Not quite. Read Acts 15:7-21. Peter spoke, then Barnabas and Paul, and James rules, even saying "My judgment is this...." It was not a consensus, but a ruling by James.
Galatians 2:11-13, which takes place before the passage I cited in Acts, also indicates that Peter was subordinate to James, even though James was wrong in his beliefs at the time:
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 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. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.Note that Cephas (Peter) was in Antioch, which means that James' influence was not just confined to Jerusalem.Early Christian tradition (see the writings of Eusebius, for example) also places James as the head of the church in Jerusalem. Eusebius, quoting Hegissupus, also records that Jesus' cousin, Simeon, was appointed head of the church in Jerusalem after James was martyred.
I agree with you that Peter was Bishop of Rome. History records that. As a Protestant, I disagree with you that this means anything special, but that disagreement doesn't rise to the level of anything worth arguing about, especially in these perilous times. We're both brothers in Christ and are called to be the salt and light of the world. That's the important thing.
You wrote:
“Not quite. Read Acts 15:7-21. Peter spoke, then Barnabas and Paul, and James rules, even saying “My judgment is this....” It was not a consensus, but a ruling by James.”
No. After Peter spoke the others agreed with him. The issue was DONE.
“Galatians 2:11-13, which takes place before the passage I cited in Acts, also indicates that Peter was subordinate to James, even though James was wrong in his beliefs at the time:
No. The passage in no way indicates that Peter was subodinate to James.
“Note that Cephas (Peter) was in Antioch, which means that James’ influence was not just confined to Jerusalem.”
Influence. Not authority.
“Early Christian tradition (see the writings of Eusebius, for example) also places James as the head of the church in Jerusalem.”
Right. And who is denying that here?
“Eusebius, quoting Hegissupus, also records that Jesus’ cousin, Simeon, was appointed head of the church in Jerusalem after James was martyred.”
Again, who is denying that here?
“I agree with you that Peter was Bishop of Rome. History records that. As a Protestant, I disagree with you that this means anything special, but that disagreement doesn’t rise to the level of anything worth arguing about, especially in these perilous times.”
Wrong. The only reason why these times are perilous is because of the Protestant Revolution. No such evolution, and then there never would have been a modern rise of Islam, or communism, or socialism, etc.
“We’re both brothers in Christ and are called to be the salt and light of the world. That’s the important thing.”
We’re separated brethen. I answer the call given to me.