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

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

Ya’ gt me! There is probably just a touch of delusional thinking in there, too!

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

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

Have a great day.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cinette,

Look at all of these posts directly addressed to Daniel… look at how many efforts at providing honest and clearly stated responses have been made … and now look at Daniel’s tactics. Seriously, Dan seems to lack shame … and integrity apparently went out the window a while ago!

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!

Daniel, the honest approach, in my opinion, would be to respond to the questions asked - as opposed to what we all have been seeing: ignoring direct response, repeating the denial (as if saying “No, no, no” makes for a stronger, as opposed to a louder, argument.) One response, of course, is, “I don’t know” - and, I think a lot of us could easily relate to this! Another response is, “Thank you” for the obvious work that went into freely providing yo with research, insight and genuine wisdom. Unfortunately, at least for me, I have been fatigued by the way these posts of yours have gone out of their way to evade. It really looks like mischief to me…and,that is both sad and frustrating. Surely, those who taught you writing and logic said something about actually addressing the needs of your audience. This ‘audience’ is quite interactive, not bashful about engaging and articulate. If ever ther was a group where a knowledge of Christ and His Church could be easily found - CAF is it…yet, look you appear to be be abusing the honest efforts of others.

It would not be accurate to leave un-mentioned that you have made changes. And, while I do appreciate them - more really needs to be done. I can appreciate that you have received a lot of e-mails on particular topics - and responding back can require a real - and possibly difficult time commitment. But, this is what happens when you engage the members of CAF! Please, if for no other reason then your own integrity, respond to those questions you have been obviously avoiding. We all search for Christ. Chances are, researching your thoughtful responses, will help you in your own personal search.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Des,

What an excellent post! It was a pleasure to read - and - took Daniel’s logic and made it a two-way street! I was bit tired when i read your post - but, it certainly perked me up - and I just laughed and laughed! Nice job!

---

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.

Have a great day

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dan,

Did you know that as the leaders of the young US were looking to General George Washington for leadership to this newly established position… they ran into a snag! The really did not know what they wanted to call him - (General would imply a military rule that they definitely did not want, “Mr. Washington” did not distinguish him in his new office … “Sir Washington” appeared European…so, they asked our 1st President … and he said, “Mr. President” and so it has been. This little bit of history is provided (mainly because you brought up the US Presidency) so you can see it just takes time - and it takes effort to develop an office.

My point remains unanswered. The President of the United States is referred to as such repeatedly. A coach of a sports team is referred to as such repeatedly. But Peter is not even once referred to as the head of the church on earth although Christ is referred to as such repeatedly.

This is my last post on this thread. Thanks to all for a respectful exchange of views.

You probably have guessed that there are things that are lost when one tries to import items from their culture onto the culture of others - in an effort to dispute the distant culture. Here we not only have issues that are almost 2,000 years old, done with an eastern (as opposed to western) mind-set - but also - have God Himself as the Originator (“Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Heavenly Father!”)

I think it wise that you take the time to dis-engage and reflect on what has been provided. Maybe the next time you post, you will provide us with actual answers that will further dialogue. The point is not really to agree - but, at least as I see it - have an intellectually honest exchange. Such an approach enriches all parties. In my opinion we have all done an excellent job of providing you with answers - please: do your part to shoulder the load as a partner in dialogue.

God bless

 

[Cinette]

---

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.

Loved your post - a minor correction: Protestants have 66 not 68 books in their bibles.

Cinette

 

[Cinette]

Christ repeatedly identifies Peter as the head of the Church. He just doesn’t say it the way YOU want him to say it. Instead He says

• Simon, your name is now Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church. I, God the son, 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, the one who spoke in the beginning and ALL creation came into existance. I give you Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you (singular) bind on earth will be bound in heaven. And whatever you(singular) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven
• Jesus again says to all the apostles so that they know that Peter is the one to (hegeomai) them. Lk 22:24… a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves.

Hegeomai definition

1) to lead
1) to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman

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

Thank you for that Steve!

Yes, we must read the scriptures in context - we need to also remember the culture and the times - we do not all express ourselves in the same manner. Imagine Jesus saying that something was cool or “he gives me the needle” and dozens of expressions used today.

Even in our times things are different between cultures. When I went to live in another country and as I learned to speak their language, I used to make people laugh with my expressions because they were unheard of there. There was a language for men and a language for women and my husband forget to tell me this so I used to use expressions I heard the men in the family use when we went visiting and I had the people in stitches.

I also upset some people with the things I said because I had no idea that they expressed themselves differently.

Have you ever read Shakespeare? The old Shakespeare? Can you understand the language? One thing I have learned is never to say “You are a liar” or “That is a lie” It would be the greatest insult and yet one hears is pretty frequently in every day life.

There now, imagine going back 2000 years in a different culture? You would have to work things out.

Even so, I don’t think Jesus was so ambiguous. He spoke pretty clearly but then I am not American. Some Americans speak in a way I do not fully understand, some are very clear!!

Blessings to all
Cinette

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Daniel,

I asked you this in my post no 640 but you did not reply so I would like to ask you again:

How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?

Here you are interpreting Scripture the way you see it and and others interpreting it the way they see it.

How do we know which one is correct?

I mean just take the scripture you hold now (presumably protestant), how do you know that it is the correct canon?

You might think this has nothing to do with the thread but I assure you it has a lot of bearing on it.

 

[paul_c]

Daniel has stated that he has disengaged from this thread, so there’s not a lot of point in pursuing him further. We’ve done our best to give him the Catholic position. Its up to him on whether he uses this constructively or not. He is still engaging on other threads so he has not left us entirely…

I personally will give him the benefit of the doubt that his intentions were good, even though I feel he is personally misguided. Hopefully the Spirit will allow his mind to be opened to the truth… All in God’s time.

 

[Des]

Hi, Des,

What an excellent post! It was a pleasure to read - and - took Daniel’s logic and made it a two-way street! I was bit tired when i read your post - but, it certainly perked me up - and I just laughed and laughed! Nice job!

Have a great day

God bless

Hey tqualey. Thanks and glad to have perked you up.

Loved your post - a minor correction: Protestants have 66 not 68 books in their bibles.

Cinette

I don’t know why but I make that mistake alot with that number 68 always being the first to come to my mind when I say that. But thanks for correcting my post anyways Cinette.

How do you know this wasn’t a judgment call by Peter? A judgment call that Paul would use and adopt for himself, and completely excuse himself of any wrong doing?

Hey Steve, thanks for the post. It’s a very interesting take on the rebuking verse and one I’ve never heard before actually. Here’s where I am a tad confused though so nothing would make me happier than if you can explain this better to me since it could be a very good tool against this protestant claim regarding Paul rebuking Peter.

Paul under the ‘Inspiration’ of the Holy Spirit said Peter was wrong right. So wouldn’t that mean Peter really was wrong in his actions actually in this case? Would the Holy Spirit ‘Inspire’ Paul to say something that wasn’t true?

Perhaps Peter was doing this in front of the Gentiles which would make more of an impact or Scandal than Paul’s having Timothy circumcised in a Jewish area?

So really my only problem is why Paul would say Peter was wrong since the Holy Spirit was Inspiring him to write this down at the time and say this?

 

[SHW]

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.

Hi Des,

Great post. I have an addition to the quote above:

The Apostles and Disciples actually did preach to the whole “known” world in their lifetimes.

Romans 1:8 “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.”

Acts 2:5 “And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.”

Colossians 1:23 “if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.”

Pax,
SHW

 

[LionHeart777]

Thanks for the kind posts

I might start some more threads sometime to mull somethings over

 

[guanophore]

James agreed with Peter no doubt, but the EXACT decree given was what James JUDGED as rigtheous. Thereby proving that James indeed had more power than Peter and that the Church in Rome didn't even exist yet. As Rome was full of Gentile pagans. ^_^

There was a Church in Rome, as some of the converts at Peter’s sermon on Pentecost were from Rome. The Church was already thriving there before any of the Apostles made it there.

I agree with you, though, this concilar decision does not set any one Apostle up in primacy over another. Everyone may have referred to James as the Elder of the group, and the “brother of the Lord”.

 

[Des]

Colossians 1:23 “if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.”

Pax,
SHW

Hey Pax. This would be more of an exaggeration since Babies or infants couldn’t comprehend the preaching. So they likewise would logically have to leave successors to preach to them once they reached adulthood. So I don’t believe that Colossians’ verse would apply to the latter part of the ‘All Nations, All Creatures’ verse.

 

[anthony022071]

The real question re Paul and Peter in the rebuking incident is this: Was Paul telling the truth or not when he said in Galatians 2:11 "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."

Yes,Paul was telling the truth. That does not undermine the fact that Peter was the Head (Kephas) of the priesthood and had jurisdiction over the whole Church. Paul did not rebuke Peter over teaching a false doctrine but over improper behavior – showing favoritism toward the Jewish Christians. A pope may be rightfully rebuked for improper behavior,but this does not undermine the office or his ecclesiastical authority The papacy does not demand blind obedience from Catholics,and if Catholics rebuke their pope,it does not mean that they can rightfully reject the papacy.

See post 692.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5149442#post5149442

 

[guanophore]

Jesus named Simon Cephas, so that everytime we look at Simon or say his new name, we remember the confession he made. It is on this combo of Peter WITH the confession, that the church is forever built; no successors required.

This is what those who have abandoned the Apostolic Succession must claim, so that they can avoid admitting to themselves that they are disobedient to Christ. However, if there were no successors required, then Jesus and the Apostles would not have continued ot choose them!

I do agree, however, that the foundation is forever laid:

Eph 2:19-22
the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

And to that extent, we cannot change at all the foundation upon which His Church is built.

As long as there are persons remaining on earth that need to be built into the dwelling of God, there will be successors with the Authority appointed by Christ to shepherd them. He promised this, “to the end of the age”.

1 Peter 2:4-5
4 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; 5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

In making the above innovation of ministry, Ignatius contributed to the development of early Catholicism and hierarchy not found in sacred scripture. The second innovation is to tie the eucharist (and baptism) to the singular bishop as well.

Iggy does not make an “innovation of ministry”. On the contrary, he records that which was in practice prior to the writing of the NT.

It is true, that this is part of the development of Catholicism, and it is true it does represent a heirarchy. However, we do find it in Sacred Scripture (so long as we are not reading Scripture with our anti-Cathlic blinders on).

Eucharist was tied to the Apostles at the Last Supper, and they tied it to their successors, the Bishops. You will have to blame that one on Christ.

I don’t know that baptism was ever tied to a bishop. The Catholic Church teaches that anyone can baptize.

 

[guanophore]

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

This was an innovation to which Cyprian subscribed

No, unity with Peter is not an “innovation”. Jesus prayed for the unity of the Apostles. Are you saying that His prayer was not answered? Are you suggesting that all of the Apostles were not in unity together with Peter?

Do you not see unity in the Council of Jerusalem?

and that has no basis in sacred scripture according to which unity is based on:

Ephesians 4:3 “Make every effort to keep the **unity of the Spirit **through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all…11 It was he (Christ) who gave some to be **(pope ?), **apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

The above is an example of a passage where the most important basis of unity in the Catholic church would have been mentioned if it were so. Cyprian was wrong.

No, Cyprian was not wrong. Cyprian espoused the teaching upon which this passage is based. Peter was an Apostle, and is therefore included with the others (why do you wish to exclude him?).

The word “pope” is a Latinization of “papa” that developed in the Latin Rite centuries later. I guess you know that the NT was written largely in Gk? Of course you will not see a word there that was invented later! “Trinity” is another good example of a word developed by the Church that is not in scripture.

None of the above says or implies that Peter was head of the church on earth. The rock IS Peter WITH the confession of our faith.

I agree with you that Peter’s 'rockness" cannot be separeated from his confession of faith, or from Jesus, the Cornerstone. When Jesus renamed Peter, He grafted Peter into His own “rockness”.

I think you are imposing a secular understanding of leadership into Catholicism. Jesus is head of the Church. Jesus made Peter the chief shepherd in His absence. Peter was given the responsibility of feeding and caring for the flock, and for confirming his brethren in the faith. This is not a duty of “supremacy”, but of service.

The first mention of a singular bishop appears to be in Ignatius. This again demonstrates that Peter was not a singular bishop of any church: Rome or Jerusalem. The fact an ECF may have known an apostle means little. Paul lamented that the Galatians had so soon departed from the gospel.

No, this is not the case. Paul is clear in his appointments of Timothy and Titus about the responsibilities of singular bishops. Furthermore, it seems quite clear from Scripture, as well as the surrounding historical evidence, that James was the bishop of Jerusalem. I do agree, though, that Peter was not a singular Bishop. He was clearly all over the place!

Rome or Jerusalem. The fact an ECF may have known an apostle means little.

I look forward to an explanation of what this means. I agree, knowing an Apostle and not following the Teachings is of little value, but how can you say that it was of “little” value for Timothy or Titus to have known Paul? Or for that matter, Barnabas or Mark, or even Luke?

This passage may help understand a unique role for Peter which no one denies

Well, that is progress. In fact, there are many that do deny it, but I am glad you are not one!

Yes, I have been to more Catholic churches in Italy than Italians, seen the Vatican several times, and do not doubt Peter may be buried there.

Why is that, do you suppose? And why is it that you are here on CAF?

Ireaeus chooses Rome for prominence not for holding the position of an infallible successive head of the church on earth. By the time of Irenaeus, the monarchial bishop model had spread throughout the church.

On what basis, then, do you presume He chose Rome for prominence?

Of course you are right. What we seen the NT is the Church in seed form. By the time 100 years had passed, the need for monarchial bishops had spread across the known world.

These are the qualifications of bishops/presbyters given in letters to Timothy and Titus.

Notice that Clement uses presbyters and episcopate interchangeably.

Yes, of course! There were no bishops that were not first presbyters!

He knows nothing about a monarchial bishop in Rome or Corinth, and the letter was from the church of Rome not from Clement himself. Hermas says Grapte and Clement were joint leaders in Rome. /QUOTE]

The episkopate has always been in joint leadership. Why should that sound strange? You are imposing your secular bias into the history. Jesus was clear about the servant leader model. You are injecting an erronous “supremacy” model. Jesus prayed for unity. How is it you imagine that his prayers fell to the ground?

 

[guanophore]

So if one were to ask a Christian living during the NT period, “Who is the head of the church?” there is no doubt they would say Christ, not Peter, because this is precisely what scripture DOES say.

The Scriptures reflect Catholic belief, because they are written by Catholics. Of course Christ is head of of the Church. The Petrine gift is to shepherd (feed and care for the flock) and to confirm the other Apostles in their faith. Peter is not separate from Christ, who is the head, any more than the foundation stones are separated from the Cornerstone.

Why is it so important to you to devalue the Petrine ministry?

How is it that Paul knew where to go when there was a controversy? How did he find those “reputed to be pillars” if they were not visible?

How did Christ expect the disciples to “take it to the Church” if one could not be located?

One cannot base a theology on what scripture does NOT say. **Scripture does speak clearly on this question **as on others that have come up in discussion…

Catholic doctrine is not derived from Scripture, such as our handicapped separated brethren do. This is because all of Catholic doctrine comes from Christ Himself,a nd it was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. In fact, all of Catholic theology is “based” without the NT, upon Christ, and that which He revealed to His Apostles. What we see in the NT is the reflection of what the Church believes and teaches, for it was written from Sacred Tradition.

Scripture does speak clearly about Apostolic Succession. Some do not wish to “see” this, because they are in disobedience against the commands of Christ.

I think they would tell you to ask any of the apostles or the writings being circulated by them and to “study to show yourself approved unto God, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim.2:15). John said:

1 John 4:6
“We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us** (not ‘listens to Peter’); **but whoever is not from God does not listen to us (not ‘listens to Peter’). This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.”

You erroneously imagine that John, along with all the other Apostles, were not in complete unity with Peter. When John says “us” he is talking about the Apostles, and those in unity with them. This is, indeed, how we distinguish truth from falsehood. Those who do not accept the teaching of the Apostles, alive and well in the church, do not listen to the Truth.

When there was a disagreement about circumcision, they met together with apostles and elders of the church in Acts 15. It is very significant that it does NOT say they went to consult Peter about what to do, which would have been the solution if Peter was in fact the head of the church.

Jesus has always been, and always will be, the head of the Church. You misunderstand the Petrine ministry. They did consult Peter, along with the Apostles. This is the core (foundation) of the Church. You erroneously imagine that there was not unity among the Apostles.

 

[YADA]

1. “Why is that? Peter’s and his successors’ roles had already been playing out for 3-4 centuries before the Bible was formally canonized.”
   REPLY: Such a fundamental role as head of the church needs to be defined and in place from the start, like the deity of Christ, qualifications of bishops and deacons, baptism, etc. Yet an earthly **head of the church is conspicuously absent **in scripture.

No - you are incorrect - an earthly head os conspicuous and posters have illustrated that fact for you many many times - it is you who refuses to acknowledge that fact …

1. “What does having the “keys” mean in OT Davidic kingdom terms?”
   REPLY: An OT text about a the Davidic kingdom, needs to be understood in terms of its application in the NT. Was Peter appointed to be head or king of the church? No.

You are putting forth a red hearring … the ‘keys’ given to the Prime Minister do not signify “Kingship” nor the ultimate head [authority] … not in OT - Davidic Kingdom nor in the New Testament Church … The PRime Minister was not the King to the people he was a “Father” to the people … the Prime Minister served at the behest of and as a representative of the King - he received his authority from the kink he did not usurp the King …

Similarly - Peter so re-named by God [another indication of Peter’s role] receives his authority from Jesus - he takes nothing from Jesus’ Kingship but the authority granted by Jesus … to ‘possess the keys of the Kingdom’ - open and shut [bind and loose sins] plus strengthen and care for the other apostles and feed the people of God…

1. “Why would the “servant of servants of God” say such a prideful thing.”
   REPLY: It would be **no more prideful **for him to say he was chosen to be head of the church if it were true, than for him to say he was **chosen to present the gospel **to the Gentiles, which he DID say.

The scriptures are primarily focused upon Jesus … they are not focused upon Peter … They clearly present Peter’s leadership role … and really, you worry so much about a visible head fr the Church not being spelled out … the NT books clearly indicate that even Paul thought Jesus was returning soon - as in before they passed from this life to the promised one … and you wonder why succession of the Chair of Peter is not explicitely written of [though it clearly exists in other writings - again posted for you numerous times aleardy] …

1. “I don’t accept your arbitary limitation that it has to be so stated. That your personal opinion and is not support by Scripture”
   REPLY: One would expect such a fundamental position or role for Peter to be CLEARLY stated either by Peter himself or by other NT writers, especially since such a title as “head of the church” IS used in scripture. To say Peter was head of the church is going beyond what is written (1 Cor.4:6).

It is clearly written - you just refuse to accept it … I’ll ask you again … Why did Jesus quote Isaiah? Was it just an ironic meaningless accident? Or does it mean something? Why would Jesus use a direct reference to a Prime Minister - representative of the King - one who exercises and who speaks with “Authority” if he did not mean for Peter to be that Prime Minister … especially when he changes his name from Simon to Peter - something God rarely does and when God does it is done for a specific mission? WHY - …Still awaiting your answer

 

[steve_b]

Hey Steve, thanks for the post.

It’s a very interesting take on the rebuking verse and one I’ve never heard before actually. Here’s where I am a tad confused though so nothing would make me happier than if you can explain this better to me since it could be a very good tool against this protestant claim regarding Paul rebuking Peter.

I can’t take credit for it. I was attempting to synthesize Jerome’s letter to Augustine about the issue. newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm scroll down to Ch 2 and start reading.

Des:

Paul under the ‘Inspiration’ of the Holy Spirit said Peter was wrong right. So wouldn’t that mean Peter really was wrong in his actions actually in this case? Would the Holy Spirit ‘Inspire’ Paul to say something that wasn’t true?

As I understand it, Behavior isn’t protected by the HS. Teaching IS protected from error by the HS. For that reason, neither Peter or Paul taught error

Just thinking out loud, If Peter taught error by his actions then so did Paul when he had Timothy a gentile convert, circumcised…correct?. Think about that. Timothy, an adult, is being subjected to circumcision for what purpose? Paul’s message is that circumcision means nothing. So can’t you just hear Timothy say to Paul, if circumcision means NOTHING, why do you want me to be circumcised? What message does that send to all the gentiles?

We know the apostles didn’t teach error, and scripture doesn’t teach error…right? So something else is going on between Peter and Paul in Gal 2.

des:

Perhaps Peter was doing this in front of the Gentiles which would make more of an impact or Scandal than Paul’s having Timothy circumcised in a Jewish area?

So really my only problem is why Paul would say Peter was wrong since the Holy Spirit was Inspiring him to write this down at the time and say this?

One could ask

• how Paul can become all things to all people so that some might be saved, 1 Corinthians 9:20 but Peter can’t do this?
• Did Peter do what he did because he feared losing those he was given, or was it because he feared the Jews?

I would argue Peter didn’t want to lose anyone entrusted to him. Just like our Lord didn’t want to lose anyone the Father entrusted to Him. Therefore, If Peter’s followers were weak in their faith, couldn’t Peter do things slowly so not to scandalize them until he brought them up to speed? Isn’t that what Paul ended up doing later in His ministry? That’s just one of Jerome’s points.

I would also reject outright the idea Peter was afraid of the Jews. For the reason that this episode between Peter and Paul happened AFTER Pentecost.

[Acts 2:…]
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit… 5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. … 22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. 25* For David says concerning him, ‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; 26 therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will dwell in hope. 27 For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.’ 29 “Brethren, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30* Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, 31* he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear. 34* For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, 35 till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.’ 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, …

Before Pentecost all the apostles feared the Jews. But not AFTER Pentecost.

Peter went face to face with the guys who crucified Jesus and convicted them of it. And Peter is now laying the wood to THEM and it caused them grief. I’m sure he converted many after that episode

I liked Jerome’s take on this episode between Peter and Paul.

 

[Cinette]

Thanks for the kind posts

I might start some more threads sometime to mull somethings over

Yes do that LionHeart! I am sure you will come up with an interesting topic.

When you do please alert me so that I am participate.

Cinette