Acts Ch.15

[Buzzard]

I see this many times coming from certain PostersWhy did Paul bother to go and meet with Peter
re:
the issue of circumcision

He didn’t, he went to Jerusalem where the church was assembled together
Peter being just one of them
Why was the issue settled when Peter spoke?
(Acts ch 15)

It wasn’t; let’s go thru it

~{Acts 15:1}~

• And certain men which came down from Judaea 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 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.*

No special mention of Peter,
just * the apostles and elders about this question** And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received
#1:
of the church,
#2:
and of the apostles and elders,
and they declared all things that God had done with them.
. *

No special mention of Peter there either,
just * the apostles and elders about this question** But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying,
That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
And when there had been much disputing, *
That’s Debate / and Disagreement / amongst the Apostles and ECF’s

Now we get to Peter’s Testimony* Peter rose up, and said unto them,
Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,
that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness,
giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. *
—{Peter Asks}----

• Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples,
  which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
  But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ
  we shall be saved, even as they.
  *

Peter gave his testimony, and now they want to hear from
** Barnabas** and Paul* Blaa-Blaa-Blaa, ect. ect. ect.*

Now “James Speaks”* James answered, saying,
Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles,
to take out of them a people for his name*.
It is Written

• And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
  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:
  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.
  Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
  Wherefore my sentence is*

Wherefore my sentence is,
Not;
Peter’s decision, Peter’s Opinion, Peter Speaks from the Chair,
Peter has spoken; Case closed,
Or any other such thingy

 

[Buzzard]

James says* Wherefore my sentence is ………
But that we write unto them, ……………
Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church,
#1:
to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely,
#2:
And they wrote letters by them after this manner
……………
#3:
We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you** the same thing** by mouth.
……………
#4:
they delivered the epistle:
Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
*

Lets go back to what started this meeting in the 1st placeAll Dem Dar Oral Teachings and Traditions
~{Acts 15:1}~

• And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said,
  Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

And
*
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:
*

James Decision wasthat we write unto them,
and send men with”That Which was Written” in their hands
to prove what they testified and affirmed was true
they delivered the epistle:
Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

Hey !!!,
it seems the Apostolic Church followed Luke’s advise~{Luke 1:3}~
to write unto thee in order,……
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed.

Hey !!!,
These men that came down from Judea,
Some of them were
“Students of the Apostles”

So evidently all that “Verbal Instruction / Oral Traditions” from those
“Students of the Apostles”
that came down from Judea with
“Verbal Orders / Teachings from Headquarters”
Just ain’t all that reliable after all .
So when they tell you “so and so” was a
Student of the Apostle ???:
That don’t mean nottin

A far better test~{Isaiah 8:20}~
To the law and to the testimony:
if they speak not according to this word,
it is because there is no light in them.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I suggest you read Galations and then go back and reread Acts chapter 15.

 

[aridite]

Buzzard:

2 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.
No special mention of Peter,
just the apostles and elders about this question

Elders (priests/bishops) were men appointed by the Apostles. #1. The Apostles had the authority to appoint their successors, and #2. these successors shared genuine authority with Apostles in resolving disputes.

Buzzard:

Now we get to Peter’s Testimony

• Peter rose up, and said unto them, *Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, *that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. *And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, *giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; *And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. *—{Peter Asks}----
  Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? *But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ *we shall be saved, even as they.

**

Peter speaks on behalf of the whole Church, declaring what “we believe”. James doesn’t speak thus. Further, Paul supported his own authority and that of the Gospel he preached by saying he submitted it to the judgment of Peter (see Galatians). Paul did not appeal to private interpretation or even special revelation (though he certainly had the latter), but he seemed to think that official sanction by the authority of the Church was important to do his ministry.

You seem to think that Catholics believe that the Pope is a king and ruler. I’ve heard protestants refer to him as a spiritual dictator. Perhaps the Catholics you’ve talked to have argued so hard for Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility, that that’s a reasonable impression to have come to. But the Pope, as with Peter at the Council of Jerusalem, is the leader among the Apostles and bishops, and some truths have only been understood as a result of discussions and disputes at Councils. Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility are more like a court of last resort – where disputes and doctrines are finally and authoritatively settled. The role of the papacy has been exagerated in the past to the detriment of the real authority bishops exercise in their own dioceses. The present pope has done a lot to re-emphasize the College of Bishops as Successors of the Apostles.

BTW dat dar way uv speekin’ is pert-nere annoy’n

 

[Todd_Easton]

6The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, …”
12And all the assembly kept silence; (Acts 15:6-12)

1. The apostles and the elders met.
2. There was much debate.
3. Peter rose and spoke against circumcising Gentile converts.
4. When Peter finished speaking, all the assembly kept silence, i.e., as far as the council was concerned the discussion about circumcision was over; Peter had spoken and the issue of circumcising Gentile converts was settled forever.

In the remarks of Paul and James that follow Peter’s speech, the issue of circumcision is not raised again. Why? Because Peter - “the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time” (Luke 12:42) - had spoken and the issue was settled.

 

[Buzzard]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=321206&postcount=5
Post #5

6The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, …”
12And all the assembly kept silence; (Acts 15:6-12)

1. The apostles and the elders met.
2. There was much debate.
3. Peter rose and spoke against circumcising Gentile converts.
4. When Peter finished speaking, all the assembly kept silence, i.e., as far as the council was concerned the discussion about circumcision was over; Peter had spoken and the issue of circumcising Gentile converts was settled forever.

In the remarks of Paul and James that follow Peter’s speech, the issue of circumcision is not raised again. Why? Because Peter - “the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time” (Luke 12:42) - had spoken and the issue was settled.

Because Peter - “the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time” (Luke 12:42) -

Todd;
we went thru that parable,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=311621&postcount=16

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=311622&postcount=17

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=311623&postcount=18

you will never prove it from that Parable,

In fact it says the exact opposite

Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household,

Peter it may be
At his 2nd coming; and not until

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Here is the commentary of Saint John Chrysostom on this Council in Acts. He gives the primacy to James the Brother of the Lord and bishop of Jerusalem. This makes perfect sense. Rome was not yet a Christian centre of any sort and Jerusalem and its bishop, James, held the first place in the Christian Church.

“Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) (b) **Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part. **

ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-1…Acts-Hom33.html

 

[Todd_Easton]

In his History of the Church, Eusebius, writing in the early A.D. 300s says:

This James, whom the early Chrisians surnamed the Righteous because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the records tell us, to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church. Clement, in Outlines Book VI, puts it thus:

Peter, James and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had specially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.

​

I suspect one reason James was elected as Bishop of Jerusalem was so that the Apostles could go and preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. (Matt 28:19)

 

[Yaegel]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=321206&postcount=5
Post #5

Because Peter - “the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time” (Luke 12:42) -

Todd;
we went thru that parable,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=311621&postcount=16

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=311622&postcount=17

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=311623&postcount=18

you will never prove it from that Parable,

In fact it says the exact opposite

Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household,

Peter it may be
At his 2nd coming; and not until/QUOTE

Abraham had a steward over his household, Gen 15:2, 24:2, which prefigures the “Household of God”, Matt 16:18, 1Tim 3:15.
Out of all those professing to be children of Abraham, only the Catholic Church (“Household of God”) has such a “steward” and he’s out there for all the world to see in the person of John Paul II
The Jews don’t have one,the orthodox churches don’t have one, protestants don’t have it and neither do the muslims, certainly no buzzard has one.

 

[Buzzard]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=321703&postcount=9
Post #9

Yaegel:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=321206&postcount=5

Post #5

Abraham had a steward over his household, Gen 15:2, 24:2, which prefigures the “Household of God”, Matt 16:18, 1Tim 3:15.
Out of all those professing to be children of Abraham, only the Catholic Church (“Household of God”) has such a “steward” and he’s out there for all the world to see in the person of John Paul II
The Jews don’t have one,the orthodox churches don’t have one, protestants don’t have it and neither do the muslims, certainly no buzzard has one.

My kingdom is not of this world
then why should I look to an “Earthly Ruler” having Dominion Over the Flock of God

Princes of the Gentiles

;
#758
archon (758), “a ruler,” is rendered “chief” in the KJV of Luke 14:1 (RV, “ruler”);
“chief rulers,” in John 12:42, RV, “rulers (of the people),” i.e., of members of the Sanhedrin; “chief,” in Luke 11:15 (RV, “prince”), in reference to Beelzebub, the prince of demons. See MAGISTRATE, PRINCE, RULER.
11. archisunagogos (752), “a ruler of a synagogue,” translated “chief ruler of the synagogue,” in Acts 18:8, 17, KJV, was the administrative officer supervising the worship.

~{Matt.20:25}~
But Jesus called them unto him, and said,
Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles
exercise dominion over them,
and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you:

~{Mark 10:42}~
But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them,
Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles
exercise lordship over them;
and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But so shall it not be among you:

 

[Buzzard]

MarkInOregon:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=320871&postcount=3
Post #3

I suggest you read Galations and then go back and reread Acts chapter 15.

Ok; how about this

~{Galations 4:1}~
Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child,
differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2 But is under tutors and governors
until
the time appointed of the father.
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4 But when the fulness of the time was come,
God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law,
that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6 And because ye are sons,
God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts,
crying, Abba, Father.
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son;
and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

No more
tutors;
someone appointed for instruction for a period of time

governors;
House manager; a Steward, Stewardship; administration of a house or estate

But when the fulness of the time was come,
God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law,
that we might receive the adoption of sons.
.
.

 

[preyoflove]

Buzzard:

My kingdom is not of this world
then why should I look to an “Earthly Ruler” having Dominion Over the Flock of God

Hmm…we look to this person you label an “Earthly Ruler” who has dominion over the Flock of God because he was given the keys to the kingdom which he would pass on to his successor across the ages of time. This “Earthly Ruler” is the Chief Minister of the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings as Eliakim in the Old Testament was to the House of David. And, mind you, this “Earthly Ruler” did not usurp the authority of the King as if he was some upstart like you seem to have everybody believe here.

Buzzard:

• ~{Matt.20:25}~
  But Jesus called them unto him, and said,
  Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles
  exercise dominion over them,
  and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
  26 But it shall not be so among you:

~{Mark 10:42}~
But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them,
Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles
exercise lordship over them;
and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But so shall it not be among you:

Hahaha! You seem to imply that the Apostles should not be authorities like those of the Gentiles, when our Lord was instead teaching them to be humble unlike such “Earthly Rulers”. He was clearly teaching what true leadership was and that it was service “For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto: but to minister and to give his life a redemption for many.”(Mar 10:45). How can you be a leader if you don’t exercise authority over your followers?

 

[Yaegel]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=321703&postcount=9
Post #9

My kingdom is not of this world
then why should I look to an “Earthly Ruler” having Dominion Over the Flock of God

“They are not of the world even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is the truth. As thou didst send me INTO THE WORLD, so I have sent them INTO THE WORLD”.Jn,17:16-18.

“But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you”. Lu 11:20

“nor will they say ‘Lo here it is’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst”. Lu 17:21

The “kingdom of God” is not of this, but it is in this world in seed. This is the Catholic Church, and She constantly prays “Thy kingdom come” in it’s fullness “on earth as it is in Heaven”. You can’t see it because you cut and paste scripture verses like a Windows’ application. But Christ said “scipture cannot be broken”.Jn 10:35. Christ is the author of all scripture and He put all the books of the Bible together by the power of His Spirit through His Church. So what God has joined together, let no Buzzard tear asunder.

 

[Buzzard]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=321175&postcount=4
Post #4

aridite:

**

Further, Paul supported his own authority and that of the Gospel he preached by saying he submitted it to the judgment of Peter (see Galatians). Paul did not appeal to private interpretation or even special revelation (though he certainly had the latter), but he seemed to think that official sanction by the authority of the Church was important to do his ministry.

No; Paul does not say he submitted his ministry to Peter
in fact he says
~{Galations 1:15}~
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.
11 But I certify you, brethren,
that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it,
but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

from what we know of the exchange between Paul and Peter
in chapter 2
God might have sent Paul to teach Peter a few things

aridite;
when “God” calls someone,
He don’t need nobodys “Permission”
That was one of the problems with the Jews,
they just could no beleive God would use someone
“not taught” or “approved” by them

does, John the Baptist ring a bell???

 

[Buzzard]

editing

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Buzzard:

So;
“Who” is John Chrysostom???
was he Moses come back to life ???
Was he one of the Prophets ???
maybe an Apostle born out of time???

If what Chrysostom says is true,
you should be able to show it in Scripture

Umm, did you not notice that Saint John, who is one of the ancient Bible teachers from the 4th century, *is * commenting on Scripture? *He *is ** proving his point from Scripture.

 

[Kurt_G]

Gentlemen and Ladies:

In Acts 15, one could make the case that Peter gives more than an opinion.

I think the Greek verb used in Acts 15:14 is the same verb used by John’s Gospel 1:18 “The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has REVEALED (some say Declared) Him to us”.

Most translations of Acts 15:14 use a word for James’ comment on Peter’s speech like “has related to us”, or “has described to us”.

Really, I may be wrong on this, so someone could check it out.
The difference between Simon DECLARING/REVEALING something, and Simon RELATING something to us is pretty big.

Someone let me know, if I’m wrong I’ll back off on that direction.

Three more points on The Council of Jerusalem:

1. The folks at this Council actually think they have the authority to speak for God Almighty! (v.28) Is there a Church today which claims the same authority? There may be more, but I can think of one for sure.
2. Paul and Barnabas had several chances to settle the circumcision argument (v.2, v.5) but they met with resistance.
   They argued with Paul over this. NO ONE argues with Simon Peter. That’s not the first time Simon’s statements go unchallenged… check out Acts 1:16-23. NO ONE says, “Gee, I don’t know, Pete, Jesus didn’t say anything about replacing anybody… what do the rest of you guys think?” They just follow his directions. period… (I know Buzzard will have a lengthy answer for this, but I’m throwing it out there anyway!)
3. This early Church evidently believes that to have spiritual authority one must be SENT. Even Paul and Barnabas were “sent” on this issue (Acts 15:3)

And of course, in the letter (v.24) “…some from among us, without being sent by us (also translated without any mandate from us) have upset you with their teachings…”.

Our Church (among others) still follows that policy to this day… one cannot decide on his own to go start a church somewhere without being “sent” by the authoritative body.

Actually the whole action of Acts 15 closely follows Jesus’ exact commands found in Matthew 18. It’s also where Jesus lets us know that “where two or three are gathered together in my name” is NOT the same thing as the Church. To believe otherwise is against Holy Scripture. (Of course, someone (probably Buzz) will find a bazzillion other verses to “counter” this. But it won’t get around the warm fuzzy fact that “two or three” are separate and distinct from His Church, according to our Lord Jesus.)

P.S. - Buzz, do you have something new on the Greek “Cephas” / Aramaic “Kepha” subject, or should everyone drop that one?

I’m done. Everyone have a fine weekend blessed by Almighty God.

 

[aridite]

Buzzard:

No; Paul does not say he submitted his ministry to Peter
in fact he says

• ~{Galations 1:15}~
  *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. *11 But I certify you, brethren, *that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

from what we know of the exchange between Paul and Peter
in chapter 2
God might have sent Paul to teach Peter a few things

Nope. Paul when to the Council to make sure his preaching was in accord with the Tradition that Christ handed on the Apostles and they handed on to the elders they apointed.

Galatians 2:
1 Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 I went up in accord with a revelation, and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles–but privately to those of repute–so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain. . . .

Commentary: Paul might have been found to have been running in vain (preaching an erroneous gospel) based on what those of repute (Church leadership) decided about what he was preaching.

Galatians 2:6 But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)–those of repute made me add nothing.

Commentary: Those of repute (the Fathers of the Council of Jerusalem: Peter, the Apostles, James and the elders) could have made Paul add something, though they did not. Subjecting the preaching of Paul and the judiazers to the authority of the Church (in the ministry of Peter and the Apostles and elders) was the whole point of the Council.

Galatians 2: 7On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, 8 for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, 9 and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Kephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Commentary: Ultimately Paul receives authorization by the Church leadership to continue his ministry. It was the job of the leadership to see that he had really been entrusted with the Gospel, and to “recognize the grace bestowed”.

There are such divergent, and seemingly plausible interpretations! Oh, would that there were an authoritative office for presenting authentic interpretations of Scripture so that it will not be a matter of personal interpretation (2 Peter 1: 20-21)! Oh, yeah, there is; its the Magisterium of the Catholic Church!