Replies

RE: James offered Peter his advice as he judged it.

Where in the text does it say that James gave Peter advise and where in the text does it say that Peter gave the final judgment?

I was quoting from the Roman Catholic NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE. Are you saying that their translation is misleading?

RE: You appear to be attempting (unsuccessfully) to argue two anti-Catholic points; that Peter was not an Apostle to the Gentiles

Let’s correct that, Peter and Paul BOTH are apostles to Jews and Gentiles (how does one pick and choose who one wants to share the gospel with?).

The question is what was the MAIN work of either one at the start of their ministries?

However, Paul says this (NASV):

7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles)

This tells me that Peter’s work was MAINLY (not SOLELY) to the Jews and Paul’s was MAINLY (Not SOLELY) to the Gentiles.

Nothing wrong with that. A division of labor goes a long way towards increasing the cause of the Gospel.

We have missionaries right now preaching the gospel MAINLY in Africa and others preaching MAINLY in the middle east. That does not mean that when a middle easterner is encountered by the African missionary he is going to withhold the gospel from him. That would be foolish. Same principle applies to both Peter and Paul.

Also remember this, just because one mainly works to preach the gospel to Jews at the early part of one’s ministry DOES NOT MEAN that at the LATER part of one’s ministry, the focus will not be on gentiles as they start to expand.

Peter can and does expand on Paul’s work in Europe in the later part of his ministry.

I see no contradiction in what I wrote whatsoever.

RE: and that Peter was first among equals, the first Pope.

The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal: “It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles? No, but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, pp. 173-174).

Furthermore, he taught that Peter’s primacy was not one rank, but of faith and confession:

“As soon as Peter heard these words, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honour; a primacy of faith, not of rank.” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, p. 174).

The first point is NOT established at all in Acts 10 or 15. In the case of Acts 15, It was JAMES who made the final judgement or verdict ( as the New Jerusalem, Bible used the word ).

In fact, Paul PUBLICLY states thathe is equal to even the most eminent apostle.

See here:

2 Corinthians 11:4-5 (NASB): “5 For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles. 6 But even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge; in fact, in every way we have made this evident to you in all things.”

HE REPEATS IT TWICE IN FACT:

2 Corinthians 12:11: “ Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody.”

So, NOPE. Peter’s primacy of jurisdiction or rank is IN NO WAY TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE.

He is honored, YES, he is in many ways the leader, YES. He is in many ways the most outspoken, YES.

YET, IN NO WAY DOES SCRIPTURE PUT HIM ABOVE ANY OTHER APOSTLE. THEY ARE EQUALS.

Paul himself attests to it.

Peace be with you too.