I was talking to a guy and he kept insisting that if anyone was in authority it was James. He said that if anything is a miracle it is that James came out of nowhere and was made a leader. He insists on passages like Gal2:9 where it mentiones James first. As well as saying that James sent people to Peter and Paul indicating authority from a distance. He insists on saying that if anyone was the clear leader of the Church it was James.
I gave him the usual, Jesus chose Peter, and all that is said about Peter, but as usual he downplays it. So how do I explain that James was simply a local ruler leading the Jerusalem region?
He continually uses these:
1James was mentioned first in Gal2:9 (I tell him Peter is the most mentioned and usually is mentioned first)
2)James had the last word at the council, indicating authority over Peter (I told him it was Peter who silenced the crowd and was the first one to speak, and James was just agreeing)
3)Peter doesnt show authority when Paul gets in his face at the table, Paul actually denounces Peter (I tell him that he wasnt denouncing Peter, but that Peter got scared and did a dumb thing, it had nothing to do with authority, he doesnt buy it)
4)When Peter got out of Jail he told the guys to report to James, as if James was in authority (I told him that Peter was just getting out the good news and regrouping, thats all I could think of)
5)He says that James sent messengers as if he was in athority from a distance (I told him the two big men were on the scene building up a Christian community and that those guys were just there to help and report the progress.)
This is probably a lost cause with this guy, but does anyone have any thing to add that could help me defend these attacks better.