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

[Daniel_Keeran]

Dan-

Please show us the chapter and verse which declares that the gifts of the Holy Spirit and public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

Thanks in advance.

The gifts ended with the death of the last person on whom the apostles laid hands. Here are some passages re the pattern that only apostles could lay on hands to impart gifts of the Holy Spirit:

1. Acts 8 - Peter and John had to be sent to Samaria because Philip who had himself received the Holy Spirit by the apostles hands could not himself impart to others.
2. Acts 19 - Paul laid hands on former disciples of John the Baptist and they began to exhibit gifts of the Holy Siprit.
3. Romans 1:11 - Paul wanted to impart some gift of the Holy Spirit to the Roman Christians
4. 2 Tim.1:6 - Paul laid hands on Timothy to impart a gift of the Holy Spirit to him
5. 1 Cor. 13 - Paul said the time would come when miraculous tongues/revelation/prophecy would cease while faith, hope, and love remain (which means before Christ returns).

Here is closer look at Acts 8:

6When the crowds heard Philip and saw the miraculous signs he did, they all paid close attention to what he said. 7With shrieks, evil** spirits came out of many, and many paralytics and cripples were healed. 8So there was great joy in that city. 9Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, 10and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is the divine power known as the Great Power.” 11They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic. 12But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. 18When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands…,

Conclusion: Philip, who had received laying on of apostles hands, could perform miraculous signs among the Samaritans. But in order for the Samaritans to receive miraculous gifts, apostles had to be sent to lay hands on them.**

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Daniel,

Looks like you have an issue with titles… maybe we need to look beyond the ‘surface shine’ and, while I beat an analogy to death… … open up the ‘hood’ and look at the ‘engine’ and see how it drives…

Peter had an important and prominent role, but was he regarded as head of the church on earth by anyone, including himself? If so, why would no one happen to mention it?

It is beyond me, why you feel that everything hinges on a title? Really. Settle in and just look at what is here - the reality is Christ chose Peter to be the Rock on which Christ founds His Church (and, that wold be the Catholic Church) on.

Now, the driving force of the Catholic Church is the Holy Spirit - the promise that Christ made is that His Church would be preserved from the Gates of Hell. With weak and sinful men in the Rock position (Pope) for the past almost 2,000 don’t you think this ‘vehicle’ would have gone off of the road, crashed, caught on fire, etc.

Look at the other ‘vehicles’ out there … the 16th Century versions. Look at how they have not only crashed on doctrine (Christ said we have to eat His Flesh if we are to have life in us and Protestants decide it is an option or a quaint idea) and burned on morals (homosexuals and abortion are an abomination vs hey everyone’s doing it so it must be OK!) Oh, did you notice all of the spin-off models … you know, everyone that wants to interpret scripture can set up their own church. And, with all of these disasters going on in the name of Christ - and…you are worried about a title?

Admittedly, we call the leader Pope instead of Rock … but, a lot happened over 2,000 years. Some allowance needs to be for the long - and very human history of the Catholic Church. But, the take home message is really quite simple: Every precept taught by Christ is followed, no error has ever been taught in Faith or Morals and the guidance of the Holy Spirit is promised until Christ brings His Bride to heaven. And, that is the way it is.

God bless

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Hi, Daniel…,

Looks like you have an issue with titles… Every precept taught by Christ is followed, no error has ever been taught in Faith or Morals and the guidance of the Holy Spirit is promised until Christ brings His Bride to heaven. And, that is the way it is.

God bless

Of course Catholics believe there has never been error taught because whatever the church teaches in council with the Pope, is absolutely true.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Your question begins with the presupposition that the office is never mentioned in scripture.

You have been shown repeatedly that it is.

Peter receives the keys of the office of Prime Minister from the King, Jesus Christ.
Peter receives the crozier of the shepherd of the Church from the Good Shepherd Himself.

I don’t think there’s a whole lot more that can be done for you at this point, but I thank you for providing a great springboard for Catholics to reaffirm their confidence in and understanding of the history of the papacy. A lot of great material has been shared in this thread, and all of us are stronger in our faith as a result.

Still, no mention in sacred scripture of Peter as head of the church on earth, nor any mention at all of such an office of successors with qualifications for same, of this most important office on earth. The keys were indeed given to Peter, and he did indeed use them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The gifts ended with the death of the last person on whom the apostles laid hands. Here are some passages re the pattern that only apostles could lay on hands to impart gifts of the Holy Spirit:

1. Acts 8 - Peter and John had to be sent to Samaria because Philip who had himself received the Holy Spirit by the apostles hands could not himself impart to others.
2. Acts 19 - Paul laid hands on former disciples of John the Baptist and they began to exhibit gifts of the Holy Siprit.
3. Romans 1:11 - Paul wanted to impart some gift of the Holy Spirit to the Roman Christians
4. 2 Tim.1:6 - Paul laid hands on Timothy to impart a gift of the Holy Spirit to him
5. 1 Cor. 13 - Paul said the time would come when miraculous tongues/revelation/prophecy would cease while faith, hope, and love remain (which means before Christ returns).

Here is closer look at Acts 8:

6When the crowds heard Philip and saw the miraculous signs he did, they all paid close attention to what he said. 7With shrieks, evil** spirits came out of many, and many paralytics and cripples were healed. 8So there was great joy in that city. 9Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, 10and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is the divine power known as the Great Power.” 11They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic. 12But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw. **

14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. 18When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands…,

Conclusion: Philip, who had received laying on of apostles hands, could perform miraculous signs among the Samaritans. But in order for the Samaritans to receive miraculous gifts, apostles had to be sent to lay hands on them.

Well, this is very interesting, and it only goes to show how difficult it can be trying to understand the many and varied beliefs of non-Catholics. Can anyone imagine this argument coming from a member of the Assemblies of God?

As an aside, why is it permissable for you to put together a string of passages and then infer a conclusion that is not stated specifically in this case, but if I put together a series of passages about the "primacy’ of Peter, I’m wrong? You’re looking at Philip and the actions of the Apostles and deciding that only Apostles could impart the gift of the Spirit without benefit of a text that actually states what you conclude. Catholics have done something similar (though I believe with far more to work with) in arguing for Peter’s leadership of the early Church, and you reject our conclusion out of hand? What kind of double standard is this?

So, from this passage, you draw the conclusion that the Holy Spirit could only be received from the hands of the Apostles and not from anyone who was not an Apostle, correct? Thus, no one since the first century has received any of the gifts of the Spirit?

Well, I can’t imagine how many Protestants would have a fit if you told them that because they are all convinced that Jesus promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to each individual believer…they’re all convinced that they are individually led by the Spirit into “all truth” - despite the fact that they believe conflicting and contradictory things. But I digress.

Is this really what the Bible teaches?

Acts 2:38
"38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

It looks to me like the Holy Spirit is received in baptism. Perhaps you read this differently.

Moreover, Paul writes to the Corinthians with these words:

1 Corinthians 12:27-31
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But eagerly desire the greater gifts.

Why would Paul (and the Holy Spirit) be instructing us about the gifts of the Spirit and encouraging us to desire them if they were not to be had?

Paul also wrote to Timothy and Titus:

1 Timothy 4:13-14
Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

Titus 1:5

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

Apostolic Succession is illustrated here as Paul had appointed Titus and left him in charge of appointing elders in the Cretan church.

Timothy and Titus were in the category of those who LIKE PHILIP had hands laid on them by Apostles…yet an Apostle, Paul, clearly expects them to do the same thing to others!

1 Timothy 5:22
22Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

Why would Timothy be laying hands on anyone at all? Clearly Paul anticipates that Timothy will be ordaining others, and encourages him to be prudent about the men that that he (Timothy) chose to ordain.

But we can set this aside because what I really want to focus on is the idea that public revelation has ended with the death of the last Apostle? Where is the verse I asked for?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

You mean other than Jesus?

A. Because it was common knowledge so it didn’t need to be mentioned?
B) Because both the Jews and the Romans were killing the leaders of the Church as fast as they could so why put Peter at risk?

**Jesus did not happen to mention that Peter was head of the church on earth, and Paul only knows of Christ as head while Peter only knows of Christ as Chief Shepherd. Points A and B simply agree with the lack of mention of Peter as head of the church. Re point A, why mention Christ is head? Was it not common knowledge? Re point B, why name any of the apostles? Did it not put them at risk? **

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

…As an aside, why is it permissable for you to put together a string of passages and then infer a conclusion that is not stated specifically in this case, but if I put together a series of passages about the "primacy’ of Peter, I’m wrong? You’re looking at Philip and the actions of the Apostles and deciding that only Apostles could impart the gift of the Spirit without benefit of a text that actually states what you conclude. Catholics have done something similar (though I believe with far more to work with) in arguing for Peter’s leadership of the early Church, and you reject our conclusion out of hand? What kind of double standard is this?

**REPLY: Where does scripture say Timothy, Titus, or any of the deacons such as Philip could lay hands on others to receive supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit? Nowhere, but we do find apostles doing this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Still, no mention in sacred scripture of Peter as head of the church on earth, nor any mention at all of such an office of successors with qualifications for same, of this most important office on earth. The keys were indeed given to Peter, and he did indeed use them.

Wow. Another minor concession.

So, you’ve agreed that

1. Peter “with his confession” is the Rock, and
2. Peter has the keys and used them.

Whew!

So, what do these keys signify in terms of authority? Does the prime minister act or speak on behalf of the king in his absence?

Would it help you to consider Joseph’s position vis-a-vis Pharoah in Egypt, for example?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson;5142222:

…As an aside, why is it permissable for you to put together a string of passages and then infer a conclusion that is not stated specifically in this case, but if I put together a series of passages about the "primacy’ of Peter, I’m wrong? You’re looking at Philip and the actions of the Apostles and deciding that only Apostles could impart the gift of the Spirit without benefit of a text that actually states what you conclude. Catholics have done something similar (though I believe with far more to work with) in arguing for Peter’s leadership of the early Church, and you reject our conclusion out of hand? What kind of double standard is this?

**REPLY: Where does scripture say Timothy, Titus, or any of the deacons such as Philip could lay hands on others to receive supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit? Nowhere, but we do find apostles doing this. **

You were obviously responding as I was making a few edits as I addressed this question. Please revisit my post now that it is complete. Thanks.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

1 Corinthians 12:27-31
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But eagerly desire the greater gifts.

Why would Paul (and the Holy Spirit) be instructing us about the gifts of the Spirit and encouraging us to desire them if they were not to be had?

**REPLY: Paul would be visiting again to lay hands on those who desired gifts. **

Paul also wrote to Timothy and Titus:

1 Timothy 4:13-14
Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

Titus 1:5

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

Apostolic Succession is illustrated here as Paul had appointed Titus and left him in charge of appointing elders in the Cretan church.

Timothy and Titus were in the category of those who LIKE PHILIP had hands laid on them by Apostles…yet an Apostle, Paul, clearly expects them to do the same thing to others!

1 Timothy 5:22
22Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

Why would Timothy be laying hands on anyone at all? Clearly Paul anticipates that Timothy will be ordaining others, and encourages him to be prudent about the men that that he (Timothy) chose to ordain.

REPLY: Gifts of the Holy Spirit required apostles to be sent for laying on of their hands in Acts 8. The appointment by laying on of hands upon those meeting qualifications of elders is not the same. The gift received by Timothy ocurred when the elders laid hands along with Paul, an apostle. Paul said the gift in Timothy was BY his hands WHEN the elders also laid hands.

 

[Cinette]

Wow!! Daniel!

Its morning and I have just woken up to find that you are still protesting, still denying!

Well, that is why you are a Protestant, I guess!

You must be sleeping right now and I wish you sweet dreams. I hope you are not busy dreaming up something else which is outrageous and absurb!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus did not happen to mention that Peter was head of the church on earth,

Not in terms that are plain enough for you apparently. But a few billion people over the past 2,000 years have understood this easily enough.

** and Paul only knows of Christ as head while Peter only knows of Christ as Chief Shepherd. **

You’re mixing your metaphors again. I’ve already addressed this, but here is a snippet of that again:

Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:

“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrative are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)

Points A and B simply agree with the lack of mention of Peter as head of the church. Re point A, why mention Christ is head? Was it not common knowledge?

Uh…no.

That’s why the Apostles were out evangelizing.

**Re point B, why name any of the apostles? Did it not put them at risk? **

Again…uh, no. Well, maybe. Many of them had already been martyred by the time these books were written. When John wrote his gospel, for example, the Church was on its fourth pope. But there probably was some risk to those who were still alive. All but John were maryted and John was exiled to Patmos, remember?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Wow. Another minor concession.

So, you’ve agreed that

1. Peter “with his confession” is the Rock, and
2. Peter has the keys and used them.

Whew!

So, what do these keys signify in terms of authority? Does the prime minister act or speak on behalf of the king in his absence?

Would it help you to consider Joseph’s position vis-a-vis Pharoah in Egypt, for example?

REPLY: One should not read into scripture more than is spoken. Yes Peter is rock WITH his confession, and yes Peter is given the keys. But what does “keys” mean? We only know by what is played out in scripture thereafter. He first opened the kingdom to Jew and Gentile, so maybe it means that. But to say “keys” means Peter is appointed head of the church on earth, is something that is not played out or referred to in scripture thereafter, so I honestly cannot believe it especially since the phrase IS found in scripture but applied only to Christ. Can you reflect me so that I know you understand what I am saying?

 

[Randy_Carson]

**REPLY: Paul would be visiting again to lay hands on those who desired gifts. **

I’d certainly love for Paul to stop by my house, but that isn’t likely. And the scriptures were written for us, too.

REPLY: Gifts of the Holy Spirit required apostles to be sent for laying on of their hands in Acts 8. The appointment by laying on of hands upon those meeting qualifications of elders is not the same. The gift received by Timothy ocurred when the elders laid hands along with Paul, an apostle. Paul said the gift in Timothy was BY his hands WHEN the elders also laid hands.

So?

You said that Philip had hands laid on him by apostles and he could do miracles but he could not convey the Spirit to anyone else.

Timothy had hands laid on him by Paul, and by your reasoning, Timothy (and Titus) could not impart the Spirit to anyone…Paul would have to pass through town again.

Yet, as I pointed out, Paul clearly expects Timothy to lay hands on others who would (in turn) be prepared to annoint others and so on and so on. This is evident from the fact that Paul warns Timothy to be cautious about who he ordained. Paul knew it was a SERIOUS matter.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Daniel

You had me worried there for a minute …

Of course Catholics believe there has never been error taught because whatever the church teaches in council with the Pope, is absolutely true.

Yep, for a minute there… I thought you were going to totally ignore the rest of my post and merely repeat yourself for the nth time about, “Where does it say…” You know, the item that so well ANSWERS your worn out question is found in the last Chapter of John’s Gospel… here, let me help you with that section: John 21:25

***There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. ***

And for a minute there… I thought you were going to totally ignore the fact that the Catholic Church was born on that First Pentecost Sunday - while the Bible you are failing to read with understanding is 300 years younger…and put together by that same Catholic Church you are criticizing.

Son-of-a-gun… you must have hit the delete key to your response that I just know you crafted in response to these questions! Tell 'ya what … why not go back to your COPY and re-paste those resonses. You certainly would not want us to think you were just hitting your repeat key when it coms to “Where does it say…” like it seems you have been doing.

Just try a little harder - and don’t repeat yourself. Just answer the questions asked. Why … you can even start with mine…

God bless

 

[Randy_Carson]

REPLY: One should not read into scripture more than is spoken. Yes Peter is rock WITH his confession, and yes Peter is given the keys. But what does “keys” mean? We only know by what is played out in scripture thereafter. He first opened the kingdom to Jew and Gentile, so maybe it means that. But to say “keys” means Peter is appointed head of the church on earth, is something that is not played out or referred to in scripture thereafter, so I honestly cannot believe it especially since the phrase IS found in scripture but applied only to Christ. Can you reflect me so that I know you understand what I am saying?

Dan-

What you’re saying does not make any sense. Jesus could have chosen any imagery he wanted or even NONE AT ALL when He was speaking to Peter.

Yet, He chose the one image (the keys) from Is. 22:22 that was SO PREGNANT WITH MEANING that no Israelite would miss it.

You and I have to do some work to cross the cultural divide, but the Jews of that period would have instantly understood the significance of Peter’s appointment as vicar of Christ.

As for Christ being the head of the Church, no problem! But Jesus left Peter in charge because He knew He would be returning to heaven. Peter had been groomed for three years for the role he was to fill.

 

[paul_c]

REPLY: One should not read into scripture more than is spoken. Yes Peter is rock WITH his confession, and yes Peter is given the keys. But what does “keys” mean? We only know by what is played out in scripture thereafter. He first opened the kingdom to Jew and Gentile, so maybe it means that. But to say “keys” means Peter is appointed head of the church on earth, is something that is not played out or referred to in scripture thereafter, so I honestly cannot believe it especially since the phrase IS found in scripture but applied only to Christ. Can you reflect me so that I know you understand what I am saying?

Daniel, isn’t opening the kingdom to Jew and Gentile everything the Church’s leader could do? After all, what else is there? And how can you say that his leadership is not played out in scripture. Reread the frist 15 chapters of the Acts of the Apostles so you can answer these questions. Who sets the requirement for the replacement of Judas? Who speaks for the Apostles at Pentactost. Who orders the frist converts to be baptized. Who is the first apostle to heal after Pentacost? Who preaches to the crowds in the aftermath. Who speaks for the apostles to the chief priest? Who chastizes Anias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit about their Donations? Who is called to bring Gentiles into the church? Who takes the definitive postion on jewish worship by Gentile converts at the Council of Jerusalem? The answer is that in all cases, the person exercising this leadership is Peter, the Rock…

Jesus founded the church. This is clear. It is also clear that without Jesus, there would be no church. But he put Peter in charge when ascended into heaven. How can this be made any more clear? You don’t even have to infer anything. His leadership is in plain sight.

 

[Cinette]

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

This is a statement which I went to bed with last night and to which I need a response.

Can you please tell me where in the Scriptures can I find reference to the “primacy” of James??

I hope you will respond to this question.

Thank you

 

[Cinette]

If it was Jesus intention to put Peter in charge of the whole church on earth, the church did not get it or reflect it in sacred scripture.

Daniel!

You may be a writer but that doesn’t make you right!

I see you advertise yourself as being a writer of theology among other things. It appears that you do not pay attention to all the evidence and proof that are presented to you here on this thread. A writer on theology has a duty to present Truth.

Jesus also told us that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth. Peter was appointed by Jesus to be in charge of His Church with the Holy Spirit to guide him. Is that so difficult to understand?

It is through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the Church today is still One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. It is also a reason why Protestants protest - because the Catholic Church will not bend to the will of the people. The Church cannot and will not compromise TRUTH!

 

[steve_b]

**Still, no mention in sacred scripture of Peter as head of the church on earth, **

When Jesus puts one apostle over everyone else, that apostle is the head. Since we are talking about the Church, That apostle is head of the Church

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

said a bit differently with additional points, emphasising Peter
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3684508&postcount=364

After the resurrection and before the Ascension, Jesus in front of ALL the apostles, singled out Peter, and told Peter to feed and rule my sheep (poimaino IS the Greek word used there* which means rule**) [Jn 21:16]***

Scripturally, Jesus didn’t use

Rock on which to build His Church, with anyone other than Peter.
keys of the kingdom with anyone else other than Peter,
rule feed ***confirm ***with anyone other than Peter.

When Jesus was doing this for Peter, who really is doing this? It’s God the Father.

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.