10 FACTS about the Council of Jerusalem

[epostle1]

Paul answered to both Christ and the Church. You make another false Calvinoid dichotomy. The Church is Christ on earth, warts and all. You are completely ignorant of ecclesiology.

i retracted ONE statement, and no more. You misrepresent me. You deny the structure of all councils, and think the full doctrine of the Trinity was pulled out of hats. It was attacked by sola scriptura heretics. See post #16. How does the Protestant think authoritive verdicts are arrived at with just a local bishop?
History is your enemy. The point is the STRUCTURE of the Church has not changed, and councils could not function with a local bishop running them.

 

[epostle1]

Acts 15:2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem about this question.

Who was in authority to appoint Paul and Barnabas? Nobody according to you. This denial is a pattern with you.

3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoeni′cia and Samar′ia, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren.
(But Paul didn't feel like being subject to the church, according to you.)

Paul wasn't sent on his way by the church, according to you, in flat out denial of verse 3.

22 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. They sent Judas called Barsab′bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 with the following letter: “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili′cia, greeting.

Who sent Paul and Barnabas? the apostles and the elders
Where were they sent? Antioch
This is where your chronic denials get really annoying.

Name one post I have ignored. Name one question I have ignored. Some of your questions are irrelevant, but I have addressed them.

Post #11. You skipped over that one.
Peter, along with Paul and James, was one of three important leaders of the council, but there is nothing in the text that denies Peter was the highest leader. You do because it is a man made Protestant tradition.

 

[FHII]

Paul answered to both Christ and the Church. You make another false Calvinoid dichotomy. The Church is Christ on earth, warts and all. You are completely ignorant of ecclesiology.

Christ put Paul in charge of the Church, Paul served the Church, but no... Paul didn't answer to the Church.

Paul did not have to answer to Peter, James, the Council, the Elders nor any partitioners. Again, please tell me what the Church orders to Paul were.

Who was in authority to appoint Paul and Barnabas? Nobody according to you. This denial is a pattern with you.

I answered this long ago... And they weren't "appointed". It was determined by "certain men" that they should go to Jerusalem.

Who sent Paul and Barnabas? the apostles and the elders
Where were they sent? Antioch
This is where your chronic denials get really annoying.

Yea... They sent him to where he already was to preach a message he already was preaching before he was so rudely interrupted! The part they added on... Paul never preached or acknowledged.

So tell me again how Paul did what the Church told him to do...

Post #11. You skipped over that one.

See post #13.

Peter, along with Paul and James, was one of three important leaders of the council, but there is nothing in the text that denies Peter was the highest leader. You do because it is a man made Protestant tradition.

No higher than Paul. None of the Apostles were higher than the others.

 

[FHII]

Just a refresher course on Church Leadership from PAUL...

1 Cor 12:28
And God hath set some in the church:
1. first apostles, (this is where Paul is found in the leadership hierarchy)
2. secondarily prophets,
3. thirdly teachers,
4. after that miracles,
5. then gifts of healings, helps, governments (here is the Council of Jerusalem), diversities of tongues.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Just a refresher course on Church Leadership from PAUL...

1 Cor 12:28
And God hath set some in the church:
1. first apostles, (this is where Paul is found in the leadership hierarchy)
2. secondarily prophets,
3. thirdly teachers,
4. after that miracles,
5. then gifts of healings, helps, governments (here is the Council of Jerusalem), diversities of tongues.

You forgot to number the rest of the Apostles with Paul in the #1 position.
As a matter of fact - you can add the Apostles to ALL of the positions you listed - 1 through 5.

Now - here's a refresher course on Church leadership - from JESUS:
Matt 16:17-19
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are YOU, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

 

[BreadOfLife]

No higher than Paul. None of the Apostles were higher than the others.

Must you always deny the truth of Scripture?

a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if He was not in charge??

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if He was not in charge??

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if He was not in charge??

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if He was not in charge??

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if He was not in charge??

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if He was not in charge??

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if He was not in charge??

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together if He was not in charge??

 

[FHII]

You forgot to number the rest of the Apostles with Paul in the #1 position.
As a matter of fact - you can add the Apostles to ALL of the positions you listed - 1 through 5.

Absolutely true... I only brought Paul's name up because he is being portrayed as under subjection to the Church. He was a Church leader! He's at the top of the hierarchy. The authorities he is said to be under subjection to are at the bottom.

 

[FHII]

Must you always deny the truth of Scripture?

I've adressed this many times on other threads. THIS thread is about the council at Jerusalem.

 

[amadeus]

I've adressed this many times on other threads. THIS thread is about the council at Jerusalem.

Only be careful not to derail the thread or...? Oh it's your thread... :)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Absolutely true... I only brought Paul's name up because he is being portrayed as under subjection to the Church. He was a Church leader! He's at the top of the hierarchy. The authorities he is said to be under subjection to are at the bottom.

Peter is at the top.
Paul had the authority of an Apostle - but not as Chief apostle.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I've adressed this many times on other threads. THIS thread is about the council at Jerusalem.

No - you've glossed over these passages with your usual denials but you've never actually addressed them.

You're right - this thread IS about the council of Jerusalem. It is about Apostolic Authority - and you've got it all wrong . . .

 

[FHII]

You're right - this thread IS about the council of Jerusalem. It is about Apostolic Authority - and you've got it all wrong

Ok. I've given 8 points for you to comment on. Have at it.

 

[epostle1]

Ok. I've given 8 points for you to comment on. Have at it.

You could give more points if you stopped denying half of Acts 15. Your understanding of church hierarchy is totally muddled. It's not a corporation, but follows the Davidic Kingdom. Paul is subject to the Church, that does not mean he is of low rank, the church doesn't operate like General Motors.
In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17). Paul was subject to the Church because Jesus told him he would be told what to do. Told what by whom? By Ananias, a representative of the Church, who was probably a bishop. (Acts 9:11-13. Paul is subject to the Church and THAT IS WHAT YOU DENY.

Jesus did not appear to Paul a second time to tell Paul what to do, He used a human being.

While I am on Acts 9,
5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

How can Jesus speaking from heaven be in Damascus at the same time? There is an intimate relationship that Jesus (in heaven) has with His Church on earth.

He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18). You deny this as well.

Fourteen years later Paul was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2, 9).
Paul did not commission Peter, James, and John. Paul was subject to the magisterium (Peter, James, and John)

He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Paul didn't send the Church, the Church sent Paul. and he gladly was obedient.

Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.” The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.” Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

Paul did what he was told by the council and in this sense Paul was subject to the Church.
Paul being subject to the Church in no way diminishes his authority as an Apostle, and your problem is a seemingly inability to get away from the American corporate structure, with Paul as a CEO.

 

[FHII]

Paul was subject to the Church because Jesus told him he would be told what to do.

That's right! Jesus told told him what to do! And Paul is no more under subjection to the Church because of Annanias than Jesus is because of John the Baptist.

You are started to reword things correctly though. Paul (like Peter and Jesus) were servants to the Church by being leaders. Not errand boys. That is indirectly my whole point. And before you say you never said he was an errand boy, go back and read all the times you had the council telling him what he could preach and where to go next... None of which really happened if you read carefully.

He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18). You deny this as well.

Not true! I did discuss this. What I don't agree with that it was a confirmation visit. The Bible doesn't say it was! It wouldn't bother me if it was and it is reasonable to speculate that Paul asked questions. BButI have no doubt Paul was already persuaded and didn't need it. Desired it? Sure. Needed it? No.

Fourteen years later Paul was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2, 9).
Paul did not commission Peter, James, and John. Paul was subject to the magisterium (Peter, James, and John)

Ahh. There you go! There's your errand boy! They didn't commission him to do aanything! Show me where it says that in Gal 2:1-2. And as I've shown with careful reading, it never happened in Acts 15 either. You can't commission someone to preach something they are already preaching nor send them somewhere they are already going to.

By the way... Whose doctrine cchanged concerning circumcision of the gentiles? Paul's or the Church's ?

” The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”

Acts 15:3 KJV
And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

There's a difference between bringing someone and sending someone, isn't there?

Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27

No... They sent or commissioned Judas and Silas to go with them. That is clear in verse 22 AND 27.

Paul did what he was told by the council and in this sense Paul was subject to the Church

What did they tell him to do? Because I find nothing.

 

[epostle1]

That's right! Jesus told told him what to do! And Paul is no more under subjection to the Church because of Annanias than Jesus is because of John the Baptist.

You make a non sequitur fallacy. Either Annias layed his hands on Paul, and told him to get baptized or he didn't. That means Annias told Paul what to do. It's not rocket science and its not systematic theology. You are re-writing scripture to force fit it into your opinions.

You are started to reword things correctly though. Paul (like Peter and Jesus) were servants to the Church by being leaders. Not errand boys. That is indirectly my whole point. And before you say you never said he was an errand boy, go back and read all the times you had the council telling him what he could preach and where to go next... None of which really happened if you read carefully.

You have a typically American concept of servitude.
He was sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Paul didn't send the Church, the Church sent Paul. and he gladly was obedient. Obedience is a virtue and like humility, seems to be lost in Protestantism. Read Acts 11:19-27 carefully, it did happen, and I don't see a grovelling errand boy.

Not true! I did discuss this. What I don't agree with that it was a confirmation visit. The Bible doesn't say it was! It wouldn't bother me if it was and it is reasonable to speculate that Paul asked questions. BButI have no doubt Paul was already persuaded and didn't need it. Desired it? Sure. Needed it? No.

Paul spent 15 days with Peter because he didn't really NEED to get acquainted? Planning on writing your own FHII version??? The Bible doesn't pit Paul's divine call against the Church the way you do, you do it because it is a man made Protestant tradition!

Ahh. There you go! There's your errand boy! They didn't commission him to do aanything! Show me where it says that in Gal 2:1-2. And as I've shown with careful reading, it never happened in Acts 15 either. You can't commission someone to preach something they are already preaching nor send them somewhere they are already going to.

Gal. 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
no, wait...
Paul gave James, Cephas, and John the right hand of fellowship...according to your re-written version.

By the way... Whose doctrine changed concerning circumcision of the gentiles? Paul's or the Church's ?

Paul is not a separate entity from the Church, he is very much part of the magisterium. He was not a competitor with Peter. You are creating another false dichotomy (either/or thinking, not both/and)

Acts 15:3 KJV
And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

There's a difference between bringing someone and sending someone, isn't there?

You still don't know who the Church is?

No... They sent or commissioned Judas and Silas to go with them. That is clear in verse 22 AND 27.

Generally, throughout the Bible, whoever does the sending or commissioning is of greater authority than the one being sent or commissioned. This is a difficult biblical concept for anti-institutional Protestants.

What did they tell him to do? Because I find nothing.

Jesus told Paul he would be told what to do when he reached Damascus. Did Jesus lie??? You demand proof text for every single thing but can't proof text the error of sola scriptura, the foundation principle governing all of Protestantism.

 

[FHII]

@epostle1
There are just too many personal opinions, flup flops and errors in your last post to make me want to respond. It seems to be a regular thing to habe to correct silly errors which would not happen if you'd read more carefully.

So I won't be answering your questions or comments on this thread any longer.

 

[charity]

'Paul, an Apostle,
.. (not of men,
.... neither by man,
...... but by Jesus Christ,
........ and God the Father,
.......... Who raised Him from the dead )
(Gal 1:1)

'Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ
.. by the will of God, ... ... '
(Eph 1:1)

'For do I now persuade men, or God?
.. or do I seek to please men?
.... for if I yet pleased men,
...... I should not be the servant of Christ.
But I certify you, brethren,
.. that the gospel which was preached of me
.... is not after man.
...... For I neither received it of man,
........ neither was I taught it,
.......... but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.’
(Gal 1:10-12)

'But when it pleased God,
.. Who separated me from my mother's womb,
.... and called me by His grace,
...... To reveal His Son in me,
........ that I might preach Him among the heathen;
immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
.. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me;
.... but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,
.. and abode with Him fifteen days.
.... But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
...... Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.’
(Gal 1:15-20 )

* AD 32 Paul's conversion - (18 years ) - AD 50 Jerusalem council

​

Praise God!

 

[BreadOfLife]

'Paul, an Apostle,
.. (not of men,
.... neither by man,
...... but by Jesus Christ,
........ and God the Father,
.......... Who raised Him from the dead )
(Gal 1:1)

'Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ
.. by the will of God, ... ... '
(Eph 1:1)

'For do I now persuade men, or God?
.. or do I seek to please men?
.... for if I yet pleased men,
...... I should not be the servant of Christ.
But I certify you, brethren,
.. that the gospel which was preached of me
.... is not after man.
...... For I neither received it of man,
........ neither was I taught it,
.......... but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.’
(Gal 1:10-12)

'But when it pleased God,
.. Who separated me from my mother's womb,
.... and called me by His grace,
...... To reveal His Son in me,
........ that I might preach Him among the heathen;
immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
.. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me;
.... but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,
.. and abode with Him fifteen days.
.... But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
...... Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.’
(Gal 1:15-20 )

* AD 32 Paul's conversion - (18 years ) - AD 50 Jerusalem council

Praise God!​

​

Where do you get the false idea that Paul was converted while Jesus was still alive??

That said - EVERYBODY within the Church is subject TO the Church's Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 15:12-15, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

 

[H. Richard]

​

Where do you get the false idea that Paul was converted while Jesus was still alive??

That said - EVERYBODY within the Church is subject TO the Church's Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 15:12-15, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

***

The Church is a spiritual entity, made by the will of God and built without human hands of flesh, and the head of the Church is Jesus Christ who gave his life for it. I, personally feel that no man is to be considered as head of the Church. The Church's visibility in the world is shown through Christians that profess that faith in Jesus‘ work on the cross has saved them, individually and as groups. It is not a religious organization, or building, or certain place. Read LUKE, 17:20 "The Kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, here it is, or there it is, because the kingdom of God "is" within you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

***

The Church is a spiritual entity, made by the will of God and built without human hands of flesh, and the head of the Church is Jesus Christ who gave his life for it. I, personally feel that no man is to be considered as head of the Church. The Church's visibility in the world is shown through Christians that profess that faith in Jesus‘ work on the cross has saved them, individually and as groups. It is not a religious organization, or building, or certain place. Read LUKE, 17:20 "The Kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, here it is, or there it is, because the kingdom of God "is" within you.

Your phrase above in RED is s classic example of the tragedy of the Protestant Revolt.

It doesn't matter what YOU personally feel about what the Church is. Jesus already laid it down and there is NO going back.

Either you're part of it - or you reject it (Luke 10:16).
There is no in-between . . .