- Apr 19, 2007
- 2,677
- 1,048
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I know we like to have historical proof of things; but we can also make logical inferences from the small proof we do have. In this case, we see in Acts that Peter was the leader of the Christians in Jerusalem. He then leaves (flees?) and mentions James as the person to tell of his leaving. That seems strange considering that there were members of the twelve still left in Jerusalem who would be the logical next leader. To me this infers that either James was already recognized as the person in the line of succession in Jerusalem or that Peter was conferring this on him at this moment. If it is the second then the reason could be that the Apostles recognized that to stay in Jerusalem as known disciples of Christ would lead to their arrest. So they left and appointed someone unknown as a Christian to the Jews as the next leader. I know this is all inference; but it does at least explain the odd transition from Peter to James.And?
How do you possibly come to the conclusion that Peter installed James from that?
Do you have anything from Church tradition that even makes such a suggestion?
Upvote
0