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

[tqualey]

Hi, Daniel,

Let me commend you for changing the way you are approaching this topic - it really is appreciated.

**So you are rebuking Paul.

Peter deserved rebuke because he refused to eat with Gentile Christians who were uncircumcised. Paul observed Jewish customs among non-Christian Jews and newly converted Chrisian Jews in order to win them to Christ, not because obedience to the law is a condition of salvation which he warned the Galatian Christians for being seduced into believing.

Did Paul EVER teach or communicate that obedience to the law is a condition of salvation? NO. Did Paul ever refuse to eat with uncircumcised Gentile Christians out of fear of the circumcision? NO. Many Christian Jews today observe the law out of custom and to not offend the Jews, not as a condition of salvation. **

It appears to me that a very big section of God’s Plan is being missed. Just as a practical matter, since God has Freely Chosen to work with sinful men - as opposed to angels. And, since the process of this work involves a gradual unfolding of His Divine Plan - as opposed to the Entire Plan being presented to the Apostles on a ‘very early version’ of PowerPoint with charts and graphics at a corporate-style meeting in Jerusalem… I think we need to need to get off of this rebuke kick and look at these guys for who they were. Honest, God-fearing men, filled with the Holy Spirit and making sincere efforts to follow God’s Will AS BEST THEY UNDERSTOOD IT.

The fumbles pointed out are real - and, if nothing else - show the power of God to bring abut His Will as He worked through these Apostles. Recognize that it was God Who slected Peter to be the Leader (Pope…!) and that was Peter’s role. God could have chosen Paul - but, He chose him for a different role. Just because Peter was the Leader and had special inspiration from the Holy Spirit, does not preclude the Holy Spirit inspiring Peter through Paul’s rebuke. And, are things any different today for us? No. Look how we all pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance, and inspiration and understanding - and how these wonderful Gifts can come to us through the hands of others (e.g., on this list!)

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Daniel,

Now this is an interesting question? God being forgetful…“Oh, where did I put those keys?”!!!

**Your reference to Jesus’ prayer for unity is central. If in fact Peter with his successors is the basis of unity as you say above, why does Jesus not make even a vague reference **to this in his historic prayer for the unity of believers??? Did Jesus forget that he appointed Peter with the keys and successors to be the foundation of unity??? No, the fact is this was not the intention of Jesus in the first place.

It is the same Christ, Who prayered that Peter would not be ‘sifted like wheat’ by the Devil. It is not recorded that He refused to pray for the other Apostles for a similar intention (personally, I think all were prayed for) - but, the issue was that Peter was singled out at the Last Supper for this special prayer. (Recall, this was shortly after Christ verbally knocked Peter in the head for wanting more then his feet washed by Christ! Peter is a truly unique kind of guy compared with the other Apostles - and Christ took those unique qualities and worked with them as Christ developed Peter for Leadership.)

Unless I am mis-reading your posts, it honestly appears as though the argument is not so much against Peter for being Leader, but with Christ for His commissioning Peter in this role. This is a serious matter.

I think you will find is that Peter was not perfect. Over and over again, we see where Peter does more then put his foot in his mouth. Ah, but then Penetcost comes - and, truly, Peter - WHILE STILL THE LEADER - is a changed man. And, I think that is the take home message.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Daniel,

There are seveal references … and I am really surprised at this question.

Where does scripture say Peter represented Christ any more uniquely than any other apostle? Jesus told all the apostles they would do the same works and greater than those Jesus did.

There is actually a dialogue between Peter and Christ on this matter. A certain back and forth that shows that this is not a common - but, an extraordinary relationship.

Peter clearly states, “We have left all to follow you…” as in speaking for the Apostles, And, Christ pays the tax for Himself and Peter (but, not the other Apostles) with the fish Crist told Peter to catch. Peter, declares that Christ is the Messiah - and Christ commissions Peter the foundation of His Church (the other Apostles just watched). After the Resurrection, it is Peter who speaks to the crowd on that First Pentecost Sunday, declares that the Apostles will answer to God rather then Pharisees!

While there are other references - the take home message is that while Peter is an Apostle - he is not just one of the Apostles - because Christ appointed him to be the leader.

God bless

Tom

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Daniel,

**Just wondering, have you put me on your ignore list. **

You seem to have answered everyone elses’s post but you have not responded to any of mine (640 and 641 in particular).

So, what’s with that?

 

[benedictus2]

Where does scripture say Peter represented Christ any more uniquely than any other apostle? Jesus told all the apostles they would do the same works and greater than those Jesus did.

Well how about that passage in John 21. you know when he addressed Peter SPECIFICICALLY, and told Peter to tend to His lambs and sheep.

Now every other disciple was there, why single Peter out?

In Matthew 16:18 every other disciple was there why single Peter out?

When He was about to die, Satan asked to sift all his disciple but He prayed ONLY FOR PETER. Why?

Pay attention to Matthew 16. Everyone is in confusion. No one seemed to know who Christ really is. They were all following Him because He must have had a compelling persona but other than that they know zilch about who He truly is.

Then through all that speculation and uncertainty Peter makes a definitive pronouncement about who Christ is and what His mission is.

And what did Christ say? That only the Father could have revealed that to him. Do you even get that? FATHER HIMSELF CHOSE PETER. So here even the Father steps in. The Father did not choose, James, John, etc. The Father did not choose Paul. Who did the Father choose? Peter.

As I have said before, your issue is not with the Catholic Church. Your issue is with Christ and the Father. YOU ARE MIFFED THAT THEY CHOSE PETER…

In your persistent denial, it is not us who you are arguing against. You are arguing against Christ and His Father. You have a major problem with His choice of Peter.

You claim that everything should be squared against scripture and yet here your denial of scripture is so blatant. You are not followingt scripture. You are following yoru own ego.

You need to bow before the cross iin humble submission accept Christ’s and the Father’s CHOICES. Yes, Daniel whether you like it or not Christ chose Peter and gave Him primacy over the other apostles. And you do not like that.

You claim to be Chrisitan and yet when it comes to Christ’s will you baulk. You insist on your own.

 

[benedictus2]

**Your reference to Jesus’ prayer for unity is central. If in fact Peter with his successors is the basis of unity as you say above, why does Jesus not make even a vague reference **to this in his historic prayer for the unity of believers??? Did Jesus forget that he appointed Peter with the keys and successors to be the foundation of unity??? No, the fact is this was not the intention of Jesus in the first place.

He didn’t need to. Everyone of His apostles remembers the event in Ceasarian Philipi. Everyone was there listening as Jesus chose Peter. And unlike you, they did not have a problem with that because they recognized that it was the Lord’s prerogative to choose who He pleases.

Also, when He prayed the prayer of unity it was not necessary to name Peter because the whole point of the discourse is that there will be only ONE Church. Since in Matthew 16:18 He has already told all His disciples that it was Peter upon which the Church will be built, therefore when he prayed for his disciples to be one, He was praying for His Church which He will build upon Peter to be one as well.

This discourse He maked before His death. What did He do after he has risen? He appoints Peter to be the shepherd of HIS sheep.

Can we conclude from this then that if Peter is not shepherding you therefore you do not belong to Christ’s sheep? Think about that. You are refusing to be tended by the very person Christ has appointed to tend to you.

 

[benedictus2]

**The fact Jesus is God is written several places in scripture because it is a fundamental point. Where is it written even once that Peter was head of the church on earth? **

Maaann you really are dense. It seems I have encountered this same question from you addressed to different people.

MATTHEW 16. Read that!

This kind of thing is not just a given. Such an important central fact would have been clearly stated at least once and repeated several times if true. Your excuses simply admit the obvious: Peter was not in fact head of the church on earth.

This kind of thing is definitely a given because Christ HIMSELF made it a given.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Daniel,

I am starting to get worried about you… Your view that James is the one who gave THE (emphasis added) final judgment on the matter of the newly converted Gentiles following the Law of Moses is not support by the Scripture. Let’s take a look at Acts 15:1-22…and see what it actually tells us.

**I have never said James was the singular head of any church, but he most certainly was the one who gave the final judgment that was accepted by the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. **

** Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.”
2
Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question. Here in v 1-2 we have the basis for the controversy and the initial actions taken as recorded by Luke after the fact.**
3
They were sent on their journey by the church, and passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling of the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.
4
When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them.
5
But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.” Since the author is identifying this group as a ‘party’ - we may assume that there were sides drawn up (pro and con) as to the question.
6
The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
7
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, ** It is at this point that the debate is now over. Peter has spoken and note he did not quote any OT scripture. Peter has developed new doctrine under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8
And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9
He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10
Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11
On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”
12
The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.
13
After they had fallen silent, James responded, “My brothers, listen to me.
14
Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.
15
The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written:
16
‘After this I shall return and rebuild the fallen hut of David; from its ruins I shall rebuild it and raise it up again,
17
so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord, even all the Gentiles on whom my name is invoked. Thus says the Lord who accomplishes these things,
18
known from of old.’
19
It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,
20
but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.
21
For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.”
22
Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers.**

It would be cute to have summarized James’ statement as, “And, that goes for me, too!” but that is not quite how it went. Peter decided the circumcision issue - and James is still definitely a pro-Law of Moses kind-of-guy … so, while not arguing with the decision, he decided to add his own section. Note: giving scandal is still sinful as is idol worship. Peter could have objected (he is not known for being a wall-flower) but allowed it to pass. We see later on how Paul moves away from this - which is, of course, a subject for another thread.

The bottom line is: read the Scriptures: we have debate/discussion by the assembeled group, resolution by the only one who had the authority to resolve the issue: Peter and then we move forward to another topic. This is Leadership in action… it just happens to be in the Infant Church - but, there it is.

Hopefully this puts the matter to rest.

God Bless

 

[Cinette]

The fact Jesus is God is written several places in scripture because it is a fundamental point. Where is it written even once that Peter was head of the church on earth? This kind of thing is not just a given. Such an important central fact would have been clearly stated at least once and repeated several times if true. Your excuses simply admit the obvious: Peter was not in fact head of the church on earth.

So I guess when Jesus told Simon that “you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” He was wanting to play hop scotch!!

Daniel you are a joke - you deny history - you have your own unique private interpretation of the scriptures and I guess believe Jesus was a Protestant!

Your arguments are shallow and limited to No! or very little more and yet you advertise yourself as being a writer of theology. I would give no credance to such a claim whatsoever, given the postings you have made on this thread.

You use Catholic Answers to advertise your books but I cannot see anyone reading your postings would rush out to purchase your books. I think you should show more respect for CAF. As the name implies one comes on to the forums to seek answers.

You totally ignore 1500 years of Church history except to say that the Church erred and infer that Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth was a lie.

The Catholic Church quite rightly recognises Protestants as our separated brothers and sisters who possess part of the truth. However, anyone who denies the Real Presence, Apostolic Succession, Tradition and many other Church teachings is a deviator. We have the Pope and the Magisterium to keep us on track. From the very beginning the Church had to fight against heresay and this will continue until the end of time.

You are not here to seek answers but to dispute whatever answers are provided. That is your mission. Of that I have no doubt as is evidenced by the responses you have given to those who have gone out of their way to provide scriptual support for their answers.

What could have been a most interesting discussion on both sides is spoilt by your avoidance of certain questions and your erroneous and unsupported statements.

Alas!

 

[Cinette]

Hi, Daniel,

Now this is an interesting question? God being forgetful…“Oh, where did I put those keys?”!!!

It is the same Christ, Who prayered that Peter would not be ‘sifted like wheat’ by the Devil. It is not recorded that He refused to pray for the other Apostles for a similar intention (personally, I think all were prayed for) - but, the issue was that Peter was singled out at the Last Supper for this special prayer. (Recall, this was shortly after Christ verbally knocked Peter in the head for wanting more then his feet washed by Christ! Peter is a truly unique kind of guy compared with the other Apostles - and Christ took those unique qualities and worked with them as Christ developed Peter for Leadership.)

Unless I am mis-reading your posts, it honestly appears as though the argument is not so much against Peter for being Leader, but with Christ for His commissioning Peter in this role. This is a serious matter.

I think you will find is that Peter was not perfect. Over and over again, we see where Peter does more then put his foot in his mouth. Ah, but then Penetcost comes - and, truly, Peter - WHILE STILL THE LEADER - is a changed man. And, I think that is the take home message.

God bless

Hurrah! I was thinking about this same thing a moment ago! It is wonderful how Peter was transformed by the Holy Spirit. Yes, Peter who was always putting his foot in his mouth!! Jesus knew what he was doing and it is encouraging for us when we are asked to perform a task for which we feel we are incompetent or ill-prepared to remember that Jesus chose mere Fishermen. This thought has sustained me whenever I have been called to lead a group.

Thank you for that Tom
Cheers
Cinette

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Daniel,

I am starting to get worried about you… Your view that James is the one who gave THE (emphasis added) final judgment on the matter of the newly converted Gentiles following the Law of Moses is not support by the Scripture. Let’s take a look at Acts 15:1-22…and see what it actually tells us.
V
V
V
The bottom line is: read the Scriptures: we have debate/discussion by the assembeled group, resolution by the only one who had the authority to resolve the issue: Peter and then we move forward to another topic. This is Leadership in action… it just happens to be in the Infant Church - but, there it is.

Hopefully this puts the matter to rest.

God Bless

What a truly wonderful post !!! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

But put the matter to rest!!! Tom Qualey. Man of great faith

 

[benedictus2]

Hurrah! I was thinking about this same thing a moment ago! It is wonderful how Peter was transformed by the Holy Spirit. Yes, Peter who was always putting his foot in his mouth!!

I think that is what I love about Peter. The fact that he always has his foot in his mouth.

 

[benedictus2]

So I guess when Jesus told Simon that “you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” He was wanting to play hop scotch!!

Rugby actually. Apparently Simon is a big burly fisherman. Hop scotch would be a bit pansy.

But let me check with Daniel. He may have a diffierent game in his version of the gospels.

 

[benedictus2]

What could have been a most interesting discussion on both sides is spoilt by your avoidance of certain questions

You’re waiting for answers too???!!! Sister, take a number. He has answered some of yours and zilch of mine. So I think it’s my turn this time.

 

[Cinette]

Daniel!

I see Benedictus is complaining she is still waiting for answers to her questions! I notice there are also outstanding questions by twb as well!

 

[Des]

**

The fact Jesus is God is written several places in scripture because it is a fundamental point. Where is it written even once that Peter was head of the church on earth? This kind of thing is not just a given. Such an important central fact would have been clearly stated at least once and repeated several times if true. Your excuses simply admit the obvious: Peter was not in fact head of the church on earth.

**
Hey Daniel. Since you want an explicit verse (other than Matt16:16) describing Peter as the first Pope, how about you give us one where it says the 68 books of the Bible are the final authority. And to use your own words against you, this kind of thing is not just a given. Such an important central fact of protestantism would have been clearly stated at least once and repeated several times if true. And please make sure it’s explicit enough so we don’t have to argue about it either. Thanks.

Oh, and one or more verses explicitly stating Jesus commanding His Apostles to write for future generations of illiterates for hundreds and hundreds of years to come, would be much appreciated as well. After all, it’s a big world so they had better get started with the writing.

One last thing. I’d also like to understand how these Apostles can live long enough to ‘preach’ the good news into all the world and to all creation since you do not believe they had successors. Mark 16:15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.

 

[steve_b]

**What are the implications if this Cephas IS the Peter whom Paul rebuked **

---

The implications are, Paul learned from Peter a valuable lesson that he would adopt for himself. Explained next.
**

dan:
I think clearly the context demands that this Cephas is the same as Peter who is claimed by many to be the singular head of the church and presence of Christ on earth.**

**AND **

Paul ripped a page out of Peter’s play book, i.e. be flexable with those you’re converting, so as not to lose anyone. Paul adopted Peter’s practice for himself.

I mentioned this previously with LionHeart
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5149249&postcount=689

 

[Randy_Carson]

So you are rebuking Paul.

Does that offend your Protestant sensibilities? I can’t help but noticing that many Protestants spend so much time reading Paul that they neglect Jesus in the Gospels. Do you think Paul was above reproach?

Peter deserved rebuke because he refused to eat with Gentile Christians who were uncircumcised. Paul observed Jewish customs among non-Christian Jews and newly converted Chrisian Jews in order to win them to Christ, not because obedience to the law is a condition of salvation which he warned the Galatian Christians for being seduced into believing.

Did Paul EVER teach or communicate that obedience to the law is a condition of salvation? NO. Did Paul ever refuse to eat with uncircumcised Gentile Christians out of fear of the circumcision? NO. Many Christian Jews today observe the law out of custom and to not offend the Jews, not as a condition of salvation.

**Paul was right. Peter was wrong in repeating his pattern of cowardice. Peter must have remembered how he denied the Lord three times and hopefully again felt shame and remorse. **

Paul was right in this instance. But you might benefit from reading my post again. Paul was just as guilty of preaching one thing and doing another as the examples I gave clearly suggest.

Do you believe the Cephas in Galatians 2, second-named among three reputed pillars, is the Peter of Matthew 16 and head of the whole church on earth or do you believe the visions of the so-called mystics?

Paul repeatedly refers to Simon as Cephas; Galatians 2 is just one example. This is evidence that Paul himself understood Peter’s primacy in the Church, and he mentions the incident in Gal. 2 in order to position himself in the eyes of the Galatians who A) knew that Peter was top dog, and B) had been swayed by the preaching of Apollos.

Do you also believe the house of Mary was miraculously transported by angels to Loreto, Italy?

Mary’s house (built by John) is in Ephesus.

sacred-destinations.com/turkey/images/ephesus/house-of-virgin/resized/house-of-virgin-c-helen-betts.jpg

sacred-destinations.com/turkey/ephesus-house-of-the-virgin.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

Where does scripture say Peter represented Christ any more uniquely than any other apostle? Jesus told all the apostles they would do the same works and greater than those Jesus did.

Show me a scripture where any Apostle does the things that Peter does.

Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat.
Jesus tells Peter to walk on the water.
Jesus tells Peter to pay the temple tax on behalf of Christ.
God gives Peter the revelation that Jesus is the Christ.
Jesus tells Peter that he is the rock the Church will be built upon.
Jesus gives Peter the keys from Is. 22:22.
Jesus prays for Peter (and not all the disciples) so that Peter may in turn strengthen the others.
Jesus tells Peter to care for His flock in a unique way.
Peter infallibly interprets scripture and oversees the election of Matthias.
Peter rebukes Ananias and Saphira.

etc. etc.

At best you’re going to be able to say that Paul raised the boy who fell out of the window, but Peter had also raised the dead girl.

I’m not arguing that none of the others were important or had the gifts that Peter had. But I am saying the Jesus and the Holy Spirit have made Peter so prominent in the New Testament for a reason…so that no one could miss the fact that the Church had a visible head in Peter and his successors.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Your reference to Jesus’ prayer for unity is central. If in fact Peter with his successors is the basis of unity as you say above, why does Jesus not make even a vague reference **to this in his historic prayer for the unity of believers??? Did Jesus forget that he appointed Peter with the keys and successors to be the foundation of unity??? No, the fact is this was not the intention of Jesus in the first place.

What a bogus argument…a new low, Dan.

Our nation is called the “United” States of America. We also have a leader.

A sports team may be united in their efforts to win a championship and still have a leader in their coach or best player.