10 FACTS about the Council of Jerusalem

[FHII]

....that Christains may not realize.

1. Paul never asked for the Council.
In Gal 2:1-2 we learn that he went and was happy to go lest he was preaching or had in vain. Acts 15:2-3 said he went. But nowhere does it say he sought their approval. He wanted it, he got it.i, but never was seeking it.

Before the council he had a 15 day encounter with Peter. He also met with James. Perhaps to discuss the things that happened to him and ley them know he was no longer an enemy... And perhaps to learn the life and times of Jesus. Jesus's most prominent disciple and his earthly half brother were, no doubt, a valuable source of information.

But nowhere do we see Paul asking for this meeting. There was a duspute and Paul and Barnabas were summoned and escorted to Jerusalem. Paul never asked for it though he was happy to fo.

2. Peter was not in charge.

Peter's roll appears more as an advocate or even a lawyer acting on Paul's behalf. Before this, we hear nothing of Peter assuming an official office positionin the Church. He, being Peter... A bold, brash iindividual and a prominent man of Jesus was there to persuade others.

3. James did not make his decision based on Peter's testimony.

Peter convinced James to listen to Oaul and Barnabas. Peter was not the last to speak. Either Paul or Barnabas were.

4. The Ruling was not taught by Paul.

Yes, Paul delivered the ruling. But Paul never dwelt on it nor did he refee to it in his teaching beyond telling folks about it.

5. It was not the message of grace.

It was the message that excluded ccircumcision. Folks... Wrap that around your brain! You don't have to cut excess skin off your male member! It truly is a metaphor that no one at the council understood!

Except Paul and maybe Peter

6. Paul did not hold the council in high regards.

We hear the words of Paul in Galatians:

Galatians 2:6 KJV
But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

Yea.. They seemed to be something. They added nothing to Paul, and Paul said it didn't matter what their reoutation was.

What does Gal 1:1 say? Paul was not and apostle of men. He makes that a point. He was an apostle of Jesus. It sounds lije he is upset. It sounds like he isn't really caring what others say.

He later says they were pillars. No. He said thwy seemed to be pillars.

Paul isn't passing out compliments here. He is saying he doesn't care about their reputation. He is ssaying he was there to preach what Jesus gave them and it doesn't matter whay these men who seemed to have a reputation had to say about it.

Well... That's enough for now... Vut it is all undeniable truth.

 

[FHII]

Ok.. 6 facts .... Sorry.

 

[epostle1]

....that Christains may not realize.

1. Paul never asked for the Council.
In v we learn that he went and was happy to go lest he was preaching or had in vain. Acts 15:2-3 said he went. But nowhere does it say he sought their approval. He wanted it, he got it.i, but never was seeking it.

Wrong. Paul had to check with Peter, James and John to make sure his (Paul's) gospel was true, him being happy to go had nothing to do with the purpose of his visit. Galatians 2:2 "...I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain." And how was Paul to be sure unless he sought the approval of the Apostles?

Before the council he had a 15 day encounter with Peter. He also met with James. Perhaps to discuss the things that happened to him and ley them know he was no longer an enemy... And perhaps to learn the life and times of Jesus. Jesus's most prominent disciple and his earthly half brother were, no doubt, a valuable source of information.

Jesus had no half brothers. That is a myth invented by modernist liberal Protestants and atheists in the early 19th century. Before that, the myth was unheard of in any church. That proves it is a man made tradition.

But nowhere do we see Paul asking for this meeting. There was a duspute and Paul and Barnabas were summoned and escorted to Jerusalem. Paul never asked for it though he was happy to fo.

Paul was always subject to the church.

2. Peter was in charge.

Peter's roll appears more as an advocate or even a lawyer acting on Paul's behalf. Before this, we hear nothing of Peter assuming an official office positionin the Church.

That's absurd. There are over 70 verses in the NT indicating Peter's leadership of the apostles and the whole Church. Scripture Catholic - THE PRIMACY OF PETER

He, being Peter... A bold, brash iindividual and a prominent man of Jesus was there to persuade others.

Yes, but Peter didn't need to persuade the whole assembly to fall silent when he stood up to speak. Everyone there knew Peter was the boss.[/quote]

3. James did not make his decision based on Peter's testimony.

Wrong.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me.
14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name.
Is James words (Simon hath related) meaningless filler?

Peter convinced James to listen to Paul and Barnabas. Peter was not the last to speak. Either Paul or Barnabas were.

Paul and Barnabas did what they were told by the council. Paul did not play a huge role. Being the last recorded person to speak does not determine who has the most authority.[/quote]

4. The Ruling was not taught by Paul.

Yes, Paul delivered the ruling. But Paul never dwelt on it nor did he refee to it in his teaching beyond telling folks about it.[/quote] Agreed.

5. It was not the message of grace.

Does every single message have to be a message of grace to be valid??? Is that in the Bible somewhere?

It was the message that excluded circumcision. Folks... Wrap that around your brain! You don't have to cut excess skin off your male member! It truly is a metaphor that no one at the council understood!

Except Paul and maybe Peter

The assembly debated the matter at length before Peter stood up and they all fell silent. I think most of the assembly understood.

6. Paul held the council in high regards.

And he did what he was told by the council.

We hear the words of Paul in Galatians:

Galatians 2:6 KJV
But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

Yea.. They seemed to be something. They added nothing to Paul, and Paul said it didn't matter what their reoutation was.

Paul is not talking about the Apostles, he is talking about Jewish leaders.

What does Gal 1:1 say? Paul was not and apostle of men. He makes that a point. He was an apostle of Jesus. It sounds lije he is pissed off. It sounds like he isn't really caring what others say.

Wrong. Paul was commissioned directly by Jesus, but he was also subject to the Church. It's both/and. Your thinking is in terms of a false dichotomy: "either/or". Calvin made that mistake repeatedly.

He later says they were pillars. No. He said thwy seemed to be pillars.

If you read the rest of verse 9, Paul does not cast doubt on the pillar-ness of the Apostles.

Paul isn't passing out compliments here. He is saying he doesn't give a rat's behind about their reputation. He is ssaying he was there to preach what Jesus gave them and it doesn't matter whay these men who seemed to have a reputation had to say about it.

Well... That's enough for now... Vut it is all undeniable truth.[/QUOTE]
9 and when James and Cephas and John, gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Doesn't Paul know he should be giving the right hand of fellowship to James and Cephas and John and not the other way around???

Paul was always subject to the Church.

It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

• In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf.9:17). (told by whom? Did Jesus appear a 2nd time to tell him what to do??? hmm...no.)
  
  
• He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
  
  
• and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).
  
  
• 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).
  
  
• Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
  
  
• 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.” (did Paul appoint himself??? hmm...no)
  
  
• 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).
• The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible.

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical.

 

[101G]

5. It was not the message of grace.

It was the message that excluded ccircumcision. Folks... Wrap that around your brain! You don't have to cut excess skin off your male member! It truly is a metaphor that no one at the council understood!

Except Paul and maybe Peter

First thanks for the post.

A. it was a message of GRACE, scripture, Acts 15:15 "And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

Acts 15:16 "After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

Acts 15:17 "That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

God's Grace is to SAVE the WORLD, not just Jews, because the promise was given unto Abraham by FAITH. and by Faith, or through Faith one who calls on the NAME of the Lord shall be "delivered", meaning SAVE. salvation is the gospel of grace message.

supportive scripture, Joel 2:32 "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call".

B. the Circumcising of the foreskin of one's heart was already known to all Israel, Deuteronomy 10:16 "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked". and the prophet Jeremiah warned them again 4:4 "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings".

see, being Circumcise of the flesh was a TOKEN. Genesis 17:9 "And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

Genesis 17:10 "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

Genesis 17:11 "And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

they remembered the TOKEN, and forgot the Covenant of the HEART, scripture, Deuteronomy 30:6 "And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

THAT'S THE COVENANT.

and the New covenant of Grace is to believe as Abraham did by Faith. for the OT is the NT not two, but the one in the same Testament. only the OT is accessed by Faith, (meaning before the CROSS) and the NT is accessed through Faith (meaning after the cross). same covenant, same testament, only the OT is the foreshadow of the things to come.... (after the CROSS). foreshadow simply means promise, indicate, announce, or declare the things to come. and Abraham got the Promise by FAITH. for he believed God.

C. maybe a 7th fact.... " keeping the law" NO WAY. Acts 15:24 "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment".

so that confirm the message of Grace and not the Law.

PCY

 

[FHII]

Wrong. Paul had to check with Peter, James and John to make sure his (Paul's) gospel was true, him being happy to go had nothing to do with the purpose of his visit. Galatians 2:2 "...I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain." And how was Paul to be sure unless he sought the approval of the Apostles?

Acts 15:2-3: When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
3And 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.

Gal 2:1-2:
Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

No where does it say Paul asked for the council nor did he seek out their approval. They came to him and asked/demanded him to come. He wanted their approval, as I stated. He did not go looking for it. I am correct.

That's absurd. There are over 70 verses in the NT indicating Peter's leadership of the apostles and the whole Church. Scripture Catholic - THE PRIMACY OF PETER

...And not one of them says Peter was the head of Church at any time. He wasn't in charge of the Council of Jerusalem.

Wrong.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me.
14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name.
Is James words (Simon hath related) meaningless filler?

Actually, I am right. James did not make his decision right after Peter spoke. He made it after hearing Paul speak.

Paul is not talking about the Apostles, he is talking about Jewish leaders.

Actually he was speaking about those in the Council at Jerusalem. "Jewish Leaders" is not mentioned.

Wrong. Paul was commissioned directly by Jesus, but he was also subject to the Church. It's both/and. Your thinking is in terms of a false dichotomy: "either/or". Calvin made that mistake repeatedly.

Did Paul need the CHurch's permission to preach grace? If so... Why was he doing it before he had such permission?

Paul was no stranger to causing trouble. I don't think he ever needed permission to preach anything Jesus told him to. He was ready to die for the gospel... I don't think he was worried about James and HIS council. Like I said, I think he welcomed their blessing but didn't need it.

 

[epostle1]

Acts 15:2-3: When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Who is they?

3And 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.
Not by James, not by Peter alone, but by the church. What part of "by the church" don't you understand?

Gal 2:1-2:
Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

No where does it say Paul asked for the council nor did he seek out their approval. They came to him and asked/demanded him to come. He wanted their approval, as I stated. He did not go looking for it. I am correct.

Paul is in Galatia in Gal. 2:2, not Jerusalem. The council was not held in Galatia where Paul visited the Apostles. Your time line is muddled. Paul didn't need special invitation to attend the council, he was an apostle commissioned directly by God, remember?

...And not one of them says Peter was the head of Church at any time. He wasn't in charge of the Council of Jerusalem.

Peter was in charge as indicated by his function all over the NT.
Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?

Actually, I am right. James did not make his decision right after Peter spoke. He made it after hearing Paul speak.

14 Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name. It looks to me Peter spoke, followed by James 'judgement' on a dietary law that affected only the diocese of Jerusalem, not the universal Church.

What part of "Symeon has described " don't you understand?

Actually he was speaking about those in the Council at Jerusalem. "Jewish Leaders" is not mentioned.

I retract "Jewish leaders"

Did Paul need the CHurch's permission to preach grace? If so... Why was he doing it before he had such permission?

Because he was doing what Jesus told him to do. It wasn't permission he needed from the Church, but an acknowledgement that his gospel was the same as the Apostles. You are trying to create a false dichotomy between Jesus and the Church. It will never work. The Church is Jesus on earth.

Paul was no stranger to causing trouble. I don't think he ever needed permission to preach anything Jesus told him to. He was ready to die for the gospel... I don't think he was worried about James and HIS council. Like I said, I think he welcomed their blessing but didn't need it.

What Jesus tells Paul to do is the same thing as what Jesus tells the Church to do. There are no contradictions.
It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

• In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf.9:17).(told what and by whom?)
  
  
• He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), he didn't confirm the apostles calling.
  
  
• and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9). (doesn't Paul know he was to commission Peter, James and John??? Maybe you should correct the Bible writers.)
  
  
• 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).
  
  
• Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
  
  
• 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). apostles and elders , not an individual who spoke last.

The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible. The plain meaning of these passages is denied by Protestants.

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical.
It wasn't James' council, it wasn't Peter or Paul's council, it was a council of the Church, like the council of Nicae, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon that made authoritive verdicts on the Trinity, all modeled after the infallible Council of Jerusalem. It's infallible because the Holy Spirit was there, that is why it's infallible. (Acts 15:8) It's the same model used at Vatican II and all councils throughout history.

Q: Paul was commissioned as an apostle “by Jesus Himself” then does he derive his apostleship from Jesus or from Peter?

A: Both. Why do you feel compelled to make a choice? It’s the usual Protestant “either/or” dichotomous mentality. Calvin does the same thing repeatedly.

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.
Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?

 

[epostle1]

Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council
Here is a compelling biblical argument for an infallible Church, and against sola Scriptura.

The standard Catholic apologetics argument from the Bible for apostolic succession is the selection of Matthias to succeed Judas (Acts 1:16-26). That includes taking note that the word for “office” in 1:20 is episkopos: the word for “bishop.” Thus, we have some sort of equation of apostles and bishops, which is necessary, for we believe that bishops are indeed the successors of (but not identical to) the apostles.

The argument stems from how the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:1-32; 16:4) is presented in Holy Scripture. It’s been one of my favorite arguments against sola Scriptura (i.e., Scripture as the only infallible authority), and as a rationale for Catholic ecumenical councils, to note the high authority of the Jerusalem council, guided by the Holy Spirit Himself (15:28) to make a proclamation binding upon all the Christian faithful everywhere. We know that, since Scripture reports that it was “delivered” and received at Antioch (15:30-31) and in various cities in Asia Minor (16:4); hence, the analogy to ecumenical councils, which are much more than mere local authoritative proclamations...

...Now I will be using it as an argument for apostolic succession, too. Here is how it works: the Jerusalem council presents “apostles” and “elders” in conjunction six times:

Acts 15:2
Acts 15:4
Acts 15:6
Acts 15:22
Acts 15:23
Acts 16:4

“Elders” here is the Greek presbuteros, which referred to a leader of a local congregation, so that Protestants think of it primarily as a “pastor”, whereas Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans regard it as the equivalent of “priest.” In any event, all agree that it is a lower office in the scheme of things than an apostle: even arguably lower than a bishop (which is mentioned several times in the New Testament).

What is striking, then, is that the two offices in the Jerusalem council are presented as if there is little or no distinction between them, at least in terms of their practical authority. It’s not an airtight argument, I concede. We could, for example, say that “bishops and the pope gathered together at the Second Vatican Council.” We know that the pope had a higher authority. It may be that apostles here had greater authority.

But we don’t know that with certainty, from Bible passages that mention them. They seem to be presented as having in effect, “one man one vote.” They “consider” the issue “together” (15:6). It’s the same for the “decisions which had been reached” (16:4).

Therefore, if such a momentous, binding decision was arrived at by apostles and elders, it sure seems to suggest what Catholics believe: that bishops are successors of the apostles. We already see the two offices working together in Jerusalem and making a joint decision. It’s a concrete example of precisely what the Catholic Church claims about apostolic succession and the sublime authority conveyed therein. There are three additional sub-arguments that I submit for consideration:

1) The council, by joint authority of apostles and elders, sent off Judas and Silas as its messengers, even though they “were themselves prophets” (15:32). Prophets were the highest authorities in the old covenant (with direct messages from God), and here mere “elders” are commissioning them.

2) St. Paul himself is duty-bound to the council’s decree (16:4), which was decided in part by mere elders. So this implies apostolic succession (and conciliarism), if elders can participate in such high authority that even apostles must obey it.

3) Paul previously “had no small dissension and debate” with the circumcision party (15:1-2), but was unable to resolve the conflict by his own profound apostolic authority. Instead, he had to go to the council, where apostles and elders decided the question. All he is reported as doing there is reporting about “signs and wonders” in his ministry (15:12). He’s not the leader or even a key figure. This is not what the Protestant “Paulinist” view would have predicted.

Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council | PagadianDiocese.org

 

[FHII]

Who is they?

Those in verse one.

Paul is in Galatia in Gal. 2:2, not Jerusalem

No he wasn't.

Because he was doing what Jesus told him to do. It wasn't permission he needed from the Church, but an acknowledgement that his gospel was the same as the Apostles

That's right! He didn't need permission. He wanted the acknowledgement. I don't think he needed it, but ok... I won't argue over the difference between "want" and "need".

You are trying to create a false dichotomy between Jesus and the Church. It will never work. The Church is Jesus on earth.

No I am not.

It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

Never said he was a spiritual "lone ranger".

You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

Look, first of all... This conversation isn't about me, so please stop referring to such. Second, I am not at Protestant so there is no reason to bring up your opinion of what they do.

Third, and what is a relevant point, is that I am a firm believer in Church lleadership. If you had taken the time to ask me instead of making these assumptions, then you could make a reasonable reply.

 

[epostle1]

Those in verse one.

Yes, the apostles and elders, a.k.a the magisterium.

No he wasn't.

He wrote to the Galatians who were in Galatia. If you want to be picky about it, Luke wrote Acts, not Paul. Scripture is silent on where Paul was when he wrote to the Galatians, and it's not important. He was probably travelling.

That's right! He didn't need permission. He wanted the acknowledgement. I don't think he needed it, but ok... I won't argue over the difference between "want" and "need".

A good portion of the Christian community were afraid of Paul, the only way he could fix his reputation was to have the approval of the Apostles, as a secondary motive. Sometimes you have to read scripture with a telescope, not always a microscope.

No I am not.
Never said he was a spiritual "lone ranger".

I know what you didn't say. I have to generalize. Most Protestants I encounter don't recognize Paul as having any allegiance to the institutional Church, because they are anti-authority, anti-institutional to begin with.

Look, first of all... This conversation isn't about me, so please stop referring to such. Second, I am not at Protestant so there is no reason to bring up your opinion of what they do.

By definition, you are a Protestant or you are orthodox, in rebellion to the magisterium.

Third, and what is a relevant point, is that I am a firm believer in Church lleadership. If you had taken the time to ask me instead of making these assumptions, then you could make a reasonable reply.

Church leadership teaches that Peter, + apostles and elders was in charge of the council. The claim that James independently ran the council is an invention of the reformation, nothing more.
If James was the leader of the early Church, or even the first pope, why aren’t his successors the head of the universal Church?

Was James the Real Leader of the Early Church?

 

[FHII]

For the sake if clarification, we are discussing Acts 15:1-2 to figure out who exactly called for the Council at Jerusalem. We are trying to figure out who the "they" are in verse two:

Those in verse one.

Yes, the apostles and elders, a.k.a the magisterium.

Perhaps it would be easier to search the scripture:

And certain men which came down from Judæa taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. [2] When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation a with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Who was it that determined this? It was not Paul nor the Apostles or Elders or James. Not at least named as such. Galatians mentioned they were "false brethren". I think its safe to say it wasn't the Apostles. James? The elders? Maybe. But I think it was simply mistaught Judeochristians.

He wrote to the Galatians who were in Galatia. If you want to be picky about it, Luke wrote Acts, not Paul. Scripture is silent on where Paul was when he wrote to the Galatians, and it's not important. He was probably travelling.

Yes he wrote to the Galatians who were in Galatia and Paul was not in Galatia when he wrote to the Galatians. Its not a matter of being picky. But what is important is what he was talking about in Gatatians 2. What he is telling about (among other things) is the Council at Jerusalem. He is talking about what hapoened when he was in Jerusalem. You have to have a "telescope" view of scripture to see that.

I really don't know where you are going with this.

A good portion of the Christian community were afraid of Paul, the only way he could fix his reputation was to have the approval of the Apostles, as a secondary motive. Sometimes you have to read scripture with a telescope, not always a microscope.

All that is speculation. I agree that it is good speculation. I believe that was a part of it but not the whole picture.

Paul had this problem already in Acts 9 and beyond. He needed support then, and got it. Yes, I see Paul benefitting with the council's approval. But the council had nothing to do with whether Paul was converted and to be trusted.

It would help soothe such feelings if they were still there... But it wasn't an issue.

I know what you didn't say. I have to generalize. Most Protestants I encounter don't recognize Paul as having any allegiance to the institutional Church, because they are anti-authority, anti-institutional to begin with.

I am fine with that... So long as it is a generalization. I am not anti-authority... And while you want to label me a protestant, I am not. And this conversation has nothing to do with my personal allegiances. I am giving my thoughts on the subject but its not about me.

Church leadership teaches that Peter, + apostles and elders was in charge of the council. T

I am more interested in ehat the Bible tteaches about who was in charge of the council.

The claim that James independently ran the council is an invention of the reformation, nothing more.

Well fine. Is that another generalization? James was the head of the council. To say he acted independantly is not my thought.

James heard the arguments from both sides. Probably chaos. The he heard from Peter. That compelled him to listen to Paul . Then he and he alone gave an opinion in the legal sense.

Everyone agreed to his decision (some probably reluctantly) and that was that. Thwy all signed off on what James's decision was, thus agreeing with it.

The fact that Peter and Paul got what they wanted (for the most part) doesn't make them part of the council nor in charge of it.

If James was the leader of the early Church, or even the first pope, why aren’t his successors the head of the universal Church?

Well is this another generalization? James was the leader of the Church of Jerusalem circa 49 AD. That doesn't make him the first Pope or the leader of the early Church. Everything in the Bible and history says at that time he was the CEO of the Church at Jerusalem. That's it. Need an example? Who did Paul seek out when he returned to Jerusalem in Acts 21? James or Peter? Who spoke to him and received him?

It was James. Yes the elders were the (Peter wasn't) but James did the speaking.

 

[epostle1]

For the sake if clarification, we are discussing Acts 15:1-2 to figure out who exactly called for the Council at Jerusalem. We are trying to figure out who the "they" are in verse two:

Perhaps it would be easier to search the scripture:

And certain men which came down from Judæa taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. [2] When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation a with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Who was it that determined this? It was not Paul nor the Apostles or Elders or James. Not at least named as such. Galatians mentioned they were "false brethren". I think its safe to say it wasn't the Apostles. James? The elders? Maybe. But I think it was simply mistaught Judeochristians.

Yes he wrote to the Galatians who were in Galatia and Paul was not in Galatia when he wrote to the Galatians. Its not a matter of being picky. But what is important is what he was talking about in Gatatians 2. What he is telling about (among other things) is the Council at Jerusalem. He is talking about what hapoened when he was in Jerusalem. You have to have a "telescope" view of scripture to see that.

I really don't know where you are going with this.

All that is speculation. I agree that it is good speculation. I believe that was a part of it but not the whole picture.

Paul had this problem already in Acts 9 and beyond. He needed support then, and got it. Yes, I see Paul benefitting with the council's approval. But the council had nothing to do with whether Paul was converted and to be trusted.

It would help soothe such feelings if they were still there... But it wasn't an issue.

I am fine with that... So long as it is a generalization. I am not anti-authority... And while you want to label me a protestant, I am not. And this conversation has nothing to do with my personal allegiances. I am giving my thoughts on the subject but its not about me.

I am more interested in ehat the Bible tteaches about who was in charge of the council.

Well fine. Is that another generalization? James was the head of the council. To say he acted independantly is not my thought.

James heard the arguments from both sides. Probably chaos. The he heard from Peter. That compelled him to listen to Paul . Then he and he alone gave an opinion in the legal sense.

Everyone agreed to his decision (some probably reluctantly) and that was that. Thwy all signed off on what James's decision was, thus agreeing with it.

The fact that Peter and Paul got what they wanted (for the most part) doesn't make them part of the council nor in charge of it.

Well is this another generalization? James was the leader of the Church of Jerusalem circa 49 AD. That doesn't make him the first Pope or the leader of the early Church. Everything in the Bible and history says at that time he was the CEO of the Church at Jerusalem. That's it. Need an example? Who did Paul seek out when he returned to Jerusalem in Acts 21? James or Peter? Who spoke to him and received him?

It was James. Yes the elders were the (Peter wasn't) but James did the speaking.

James was bishop of the church of Jerusalem, but there is nothing in scripture to indicate universal jurisdiction.

The Catholic claim that Peter was the first pope is not based on sola scriptura, selective use of Scripture, or just a single passage of Scripture.

As for Acts 15, a number of factors point to Peter actually being both the leader at the council and the leader of the early Church. First, there is the manner in which his speech begins and ends. By standing up to speak after the debate had subsided, Peter made an emphatic physical gesture affirming his authority and centrality. The silence afterwards indicated the finality of what Peter had just said; no one disputes either his speech or his right to make it. In fact, the witness of Paul and Barnabas, along with James’s speech, only reinforce and agree with what Peter says.

Secondly, few non-Catholic commentators seem to notice the striking wording Peter used in his speech. If he was only a witness, wouldn’t he have appealed only to his experience? But while Peter did focus on his experience, the main object of his speech was God: “God made a choice among you, that by my mouth . . .”; “And God . . . bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit”; “He made no distinction”; and “why therefore do you put God to the test?” (vs. 7-10). It is readily apparent that Peter was quite comfortable in being a spokesman for God. Even James seems to take this for granted by stating, “Simeon has related how God first concerned himself . . .” (v. 14). There is an immediacy to Peter’s relating of God’s work which is noticeably absent from James’s speech.

As mentioned, Paul, Barnabas, and James all reinforced and agreed with Peter’s declaration, albeit in different ways. The first two related “the signs and wonders God” had been working “among the Gentiles” (v. 12). James pointed first to the words of Peter and then to the Prophets (vs. 14-15). Those who claim James’s speech was the definitive one point to the language in verse 19 (“Therefore it is my judgement . . .”) as evidence for James’s primacy. Yet James is simply suggesting a way of implementing what Peter had already definitively expressed. “Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the apostolic Church,” state Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, “He formulates a doctrinal judgment about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a pastoral plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side (15:13-21)” (232).

Problems with Authority
One can only conclude that those commentators and scholars who take issue with Peter’s primacy have, for various reasons, taken an anti-Catholic, anti-papal stance. They labor under a skewed understanding of what the papacy is and how the papal office relates to the Church as a whole. As a result, they are prone to interpret Peter’s actions and the history of the early Church incorrectly.

If James was the leader of the early Church, or even the first pope, why aren’t his successors the head of the universal Church? These and related questions are not adequately addressed by those who say James, not Peter, was the leader of the early Church.
Was James the Real Leader of the Early Church? | Catholic Answers

 

[DPMartin]

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical.

right

Paul was brought to the Ministry of Grace that was established via Peter and friends while Paul was still recognized as Saul and persecuting the same ministry. its understood in some circles that Paul could have spent as many as 17 years in Damascus preaching the Gospel before was it Bartholomew brought Paul to the Apostles to be accepted as a worker in the ministry of grace.

Paul by his own admission was Apostle to the Gentile and considering the animosity that could have remained amongst the disciples toward his past persecutions, it would be wise on the ministry's part to place him there.

but authority wise Paul at no time was in charge in Jerusalem which was the church center at that time, even though his understanding of how the fulfillment of the law and this Grace through Christ was highly respected.

 

[FHII]

James was bishop of the church of Jerusalem, but there is nothing in scripture to indicate universal jurisdiction.

Fine... I agree and never intended to hint otherwise. Trust me... I don't believe any apostle had universal juristiction... If I did, I wouldn't say it was James!

The Catholic claim that Peter was the first pope is not based on sola scriptura, selective use of Scripture, or just a single passage of Scripture.

Well it can't be. If Cathics relied only on scripture then no... Peter is not the Pope!

It is not my intention to even discuss such. That may be your agenda and what you are finding in this discussion (which is fine by me) but its not the point I am trying to make.

But let me discuss your concern. Jesus was the founder of the Church at Jerusalem. Yea... The founder of all Churches, but literally at Jerusalem. He preached there first.

After that, Peter was never the official leader, but he took the bull by the horns. He preached the first apostolic sermon. Both: 1. The first ever and 2. In Jerusalem.

He was forced to flee. Somehow James got the bishop prick after that.

I have no problem with you saying he was an elder in Jerusalem because technically, he was. But his roll in the council was as an advocate for Paul. "Well they all fell silent!" yea... Who wouldn't? I think in times like this even heaven was silent and listening!

But as you said, James was the bishop at the time and thus, in charge.

As for Peter being Pope... Again that's not my aim. Perhaps at another time.

 

[FHII]

Folks, I want to update the list of facts and admit I made a mistake:

7. James gave certain conditions to the gentiles.

I didn't include it originally because it's not a big secret. He placed the following conditions on the gentiles:
1. Abstain from pollution of idols (food wise).
2. Fornication
3. Food that was strangled
4. Blood (consumed).

Again, no big revelation there... Paul didn't necessarily preach that but he wasn't against such either. He said don't hinder a weak brother but otherwise don't aak about it.

But I had to mention it because of another fact:

8. Paul never delivered the message. He never read the letter concerning the ruling nor did he even acknowledge it!

I said he did deliver the message. I was wrong and apologize.

Yes... The ruling was made and delivered. But not by Paul. He was never even asked to deliver it. That task was given to Silas and Judas. Not Paul!

Now, look at Galatians... Pauls says they asked him to remember the poor... He never mentions these other 4 conditions. In fact, "remember the poor" wasn't part of the initial ruling!

Paul did discuss eating of mmeats, but it wasn't 100% in harmony with what James and the council decided. He did preach against fornication, but his focus was on spiritual fornication first and foremost.

But the point is that Paul had very little to do with this decision other than allowing it.

 

[epostle1]

Folks, I want to update the list of facts and admit I made a mistake:

7. James gave certain conditions to the gentiles.

I didn't include it originally because it's not a big secret. He placed the following conditions on the gentiles:
1. Abstain from pollution of idols (food wise).
2. Fornication
3. Food that was strangled
4. Blood (consumed).

Again, no big revelation there... Paul didn't necessarily preach that but he wasn't against such either. He said don't hinder a weak brother but otherwise don't aak about it.

But I had to mention it because of another fact:

8. Paul never delivered the message. He never read the letter concerning the ruling nor did he even acknowledge it!

I said he did deliver the message. I was wrong and apologize.

Yes... The ruling was made and delivered. But not by Paul. He was never even asked to deliver it. That task was given to Silas and Judas. Not Paul!

Now, look at Galatians... Pauls says they asked him to remember the poor... He never mentions these other 4 conditions. In fact, "remember the poor" wasn't part of the initial ruling!

Paul did discuss eating of mmeats, but it wasn't 100% in harmony with what James and the council decided. He did preach against fornication, but his focus was on spiritual fornication first and foremost.

But the point is that Paul had very little to do with this decision other than allowing it.

Paul did what the council told him to do. He was always subject to the Church. That is not on your list of facts.
Acts 15:25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul—
Acts 15:30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter.
35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.

If James was the leader of the early Church, or even the first pope, why aren’t his successors the head of the universal Church? These and related questions are not adequately addressed by you, and this is the third time I brought it up.
Here is another one for your facts list: 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.

I am withdrawing from this discussion because I don't have to keep up with your chronic butchering of scripture.

 

[epostle1]

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.

The point of having a council is to allow multiple individuals to speak and discuss matters before a resolution is achieved. This in no way implies that there isn't one central leader. Thus in an ecumenical council the pope actually speaks very little of the time, allowing the world's bishops to discuss matters before achieving resolution on a matter, which the pope then endorses (assuming that the bishops have achieved a correct resolution; otherwise, he rejects it).

In the same way, at the Jerusalem council many people spoke without at all implying that Peter was not the leader of the Church.
James Akin
+++
General Councils of the Church
Jerusalem (Acts 15:2)
When and where
49.
Crisis or controversy
Gentile converts must follow Mosaic Law; "Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved." Acts 15:1
Attendees
"Apostles and presbyters" Acts 15:6, and the following notables:
Paul and Barnabas,
Peter, James (Acts 15:6-22)
Decrees and resolutions
"It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities." Acts 15:28

Nicea I
When and where
325. (Now Iznik, Turkey, 70 miles from Constantinople on the Asiatic shore of the Bosporus)
Crisis or controversy
Christ was a pure creature; made out of nothing; liable to fall; the Son of God by adoption, not by nature: Arianism.
Attendees
318 bishops, and the following notables:
Convened: Constantine I, Emperor;
Eusebius of Caesarea, historian;
St. Athanasius, theologian;
Ratified: Silvester I, Pope.
Decrees and resolutions
The Nicene Creed;
The Consubstaniality of the Word: homousion with the Father;
Solved how the date of Easter should be calculated.

Constantinople I
When and where
381. (Now Istanbul, Turkey)
Crisis or controversy
The need to insist on homousion;
Demonstrate to the world that Christians of the East are not Arians;
Apollinaris was teaching that Christ was not true man.
Attendees
186 bishops, and the following notables:
Convened: Theodosius I, Emperor;
St. Basil the Great;
St. Gregory of Nyssa;
St. Gregory of Naz., theologians;
Ratified: Damasus, Pope
Decrees and resolutions
Renewed the work of Nicaea;
Condemned the heresy of the Macedonians (the Holy Spirit was not really God);
Condemned the heresy of Apollinaris (that Christ was not really a man).

Ephesus
When and where
431.
Crisis or controversy
Nestorius was teaching that Mary was not the mother of God;
Proponents of Nestorius began claiming that Christ was actually two separate persons, human and divine.
Attendees
250 bishops, and the following notables:
Convened: Theodosius II, Emperor;
St. Cyril of Alexandria;
St. John Chrysostom;
Ratified: Celestinus I, Pope.
Decrees and resolutions
Condemned Nestorius;
Decreed that Mary was also Theotokos, mother of God;
Declared that Christ is true God and true man, that he has two natures (human and divine) joined in one person.

Chalcedon
When and where
451. (Ancient seaport of Bithynia on the sea of Marmara)
Crisis or controversy
Monophysites were teaching that Christ had a single divine nature and no human nature.
Attendees
600 bishops, and the following notables:
Convened: Marcianus, Emperor;
Ratified: Leo I, Pope.
Decrees and resolutions
Condemned Monophysitism;
Declared that Christ had two distinct natures and was both true God and true man;
Promulgated canons of church discipline.

Constantinople II
When and where
553.
Crisis or controversy
Emperor Justinian I wanted the Church to consider the orthodoxy of three Greek theologians: Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ebas of Edessa.
Attendees
150 bishops, and the following notables:
Convened: Justinian I, Emperor;
Decrees and resolutions
Condemned the writings of theologians as having been infested with Nestorianism.
Constantinople III
When and where
680.
Crisis or controversy
Monothelism was teaching that Christ did not possess a human will.
Attendees
174 bishops, and the following notables:
Convened: Constantine IV, Emperor;
Ratified: Leo II, Pope.
Decrees and resolutions
Condemned Monothelism;
Declared that Christ has two wills, human and divine.

Nicaea II
When and where
787.
Crisis or controversy
Iconoclasts taught that using sacred images was idolatry.
Attendees
390 bishops, and the following notables:
Convened: Irene, Empress;
Ratified: Adrian I, Pope.
Decrees and resolutions
Condemned Iconoclasts;
Declared that sacred images may be honored without idolatry.
Promulgated canons of church discipline.

Constantinople IV
When and where
870.
Crisis or controversy
Needed to decide the right of Patriarch Photius or the restoration of Ignatius.
Attendees
102 bishops, and the following notables:
Convened: Basil, Emperor;
Ratified: Adrian II, Pope.
Decrees and resolutions
Photius was condemned in 27 canons.

***note: All councils were convened to address heresies. All councils are modeled after the Jerusalem Council.

 

[FHII]

Paul did what the council told him to do.

Oh really? What did the council tell Paul to do?

What did Paul do that he wasn't already doing?

WHO delivered the message and why did you omit the 5 verses who tell who did deliver the message? The verses you omitted tell us that Silas and Judas were given the task of giving the ruling... NOT PAUL!

If James was the leader of the early Church, or even the first pope, why aren’t his successors the head of the universal Church? These and related questions are not adequately addressed by you, and this is the third time I brought it up.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I am talking about. That is your own tangent. I have not proclaimed James the first Pope. And nothing about this discussion has anything to do with the topic of who was the first Pope. I have adressed this point... I have addressed that it isn't the poimt of the discussion. Therefore... There is no need to address your point.

Here is something I believe is also escaping you: this discussion is not about Paul nor whether he was subject to the Church. Personally, I don't believe he was. He answered to Christ first and not to the Church. But Paul wasn't on trial. His doctrine was and his doctrine won out even though it came with compromises .

To which he never even acknowledged or preached.

Its not on my list of faxts because its not a fact. Its not even a question as it never is brought up. It was never a point of discussion at the council.

I am withdrawing from this discussion because I don't have to keep up with your chronic butchering of scripture

Give one I have butchered! The funny thing is I have seen you retract statements, admit to what I have said, put words in my mouth and later said you were speaking in general and bring in points I never intended to make. Yet I am butchering scripture?

Perhaps it is best for you to withdraw from this conversation.

 

[epostle1]

I am to believe Paul went to Antioch empty handed, with no letter?
You are not rational.
James in charge of the council is nothing more than anti-Catholic 16th century rhetoric, and modern Protestants gobble it up because it fits their anti-authority agenda.
You also ignore my posts and my questions.
have a nice day.

 

[FHII]

I am to believe Paul went to Antioch empty handed, with no letter?

I would like to think you are to believe the scripture. Paul and Barnabas went to Antioch with Judas and Silas. The latter two delivered the message. Thus I believe they carried the actual letter since they read it.

You are not rational.

Really? Am I right? Did Paul read it to Antioch?

Acts 15:27 KJV
We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

Acts 15:30-32 KJV
So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: [31] Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. [32] And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them .

James in charge of the council is nothing more than anti-Catholic 16th century rhetoric, and modern Protestants gobble it up because it fits their anti-authority agenda.

Yiu admitted James was the Bishop. Now tell me anywhere that Peter made the final decision. It wasn't a 16th century protestant or a 3rd century Catholic who said James made the decision... Luke said he did. He was a 1st cenury historian.

And I thought you left the conversation.

 

[FHII]

You also ignore my posts and my questions.

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