No, it's not another way of saying anything. Acts chapter shows the disciple James, not Peter, acting as spokesman and leader of the church in Jerusalem rendering a decision about new converts.
When Paul and Barnabas are sent to Antioch it is the “apostles and older men” who come one accord, not just Peter, in the decision.
While there Paul decides to revisit cities where he had preached. Does he consult with Peter? Seek his leadership? No.
In fact as Paul said to the Galatians (chap.’s 1,2) that after his conversion he went off into Arabia and only years later went up to Jerusalem to spend some time with Peter and James (Jesus’ brother).
So Peter as a leader in the church? Sure. Pater as the leader of the church? Scripture doesn't bear that out.
“No, it’s not another way of saying anything. Acts chapter shows the disciple James, not Peter, acting as spokesman and leader of the church in Jerusalem rendering a decision about new converts.”
Perhaps that’s because he’s Bishop of Jerusalem?
“When Paul and Barnabas are sent to Antioch it is the “apostles and older men” who come one accord, not just Peter, in the decision.”
Yet, in Acts 1, before Pentecost, it comes down to Peter. Why is this? When it comes to appointing replacements to the 12, it’s Peter who decides.
“While there Paul decides to revisit cities where he had preached. Does he consult with Peter? Seek his leadership?”
So you’re telling me he didn’t keep Peter appraised as to where he was going? He already had permission to travel.
“Peter as the leader of the church? Scripture doesn’t bear that out.”
If it wasn’t him, who was it?