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

[tqualey]

Hi, Cinette,

I think twb and Benedictus ate him for lunch… Just the bones of ‘imaginative scripture’ and creative boasting are all that is left of him…! This ‘Daniel’ did not do so well in the ‘Lion’s Den’ of CAF…

:egyptian::bluelite:

Anybody seen Daniel Keeran ?

:nunchuk: Nobody?:coolinoff:

kpeople:kpeople:

God bless

 

[steve_b]

I agree, the RCC went wrong when it got all that power and then said that the Bishop of Rome is surpreme.

I think the Orthodox and RCC can get back together if they go back to how the Bishop of Rome really was in the earlier centuries.

Bishop of Rome, Peter’s see?

You mean “all must agree with the Church of Rome because of its superior origin”? Irenaeus, against heresies, ~180 AD

Or would you want to go back earlier?

~33 AD Jesus to Peter, Feed and rule my Church, post resurrection, Gospel of John 21: 15…]

 

[paul_c]

:egyptian::bluelite:

Anybody seen Daniel Keeran ?

:nunchuk: Nobody?:coolinoff:

kpeople:kpeople:

He may feel that everything that needs be said on the issue has been said and I would agree with him. At this point, It is time for everyone to reflect on what has been said and decide for themselves whether Peter was truly the handpicked leader of the Church or not. I for one have seen nothing here that would dissuade me from believing that Peter was commissioned by our Lord as leader of the church and that this was a permanent leadership role to be passed on in perpetuity… In fact, my faith in this has only increased by the discussion.

 

[paul_c]

Hi, Cinette,

I think twb and Benedictus ate him for lunch… Just the bones of ‘imaginative scripture’ and creative boasting are all that is left of him…! This ‘Daniel’ did not do so well in the ‘Lion’s Den’ of CAF…

God bless

This wasn’t charitable. We are educating, not trying to beat non-Catholics.

 

[steve_b]

Let us look at this quote again by St John Chrysostom:

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
**St John Chrysostom,**Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. 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. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

 

[Cinette]

This wasn’t charitable. We are educating, not trying to beat non-Catholics.

Hi Paul - c’mon we can poke a little fun, nothing wrong with that. Besides we are all adults and are not fragile like little children. We can take it.

Now I have something to say.

In a posting further back (don’t have time to go searching) I remember someone (might have been Daniel) who said that because James’ name was mentioned first, before Peter’s that this was significant…

So I did a little research:

Peter was:

First to preach the gospel Acts 2:14
First to work miracles Acts 3:6
Judge of Ananias and Saphira Acts 5:1-10
First to preach to the gentiles Acts 10
First to receive pagan convert Acts 10
Presides at the Council of Jerusalem even though James was Bishop Acts 15

Peter goes on to say Acts 15:7 "…Peter stood up and said to them “My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you that I should be the one through whom the gentiles would hear this message of the good news…”

There is much more…but don’t you think the case for Peter has been made?

Is there a need to say more?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. 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. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

Chrysostom overstated in using the terms ‘preside’ and ‘presidency.’ Paul went up to see Peter because he was the apostle to the circumcized, not because he was the head of the church. Let’s ask Paul some questions about this from Galatians 1 & 2:

1. Paul, did you go up to Jerusalem immediately after you were set apart to take the gospel to the Gentiles?
   REPLY: 1:17 **nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those **who were apostles before I was
2. Why did you go up to Jerusalem three years later?
   REPLY: 1:18-19 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem **to get acquainted **with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.
3. Why did you go up to Jerusalem 14 years later?
   REPLY: 2:2 I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.
4. Did you regard any of the other apostles as being any more important than you were?
   REPLY: 2:6 As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message.
5. Did you require their approval?
   REPLY: 2:7 **On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted **with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.
6. Did Peter have any special role?
   REPLY: 2:8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.
7. Was Peter the head of the Jerusalem church or a singular bishop there or head of the whole church on earth?
   REPLY: 2:9 James, Cephas and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.

.

 

[Cinette]

I have been searching for this for days and have just found it. This is significant.

"The Primary of Peter

One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peter’s primacy among the twelve Apostles and his imortance and centrality to the drama of Christ’s earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas etc) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times. After John, in descending order, the frequency of the other Apostles being mentioned by name trails off rapidly."

“Where is That in the Bible” by Patrick Madrid - Page 31

Can we say more?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

REPLY: The truth of tradition should be tested by the truth of scripture. Tradition should never be set above scripture.
Scripture is “Written Tradition” emanating from “Oral Tradition”.

Here is the order of appearance:

1. John the Baptist preached and all came to him for purification in the Jordan.
2. Jesus taught and performed miracles proving his divine identity and truthfulness
3. Signs went with the apostles confirming their word.
4. John said “these things were written that you might believe.”
5. Apostles were guided into all truth through the Holy Spirit.
6. Apostles wrote to the churches.
7. The ability to receive gifts of the Holy Spirit, e.g. prophecy and revelation, ends with the deaths of those on whom the apostles laid their hands.
8. After #7, no new inspired writing or revelation is received. All who claim to have a tradition from the apostles must give scriptural evidence of such.

During the lifetime of the apostles and afterward, many claim to have truth from God and from the apostles through some oral tradition or declaration of a council or pope. All claims must be tested by what scripture says, not by what it does not say.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I have been searching for this for days and have just found it. This is significant.

"The Primary of Peter

One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peter’s primacy among the twelve Apostles and his imortance and centrality to the drama of Christ’s earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas etc) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times. After John, in descending order, the frequency of the other Apostles being mentioned by name trails off rapidly."

“Where is That in the Bible” by Patrick Madrid - Page 31

Can we say more?

This definitely proves Peter’s prominence but not his primacy as head of the church on earth.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Paul C,

OK. I apologize if you or anyone else was offended by my comment. I saw this as interjeting some humor. How does this sound… TWB and Benedictus educated him into speechlessness?

This wasn’t charitable. We are educating, not trying to beat non-Catholics.

This characterization was not intended as being uncharitable - but, honestly, he pronounces the ECFs to be in error, disagrees with the established and primal teachings of the CC and offers noting but his world view that he has the answer. I personally found his post haughty,demeaning - and guess waht - UN-scriptural. Add to this he was repeated asked by numerous posters to respond and he even failed to acknowledge their questions. Anyone willing to jab at our beliefs should expect to be both challenged and responded to in such a way as to get message.

I certainly hope he never experiencs any greater uncharitableness then he received from me.

God bless

 

[steve_b]

Let us look at this quote again by St John Chrysostom:

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
**St John Chrysostom,**Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. 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. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

 

[stephraim]

1. Why did you go up to Jerusalem three years later?
   REPLY: 1:18-19 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem **to get acquainted **with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

“And the only object of this journey was to visit Peter; thus he pays due respect to the Apostles, and esteems himself not only their better but not their equal….He says, ‘to visit Peter’; he does not say to see ἰδεῖν] but to visit and survey ἱστορῆσαι], a word which those who seek to become acquainted with great and splendid cities apply to themselves. Worthy of such trouble did he consider the very sight of Peter; and this appears from the Acts of the Apostles also.” (Commentary on Galatians 1, 18, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st series, ed. Phillip Schaff [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983], 13:12-13)

Strong’s Lexicon
2477. historeo his-tor-eh’-o from a derivative of 1492; to be knowing (learned), i.e. (by implication) to visit for information (interview):–see.

1. Why did you go up to Jerusalem 14 years later?
   REPLY: 2:2 I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.

You left out the first half of this verse: I went up in accord with a revelation [in other words, Our Lord told him to go], and I presented (ἀνεθέμην)…or have run, in vain (κενὸν).

Thayer’s Lexicon
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/image.cfm?img=0D30D4E8632553066FD6F392B1724817B

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/image.cfm?img=113C9CD37EE220D182ED09CF449846A7E

Did you require their approval?
REPLY: 2:7 **On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted **with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.

1. Did Peter have any special role?
   REPLY: 2:8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.

Yet not only to the Jews, to the Gentiles as well:

Acts 15:7 Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware from early days God made His choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the Gospel and believe.”

 

[Cinette]

:doh2::doh2:

…“When the names of all the Apostles are listed, Peter is always first, Judas Iscariot, the Lord’s trator, is always listed last (cf. Matt 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13). Sometmes Scripture speaks simply of “Simon Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (cf. Luke 9:32; Mark 16:7; Acts 2:37), showing that he had a special role that represented the entire apostolic college. Often, Scripture shows Simon Peter as spokesman for the entire apostolic college, as if he were the voice of the Church (cf Matt 18:21; Mark 9:29; Luke 8:45; Luke 12:41; John 6:68-69).”

If you want more, just say so please::yyeess::yyeess:

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Now you insist the only teachings of Jesus are those in the written Bible so answer these questions solely from Scriptural quotes as you claim all is needed.

Who saw to it that Paul was accepted by the others as one of them? How do you know? I’ll help you with this one; Peter did, the Bible says it.

REPLY: Gal.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 should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews."

What is the original contents supposed to be in the Bible and where is that information presented in Scripture?

REPLY: 1 John 4:6 "We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood."

Where is it in Scripture that other prophets would come to alter the contents of the Bible and that would be acceptable?

REPLY: See above.

Where does Scripture provide the index or contents of the Bible?

REPLY: See above.

Which Apostle provided the list for an index?

REPLY: See above.

Have you compared your bible to the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate to be sure it has not been edited or censored and were the contents the same?

REPLY: See above.

Where did the Bible you refer to originate from?

REPLY: John 16:13 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

Where is it recorded that the Apostles or any of their faithful contemporaries gathered all the inspired Gospels and epistles and declared to the Christian world, “this will be the sole rule of faith after we have gone to the Lord.” ?

REPLY: 2 Peter 1:15 "And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things."

Where does it say, the written New Testament would supplant Church Teachings?

REPLY: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Where does it say that Christ intended to leave all His teachings in a single book, not in the Church, whether written, oral or otherwise?

**REPLY: See above. **

Did Christ promise to give us an authoritative book, or did He promise us an authoritative Church?: “on this rock I will build my Church” (St. Matt. 16:18). St. Paul attests that “the Church of the living God … is the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

REPLY: See above.

 

[stephraim]

…“When the names of all the Apostles are listed, Peter is always first, Judas Iscariot, the Lord’s trator, is always listed last (cf. Matt 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13). Sometmes Scripture speaks simply of “Simon Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (cf. Luke 9:32; Mark 16:7; Acts 2:37), showing that he had a special role that represented the entire apostolic college. Often, Scripture shows Simon Peter as spokesman for the entire apostolic college, as if he were the voice of the Church (cf Matt 18:21; Mark 9:29; Luke 8:45; Luke 12:41; John 6:68-69).”

The word is protos πρῶτος in Matt 10:2-5

Strong’s
4413. *protos *pro’-tos contracted superlative of 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):–before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel,
you have a lot invested in trying to make Peter just be one of the Apostles because after all, if Jesus did make Peter the leader of the church, then by rebelling against Peter and his successors, you rebel against Christ.

However, your arguments do not change the truth. Peter WAS the leader of the Apostles, having been clearly apointed by Christ as taught scripturally and traditionally. I think any non-biased observer would concede that we’ve shown that. Afterall, Peter claimed without dispute in Corinthians 15 that he was appointed out of all the Apostles to lead the Gentiles to Christ and Paul says in Galatians 2:7 that Peter was also given the responsibility of leader to the Jews. That makes up the entire church. He was renamed the rock, on which Christ’s church would be built and given the keys to heaven. Peter acted the part throughout the Gospels and Acts and was told by Jesus in John’s Gospel after the resurrection to tend his sheep. What more proof do you need?

I urge you to give up your pride and join us in the one true church. Your soul is worth so much more than your pride. As Jesus famously put it to St. Paul on the road to Damascus, (acts 26:14) you are kicking against the Goad

References to the “head” of the church in scripture are always about Christ and never about Peter. Such an office as earthly head of the church is never mentioned in scripture. Would the most important position on earth be left unmentioned if true?

 

[Cinette]

Daniel -

Matthew 16:13-20
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah and others Jeremiah or one of the Prophets”. He said to them,* “But who do you say that I am?” *Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him,

*“Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

• Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ."

Daniel - there you have it from Jesus. They are His words. He said these words which clearly show his intentions of putting Peter in charge. If you cannot see it you are not being honest. Perhaps you believe what you WANT to believe. You have to humble yourself and submit to the truth.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

The word is protos πρῶτος in Matt 10:2-5

Strong’s
4413. *protos *pro’-tos contracted superlative of 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):–before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former.

**Does this say Peter is head of the church on earth? It is significant that it leaves the most important position unmentioned, not just here but throughout scripture…

Matt:10:2-4 “These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.”**

 

[stephraim]

REPLY: 1 John 4:6 "We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood."

Who is “us”? Is it the Apostles, who “appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” (1 Clem, 44)

REPLY: 2 Peter 1:15 "And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things."

REPLY: See above.

REPLY: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

2 Tim 3:16 πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ,

1. *ophelimos *o-fel’-ee-mos from a form of 3786; helpful or serviceable, i.e. advantageous:–profit(-able).

But in fact, the full armor of God includes more than just Scripture:

Ephesians 6:13-17
Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.