[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Peter reported to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. James presided, and made the final decision concerning what action to take:
[/quote]
James was the See of Jerusalem, which he’d be affectionally called Pope James if it was modern day, just like the late See of Alexandria, Pope Shenouda III is referred to as Pope. However, one being Pope doesn’t qualify one to be the visible head of the Church, at least not the Universal (catholic) Church but the local Church…yes.
The title itself means Father and was given to high leaders in the Church out of respect and affection, not because they were the head of the universal or Catholic Church. The primacy lays with the chair of Peter, not just anyone that is called Pope. It just happens that the See of Rome, the Bishop of Rome sits in the chair of Peter. All together there is five Sees or Popes (though other high leaders even as low as Priests were called pope, but not in the official manner) and together they sit in the Moses’ seat, and we know what Jesus said about those that sit in Moses’ seat even if they were scribes and Pharisees, “so practice and observe whatever they tell you.”
So, yes James was a Pope, but he did not have primacy. To understand better, before the Great Schism the five Sees were in full communion. All five were referred to as Pope. Now the Western world seems to have forgotten how this all works.
I have acknowledged that I was incorrect about Peter being given his name by Christ. How about an acknowledgement from you that Peter was not residing over the meeting at Jerusalem in Acts 15. Even your quote trying to prove Peter spoke first contains clear evidence he wasn’t the first to speak:
pat wrote: Peter spoke first saying:
"And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, (Acts 15:7)
Note that there had already been much debate. Peter standing up here simply shows he is taking the floor to describe his experience at some time after the debate started. Just as Paul and Barnabus later did in verse 12. I also note that everyone quieted to lessen to them, a fact not recorded when Peter spoke-
“Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul” (Act 15:12KJV)
I would also draw your attention to this fact- James “sentence” of vs19-20 was final. No more discussion, no vote. It is what became policy afterword, see Acts 21:25.
[quote] Pat wrote: Uh, yeah. Peter was a boob. Peter, being an apostle and a student of Christ was, I am sure, corrected a lot. I didn’t see where he said, "Nevermind, you’re a dolt I am picking somebody else to head up the church. The church is about Christ not Peter, or any pope for that matter. The pope serves God.
[/quote]
Why the sarcasm? I thought you preferred a friendlier tone? No one is saying Peter was a boob. I am simply saying it is clear from the book of Acts that he was not the leader of the apostles.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Peter reported to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. James presided, and made the final decision concerning what action to take:
[/quote]
James was the See of Jerusalem, which he’d be affectionally called Pope James if it was modern day, just like the late See of Alexandria, Pope Shenouda III is referred to as Pope. However, one being Pope doesn’t qualify one to be the visible head of the Church, at least not the Universal (catholic) Church but the local Church…yes.
The title itself means Father and was given to high leaders in the Church out of respect and affection, not because they were the head of the universal or Catholic Church. The primacy lays with the chair of Peter, not just anyone that is called Pope. It just happens that the See of Rome, the Bishop of Rome sits in the chair of Peter. All together there is five Sees or Popes (though other high leaders even as low as Priests were called pope, but not in the official manner) and together they sit in the Moses’ seat, and we know what Jesus said about those that sit in Moses’ seat even if they were scribes and Pharisees, “so practice and observe whatever they tell you.”
So, yes James was a Pope, but he did not have primacy. To understand better, before the Great Schism the five Sees were in full communion. All five were referred to as Pope. Now the Western world seems to have forgotten how this all works. [/quote]
I guess I feel know need to argue against RC history. I’m really only interested in what the NT says. In the NT, the top of the local church structure is the bishop.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Peter reported to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. James presided, and made the final decision concerning what action to take:
[/quote]
James was the See of Jerusalem, which he’d be affectionally called Pope James if it was modern day, just like the late See of Alexandria, Pope Shenouda III is referred to as Pope. However, one being Pope doesn’t qualify one to be the visible head of the Church, at least not the Universal (catholic) Church but the local Church…yes.
The title itself means Father and was given to high leaders in the Church out of respect and affection, not because they were the head of the universal or Catholic Church. The primacy lays with the chair of Peter, not just anyone that is called Pope. It just happens that the See of Rome, the Bishop of Rome sits in the chair of Peter. All together there is five Sees or Popes (though other high leaders even as low as Priests were called pope, but not in the official manner) and together they sit in the Moses’ seat, and we know what Jesus said about those that sit in Moses’ seat even if they were scribes and Pharisees, “so practice and observe whatever they tell you.”
So, yes James was a Pope, but he did not have primacy. To understand better, before the Great Schism the five Sees were in full communion. All five were referred to as Pope. Now the Western world seems to have forgotten how this all works. [/quote]
I guess I feel know need to argue against RC history. I’m really only interested in what the NT says. In the NT, the top of the local church structure is the bishop.[/quote]
Yeah, the Catholic Church goes one higher. We have a King.
I’m going to go watch some Popcorn and eat some Iron Chef.
Which I whole heartily agree and have experienced in very profound ways. Like I said this is the ultimate test. Does it work?
Now it’s important to be understood that this is not necessary to be done. You never ever have to ask a saint’s intercession at any level, at any point in your life for your relationship with God. It’s just a tool. It’s an option, you don’t have to use it. [/quote]
Now I’m glad you pointed that out. So in your view, my sins as a Protestant do not include the absence of requests to the saints? If not prayer, is veneration of the saints necessary for salvation, or am I making a distinction without a difference?
Also, thank you for actually taking the time to answer my questions.[/quote]
No, saints are not tied to your salvation. You are responsible for your own salvation. You can pray for intercession of the saints, you can pray for the prayers of the saints, but your relationship is with God.
I have acknowledged that I was incorrect about Peter being given his name by Christ. How about an acknowledgement from you that Peter was not residing over the meeting at Jerusalem in Acts 15. Even your quote trying to prove Peter spoke first contains clear evidence he wasn’t the first to speak:
pat wrote: Peter spoke first saying:
"And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, (Acts 15:7)
Note that there had already been much debate. Peter standing up here simply shows he is taking the floor to describe his experience at some time after the debate started. Just as Paul and Barnabus later did in verse 12. I also note that everyone quieted to lessen to them, a fact not recorded when Peter spoke-
“Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul” (Act 15:12KJV)
[/quote]
The order in which that spoke or what happened at that meeting really doesn’t mean anything really. It’s doesn’t mean Matt 16:18 didn’t happen. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t the leader. The church at that time was very much in it’s infancy. The words we use today are born out of the need to bring structure to a quickly growing organization. Christianity could not and would not have survived if every church were left to fend for themselves.
There was no ‘sola scriptura’ at that time, because there was no bible cannon. There were lots of books introduced as gospels. There were lots of false texts and lots of false notions in the old days. Then add to that glacial communications and if you had a free for all, it would have been over.
You can hate the church all you want, but it’s not going to change the fact that with out the Catholic Church, there would have been no Christianity. It would have died…
The fact that Peter was the first pope is a historical fact, not a biblical fact. The fact that Jesus founded his church on Peter is a biblical fact. The fact that we call him a pope now is simply because he fit that role, before such role existed.
Interestingly, the third person of the God-head, the Holy Spirit, chose Peter.
I am not sure what you think is supposed to mean? All the apostles had authority, it doesn’t mean that Peter wasn’t the head apostle in charge. He wasn’t barking orders, he worked with the apostles. Heck we can go back and forth on different instances where ‘leadership’ was exhibited by various people. Peter, for instance, was the only apostle, through whom God raised somebody from the dead, as in the case of Dorcas. Couldn’t that mean that he was the leader? It could, but it doesn’t necessarily.
There’s John 21:15-19, Or Mark 16:7… Why is it Peter and the Apostles? Why would Peter be singled out?
And then there is Acts 1:15 - 21. It’s Peter displaying his authority over the others.
It is what it is, it doesn’t matter which apostle it was. It just happened to be Peter.
Why the sarcasm? I thought you preferred a friendlier tone? No one is saying Peter was a boob. I am simply saying it is clear from the book of Acts that he was not the leader of the apostles.
[/quote]
That wasn’t sarcasm, Peter was a boob. That doesn’t’ mean he wasn’t the leader in the early church, nor that he wasn’t a good Christian. It simply means that Peter was a bumbler. I doubt he’d argue against that.
Further it just simply means that he was not such an intellectual beast or so pius that he was above reproach. So being rebuked or corrected even by other apostles is not an out of reach concept…
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Peter reported to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. James presided, and made the final decision concerning what action to take:
[/quote]
James was the See of Jerusalem, which he’d be affectionally called Pope James if it was modern day, just like the late See of Alexandria, Pope Shenouda III is referred to as Pope. However, one being Pope doesn’t qualify one to be the visible head of the Church, at least not the Universal (catholic) Church but the local Church…yes.
The title itself means Father and was given to high leaders in the Church out of respect and affection, not because they were the head of the universal or Catholic Church. The primacy lays with the chair of Peter, not just anyone that is called Pope. It just happens that the See of Rome, the Bishop of Rome sits in the chair of Peter. All together there is five Sees or Popes (though other high leaders even as low as Priests were called pope, but not in the official manner) and together they sit in the Moses’ seat, and we know what Jesus said about those that sit in Moses’ seat even if they were scribes and Pharisees, “so practice and observe whatever they tell you.”
So, yes James was a Pope, but he did not have primacy. To understand better, before the Great Schism the five Sees were in full communion. All five were referred to as Pope. Now the Western world seems to have forgotten how this all works. [/quote]
I guess I feel know need to argue against RC history. I’m really only interested in what the NT says. In the NT, the top of the local church structure is the bishop.[/quote]
Which it is in the RCC too. The pope is the bishop of Rome. The local bishops do most of the decision making and policy making.
I am only posting this here because I don’t think he’ll see it anywhere else. It appears that KingKai has blocked my PM’s. I would entreat his majesty to please either reconsider or accept my apology if there is another explanation. Conclusion jumpers beware.
You have cited Act 1:15 showing Peter standing up and making a speech, as he did in Acts 15. Did you note the final decision was not his alone unlike in Act 15 when James passed “sentence” on the matter, and his decision became policy?
And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. (Act 1:23)
“They” here being the apostles together, not Peter alone.
[quote]pat wrote: Peter, for instance, was the only apostle, through whom God raised somebody from the dead, as in the case of Dorcas. Couldn’t that mean that he was the leader?
[/quote]
Well it could, accept it’s not true. Go back and read your bible, and then tell us what is correct. If you can’t find it, I’ll tell you where it is.
“It is what it is” and “it doesn’t matter which”, and then “It just happened to be Peter”. I’ll be darned if these makes sense in one sentence. “It is what it is” really goes without saying doesn’t it? Don’t you really mean to say- It is what I think it is.
I have been trying to limit my recent posts to the this question- If we look in the Book of Acts, would we reasonably conclude that Peter was the leader of the apostles? So far, everything we’ve looked at leads me to answer no. What RC tradition says happened afterword is irrelevant in my book
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
You have cited Act 1:15 showing Peter standing up and making a speech, as he did in Acts 15. Did you note the final decision was not his alone unlike in Act 15 when James passed “sentence” on the matter, and his decision became policy?
And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. (Act 1:23)
“They” here being the apostles together, not Peter alone.
[quote]pat wrote: Peter, for instance, was the only apostle, through whom God raised somebody from the dead, as in the case of Dorcas. Couldn’t that mean that he was the leader?
[/quote]
Well it could, accept it’s not true. Go back and read your bible, and then tell us what is correct. If you can’t find it, I’ll tell you where it is.
[/quote]
Perhaps, who else was credited with a Resurrection through Christ other than Christ? The point of pointing that out was to make the point that it doesn’t matter really who did what. It was the ‘Act’s of the Apostles’ Not the Act’s of the head Cheese Peter and the 11 other dudes. So sure every gets a piece of the action.
Well, I have the gospels, MT 16:18 and JN 21:15-19 for example as well as history of the church which traces papal lineage right back to Peter, as well as plain old world history which does not dispute the papacy of Peter…What do you have?
I’d say in most cases that’s more than enough evidence to make most cases. You’re basically saying that somewhere shortly after the reign of the Apostles, their successors messed it all up but with out any evidence.
[quote]
I have been trying to limit my recent posts to the this question- If we look in the Book of Acts, would we reasonably conclude that Peter was the leader of the apostles? So far, everything we’ve looked at leads me to answer no. What RC tradition says happened afterword is irrelevant in my book
I will comment more on Mt16:18 after a bit.[/quote]
Well that would make sense since your not Catholic, but you have to prove it wrong. You cannot simply ignore it and say it’s not true cause you don’t like it.
I don’t think you can adequately add anything more than KingKai already did. Even at best, the most fervent Protestant apologist can only say it’s inconclusive.
When you have inconclusive evidence, then you go to other sources, like history.
What you are in essence claiming is that after the apostles Christianity was dead until Luther came around. That would also mean the bible cannon is not a Christian book since it was the Catholic Church who assembled it in 397 AD.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
You have cited Act 1:15 showing Peter standing up and making a speech, as he did in Acts 15. Did you note the final decision was not his alone unlike in Act 15 when James passed “sentence” on the matter, and his decision became policy?
And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. (Act 1:23)
[/quote]
And no, only Matthias was chosen by lot, to replace Judas.
“And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
(Acts 1:26 ESV)”
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
You have cited Act 1:15 showing Peter standing up and making a speech, as he did in Acts 15. Did you note the final decision was not his alone unlike in Act 15 when James passed “sentence” on the matter, and his decision became policy?[/quote]
I find Peter to be first a lot. This is the list of firsts I have found reading through the NT.
Peter was mentioned 155 times in the NT, verse 130x all the other Apostles together. Peter is always listed first. Peter was the only one to walk on water. Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father. Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, rock with the Apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head. Only Peter receives the keys, which represents Authority over Christ’ kingdom and dynastic succession of his authority. Tax collectors come to Peter for Jesus’ tax, he’s a spokesman for Jesus.
Peter, in front of the disciples, asks Jesus about forgiveness. Peter shows his leadership here among the Apostles. Peter speaks on behalf of the Apostles to tell Jesus they have left everything for him. Peter does the same for the disciples. Jesus asks Peter, no one else, why he is asleep.
Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles. Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat. Peter is mentioned before John, the most loved disciple. Jesus prays for Peter alone. John arrives at the tomb first but waits for Peter. Only Peter gets out of the boat and runs to Jesus.
Jesus charges Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Sheep means all people, even the apostles.
Peter is the first to preach the Gospel. Peter works the first healing of the apostles. Peter declares first anathema. Peter’s shadow has healing power, no other Apostle has this power. Cornelius is told by an angel to call up Peter. Peter is the first to expierence divine intervention in the ealry Church by being released from prison by an angel.
Acts 15: Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue:circumcision at the first council at Jerusalem. No one questions him. Only after Peter speaks do Paul and Barnabas speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching. James then speaks to acknolwedge Peter’s teaching, "Peter has related how God first visited…
Paul doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation” this other man is Peter. Paul distinguishes the appearance of Jesus to the other Apostles. “Cephas, then to the twelve.” Paul spends fifteen days with Peter before starting his ministry. Peter acts as head bishop when he exhorts the other bishops and elders. Peter makes judgement on the true interpretation of Paul’s letters. Peter made himself last and servant of all servants.
Also, in all of antiquity…no one was ever named Peter, until…You guessed it Peter, or Cephas. Jesus is an original dude, naming people after inanimate objects.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
If we look in the Book of Acts, would we reasonably conclude that Peter was the leader of the apostles?[/quote]
Yes…
[quote]Copied from my notebook:
Acts 1:13: Peter is first.
Acts 1:15: Peter initiates
Acts 2:14: Peter is first to speak
Acts 2:38: Peter gives first preaching
Acts 3:1,3,4: Peter is mentioned first
Acts 3:6-7: Peter works the first healing of the apostles.
Acts 5:3: Peter declares the first anathema
Acts 5:15: Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.
Acts 8:14: Peter is mentioned first
Acts 8:20-23: Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.
Acts 9:32-34: Peter is mentioned first
Acts 9:38-40: Peter is mentioned first
Acts 10:5: Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter.
Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18: Peter is first to teach about salvation for all.
Acts 12:6-11: He is the first object of divine intervention
Acts 15:7-12: Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue
Acts 15:12: only after Peter speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) for the teaching.
Acts 15:13-14: Then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s teaching.[/quote]
RC tradition? I think the word you are referring to is history. History. not tradition.k
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
You have cited Act 1:15 showing Peter standing up and making a speech, as he did in Acts 15. Did you note the final decision was not his alone unlike in Act 15 when James passed “sentence” on the matter, and his decision became policy?
And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. (Act 1:23)
[/quote]
And no, only Matthias was chosen by lot, to replace Judas.
“And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
(Acts 1:26 ESV)”[/quote]
The post of yours I was answering cited these verses to show “Peter displaying his authority over the others.” I simply pointed out that the decision to cast lots was made by “them”, not Peter alone.
It’s an interesting list. Don’t misunderstand me to say I think Peter wasn’t important, just not the leader.
Let me ask you about a couple of these:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote: Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles.
[/quote] Where is this from?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote: Peter’s shadow has healing power, no other Apostle has this power
[/quote]
Yes, no other apostle healed like this. Although a handkerchief Paul had used could be carried to someone and used to heal them. Also impressive.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Acts 15: Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue:circumcision at the first council at Jerusalem. No one questions him. Only after Peter speaks do Paul and Barnabas speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching. James then speaks to acknolwedge Peter’s teaching, "Peter has related how God first visited…
[/quote]
You have no reason to say Peter resolved the issue, especially in light of the “sentence” of James. James acknowledging the correctness of Peter’s statement does not make Peter the leader. It’s interesting the sophistry used here: “Only after Peter speaks do Paul and Barnabas speak”. Did you really author that? There is nothing in the passage that would show Paul and Barnabas are waiting for Peter to finish before they speak.
You cannot get around that the “sentence” James passed became policy. He said “my sentence”, not “Let’s do what Peter said.”
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
If we look in the Book of Acts, would we reasonably conclude that Peter was the leader of the apostles?[/quote]
Yes…
[quote]Copied from my notebook:
Acts 1:13: Peter is first.
Acts 1:15: Peter initiates
Acts 2:14: Peter is first to speak
Acts 2:38: Peter gives first preaching
Acts 3:1,3,4: Peter is mentioned first
Acts 3:6-7: Peter works the first healing of the apostles.
Acts 5:3: Peter declares the first anathema
Acts 5:15: Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.
Acts 8:14: Peter is mentioned first
Acts 8:20-23: Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.
Acts 9:32-34: Peter is mentioned first
Acts 9:38-40: Peter is mentioned first
Acts 10:5: Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter.
Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18: Peter is first to teach about salvation for all.
Acts 12:6-11: He is the first object of divine intervention
Acts 15:7-12: Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue
Acts 15:12: only after Peter speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) for the teaching.
Acts 15:13-14: Then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s teaching.[/quote]
RC tradition? I think the word you are referring to is history. History. not tradition.k[/quote]
No, I meant what I said. What is history and what is merely tradition is a big subject.
Concerning your list from Acts, Let’s note that Peter is not mentioned again after Ch 15. Yet, Paul is spoken of often. Basically after Acts 15 it’s all about Paul. Are you interested in an opinion on why this is?
Oh, since we are talking about authority, have you ever noticed that the Holy Ghost was once given by Paul. See Acts 19:16. Something Peter never did. And he raised someone from the dead too. A fact Pat wasn’t that interested in.
[quote]pat wrote:
What you are in essence claiming is that after the apostles Christianity was dead until Luther came around. That would also mean the bible cannon is not a Christian book since it was the Catholic Church who assembled it in 397 AD. [/quote]
I don’t follow your reasoning at all here. How am I claiming this?
