first church?????????

[thereselittleflower]

Yes Peter did come to the correct conclusion but it It seems to be James that held the final decision. In Acts, Jerusalem is the focal point of the church, and James is its leader. (Acts 21:17,18). Peter before having had a vision confirms the Gentile acceptance into the kingdom, however it is James that "ratifies" it and gives this law, " that we trouble not them... that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and fornication, and things strangled, and blood."

And this command was signed by the "apostles, elders and brethren" after Jame's advice along with Peter's revelation pleased the whole church as well as the apostles and elders.

It is James the "just" that is deferred to, even in 1 Cor when Paul states that the risen lord was seen "of James; then of all the apostles", Yet he was not an apostle himself, but refered to as one of the pillars of the church, along with Peter and John. James the just(not an apostle) was the 1st leader of the early church, not Peter.

Hi Harry

Actually, though this is a common argument used to try to assert that Peter was not the leader of the Early Apostolic Church, it simply doesn't hold up to closer scrutiny.

In the council of Jerusalem, there was a great deal of disputing that went on till someone stood up. . . Acts 15:7

That person commanded the immediate attention and respect of everyone there . . Acts 15:7, 12

Was that person James? OR was it Paul?


That person spoke of God's revealtion of the Good News going to the Gentiles . . Acts 15:7

Who was that revelation given to first? James? Paul?

Who was sent to the Gentiles first? James? Paul?


Who admonished all there for tempting God by trying to put a yoke around the neck of the gentiles that should not be given? Acts 15:10 James? Paul?


Who gave direction to the course of the concil? Acts 15:7-11 James? Paul?


Who first taught and gave instruction to those present as to what the will of God was in respect to the Gentiles? Acts 15:7-9 James? Paul?





No . .that person was Peter . .

and all the multitude kept silence.


​

This establishes Peter's primacy and position in the council.



When James did begin to speak, what does he do first?

He defers to someone.

Who did he defer to? Paul?


No, Peter.


And Peter is the only person James mentions even though Paul and Baranabas had A LOT more to say.


James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem only.

Peter travelled establishing Churches.


So, why did James declare the final decision?

A good leader will not usurp the authority of one underneath him when in the other's place of jurisdiction, simply because one of greater authority is there. So it was proper for James to give the decision.

That James is the one who gave the decision says nothing negative about Peter's authority, rather it says something very positive: that he was a good leader to make sure the believers in Jerusalem knew that James was their leader and he was not going to lord it over them by unseating James simply because he was there.

That James mentions Peter by name, and no one else, shows the deference James gave to Peter by so acknowledging him in this manner.


Now, here is Peter, James, Paul, Barnabas . . let's back up to a little before the council already began . . do you not think they would have already spoken with each other and decided who would give the pronouncement at the end of the meeting so that everything would be done in an orderly fashion?

What we see here is not evidence of authority of James over the Church higher than Peter's, but evidence of good leadership qualities and style being exhibited by Peter for the building up, edifying and strengthening of the Church. Just as Jesus specially commanded him to do when He told Peter to feed and take care of His flock.


As far as the passage you mentioned naming James first . . well, I have to ask, how many times was James named first?

How many times was PETER named first?

In fact, how many times is Peter named in the New Testament, and how many times is James named in the New Testament?

If Peter was not the head of the Church, we should expect that he would not be named too often in scripture compared to other disciples.

But let's look at this:

Peter is named 195 times in the New Testament. That sounds like a lot, but by itself, that statistic does not tell us a whole lot . .

So, lets see who was named more often than Peter . . . . NO ONE.

Well, if no one was name more often than Peter, and Peter was not the head of the Church, then we should expect to see at least one other disciple named close to as often as Peter was . . .

Do we?

Well, the one whose name appears in the NT mentioned next most often is St John . . .

How many times is St. John mentioned?

A whopping 29 times.

195 times for Peter (under his various names)



29 times for the next most often mentioned person in the NT, St John . .


​

And the rest go down hill from there . .



THAT is pretty BIG difference . .

When the 12 Apostles are listed together, Peter is ALWAYS mentioned first, and Judas last . . that is no mistake.



A VERY interesting read is this:

50 NEW TESTAMENT PROOFS FOR PETRINE PRIMACY AND THE PAPACY

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ112.HTM


I hope this was helpful.

Peace to all!

 

[tigersnare]

Flower your apologetics are rediculous....as in extremely.....pursuasive.

 

[Harry the Heretic]

Hello Thereselittleflower,


Peter's importance in establishing the early church is not in question

here.

And Paul's name does appear more times in the NT than Peter's,

including The four gospels in which there is a repeating of the same

events.

If the statements used to ascribe preemminence to Peter ie; Frequency of

name usage, being listed first is a sequence etc, is the substansive

evidence for the importance of an individual in church

hierarchy, one could infer that the Mother of God is of small or nominal

stature within the church. I do not think you intend this, and nor

do I.

Who first taught and gave instruction to

those present as to what the will of God was in respect to the

Gentiles? Acts 15:7-9 James? Paul?

Peter and then Paul and Barnabas. Yes James does quote Simeon in his

pronouncement but it is James who prounces his "sentence" in acts

15:19, or as the Jerusalem bible puts it, "I rule then, that

instead of making things more difficult for the pagans who turn to

God...."

It is Peter's revelation and instruction, but it is Jame's "rule" that

finalizes the matter with a couple of caveats added by James about

abstaing from things, strangled, blood etc.

James does not confer with anyone on this decree, including Peter, and

it is the end of the matter.

So, why did James declare the final decision?



A good leader will not usurp the authority of one underneath him when

in the other's place of jurisdiction, simply because one of greater

authority is there. So it was proper for James to give the decision.

That James is the one who gave the decision says nothing negative

about Peter's authority, rather it says something very positive: that

he was a good leader to make sure the believers in Jerusalem knew that

James was their leader and he was not going to lord it over them by

unseating James simply because he was there.

This is conjecture, and if the authority is Peter's in the 1st place there could be no upsurping.

Again it was Jame's edict, given with obvious authority and

without consultation, considering the commandments the gentiles should

follow.

The arguement that a person of higher rank defers his authority to

the local jurisdiction in this situation is only conjecture based on a

tradition held outside of the NT. If one quotes Mat 16:17-19 as proof

of this authority may it be noted that many in the early church did

not hold this view even late into the 4th century (see above post).

It is also interesting to note that James refers to Peter as Simeon,

not the "Rock".

Now, here is Peter, James, Paul, Barnabas . . let's back up to a little before the council already began . . do you not think

they would have already spoken with each other and decided who would give the pronouncement at the end of the meeting so that

everything would be done in an orderly fashion?

Again conjecture. It would seem more logical to me that in such an important matter, that the person with the most authority present should "give the decree". Especially given that the audience was Jewish. We could just as well say that James told Peter to speak 1st and orchestrated the meeting for the same reason.

We could also infer that Jerusalem was the seat of authority of the early church in the NT, not Rome, especially if we used many of the criteria you cited for Peter's premminence.

Lastly here is the greeting of Clement of Rome in his epistle to James describing Peter's death and his appointment as bishop of Rome;

"Clement to James, the lord, and the bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently rounded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always."

Here Clement says that James is the "bishop of bishops". At the close of the letter he instructs Clement to send his "resume" for succeeding Peter as bishop of Rome. Now I am aware that many do not ascribe this letter to Clement himself, but to unknown writers, however it is listed as a writing by the Early church fathers, and represents a view of James by at least some during that time.

I do not wish to be contensious and have considered the matter carefuly and will continue to do so. It does not help that there are some differing views on this in early church history as well as in the history of the Roman church. I hold the history of the scriptures above others, especially when there are apparent conflicts. My view is based mainly upon an honest reading of Lukes history of the church.


Peace to you

 

[SolomonVII]

From the point of view of apologetics, it would be very difficult to argue against the scriptural idea of the primacy of the office of Peter, and the traditional view from a very early date that Peter placed the key to his office in Rome.
On the other hand, the role that the Jerusalem Church played in the period before the writing of the gospels and the scripture that firmly established Peter as Apostolic primate may well is worth exploring from point of view of scriptural history.

As the genealogies of the both testaments clearly demonstrate, the idea of authority being derived from the Davidic lineage was a very important concept for Hebrews of all eras. The authenticity of Jesus Himself was derived from the fact that he was of the Davidic heritage, and his lineage could be traced to the covenant that God made with Abraham, and even beyond.

Additionally, the idea of Jerusalem as the sole cultic center also had very long and ancient roots. From the time of the Ark of the Covenant, the idea that the One God with an earthly presence in the singular location of the Holy of Holies was central to the Jewish faith. From the time that Solomon built his temple in Jerusalem, Jerusalem alone became the necessary location for sacrifice and worship.

This point is well brought out in the approach of Jesus to Jerusalem. With His eyes set on Jerusalem, the Samaritans, with their own site of cultic worship, rejected Him and would not receive Him on His way to fulfill His Father’s Will. The extent that Jews despised Samaritans because of this is well demonstrated by the request of James and John to bring the fires of heaven down upon their heads. Only because Jesus rebuked them did they refrain.

Jerusalem then, would be the theologically logical location for Peter to place the authority of the Church that Jesus left to him as head pastor. But, as pointed out in Acts, James the Just was already recognized as the head of that church. Moreover, due to his close familial relationship to Jesus, whether he was a cousin or stepbrother, or even an actual brother as some now maintain, James the Just, could also be seen to have a claim to be Jesus’ successor.

Without any existing scripture to guide them in their choice, undoubtedly many in the early days of the Way did understand this to be so. Aside from the explicit handing of the keys to unrelated Peter, there do exist other scriptural indications that Christ’s Church was to be neither headed by the family of David or in Jerusalem.

For one there is the words of Jesus Himself that tend to show that His family is no longer genetically defined, but whoever follows Him will be His mother, sister and brothers. The close relationship that James had with Jesus and therefore the Davidic lineage is no longer enough to give him any authority in the new Kingdom.

In terms of the Jerusalem church itself, recall the curse of Jesus against the fig tree on His journey to Jerusalem. In the context of clearing the temple, the prophecy of the tree no longer bearing fruit is definitely related to the idea the Temple and Jerusalem are no longer to be the cultic center for the New Covenant.

Scripture itself then, compiled from a wide variety of sources, offers the ultimate clues that James and the Jerusalem Church were not to be the head of the new Church. Scripture tells us that it will be Peter, and tradition indicates that the church he founded was centered in Rome.

 

[Harry the Heretic]

Well said Solomon. From my research it still remains unclear as to how the early churched viewed Rome and it's authority handed down through Peter. However if I am not mistaken Peter was mayrterd before James and the fall of Jerusalem, and doesn't Ignatius attribute the church in Rome to both Peter and Paul. It is hard to get an unbiased presentation on early church history and its opinions. It is a vast study with heated opinions on several fronts.

This being the situation I believe that a case can be made in scripture of Peter's statement proclaiming every believer to be a royal and holy priest, along with the renting of the vale in the temple, and even the "laity" being proclaimed as the new temple, to negate the need for a rabinical, or priestly organization.

Are those doctrines just in context of the church, or in regards to the individual believer, or describing the status of gentiles in relation to the kingdom of God?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Hello Thereselittleflower,


Peter's importance in establishing the early church is not in question here.
And Paul's name does appear more times in the NT than Peter's,

Hi Harry,

Actually, no, Paul's name does not. It is close. According to a search on both the names Paul and Saul, his name appears 181 times in the New Testament. But Saul/Paul was not one of the 12 original disciples.

including The four gospels in which there is a repeating of the same

events.

Are you saying that Paul's name appears in the 4 Gospels? I have never seen this.

From what I can determine, he appears on the scene for the first time in Acts. He does not appear in the Gospels at all.

If the statements used to ascribe preemminence to Peter ie; Frequency of name usage, being listed first is a sequence etc, is the substansive evidence for the importance of an individual in church hierarchy, one could infer that the Mother of God is of small or nominal stature within the church. I do not think you intend this, and nor do I.

But then you are comparing apples to oranges . . . Mary was not an apostle, she was not someone Christ said He would found or build His Church upon. He did not make her part of the foundation of the Church as He did when He is called the cheif corner stone and the Apostles are the foundation.

It is not that by itself frequency of appearance, the order one's name appears in in a list, etc, establishes the pre-eminence the Catholic Church gives to the Chair of Peter and his successors . . .but it all is part of a bigger picture, like peices of a puzzle, and all contribute to the full understanding of who Peter was in the scheme of things, and, as a result, who his successors are.

Peter and then Paul and Barnabas. Yes James does quote Simeon in his pronouncement but it is James who prounces his "sentence" in acts
15:19, or as the Jerusalem bible puts it, "I rule then, that instead of making things more difficult for the pagans who turn to God...."

It is Peter's revelation and instruction, but it is Jame's "rule" that finalizes the matter with a couple of caveats added by James about abstaing from things, strangled, blood etc.James does not confer with anyone on this decree, including Peter, and it is the end of the matter.

Let's look at this a little closer.


Here is the verse again:

[bible]Acts 15:19[/bible]




Let's look at what some scholars have to say about what James actually did when he pronounced his "judgement" or his "sentence".

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible


Act 15:19 - Wherefore my sentence is,.... Opinion or judgment in this case, or what he reckoned most advisable to be done; for he did not impose his sense upon the whole body, but proposed it to them:


Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Act 15:19 - My sentence - Greek: I judge κρίνωkrinō that is, I give my opinion. It is the usual language in which a judge delivers his opinion; but it does not imply here that James assumed authority to settle the case, but merely that he gave his opinion, or counsel.


Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible

5. He [James] gives his advice what was to be done in the present case, as the matter now stood with reference to the Gentiles (Act_15:19): My sentence is; egō krinō -I give it as my opinion, or judgment; not as having authority over the rest, but as being an adviser with them.


​

James was not exercising an authority which was greater in some way than Peter's, but as I already explained above, was proper to his position as head of the Church in Jerusalem . . and that Peter was exercising good leadership to not usurp his authority simply because Peter was there.



In fact, James was not exercising the type of authority you have ascribed to him here at all as we see above.

This is conjecture, and if the authority is Peter's in the 1st place there could be no upsurping.

No . . not conjecture . . but sound, logical, deductive reasoning taking in all the facts.

Again it was Jame's edict, given with obvious authority and without consultation, considering the commandments the gentiles should follow.

No . . no "edict", no "command" was issued by James . . but opinion, advice, counsel, proposition.

The Apostles and Church as a whole decided it was good and should send certain ones to take the message to those who needed it.





Again, let's look at what some New Testament scholars have to say on this subject:

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Act 15:22 -
Then pleased it - It seemed fit and proper to them.

The apostles and elders - To whom the business had been particularly referred, Act_15:2. Compare Act_16:4.

With the whole church - All the Christians who were there assembled together. They concurred in the sentiment, and expressed their approbation in the letter that was sent, Act_15:23. Whether they were consulted does not particularly appear. But as it is not probable that they would volunteer an opinion unless they were consulted, it seems most reasonable to suppose that the apostles and elders submitted the case to them for their approbation. It would seem that the apostles and elders deliberated on it, and decided it; but still, for the sake of peace and unity, they also took measures to ascertain that their decision agreed with the sentiment of the church.


Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible

Act 15:22-35 -
We have here the result of the consultation that was held at Jerusalem about the imposing of the ceremonial law upon the Gentiles. Much more, it is likely, was said about it than is here recorded; but at length it was brought to a head, and the advice which James gave was universally approved and agreed to nemine contradicente - unanimously;



John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Act 15:22 - Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church,.... The opinion, judgment, and advice of James, being approved of by the whole body of the apostles, ministers, and brethren of the church assembled together on this occasion; they unanimously agreed,


1599 Geneva Bible Translation Notes

(9) In a lawful synod, neither those who are appointed and chosen judges, appoint and determine anything tyrannously or upon a lordly superiority, neither do the common multitude stir up disorder against those who sit as judges by the word of God: and the like manner of doing things is also used in proclaiming and ratifying those things which have been so determined and agreed upon.
​

Again, no edict, no command by James . . but opinion, advice, council, proposition, which the rest agreed with and decided upon.

The arguement that a person of higher rank defers his authority to the local jurisdiction in this situation is only conjecture based on a tradition held outside of the NT.

Thank you for sharing your opinion, but I heartly disagree it is mere conjecture.

We see a fallicy here being continued in the line of argument you are presenting. . . that there was an exercise of authority by James in the manner of declaring an edict or command .. But we see from above that this is not true, for James did no such thing.

So, there was not a deference of authority of the type you are implying. That Peter allowed James to preside over the council in the place of his jurisdiction is not at all unusual.

If one quotes Mat 16:17-19 as proof of this authority may it be noted that many in the early church did not hold this view even late into the 4th century (see above post).

We have already gone over some of what you referenced in the quote you are referring to here . . when I get time, I will go over the other references as well . . please go over the extensive posts I have already made to this thread for more information on this.

It is also interesting to note that James refers to Peter as Simeon, not the "Rock".

And? So?

[bible]Acts 15:14[/bible]

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
​

​

Simeon was his pure Hebrew name, and James speaking to an assembly of Hebrews, uses it;


Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Act 15:14 -

Simeon - This is a Hebrew name. The Greek mode of writing it commonly was Simon. It was one of the names of Peter, Mat_4:18.



​

That James uses Peter's Hebrew name when speaking to Hebrews is not strange or unusual and says nothing about the name given to Peter by Jesus - Cephas or the authority Jesus gave Peter.

Again conjecture.

Again, thank you for sharing your opinion.

It would seem more logical to me that in such an important matter, that the person with the most authority present should "give the decree".

Perhaps so, meaning it would appear more logical to "you" . . but that is not the way synods necessarily work.

And we have seen that no one person gave "the decree" . . Again, this is a continuation of the false premise that James did make a "decree" and "edict" a "command" . . . but he did not, so this arugment also fails.

Especially given that the audience was Jewish. We could just as well say that James told Peter to speak 1st and orchestrated the meeting for the same reason.

Logically, the evidence does not support such an hypothesis.

We could also infer that Jerusalem was the seat of authority of the early church in the NT, not Rome, especially if we used many of the criteria you cited for Peter's premminence.

Yes we could, for the Church began in Jerusalem, where Peter started . . but it did nto stay there . . it went with Peter, for the Seat of Authority belonged to an Office and only one person occupied that Office. . Peter . . so it went with him where he went. It stayed in Rome where he died and passed on his authority to his successors, appointing them through Clement before he died..


I have to break this up


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Lastly here is the greeting of Clement of Rome in his epistle to James describing Peter's death and his appointment as bishop of Rome;

"Clement to James, the lord, and the bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently rounded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always."

Here Clement says that James is the "bishop of bishops". At the close of the letter he instructs Clement to send his "resume" for succeeding Peter as bishop of Rome. Now I am aware that many do not ascribe this letter to Clement himself, but to unknown writers, however it is listed as a writing by the Early church fathers, and represents a view of James by at least some during that time.

You are right, but it is not merely that many do not ascribe this to Clement himself, but that it is universally recognized that this epistle is part of the Pseudo-Clementines which are generally dated to the fourth century CE. Clement of Rome lived 30-97 CE, solidly in the first century.

There are many writings that are found as part of the collection of the Early Church writings . . .but this one is not ascribed to that of the Early Church Fathers any more than the Gospel of Thomas (a gnostic gospel given Thomas' name) is a writing of the Early Church Fathers. Which Early Church Father wrote it? none.

You cannot use such a writing to establish that orthodox Church Fathers did or did not believe something to be true.

And here is a major difficulty regarding this letter which creates a huge problem for you.

James was already dead when Clement assumed the Seat of Peter as Bishop of Rome and successor to Peter. James the Just, first bishop and patriarch of Jeruslem died in the year 62 AD.

Peter died about 67 AD, and just before his death appointed his successors through to Clement.

How can Clement have submitted a "resume" to someone several years dead already?

No . . how can the Letter you are trying to use, written 3 centuries after Clement's rule, claiming that Clement did something impossible (communicated by letter with James about his appointment by Peter) be used to prove anything about James authority?

It can't. Attempts to use it just show how week the arguemnt in favor of James really is.

I do not wish to be contensious and have considered the matter carefuly and will continue to do so. It does not help that there are some differing views on this in early church history as well as in the history of the Roman church. I hold the history of the scriptures above others, especially when there are apparent conflicts. My view is based mainly upon an honest reading of Lukes history of the church.

Peace to you

I thank you for this and your desire to approach this honestly. I had to do a lot of examination of the evidence before I could accept that Peter is who the Catholic Church says he is and convert to Catholicism. I hope that by sharing some of what I have learned along the way, that it can contribute to others discovering the truth.

Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Flower your apologetics are rediculous....as in extremely.....pursuasive.

H tigarsnare

Should I take that as rediculously as in extreemly pursuasive as a good thing?


Peace in Him!

 

[elijahlexis]

solomon
i find it intrigueing that you used the term "cultic" center for the new covenant
could ya maybe explain that?
i got my ideas on what ya wrote
but i will let you explain , if you would be so kind

IMO
placing peter in a position over anyone (in the context i've been reading in this thread)
is pure idolatry
IMO

if Christ was humble enough to become a man
why would it matter who started the church?(other than knowing it was Jesus)
it was Jesus after all who did the building
so whose church would that signify it to be
peters
or God/Christ's?
this is a good thread
learning alot here
and by the way
i love ya all
no matter what religion you are
no matter born again or not
love conquers all!!

peace to all
and thanks to all who have been posting in this thread
this is family!
this is church!

do i not have to walk out my own walk with God?
are any of you going to come and be my advocate when the time comes?

humbly,
elijalexis

 

[Harry the Heretic]

Hello thereselittleflower,

Are you saying that Paul's name appears in the 4 Gospels? I

have never seen this.

No I am saying Peter.

Here is the verse again:

Acts 15:19
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among

the Gentiles are turned to God:





Let's look at what some scholars have to say about what James actually

did when he pronounced his "judgement" or his "sentence".(see

above)

If you trust in Gills comentary in Acts do you also trust it in

Mathew? ONly one of the above comentaires agrees with your

interpretation of Math 16.

Barnes

But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt

Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say

that he was the only one on whom he would rear his church. See Acts

15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, was followed. See

also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because

he was to be blamed--a thing which could not have happened if Christ,

as the Roman Catholics say, meant that Peter should be absolute and

infallible.

Gill

yet in some things he was inferior to them, being left to deny his

Lord and master, they did not; and upon another account is called

Satan by Christ, which they never were; not to mention other

infirmities of his, which show he is not the rock: and, after all,

what is this to the pope of Rome, who is no successor of Peter's?

Peter, as an apostle, had no successor in his office; nor was he

bishop of Rome; nor has the pope of Rome either his office, or his

doctrine: but here, by the rock, is meant, either the confession of

faith made by Peter; not the act, nor form, but the matter of it, it

containing the prime articles of Christianity, and which are as

immoveable as a rock; or rather Christ himself, who points, as it

were, with his finger to himself, and whom Peter had made such a

glorious confession of;


Mathew Henry

Yet if it were so, this would not serve to support the pretensions of

the Bishop of Rome; for Peter had no such headship as he claims, much

less could he derive it to his successors, least of all to the Bishops

of Rome, who, whether they are so in place or no, is a question, but

that they are not so in the truth of Christianity, is past all

question.

Thank you for sharing your opinion, but I heartly disagree it

is mere conjecture.

We see a fallicy here being continued in the line of argument you are

presenting. . . that there was an exercise of authority by James in

the manner of declaring an edict or command .. But we see from above

that this is not true, for James did no such thing.

So, there was not a deference of authority of the type you are

implying. That Peter allowed James to preside over the council in the

place of his jurisdiction is not at all unusual.

Based on what precedent or example? Christ defered at no time, his

authority when he was present, but the opposite, he commanded it in

the synagogue. I can't think of any scriptural example of what you

state is a practice. Your logic is based upon your doctrine, not any

actual practice that can be cited. And by practice, I mean that, not

some vague exception of even one I cannot call to mind.

Again, no edict, no command by James . . but opinion, advice,

council, proposition, which the rest agreed with and decided

upon.

The JB says heruled the NJB says he gave a verdict and

the NAB says it was his judgement. the same word is used also

in these verses;

Joh 5:22 - For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed

all judgment unto the Son:


Joh 5:30 - I can of mine own self do nothing: asI hear, I

judge: and my judgment is just; becauseI seek not mine own

will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Joh 7:51 - Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and

know what he doeth?


Joh 18:31 - Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge

him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not

lawful for us to put any man to death:

Mt 19:28 - And Jesus said unto them, VerilyI say unto you, That ye

which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall

sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,

judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Ac 17:31 - Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will

judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath

ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he

hath raised him from the dead.

Ac 23:3 - Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited

wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and

commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?


Now I do not propose that James was acting in a tyrannical fashion but

as the leader of the council and the leader of the church in

Jerusalem, which was a center, of which Peter reported back to, and to

James in paticular. (Acts 12:17)


That James lead the council or directed, not Peter, that he gave a

verdict, and established the criteria of that verdict is plain. This

decree pleased the congregation and in a sense was ratified by them

and dissemenated. The whole procedure was quite modern and democratic,

unlike the Autocracy that was later established in Rome.


Given the whole of the scriptures there is no evidence of apostolic

authority in the sense that you describe it. Not once is a bishop

cited as a successor to one of the apostles. If the majority of the

NT was written quite late according to modern textual critisism that

RC embraces, why was this not recorded, especially given the claim

that it was accepted universally. Its absence is significant.


God Bless

 

[SolomonVII]

HH,
I am surprised to read that Peter was absolute, infallible and exalted to supreme authority! Are you sure that this is what RC doctrine really is?

Modern scholarship of the NT- and Roman Catholics are under no compulsion to agree or disagree with anyones learned opinion about biblical sources- does not have a late date for the NT. Most have the epistles of Paul starting from just a few decades or less after the resurrection. The Gospels are also believed by many scholars to have been written before 110 AD. In fact, some scholars have all four of the Gospels dated to before the fall of the Temple in 70 AD!

It would be difficult to make an argument that the modern Roman Catholic liturgy arrived full-bloom the day after Pentecost. Scripture itself developed from letters, and small nuggets of wisdom. Booklets of sayings served as a basis to compose the Gospels, which in turn existed independantly of each other for many years before they were decided upon by counsel and a wide consensus of opinion to be inspired canon.
From the kernels and ideas derived from a reading of scripture, the Church assumed a form. As the orthodox position was becoming more firmly established amidst both intense persecution from Roman authorities and animosity from traditionalist Jewish leaders, wrong teachings abounded. In some, Mary herself went on to became worshipped by some, in others Jesus was a mere man, and other had Yaweh as an evil monstrosity. It was in conditions such as these that the Church that Peter established with Paul at Rome began to be understood as having a special authority. Such a rock, scripturally based even, was necessary, and even welcomed by the many, many Christians that had no firm grounds for the intricacies of their faith.

Around AD 30, a totally unprecedented and astonishing event took place, and a man became resurrected from a most painful and humiliating death. 50 days later the Paraclete arrived and a new faith was born. However, no sooner had people began following the Way, than a myriad of different ways of interpreting the significance of these events sprang forth. Without an visible authority, there was no way to distinguish heresy from true teaching. Without a Roman Church arising from with an authority firmly based in Scripture, all teahings would be equally relevant. Indeed, to the extent that this traditional authority is rejected, all teaching have become equally relevant, or perhaps, from a more cyncial point of view, equally irrelevant for a skeptical and unbelieving world.

 

[Harry the Heretic]

HH,
I am surprised to read that Peter was absolute, infallible and exalted to supreme authority! Are you sure that this is what RC doctrine really is?

Modern scholarship of the NT- and Roman Catholics are under no compulsion to agree or disagree with anyones learned opinion about biblical sources- does not have a late date for the NT. Most have the epistles of Paul starting from just a few decades or less after the resurrection. The Gospels are also believed by many scholars to have been written before 110 AD. In fact, some scholars have all four of the Gospels dated to before the fall of the Temple in 70 AD!

It would be difficult to make an argument that the modern Roman Catholic liturgy arrived full-bloom the day after Pentecost. Scripture itself developed from letters, and small nuggets of wisdom. Booklets of sayings served as a basis to compose the Gospels, which in turn existed independantly of each other for many years before they were decided upon by counsel and a wide consensus of opinion to be inspired canon.
From the kernels and ideas derived from a reading of scripture, the Church assumed a form. As the orthodox position was becoming more firmly established amidst both intense persecution from Roman authorities and animosity from traditionalist Jewish leaders, wrong teachings abounded. In some, Mary herself went on to became worshipped by some, in others Jesus was a mere man, and other had Yaweh as an evil monstrosity. It was in conditions such as these that the Church that Peter established with Paul at Rome began to be understood as having a special authority. Such a rock, scripturally based even, was necessary, and even welcomed by the many, many Christians that had no firm grounds for the intricacies of their faith.

Around AD 30, a totally unprecedented and astonishing event took place, and a man became resurrected from a most painful and humiliating death. 50 days later the Paraclete arrived and a new faith was born. However, no sooner had people began following the Way, than a myriad of different ways of interpreting the significance of these events sprang forth. Without an visible authority, there was no way to distinguish heresy from true teaching. Without a Roman Church arising from with an authority firmly based in Scripture, all teahings would be equally relevant. Indeed, to the extent that this traditional authority is rejected, all teaching have become equally relevant, or perhaps, from a more cyncial point of view, equally irrelevant for a skeptical and unbelieving world.

Hi solomon,
I did not quote the above commentaries because I agree with them, but because I feel it is necessary to understand a persons theological context. ie one could challenge the doctrine of the theotokis in quoting Paul's statement that,"all have sinned..." out of context with the rest of scripture. Personally I feel that many tread a slippery slope in regards to Mat 16. Gill and the others are definitely anti-papist and those overtones are also reflected in their interpretation of Acts 15.
If I came across as harsh towards RC position on textual criticism that was not my intention, I applaud their efforts in this area, for they have spent much effort in defending the integrity of the scriptures and typically date the NT much earlier than others (but they definitely take a more liberal approach to the OT). However though it is difficult to pin down exactly what Rome claims the dates are for the non Pauline (except 1,2 tim and titus) epistles, the consensus is for late 1st century to early 2nd century. That being the case, my statement about the lack of documentation on apostolic successors is a valid concern, given that Paul, Peter and James were martyred before 70 AD.

As far as the schisms in the body of believers being solely the responsibility of the reformers and subsequent denominations, it is short sided. I do not believe that what is carnal makes Christ irrelevant for it has always exsisted in God's bride since it was called out of Egypt. It is less prevalent in non Judeo-Christian tradtions because the have always been ecumenical in nature and operation, absorbing the traditions and customs of whatever culture they assimilate.

I agree with much of your assessment of the concerns and problems of the early church, but disagree with the conclusion that what was a fellowship of like minded churches placed the authority of Rome over themselves as a welcomed solution to those problems based on Math 16.
The assertion that there was no way to determine heresy from truth without Rome, is not without some theological weaknesses.

God bless

 

[elijahlexis]

not to mention that it was paul and not peter that was chosen of God to spread the Word to the gentiles

the road to damascus ring a bell?

and was it not paul who stated----i paul, chief amongst sinners------------
humility----------a good measuring stick

i aint gonna bash anyone------------but it took some doing for the apostles to accept that God wanted to save the gentiles at all

they were caught up in the "rights of God's people"
and that people they referred to was the jews--------not christians in general

they recieved revelation -------from God---------through paul--------to spread the gospel to all nations---------------

to think that revelation was only recieved by those way back then---i'm talking fresh ,real revelation from God--------is to speak of a dormant and dead God
blasphemy!!

what is God saying to you (us)?

not hearing from Him?
relying on others (scholars, early church fathers, elders, bishops, preachers, preists, rabbis) to be the wherewithall of God's revelation is evidence of lack of personal relationship with Him and dependence on man and his understanding

i for one will not put God in such a box
will not put the light under a bushel
LET IT SHINE!!!!!!!!!!!

just some thoughts

blessings all
elijalexis

 

[thereselittleflower]

Hello thereselittleflower,

Hi Harry,

I am sorry it took so long to get back to you. I have a lot if information here, and it will take several posts to put it all up, so please bear with me.

No I am saying Peter.

Thank you for clarifying.

If you trust in Gills comentary in Acts do you also trust it in Mathew? ONly one of the above comentaires agrees with your interpretation of Math 16.

First, I would like to clarify something based on what you stated above.

I do not "trust" Gills commentary in the way you are implying above, and using it or any other commentary does not mean I accept everything they have to say about everything. . . .

I used it, and others, to demonstrate that the interpretation of Acts 15 you are asserting, that James was making a decree and thus this was proof that Peter was not the head of the Church, is flawed.

The fact is, Protestant commentaries are not generally going to give a Catholic understanding of Matthew 16, or when they do, they do so only in part. If they did so fully, then they probably would not be Protestant any more, would they?

So we would not expect to see a Protestant commentary supporting the full Catholic understanding of Matthew 16. That has no bearing on anything we are discussing.

In fact, that these commentaries do NOT support the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16, either in full or even in part, actually gives even MORE credibility to their position that James' words were not a decree, an edict, etc . . but merely of his opinion, suggestion etc . . For they have NO REASON to take away from James something that is his IF it was really there. . especially if it would disprove the Catholic belief in the Papacy.

But it is not really there . . .

There is nothing in Acts 15 that shows us James was head of the whole Church or that he made a decree, an edict, or command to be followed by the whole Church, or even any part of the Church. Everything points to him being the Local Leader of the Church in Jerusalem, and that he was expressing his opinion, making a suggestion.

So using these commentaries in our discussion is valuable as EVEN THOUGH, and in fact even more valuable DESPTE the fact that, they do not support the Catholic understanding of who Peter is, they DO support the understanding that James was NOT the leader of the whole Church, but of a regional Church in Jerusalem, and that he did NOT act the part of one making a decree or command, but of one voicing his opinion, suggestions, giving advice as A leader, and a well respected and prominent leader, in the Church.



I have to break this up.



Peace in Him!

 

[verismo]

Petros is a masculine rock, or Peter. Jesus said He would build the church on the petra, of feminine rock. Since the church is the bride of Christ, I think this may be a solution to the problem with genders.

Hello!

Were you meaning here that Peter can't be the rock because of the gender of the Greek?

Edit:Wrong word

 

[thereselittleflower]

Based on what precedent or example? Christ defered at no time, his authority when he was present, but the opposite, he commanded it in the synagogue. I can't think of any scriptural example of what you state is a practice. Your logic is based upon your doctrine, not any actual practice that can be cited. And by practice, I mean that, not some vague exception of even one I cannot call to mind.

On what precendent or example?

Why would you expect to see a precedent or example to one of the first precedents or examples present in scripture of Peter's leadership style?

Why are you are comparing Jesus' leadership with Peter's leadership as though we should see them as being identical in the New Testament or even in the Church?

Why the assumption that they should be identical? Or that Peter's leadership would look like Jesus'?

Let's look at this a little more closely.

Jesus is God!

Jesus did not govern by consensus, or group decision making. As God, He makes the decisions. We obey.

If Jesus had been physically present at that Council in Jerusalem, would we not have expected to see everyone simply listening to what Jesus said should be done and then doing it? I think so . .there would be no question, no debate . God would have spoken.

Is Peter God?

Should he lead in the same way God does?

He is a mere mortal like you and me.

So should we see Peter getting up and saying "this is the way it is" as though he were God?

No. Of course not.

Should Peter "lord it over" the rest of them there simply because he is the leader of the Church?

NO!

What we do see Peter doing is just the opposite.


Peter exercised his leadership of the Church in a way that perfectly obeys and falls in line with Christ's words on the matter:

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them to him and said: You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them; and that they that are the greater, exercise power upon them.

Mat 20:26 It shall not be so among you: but whosoever is the greater among you, let him be your minister.

Mat 20:27 And he that will be first among you shall be your servant.

​

And if we want more to demonstrate exactly what Peter's thoughts were on this matter, we have only to look at his own words:

1Pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre's sake but voluntarily:


1Pe 5:3 Neither as lording it over the clergy but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart. DRB


1Pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. KJV

​

Here we clearly see Peter's idea of leadership . . . not lording it over others, and by being an example.


In the Council of Jerusalem, we see exactly this happening. Peter does not "lord it over" the rest of the concil. He does not make a decree that all have to obey. After taking charge, ending the disputing, admonishing and giving direction, he steps back so that the council can do what it has met to do without someone "lording it over" the rest there.

We see the exact same thing happen at the very beginning of the Church, when the disciples meet to choose Judas' successor. Let's look at that more closely as well.



First we see that all the disciples are together in one place and then Peter stands up to lead the group in deciding what needs to be done regarding Judas' vacant office:

Act 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
​

Here we see the parallel in the Council of Jerusalem - they were together in one place and Peter stood up:

Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them,
​

Then what did Peter begin to do when he stood up to speak to the disciples gathered together in Acts 1? He began to instruct, teach, give guidance and direction as to what needed to be done:

Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
​

What do we see in the Council of Jerusalem?

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

​

He instructs, teaches, gives guidance and direction . .and here, even admonishes, warns those present regarding a wrong course of action.

Then what happens next in Acts 1? Does Peter decide who is going to take Judas' place? Or does the group?

Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

Act 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

Act 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

​

Notice THEY appointed, THEY prayed, THEY decided on the appropriate method, THEY cast lots.

Not Peter by himself "lording it over" them.


The same thing happens in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem. Peter does not "lord it over" them, but steps up, provides the necessary leadership for that situation, then steps back to allow the COUNCIL to do what it had gathered to do . . . decide together what is the best way to handle the situation.

An element that is present in the Council of Jerusalem that is not present in the gathering in Acts 1 (which could be called the first council) is that now, James is leader of the Church in Jerusalem.


But why now and not in Acts 1 as well?

We have to note this, for it is important.

In Acts 1, James is NOT the leader of the Church or of any Church group. The Church at this point is fully cotnained within Jerusalem. it has not spread out yet, it has not established itself in other locations. This is the only place the Church exists as of yet, and so the WHOLE Church is there with Peter . . and Peter is clearly its leader. James is not even mentioned by name here.

What is different in Acts 15 is that the Church has expanded and now Jerusalem is home to only one of many local Church groups.

So why isn't Peter still head of the Church in Jerusalem?

The answer is just a matter of plain common sense. Because now Peter has been out planting Churches . . he is no longer settled in any one area. But each local Church area needs someone to oversee it, and Peter could not be in two places at the same time, so James is made its leader, partriarch of the Church in Jerusalem, His (James') authoirty was over that Church group and did not extend beyond it.

By the time we reach Acts 15, James is the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, and Peter has been establishing more Churches even among the Gentiles, which is why the whole question came up and the council needed to convene.

So back to the added element James introduces to our comparison between Peter's leadership in Acts 1 and Acts 15.

As we have seen from before, James does not make a decree, but states his opinion, suggestion to the group. And in so doing, he follows Peter's example (in accordance with Peter's admonision to Church leaders in 1 Peter 5). As a prominent leader, and apropriately as leader of the Church group where this council takes place, he teaches, gives guidance, etc, and shares his opinion. Then he also steps aside to allow the Council to do what they gathered to do - decide on the best course of action.



In fact, the commentaries at this point recognize that those gathered in the council, even all of the Church gathered there, received James' advice and approved his recommended course of action.

Act 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company and to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.


Act 15:22 - Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church,.... The opinion, judgment, and advice of James, being approved of by the whole body of the apostles, ministers, and brethren of the church assembled together on this occasion; they unanimously agreed,

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible​

Act 15:22-35 - We have here the result of the consultation that was held at Jerusalem about the imposing of the ceremonial law upon the Gentiles. Much more, it is likely, was said about it than is here recorded; but at length it was brought to a head, and the advice which James gave was universally approved and agreed to nemine contradicente - unanimously; and letters were accordingly sent by messengers of their own to the Gentile converts, acquainting them with their sentiments in this matter, which would be a great confirmation to them against the false teachers.

Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible​

​

​

​

Act 15:22 - ​

Then pleased it - It seemed fit and proper to them.

The apostles and elders - To whom the business had been particularly referred, Act_15:2. Compare Act_16:4.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible​

​

​

I have to break this up again




Peace in Him!

​

 

[thereselittleflower]

Now, in case there is still question as to whether or not the decree came from the whole Council or just one man, James, we need just look further in Acts:

Act 16:4 And as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees for to keep, that were decreed by the apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem.

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. KJV

Act 21:25 But concerning those of the nations who have believed, we have written, deciding that they should observe no such thing, only to keep themselves both from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. DRB
​

In other words, this was decided and decreed by the group, not one person.

The JB says her uled the NJB says he gave a verdict and the NAB says it was his judgement. the same word is used also in these verses;

I hope all the above is helpful in shedding some additional light on the subject.

The scriptures you quoted do indeed use the same word as used in Acts 15 of James giving his opinion, to mean, in these other scriptures, the rendering of a decision as we normally use the word "judge" or "sentence" (as in passing a sentence by a judge.)

However, it is a serious error to assume that because it is used in such a limited way in some places, that it is always used in that same limited manner, even when several protestant scholars declare to the contrary.

The word you are speaking of has a broader usage and meaning than the limited one you have presented above. It also means (per Thayer)

2) to approve, esteem, to prefer

3) to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion
​

So it is not unusual to find this word used specifically to mean judgement, decrees given, but it is also not unusual to find this word used to specifically mean one giving an opinion. Here is an example:

Rom 14:5 For one judgeth between day and day: and another judgeth every day. Let every man abound in his own sense.
​

obviously speaking of each individual's personal opinion.

And here pertaining to what one thinks:

Act 26:8 Why should it be thought a thing incredible that God should raise the dead?
​

Here is another translation of the verse in Acts 15 (from netbible):

19 "So I think we should not bother the non-Jewish brothers who have turned to God. 20Instead, we should write a letter to them. We should tell them these things: Don't eat food that has been given to idols.17 (This makes the food unclean.) Don't do any kind of sexual sin. Don't eat meat from animals that have been strangled (choked) or any meat that still has the blood in it.


​

Because this particular word has such a broad range of meanings, it is important not to ascribe to it only one of the several possibilities as you have above, because it fits one's assumptions, ignoring its other meanings and usage, especially in light of the other pasages in Acts which speak of the same decree and make it clear that James was not the one who decreed it, but the cocuncil as a whole.

Now I do not propose that James was acting in a tyrannical fashion but as the leader of the council and the leader of the church in Jerusalem, which was a center, of which Peter reported back to, and to James in paticular. (Acts 12:17)

First, I never thought you were proposing that James was acting as a tyrannical leader. Just that you were ascribing to him a role he did not possess in the New Testament Church. I hope we have seen enough evidence to help us understand that James was the local leader of a local Church and was not acting as the leader of the Church as a whole.

Second, we need to look at your coomment that Peter reported back to the Church in Jerusalem and James in particula in Acts 12:17 more closely.

It really seems to me you are now grasping at straws in an attempt to support your position, that Peter was not the ehad of the whole Church, but that James was.




Let's look at Acts 12:17 in its context:

Act 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.

Act 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

Act 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

​

We see that Peter has been arrested after the other James was killed. It can only be surmised that Herod intended to shortly kill Peter as well. Now notice this:

Act 12:5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.
​

Now, the prayers were answered for we see that the night before he was to be brought before Herod (and most likely killed) God intervenes:

Act 12:6 And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison.

Act 12:7 And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands.

Act 12:8 And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me.

Act 12:9 And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision.

Act 12:10 When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him.

Act 12:11 And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.
​

Now, Peter is free, miraculously delivered from the hands of Herod.

What does he do next? Does he go to James? or even to the elders of the Church in Jerusalem?

No, . . he goes to a prayer meeting held in the house of Mary, mother of John.

Act 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.

Act 12:13 And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda.

Act 12:14 And when she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate.

Act 12:15 And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel.
\
Act 12:16 But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened the door, and saw him, they were astonished.
​

Now that all those there are astonished at seeing Peter free before them in the middle of the night, what does Peter do? He procedes to tell them the incredible thing that had just happened to him:

Act 12:17 But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. . . . .
​

Now note this.

Was Peter "reporting" to the Church in Jerusalem in the sense you havei ntimated above, in a subserviant manner? As one reporting to another who is "over" him?

Or was he sharing a tremendous testimonial as to the saving, delivering power of God, and powerful evidence of answered prayer for their own and the Church's edification as a whole?

Did Peter "report" to James directly?

No . .James was not even there,

Yes, Peter did say to tell all this to James specificially, but did Peter make his "report" subserviant to Jame's discretion and leadership? In other words, if James really was the leader of the whole Church, did Peer put into Jame's hands what to do with the "report", his testimonial? Did he leave it to James to decide what to do with it, how, when and to whom his "report" should be shared with?

Or did Peter take charge and make those decisions himself?

Act 12:17 (cont). . . . . And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place.

​

Peter himself decides to whom and when and how this tremedous testimony and witness to God's power and deliverance is to be shared with the rest of the Church.

He does tell them specifically to tell James, and this is proper, for the news is going to be spread fast and furious among the people of the Church in Jerusalem first, and James, as their leader, would need to know about it right away so he could address any questions his flock may have and affirm its truthfulness, for you know how rumors fly and how the game of telephone works . . what you end up with at the other end is rarely what it started out being. So James would need to be able to verify what was true and what wasn't as leader of his flock in Jerusalem . . .

This is again, a sign of good leadership on the part of Peter, for what good leader over a large and growing "organization" would neglect to tell the local leader of something as momentous as this, leaving him to hear about it first from those he cares for, surprised and unknowledgeable as to the truth of it, unable to confirm if it is indeed true . . Can you imagine how it would appear if James were one of the last to know? And he is supposed to be leader of a regional Church! Would that not be an embarrasment if Peter, as head of the whole Church, would not have thought it important enough to inform the leader of the Church in Jerusalem of something as momentous as this and that this information was being disseminated to the entire flock under his supervision? Would it not have undermined James' authority in the Jerusalem Church if Peter had not done so?

By making sure James knew, he helped to build up the local Church in Jerusalem and its leadership to strenthen and encourage them, rather than undermine them and James' authority there. The sign of a good leader indeed.

So No, Peter did not "report" to the Church in Jerusalem or to James in particular as you suggested above. Peter took charge of the situation and gave direction as leader, and feed and tended the flock of Christ as Christ instructed him to do.


I hve to break this up again



Peace to all!

 

[thereselittleflower]

That James lead the council or directed, not Peter, that he gave a verdict, and established the criteria of that verdict is plain.

By now, I hope we have established that this has been plainly refuted not only by commentators on this subject and how the word in contention has a much broader usage than that to which you are limiting it to here, but also by other passages of scripture on the same subject.

There was no verdict given by James.

This decree pleased the congregation and in a sense was ratified by them and dissemenated. The whole procedure was quite modern and democratic,

Again, there was no decree pronounced by James .. and even your statement that the whole process was "quite modern and democratic" opposes the idea that James could have made a decree . . for the modern democratic process does not operate on decrees in any way . . . so you have just completely contradicted your own position . ..

Ruling by decree and the democratic process are the antithesis of each other - be declaring that the process was modern and democratic, you have just agreed that James did not give a decree, but his opinion, a suggestion, advice . .

unlike the Autocracy that was later established in Rome.

I am sorry you do not understand the governing structure of the Catholic Church . .

Given the whole of the scriptures there is no evidence of apostolic authority in the sense that you describe it. Not once is a bishop cited as a successor to one of the apostles.

Not once?

Let's look again at where we see evidence of both:

Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.


Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
​

Above we see that another is to succeed him in his office of Bishop . . .

Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

Act 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

Act 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
​

Above we see that another is to succeed Judas in his office as Apostle

Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
​

Above we see that a particular person did indeed succeed Judas in his office of Bishop and Apostle.


I hope by now you can see that indeed the Whole of scripture does indeed give evidence to apostolic authority in the sense I am describing it, and specifically regarding Peter.

If the majority of the NT was written quite late according to modern textual critisism that RC embraces, why was this not recorded, especially given the claim that it was accepted universally. Its absence is significant.

God Bless

First, the Catholic Church does not embrace modern textual criticism. Individuals within the Church may do so, but not the Church as a whole. There are very many who do not. So making such a blanket statement as that above is false, and the conclusion you are drawing from it is flawed.

My Catholic bible does not indicate to me that the NT books were written quite late.

But putting all that aside, realistically speaking, where would you see such information? Do any of the books in the New Testament concern themselves with a listing of who succeeded whom? Do we even have a book in the NT which concerns itself with what happened to each and every apostle?

No, we don't . . .we don't even know, from scripture, what happened to most of the apostles, where they went, let alone who succeeded them.

What about Peter and Paul? Shouldn't we see in one of their letters who succeeded them?

Well, Paul was never a leader of one particular Church, so we would not see him having a successor that would be a leader of a Church locale. Timothy is the closest we see to a successor of Paul as a son takes over for his father.

What about Peter? Well, Peter did settle in Rome, and from there he passed on his office to those he appointed to succeed him before his death, of which Clement was the last directly appointed by Peter (which we learn from Early Church documents).

Peter and Paul were martyred in the same time frame. So it is no surprise that we do not see either of them telling us who succeeded the other ..

The books written later are those of John . . his revelation hardly concerned itself with such things, and his letters were concerned with other matters, not apostolic succession.

The only book in the New Testament that is of the historical genre is Acts, and it does not take us far enough to record what happened after Peter and Paul's deaths, so other than the first instance of Apostolic succession in Acts 1, we do not see any further specific examples of this in scripture because it does not go far enough forward in the historical recording of the New Testament Church.

So, its absence is not significant, especially when we understand that

1. none of the books in the New Testament have as their concern, the factual, historical recording of who succeeded whom except at the beginning of Acts,
2. that other than the book of Acts, there are no books of the historical genre (which we find so many of in the Old Testament) and Acts does not go far enough forward in the historical record to give us the information you want,
3. when one takes the bible as their only source of teaching and historical evidence, one misses the larger historical context and evidence of the Early Church which provides this information,
4. and the Early Church was living in this time, so had no need of a source from sacred scripture telling THEM who succeeded Peter . . it was well known, common knowledge.

The writings of the New Testament were in 4 genres and concerned themselves with 4 things:

1. An account of the words and life of Christ - the 4 gospel accounts
2. A historical account up to Paul's death, which in its latter protion told its story from the perspective of Paul's journeys, so did not conern itself with recording what happened after Peter and Paul died. The book of Acts
3. Letters to build on teaching aleady given, to encourage, rebuke, correct, edify. None of these ae concerned with a hisorical accounting, the vast majority were written before the deaths of Peter and Paul
4. Apocolyptic writing of John, concerning itself with the ultimate triumph of God over evil.

The absence of the apostilic succession of Peter or any others in the New Testament is in no way significant.

I hope this has all been helpful.


Peace to all!

 

[thereselittleflower]

solomon
i find it intrigueing that you used the term "cultic" center for the new covenant
could ya maybe explain that?
i got my ideas on what ya wrote
but i will let you explain , if you would be so kind

Hi Elijah

I am not solomon, but the word cult has more than just a negative usage and connotation. It can be used in a postive or neutral sense as well. Protestantism tends to use it only in its negative sense, so the idea that it can have a positive sanse is somewhat foriegn to most.

I believe solomon was using it in its positive or neutral sense.

IMO
placing peter in a position over anyone (in the context i've been reading in this thread)
is pure idolatry
IMO

Idolatry? How so?

Idolatry is putting something or someone in the position of God and worhip it/him as such. .

The Catholic Church does not do this with Peter or the Pope. He is not elevated to the position of God, or worshipped as God.

Men are placed over men in all walks of life, rules, bosses, etc . . that does not equate to idolatry in any sense of the word.

You will have to substantiate that elevating a person to the position of Pope is "pure idolatry" . . my Church does not worship him . ..

if Christ was humble enough to become a man
why would it matter who started the church?(other than knowing it was Jesus)

I hope I can give you a good reason why it is indeed important.

There are many groups which claim to follow Christ who do not. They follow something else. Some have become major enough religious movements to achieve global recognition such as the Mormons.

How is someone supposed to know which Church is right and which is not?

Jesus told us who he was going to build HIS Church on . . Peter . . by knowing and understanding this, one can find that Church and not be misled into a false religious group claiming the name of Christ.

One of the most hindering issues to evangelism today are the thousands of different denominations groups all competing for converts, some attacking other groups in the process . . to the outside world, this multiplicity of choices is confusing, and a deterent to effect evangelization and witnessing than anything else.

If one knows that Jesus built His Church on Peter, one only has to look for where Peter and his successors are, and they can be assured they will not be led astray.

[qoute]it was Jesus after all who did the building
so whose church would that signify it to be
peters
or God/Christ's? [/quote]
Jesus said it would be HIS Church . . and He said He would build HIS Church ON PETER. So there is no contradiction.

this is a good thread
learning alot here
and by the way
i love ya all
no matter what religion you are
no matter born again or not
love conquers all!!

And here's a great big right back at ya!

peace to all
and thanks to all who have been posting in this thread
this is family!
this is church!

All who are Christ's are part of His body, His Church.

do i not have to walk out my own walk with God?
are any of you going to come and be my advocate when the time comes?

We all must work out our salvation with fear and trembling. I pray that when the time comes we will all be able to advocate for the good and love others have shown.

humbly,
elijalexis

Peace be to you elijah in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

not to mention that it was paul and not peter that was chosen of God to spread the Word to the gentiles

Yet Peter tells us how he was chosen by God to share the Gospel with the Gentiles first - Peter is speaking:

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.



​

Peter as well as Paul was sent to the Gentles. Peter was sent to both Jew and Gentile. Peter does not tell us that this choce was ever changed even though it is evident that Paul was going to the gentiles too.

the road to damascus ring a bell?

and was it not paul who stated----i paul, chief amongst sinners------------
humility----------a good measuring stick

i aint gonna bash anyone------------but it took some doing for the apostles to accept that God wanted to save the gentiles at all

they were caught up in the "rights of God's people"
and that people they referred to was the jews--------not christians in general

they recieved revelation -------from God---------through paul--------to spread the gospel to all nations---------------

Ah . . but this is not correct.

The Church did not receive revelation through Paul . . but through PETER . .It was to Peter that the angel came and after showing him all the beasts of the earth said "rise up, kill and eat" 3 times . . and it was immediately afterwards that Peter was taken to Cornelius where he discovered in truth that God had brought salvation to the gentiles through Christ as well. It was Peter who taught this to the Church. Paul gave further evidence of its truth at the Council of Jerusalem.

But God did not reveal this through Paul, but through and by PETER.

to think that revelation was only recieved by those way back then---i'm talking fresh ,real revelation from God--------is to speak of a dormant and dead God
blasphemy!!

God is speaking to each and every soul who will hear. But there is no new general revelation on the par of scripture and Sacred Tradition.

what is God saying to you (us)?

not hearing from Him?

elijah, we as Catholics hear from God speaking in our hearts just as much as Protestants. You may not think this is true, but it really is. I know you are not pointing only in one direction though, but I wanted to say that.

relying on others (scholars, early church fathers, elders, bishops, preachers, preists, rabbis) to be the wherewithall of God's revelation is evidence of lack of personal relationship with Him and dependence on man and his understanding

I disagree. Relying on those whom one knows truth has been revealed to, and who have carried forward the turth as revealed to the Apostles, is not evidence of a lack of personal relationship with Christ or dependence on man and his understanding.

I have a very real and living relationship with Christ, yet I do depend on the Church to righly lead and keep me from falling off the path to the left or right as I am a fallible human being and am not free of those things which can hinder my personal understanding of what God is speaking to my heart.

I will not be my own Pope . . I will not rely on my own understanding.

As well as trusting God, and seeking Him with all my heart, I will trust the pillar and foundation of truth God has given me to help me with this . .. The Church.

i for one will not put God in such a box
will not put the light under a bushel
LET IT SHINE!!!!!!!!!!!

just some thoughts

blessings all
elijalexis

Amen .. Take God OUT of the box you have put Him in! Allow Him to work in and minister to your heart via ALL of what God has provided for you, not just those you have chosen to accept. . .

Do not limit God.

I found as a Protestant that indeed, even though I thought I was not putting God in a box and had access to all God had provided, what I had done was limit God by limiting what I would accept of all God had provided, rather than opening myself to everything He has provided in His Church . .

As a Catholic, I have access to the fulness of all God has provided for me for my spiritual growth and union with Him . . I can not conceive of how once someone has come to this realization, they can choose to leave it for a more limited understanding of God's grace and gifts to us. There is no end to what God has provided in the Church Christ built on Peter. It is limitless. It is ALL Grace, unending Grace, limitless Grace.


Peace in Him!