JFJ Forums

If we care to look at the historical development of the early church, we  find it interesting that the Catholic Church claims headquarters in Rome with Peter’s chair there when in fact the early church’s original headquarters was in Jerusalem with James as the leader.

Acts 15 records an important issue that came up to the apostles. How were they to deal with Gentiles becoming Christians? Paul and Barnabus begin by sharing their wonderful stories of the conversion of Gentiles. After much discussion Peter gets up to offer his opinion that Gentiles should not have to follow the Law of Moses and so he agrees with Paul and Barnabus. But in the end, it is James who has the last word: When they finished, James spoke up: “Brothers, listen to me” (Acts 15:13). James then explains that Scripture foresaw the Gentiles becoming Christians and so they shouldn’t make them follow the Law of Moses. It was James who overruled Peter Peter on a matter of doctrine, which makes a total nonense of the papist claim of Papal infalliblly though Peters succession and the non-existent Chair of Peter

From this incident we see that the first Church council did not take place in Rome with Peter as the head, but in Jerusalem with James leading the group. Paul confirms that James was the main leader at the time, for he writes, "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me" (Galatians 3:9).

DavidJ

James was Bishop of Jeruselm, but uses the term " ergo krino " ( my opinion ), which is not binding declaration.
However after Peter spoke " the mulitudes kept silence ", his words were taken as binding.

Peter wasn't speaking of his accord. By the way, read Galatians 1-3 to understand what I mean.

Please provide biblical reference especially naming James as the Bishop of Jerusalem.


. I assume you are citing Acts 15:12 .. verse 13 continues, "...and after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethen, harken unto me." Which is clear proof that at least James did not consider 'the first popes' (according to papal doctrine) as binding by any stretch of imagination!

Davidf

The fact that Peter spoke first (shows his authority) answering the charge of the pharasees that demanded circumcision before the gentiles could be recieved into the Church, saying:

"And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith ". This directly rebutted the charge of the christian pharasees.

Then James backs Peters judgement, he did not disagree with Peter that the gentiles should be included, Peter had made the statement first.

You say,"harken unto me[/u]." Which is clear proof that at least James did not consider 'the first popes' (according to papal doctrine) as binding by any stretch of imagination!"

" harken unto me " This is the text that you somehow use to denote James' superiority.

The Greek for ‘listen to me’ is akouoo, which is not of itself an imperative connoting authority, but a word which can be used by any person seeking the attention of another. It is used hundreds of times in the New Testament in this sense.

Jesus said "and upon this rock..." let's stop here. Jesus uses a different word now. We already know Peter is translated as petros, which means piece of rock, but now Jesus uses the actual word rock, instead of petros.

If we look up "rock" in the Greek, it's translated "petra" (not petros) and means mass of rock.

So petros means PIECE of rock
and petra means MASS of rock
(two different words, which mean two different things)

Therefore, if we could take what Jesus actually said, and in place of the English words our Scriptures are translated into, we could use the definitions of the Greek words, it was translated FROM. If we did that, it would actually read this way:

"Thou art a piece of rock, and upon this mass of rock, I will build my church."

Jesus' words take on a whole real meaning brfinging into harmony with the whole Bible, when we understand what the English words actually mean, in the original language of Greek, which is what the New Testament is translated from.

Jesus did not say He was building His church on Peter, He said He was building His church on the mass of rock, and that Peter was a piece of rock. So what's the "mass of rock" Jesus was talking about??

If you go back to what Jesus said in Mathhew 16:17, you'll see that Jesus called Peter blessed, because God had revealed to Peter that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. Jesus continues that thought in verse 18, He says (substituting the original Greek meanings for English words here) "AND I say also unto thee (Jesus was responding to Peters dvine r evelation that He is the Son of God) thou art a piece of rock, and upon this mass of rock I will build my church".

Scripture says that Jesus actually said "upon this rock" The mass of rock Jesus was talking about was the divine revelation given by God of who Jesus is, revealing that He is Christ, THIS is the "mass of rock" that Jesus told Peter He would build His church on.

When we say "He is the Rock" who are we talking about, Peter, or Jesus? When we read that someone was the cornerstone that the builders rejected, who is being referred to there, Jesus, or Peter?

The "rock" that Jesus was referring to was none other than HIMSELF, that faith in Him, given BY God, and recognising Him by divine revelation  as Son of God, was what His church was going to be built on, not Peter.

DavidJ

Reference Marina post #34.This post contributes no new material to validate the papist claim of Peter being the first pope. Therefore I am not inclines to be drawn into yet another tanget.

DavidJ

Jesus didn't say 'Thou art a piece of rock ' , He said " Thou art Kepha " which means massive Rock in Aremaic. If Jesus did say 'Thou art a piece of rock' , He would have said 'Thou art evna' , but He didn't.

And we know that that was his new name "Kepha", massive Rock and on that " Kepha " Christ builds His Church.

The New Testament is written in Greek not Aremaic.
The basis of the traditional Christian Scolars understanding of this passage is the assertion that petros (petrov", masculine in gender) is a small, fragmentary rock and that petra (pevtra, feminine in gender) is a large, immense rock. From this difference in meaning, it has been concluded by learned translators that Simon Peter is not the rock-foundation of the church in Matthew 16:18. For instance, a typical translators definition is..
... "petros" means a fragment of "petra," rock. ... The saying can hardly mean that Peter is the rock on which the church is built, since the foundation-rock of the church is Christ (or faith in Christ). Rather, it is Peter's rock-like faith in Christ which is to be the foundation of the church."
Another alternative is offered .....
Christ called Peter a petros, or stone, but He spoke of the rock on which he would build the church as petra, a living rock. The word "rock" that is applied to Peter is masculine in gender, but the "rock" on which Christ said he would build his church is feminine in gender. There is good reason to believe that the correct interpretation is that Christ was by the word "rock" referring to Peter’s received revelation of Him as "the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

DavidJ

Jesus didn't speak Greek He spoke Arameaic. We know Jesus is speaking Aremeaic, because He says Simon Bar Johna, which is Simon son of John in Aremeaic.

So how do you translate "Kepha" ( massive Rock) into greek which has both masculine and feminine nouns for "Rock".

Do you call Peter "Petra" female, the equivelant in english would be "Petrina", or Petros masculine, Peter.

The reason why the word "Petros" is used is simply to denote the masculine, because Peter was male. Else where in the Bible you can see Peter is called "Cephas", which is always means massive Rock.

Jesus said " Kepha " massive Rock, not 'evna' small rock, and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church.

The whole context of the passage was Peter himself, not his confession of faith.