Please show us the historical records which show that James was in charge.
Speaking of yourself in the plural? Why don't you just say, "show
ME the historical record."
I am saying that no historical records show either viewpoint. Both assertions are just that assertions.
Acts doesn't say either way. Acts doesn't say who was in charge just who spoke and when the debate ended. The debate ended when Peter had spoken.
Actually, the debate ended after James had spoken, too. It's just that James had the
last last word. Otherwise, the view you express above is much closer to the truth of the matter than what you have argued before. That either Peter or James was in charge of the council is not clear from St. Luke's record alone and must be read into the account from outside traditions. If anything, what is obvious in Chapter 15 of Acts is the biblical precedent for a conciliar approach to resolving great difficulties within the Church. This approach alone, though, seems to speak against the papal monarchy you advocate as being clearly established in the Scriptures.
And as I see it, then James spoke to sum up what Peter had said and therefore give directions to his people. So to speak, the corporation boss spoke and the local manager gives the assignments for the day to the locals.
There is no clear person in charge but it leans towards Peter since the debate ended after he had spoken.
You still have to establish from the historical record that the Apostles actually did see Peter as supreme Apostle over all others. You still have to prove that your interpretation of the Scriptures (e.g., Matthew 16:18) is what the Apostles always taught and what the Church always believed from the start. So far all you have given us is your interpretation, which is easily refutable.
PetertheAleut's summary from Orthophotos an Orthodox site says.
"After long discussions, the issue was settled by the words of the Apostle Peter."
It is an Orthodox opinionbut it sure sounds like what I said. I didn't remember the part about James being a strict adherent of the Law and received for this not only from Christians but also from Jews themselves the epithet "righteous."
An aside from the summary, which says "Honour was accorded him by his position in the Church, first bishop of Jerusalem, placed there by the Lord Himself." When and where was it done by the Lord himself? Is that scriptural? or from the Fathers? from apocryphal sources? Not germane to the topic at hand , just wondering.
Can some one comment on any possible reason that Jesus went through all the bother (traipse all the way to the big Rock formation at Caesarea Phillipi, change Simon's name, give him keys, tell him to feed the lambs and sheep, tell him to strengthen his brothers) just to honor Peter (primacy of honor) and then call him Satan? (contrasting his divine revelation and his human opinion.) Seems counterproductive. But I gather you will, at least, give him primacy of honor. Please do correct me if I am wrong on giving him primacy of honor as I am sure you will be more than happy to let me know the error of my ways.
Thanks for your input.
Much closer to the truth than what you've projected onto us before. We certainly don't deny Peter a primacy of honor and even authority. We just have never seen him desiring to lord any authority over any of the other apostles in violation of Luke 22:25-26, nor have we ever believed that St. Peter bestowed his primacy upon Rome in perpetuity or that Rome inherited its primacy from St. Peter by divine fiat.
