Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What is the biblical justification for Peter as the first Pope?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
    Peter is not singled out as having primacy among the three.
    Paul would later correct Peter for his sin (Galatians 2). Paul would write more letters than Peter - the same with John. Paul labored more than Peter (See Point #4). James would make the authoritative decision in Acts 15 (See Point #6).
    The gospel of Matthew does not agree with you.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #17
      See Post #5....and the evidence that I just cited above in which you ignored.
      Last edited by foudroyant; 05-31-2014, 06:55 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
        See Post #5....and the evidence that I just cited above in which you ignored.
        Post #5 and your interpretation of 'evidence' do not have more authority than the gospel of Matthew in the eyes of the great majority of Christians.

        As for your evidence, yes, the gospel of Matthew does single out Peter as the first to whom is given the authority of loosing and binding and as having been given the keys by Jesus. Galatians does not in any way negate that. Sins or bad decisions by Peter or Paul or James or men from James subsequently do not change the prior event described in the gospel of Matthew. As far as I know, no one has argued, before now, for any kind of papacy of St Paul based on the number of his letters which have been preserved. Assuming the others accepted his claim to be an apostle (I do), he would at most be among the other equals. Some modern historians, theologians, and even one archeologist, would claim that St Paul was the true founder of Christianity, but I do not agree with this. In Acts 15, James chimes in last, but it is not said that he has greater authority or any kind of primacy of honor; being last, he certainly would not be described as 'first among equals', but rather last among equals. If you want to argue that James or Paul achieved a position of greater authority or honor after Peter, you should first decide which of the two you are arguing for, James or Paul, as the two did not seem to see eye-to-eye on all things. If we assume that the traditional view is correct, that Peter left Jerusalem for Antioch and then Rome, it should not surprise one that someone else would assume (or be given) leadership of the church in Jerusalem. Did Peter go to Rome becuase it was the capital of the Roman Empire? Because it became the center of operations of the Christian missionary efforts? We simply do not know.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #19
          From the biblical account, it seems clear that Peter was not the first leader of the church in Rome (Peter was a leader of the mission to the Jews (Gal. 2:9), yet the Jews in Rome when Paul got there (Acts 28) had to ask him about the new sect. Even before Paul, there were believers in Rome, and they were unlikely to be leaderless. I have no issue of giving Peter a primacy of honor in the early church, though. Aside from Matthew 18, Peter is clearly one of the top three disciples, and he plays a more prominent role in the gospels (and in Acts) than the other two.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
            7. The right to bind and loose given to Peter is also given to the other Apostles.
            "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19, NASB)
            Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:18, NASB)
            This is somewhat off topic - but only a little: What exactly are the keys of the kingdom of heaven?
            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              In Acts 15, James chimes in last, but it is not said that he has greater authority or any kind of primacy of honor; being last, he certainly would not be described as 'first among equals', but rather last among equals. If you want to argue that James or Paul achieved a position of greater authority or honor after Peter, you should first decide which of the two you are arguing for, James or Paul, as the two did not seem to see eye-to-eye on all things.
              Do you know if the view that Peter was the first among equals is the consensus view among scholars. The scholars I've read tend to lean towards the idea that James was the leader of the early church after Jesus, and if I'm recalling correctly (I really wish I remember where I read this), it was common for a close relative to lead disciples after the passing of a popular Rabbi.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                Do you know if the view that Peter was the first among equals is the consensus view among scholars. The scholars I've read tend to lean towards the idea that James was the leader of the early church after Jesus, and if I'm recalling correctly (I really wish I remember where I read this), it was common for a close relative to lead disciples after the passing of a popular Rabbi.
                First among equals is an ecclesiological formula, not an historical opinion. James became a leader of the movement in Jerusalem at some point, but not necessarily immediately. Some groups outside of Jerusalem also accepted James as the leader of the movement, eg, as is seen in the gospel of Thomas. James Tabor and some others emphasize the royal bloodline of Jesus and James, but this is very much a minority view. The leader of a rabbinic school did not necessarily fall to a blood relative. I suspect that in the earliest church there was not necessarily one single leader of the whole movement, but rather a variety of different types of leaders in different locations and in varying relationship with local Jewish leadership.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  First among equals is an ecclesiological formula, not an historical opinion.
                  I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that from a historian's perspective James was the leader of the church, but from a 1st century Christian's perspective, he wasn't?

                  I suspect that in the earliest church there was not necessarily one single leader of the whole movement, but rather a variety of different types of leaders in different locations and in varying relationship with local Jewish leadership.
                  Why did Paul find it necessary then to get permission from the Jerusalem leadership about preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles? Paul seems to make it clear that the center of the early church hierarchy was there.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                    This is somewhat off topic - but only a little: What exactly are the keys of the kingdom of heaven?
                    1. Vine: "a key," is used metaphorically (a) of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," which the Lord committed to Peter, Matthew 16:19, by which he would open the door of faith, as he did to Jews at Pentecost, and to Gentiles in the person of Cornelius, acting as one commissioned by Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit; he had precedence over his fellow disciples, not in authority, but in the matter of time, on the ground of his confession of Christ (Matthew 18:16); equal authority was committed to them (Matthew 18:18)
                    http://www.studylight.org/dictionari...iew.cgi?n=1562

                    2. Watson: Christ promises to St. Peter, that he should first open the gate of his kingdom, both to Jew and Gentile, in making the first converts among them, Matthew 16:19 .
                    It is observable that no supremacy is here given to St. Peter; as the power of binding and loosing belonged equally to all the Apostles, Matthew 18:18 . The term binding and loosing was customarily applied by the Jews to a decision respecting doctrines or rites, establishing which were lawful and which unlawful.
                    http://www.studylight.org/dictionari...view.cgi?n=966

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                      I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that from a historian's perspective James was the leader of the church, but from a 1st century Christian's perspective, he wasn't?
                      No. One cannot say, from an historical perspecive, that Peter (or James) was the single leader of the universal chuch from the beginning, but in the next few centuries it was widely acknowledged among the other churches that Peter and Rome were owed some type of primacy among other main apostolic sees: Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria. Later on, Constantinople was made part of the patriarchal pentarchy, and later replaced Rome among Eastern orthodox churches, but there was never any real agreement on what was meant by the phrase 'primacy of honor' or 'first among equals' but there were attempts to try and figure out how to express the unity of the universal church among the most important apostolic sees. Rome was probably most important at first becaue it was the seat of the empire first, but it did not hurt that both Peter and Paul ended up there according to most traditions.

                      Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                      Why did Paul find it necessary then to get permission from the Jerusalem leadership about preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles? Paul seems to make it clear that the center of the early church hierarchy was there.
                      We think James stayed there, but we do not know how long Peter stayed there. At the so-called Council of Jerusalem, was Peter still in residence there or did he come back, just as Paul did? Luke-Acts focuses on Jerusalem, but the earlier accounts of Mark and Matthew imply or state that the first resurrection appearances were in Galilee, not Jerusalem, and Damascus in Syria (north of Galilee) seems to have been an important center of Jewish Christians very early on, such that Saul of Tarsus was presumably persecuting Christians there and joined the sect there. I think Luke's later account has a literary and theological focus on Jerusalem as the point from which the Jewish Christian church went forth into the whole world, especially in the journey of Paul to Rome. It is quite possible that James was the primary leader Jews in Jerusalem and he seems to have been more interested in winning over the Jewish establishment but Peter and the others may have retained Galilee, Syria, and the Dekapolis as focus of their work. If the tradition is to be believed, Peter moved to Antioch (capital of Syria) and then Rome (capital of the Empire). And then Paul ended up in Rome. Did he ever make it to Spain? The world was a big place back then, transportation and communication were much more difficult.
                      Last edited by robrecht; 05-31-2014, 10:38 PM.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        there was never any real agreement on what was meant by the phrase 'primacy of honor' or 'first among equals' but there were attempts to try and figure out how to express the unity of the universal church among the most important apostolic sees.
                        I guess I'm still confused about how you're defining "primacy of honor" and "first among equals". It sounds like you mean something different than "a leader of the Christian community". I take the phrase to mean something like all Christians are saints and equals within the Body, but one has chief hierarchical responsibility and prominence. Sort of like how the President of the US is the commander-in-chief and leader of the nation, but is still a citizen, subject to checks and balances and the the nation's laws, rather than a monarch or an authoritarian with unimpeachable absolute power. If James was not in a position at the top of the hierarchical ladder after the death of Jesus, then why do so many historians act as though he was (if you need sources to back this reading, I can provide them).

                        Rome was probably most important at first becaue it was the seat of the empire first, but it did not hurt that both Peter and Paul ended up there according to most traditions.

                        We think James stayed there, but we do not know how long Peter stayed there. At the so-called Council of Jerusalem, was Peter still in residence there or did he come back, just as Paul did? Luke-Acts focuses on Jerusalem, but the earlier accounts of Mark and Matthew imply or state that the first resurrection appearances were in Galilee, not Jerusalem, and Damascus in Syria (north of Galilee) seems to have been an important center of Jewish Christians very early on, such that Saul of Tarsus was presumably persecuting Christians there and joined the sect there. I think Luke's later account has a literary and theological focus on Jerusalem as the point from which the Jewish Christian church went forth into the whole world, especially in the journey of Paul to Rome. It is quite possible that James was the primary leader Jews in Jerusalem and he seems to have been more interested in winning over the Jewish establishment but Peter and the others may have retained Galilee, Syria, and the Dekapolis as focus of their work. If the tradition is to be believed, Peter moved to Antioch (capital of Syria) and then Rome (capital of the Empire). And then Paul ended up in Rome. Did he ever make it to Spain? The world was a big place back then, transportation and communication were much more difficult.
                        I don't doubt Rome and Constantinople's position of power in a later period, but, again, so many scholars I've read seem to point to Jerusalem, and James specifically, as the head of the church very early on. Why is that? What I'm getting from you is that James was not the head of the church early on, just one of a number of high ranking individuals, and that Jerusalem wasn't the early church's headquarters, but rather there were a number of important communities that were in relative harmony with one another. Again, that makes me wonder why Paul felt the need to emphasize that he got approval from Jerusalem to spread his Gospel message.

                        If you simply disagree with all the scholars that point to James as the leader of the early church, then that's fine, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. On the other hand I don't mind being set straight if my reading of these scholars is not accurate.

                        Oh, before I forget, if you're defining "primacy of honor" and "first among equals" differently than I am, when were these phrases first coined?
                        Last edited by OingoBoingo; 06-01-2014, 12:16 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                          I guess I'm still confused about how you're defining "primacy of honor" and "first among equals". It sounds like you mean something different than "a leader of the Christian community". I take the phrase to mean something like all Christians are saints and equals within the Body, but one has chief hierarchical responsibility and prominence. Sort of like how the President of the US is the commander-in-chief and leader of the nation, but is still a citizen, subject to checks and balances and the the nation's laws, rather than a monarch or an authoritarian with unimpeachable absolute power. If James was not in a position at the top of the hierarchical ladder after the death of Jesus, then why do so many historians act as though he was (if you need sources to back this reading, I can provide them).

                          I don't doubt Rome and Constantinople's position of power in a later period, but, again, so many scholars I've read seem to point to Jerusalem, and James specifically, as the head of the church very early on. Why is that? What I'm getting from you is that James was not the head of the church early on, just one of a number of high ranking individuals, and that Jerusalem wasn't the early church's headquarters, but rather there were a number of important communities that were in relative harmony with one another. Again, that makes me wonder why Paul felt the need to emphasize that he got approval from Jerusalem to spread his Gospel message.

                          If you simply disagree with all the scholars that point to James as the leader of the early church, then that's fine, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. On the other hand I don't mind being set straight if my reading of these scholars is not accurate.

                          Oh, before I forget, if you're defining "primacy of honor" and "first among equals" differently than I am, when were these phrases first coined?
                          I am not defining 'primacy of honor' because it meant different things to different people (and still does) and functioned as a sort of least common denominator of attributing some sense of importance to Rome because of it being seen as the continuation of Peter's authority. I do not know who first used the term, but it was surely long after James and Peter and Paul were dead. Likewise, with 'first among equals', 'though it is clearly rooted in an understanding gleaned from the gospel of Matthew, which clearly has all of the disciples collectively receiving the power of loosing and binding, but Peter received it first, as well as the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and was named 'Rock' upon whom Jesus said he would build his church. Clearly, Matthew assigned to Peter a special role, but we do not know exactly what that role was. Was Matthew written in Antioch, where Peter had played a leadership role? We do not really know. So, we have some special role being attributed to Peter as early as the writing of Matthew, and that role being affirmed by other sees at a much later date, but not with the same understanding, but certainly not with the sense of a commander-in-chief. Not even Rome had that understanding, until much, much later, and only in the West, where Rome was the only apostolic see. Some looked to Rome to solve some disputes or as an essential part of any ecumenical council but no one viewed it as having ordinary organizational jurisdiction over the whole church.

                          As for the historical role played by James, I do not doubt his importance in the early church, but we do not know how soon after the resurrection he became a member of the church, let alone a leader, or if he had always been a disciple, perhaps even the beloved disciple, during Jesus' ministry. At some point he became a leader, especially in Jerusalem, and seems to have been associated with those who believed that Gentile Christians should be circumcised. Paul clearly took an opposing view, and he saw Peter as at one time an ally but perhaps a wavering one. Had James made serious inroads among the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem and wanted to point to either the extreme faithfulness of the early Christians to the law and the messianic sign of Gentiles converting to 'Judaism'? Did the early converts in Jerusalem contain a lot of very observant Jews, eg, many priests (so Acts) or priestly dissidents from Qumran, who interpreted Jesus' teachings in line with their own views, or were all of the first Jewish Christians and Jesus himself ultra-legalists with respect to the purity laws? I think there were disagreements among Jesus first followers but clearly a strict law party seems to have dominated in Jerusalem with James seen as a leader. But the author of Matthew, which clearly had strict law party followers among his community, did not look to James as the leader of the movement. Likewise, and even more so, Mark before him. Even Luke, who emphasizes the role of Jerusalem does not emphasize James role there. All of our gospels were written in Greek and therefore do not necessarily reflect the perspective of the Aramaic and Hebrew minded followers in Jerusalem so I do not mean to merely endorse their view as historically accurate. Other writings, eg, I mentioned the gospel of Thomas, point to James as the leader. Our earliest and most reliable source is Paul and he certainly opposed the view of some men from James so Paul is early, direct testimony but with his own agenda. He points to James as having some authority, but certainly not absolute. He recognized Jerusalem as having some authority, and especially it seems Peter, James and John, but he was opposed to James' view and he opposed Peter when he saw him as being persuaded by James' view. If Paul recognized some authority but felt completely free to oppose it, I think we can safely say that there was no view of Jerusalem, Peter, or James as having any kind of absolute authority.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I'm not sure why you keep fluffling your replies with a bunch of details that seem unrelated to my questions. Its a lot of interesting aside (most of which I'm already familiar with, and don't disagree with), but it doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm asking. I hate to say it, but it seems a little like obfuscation.

                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            I am not defining 'primacy of honor' because it meant different things to different people (and still does) and functioned as a sort of least common denominator of attributing some sense of importance to Rome because of it being seen as the continuation of Peter's authority. I do not know who first used the term, but it was surely long after James and Peter and Paul were dead. Likewise, with 'first among equals', 'though it is clearly rooted in an understanding gleaned from the gospel of Matthew, which clearly has all of the disciples collectively receiving the power of loosing and binding, but Peter received it first, as well as the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and was named 'Rock' upon whom Jesus said he would build his church. Clearly, Matthew assigned to Peter a special role, but we do not know exactly what that role was. Was Matthew written in Antioch, where Peter had played a leadership role? We do not really know. So, we have some special role being attributed to Peter as early as the writing of Matthew, and that role being affirmed by other sees at a much later date, but not with the same understanding, but certainly not with the sense of a commander-in-chief. Not even Rome had that understanding, until much, much later, and only in the West, where Rome was the only apostolic see. Some looked to Rome to solve some disputes or as an essential part of any ecumenical council but no one viewed it as having ordinary organizational jurisdiction over the whole church.
                            I wasn't implying that the commander-in-chief analogy was a one on one parallel. I thought that was pretty obvious. I guess the analogy wasn't very good if you didn't get my meaning, but since you can't provide an adequate definition either, I guess the point is moot.

                            As for the historical role played by James, I do not doubt his importance in the early church, but we do not know how soon after the resurrection he became a member of the church, let alone a leader, or if he had always been a disciple, perhaps even the beloved disciple, during Jesus' ministry. At some point he became a leader, especially in Jerusalem, and seems to have been associated with those who believed that Gentile Christians should be circumcised. Paul clearly took an opposing view, and he saw Peter as at one time an ally but perhaps a wavering one. Had James made serious inroads among the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem and wanted to point to either the extreme faithfulness of the early Christians to the law and the messianic sign of Gentiles converting to 'Judaism'? Did the early converts in Jerusalem contain a lot of very observant Jews, eg, many priests (so Acts) or priestly dissidents from Qumran, who interpreted Jesus' teachings in line with their own views, or were all of the first Jewish Christians and Jesus himself ultra-legalists with respect to the purity laws? I think there were disagreements among Jesus first followers but clearly a strict law party seems to have dominated in Jerusalem with James seen as a leader. But the author of Matthew, which clearly had strict law party followers among his community, did not look to James as the leader of the movement. Likewise, and even more so, Mark before him. Even Luke, who emphasizes the role of Jerusalem does not emphasize James role there. All of our gospels were written in Greek and therefore do not necessarily reflect the perspective of the Aramaic and Hebrew minded followers in Jerusalem so I do not mean to merely endorse their view as historically accurate. Other writings, eg, I mentioned the gospel of Thomas, point to James as the leader. Our earliest and most reliable source is Paul and he certainly opposed the view of some men from James so Paul is early, direct testimony but with his own agenda. He points to James as having some authority, but certainly not absolute. He recognized Jerusalem as having some authority, and especially it seems Peter, James and John, but he was opposed to James' view and he opposed Peter when he saw him as being persuaded by James' view. If Paul recognized some authority but felt completely free to oppose it, I think we can safely say that there was no view of Jerusalem, Peter, or James as having any kind of absolute authority.
                            It sounds like you're really hedging your bets in this answer. You're sort of implying that, yes, James was the leader, but well, its really hard to tell if he was or wasn't, and some communities don't appear to think that he was. I was really hoping you'd answer my questions more plainly. Is it a fact that a large number of historians view James as the leader of the church after the death of Jesus? Yes or no? Do you agree or disagree with these scholars?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                              I'm not sure why you keep fluffling your replies with a bunch of details that seem unrelated to my questions. Its a lot of interesting aside (most of which I'm already familiar with, and don't disagree with), but it doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm asking. I hate to say it, but it seems a little like obfuscation.

                              I wasn't implying that the commander-in-chief analogy was a one on one parallel. I thought that was pretty obvious. I guess the analogy wasn't very good if you didn't get my meaning, but since you can't provide an adequate definition either, I guess the point is moot.

                              It sounds like you're really hedging your bets in this answer. You're sort of implying that, yes, James was the leader, but well, its really hard to tell if he was or wasn't, and some communities don't appear to think that he was. I was really hoping you'd answer my questions more plainly. Is it a fact that a large number of historians view James as the leader of the church after the death of Jesus? Yes or no? Do you agree or disagree with these scholars?
                              Yes, I agree that James was a leader in Jerusalem, but historians do not really know when he became a leader, nor exactly what type of leadership he exercised. Much of history is lost to us. That's not obfuscation, just the reality.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                Yes, I agree that James was a leader in Jerusalem, but historians do not really know when he became a leader, nor exactly what type of leadership he exercised. Much of history is lost to us. That's not obfuscation, just the reality.
                                Again, that's not what I asked. I asked "Is it a fact that a large number of historians view James as the leader of the church after the death of Jesus? Yes or no? Do you agree or disagree with these scholars?"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 05-26-2022, 08:29 AM
                                12 responses
                                63 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X