Hi TJ3,

Correct if I'm wrong:

As I understand, you believe in a doctrine called Sola Scriptura? Would you define the doctrine and show me where it is in Scripture?

Sincerely,

De Maria


In the meantime, I find the three prong Catholic Tradition is confirmed in Scripture:

First we are instructed to listen to the Church:

Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


Two, we are instructed that the Word of God is passed on orally:
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

As well as by Scripture, and therefore it follows; three, that we keep traditions by word and scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Perhaps we could analyze these Scriptures to see whether they contradict the notion that Scripture is the only standard for Christian doctrine.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

listen to the Church

---

Which Church?

Quote:

---

the Word of God is passed on orally

---

By whom?

Quote:

---

keep traditions by word and scripture

---

Whose traditions?

The early church was the only church, this church is what became both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. They were both together until @ 1100 AD but both retained most of the same doctrine at the time of their split.

So I would say few could argue ( of course I am sure some here will) that the idea and term Church is normally referral to those group of Christians that developed into that group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Which Church?

---

The Church established by Jesus Christ.

Quote:

---

By whom?

---

The same Church.

Quote:

---

Whose traditions?

---

The traditions established by Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

The Church established by Jesus Christ.

---

He didn't establish one.

Quote:

---

The traditions established by Jesus Christ.

---

Please list at least five.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

He didn't establish one.

---

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Quote:

---

Please list at least five.

---

The Mass
1 Corinthians 11 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

The Eucharist
John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Preaching the Word
Matthew 10 27 That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops.

Penance or Repentance
Matthew 4 17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

The Magisterium or Teaching Church
Matthew 28 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Ah! Protestants don't accept the Matthew passage as proof that Jesus started the church with Peter as the first pope.

Protestants do not acknowledge the "traditions" that you listed as any kind of traditions.

Apparently this will be a Catholic thread. I gather Catholics do not acknowledge Sola Scripture. The discussion will come to naught. There is no possibility of agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maria

As I understand, you believe in a doctrine called Sola Scriptura? Would you define the doctrine and show me where it is in Scripture?

---

Sola Scriptura is the is the belief that the Bible is self-authenticating, clear to the rational reader, its own interpreter and the final authority of Christian doctrine.

This idea is not taught in scripture.

More here and here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Ah! Protestants don't accept the Matthew passage as proof that Jesus started the church with Peter as the first pope.

Protestants do not acknowledge the "traditions" that you listed as any kind of traditions.

Apparently this will be a Catholic thread. I gather Catholics do not acknowledge Sola Scripture. The discussion will come to naught. There is no possibility of agreement.

---

I didn't ask for agreement. Just explanation. I showed the Catholic doctrine and where it is confirmed in Scripture.

What is the definition of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and where is it confirmed in Scripture?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

I didn't ask for agreement. Just explanation. I showed the Catholic doctrine and where it is confirmed in Scripture.

What is the definition of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and where is it confirmed in Scripture?

Sincerely,

De Maria

---

Actually, what you gave was a denominational position which is contrary to what scripture says.

Matt 16:13-19
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" 14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
NKJV

What do we see here?

- Jesus was speaking to his disciples as a group
- The topic was "who is Jesus"
- Peter answered that he is the Messiah, son of the living God.
- Jesus does not immediately refer to Peter, but rather the fact that the revelation of the truth came from God the father.

The word Peter here is Petros, which means stone or a piece of a rock, and then Jesus refers to the "rock" which is the revelation of who he is, and states that His church shall be built upon this revelation that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The word "rock" here is Petra, which means rock, or a mass of rock. We do not build a building upon a piece of a rock or a stone, but rather upon a rock that is massive enough to provide a solid foundation. Jesus' choice of words made it clear which should be the foundation of His church. This is confirmed in Paul's letter to the church at Corinth:

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

Matt 16:13-19
18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.


The greek word in 18 was Peters name Petrus, which just means Rock, just as in the others names, including jesus name all has a meaning, there is no reason to beelive it was not merely his name being used, in fact since it is the same name used in other verses it would not be reasonable to believe in this one verse Peters name was meaning something other than his name.

The term for rock is petra, and that is the word used for rock in the verse.
And even if the term petros was used, it was used The term petra means a larger rock or mass of rock something large, it is compared to the term
( or comes from the term) lithos, which is merely a stone

So he was speaking to Peter ( whose name means rock) that upon this large mass of rock, he would build his church.

The term for Peter was always shown as a literal meaning, while the term petra has been used figurtively as well as literal. In the Greek it is often the usage of the word that helps determine its meaning.

Also understand that in the early greek not all pronouns and grammar was used as we use it today, so there are "added words" to make it work in english. So instead of actually saying And I say also into thee
It really reads in greek more And also ( which is many readers idea of a break) but there are also other word ideas that can be used insteadof the word also, the greek word used is lega, which can have several meanings
, used for a individual expressoin, perhaps after talking to a group, he would turn and talk to Peter more in private. It can also be used to mean where as or even a added random though. Each of those meanings can well change the idea of what the meaning can or could be.

But in all of them it would appear that it is very obvoius that Peter is being talked to and that he would be a large part of the start of the church.

I do have to laugh, in one side so many Protestants want solo scripture, where it is obvoius and plain what the bible says and is all that is needed.
But when the bible is very clear on what it is saying, then it is not really what it is saying but a more figure meaning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Matt 16:13-19
18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

The greek word in 18 was Peters name Petrus, which just means Rock, just as in the others names, including jesus name all has a meaning, there is no reason to beelive it was not merely his name being used, in fact since it is the same name used in other verses it would not be reasonable to believe in this one verse Peters name was meaning something other than his name.

---

I know of no credible source which would agree with you, including the Bible:

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV

Quote:

---

But in all of them it would appear that it is very obvoius that Peter is being talked to and that he would be a large part of the start of the church.

---

Not so obvious to others.

Quote:

---

I do have to laugh, in one side so many Protestants want solo scripture, where it is obvoius and plain what the bible says and is all that is needed.
But when the bible is very clear on what it is saying, then it is not really what it is saying but a more figure meaning

---

Like when Paul says that the foundation is not Peter, but Jesus?

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

BTW, I am not a Protestant.

How about Strongs dictionary and lexical aids to the bible
And perhaps the bible in greek

And there is a difference between a mass of rock ( or a large part of forming it) and the foundation.

One fact exampel Mat 16:16, same greek work used for Peter,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

How about Strongs dictionary and lexical aids to the bible
And perhaps the bible in greek

And there is a difference between a mass of rock ( or a large part of forming it) and the foundation.

---

NT:4074
Petros (pet'-ros); apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than NT:3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


And what is a piece of a rock??

Yes, as a name, it is Peters name, not referring to anything but calling Peter specifcly by name, Jesus was talking to Peter,

Rock has various sizes, we have grades in today's english, chat, gravel, stone, and they had the words for various size of stone, rock, piece , mass and so on. But the usage lets us know ti was obvous a name.
Since of course it was the same word used throughout Mathew for Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Like when Paul says that the foundation is not Peter, but Jesus?

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

---

Of course Jesus is the ultimate head of the church. That does not mean then, that Jesus did not leave a visible head. That visible head was Peter. Again this is not an ether/or. It is not just ether Jesus is the foundation, or Peter is the foundation. And of course, even if Peter wasn't the visible head of the church, that would not point to a sola scriptura approach to scripture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wangdoodle

Of corse Jesus is the ultimate head of the church. That does not mean then, that Jesus did not leave a visible head. That visible head was Peter.

---

That is a denominational claim which, as shown, is not in concert with scripture, but we see in scripture that Peter was not given that recognition even in practice in scripture. For example, when Paul rebuked Peter on a doctrinal matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

yes, as a name, it is Peters name, not referring to anything but calling Peter specifcly by name, Jesus was talking to Peter,

---

As I said, maybe obvious to you, but the grammar itself does not even suggest that it is Peter that he was speaking to. And to me that is obvious.

Quote:

---

rock has various sizes, we have grades in today's english, chat, gravel, stone, and they had the words for various size of stone, rock, piece , mass and so on. But the usage lets us know ti was obvous a name.
Since of course it was the same word used throughout Mathew for Peter.

---

Bottom line - Peter was not called a rock, and Strong's agrees.

Actually it is, if you will note that Paul went to see Peter about the issues of spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles to basically "get his permission"

I am not going to look the verse up tonight, time for bed,

I did not think anyone acutally doubted that Peter was the head of the early church, only the fact if he was considered a Pope as the catholic church claim, the claims that he was obviosly the early church leader seems fairly well proven by scripture

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

As I said, maybe obvious to you, but the grammar itself does not even suggest that it is Peter that he was speaking to. And to me that is obvious.



Bottom line - Peter was not called a rock, and Strong's agrees.

---

Not called a rock?? Your own quote showed it was used for an apostles name?

It is obvious that you are just not wanting to accept black and white, in black and white from your own posting. The term was used throughout Mathew for Peter, it is just the greek word used, straight out of the greek bible strongs dictionary, greek condordance, and exegetical notes coded directly from strongs greek. If this was just a one time use of the term, one could perhaps wonder, but since it is not a one time use of the word it is then a obvous use by the author.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Actually it is, if you will note that Paul went to see Peter about the issues of spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles to basically "get his permission"

---

I'd be interested in seeing the verse that you are thinking of and to read the context.

Quote:

---

I did not think anyone acutally doubted that Peter was the head of the early church, only the fact if he was considered a Pope as the catholic church claim, the claims that he was obviosly the early church leader seems fairly well proven by scripture

---

Actually, I know few people if any who believe Peter was head of the early church who are not Catholics or Mormons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Not called a rock?? Your own quote showed it was used for an apostles name?

---

What quote? Are you reading something that I have not seen??

Quote:

---

It is obvious that you are just not wanting to accept black and white, in black and white from your own posting. The term was used throughout Mathew for Peter, it is just the greek word used, straight out of the greek bible strongs dictionary, greek condordance, and exegetical notes coded directly from strongs greek. If this was just a one time use of the term, one could perhaps wonder, but since it is not a one time use of the word it is then a obvous use by the author.

---

I showed you where scripture itself says that it means "stone", but I note that that scripture reference has been ignore by those who believe Peter was the "rock".

Throughout scripture, the Rock is God (Father or Son):

Deut 32:4
4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect;
For all His ways are justice,
A God of truth and without injustice;
Righteous and upright is He.
NKJV

Deut 32:15
Then he forsook God who made him,
And scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
NKJV

Deut 32:18
18 Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,
And have forgotten the God who fathered you.
NKJV

Deut 32:30-31
30 How could one chase a thousand,
And two put ten thousand to flight,
Unless their Rock had sold them,
And the LORD had surrendered them?
31 For their rock is not like our Rock,
NKJV

2 Sam 22:47
47 "The LORD lives!
Blessed be my Rock!
Let God be exalted,
The Rock of my salvation!
NKJV

2 Sam 23:3
3 The God of Israel said,
The Rock of Israel spoke to me:
NKJV

Ps 18:46
46 The LORD lives!
Blessed be my Rock!
Let the God of my salvation be exalted.
NKJV

Ps 28:1
To You I will cry, O LORD my Rock:
NKJV

Ps 42:9
9 I will say to God my Rock,
"Why have You forgotten me?
NKJV

Ps 95:1
Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.
NKJV

Ps 144:1
Blessed be the LORD my Rock,
NKJV

Isa 17:10
10 Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation,
And have not been mindful of the Rock of your stronghold,
NKJV

Isa 44:8
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;I know not one.'"
NKJV

Hab 1:12
O LORD, You have appointed them for judgment;
O Rock, You have marked them for correction.
NKJV

1 Cor 10:4-5
For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
NKJV

As for the stone, there is much less, but here is what we do find:
John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV

1 Peter 2:4-6
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
NKJV

So, we are stones, but there are references to Jesus as a stone as well:

Rom 9:33
33 As it is written:
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."NKJV
He is both a Rock and a Stone. That is because he is the cornerstone:

Eph 2:19-22
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
NKJV

The cornerstone is in fact, a rock. So Jesus can be called a stone (cornerstone), but is more frequently called the Rock and even the reference to Him being a stone refers to a Rock (cornerstone). On the other hand, there is no reference in scripture anywhere of Peter being called a Rock. He is a stone, as we all are stone per 1 Peter 2:4-6. This may also be a reference to the fact that Jesus is both God (Rock) and man (stone), and is the sole person to hold such a distinction.

Jesus, as the Rock, is also the cornerstone, which is the most notable piece of the foundation, but the confession of Peter that Jesus is Christ is the foundation upon which the church will be built. We see this endorsed in scripture as well, later by Paul:

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

So the foundation is Jesus, not Peter. A church built upon Jesus, and the revelation of the fact that he is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God is the church that will stand, not a church built upon a man.

Which rock are they talking to simon "rock" in Math 16:16, same word used in the other passage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

which rock are they talking to simon "rock" in Math 16:16, same word used in the other passage

---

??

Matt 16:16
16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
NKJV

The word for Simon is:

NT:4613
Simon (see'-mone); of Hebrew origin [OT:8095]; Simon (i.e. Shimon), the name of nine Israelites:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Who are the stones spoken of here??

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV

1 Peter 2:4-6
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
NKJV

No the word for Peter, the King James says Simon Peter,

Thus the word Peter, just as used in the other verse, the term in greek for peter is the same, so if you accept that it is Peter in this verse, it is thus peter in the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

No the word for Peter, the King James says Simon Peter,

Thus the word Peter, jsut as used in the other verse, the term in greek for peter is the same, so if you accept that it is Peter in this verse, it is thus peter in the other.

---

Which was shown to be translated as "a stone", or a "piece of a rock", but not a rock.

I note that you did not answer my questions.

Mattew 4:18, Simon called Peter ( not cephas but Pethos)

This is the name that Mathew uses throughout his writings for peter.

In John there term Kephas ( used as cephas in english) and is a term for "the rock" and used by John. But again not used by Matthew in most of his writings, who used the other word

Do not feel bad this is a common mistake most people make by forgetting the books are separate writtings, in style and grammar.

Not that I expect you to see the truth, when one wants to find error in the teachings of Christian teachings, they will play with words to do so.

And since you will not accept the greek words and meanings, there is little to answer, you are shown proof and truth and refuse to see it.

Your web site says you are to question, fine but when it is obvious, one has to accept things at some point when it is proven over and over

What issue do you have with Peter being the leader of the Apostles ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

That is a denominational claim which, as shown, is not in concert with scripture, but we see in scripture that Peter was not given that recognition even in practice in scripture. For example, when Paul rebuked Peter on a doctrinal matter.

---

You must be referring to Galatians. Paul was correcting Peter about behavior, not doctrine. It is interesting to note also in Acts, that Paul was among those who fell silent at the Council of Jerusalem after Peter spoke and delivered a final decision.

The discussion about the primacy of Peter is interesting and all, however I still haven't seen how this answers the question of how Sola Scriptura is supported by scripture alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wangdoodle

You must be referring to Galatians. Paul was correcting Peter about behavior, not doctrine. It is interesting to note also in Acts, that Paul was among those who fell silent at the Council of Jerusalem after Peter spoke and delivered a final decision.

---

Gal 2:13-21
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
NKJV

Sure sounds like doctrine to me!

The person who delivered the decision was James, who started the final talk with this verse.

Acts 15:13-14
13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me:
NKJV

There if the decision maker is the leader, then that would be James.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wangdoodle

The discussion about the primacy of Peter is interesting and all, however I still haven't seen how this answers the question of how Sola Scriptura is supported by scripture alone.

---

This started with De Maria from another thread and I addressed the issue in that thread. De Maria also started this discussion over Peter if memory serves me correctly.

Yes, it appers to be some mind block against anything that a denomination teaches, if they teach it, it must be wrong. And we will ignore any bible verse that proves it.

Yes, I can understand churches not accept the issue of Peter being Pope, but truly I can't believe any christian group would not accept the bibical teachings of Peter as leader or the apostles.

I also went to the web site of Tj3 has listed, but still don't know what they believe or what type of church they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

And since you will not accept the greek words and meanings, there is little to answer, you are shown proof and truth and refuse to see it.

Your web site says you are to question, fine but when it is obvious, one has to accept things at some point when it is proven over and over

---

You keep telling me that it says one thing, when the quote I gave does not say that, nor has anyone shown any evidence that Jesus called Peter a rock. It is an opinion of the catholic denominations, and I acknowledge that, but that is not adequate reason for others to believe it.

Quote:

---

What issue do you have with Peter being the leader of the Apostles ?

---

I would have no issue if it was scriptural, but I find nothing in scripture to support that view - indeed if there was any leader other than Jesus Himself, I suspect that a stronger argument could be made for Paul. But I see nothing in scripture that would suggest that there was any such leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

There if the decision maker is the leader, then that would be James.

---

Yes, James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. It would be proper for James to give the closing remarks. But again, Peter announced the decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

yes, it appers to be some mind block against anything that a denomination teaches, if they teach it, it must be wrong. And we will ignore any bible verse that proves it.

---

No, that is not what I said. I do refuse to accept something simply because a denomination teaches it without adequate scriptural support.

Quote:

---

Yes, I can understand churches not accept the issue of Peter being Pope, but truly I can't believe any christian group would not accept the bibical teachings of Peter as leader or the apostles.

---

Then I would suggest that you have not checked out the beliefs of too many other denominations and non-Catholic Christians regarding Peter. I have attended services at many denominations, and have examined the beliefs of many denominations, and off-hand cannot think of any churches outside of Catholic and Mormon that teach that Peter was the leader of the early church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wangdoodle

Yes, James was the the Bishop of Jerusalem. It would be proper for James to give the closing remarks. But again, Peter announced the decision.

---

The speakers each gave their opinions. James announced the decision. Read the passage again. As for the group falling silent, that was to listen to Paul and Barnabas (Not Peter) who spoke before James issued the decision:

Acts 15:12-14
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me:
NKJV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

The speakers each gave their opinions. James announced the decision. Read the passage again. As for the group falling silent, that was to listen to Paul and Barnabas (Not Peter) who spoke before James issued the decision:

Acts 15:12-14
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me:
NKJV

---

I agree that they fell silent to listen to Paul and Barnabas tell about the great signs God has done. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, I still disagree that the decision is James' and not Peter's. James is acting as the Bishop of Jerusalem and gives the final remarks wich refers to what Peter had said prior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wangdoodle

I agree that they fell silent to listen to Paul and Barnabas tell about the great signs God has done. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, I still disagree that the decision is James' and not Peter's. James is acting as the Bishop of Jerusalem and gives the final remarks wich refers to what Peter had said prior.

---

There is nothing in the context to suggest that Peter is not simply another speaker. He was neither first nor last, and nothing stated his opinion as a decision.
James' decision however was specifically stated to be a decision. Note that James says:

Acts 15:19-20
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
NKJV

James put himself in the position of making the judgment. No one challenged that authority, including Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

There is nothing in the context to suggest that Peter is not simply another speaker. He was neither first nor last, and nothing stated his opinion as a decision.
James' decision however was specifically stated to be a decision. Note that James says:

Acts 15:19-20
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
NKJV

James put himself in the position of making the judgment. No one challenged that authority, including Peter.

---

After the long debate Peter got up and spoke. James in his remarks refers to what Peter had said.

Well, I have to get to bed. You may have the last word for to night if you like.