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

[TimelessTheist]

Timeless Theist, you asserted that many verses in the Bible support the notion of keys as symbols of authority. Matthew 16:19 aside, there are 9 verses that contain "key" or "keys": Isaiah 22:22, which OBP said is questionable at least; Judges 3:25; 1 Chronicles 9:27; Isaiah 33:6; Luke 11:52; Revelations 1:18, 3:7, 9:1, 20:1. Revelations 3:7 does have "the key of David." Otherwise, overall IMO, not impressive evidence. "Key to death and Hades"!?

eta: www.biblegateway.com search of the NIV

How is that not convincing evidence? Of those verses where the word "key" is used figuratively, it's always used as a symbol of authority.

[Truthseeker]

Being given the key to death and Hades = given authority over death and Hades?

[TimelessTheist]

Being given the key to death and Hades = given authority over death and Hades?

Which verse is that from, again?

[Truthseeker]

Which verse is that from, again?

In Revelation 1:18 Jesus is saying that he holds "the keys to death and the place of the dead" (NCV), so you may have something there. But see also 9:1 and 20:1.

[One Bad Pig]

I ignored your Rome rant because it was off topic, but if you insist, no, no one's suggesting that Peter single-handedly founded the Church of Rome, although he 'did' lay down the supporting foundations of it.

Try again, kemosabe. That's not the argument I was making. Further, the foundations had already been laid before Peter got there.

Although, yes, it's historical fact that both Paul and Peter, took up permanent residence in, and eventually died in Rome.

What evidence is there that Peter took up permanent residence in Rome? And Paul was only there as a prisoner, AFAIR.

We also have the evidence in the documents of the Early Church Councils to prove Roman Primacy.

Rome was one of the four (later five) patriarchal sees, and as the capital of the Roman Empire was naturally given primacy of honor. At no time did it have authority over the other patriarchal sees, however. And apparently the documents of the early church councils were not considered sufficient, or the medieval church of Rome would not have leaned so heavily on the pseudo-decretals of Isidore.

Yes, I know, but they did not receive the actual keys, and thus, the authority that goes with said keys.

There were no actual keys. Jesus mentioned the authority which goes with said "keys", which was shared by the other apostles.

After Peter stated his opinion, James made the decision. He didn't say, "I think we should do this," He said, "I have made the decision that this is what we'll do." That is authority being wielded, by James. You don't like that conclusion, which is why you keep trying to soften the force of James' words.

Which, if you'll stop ignoring my points, is exactly what I said. James stated his judgment on how they would go about doing what Peter already said they should do.

lolno. That is not 'exactly' what you said. You're still attempting to minimize the force of James' statement.

It seems like you're trying to say that James made an statement authorative to the Council, in which case, you just refuted your own argument, as your argument states that they're all supposed to have the same authority.

It seems that James was the presiding bishop in Jerusalem. As such, he would have opened and closed debate. That's a far cry from asserting that he's in charge of the entire church.

I also note that you still didn't respond to the fact that James both:
1) Referred to Peter's statement in his own statement.

More accurately, whoever abridged James' speech only included a reference to what Peter said. We're not getting verbatim reports here; that's not how ancient historians worked. I understand that James referred to Peter's statement. I just don't lend that nearly the weight you do.

2) Was only stating a way they should go about doing what Peter already said they should do.

If you want to be hyper-literal, then James did not say that at all. The only part he referenced of what Peter said was that God had looked favorably on the Gentiles. You're allowing your adoration of Peter to trump consistence in interpretation.

That's not a red herring.

It has nothing to do with the facts at hand. By the account we have, the decision was unanimous. I agree that councils do not need to be unanimous, but that's neither here nor there.

Oh, man, I must have just misread the part where Jesus calls Peter Satan just a verse later for promising such a thing, my bad.

Whatever you were aiming for, you missed.

Also, how is proclaiming that you know the will of God, and accusing others of "testing God" if they go against you 'not' authoritative?

It could be Peter's mouth engaging before his brain (not for the first time), though I don't think so. I agree that Peter was an authority; however I disagree that Peter was the authority.

f the others in authority agreed with him, then he could absolutely have been able to get away with saying such things. It is apparent from the outcome that they did.

So....if the others in authority agreed with his assessment, then they would let him get away with claiming authority over them as well? That doesn't follow.

Perhaps because that's not the argument I'm making. If the others in authority agreed with his assessment, then they would refrain from dissenting. These were not people jealous of their own authority, suspicious that one or another of them would attempt to usurp it at their expense.

Yes, I'm saying that the "binding and loosening" is not the 'only' power that comes with the Keys.

In doing so, you're not being consistent; "binding and loosing" without keys must be without keys (even though binding and loosing require authority and keys are symbolic of such), but on the other hand "keys" gets to be associated with every other instance of the word in order to come up with other 'powers' (which you have yet to specify).

[Truthseeker]

OBP, you used "consistence." Did you mean "consistency"? If not I'm not sure how it's defined.

[One Bad Pig]

OBP, you used "consistence." Did you mean "consistency"? If not I'm not sure how it's defined.

It's defined similarly to "consistency." The definition came up when I consulted my dictionary extension in Firefox.

[TimelessTheist]

Try again, kemosabe. That's not the argument I was making.

Really?

Peter did not even found the church in Rome

Nice try, though.

What evidence is there that Peter took up permanent residence in Rome? And Paul was only there as a prisoner, AFAIR.

Alright, maybe I overstated. He didn't take up permanent residence per se, just as Paul didn't, but there is evidence for him ending up in Rome:

The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark 1 Pet. 5:13

As shown by works like Sibylline Oracles, and others, "Babylon" was a common code-word for "Rome".

Rome was one of the four (later five) patriarchal sees, and as the capital of the Roman Empire was naturally given primacy of honor. At no time did it have authority over the other patriarchal sees, however.

Yes it did, and we have hard proof to show it, though, once again, that's not the topic right now.

And apparently the documents of the early church councils were not considered sufficient, or the medieval church of Rome would not have leaned so heavily on the pseudo-decretals of Isidore.

Reading too much James White, I see. I suppose you're suggesting that the Papacy didn't come into being until those pseudo-decretals came into being, a claim which can be refuted easily....though, once again, that's not the topic here. Yes, the Church holds the early Church Councils as authoritative, and so does the Eastern Schismatic Churches. What are you talking about?

There were no actual keys. Jesus mentioned the authority which goes with said "keys", which was shared by the other apostles.

Of course there were not literal keys, but I find it hard to believe you don't understand what I meant by that statement.

lolno. That is not 'exactly' what you said. You're still attempting to minimize the force of James' statement.

No I'm not, you're just overstating the force of his statement to attempt to make it support your case.

More accurately, whoever abridged James' speech only included a reference to what Peter said. We're not getting verbatim reports here; that's not how ancient historians worked. I understand that James referred to Peter's statement. I just don't lend that nearly the weight you do.

Well, just because they only recorded a part of it, doesn't necessarily mean they changed the actual language of it, though, it's curious that he did reference Peter in his statement.

If you want to be hyper-literal, then James did not say that at all. The only part he referenced of what Peter said was that God had looked favorably on the Gentiles. You're allowing your adoration of Peter to trump consistence in interpretation.

Actually, no. Peter's decision was that they should not circumcise the Gentiles, nor discriminate against them. James said basically the same thing, and then added, at the end, that they should instead instruct them to obey the Commandments, saying, quote: "that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." It's basically just a restatement, and extension, of what Peter already said, there's nothing 'non-literal' about it. Also, when was I ever hyper-literal? Was it because I mentioned Peter standing, as I remember telling you that that wasn't hard evidence.

It has nothing to do with the facts at hand. By the account we have, the decision was unanimous. I agree that councils do not need to be unanimous, but that's neither here nor there.

A red herring would be if I used that to bait you into a completely different argument, refuted that argument, and then claimed that I refuted the previous argument by refuting the new one. It's not a red herring.

Whatever you were aiming for, you missed.

Your argument was that Peter made claims to authority before (although, promising that he would keep Jesus safe isn't really a claim to authority in the sense that this is), however, you miss the point that he was reprimanded, by Jesus himself no less, for making a claim to an authority he did not possess. No sort of reprimandation, or even calling out of Peter, happened at the Council.

It could be Peter's mouth engaging before his brain (not for the first time), though I don't think so. I agree that Peter was an authority; however I disagree that Peter was the authority.

If it Peter was making an illicit claim to authority, then at least one of the Council members should have made a statement against said illicit authority. They debated and argued for some time before Peter spoke, why would they stop after such a claim was made, an illicit claim, as you say? Your argument that Peter was 'an' authority fails, as his statement was addressed at all the Council, including the other apostles, which you claim, have the same authority as Peter.

Perhaps because that's not the argument I'm making. If the others in authority agreed with his assessment, then they would refrain from dissenting. These were not people jealous of their own authority, suspicious that one or another of them would attempt to usurp it at their expense.

I'm not suggesting they were, however, there's a difference between irrational paranoia, and rationally seeing a blatant error. If one of the apostles made a claim that was clearly wrong, especially a claim like 'this', that is, a claim of authority above the other apostles, which, according to you, is not true,, they would be sure to refute the claim and put him in his place, just as Paul did with Peter, and just as Jesus did before him, and seeing as how his claim to authority, itself, was an error according to you, the Council would've called him out on it, as a Church Council, especially the 'first' Church Council, would not let heresy be declared, unopposed.

It's like saying if the a priest gave a perfect theological lecture, and then ending it by saying that he had more authority than the bishops, the Pope, and Paul himself. That would never get by, and neither would what Peter said, no matter what he said before.

In doing so, you're not being consistent; "binding and loosing" without keys must be without keys (even though binding and loosing require authority and keys are symbolic of such), but on the other hand "keys" gets to be associated with every other instance of the word in order to come up with other 'powers' (which you have yet to specify).

Well, 'binding and loosing' was given to other apostles 'without' the Keys to Heaven, however, 'keys' are used symbolically in the Bible to refer to authority, therefore, Peter received the same powers as the other apostles, but also received the authority that comes with the keys. What's inconsistent about this, exactly?

(even though binding and loosing require authority

Of course the apostles had authority, they were the apostles chosen by Christ himself, however, the fact that Peter was the only one to receive the keys, in exclusion to the others, means that he had authority over the other authorities. Once again, I don't see how this is hard to understand, if they all had the same authority, they should have all received the keys.

[Truthseeker]

Timeless Theist, I asked myself, "Which one is the strongest argument?" After pondering this question for a while, I could only mentally shrug. To be sure, I should disclose that I am Protestant, so it's possible I am leaning too far toward OBP's argument. However, it seems to me that if Peter was really meant to have authority, the case for that ought to be much less murky than it seems to me. The more the doubt re any claim of authority, the less the actual authority tends to be, I think.

[TimelessTheist]

Timeless Theist, I asked myself, "Which one is the strongest argument?" After pondering this question for a while, I could only mentally shrug. To be sure, I should disclose that I am Protestant, so it's possible I am leaning too far toward OBP's argument. However, it seems to me that if Peter was really meant to have authority, the case for that ought to be much less murky than it seems to me. The more the doubt re any claim of authority, the less the actual authority tends to be, I think.

Well, I can see that....but at the same time, I really can't, as I don't actually see the case as murky.

[robrecht]

It's murky.

[TimelessTheist]

It's murky.

Not any more murky than the texts in support of the Trinity, really.

[One Bad Pig]

Really?

Yes, really.

Nice try, though.

I honestly have no idea how one could read Acts and come away with the idea that Peter founded the church of Rome. There was already a church when Paul got there (well after he wrote them an epistle), and the Jews there seem to not have encountered an apostle before (Acts 28).

Alright, maybe I overstated. He didn't take up permanent residence per se, just as Paul didn't, but there is evidence for him ending up in Rome:

The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark 1 Pet. 5:13

As shown by works like Sibylline Oracles, and others, "Babylon" was a common code-word for "Rome".

Oh, I agree he ended up there.

Yes it did, and we have hard proof to show it, though, once again, that's not the topic right now.

I'd be interested in seeing this alleged proof (elsewhere is fine).

Reading too much James White, I see.

I've read very little James White. We disagree on many things, and I have better things to read.

I suppose you're suggesting that the Papacy didn't come into being until those pseudo-decretals came into being, a claim which can be refuted easily....though, once again, that's not the topic here. Yes, the Church holds the early Church Councils as authoritative, and so does the Eastern Schismatic Churches. What are you talking about?

The split between East and West began about the time they were forged, that much is clear. Though there were differences between East and West before then, they weren't worthy of splitting over until Rome demanded that the East conform to it. I don't know that I could identify a starting point; the Papacy, like much else, developed over time. I agree that this is more a topic for another thread.

Of course there were not literal keys, but I find it hard to believe you don't understand what I meant by that statement.

I understand what you meant; I disagree with it. I was just poking you a bit for your poor choice of wording there.

No I'm not, you're just overstating the force of his statement to attempt to make it support your case.

As unlikely as it may seem to you, my aim is to read the text for what it says, not for what polemical use I can make of it. In my opinion, James stating his decision is easily the most authoritative part of the passage. I have no axe to grind against Peter.

Well, just because they only recorded a part of it, doesn't necessarily mean they changed the actual language of it, though, it's curious that he did reference Peter in his statement.

Curious, but I think you're reading too much into it. Peter was instrumental in receiving the very first Gentile converts, and that in itself was not unimportant to the debate at hand.

Actually, no. Peter's decision was that they should not circumcise the Gentiles, nor discriminate against them.

Peter did not make a decision. Peter proffered his strong opinion (I don't think he had any weak ones).

James said basically the same thing, and then added, at the end, that they should instead instruct them to obey the Commandments, saying, quote: "that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." It's basically just a restatement, and extension, of what Peter already said, there's nothing 'non-literal' about it. Also, when was I ever hyper-literal? Was it because I mentioned Peter standing, as I remember telling you that that wasn't hard evidence.

Before admitting it wasn't hard evidence, you made a huge deal about it - just like you're making a huge deal about only Peter explicitly getting keys.

A red herring would be if I used that to bait you into a completely different argument, refuted that argument, and then claimed that I refuted the previous argument by refuting the new one. It's not a red herring.

You're right, I was taking the lazy way out. I viewed the question as not relevant.

Your argument was that Peter made claims to authority before (although, promising that he would keep Jesus safe isn't really a claim to authority in the sense that this is), however, you miss the point that he was reprimanded, by Jesus himself no less, for making a claim to an authority he did not possess. No sort of reprimandation, or even calling out of Peter, happened at the Council.

That was not my argument. My argument was that Peter had a history of voicing strong opinions, and not necessarily appropriate ones. In the cultural context, Peter's rebuke of Jesus was shockingly inappropriate.

If it Peter was making an illicit claim to authority, then at least one of the Council members should have made a statement against said illicit authority. They debated and argued for some time before Peter spoke, why would they stop after such a claim was made, an illicit claim, as you say? Your argument that Peter was 'an' authority fails, as his statement was addressed at all the Council, including the other apostles, which you claim, have the same authority as Peter.

Peter was not making an illicit claim to authority. I disagree that he was making a claim to authority at all. There were many non-apostles at the meeting, who were either arguing amongst themselves or with the apostles. At some point, Peter has had enough, stands up to get everyone's attention, and relays the story of the first conversion of the Gentiles, ending with his opinion of forcing Gentile circumcision. Once Peter has had his say, the 'apostle to the Gentiles' relates his missionary efforts. It's possible that no one spoke up because they dared not go against Peter's authority, but it's also possible (and more likely, IMO) that no other apostle spoke up because no one had a serious disagreement with Peter's statement.

I'm not suggesting they were, however, there's a difference between irrational paranoia, and rationally seeing a blatant error. If one of the apostles made a claim that was clearly wrong, especially a claim like 'this', that is, a claim of authority above the other apostles, which, according to you, is not true,, they would be sure to refute the claim and put him in his place, just as Paul did with Peter, and just as Jesus did before him, and seeing as how his claim to authority, itself, was an error according to you, the Council would've called him out on it, as a Church Council, especially the 'first' Church Council, would not let heresy be declared, unopposed.

It's like saying if the a priest gave a perfect theological lecture, and then ending it by saying that he had more authority than the bishops, the Pope, and Paul himself. That would never get by, and neither would what Peter said, no matter what he said before.

You're reading an impressive amount of fantasy into Peter's statement. I quite honestly don't see it as Peter arrogating authority to himself at all; it's just Peter being Peter. Again, if any of the other authorities had an issue with it, I'm pretty sure that would have shown up in the text.

Well, 'binding and loosing' was given to other apostles 'without' the Keys to Heaven, however, 'keys' are used symbolically in the Bible to refer to authority, therefore, Peter received the same powers as the other apostles, but also received the authority that comes with the keys. What's inconsistent about this, exactly?

The idea that the keys impart something more than what Jesus said they did. Peter had no more and no less authority than the other apostles during Jesus' ministry, though he was one of the innermost three. Peter will have no more and no less authority than the other apostles in the Judgment, when the twelve apostles will sit on 12 thrones judging the tribes of Israel. Why should Peter have more authority in between? The other apostles were no less 'sent' than Peter was.

Of course the apostles had authority, they were the apostles chosen by Christ himself, however, the fact that Peter was the only one to receive the keys, in exclusion to the others, means that he had authority over the other authorities. Once again, I don't see how this is hard to understand, if they all had the same authority, they should have all received the keys.

I think you're investing too much freight in the keys. The important bit was the authority to bind and loose; the keys are merely symbolic of that. The keys are only mentioned once in the gospels, and only in the connection of binding and loosing. The authority of the apostles to bind and loose, on the other hand, is referred to three times.

[robrecht]

Not any more murky than the texts in support of the Trinity, really.

I don't think the Trinity was understood all that well to the first readers of the New Testament texts, otherwise why would there have been so many disputes in the first few centuries of the church? Even after the definition of these dogmas and doctrines at early councils, there are still disagreements. Personally, I think it is still a little murky.

[TimelessTheist]

I don't think the Trinity was understood all that well to the first readers of the New Testament texts, otherwise why would there have been so many disputes in the first few centuries of the church? Even after the definition of these dogmas and doctrines at early councils, there are still disagreements. Personally, I think it is still a little murky.

I know it was disputed a lot, that was my point.