he was not the foundation upon which the church is built. (Eph. 2:20, 1Cor. 3:10-17)
You’re mixing metaphors…a shockingly common error from Protestants who claim to be “Bible Christians” and soooooo knowledgable about the scriptures. :rolleyes:

The use of the the rock, stone and foundation imagery is common throughout the Bible. These terms are used variously to refer to God, Jesus, the Apostles, and Peter. Just because a term is used in one way in one passage, it does not require that it be used exclusively in that manner in every passage.
 
I am trying to understand your logic, but it is a little confusing.

You are saying that Jesus made Peter the head of the church in Mat. 16. Then you point out that in Luke 22 the disciples disputed over which of them should be the greatest. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that if Jesus made Peter the head of the church in Matthew 16 they would not have disputed over who was the greatest in the upper room? And if for some odd reason they didn’t understand what Jesus told them before, why didn’t He explain it to them when they brought it up? It seems you have interpreted Scripture differently than those who were there and actually experienced what Jesus said.

This wasn’t the first time the disciples inquired about who would be the greatest. In Matthew 18 they asked Jesus, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus gave them the same answer; again no mention of Peter being the greatest. And in Jericho the Mother of James and John (Zebedee) ask that he grant the highest places of honor to her sons; again Jesus answers the same way. Not once did Jesus declare Peter as the greatest apostle. In fact, in response to the brother’s mother, Jesus said it was not for Him to grant.
Our friend argues that in light of the recurring arguments about who would be the greatest, it does not seem that the disciples understood the words of Matthew 16 to establish Peter as the foundation of the Church, the first pope, the vicar of Christ on earth.

Even if this observation were true, it would not prove the Lord, notwithstanding the apostles’ lack of understanding, didn’t intend his declaration to Peter to establish a primacy. After all, it is evident from Scripture that the apostles often misunderstood or understood only imperfectly the Lord’s meaning about many things—e.g., his impending death and Resurrection. When Jesus washed the apostles’ feet, he told Peter, “What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand” (John 13:7).

In Matthew 16:18–21, the Lord’s words to Peter were a promise of things yet to come regarding a Church being built upon Peter. It is difficult to imagine how the apostles or anyone could have comprehended sufficiently what the Lord intended at the time he spoke these words. Indeed, the later dispute in Luke 22—“later” if we assume this Lucan passage follows Matthew 16 temporally, which is not at all certain—demonstrates the apostles misunderstood the nature of his kingdom. Only when the Lord commissioned Peter to “strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:32) and “feed my sheep” (John 21:17) and the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost did the Lord’s intention become clear.
 
In Acts 15 we find Peter not presiding over the controversy regarding the Gentile believers, as one would expect him to do if he were truly the head of the church.
Another common error which needs to be laid to rest.

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:
“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).
Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ?
bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm

To Bonocore’s comments above, I would add the following:

As leader of the church in Jerusalem, James headed up a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before 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.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not.

Peter addresses the former with these words: “Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also: “Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.
 
  • I used Matthew, Luke and John to make the case. Not Matthew alone.
  • Why did the dispute in the upper room happen? Jesus said Satan asked to sift THEM like wheat. The sifting was obviously already happening in the upper room. And Satan does what he does best, divide and create dissent. And It was right after receiving the Eucharist that scripture says Satan entered Judas. Satan was in the upper room DURING the Last Supper sifting them just as Jesus told them he would. And look at the trouble he started. Jesus said right after He broke up the argument, that He was going to pray specifically for Peter that his faith would not fail. And He said to Peter after you are sifted and regain yourself, strengthen your brothers after THEY are sifted. Now if you’re the apostles who were arguing over who is the greatest, wouldn’t you feel a bit dumb right at this moment? Again, in front of ALL of them, Jesus singles Peter out AGAIN, to remind the apostles who is the leader. A gentile reminder by Jesus to His disciples, that the decision has been made. There is no debate.
  • Is Satan through sifting? Not a chance. Look at all the arguing over this very same subject today by all those seperated from Peter.? Satan is doing what he does best. Divide and create dissent. And he has plenty of willing participants
Jesus DID explain it to them. He shut their arguing down by reminding them Peter is the one to confirm THEM. Go back and look at the explanation again.

The synoptics, while having many of the same stories, the stories aren’t told exactly the same. Luke’s gospel gives the added information not in the other 2 gospels.

Jesus said it is not for me to say who sits in those positions,…correct? It’s the Father who makes that call. Besides, Peter didn’t lobby for the top job, and no one lobbied for him. Peter didn’t ask to be put in any position of authority, have his name changed, OR to feed and rule Our Lord’s Church. He didn’t ask for the keys of the kingdom. Unlike the account you mention where the mother of the sons of thunder lobbied to get her sons seats at the right and left hand of power… THAT’S the difference. Peter was chosen by the Father for HIS role… and the other apostles were selected for THEIR roles.
  • Peter ended the debate with his decision in that council
  • James implemented Peter’s decision.
  • Besides, The Judaizers creating the problem with the gentiles in the first place, ergo the cause for the council, were those belonging to James. It was HIS group that caused the trouble with the gentiles. Peter stood, gave his decision, the debate ended, and James, bishop of Jerusalem, implemented what Peter decided.
I really don’t know how you come to your conclusions. The fact that the disciples disputed over which of them was the greatest in the upper room, throws your whole theory that Jesus made Peter the head apostle in Mat. 16 right out the window. And then to say that Jesus confirms Peter’s headship right after their dispute is even more bizarre. A rational explanation would be that Peter was more demanding than the others in the dispute and Jesus humbled him with reality.

Let me put it this way; Peter probably rationalized that he should be considered the greatest of the apostles. In actuality, Peter showed himself to be one of the weakest. He said he would die for Jesus, but when a little pressure was put on him he denied the Lord not once but three times. Do you think he thought he was the chief disciple when he did that? He wept bitterly in despair.

When Jesus appeared to him on the shore of the lake He forgave Peter. The questions asked by our Lord pierced Peter to his soul, “Do you love me more than these?” No doubt bringing to Peter’s mind the words he spoke not too long before, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” (Mat. 26:33) But Peter did stumble and fall and the lord is seen here forgiving him and encouraging him.

Your belief that this event demonstrates Peter’s authoritative role is not contextually supported. You are simply doing what people always do when the context doesn’t support their position; you bring in various fragments of Scripture and piece the out-of-context snippets together to make your case.
 
As leader of the church in Jerusalem, James headed up a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before 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.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not.

Peter addresses the former with these words: “Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also: “Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.
Why did you not mention the fact that Paul and Barnabas addressed them too? There is no indication that the apostles and James were on opposite sides of the issue, so why are you telling me “James accepted Peter’s teaching”? And what do you mean by “Peter’s decision”? What decision did Peter make?

Paul and Barnabas did not go down to Jerusalem to figure out what to do, they knew what they were doing and they knew what the answer was. Paul and Barnabas “had no small dissention and dispute” with the Judaizers in Antioch. All the apostles were on the same page; the dispute was between them and the Jews in the Jerusalem church that were causing the trouble. Peter happened to have the most relevant and convincing testimony as he witnessed the first Gentile believers receiving the Holy Spirit. That’s it.

When you say Peter lead the apostles and made the decision (which there was no “decision” to make) you are making stuff up.
 
I really don’t know how you come to your conclusions. The fact that the disciples disputed over which of them was the greatest in the upper room, throws your whole theory that Jesus made Peter the head apostle in Mat. 16 right out the window. And then to say that Jesus confirms Peter’s headship right after their dispute is even more bizarre. A rational explanation would be that Peter was more demanding than the others in the dispute and Jesus humbled him with reality.

Let me put it this way; Peter probably rationalized that he should be considered the greatest of the apostles. In actuality, Peter showed himself to be one of the weakest. He said he would die for Jesus, but when a little pressure was put on him he denied the Lord not once but three times. Do you think he thought he was the chief disciple when he did that? He wept bitterly in despair.

When Jesus appeared to him on the shore of the lake He forgave Peter. The questions asked by our Lord pierced Peter to his soul, “Do you love me more than these?” No doubt bringing to Peter’s mind the words he spoke not too long before, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” (Mat. 26:33) But Peter did stumble and fall and the lord is seen here forgiving him and encouraging him.

Your belief that this event demonstrates Peter’s authoritative role is not contextually supported. You are simply doing what people always do when the context doesn’t support their position; you bring in various fragments of Scripture and piece the out-of-context snippets together to make your case.
Anti-Catholics such as yourself are the kings of “To heck with the context, I’m right because I said I’m right!”
 
Kjv 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 (singular)art converted, strengthen thy (singular)brethren.
 
I really don’t know how you come to your conclusions.
I think you DO.
BC:
The fact that the disciples disputed over which of them was the greatest in the upper room, throws your whole theory that Jesus made Peter the head apostle in Mat. 16 right out the window.
Jesus told THEM why they were disputing. Satan was sifting THEM. This is what Satan does. He sifts. He snatches away, he divides, he sews dissent. And they were demonstrating what happens when Satan sifts
BC:
And then to say that Jesus confirms Peter’s headship right after their dispute is even more bizarre.
You’re not connecting the dots.

Let’s go over the short list of facts

    • an argument broke out over who is the greatest.
    • Jesus tells THEM, that Satan asked to sift them ALL like wheat. They were all going to be attacked by Satan. The one Jesus mentions next is the one who settles the argument they were having between themselves. Do I hear a drum role?..😉
    • I have prayed specifically for YOU Peter that after you’ve been sifted you will be the one to strengthen THEM after THEY have been sifted
    If you’ve been arguing about this, and Jesus come to you and says Satan has been permitted to attack you, but I select Peter specifically because HE is the one to strengthem YOU after you’re attacked. Are you still going to argue? Who is the leader? It sure isn’t YOU. It’s the one Jesus selected… right? It’s PETER!!! If you’re not getting this, then you need to pray real hard for wisdom
    BC:
    A rational explanation would be that Peter was more demanding than the others in the dispute and Jesus humbled him with reality.
    Where does it say Peter was demanding? It doesn’t. Where does it say Peter was even in the argument? It doesn’t. Don’t shoot from the hip.
    • God chose Peter and only Peter to strengthen and confirm THEM once everyone was sifted. FACT
    • When Jesus said to Peter, YOU will be the one to strenghten THEM, you will be the one to confirm them. THAT ended the argument. FACT
    • God chose Peter to lead the apostles, ergo the Church. FACT
    BC:
    Let me put it this way; Peter probably rationalized that he should be considered the greatest of the apostles.
    That’s YOUR rationalization. You won’t find that anywhere in scripture… If you think you can, then present it.
    BC:
    He said he would die for Jesus, but when a little pressure was put on him he denied the Lord not once but three times.
    Yes Peter said he would die for Jesus. And that actually happened. But Jesus told Peter right after Peter’s statement that Peter would deny Him 3 times. This was before Peter even knew what was coming. Therefore, There is no surprise here. Jesus knew it, Peter knew it now. And anyone in ear shot heard all this
    BC:
    Do you think he thought he was the chief disciple when he did that?
    Probably not. But did that change God’s plans for Peter? NO!
    BC:
    He wept bitterly in despair.
    Absolutely. As well he should. He had to hear Jesus words telling him that he would deny him 3 times burning in his ears. But Jesus already knew Peter would do this ahead of time. Peter knew because Jesus told him it would happen. Did it stop Jesus from selecting Peter to lead the Church? Nope!!!

    C’mon Brian, you think you’re the first to come up with this stuff? You realize who’s behind this dissent … right?
    BC:
    When Jesus appeared to him on the shore of the lake He forgave Peter. The questions asked by our Lord pierced Peter to his soul, “Do you love me more than these?” No doubt bringing to Peter’s mind the words he spoke not too long before, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” (Mat. 26:33) But Peter did stumble and fall and the lord is seen here forgiving him and encouraging him.
    Yes. And then what does Jesus say to Peter singularly, in front of ALL the apostles? Feed and rule my sheep. Not just some of the sheep, but ALL of my sheep
    BC:
    Your belief that this event demonstrates Peter’s authoritative role is not contextually supported.
    Your denials in this post and others, is not making YOUR argument. You provide ZERO contextual support for your denial. You have only given your opinion backed up by your denial. You have avoided meeting head on, the texts and the context, I provided.
    BC:
    You are simply doing what people always do when the context doesn’t support their position; you bring in various fragments of Scripture and piece the out-of-context snippets together to make your case.
    You are simply doing what many who get skewered by context do. Deny that they have been skewered.
 
Why did you not mention the fact that Paul and Barnabas addressed them too?
Because it is not relevant to the argument. Protestants claim that James spoke last and that this “proves” that Peter was not the Pope. I have explained WHY James spoke to the members of his own congregation who were in attendance.
There is no indication that the apostles and James were on opposite sides of the issue, so why are you telling me “James accepted Peter’s teaching”?
Because scripture clearly suggests the possibility that they were. “Before certain men came from James” gives the impression that the Judaizers were sent by James. However, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I addressed both possibilities. Either way, Peter’s position as head of the Church is not disproved by Acts 15.
And what do you mean by “Peter’s decision”? What decision did Peter make?
Peter had previously let Gentiles into the Church in response to the revelation he received from God. No one else would have had any evidence of Peter’s vision; consequently, they accepted Peter’s decision on the basis of his own authority.
Paul and Barnabas did not go down to Jerusalem to figure out what to do, they knew what they were doing and they knew what the answer was. Paul and Barnabas “had no small dissention and dispute” with the Judaizers in Antioch. All the apostles were on the same page; the dispute was between them and the Jews in the Jerusalem church that were causing the trouble. Peter happened to have the most relevant and convincing testimony as he witnessed the first Gentile believers receiving the Holy Spirit. That’s it.
And yet, no one was willing to listen to simply accept Paul’s decision, were they? In fact, Paul could not quell the disturbance on the basis of his own authority, could he? The matter was referred to Peter and the Council. That, my unbelieving friend, is the magisterium of the Church at work…just as Jesus intended.
When you say Peter lead the apostles and made the decision (which there was no “decision” to make) you are making stuff up.
👍

Read my post above again.
 
Protestants claim that James spoke last and that this “proves” that Peter was not the Pope. I have explained WHY James spoke to the members of his own congregation who were in attendance.
I don’t know why you would assume what my argument is when you hadn’t heard it yet.
Because scripture clearly suggests the possibility that they were. “Before certain men came from James” gives the impression that the Judaizers were sent by James. However, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I addressed both possibilities. Either way, Peter’s position as head of the Church is not disproved by Acts 15.
You are getting your stories mixed up. When Paul said, “certain men came from James” it was in reference to when Peter was ashamed to be eating with Gentile believers in Antioch. That certainly does nothing to help your case and it has nothing to do with the matter in Jerusalem. It is a fact, however, that James did not send the Judaizers because he plainly said so in verse 24.

“Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions.” (v24)
Peter had previously let Gentiles into the Church in response to the revelation he received from God. No one else would have had any evidence of Peter’s vision; consequently, they accepted Peter’s decision on the basis of his own authority.
That is entirely false. Peter had nothing to do with “letting” anyone into the church. The vision showed Peter that he would be taking the Gospel to the Gentiles. In fact, after Peter had witnessed the conversion of the gentiles the other apostles heard of it, and when Peter returned to Jerusalem they criticized him for eating with gentiles. It wasn’t until Peter shared his vision that they believed him and praised God for what happened. So by the time they all met in Jerusalem over the issue of the Judaizers, the apostles, James and the elders in Judea were all well aware of both the vision and the outcome.
And yet, no one was willing to listen to simply accept Paul’s decision, were they? In fact, Paul could not quell the disturbance on the basis of his own authority, could he? The matter was referred to Peter and the Council. That, my unbelieving friend, is the magisterium of the Church at work…just as Jesus intended.
Are you aware of the story? Peter was in Antioch when the Judaizers arrived preaching the Law. Paul and Barnabas withstood them, but because they said they were sent from Judea the Christians in Antioch were perplexed. They wondered why would the apostles in Judea send men to Antioch to preach the Law? This matter needed to be clarified. You can’t tell me that Paul and Barnabas thought for one minute that the apostles sent these guys. They knew full well that wasn’t the case. So the church in Antioch sent Paul, Barnabas, the Judaizers, and a few selectmen from the church up to Jerusalem to get to the bottom of this issue.

The matter was not referred to “Peter and the council.” There was no mention of going to Peter and there was no council par se. This was a hastily extemporized meeting summoned to squelch the false doctrine of the Judaizers. And it demonstrates beyond any doubt that Peter was not in a position of authority beyond that of any other apostle.
 
The problem was in St James immediate jurisdiction, it would be fitting if their local leader made judgment.

I do not believe the Acts 15 and Galatians 2 are the same event, since Peter in Acts is clearly anti judaizing, Galatians says was submissive. St Jerome and St John Chrysostom say St Peter did nothing wrong in Galatians 2, St Clement of Alexandria and the Alexandrian text of Galatians say it was another person named “Cepha” who Clement says was one of the 70. Some of the Fathers do on the other hand say Peter was a wuss in Galatians 2.
 
The problem was in St James immediate jurisdiction, it would be fitting if their local leader made judgment.

I do not believe the Acts 15 and Galatians 2 are the same event, since Peter in Acts is clearly anti judaizing, Galatians says was submissive. St Jerome and St John Chrysostom say St Peter did nothing wrong in Galatians 2, St Clement of Alexandria and the Alexandrian text of Galatians say it was another person named “Cepha” who Clement says was one of the 70. Some of the Fathers do on the other hand say Peter was a wuss in Galatians 2.
St Jerome responded to this charge of Paul rebuking Peter by observing that,
  • Peter a Jew, was well aware of the law of Moses, but was playing to those who were weak in their faith and out of fear that he might lose them, did what he did so like the Good Shepherd, would not lose ANYONE given to him.
  • Paul later in his travels explains HIS behavior by saying, to the Gentiles he becomes as a Gentile, to win them over, as to the Jews he became a Jew so that some might be saved. [1 cor 9:20]
  • This is exactly what Peter did earlier with the gentiles and was rebuked by Paul for it. Looks like Peter taught Paul a valuable tool in ministering which Paul ended up embracing for himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top