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

[Daniel_Keeran]

But what is Scripture, what is the Bible? Which Books? Set aside Luther’s and later Calivin’s versions for a minute. How do you know what Scriptures belong in there? The early Christians didn’t or weren’t unanimous according, at least to Eusebius. How do you know what is Scripture? I know you said before that Scripture was passed along, but how do you know which books make up Scripture? Can you deduce it from the ECF’s/ Can you deduce it from the Potestant Bible?

One can deduce what is scripture from the scripture itself. The word of God is the seed of the kingdom and bears its own fruit. Many weeds are sown, but the seed will bear fruit when sown. At the end of time, the wheat and weeds will be separated. (Matt 13)

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

To be clear, you should read on in the very next paragraphs of Irenaeus’ Letter.
"3The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.

“4Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (*Against Heresies *3:3:1-4 [A.D. 189])…

Maybe it’s just me, but it certainly SOUNDS like Irenaeus provides what you claimed to be missing: “the Catholic argument of Peter and his successors as head of the Church.”

First, Irenaeus writes, “With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world”. If all churches must agree with Rome, then Rome is the head of the universal Church.

Next, Irenaeus lists the successors of Peter: Linus, Anencletus, Clement, and so on.

So, we have Rome as the Church which all others must follow, and the successors of Peter listed.

You stated the following: “This would have been the most important argument against heresy if Irenaeus knew about it.”

I believe Irenaeus has silenced you, and if this were a game of chess, now would be a good time to tip your king.

What is missing in Irenaeus and Polycarp is mention of Peter as head of the church as well as the office of head of the whole church on earth.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

What you are saying is clearly not true. …

Better yet, " where does it say , " no creed by Christ, no book but the Bible, and that all knowledge is contained in the scripture?

1 Peter 4:11 "If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God."

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

More from an ECF:

Tertullian

“Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some of one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles” (Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, A.D. 200, [32,1]).

It is significant that Tertullian does not say Peter was the head of the church on earth or that such an office even existed.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

No office, eh?

Well, what does scripture say? I’ll switch the the KJV since the NIV is biased in this regard:

1. 
   *]Romans 12:4
   For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
   Romans 12:3-5 (in Context) Romans 12 (Whole Chapter)
   *]1 Timothy 3:1
   This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
   1 Timothy 3:1-3 (in Context) 1 Timothy 3 (Whole Chapter)
   *]1 Timothy 3:10
   And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
   1 Timothy 3:9-11 (in Context) 1 Timothy 3 (Whole Chapter)
   *]1 Timothy 3:13
   For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
   
   But before you spend too many keystrokes on THOSE verses, deal with this one first:
   
   Acts 1:20
   20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
   
   Peter (yeah, Peter) properly interpreted the scripture which stated that Judas Iscariot’s bishoprick needed to be filled. That’s because the Apostles held an established office.
   
   But you denied that above, didn’t you?

1. 
   There is the office of apostle, but there is no office mentioned in scripture for head of the church on earth except for Christ alone.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is the office of apostle, but there is no office mentioned in scripture for head of the church on earth except for Christ alone.

Dan-

You just keep saying this over and over, but you offer nothing to prove your case. Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you to convince us that Peter was not what the scriptures, the Early Church Fathers and 2,000 years of history proclaim him to be.

This is a Catholic forum. We have home field advantage. You say that Peter was not the first pope and that he was not head of the Church.

Fine. You have the affirmative. Prove your case.

Maybe the problem is that you’ve simply chosen an indefensible position.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1 Peter 4:11 "If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God."

REPLY: There is no mention of rejecting creeds in this verse. There is no mention of the word “bible”, either.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You haven’t really answered the question, have you? Will this be a pattern in our discussions?

Why don’t you reflect on the following and share your thoughts with us, okay?

“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.”

The author?

Martin Luther.

(*Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.) *

Thoughts here, Dan?

 

[Des]

1 Peter 4:11 "If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God."

You are creating your own man made doctrines out of that verse when you make the error of limiting God’s word to the written form only. We can clearly see this is not true.

"Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

 

[YADA]

We say, “No creed but Christ; no book but the Bible; as the scripture speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent, we are silent.”

If you like, take one doctrine at a time and we can examine in light of scripture.

And it is very sad you do not profess “No God but Christ, No Church but the One catholic and apostolic Church - founded by Christ and No book but the one Book revealed and inspired by the Holy Spirit- Inerrent and God Breathed” … … but then you would still be in the Catholic Church

 

[YADA]

One can deduce what is scripture from the scripture itself. The word of God is the seed of the kingdom and bears its own fruit. Many weeds are sown, but the seed will bear fruit when sown. At the end of time, the wheat and weeds will be separated. (Matt 13)

I can know what is “Scipture” from the “Scripture”? … surely you jest

So I lmnow that Matthew, Mark Luke and John are the only Gospels?

There were not only three? … Were there five? …

All I can say to this acertion is

uch: :hypno:

 

[Randy_Carson]

to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17]

Let’s deal with this “re-instatement” theory, shall we?

When was Peter commissioned by Jesus? Was it in John 21 - the passage I quoted earlier when I demonstrated that Peter is the head of the one flock?

NO!

It was earlier:

John 20:19-23
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Here we see Jesus “sending” the Apostles just as the Father sent Him. We also see that Peter receives the same commission and the same “breath of God” that the other Apostles received (except Thomas who was absent).

If Peter had yet to be reinstated by Jesus as you claim, why did Peter receive the same commission and authority to forgive or retain sins at the same time as the other Apostles who did not deny Jesus and did not need to be reinstated? If Peter’s denial had somehow cost him his place, how could he be treated equally to those who were still Apostles? After all, his reinstatement had not yet occurred.

No, Jesus commissioned Peter equally with the other Apostles at that point because Peter was still an Apostle at that point. Later, on the beach, Peter received an ADDITIONAL commission, one that was foretold in Mt. 16:18-19 - that he was to lead the Church as the earthly vicar of Christ.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[paul_c]

One can deduce what is scripture from the scripture itself. The word of God is the seed of the kingdom and bears its own fruit. Many weeds are sown, but the seed will bear fruit when sown. At the end of time, the wheat and weeds will be separated. (Matt 13)

One can deduce that Peter is the Head of the church by what is written in the scripture as well. In that case, you require explicit verbage, while in cases you support, you can deduce what it says. Do you recognize the lack of consistency?

 

[LionHeart777]

One can deduce what is scripture from the scripture itself. The word of God is the seed of the kingdom and bears its own fruit. Many weeds are sown, but the seed will bear fruit when sown. At the end of time, the wheat and weeds will be separated. (Matt 13)

Not even the early Christians agreed on what the contents of the Canon were, as we see in Eusebius.

How can you, almost 2,000 years removed, if you had never known the contents of any Canon (Protestant, Catholic, Ethiopian Orthodox, etc.) tell me what the Canon is?

That is, if I dropped all of the indidvidual books of the above Canons on a table, are you telling me that you could discern what the contents should be?

 

[paul_c]

Daniel,
I want to call 1 Corinthians 9: 1-5 to your attention:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? Although I may not be an apostle for others, certainly I am for you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. My defense against those who would pass judgment on me is this. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Please note that Peter (called Cephas here) is not listed with the Apostles or the Brothers of the Lord (like James) but is called out separately and distinctly. Why do you think that is? If he was just another Apostle, why call him out separately?

Your arguments that Peter was not the leader of the Apostles is getting harder and harder to take seriously, don’t you think.

You have been shown the Peter was called out separately by our Lord, given a title " the Rock: on which his church would be built. You have been shown how much more Peter is discussed in the Gospels than any of the other Apostles and you hvae agreed he is the most prominent. You have been shown in scriptures where he acted as leader in the Apostles in replacing Judas, at Pentacost, at the introduction of Gentiles to the church, and at the council of Jerusalem. You have been shown that Paul specifically went to visit him prior to starting his missionary journeys and how he refers to him as the leader of the circumcized in the letter to the Galatians. Here in Corinthians you see how Paul singles out Peter from the other Apostles. You have also been shown how Peter’s leadership was acknowledged by the Early Church Fathers. It has also been pointed out to you the the name “Rock” was actually a title given to him by Jesus as a mark of his leadership and that most of the time he is refered to by that Title, and not his given name, Simon son of Jonah.

Against all that, all you have to offer is that Scripture doesn’t call him by the title “pope”. and that you don’t recognize the Title “Rock” as a statement of his leadership.

Clearly, yours in not a convincing case against the rest. Hopefully, you can look passed your preconceived notions and come to understand the Truth about Peter and the fact that the Catholic Church is truly the Body of Christ and holders of the truths that lead to Heaven. Perhaps, on this Divine Mercy Sunday, Jesus will have mercy on you and open your mind to the truth.

 

[anthony022071]

There is the office of apostle, but there is no office mentioned in scripture for head of the church on earth except for Christ alone.

Jesus re-named Simon as “Kephas”,which means Head as well as Rock in Greek – that is Peter’s office. An office does not terminate at death,it has successors. Do you really think that Jesus would have founded the Church upon Peter only to have that personal foundation be removed when Peter died?

From post 152:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm
< As for Paul’s use of the term “Kephas” for Peter, this is a classic Jewish pun referencing Peter’s headship. True, “Kephas” (frequently rendered as “Cephas” in English Bibles) is merely a Greek form of the Aramaic name “Kepha” (Rock); but in Greek it also implies Headship, in that “Kephale’” is the Greek word for head. And we can see this pun (a pun that’s never lost on Greek-speaking readers) all throughout the New Testament (e.g. John 13:8-9; 1 Cor 9:5; 1 Cor 15:5; Gal 2:9; Gal 2:11,14; etc). All these as veiled references to Peter’s “headship” and when understood in Greek and in context, one cannot miss them. >

catholic-legate.com/dialo…terinrome.html

See also post 67.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…50#post5075150

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

WAS PETER APPOINTED HEAD OF THE CHURCH ON EARTH AND WAS SUCH AN OFFICE ESTABLISHED OTHER THAN CHRIST ALONE?

1. Matt 16 names Peter because of his confession of who Jesus is and gives Peter the keys to the kingdom to be established in Acts 2 (keys are mentioned in Is.22:22 and also Rev.3:7).
2. As all agree, the beginning of the church was in Acts 2 on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ (see Luke 24:47 and Acts 1:6-8 and 11:15).
3. After Acts 2, the only mention of anyone as head of the church is Christ alone: Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:18.
4. Peter first speaks the gospel to Jews in Acts 2 and to Gentiles in Acts 10, and has a prominent role and frequent mention in the Book of Acts.
5. In Acts 15, when the church gathered to determine God’s will concerning circumcision of the Gentile Christians, Peter said that God chose him to first speak to the Gentile (v.7).
6. In Acts 15, after Peter, Paul, and Barnabas had spoken about their experiences with the Gentiles and after the discussion was finished in v.13, James summarized the discussion and said, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make…” (v.19) and said, “Instead we should write to them, telling them…” (v.20).
7. In verse 22, “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided…” and in the body of the letter v.25: “So we all agreed to choose some men and send them…” and in verse 27,28: “Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
8. When offices and gifts are listed in scripture, an earthly head of the church is never mentioned (see 1 Corinthians 12:28,29; Ephesians 2:20, Ephesians 3:5, Ephesians 4:11, 2 Peter 3:2, Revelation 18:20).
9. Paul says in Ephesians 2:20 that the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as chief cornerstone, but no mention of Peter.
10. Paul went up to see Peter and refers to him as “an apostle to the Jews” (Galatians 2:8) but never as head of the church on earth.
11. In the above context (#10), Paul refers to Peter as one of three: “James, Cephas, and John, those reputed to be pillars” (Gal.2:6).
12. Peter refers to himself exactly as Paul does: “apostle and servant of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:1).
13. Peter refers to himself as a fellow-elder (1 Peter 5:1).
14. Peter refers only to Jesus as “Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4).
15. Conclusion: In the New Testament there is no office of or qualifications for a head of the church on earth other than Christ alone. If Peter was appointed head of the church in Matt.16, there is no mention of this fact after the church was established. All of the above evidence points to a contrary view.

 

[Sunflower15]

I know why Peter was the rock upon which HE built HIS church! :hammering: Which still IS around…and everyone belongs to it…whether they want to or know it or refuse its graces or not…

My New American Standard Version calls it …

The Love Motivation

15So 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, “Tend My lambs.”

16He said to him again 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, “Shepherd My sheep.”

17He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You " Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.”

John 21:15-19 (New American Standard Bible)

 

[Sunflower15]

Another reason why Simon Peter proved during the screening process that he was the best man for the job of Pope!

'27But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.” [sounds familiar?]

28Peter said to Him, “Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.”
Peter shows here that he ONLY would do AS COMMANDED, not acting on his own, AFTER verification that it IS the LORD who commands him,

29And He said, “Come!” And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus.

"Peter, fearfully placing himself at risk is willing to follow Jesus STEPS LITERALLY even unto the stormy waters. He did not send someone else…but risked himself first to create a path towards the Lord for the rest…[leadership by example]

30But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!”
Direct request of the Lord Himself in times of need, since no one else of higher authority than himself to appeal to is aboard the boat…also proclamation of need to be saved by Jesus AND full trust that He will unequivocally

31Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?”

Testament to lack of impeccability…and absolute dependence on Jesus by the Pope to NOT “drown” amidst stormy weather

32When they got into the boat, the wind stopped.’
Jesus IS in charge, HE will lead Peter/Pope to the boat TO the rest of the Apostles, AND the stormy wind will stop…

Matthew 14:27-32 (New American Standard Bible)

:tiphat: The guy simply passed the job screening selection process with the highest marks!

 

[paul_c]

WAS PETER APPOINTED HEAD OF THE CHURCH ON EARTH AND WAS SUCH AN OFFICE ESTABLISHED OTHER THAN CHRIST ALONE?

Your narrative is unconvincing and highly biased toward an outcome that would place Peter on par with the other Apostles.

1. Matt 16 names Peter because of his confession of who Jesus is and gives Peter the keys to the kingdom to be established in Acts 2 (keys are mentioned in Is.22:22 and also Rev.3:7).

1. You state that Matthew gives the keys to Peter. Matthew does not give the keys to Peter. Jesus gives the keys to Simon and he gives him the title of Kephas, which means Rock and leader, by which he is called for the rest of his life and beyond. Even you call him by this leadership term. You conveniently ignore the other Gospel messages that distinguish Peter from the other Apostles. For example, it is Peter’s story that we follow in parallel to Jesus’s in his passion, as first he attempts to Defend the Lord by cutting off Malchus’ ear. Then he is the one to follow Jesus as he is condemned to Death. Then he loses nerve and denies him. Then he is the first Apostle to view the empty tomb. He is the first Apostle to which Jesus appears. He is the one who jumps into the water to be with Jesus when he appears at the end of John’s Gospel and he is the one to whom the Lord says to tend to his sheep when Jesus is gone.

1. As all agree, the beginning of the church was in Acts 2 on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ (see Luke 24:47 and Acts 1:6-8 and 11:15).

1. You ignore the fact that it is Peter in Acts 1, that calls for the replacement of Judas.

1. After Acts 2, the only mention of anyone as head of the church is Christ alone: Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:18.

1. You ignore the fact that Peter is a title that means “head” when you say that no one is called the leader by Jesus alone.

1. Peter first speaks the gospel to Jews in Acts 2 and to Gentiles in Acts 10, and has a prominent role and frequent mention in the Book of Acts.

1. You correctly point out that it is Peter in Acts 2 that speaks for the Apostles at Pentacost and that is Peter in Acts 10 that is the instrument to bring in Gentiles to the Church. However, you fail to recognize that these are critical leadership roles that were not given to any other Apostle. Nor are there any leadership parallels anywhere else in the New Testament. But it doesn’t stop there. In Acts Chapter 3, It is Peter that cures the man born lame and it is Peter who then addresses the Crowds. And in Chapter 4, it is Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, who speaks out to Anias, the high priest and the leaders of the Jews in regard to the incident. You also ignore the fact that in Acts 5, it is Peter who deals with Ananias and Sapphira, who are lyiing to the church and to God about their donations and it is Peter who answers the Sanhedrin for all the Apostles later in that Chapter, saying they must obey God not men.

1. In Acts 15, when the church gathered to determine God’s will concerning circumcision of the Gentile Christians, Peter said that God chose him to first speak to the Gentile (v.7).

1. Yes, you have correctly identified that Peter laid claim to being picked form among the apostles to bring the word of God to the Gentiles. This leadership position was not disputed and Peter explains what should be done. Note that Paul also recognizes Peter as being chosen to bring the message to the Circumcized in Galatians. So clearly he is the leader of the Apostles to both the Jews and the Gentiles. That covers everyone.

1. In Acts 15, after Peter, Paul, and Barnabas had spoken about their experiences with the Gentiles and after the discussion was finished in v.13, James summarized the discussion and said, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make…” (v.19) and said, “Instead we should write to them, telling them…” (v.20).

1. James said these things because he had been advocating the following of the Jewish laws for all Christians previously and he needed to publicly agree with Peter so that there would be no confusion or conflict within the group