Replies

It is only logical that Jesus reminded them to be of servants to each other as found in Luke, before making the following announcement as found in Matthew:

Except that you have your chronology backwards.

(Reg) And what did Jesus say?

This question was in response to your claim "Peter was older and already burdened with being head of the Apostles."

Well after this time the Apostles argued amongst themselves as to who was the greatest. Obviously they didn't accept Peter as the "head of the Apostles".

After this "who is the greatest" argument Jesus said:

Luke 22:
24: A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
25: And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
26: But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.

Not only did the Apostles argue amongst themselves as to which was the greatest, Jesus made it clear that no one of them was.

(Reg) Yet subordinate to James?

What’s your point here?

Acts 15:
19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

Peter was an invited guest at this council presided over by James. James made the judgment. If Peter was "appointed head of the Apostles" by Jesus he certainly would have convened and presided over this council. In fact, he attended and had authority equal to his fellows.

The point is Peter was subordinate to James in this instance.

Except that you have your chronology backwards.

One account is from Matthew, one from Luke. So, I don't know how it is possible to put them into chronic logical order. I stated them in an order which makes logical sense, and I'm not a biblical scholar or familiar with what they say on this subject.

If you want to believe it is James, so be it. That's one of the things that is different between you and me.

Objective Freepers can read our exchange and decide for themselves as well.

Shalom

It seems clear to me that this situation with James could be resolved in your mind if you would think about an entity,government or church,having a policy meeting at their highest local level.

The highest authority routinely utilizes the services of the same secretary,transcriptionist or scribe to record the minutes of the meeting.

To settle a very important matter,the President or Premier or Pope,who is not a resident of that particular city,state,diocese, is called upon to participate,since it is necessary to choose the path to be taken by the local entity and will affect all the other states or counties or churches so they must act with one accord.

The questions are laid out and discussed,the President,Premier or Pope listens,considers everything and speaks for the greater body. The Governor,Commissar or Bishop of the local entity sees the light and concludes discussion with "this entity will now consider it policy to ----------whatever"?The minutes of that meeting showing the actual leader of the local entity would have his or her name affixed to the minutes.It would not be practical to have the "ruler" take over the session of the local entity. This would in no way diminish the authority and authenticity of the actual ruler.

I realize that you may not agree but certainly you can see why the James argument so often offered to prove Peter was not the first Pope holds no water with those of us who see it from this perspective.

I think if yu read a good textbook on the theories of organizations you would have more of an understanding of how they function,naturally and supernaturally.