The Petrine Fact, Part 4: Peter, Paul, and James

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days" (Gal 1:18).

"But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned" (Gal 2:11).

The great apostles Peter and Paul stand face to face in these two moments, one congenial, one painful — fixed points in a sea of questions surrounding Paul's narrative in the first two chapters of Galatians. In between Paul mentions one other meeting at Jerusalem, involving James the brother of Jesus as well as Peter and Paul (Gal 2:1-10), probably overlapping with Luke's account in Acts 15 of the council at Jerusalem.

Paul's narrative first. Galatians 1-2 offers a highly polemical account in which Paul sharply defends his apostolic ministry against the allegations of detractors, who are Judaizers or circumcision partisans, insisting on observance of Torah for all Christians, Jew or Gentile. Paul's defense suggests that his full apostleship had been impugned; he was apparently dismissively regarded by some as a sort of junior apostle, a mere disciple of the great apostles of Jerusalem — a claim that for some may have been supported by reports of Paul's visits to the holy city. Rumors of confrontation like the one Paul describes may have further led to the impression that Paul's stance on the Law was not the last word on the subject; and Paul's silence regarding the outcome of his public denunciation of Peter leaves us wondering how things panned out, and how quickly the rift was healed.

The matter is further complicated by evidence from the Acts of the Apostles, which, as we have previously seen, credits Peter himself with opening the door to table-fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers, without requiring observance of Torah. Peter defends this teaching against Judaizing tendencies, not only in Acts 11, but in Acts 15, in the Jerusalem council, where he and Paul are of one mind on the subject. Peter's searing rhetorical question about "mak[ing] trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" (Acts 15:10) is as eloquent a statement of Paul's thesis as anything Paul writes in Galatians.

In fact, based on the witness of Acts, we may say that in Galatians 2:11ff Paul confronts Peter with Peter's own gospel message, the message that Peter himself received by revelation and first taught in the church. This, of course, only intensifies the sting of Paul's charge of "hypocrisy" or "insincerity" — a charge that Paul gives full weight in that damning phrase "stood condemned."

Yet how are we to account for the contrast between Paul's lacerating invective in Galatians against the circumcision party — "I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Gal 5:12) — and the report in Acts 16:3 that Paul himself, shortly after the Jerusalem council in the previous chapter, had Timothy circumcised for the sake of Jewish observers? Is this the same Paul who uncompromisingly declared "if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you" (Gal 5:2), and made much of Titus's non-circumcision (Gal 2:3)?

Or what are we to make of Paul's genuflection to Jewish Torah sensibilities at the behest of presbyters in Jerusalem, where he offers sacrifices to purify Jewish Christians according to the Law (Acts 21:17ff)? (Luke tells us that these presbyters are in the company of James the brother of Jesus, just as in Galatians 2 it is "men from James" who occasioned Peter's scandalous and divisive behavior in Antioch. Yet in Acts 15 James concurs with Peter and Paul.)

Are we to infer that Paul himself "stood condemned" on the same charges he leveled at Peter in Galatians 2? Whatever answer we make, in asking the question we do not, of course, question the fundamental truth that Paul proclaims. The Gospel does not stand or fall with the behavior of those who proclaim it, and no one is beyond reproach, not even Paul, not even Peter. If, as we have seen, Jesus' prayer in Luke 22 for Peter to strengthen his brethren proved efficacious, Galatians 2 is a sobering indication that even after Pentecost Peter could still stumble.

There is much we could wish to know about the events Paul narrates in Galatians 1-2. What was Peter's response to Paul's challenge? What transpired between them after this? What would an account of the events from Peter's or Barnabas's perspective look like? Why was Peter in Antioch in the first place? Where did he go next? Where does the second visit to Jerusalem in Paul's account (Gal 2:1-10) fit into Luke's chronology in Acts? Does this visit (as many commentators concur) coincide with the Jerusalem council of Acts 15? Or is it an earlier visit, or a later one?

Whatever we may say about any of these questions, one thing is clear: In Galatians 2:11ff Paul indicts Peter with respect to his behavior, not his teaching or belief.

Paul himself leaves no doubt that Peter was personally quite willing to extend table-fellowship to non-Judaized Gentile believers. In fact, when Peter first arrived in Antioch, that was his modus operandi (2:12). In fact, Peter himself lived "like a Gentile, not like a Jew" (2:14). It was not until the "men from James" arrived that Peter "drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party" (Gal 2:12). The charge is not false teaching, but "hypocrisy" or "insincerity," indicating a discrepancy between belief and action.

The very fact that Paul singles out Peter, both verbally in Antioch and literarily in Galatians 2, is revealing. Peter wasn't the only one acting "insincerely"; "the rest of the Jews" (i.e., Jewish Christians) did the same. Nor does Paul say that Peter was the first to do so, or that the others were only following his lead. He does blame the others collectively for Barnabas' defection, but beyond that only says "with him [Peter] the rest of the Jews acted insincerely" (not that they acted insincerely because of Peter).

Nevertheless, Paul directs his attack solely at Peter, not at the rest. All were "insincere," but it is only Peter that Paul says "stood condemned." More than that, Paul makes much — it wouldn't be too strong to say he boasts — to the Galatians of his confrontation with Peter. This cannot be solely because of the importance the Galatians attach to Peter; Paul himself recognizes Peter's preeminence, in the very fact that he holds Peter personally responsible for the shameful behavior of the rest.

That's a rather backhanded compliment; but there is also the more straightforward acknowledgment of Peter's preeminence in the previous chapter: one that is all the more significant in view of Paul's polemical purpose, and his specific grievance against Peter in chapter 2. Three years after his conversion, Paul says, he "went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas." He even notes that he saw "none of the other apostles" — except, he adds, James the Lord's brother, but to see Peter (not James) was the specific purpose of the visit.

This is a notable acknowledgment. Paul didn't have to say that it was to visit Peter that he went to Jerusalem; he didn't have to mention a purpose at all. He could have simply said that he went to Jerusalem and spent fifteen days with Peter (and James), or that he went to Jerusalem to visit with any of the apostles that happened to be there. But no: When he went to Jerusalem, it was not merely to visit with some of those who knew Jesus in his earthly ministry, but to meet with Peter specifically. Why he went to see Peter specifically, Paul doesn't say. Apparently there was no need. Peter was the obvious person Paul would have wanted to see.

Then comes the Jerusalem visit of Galatians 2:1-10. For what it's worth, I think the majority of commentators are right in viewing this passage as parallel with Luke's account of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. In both passages, Paul, Barnabas, and one or more others travel from Syria to Jerusalem in response to a challenge from Judaizers over circumcision. The apostles (Peter and James are mentioned in both passages) welcome them, hear what they have to say, and affirm that Gentiles are to be received without circumcision or the yoke of Torah. Afterward, Paul and Barnabas proceed to Antioch, where a rift occurs between them. Whatever difficulties arise in reading the two accounts in parallel are less problematic than supposing that all these things happened twice, so that, e.g., Paul, having already traveled from Syria to Jerusalem in response to a challenge about circumcision to consult with Peter and James, then did so again in response to a second challenge. (Additional difficulties arise from efforts to fit Galatians 2:1-10 anywhere else in Luke's chronology.)

In any case, on the visit Paul describes, he acknowledges laying his message before the apostles — i.e., "James, Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars" — "lest somehow," he says, "I should be running or had run in vain."

He is quick to add that "those who were of repute added nothing to me" and "gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles." Nevertheless, Paul considers that "partnership" to be an important mark of his not "running in vain." Given how sharply Paul has defended his full equality to the other apostles, this is a notable acknowledgement that Paul's ministry, while not subordinate to the Twelve, but it must be in solidarity with the Twelve, here represented by Peter, John and James.

Peter, Peter, Peter. Peter figures prominently in all three episodes Paul relates to the Galatians; he is not always alone, but he is always there. Paul's case depends on Peter; depends on Peter being the leader that he is. The whole force of the third episode is that it is Peter that Paul opposes to his face. No one is beyond reproach; no one is above the gospel.

In the middle episode, we find Peter among a triumvirate of apostles, similar to Jesus' inner circle, except that the James is different: James the brother of John has been slain, and James brother of Jesus (the same James from whom the Judaizers came in 2:12) is now a prominent leader among the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 12:17, 21:17-24). How prominent is he? And what is Peter's place in this triumvirate?

The early Fathers regarded James as the first bishop of Jerusalem. Less traditionally, some modern commentators have seen the sequence of Paul's mention of "James, Cephas and John" a subtle indication that Peter has been supplanted as the Jerusalem church's most prominent leader. There is, though, another reason for Paul to mention James first: James' apparent connection to the Judaizing controversy that is Paul's primary concern. If Judaizers in Galatia have pitted anyone against Paul, James is the most likely candidate. Therefore, Paul's acceptance by James, and James' agreement with the non-circumcision of Gentiles (e.g., Titus), is crucial to Paul's point.

Likewise, in Luke's account of the Jerusalem council, James has been seen by some as having the decisive voice, since he is the last to speak, and his "judgment" provides the final shape of the council's decision. Yet once again James' association with the Judaizing controversy makes it natural that his agreement would mark the denouement of the discussion. James has the last word, not because he has the ultimate say, but because he represents the party that needs to be convinced.

Regardless of James' role, Peter clearly plays a decisive part in the proceedings — and he does so by appealing in strikingly strong terms to his own God-given role in opening the door to receiving the Gentiles:

This is almost astonishingly frank. Not only does Peter say that it was God's will that the Gentiles should be received — not only does he say that he himself was God's instrument — he states emphatically that God chose him from among all the apostles and elders to make his will known on this point. Out of all of you, Peter says, God chose me to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. A stronger affirmation of Peter's right to speak with greater authority than anyone else can scarcely be imagined.

Note, incidentally, that the word "gospel," used only twice in Acts, appears here for the first time (the other instance is 20:24). Note, too, Peter's reference to God speaking "by my mouth," language that Peter elsewhere applies in Acts to David and the prophets (Acts 1:16, 3:18-21, 4:25), but here applies to himself — the only New Testament figure in Acts so described.

Before Peter's speech, Luke states there was "much debate," but Peter's speech silences the assembly, allowing Paul and Barnabas give supporting testimony (15:7,12). Finally, when James offers his "judgment" (the Greek word apparently has the sense of "opinion" rather than "verdict"), he expressly recalls Simon's words, adding that the prophets agree, and appending some pastoral concerns for the sensibilities of his Jewish constituency.

It is thus explicitly Peter's teaching — the teaching for which Peter insists he himself was divinely chosen out of all the apostles and elders — that the Jerusalem council maintains.

In spite of his forceful language, Peter takes the lead, as he usually does, in a simple, direct, natural manner. He has, presumably, well internalized Jesus' teaching about leadership and servanthood. The council makes its decision in a consultative fashion; there is no one leader imposing anything on anyone, or any need for such imposition. In fact, Luke goes on to say, "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas." The decision to send men to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas was not handed down by James, Peter, John or all three; the elders and the whole church all had a voice. On the central issue, though, Peter's role is decisive.

Another sad article, building up Peter when Peter preferred to build up Christ, so to speak.

And this one tries to build up Peter by attacking Paul. This has been a too common occurrence on these threads, which suggests jealousy of Paul, where neither Peter nor Paul seemed to feel that way.

The article attacks Galatians for being Paul’s account - but scripture comes from God, regardless of who God uses for delivery. It says what God wants it to say.

In it, we read, “12For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Notice the phrase: “fearing the circumcision party”. I don’t think anyone doubts or rejects the idea that Peter was the most respected Apostle. What Protestants reject is that Peter was given the final word on doctrine and practice, which the other Apostles had to submit to.

If Peter viewed himself as the Vicar of Christ, he wouldn’t fear the circumcision party. I spent 25 years in the military. Generals don’t fear captains.

And why was Peter opposed? Because at some point he tried to “force the Gentiles to live like Jews”. That isn’t behavior, that is teaching. Doctrine. FORCE the Gentiles to live like Jews.

Also note that Paul isn’t upset because of JEWS living like JEWS. Paul did that himself. It wasn’t a requirement, but he was willing to live like a Jew, to evangelize the Jews. And in Romans, he wrote, “1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2Much in every way.”

As a tradition, and a family, yes. As a requirement for salvation, no.

“17 Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. 18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.” - 1 Cor 7

None of this belittles Peter. He made a lot of mistakes, but he was chosen by God. Was it because he was Peter the Great?

No! Like Paul, he was chosen to be a jar of common clay, the better to show off the treasure inside: “ 7But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.”

There is no sign Peter ruled over the other Apostles. When he accepted Gentiles as Christians, he was called to account for it. That suggests pretty strongly that those calling him to account for his actions didn’t believe he was their divinely chosen boss. Nor did Peter reply, “I am Vicar of Christ, as my successors will be after me.”

You don’t make Peter more impressive by attacking Paul, nor do you give good service to Peter by focusing on him - or Mary, or any other human. Mary and Peter turned the attention paid to them towards Jesus, and Jesus made it clear that was the right thing to do.

JESUS should be our focus - not Peter, or Mary, or Paul. They refused to come between us and Christ - so why fight them?

“38For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” - or does that not count, since it was written via Paul?

“Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe...”

From the commentary by the Protestant Barnes on Matthew 16.18

“And upon this rock, etc. This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word ROCK refers to Peter’s confession; and that he meant to say, upon this rock— this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah—and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety; and in such confessions shall my church stand amidst the flames of persecution—the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that he referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said: “Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah—upon myself as the Messiah—I will build my church.” Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for. “Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm in and fit for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honoured; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.” This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10:1 and following, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbours, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles. And this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one on whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed—a thing which could not have happened if Christ, as the Roman Catholics say, meant that Peter should be absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter should have infallible successors who should be the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this:

“I will make you the honoured instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church.”

You wrote: “”[Luke’s] ‘statistics’ are impossible; Peter could not have addressed three thousand hearers without a microphone, and since the population of Jerusalem was about 25-30,000, Christians cannot have numbered five thousand (Acts 4:4).”

Yet Acts says “37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”

Peter and the Apostles were there preaching, and they spoke at some length. Peters words were recorded for us, but the message of the others would have been the same. It was common enough for people to address large crowds prior to microphones...they got the job done, if not all in 10 seconds.

You wrote: “and since the population of Jerusalem was about 25-30,000, Christians cannot have numbered five thousand (Acts 4:4).”

“Urban planning acumen in the Herodian era extended to sophisticated infrastructural systems, especially as related to the management of water. The city expanded to the north, and the walls were rebuilt to enclose the new area of approximately 425 acres and 60,000 inhabitants. Herod’s tyrannical rule, coupled with mounting rumors of a planned desecration of the temple, led to a revolt. The Romans were swift in brutally suppressing the rebellion and destroying the city in 70 CE. All that remains of the Temple is its western retaining wall, which remains Judaism’s holiest site of worship.”

http://archnet.org/library/places/one-place.jsp?place_id=2256&order_by=title&showdescription=1

“There is a debate regarding exactly how citified the young Jesus would have been. Excavations of the city of Sepphoris, near Nazareth, reveal a bustling town, suggesting that he may have been less of a country lad than previous scholarship posited. But his native Galilee certainly had nothing to compare with this. Jerusalem was one of the biggest cities between Alexandria and Damascus, with a permanent population of some 80,000. During Passover, Succoth and Shavuoth, the great festivals during which Jews were obligated to make sacrifices at the Temple, between 100,000 and 250,000 visitors (historians differ) would stream down the long city thoroughfare.”

http://www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/cover.html

Would you like to rethink the idea that there couldn’t be 5000 Christians in Jerusalem, particularly at a time like Pentecost?

a thing which could not have happened if Christ, as the Roman Catholics say, meant that Peter should be absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter should have infallible successors who should be the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this:

First off, Barnes has a skewed understanding of papal infallibility. Perhaps that has rippled down into the various christian denominations. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). Peter and his successors were all sinners, like you and me.

“And upon this rock, etc. This passage has given rise to many different interpretations.

Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.

“Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).”

Except that there WAS no magisterium. There were not even bishops at the time. Nor was it to the Apostles and their successors.

This is in part because there were no successors to the Apostles. The role of the Apostles ended, since a part of the qualification was “it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

God made an exception of a sort for Paul, but Paul met Jesus in a more forceful way than those I meet today have done - AND he may well have been very familiar with the ministry of Jesus.

Luke 10: “ 16”He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” 17The seventy-two returned with joy and said...”

The 72 Apostles? I think not. Disciples? Yes. Followers of Jesus. “28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts.”

We have a lot of folks sent out by the church to evangelize, but they are NOT authorized to speak the words of God Himself. They do not write scripture, nor can any man override scripture with new inventions like Purgatory, or contradict its every page with ideas like indulgences, or working for redemption.

And Matthew 18:18?

“15 If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 18 I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

Sure looks different in context, doesn’t it!

As for infallibility - we know that Jesus said, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”

Many Popes lived lives of unrepentant sin - openly and brazenly committing fornication and adultery and many other sins, in plain view. They were false prophets, condoned by the Catholic Church.

Your wrote: "The city expanded to the north, and the walls were rebuilt to enclose the new area of approximately 425 acres and 60,000 inhabitants"...Jerusalem was one of the biggest cities between Alexandria and Damascus, with a permanent population of some 80,000. During Passover, Succoth and Shavuoth, the great festivals during which Jews were obligated to make sacrifices at the Temple, between 100,000 and 250,000 visitors (historians differ) would stream down the long city thoroughfare.”

Would you like to rethink the idea that there could’t be 5000 Christians in Jerusalem, particularly at a time like Pentecost?

Of course not because, as regards the population of Jerusalem, most serious scholars with not much hidden agenda seem to agree "that the population of Jerusalem, in its days of greatest prosperity, may have amounted to from 30,000 to 45,000 souls, but could hardly ever have reached 50,000; and assuming that in times of festival one-half was added to this amount, which is an extreme estimate, there may have been 60,000 or 70,000 in the city when Titus came up against it."
http://www.bible-history.com/jerusalem/firstcenturyjerusalem_smith_s_bible_dictionary.html
Add to this the example that Josephus, the one Christians like to cite as highly reliable as the only extrabiblical "proof" the Christian story, says that during the siege of Jerusalem, the city had population of 3 million! Even the most liberal estimates by Tacitus put the number at 600,000. At two and a quarter million square yards, the city would be overflowing with people with one person every 3.75 sq. yards, an area less then six feet by six feet. If you had 3 million people, as Josephus claims, you would have people literally shoulder to shoulder occupying a square area of less than 2 feet by 2 feet! Obviously the city would be like a sardine tin can where nothing could move. But that fact didn't stop people of ancient times to make up numbers as they saw fit or as "God" revealed to them.

Naturally, Jewish sources tend to exaggerate the size of the city, just as their mythology tends to exaggerate just about everything (no different than the mythology of other nations), especially when it comes to Jerusalem, which archeological sciences has sown to have been little more than a village in King David's time, and King David's vast "empire" but a few surrounding villages.

Catholic sources tend to seek a middle ground, saying "The supply of water from all sources in the first century would have supported a maximum population of around 70,000, assuming a consumption of 5 gallons per person per day."

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0300.asp

We also see the same type of exaggeration when it comes to the alleged Jewish Exodus from Egypt (which the leading Israeli archaeologists today actually call a myth that never happened!). The Bible claims 600,000 men and families (over a million people) allegedly lived in one place in the Sinai for just under 40 years and there is nothing left behind by this alleged settlement (more like a city!) of more than one million souls—no graves, no garbage piles, no artefacts, (99% of alleged Biblical artefacts in the Israeli Antiquities Museum have been deemed fakes by that authority). And the Israeli archaeologists have been digging full time since the 1967 Three-day War all over Sinai in hopes of finding something. The found something alright—undeniable presence of Egyptians in that time period, but not a trace of Moses and his crew.

***“Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).”

Except that there WAS no magisterium. There were not even bishops at the time.***

Peter, Paul, James (Jerusalem), Thomas (India), Timothy - these were the first bishops. The magisterium was under development - Peter had to go up against Simon Magus and did so very well - and this was the beginning of the realization that the Apostles, in charge of teaching Christianity, had to define what Christianity was.

***The role of the Apostles ended, since a part of the qualification was “it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”***

Apostolic succession was established early on with the choosing of Matthias and the establishment of Timothy as replacement for Paul the bishop.

***God made an exception of a sort for Paul, but Paul met Jesus in a more forceful way than those I meet today have done - AND he may well have been very familiar with the ministry of Jesus.***

What does this mean? All Scripture says is that Paul was blinded by the light and was told by Jesus that he was persecuting him and to go into Damascus and there he would be told what to do. Nothing more. Where is your Scripture?

***Many Popes lived lives of unrepentant sin - openly and brazenly committing fornication and adultery and many other sins, in plain view. They were false prophets, condoned by the Catholic Church.***

Names, please. Which ones were false prophets? What false prophecies did they utter? Which ones were condoned by the Church? Documentation is required to back up wild claims.

To MarkBsnr's excellent response, I would also add that as the apostles died, the task of shepherding the Church fell by default upon the highest-ranking ministers appointed by them. This group is known today as the bishops, who are the successors of the apostles as the highest shepherds of the earthly Church. Due to bishops' roles as the successors of the apostles, possession of a valid episcopacy is necessary for a church to claim apostolic succession. Apostolic succession thus involves in the bishops serving as successors to the apostles, not serving as apostles. The bishops are not simply a continuation of the office of apostle; they received the governance of the Church when that office ceased.

Te origin of the office of bishop was a distinct office by the late first century, the end of the apostolic age. This is evident because at the beginning of the second century, Ignatius of Antioch wrote a series of letters (A.D. 107) to local churches as he journeyed to Rome for his execution. In these letters, he repeatedly attests that each local church he passes has the three-fold hierarchy of a bishop, several priests, and several deacons.

He is so confident of this usage that he can say that without these three offices a local body cannot be called a church (Trallians 3:1-2). These facts show that the usage was already widespread at the dawn of the second century, so it must have first been established in the late first century, at the close of the apostolic age.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.