Nipate
Forum => Controversial => Topic started by: vooke on May 19, 2015, 05:33:25 AM
-
1. Did Peter ever visit Rome?
2. Did he found the church in Rome?
3. Was he at any point regarded as a bishop of Rome?
4. What role would a Bishop play in the first century?
5. Was Peter martyred in Rome?
As with any Christian historical inquest, we have both internal( from scriptures) and external (other sources)
-
vooke, just go ahead and respond to what I'v written already, here, no problem. Use the quoting function, please.
-
Hi kadame,
Allow me to pause kidogo....got caught up. I will post when am more free so I can give proper response. Hope you don't mind.
Asante
-
Hi kadame,
I know as a Catholic, EVERYTHING you stand for or believe in has to be as close as possible to the official Catholic position. And I know where to get the Catholic position on anything; the Catholic encyclopaedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#II). So I tried to run through what RCC believes ant teaches on Peter and these statements jumped out.
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded.
It seems to me RCC concedes that they can only comfortably place Peter in Rome towards the end of his life. The entry reckons his death to be between 64-68AD.
Although the fact of St. Peter's activity and death in Rome is so clearly established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn.
In as many words, besides knowing Peter was in Rome, all else is speculation. That's a good point.
The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.
This is interesting statement. It is Peter's supposed death in Rome that establishes the claims of his primacy. I don't agree with this statement because in my opinion, bishoprick is a matter of leadership not place of death
I think we should concern ourselves with whether there existed a church long before 'towards the end of his life' in Rome, whether we can identify leaders of this church and of course what Peter possibly did to warrant the title first Pope of Rome.
That said, from scriptures especially Acts, I never see Peter acting any way as of higher authority than other apostles. That's a claim from the article I would readily dispute.
-
vooke,
The man has to have visited Rome at some point if he was killed there. The more interesting question, in my opinion, would be whether he was infallible?
-
What are the chances of the Leader of Al Qaeda visiting Washington? Let us not be so easily anachronistic. Christianity was a dangerous sect that undermined the position of the Roman Empire. The followers did not recognize The Roman Emperor as god. It was forbidden and hunted. Not just by the Romans. In fact The Jewish leaders had long declared them heretics and had sent bounty hunters like Saul after them.
Nero simply represented the height of the clamp down when it became gruesome and grotesque with Stadia animal vs Christian shows!
So in that atmosphere, Paul and Peter triumphantly started a Church in Rome and Peter even had a "throne" made where he sat as the "Bishop of Rome"????
I can see Osama bin Laden as the Imam of Washington!
vooke,
The man has to have visited Rome at some point if he was killed there. The more interesting question, in my opinion, would be whether he was infallible?
-
What are the chances of the Leader of Al Qaeda visiting Washington? Let us not be so easily anachronistic. Christianity was a dangerous sect that undermined the position of the Roman Empire. The followers did not recognize The Roman Emperor as god. It was forbidden and hunted. Not just by the Romans. In fact The Jewish leaders had long declared them heretics and had sent bounty hunters like Saul after them.
Nero simply represented the height of the clamp down when it became gruesome and grotesque with Stadia animal vs Christian shows!
So in that atmosphere, Paul and Peter triumphantly started a Church in Rome and Peter even had a "throne" made where he sat as the "Bishop of Rome"????
I can see Osama bin Laden as the Imam of Washington!
vooke,
The man has to have visited Rome at some point if he was killed there. The more interesting question, in my opinion, would be whether he was infallible?
Omollo,
I always thought he was in Rome at some point and was in fact crucified upside down by the Romans. Whether he is killed as part of the clampdown is not readily apparent. I have never known it to be controversial prior to you bringing it up.
-
vooke,
The man has to have visited Rome at some point if he was killed there. The more interesting question, in my opinion, would be whether he was infallible?
Termie,
The primary job of the apostles was to give witness to the Resurrected Christ and to teach what he taught. To me infallibility is simply ability to communicate EXACTLY what Jesus taught them
-
What are the chances of the Leader of Al Qaeda visiting Washington? Let us not be so easily anachronistic. Christianity was a dangerous sect that undermined the position of the Roman Empire. The followers did not recognize The Roman Emperor as god. It was forbidden and hunted. Not just by the Romans. In fact The Jewish leaders had long declared them heretics and had sent bounty hunters like Saul after them.
Nero simply represented the height of the clamp down when it became gruesome and grotesque with Stadia animal vs Christian shows!
So in that atmosphere, Paul and Peter triumphantly started a Church in Rome and Peter even had a "throne" made where he sat as the "Bishop of Rome"????
I can see Osama bin Laden as the Imam of Washington!
Omorlo, we have talked about thinking too much.
Christian persecution started in Jerusalem. If you notice, much as Rome was a pagan empire, Jews sort of thrived despite their monotheism. That's why I don't buy the line that Rome was TOO hostile for a Christian center. This is not to discount persecution there, just saying it was not enough to decimate Christianity any more than Judaism. If any, it pushed them underground.
Where I believe Catholicism fabricates history is when they claim Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and that he was the first 'pope'. And ofcourse 'apostolic succession'. How we move from 12 apostles to a chief of apostles who then appoints/anoints his successor when a good number of other apostles are still alive,and on to Francis. These things are at the center of Catholicism
-
Hi kadame,
I know as a Catholic, EVERYTHING you stand for or believe in has to be as close as possible to the official Catholic position. And I know where to get the Catholic position on anything; the Catholic encyclopaedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#II). So I tried to run through what RCC believes ant teaches on Peter and these statements jumped out.
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded.
It seems to me RCC concedes that they can only comfortably place Peter in Rome towards the end of his life. The entry reckons his death to be between 64-68AD.
Although the fact of St. Peter's activity and death in Rome is so clearly established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn.
In as many words, besides knowing Peter was in Rome, all else is speculation. That's a good point.
The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.
This is interesting statement. It is Peter's supposed death in Rome that establishes the claims of his primacy. I don't agree with this statement because in my opinion, bishoprick is a matter of leadership not place of death
vooke, two things:
a) The encyclopedia is a very reliable source, extremely professional, well-sourced and referenced and with academic integrity. It is, however, not really synonymous with official catholic teaching, though it is known to report it accurately. That's just a by the way, not really part of this discussion. :D
b) I don't think you understood what the encyclopedia says there. Peter's death in Rome is NOT the basis of HIS own primacy. In Catholicism, that primacy is based on the words of Jesus to Peter in the New Testament and the beliefs of the early church about Peter. The primacy that the encyclopedia refers to is not Peter's, but that of the Bishops of Rome, Sts Linus, Clement etc...that is, it is answering a question debated among apostolic churches...which Bishop succeeded to Peter's primacy? If Roman Bishops...why them? Why not Jerusalem's Bishops, or Antioch's Bishops, or Alexandria's bishops, for example? The three: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, were considered in the early centuries to be all Petrine sees...sees of st Peter and all three claimed him as their founder (For Alexandria...or what we call today the Coptic Church, they claimed Peter because they were founded by St. Mark who was Peter's disciple and they considered him to have been acting on Peter's instruction and not his own activity). Just wanted to clarify the meaning of the encyclopedia there.
I think we should concern ourselves with whether there existed a church long before 'towards the end of his life' in Rome, whether we can identify leaders of this church and of course what Peter possibly did to warrant the title first Pope of Rome.
There existed a church. There is no question about that. Who introduced Christianity to Rome is of little consequence, most likely it was not an apostle but a regular Christian travelling back to Rome from Jerusalem. But we know it was the apostles who appointed Bishops. And what we know is that the early church, without any contradiction, believed that BOTH Peter and Paul had appointed the first Bishops of Rome. That very much settles the issue for me. If Peter was in Rome, he was the leader there when he was there. Unless we want to envision a scenario where a "regular Christian", with Peter around, can act like an apostle is under his own leadership, I don't think there can be a question of his being bishop there, unless he was simply never in Rome.
That said, from scriptures especially Acts, I never see Peter acting any way as of higher authority than other apostles. That's a claim from the article I would readily dispute.
Well, I respectfully disagree. For me there simply is no question that Jesus elevated Peter above the others, nor that Peter was the leader of the church after Jesus' death, until he fled persecution in Jerusalem and ran to Antioch. I guess people can look at the same scriptures and see different things, though. :)
-
There was a church long before Peter landed in Rome. That's it. This church had a leader, it was not rudderless. An epistle to this church clearly omits Peter among its prominent 28.
-
There was a church long before Peter landed in Rome. That's it. This church had a leader, it was not rudderless. An epistle to this church clearly omits Peter among its prominent 28.
Which is not in dispute, as far as I can see, but ok. In Gusii shags, my momma's side, we have very well organized Catholic communities led by local catechists with no more authority than me, just saying. :)
-
There was a church long before Peter landed in Rome. That's it. This church had a leader, it was not rudderless. An epistle to this church clearly omits Peter among its prominent 28.
Which is not in dispute, as far as I can see, but ok. In Gusii shags, my momma's side, we have very well organized Catholic communities led by local catechists with no more authority than me, just saying. :)
The idea of bishops in the first century was unheard of. Churches were led by presbytery of elders at most
-
So in that atmosphere, Paul and Peter triumphantly started a Church in Rome and Peter even had a "throne" made where he sat as the "Bishop of Rome"????
I can see Osama bin Laden as the Imam of Washington!
vooke,
The man has to have visited Rome at some point if he was killed there. The more interesting question, in my opinion, would be whether he was infallible?
Omollo, no one believes in a physical "throne" upon which Peter sat! :D That is a reference to Primacy/leadership/authority, a bit like "keys", it certainly is not literal.
-
There was a church long before Peter landed in Rome. That's it. This church had a leader, it was not rudderless. An epistle to this church clearly omits Peter among its prominent 28.
Which is not in dispute, as far as I can see, but ok. In Gusii shags, my momma's side, we have very well organized Catholic communities led by local catechists with no more authority than me, just saying. :)
The idea of bishops in the first century was unheard of. Churches were led by presbytery of elders at most
Really? Well, that's funny considering they are mentioned in the New Testament, but ok. I won't answer this using my own or other Catholics' arguments, but I will cite historically-aware protestants: http://www.kencollins.com/explanations/why-12.htm
The Function of Bishops in the Ancient Church
There are people who think that in New Testament times, a bishop (episkopos, which has the literal meaning of overseer) and a priest (presbyteros, presbyter, elder; the ancient term for a Christian minister) did not hold distinct offices, but that these were just two names for the same thing. Some people base this on their subjective conviction that the organizational structure of the church developed over time, but many base it on their reading of the New Testament. However, the New Testament only gives us the qualifications for these offices, not their functions. Understandably, the qualifications are pretty much the same, but that does not mean that their functions were the same. So the question is still open.
Ignatius’ letters used to be the epicenter of the dispute over the roles of bishops and priests in the ancient church.
Ignatius was a bishop who was arrested in Antioch for being a Christian and was taken to Rome by Roman soldiers for his execution. He traveled about the same route as Paul, and he wrote letters to churches that Paul founded, plus a few more that were not mentioned in the New Testament and may have been founded in the meantime. In these letters, it is clear that there are people who still have personal memories of Paul and that Ignatius is deeply affected by the fact that he is recapitulating Paul’s journey to Rome. Ignatius defers to the bishop of each of these major churches and commends the people to their bishop’s leadership. In fact, he mentions that Onesimus is the bishop of Ephesus, which may (or may not) give us the ending to the story in Philemon.
Ignatius’ letters were accepted as authentic by Roman Catholics but they were rejected by Protestants. Catholics felt that since Ignatius mentioned bishops, bishops were present in the early church. Protestants felt that since Ignatius mentioned bishops, the letters were late forgeries. It turned out that everybody was right! The ancient church had bishops, and the letters were a conflated Latin version.
In the 17th century James Ussher, an Anglican, reconstructed the authentic letters of Ignatius, and John Pearson, also an Anglican, pretty much proved their authenticity. There was renewed dispute about them in the 19th century, but that was settled by J. B. Lightfoot. Today the matter is pretty well settled. Ignatius wrote about bishops because there was a clear functional difference between bishops and priests at the end of the first century. Bishops presided over the priests in the main church of a major city and supervised the priests who served in smaller churches in the outlying towns. Since only priests can become bishops, you could say that all bishops are priests, but not all priests are bishops. All of the churches, from Antioch to Rome, were set up that way.
Some people are convinced by their own subjective judgment that the organizational structure of the church developed over time into the bishop-priest system that I just described. I am skeptical of this idea, because I think that it is highly unlikely that ad-hoc organizational changes here and there would produce a uniform polity over such a wide and diverse area. It seems to me that such a process would produce diversity, not uniformity. But let’s think this out anyway. The church was founded in Jerusalem in about AD 33. Ignatius was born about AD 35, he became bishop in about AD 69, and he traveled to Rome in about AD 105. At the time of his trip, all the churches he encountered, from Antioch to Rome, had the bishop-priest system. Now if priests and bishops were synonyms for the same office in AD 33, but different enough in AD 69 for Ignatius to hold an office of bishop that was distinct from the office of a priest, the change would have taken place during a 35-year period. It would mean that a complete innovation in the organizational structure of the church swept over the world within the last generation that knew Jesus and the apostles personally! I do not think that is even possible, let alone likely.
How can we explain why so many churches that were founded by so many different people over such a wide geographical area had the same bishop-priest system in such a short time? The best explanation, I think, is that they were all set up that way in the beginning.
I observe that many of the people who believe that priests and bishops were originally synonyms for the same office belong to churches that do not have bishops. So it appears that this theory is driven not by historic or biblical evidence, but from the desire to invalidate the historic churches or to avoid invalidating one’s own church polity. This has more to do with history and circumstance than Scriptural understanding. All branches of the church had bishops until the Protestant Reformation. Protestant bodies that originated in areas where the Catholic bishops exercised political authority or were corrupt, tend not to have bishops. Protestant bodies that originated in areas where Catholic bishops were not problematical do have bishops. So this is why Swedish Lutherans have bishops, but German Lutherans don’t. Protestant bodies without bishops came up with scriptural justifications for their polity after the fact. Many Protestant bodies deny that they have bishops, even though they do have regional structures with authority over the regular clergy, which amounts to the same thing.
I think we should ask whether it is necessary for us to reproduce historic polity in modern churches for the modern churches to be valid. I don’t think it is, because the Roman Catholic Church has cardinals, which the ancient church did not have. And I’m pretty sure that none of the churches in the New Testament had a Minister of Music, either. So my opinion is that the bishop-priest system (evident in one form or the other in the Orthodox, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and many Protestant churches) is the ancient and original time-tested system, and that it is a very good idea to make individual ministers accountable to a regional authority. But does it have any affect on the validity of a church body if they are not called bishops and priests? Is there a commandment to have or avoid any particular church polity?
-
If ever there was a pope of any sort, I'd put my money on James, the Lord's brother.
Acts 15:19-21 (ESV)
19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
In the Jerusalem Council he spoke LAST and his decision was final
And in Galatians, to Paul it SEEMED James was among the leadership together with Peter
Galatians 2:9 (ESV)
9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised
James decrees that Gentiles should not be harassed with Mosaic Law and his decision carries the day. Peter himself OBEYS this instruction in Antioch until some Jews sent from James/Jerusalem visits and he chickens out
Galatia s 2:11-13 (ESV)
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy
-
Really? Well, that's funny considering they are mentioned in the New Testament, but ok. I won't answer this using my own or other Catholics' arguments, but I will cite historically-aware protestants: http://www.kencollins.com/explanations/why-12.htm
The Function of Bishops in the Ancient Church
There are people who think that in New Testament times, a bishop (episkopos, which has the literal meaning of overseer) and a priest (presbyteros, presbyter, elder; the ancient term for a Christian minister) did not hold distinct offices, but that these were just two names for the same thing. Some people base this on their subjective conviction that the organizational structure of the church developed over time, but many base it on their reading of the New Testament. However, the New Testament only gives us the qualifications for these offices, not their functions. Understandably, the qualifications are pretty much the same, but that does not mean that their functions were the same. So the question is still open.
Ignatius’ letters used to be the epicenter of the dispute over the roles of bishops and priests in the ancient church.
Ignatius was a bishop who was arrested in Antioch for being a Christian and was taken to Rome by Roman soldiers for his execution. He traveled about the same route as Paul, and he wrote letters to churches that Paul founded, plus a few more that were not mentioned in the New Testament and may have been founded in the meantime. In these letters, it is clear that there are people who still have personal memories of Paul and that Ignatius is deeply affected by the fact that he is recapitulating Paul’s journey to Rome. Ignatius defers to the bishop of each of these major churches and commends the people to their bishop’s leadership. In fact, he mentions that Onesimus is the bishop of Ephesus, which may (or may not) give us the ending to the story in Philemon.
Ignatius’ letters were accepted as authentic by Roman Catholics but they were rejected by Protestants. Catholics felt that since Ignatius mentioned bishops, bishops were present in the early church. Protestants felt that since Ignatius mentioned bishops, the letters were late forgeries. It turned out that everybody was right! The ancient church had bishops, and the letters were a conflated Latin version.
In the 17th century James Ussher, an Anglican, reconstructed the authentic letters of Ignatius, and John Pearson, also an Anglican, pretty much proved their authenticity. There was renewed dispute about them in the 19th century, but that was settled by J. B. Lightfoot. Today the matter is pretty well settled. Ignatius wrote about bishops because there was a clear functional difference between bishops and priests at the end of the first century. Bishops presided over the priests in the main church of a major city and supervised the priests who served in smaller churches in the outlying towns. Since only priests can become bishops, you could say that all bishops are priests, but not all priests are bishops. All of the churches, from Antioch to Rome, were set up that way.
Some people are convinced by their own subjective judgment that the organizational structure of the church developed over time into the bishop-priest system that I just described. I am skeptical of this idea, because I think that it is highly unlikely that ad-hoc organizational changes here and there would produce a uniform polity over such a wide and diverse area. It seems to me that such a process would produce diversity, not uniformity. But let’s think this out anyway. The church was founded in Jerusalem in about AD 33. Ignatius was born about AD 35, he became bishop in about AD 69, and he traveled to Rome in about AD 105. At the time of his trip, all the churches he encountered, from Antioch to Rome, had the bishop-priest system. Now if priests and bishops were synonyms for the same office in AD 33, but different enough in AD 69 for Ignatius to hold an office of bishop that was distinct from the office of a priest, the change would have taken place during a 35-year period. It would mean that a complete innovation in the organizational structure of the church swept over the world within the last generation that knew Jesus and the apostles personally! I do not think that is even possible, let alone likely.
How can we explain why so many churches that were founded by so many different people over such a wide geographical area had the same bishop-priest system in such a short time? The best explanation, I think, is that they were all set up that way in the beginning.
I observe that many of the people who believe that priests and bishops were originally synonyms for the same office belong to churches that do not have bishops. So it appears that this theory is driven not by historic or biblical evidence, but from the desire to invalidate the historic churches or to avoid invalidating one’s own church polity. This has more to do with history and circumstance than Scriptural understanding. All branches of the church had bishops until the Protestant Reformation. Protestant bodies that originated in areas where the Catholic bishops exercised political authority or were corrupt, tend not to have bishops. Protestant bodies that originated in areas where Catholic bishops were not problematical do have bishops. So this is why Swedish Lutherans have bishops, but German Lutherans don’t. Protestant bodies without bishops came up with scriptural justifications for their polity after the fact. Many Protestant bodies deny that they have bishops, even though they do have regional structures with authority over the regular clergy, which amounts to the same thing.
I think we should ask whether it is necessary for us to reproduce historic polity in modern churches for the modern churches to be valid. I don’t think it is, because the Roman Catholic Church has cardinals, which the ancient church did not have. And I’m pretty sure that none of the churches in the New Testament had a Minister of Music, either. So my opinion is that the bishop-priest system (evident in one form or the other in the Orthodox, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and many Protestant churches) is the ancient and original time-tested system, and that it is a very good idea to make individual ministers accountable to a regional authority. But does it have any affect on the validity of a church body if they are not called bishops and priests? Is there a commandment to have or avoid any particular church polity?
What was the bishop's role?
If a bishop was a local congregation leader, then as you readily admit, Rome had some leadership long before Peter went there. If this leadership is the deli ion of a bishop, Rome had a bishop long before Peter, unless we insist they remained rudderless till Peter went there. Which is defeatist because it shows a church operating against the norms of the day
-
If ever there was a pope of any sort, I'd put my money on James, the Lord's brother.
Acts 15:19-21 (ESV)
19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
In the Jerusalem Council he spoke LAST and his decision was final
And in Galatians, to Paul it SEEMED James was among the leadership together with Peter
Galatians 2:9 (ESV)
9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised
Lol! That is an interesting reading of Acts 15, left interesting bits out, in my view. At the time of that council, James was head of the Jerusalem church, Peter had long fled Jerusalem after the prison-break. Peter was a visitor there as much as Paul but still, he stands after listening to what we are told is a hot, hot debate and when they see peter speak, the room not only turns hush hush and obedient but the dispute is pretty much finished after Peter declares his doctrine, call it opinion. My money is on JESUS' opinion since I don't recall James being renamed Cephas, told the church would be built on him and getting handed the keys of the Kingdom of God by Christ himself, or even getting the job of feeding the flock of Christ, both lambs and sheep, but ok. :D Where was James when Peter decided a new apostle was needed, spoke for Christians in Jerusalem after Christ had left? Besides, like I said, James was basing his "Judgment" on Peter's declaration, but again, ok.
-
What was the bishop's role?
If a bishop was a local congregation leader, then as you readily admit, Rome had some leadership long before Peter went there. If this leadership is the deli ion of a bishop, Rome had a bishop long before Peter, unless we insist they remained rudderless till Peter went there. Which is defeatist because it shows a church operating against the norms of the day
Rome had "some leadership" whom no one ever called Bishops until they were ordained so by the apostles Peter and Paul. Bishops presided over Presbyters/priests. They still do. :) They were also the chief celebrants of the eucharist and represented unity for Christians in a particular city/area. In fact, I recall a thing about st. Ignatius in Antioch appealing to the Bishop of Rome so far away to return him to his see in Antioch from which he had been wrongly deposed. Should find that quote and post.
-
Lol! That is an interesting reading of Acts 15, left interesting bits out, in my view. At the time of that council, James was head of the Jerusalem church, Peter had long fled Jerusalem after the prison-break.
This is quite interesting. Are you suggesting that the Bishop of Jerusalem fled Jerusalem and handed over the reins to someone else only to come and visit?
Peter was a visitor there as much as Paul but still, he stands after listening to what we are told is a hot, hot debate and when they see peter speak, the room not only turns hush hush and obedient but the dispute is pretty much finished after Peter declares his doctrine, call it opinion.
kadame,
You are exaggerating. Silence when Peter spoke is a matter of order and etiquette. This is exactly why Paul said that even when prophesying, two at most should speak. And you can bet when Paul and Barnabas spoke, there was the same silence. Ama? Tell me what you can say of Peter's speech in Acts 15 that you can't say of Paul and Barnabas. Peter just had a unique, first experience in Cesarea in Acts 10 and that showed BOHS preceding circumcision complete with several heavenly warnings against calling Gentiles unclean.
Whatever Peter experienced, James decision was final and it carried the day as evidenced by the contents of the letter.
In Galatians 2 just shared did you notice Paul and Peter are in Antioch and still some guys are sent from James in Jerusalem. James was not a leader in Jerusalem temporarily, it was permanent.
My money is on JESUS' opinion since I don't recall James being renamed Cephas, told the church would be built on him and getting handed the keys of the Kingdom of God by Christ himself, or even getting the job of feeding the flock of Christ, both lambs and sheep, but ok. :D
Those words have been DIFFERENTLY understood ever since they was uttered. That is enough to minimize dogmatism over them. Even Catholicism is at pains to explain how ONLY Peter had the keys. Look up the encyclopaedia on the keys entry.
Let me digress a bit.
Joel 2:28-32 (ESV)
28 “And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
29 Even on the male and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit.
30 “And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. 31 The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.
Note the words in red. On the day of Pentecost, when Peter gave his first sermon, he said that BOHS was nothing more than what Joel had prophesied and he quoted these very words. But on that day, the blood,fire and smoke and moon turning to blood was never recorded like literally. Yet Peter had the confidence to claim it stood fulfilled.
A skeptic like Termie may have aksd, 'Where is the blood, smoke and moon turning red?'
What am saying is, the fact that Jesus gave Peter the keys and called him rock should be interpreted cautiously, especially with the excessive evidence of leadership prominence by others in Jerusalem when Peter was still alive which is contrary to predictions of one understanding of that verse.
Where was James when Peter decided a new apostle was needed, spoke for Christians in Jerusalem after Christ had left?
That's a good question. All of them was there together with Mary and Jesus brethren as recorded in acts 1.
The most important point is, what should we make of this? Remember the appointment of the new apostle happened BEFORE Pentecost which happened 10 days after ascension. So Matthias was appointed within days of ascension, under 10 days. During this time, the apostles had been instructed to do NOTHING until they received power. So there was basically no opportunity for James to demonstrate leadership here.
Note, I don't for a second insist Jesus made him a leader. I only say like Paul, he SEEMED to be a pillar, and since he continued after Peter left Jerusalem, I think we can conclude he was a leader. There is evidence of him acting as a leader.
Besides, like I said, James was basing his "Judgment" on Peter's declaration, but again, ok.
Not on Peter, but on ALL that had been shared. Please don't attempt to water down Paul's conversion speech in that meeting. That is a bit dishonest.
Do me a favor, try to dig the same historical references on what they had to say about James the Lord's brother. The funny thing and this beats me is, James was not exactly an apostle (am not hinting at nepotism!!) in fact at some point in John, they appeared to have doubted Jesus ministry. James the disciple had been beheaded. How James rose to prominence is....is puzzling but we know he did.
-
Rome had "some leadership" whom no one ever called Bishops until they were ordained so by the apostles Peter and Paul. Bishops presided over Presbyters/priests. They still do. :) They were also the chief celebrants of the eucharist and represented unity for Christians in a particular city/area. In fact, I recall a thing about st. Ignatius in Antioch appealing to the Bishop of Rome so far away to return him to his see in Antioch from which he had been wrongly deposed. Should find that quote and post.
Ok.
So Peter did not found the Roman church nor was he its first leader. He visits Rome, finds a functioning congregation and starts leading it as its bishop. Elsewhere they ordained bishops but in Rome, he opted to lead it. Is this your understanding of Peter being the 'first' pope?
-
kadame,
You are exaggerating. Silence when Peter spoke is a matter of order and etiquette. This is exactly why Paul said that even when prophesying, two at most should speak. And you can bet when Paul and Barnabas spoke, there was the same silence. Ama? Tell me what you can say of Peter's speech in Acts 15 that you can't say of Paul and Barnabas. Peter just had a unique, first experience in Cesarea in Acts 10 and that showed BOHS preceding circumcision complete with several heavenly warnings against calling Gentiles unclean.
vooke, I'm not exaggerating at all, I think you are just not seeing what I'm seeing. Where did the "dispute" go, after Peter rose to speak? Acts describes "much dispute" and then Peter rises and speaks. Then it says "all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul". Peter speaks and the "much dispute" vanishes into thin air, never to rise again...where was the debate? It is clear to me Peter ended the debate, simply by virtue of the fact no one dared contradict his doctrine once he had spoken.
Whatever Peter experienced, James decision was final and it carried the day as evidenced by the contents of the letter.
This makes sense if James decision was contradictory instead of confirmatory of Peter's teaching. James actually cited Peter and the Prophets in his own opinion. Also, it is simply not true that he made "a decision", he made a suggestion, based on Peter and the Prophets (Peter and scripture!), about how gentiles should be treated. Then 22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas,[e] and Silas, leading men among the brethren. And wrote the letter, stating, Acts 15:22
They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia Acts 15:23
So, a hot dispute, Peter stands up and speaks and contrary opinions are never heard again. Paul and his companion speak. James speaks, citing Peter and the Prophets. All these are in agreement and then all the apostles together write a letter in their collective name and authority that agrees with what these have said. I'm sorry, but in my view, the decision here is by the apostles, and as far as I can see, Peter ended the debate. Once he spoke, no one had anything contrary to add. Those who spoke after only agreed, while before he spoke, there had only been a heated debate.
In Galatians 2 just shared did you notice Paul and Peter are in Antioch and still some guys are sent from James in Jerusalem. James was not a leader in Jerusalem temporarily, it was permanent.
but vooke, No one said James ever left his bishopric in Jerusalem before his death, though. Its just that that's not really the issue. Before Peter fled Jerusalem, James just didn't feature anywhere as the prominent leader of the Christian community in that city except in the list of apostles, Peter was the dominant figure.
Those words have been DIFFERENTLY understood ever since they was uttered. That is enough to minimize dogmatism over them. Even Catholicism is at pains to explain how ONLY Peter had the keys. Look up the encyclopaedia on the keys entry.
Let me digress a bit.
Joel 2:28-32 (ESV)
28 “And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
29 Even on the male and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit.
30 “And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. 31 The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.
Note the words in red. On the day of Pentecost, when Peter gave his first sermon, he said that BOHS was nothing more than what Joel had prophesied and he quoted these very words. But on that day, the blood,fire and smoke and moon turning to blood was never recorded like literally. Yet Peter had the confidence to claim it stood fulfilled.
A skeptic like Termie may have aksd, 'Where is the blood, smoke and moon turning red?'
What am saying is, the fact that Jesus gave Peter the keys and called him rock should be interpreted cautiously, especially with the excessive evidence of leadership prominence by others in Jerusalem when Peter was still alive which is contrary to a particular prediction of one understanding of that verse.
I appreciate that you read it differently, but I disagree. That verse has been given layered meanings, not contradictory meanings. In our church it is called a both/and approach. In my reading, there is just not getting away from the fact that Jesus himself changed Simeon's name to Cephas which is rock and declared in the same sentence that he would not only build his church on him but that he would give him the keys of the kingdom (which signifies authority). The church is not at pains to explain why Peter got the position, we just accept that he did. All the apostles share in the power of the keys through the unity of the apostles, and even today we believe bishops do have the power of the keys but through union with the pope. Besides, Jesus told him that he had prayed for him (Satan was hunting him down) and that when he had turned back, he should strengthen his brethren. Moreover, after Peter repents, Jesus tells him to feed his lambs/sheep. It just seems so clear to me that Jesus was holding Peter to be responsible over the whole church, not just the disciples but even the others who would be apostles. And then, in Acts, after Jesus leaves, we see Peter being the leader, up until he drops off the radar in Luke's story after Luke decides to follow the stories of Paul probably because he was some sort of companion to him or something after this point and knew more about the activities of Paul after Acts 15 than of any other apostle.
Where was James when Peter decided a new apostle was needed, spoke for Christians in Jerusalem after Christ had left?
That's a good question. All of them was there together with Mary and Jesus brethren as recorded in acts 1.
The most important point is, what should we make of this? Remember the appointment of the new apostle happened BEFORE Pentecost which happened 10 days after ascension. So Matthias was appointed within days of ascension, under 10 days. During this time, the apostles had been instructed to do NOTHING until they received power. So there was basically no opportunity for James to demonstrate leadership here.
Note, I don't for a second insist Jesus made him a leader. I only say like Paul, he SEEMED to be a pillar, and since he continued after Peter left Jerusalem, I think we can conclude he was a leader. There is evidence of him acting as a leader.
I don't dispute that st. James was a leader, that goes without any question. He is officially the first Bishop of Jerusalem per the early church, though his authority is never invoked beyond his own church in Jerusalem, like st Peter, or even st Paul, by the early church. I just think he wasn't a more prominent leader than Peter, which is what some evangelicals have been using as an antipapal argument since only the 1990s, that's what I'm disputing. All the apostles were leaders and the companions of Jesus were leaders, not just apostles. But none of them held Peter's position.
Besides, like I said, James was basing his "Judgment" on Peter's declaration, but again, ok.
Not on Peter, but on ALL that had been shared. Please don't attempt to water down Paul's conversion speech in that meeting. That is a bit dishonest.
Its not dishonest, vooke, unless this particular citation is in error, but here goes:
And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16
‘After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17
So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the Lord who does all these things.’
18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works.[c] 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,[d] from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
James cites Peter and Prophets, and then says "I judge" which is a Greek word that means both "I think" or "I judge", so he is giving his own conclusion on the dispute and basing it on Peter and scripture.
Do me a favor, try to dig the same historical references on what they had to say about James the Lord's brother. The funny thing and this beats me is, James was not exactly an apostle (am not hinting at nepotism!!) in fact at some point in John, they appeared to have doubted Jesus ministry. James the disciple had been beheaded. How James rose to prominence is....is puzzling but we know he did.
I will do the digging, but James could be one of the apostles called James who were Jesus' relatives themselves. If he was not an apostle, his position as "leader" is even more tenuous, coz his authority would then be more sentimental than actual besides that of being bishop of Jerusalem.
-
Rome had "some leadership" whom no one ever called Bishops until they were ordained so by the apostles Peter and Paul. Bishops presided over Presbyters/priests. They still do. :) They were also the chief celebrants of the eucharist and represented unity for Christians in a particular city/area. In fact, I recall a thing about st. Ignatius in Antioch appealing to the Bishop of Rome so far away to return him to his see in Antioch from which he had been wrongly deposed. Should find that quote and post.
Ok.
So Peter did not found the Roman church nor was he its first leader. He visits Rome, finds a functioning congregation and starts leading it as its bishop. Elsewhere they ordained bishops but in Rome, he opted to lead it. Is this your understanding of Peter being the 'first' pope?
You keep confusing the church belief about Peter and bishops of Rome. The latter is based entirely on the first, not the other way around. In other words, you seem to think the church's belief in Peter's primacy is based on Rome, instead of the actual case wherein the church's belief in Rome's primacy is based on Peter. You remind me of a comment I heard the other day wherein the Bishop of Antioch recently joked that had St. Peter only stayed put, then he, the current Bishop of Antioch, and not Pope Francis, would be Pope. :D We don't believe Peters position came from his presence in Rome, we believe that the position of bishops of Rome vis-à-vis other bishops came from the fact that Peter ended his episcopacy with them (thus passed it on to them) rather than elsewhere, so that whoever immediately succeeded him, took over his position, and the church kept that tradition. We don't really care who started Christianity in Rome. The early church considered founders those who established the episcopacy in a certain city. Plus, all the apostles were Bishops, unless we believe they had no authority over presbyters or other leaders. :D That's my understanding. And not just Peter but Paul too, both founded the episcopacy of that church in Rome per testimony of the early church.
-
kadame,
The best interpretation of keys and rock is the ACTUAL recorded life of the apostles.
Paul is quite clear, Peter,John and James SEEMED as pillars. That is quite telling.
Acts 15. I hope you realize Peter's experience with Gentiles had been shared before the Council. That was a milestone. Read about it in
Acts 11:1-4,18 (ESV)
1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, 3 “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” 4 But Peter began and explained it to them in order:.....
18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
Peter simply recounted that and on that basis opined the Jews not be bothered. James does not take Peter's opinion as such, he takes his narrative/experience which means it could have been anybody there not necessarily Peter. After this, he gives his judgement and to show you his authority, the letter is worded exactly as he proposed. That means his judgement which you call 'opinion' was much weightier. And he spoke LAST.
Peter's conclusion was the same as Paul's. So if Peter's conclusion is mentioned in the Prophets, so is Paul's. It strains the scriptures to suggest Peter's position as superior there. Unless you have existing bias.
James specifies what should and should not be binding and that is it. Next, if the decision was still arrived at by all the elders and apostles, not only would this prove James as 'just another apostle' but so would it be for Peter!
James authority stretched BEYOND Jerusalem. It was his decision on what to and not to bind disciples of Gentile origin. It reaches Antioch and evidence of this is, the letter from Jerusalem was binding on Jews in the place. And he sent some Jews from Jerusalem to Paul much later.
In any case, my understanding is in the first century, leaders were over specific regions. James being a leader in Jerusalem while Peter lived suffices to show that Peter was not superior in ANY way to other apostles. Else Jerusalem was the seat of Jewish church of which Peter was an apostle. What better place to be bishop than Jerusalem
-
kadame,
The best interpretation of keys and rock is the ACTUAL recorded life of the apostles.
Of course, its also interpreted in a way that does not deny what Jesus plainly says, only to Peter and never to anyone else, except as a collective, three different occasions, in the whole bible.
Paul is quite clear, Peter,John and James SEEMED as pillars. That is quite telling.
Acts 15. I hope you realize Peter's experience with Gentiles had been shared before the Council. That was a milestone. Read about it in
Acts 11:1-4,18 (ESV)
I do note it. The way I see it, when God wanted the church to accept gentiles, something they would never have done without serious authority given the beliefs of Judaism so strong in the church, he knew who the church would listen to based on what he had already established among them, so he went to Peter and not to James or to Paul. When they criticized Peter, they thought he was being disobedient. When he taught them, they understood it was the doctrine that had changed and understood Peter's behavior. They never challenged that teaching, just as the didn't in the Jerusalem council later on.
1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, 3 “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” 4 But Peter began and explained it to them in order:.....
18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”[/b]
Peter simply recounted that and on that basis opined the Jews not be bothered. James does not take Peter's opinion as such, he takes his narrative/experience which means it could have been anybody there not necessarily Peter. After this, he gives his judgement and to show you his authority, the letter is worded exactly as he proposed. That means his judgement which you call 'opinion' was much weightier. And he spoke LAST.
Yes, the letter is worded as st James proposed: ONLY st James proposed actual decrees/instructions in terms of gentile practices. Peter just taught a doctrine: the works of the torah do not save either the gentiles or the Jews thus are useless, only grace saves all (another thing against the sola fide doctrine, but I digress). It is James who suggests clear instructions: Lets tell the gentiles dont do this, or that...decrees. Peter just doesn't bother except to say don't yoke gentiles, no specifics. Those being "yoked" are Paul's flock whom he's in Jerusalem advocating for, thus no one is heeding Paul on this issue.
Peter's conclusion was the same as Paul's. So if Peter's conclusion is mentioned in the Prophets, so is Paul's. It strains the scriptures to suggest Peter's position as superior there. Unless you have existing bias.
I'm just stating what I see: before peter, there is debate. Paul in fact is one of the complainants who has brought the dispute before the church, he himself is involved in the debate therefore, he would like his flock to cease being harassed by James' flock in Jerusalem.
James specifies what should and should not be binding and that is it. Next, if the decision was still arrived at by all the elders and apostles, not only would this prove James as 'just another apostle' but so would it be for Peter!
This only shows you don't understand catholic belief on primacy. It doesn't mean only Peter or the pope exercises authority, bishops do exercise a collective authority, (in fact, the popes authority is exercised very rarely) but always in union with the head-bishop, not in contradiction. That Peter was present and among the collective, and the decrees agreed and did not contradict him, was enough. :D The reason I highlight his influence on the Jerusalem debate is because antipapal arguments are based on a false idea that James in this one, single instance, supposedly had authority over Peter, (whom he cites, not the other way around) which is simply not the case. In other words, I am arguing against the idea that James was the "likely pope, if any" based on Acts as previously argued, Acts shows a collective decision and in my view, the influence Peter had over the church's beliefs, infact, the decision did not restate the doctrinal base taught by Peter, only the decrees proposed by James. :D
-
kadame,
As a Protestant, I have little to lose,adjust if Peter was a super apostle or not. For me, it would just be archived somewhere at the back of my mind. It is of little consequence, no more than knowing who got to the tomb on Resurrection Sunday FIRST. You on the other hand as a Catholic has some serious chunk of faith at stake and probably everything.
This obviously means you are likely to be extremely cautious or skeptical of anything pointing you away from your convictions. What I will advise on this matter is take your time and if you are interested, look outside Catholicism for more objectivity on this subject.
I came across this site accidentally and it's quite interesting. On apostolic succession (http://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/apostolic-succession.php) I found this paragraph worth sharing here;
I believe that apostolic succession was in place from the earliest days. Luke represents leadership succession in Paul's ministry in Acts 19. Paul represents the same in the Pastoral epistles. I think Peter and Paul probably laid hands on the man (or men) who would take over as bishop(s) of Rome once they both were handed over to death. I do believe leadership was passed from bishop to bishop in each generation in each major city or region.
The problem: leadership was not always clear and unanimous. There were many conflicts over who was the rightful bishop in many locations and in numerous timeframes (see the examples below). THIS is why I do not agree with using apostolic succession as evidence to give legitimacy to a particular movement, Catholic or Orthodox. Remember, when the original fathers used apostolic succession it was an apologetic against Gnostics. When Catholics or Orthodox believers use apostolic succession it is to show that their branch of faith is more legitimate than Protestants (or one another). I do not think either branch would say that NO others are Christian, yet that WAS the original use of apostolic succession.
This site is quite rich, I will make time and go through its articles
With that, I wish to bring this debate to an end with this parting shot;
I know you are Roman but had you lived during the East v West squabbles with both claiming to the the real deal, on what basis would you have picked Rome over the other?
-
vooke, sawa sawa :D
But honestly the idea that I'm more likely to be biased than you is an unfair assessment. Because if you are wrong, it means your own protestant assumptions and central doctrines are wrong, so you have as much to lose, you certainly are not free of propensity for bias therefore. You yourself read everything under the assumption that protestant central doctrines are true, you cant look at any evidence, scriptural or historical, that shows they are not, so you are not able to notice your own biases. :D I shall look at the site but also ask you to look at your own assumptions about what is established and what is self-consistent about the central Protestant doctrines you take for-granted.
That site mentions that leadership was not always clear and there was much bickering, but it shows a misunderstanding of the doctrine it proposes to discuss. That has nothing to do with apostolic succession which just means receiving ordination from a validly ordained bishop, all the way to the apostles. The only clearly preserved list of succession is that of popes, incidentally, the Bishops of Rome, only, which is not a matter of apostolic succession but of the see of Peter which is not a matter of ordination but rather presumes it. The early church wasn't keenly concerned on maintaining an exact list of who was ordained by whom. The Bishops have always been ordained by bishops of a valid church. The question of invalid ordinations never ever came up until the reformation when bishops stopped ordaining bishops and after a few centuries, some protestant churches like Lutheran and Anglican who claimed it, could not be verified as having been ordained by someone who was actually a bishop himself. No amount of bickering has every put in question who is ordained bishop in any of the apostolic churches for 2,000 years. We don't need to know who in the year 1500 ordained who till my bishop. We just need to know it has been done in an apostolic church that has never broken the succession by CEASING entirely for a century or even less, to ordain bishops (thus broke the succession) as happened with some protestant churches after the reformation. However, the church always needed to know who was pope at any one time, which is why we have a 2,000 year list of Roman Bishops but not necessarily of all the ancient sees.
As to your question, East/West, I would do as the early church did and as I myself did when I was forced to pick among the apostolic churches: Obey Peter's successor whom the early church believed preserved the church's unity and orthodoxy. :) Just sticking to the beliefs and practices of the first Christians who were taught by the apostles or by the direct disciples of the apostles and their disciples, has proven a very easy tool of discernment for me. They read the same scriptures I read today and virtually none of them saw in them what protestants see, and I believe its because they were not reading them through the culture of mideaval Europe or our own modern 21st century biases, but rather spoke Greek, Aramaic, understood all the idioms, motifs, metaphors, assumptions of that era, and whats more, learned the faith directly from the apostles or those taught directly by them, and the disciples of those ones. I would prefer their interpretation over any televangelist or European reformer that came later, that's just my honest assessment, and to me, the early church is undeniably catholic in all the areas that protestants fight Catholics over.