Why is Peter considered the first "Pope", if it was James who Peter and Paul answered to?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lion_of_judah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lion_of_judah

Guest
As in, in the book of Galatians, Paul says this about Peter:

Galatians 2:12
“Until some men arrived from James, he was in the habit of eating with the gentiles, but after those men came, he withdrew from the gentiles and would not associate with them any longer, because he was afraid of the circumcision party.”

and in the Book of Acts when they had disputes in the early Century, they would go to Jerusalem, which was the main Church where the Elders and Apostles were where James was the Bishop of that Church, which would be the modern day Vatican. James even gave a decree from that Church in Acts.

So how exactly was Peter Pope if according to the bible, Peter and Paul answered to James?
 
After the debate, Peter rose and declared that circumcision was not necessary. In other words, Peter ruled definitively on the question of doctrine. Then all kept silent. His bishops then spoke in favor of his teaching, acknowledging that Peter was indeed the authority in the Church. No one questioned Peter’s judgment. James agreed with Peter’s definitive teaching. Then James began speaking (not about the doctrinal issue) but about whether the Gentiles should obey the Noachide laws, which is a pastoral issue.
 
lion_of_judah said:
As in, in the book of Galatians, Paul says this about Peter:

Galatians 2:12
“Until some men arrived from James, he was in the habit of eating with the gentiles, but after those men came, he withdrew from the gentiles and would not associate with them any longer, because he was afraid of the circumcision party.”

and in the Book of Acts when they had disputes in the early Century, they would go to Jerusalem, which was the main Church where the Elders and Apostles were where James was the Bishop of that Church, which would be the modern day Vatican. James even gave a decree from that Church in Acts.

So how exactly was Peter Pope if according to the bible, Peter and Paul answered to James?
Click to expand...
This is why we should always be wary of personal interpretations. Peter was doing unauthorized activities with the gentiles, and he didn’t want to get caught in a personal transgression. That has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with infallibility of Peter as the pope. All you’ve done is prove that the first pope wasn’t impeccable. Congratulations, we all knew that a long time ago.

Second, James WAS a bishop. He was authorized to give decrees from his diocese. To this day bishops STILL hold authority within their respetive diocese, though not on the doctrinal level of the pope. FURTHERMORE, the location of a council has NEVER determined the location of the “vatican.” In fact, the term vatican is relatively new. The Cathedros of St Peter is what matters, and that is currently (and was then) Rome.

So is your misunderstanding based on the fact that you don’t know the actual function of a bishop, or that you don’t understand the difference between impeccability and infallibility?
 
lion_of_judah said:
As in, in the book of Galatians, Paul says this about Peter:

Galatians 2:12
“Until some men arrived from James, he was in the habit of eating with the gentiles, but after those men came, he withdrew from the gentiles and would not associate with them any longer, because he was afraid of the circumcision party.”
Click to expand...
St. Peter withdrew himself from the Gentiles for fear of insulting the Jewish converts. This had nothing to do with St. Peter’s teaching authority.
lion_of_judah said:
and in the Book of Acts when they had disputes in the early Century, they would go to Jerusalem, which was the main Church where the Elders and Apostles were where James was the Bishop of that Church, which would be the modern day Vatican. James even gave a decree from that Church in Acts.
Click to expand...
St. James spoke in favor of St. Peter’s decision. This happen many times even today. The Pope makes a statement, and the bishops of the Church speak in support to his teachings.
 
huh? what are people talking about? Paul’s companion Luke said:

Acts 15

12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’**

18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works.[c] 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,[d]from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

The Jerusalem Decree

22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas,[e] and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
23 They wrote this, letter by them:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”[f]—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[g] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.

So it’s clear to see that they gave a decree from what James said, not from what Peter said. James agreed with Peter no doubt, but the EXACT decree given was what James JUDGED as rigtheous. Thereby proving that James indeed had more power than Peter and that the Church in Rome didn’t even exist yet. As Rome was full of Gentile pagans. ^_^**
 
lion_of_judah said:
As in, in the book of Galatians, Paul says this about Peter:

Galatians 2:12
“Until some men arrived from James, he was in the habit of eating with the gentiles, but after those men came, he withdrew from the gentiles and would not associate with them any longer, because he was afraid of the circumcision party.”

and in the Book of Acts when they had disputes in the early Century, they would go to Jerusalem, which was the main Church where the Elders and Apostles were where James was the Bishop of that Church, which would be the modern day Vatican. James even gave a decree from that Church in Acts.

So how exactly was Peter Pope if according to the bible, Peter and Paul answered to James?
Click to expand...
The answer is simple. I believe it was St. John Chrysostom (it might have been St. Augustine, or St. Athanasius?) who wrote that while St. James was set over Jerusalem, St. Peter was set over the whole world.

St. James was in effect the first bishop of the Jerusalem Church. Bishops, as distinct from Apostles, were stationary, while Apostles had an itinerant, missionary purpose. That St. James was set as the leader of the Jerusalem Church is no indication of his being head of the Church universal. I hope you understand, as a Protestant, that the Church had expanded far beyond the boundaries of Jerusalem at the time of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
lion_of_judah said:
huh? what are people talking about? Paul’s companion Luke said:

Acts 15

12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’**

18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works.[c] 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,[d]from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

The Jerusalem Decree

22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas,[e] and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
23 They wrote this, letter by them:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”[f]—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[g] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.

So it’s clear to see that they gave a decree from what James said, not from what Peter said. James agreed with Peter no doubt, but the EXACT decree given was what James JUDGED as rigtheous. Thereby proving that James indeed had more power than Peter and that the Church in Rome didn’t even exist yet. As Rome was full of Gentile pagans. ^_^**

The problem I have found is that this does not prove that he is over Peter at all. He can deem something the same as Peter, however it does not mean he didn’t recieve it from Peter. You are just assuming at this point.

The main question I would raise is direct. What did Jesus mean by renaming Peter the Rock, then immediately saying that upon the Rock he would build his Church? God never renames for no reason. Also, in direct context to what is being said, anyone during the time would have translated that as Jesus building upon Peter. This is because Jesus gives him such authority, as only Jesus can. Also, Jesus states that he will give him the “Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.” The keys to the kingdom, for all times in which I have studied, has always meant a special power. Not to mention the fact that it is scriptural to mean power: Isaiah 22:22
In fact, speaking of Isaiah 22:22, one would say that this is about Jesus. It states “I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.” And if this is a prophecy about the power of Jesus, then wouldn’t the desciples recognize this quote and understand that Jesus was giving authority to Peter? It is not that he replaces Jesus, but that he will be His voice on earth. In fact, when looking at how Jesus speaks, there is nothing else this could mean.
Click to expand...
 
“it is my judgment” in the Greek is (ego krino).

Does this mean “in my personal opinion or recommendation”? Or something else.
 
lion of judah,

St. James is speaking in favor of St. Peter’s teaching. In no way is St. Peter’s authority being challenged.

God bless,
Zp
 
James of Jerusalem was not “above” the other bishops and Apostles. Consider that he owed his position to Peter, James the Greater and John, who appointed him as bishop in the first place. The Twelve Apostles were all bishops, but the bishopric is not equal to the Apostolic office. Some conjecture that the Apostle James the Lesser was the same as James of Jerusalem, but others think otherwise. Going by the latter we have here an outsider, likely only converted after the resurrected Jesus appeared to him (as he had to Peter, among others). He was not considered “potential” Apostle material to replace Judas, unlike Matthias and another fellow. You mention that the Roman church didn’t exist yet. This is not certain, but more importantly the unique Petrine office, later known as the Papacy, only became associated with the Roman church after that church was started, and Peter (along with Paul) was martyred while serving it.

Here’s the fuller quote that mardukm mentioned:
“And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” (link)
Click to expand...
ryanoneil said:
“it is my judgment” in the Greek is (ego krino).

Does this mean “in my personal opinion or recommendation”? Or something else.
Click to expand...
It can mean that. Though if one translates it as judgment, it’s really only a progression of Peter’s own judgment.
 
James, Peter, and John were all leaders in the Jerusalem church and shared decision-making:

Galatians 2:9 “James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we…” Peter is second in the list, after James.

Peter identifies himself as:
  1. “Peter, **an apostle **of Jesus Christ…,” (1 Peter 1:1)
  2. “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle…” (2 Peter 1:1)
  3. “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness…” (1 Peter 5:1)
Notice Peter never uses the article “the” but only “a” or “an”. Peter never refers to himself as a singular leader or head of anything, Also, neither James, Paul, nor John in any of their writings refer to Peter as having any special role except as “apostle to the Jews” (Galatians 2:8).

Also, in the lists of offices and roles of those in the church universal, there is a **conspicuous absence of any earthly head **of the church. All of the above, in addition to the role of James at Jerusalem, show that such a central fundamental position did not exist in the church at that time.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers…

Ephesians 2:20
“…built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.”

Ephesians 4:11
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers…

2 Peter 3:2
I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
 
But…Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter.

Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my Church,
and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
**I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. **
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

(my bold)
 
allhers said:
But…Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter.

Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my Church,
and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
**I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. **
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

(my bold)
Click to expand...
If the above passage establishes Peter in such a central position as singular head of the church, this would be played out in scripture which it is not as neither Peter himself nor any other writer refers to him as such or to such a position.

Another understanding that IS played out, is that having the “keys,” Peter opened the door on the day of Pentecost to Jews and opened the door to Gentiles with Cornelius and household. Peter himself refers to this role in Acts 15:7 but not to a role as head of the church. Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.”

The thing that is important about Peter’s wording is that if Peter knew he was appointed to be head of the church, he would have made this statement here or elsewhere. For example, “Brothers you know that some time ago God chose me to be head of his church.”

Another significant point is that although the phrase “head of the church” is found in scripture and therefore such a position DOES exist, it is NEVER EVER used to refer to Peter. Therefore the Matthew 16 passage means something other than Peter’s being appointed to be head of the church.
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
If the above passage establishes Peter in such a central position as singular head of the church, this would be played out in scripture which it is not as neither Peter himself nor any other writer refers to him as such or to such a position.
Click to expand...
Why is that? Peter’s and his successors’ roles had already been playing out for 3-4 centuries before the Bible was formally canonized.
Another understanding that IS played out, is that having the “keys,” Peter opened the door on the day of Pentecost to Jews and opened the door to Gentiles with Cornelius and household. Peter himself refers to this role in Acts 15:7 but not to a role as head of the church. Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.”
Click to expand...
What does having the “keys” mean in OT Davidic kingdom terms?
The thing that is important about Peter’s wording is that if Peter knew he was appointed to be head of the church, he would have made this statement here or elsewhere. For example, “Brothers you know that some time ago God chose me to be head of his church.”
Click to expand...
Why would the “servant of servants of God” say such a prideful thing.
Another significant point is that although the phrase “head of the church” is found in scripture and therefore such a position DOES exist, it is NEVER EVER used to refer to Peter. Therefore the Matthew 16 passage means something other than Peter’s being appointed to be head of the church.
Click to expand...
I don’t accept you arbitary limitation that it has to be so stated. That your personal opinion and is not support by Scripture.
 
davidv said:
Why is that? Peter’s and his successors’ roles had already been playing out for 3-4 centuries before the Bible was formally canonized.

What does having the “keys” mean in OT Davidic kingdom terms?

Why would the “servant of servants of God” say such a prideful thing.

I don’t accept you arbitary limitation that it has to be so stated. That your personal opinion and is not support by Scripture.
Click to expand...
  1. “Why is that? Peter’s and his successors’ roles had already been playing out for 3-4 centuries before the Bible was formally canonized.”
    REPLY: Such a fundamental role as head of the church needs to be defined and in place from the start, like the deity of Christ, qualifications of bishops and deacons, baptism, etc. Yet an earthly **head of the church is conspicuously absent **in scripture.
  2. “What does having the “keys” mean in OT Davidic kingdom terms?”
    REPLY: An OT text about a the Davidic kingdom, needs to be understood in terms of its application in the NT. Was Peter appointed to be head or king of the church? No.
  3. “Why would the “servant of servants of God” say such a prideful thing.”
    REPLY: It would be **no more prideful **for him to say he was chosen to be head of the church if it were true, than for him to say he was **chosen to present the gospel **to the Gentiles, which he DID say.
  4. “I don’t accept your arbitary limitation that it has to be so stated. That your personal opinion and is not support by Scripture”
    REPLY: One would expect such a fundamental position or role for Peter to be CLEARLY stated either by Peter himself or by other NT writers, especially since such a title as “head of the church” IS used in scripture. To say Peter was head of the church is going beyond what is written (1 Cor.4:6).
 
LionHeart777 said:
I find the quotes by Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyprian from the below tract paired with the passage of Peter receiving the keys to the Kingdom to be a convincing argument.

In my opinion, they might be a little stronger than an argument from silence
Click to expand...
The ECF’s, etc. are useful to determine how the papacy developed but do not establish that it was established in the church of the New Testament. In order for the papacy as the central position of head of the universal church, to be valid, it must have been present in the church from the beginning as defined in the New Testament.

In the New Testament, there are clear statements that a departure would be initiated by the bishops of the church:

Acts 20:28-31
“28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.”

The rejection of apostolic authority began within church leadership and is marked by the desire for pre-eminence, the desire to be first:

**3 John 1:9 **
“I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us.”
 
Dear brother Daniel,
Daniel_Keeran said:
  1. “Why is that? Peter’s and his successors’ roles had already been playing out for 3-4 centuries before the Bible was formally canonized.”
    REPLY: Such a fundamental role as head of the church needs to be defined and in place from the start, like the deity of Christ, qualifications of bishops and deacons, baptism, etc. Yet an earthly **head of the church is conspicuously absent **in scripture.
Click to expand...
Apostolic Christians regard what is known as the Apostolic Canons to have been composed either by the Apostles themselves or Apostolic men, by the turn of the first century, and most within the mid-second century.

Read Apostolic Canon 34. It refers to the head bishop that the bishops of every nation must recognize.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
lion_of_judah said:
As in, in the book of Galatians, Paul says this about Peter:

Galatians 2:12
“Until some men arrived from James, he was in the habit of eating with the gentiles, but after those men came, he withdrew from the gentiles and would not associate with them any longer, because he was afraid of the circumcision party.”

and in the Book of Acts when they had disputes in the early Century, they would go to Jerusalem, which was the main Church where the Elders and Apostles were where James was the Bishop of that Church, which would be the modern day Vatican. James even gave a decree from that Church in Acts.

So how exactly was Peter Pope if according to the bible, Peter and Paul answered to James?
Click to expand...
The Bible doesn’t mention the office of “Pope” as we understand it, and it doesn’t say that Peter and Paul answered to James, pure and simple.
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Daniel,

Apostolic Christians regard what is known as the Apostolic Canons to have been composed either by the Apostles themselves or Apostolic men, by the turn of the first century, and most within the mid-second century.

Read Apostolic Canon 34. It refers to the head bishop that the bishops of every nation must recognize.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Franz Xaver von Funk, a foremost authority on all similar early canonical texts, locates the composition of the Apostolic Canons in the fifth century, near the year 400.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top