Well read carefully Peter is the one with the saying of authority it is James who agrees with him, the assembly fell silent to the words of Peter.
I must have a defective Bible. My version says “The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul” (vs. 12). It doesn’t say anything about being silent when Peter spoke.
James as the Bishop of Jerusalem definitely played a primary rols as many bishops have done in ecunemical concils but here we see Peter with the words of ultimate authority and James agreeing saying Simeon says this with an authority on par with the prophets, James never referes to himself but Simeon ie Peter.
So, you think that as the Bishop of Jerusalem that James was basically making a “What he said.” sort of statement?
There was no new testament that Peter and Paul were refererencing to the work of the Holy Spirit here was in the oral rulinngs.
I must not have stated that point very well. My point was that what both Peter and Paul did in their discussion was to refer to the work of the Holy Spirit for substatiation of the view they expressed. So, when someone refers to scripture today to substatiate their view, I see that as much the same sort of way of thinking. The scriptures are the work of the Holy Spirit. Peter and Paul were able to refer to what the Holy Spirit had done, and today people can refer to what the Holy Spirit has done (when he inspired others to write)… So because we have access to scripture, we have the same guidance of the Holy Spirit available to us that was available to any previous generation.
Of Peter and Paul and of course the Holy Spirit worked through the Church Council all very Catholic things
I thought the word Catholic met universal. You seem to have used it differently here, something having to do with process. What do you mean by “all very Catholic things”?
The Scripture says after debate Peter spoke and the assembly fell silent there was no arguing against Peter’s authority in fact James appeals to Simeons authroity and agrees with it. James is on Peter’s side of the isssue its not as if James opposed him thus you have no valid arguement thus James judgement is for Peter and are one and the same side as is the case with church councils.
I never said that there was any opposition to anyone in the council. I said that it wasn’t “thus saith Peter” but “thus saith James” because that is how it reads in Acts itself. They talk, Peter, Paul, others make statements. In the end, according to scripture it was, “When they [all the others giving testimony in the case] finished”, James spoke up. It appears from the way the narrative is written that James is the ultimate arbitrator in this case. Scripture even goes on to have James say, “It is my judgment, therefore,…”
Contrary to what you think…
Contrary to what I think??? What do I think? Do you know me so well that you know what I think?
other bishops are allowed to have their say in church councils and often more so than the see of Peter but in the end they do not contradict him and remain a valid council find me one and we can talk.
Talk about what? I am just talking about what is reported in scripture.
By how much your wrote in response to a tinsy tiny comment I made, this must be extremely important to you. I could care less how the see of Peter operates. I wasn’t even talking about the see of Peter. I was just talking about one particular statement that was made with regard to the Council of Jerusalem. It wasn’t closed when Peter spoke. James hadn’t spoke yet.
You raise another point though that I had never considered until you menitioned it above. Other bishops are allowed to have their say, but one the see of Peter speaks then they may not contradict him. So, they may give whatever advise they want until he speaks. But once he speaks even if they would have given other advice prior to his speaking, they must now suddenly all become “Yes Men”? Is that how it is supposed to work?