Foundations of the Church

[Dan_471]

Very Strong, and here’s why:

The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

One more thought on Akins’ article… he’s into the idea that the Bible is a single unified whole, with a single doctrinal viewpoint… for me, the Bible is much easier to read if I allow the different writers to have different viewpoints… or even the same writer having a different viewpoint at different times… for example, Paul in most of his writings says that following the Law isn’t really important… but when he wants to say why women shouldn’t talk in church, he supports it with ‘as the Law says’…

 

[Dan_471]

Here’s a thought on the Akin quote

“There’s nothing wrong with ignorance, per se. Ignorance with humility is harmless and curable, but ignorance combined with pride blossoms into arrogance, and is most often incurable, the patient being highly resistant to the only antidote.” - Jimmy Akin

Very true, Jimmy, but… I don’t think you’re incurable… (that’s a joke)

 

[Dan_471]

Taking ALL the teachings in unison, we can CLEARLY see that what unites the children of God is …LOVE!

Sounds good to me!

How would you look at this then… the connection between Jesus and Peter… is it really important?

 

[steve_b]

Sounds good to me!

How would you look at this then… the connection between Jesus and Peter… is it really important?

Given what Jesus does for Peter, it’s instructive then that Jesus says where that comes from.

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jn 6:
38* For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;

Jn 8:29
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

---

Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

Therefore, it’s clear, Peter is the Father’s choice to be the physical leader of the apostles ergo the Church. And because the Church won’t end, Peter will have successors. So yes, THAT’s an important connection. A connection that no human opposition, or discord between those who would seek rivalry and division over time, from the one Church, will overcome.

 

[fred_conty]

Hello

Suppose one accepts a few basic truths about Jesus… that he was a real person, he died, was raised again… Is this enough to lead a person to believe that the RCC is God’s instrument for communicating truth to humans?

To put it another way, or perhaps a similar question, how strong is the connection between accepting the above few truths about Jesus, and believing that he wanted to establish a particular group, or church… the conversion stories that I’ve read usually have the person saying that they felt drawn to the RCC… suppose that drawing isn’t there?

Peace,
Dan

Here is a person once in your position of believing that he wanted to establish a particular group, or church.

“I would not believe the Gospels if it were not for the Church.” Augustine.

I guess that resolved any doubts for him.

 

[Dan_471]

The important thing to me is what the institution teaches. We need the institution to tell us about God

well, ok, some things about God are known through nature, tho, yes?

and His love,

well, on one hand I can see that… at the same time, tho, sometimes individuals do a better job of communicating info about God’s love, imo…

to proclaim the gospel regardless of how well the institution and its “proclaimers” themselves may behave.Verses such as Matt 23:2-3 help serve to lay down this principle for us.

yes, I think Matt has the most institutional slant of the canonical Gospels… I think it’s interesting to note that Jesus says here “do and observe all things whatsoever they [the scribes and the Pharisees] tell you…”, yet He Himself doesn’t ‘do and observe all things’, like in Mark where He declares all foods clean, something I think the scribes taught against…

And in the case of the Church we’ve had leaders and teachers and members in general who’ve heeded her message better, and others who’ve heeded it worse, down through the centuries.

 

[Dan_471]

hi fhansen,
another thought,

Verses such as Matt 23:2-3 help serve to lay down this principle for us.

another thought about Jesus relating to the scribes and the Pharisees… in Luke 13, Jesus heals on the sabboth in a synagogue… the leader of the synagogue (and yes, it doesn’t say whether he was a scribe of a Pharisee or part of some other faction…) is ‘indignant’ and tells the people not to do that… Jesus calls him a hypocrite, contradicts him with chapter-and-verse, and in the end, Jesus’ adversaries are humiliated… that’s an interesting way of relating to an institution, although the ‘institution’ later responds by crucifying Him…

 

[fhansen]

hi fhansen,
another thought,

another thought about Jesus relating to the scribes and the Pharisees… in Luke 13, Jesus heals on the sabboth in a synagogue… the leader of the synagogue (and yes, it doesn’t say whether he was a scribe of a Pharisee or part of some other faction…) is ‘indignant’ and tells the people not to do that… Jesus calls him a hypocrite, contradicts him with chapter-and-verse, and in the end, Jesus’ adversaries are humiliated… that’s an interesting way of relating to an institution, although the ‘institution’ later responds by crucifying Him…

Jesus convicted an individual, who assumed he was speaking for God and Judaism, of being a hypocrite instead. If the man had taken the institutions’ teachings to heart, would have he been able to do that? Jesus didn’t come to destroy the institution, or to abolish the Law. He came to witness to the truth behind them, to teach us what is truly of value, and this is a process of continuing discovery for us all. Getting off of “institution worship” is often part of that process and whole time periods and groups of people can be and have been enmeshed in that very behavior and weighed down by it. But that’s still no reason to shoot the messenger-the message is too valuable.

 

[Dan_471]

In both events referred to

Paul spent 15 days with Peter three years after Paul's conversion (the visit of Acts 9:26-30)

possibly… I think there’s different versions of Paul’s chronology… and it depends if one wants to try to match it up with Galatians… that kind of discussion, tho, usually takes a lot of flipping back and forth from one Bible verse to another… difficult to do on an internet forum… also, imo, not very interesting… there’s much more interesting things we can learn from each other, imo…

Paul meets with James Peter and John after 14 years on the road, [Gal 2:2] to see if he is on the right track with his preaching

OK, now this is kind of a crux, here, I think… Paul doesn’t say he’s going to have his version of the Gospel checked out… he may be going to Jerusalem to straighten out the other guys, and get the right hand of fellowship…

and not running in vain.

that’s one possible reading… Paul wants to be sure his efforts are on the right track with the other Apostles… to me, a more reasonable reading is that people are trying to kill him, he runs, and meets with James and Peter ‘privately’, so that he didn’t spend all that time ‘off the grid’ in vain…

As an aside,

Peter James and John were the only apostles who Jesus took up the mountain to witness Our Lord's transfiguration.

now, my impression, and I could be wrong about this, is that the James on the Mount is the brother of John, who is killed early-on in Acts, while the James leader-of-the-church in Jerusalem is the brother of Jesus, a different James…

Since the Holy Spirit is inspiring all the apostles to teach, (not just Paul),

well, a statement of faith, and one can certainly choose to believe that, yes…

and Jesus said to the apostles before He ascended back to heaven
[Jn 16:13-15] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

therefore, Re: Pauls statement about running in vain, It appears that’s connected to “false bretheren” infiltrating the ranks, causing problems for Gentile converts in requiring the following of Jewish law, (witness Titus, for example, a Greek, wasn’t feeling compelled to be circumcised).

well, actually, if Titus wasn’t feeling compelled to be circumcised, then it doesn’t really look like a problem for him… the problem would be that certain parts of the church (James and sometimes Peter) are into compelling Gentiles to live like Jews, while Paul and the Gentile wing of the church have no real problems with this…

So Paul confers with James, Peter and John. Why James & Peter?

James the bishop of Jerusalem
Peter is over the entire Church

yes, and if Peter is head over the entire church, that brings us back to the original question of why Paul presents him as more part of the problem than part of the solution… if one reads Galatians, and doesn’t try to squeeze it to fit with other books of the Bible, just let it speak in it’s own context, I think Paul present Peter as someone he loves dearly as a brother, and also who needs occasional correction to stay on the straight course…

 

[steve_b]

possibly… I think there’s different versions of Paul’s chronology… and it depends if one wants to try to match it up with Galatians… that kind of discussion, tho, usually takes a lot of flipping back and forth from one Bible verse to another… difficult to do on an internet forum… also, imo, not very interesting… there’s much more interesting things we can learn from each other, imo…

It can’t be ignored that Paul was looking for support for his message. That’s how Jesus set it up. Peter is to be the one to confirm/strengthen his brothers [Lk 22:32]
D:

OK, now this is kind of a crux, here, I think… Paul doesn’t say he’s going to have his version of the Gospel checked out… he may be going to Jerusalem to straighten out the other guys, and get the right hand of fellowship…

who was worried about running in vain? It was Paul.
D:

that’s one possible reading… Paul wants to be sure his efforts are on the right track with the other Apostles… to me, a more reasonable reading is that people are trying to kill him, he runs, and meets with James and Peter ‘privately’, so that he didn’t spend all that time ‘off the grid’ in vain…

:dts:
D:

now, my impression, and I could be wrong about this, is that the James on the Mount is the brother of John, who is killed early-on in Acts, while the James leader-of-the-church in Jerusalem is the brother of Jesus, a different James…

Mary the mother of Jesus had 1 child… Jesus alone. She had no other children from her womb. James called “brother” in the case of one of the James in the Gospel, is a relative.

For examples and explanation

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10244817&postcount=46
D:

well, actually, if Titus wasn’t feeling compelled to be circumcised, then it doesn’t really look like a problem for him… the problem would be that certain parts of the church (James and sometimes Peter) are into compelling Gentiles to live like Jews, while Paul and the Gentile wing of the church have no real problems with this…

You have that backwards. Peter is the one who tells everyone they are not to put a yoke around the gentile’s necks re: the law. Paul is the one who had others observe the law.
D:

if Peter is head over the entire church, that brings us back to the original question of why Paul presents him as more part of the problem than part of the solution… if one reads Galatians, and doesn’t try to squeeze it to fit with other books of the Bible, just let it speak in it’s own context, I think Paul present Peter as someone he loves dearly as a brother, and also who needs occasional correction to stay on the straight course…

Acts 15 Peter settles the matter in council over the law and Gentiles. Gentiles aren’t to be saddled with the Mosaic laws. THEN what does Paul himself do in Acts 16:1-4, directly after getting the decree that says that they are not to circumcise others?
1 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Iconium. 3 **Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. **4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.
Paul forces Timothy to be circumcised for appearances sake, for the Jews, despite the letter from the apostles, that confirm Peter’s teaching, saying otherwise. Does that mean that Paul is an errant teacher, and that when he writes all those epistles we should disregard their teachings because of this hypocrisy? Paul actually learned from Peter.

While Paul later in his travels explains HIS behavior by saying, to the Gentiles he becomes as a Gentile, to win them over, as to the Jews he became a Jew so that some might be saved. [1 cor 9:20] This is exactly what Peter did earlier with the gentiles and was rebuked by Paul for it. Then Paul embraces this behavior for himself

No book can be taken in isolation. There’s always the entire context to consider.

 

[brb3]

Well, let’s see… I think that’s from Ephesians… many people say that Paul wrote that (tho others say someone else wrote it in Paul’s name). Should we listen to what Paul said? He seems like an earnest enough person… Maybe somethings he wrote were true, some not… ?

Hahn writes

If I understand Hahn right, it’s something that the Holy Spirit puts inside of you… the basis for faith in the Apostles isn’t something that you can take out and show someone else… The Mormons put out the idea that if one prays and asks God to show you if the Book of Mormon is true, He will. I prayed that prayer, and got a positive response… then I prayed for God to show me if Buddhism was true… again, same positive response. I can sense some leading of the Holy Spirit that Christ set up the Apostles to form the Church, then again, I can also sense the spirit telling me "No, go with someone like Marcion (the early 'heretic ’ guy)

Dan…

Our prayer is not " God tell me if Book of Mormon is true, or Is Buddha true ".
God does not answer that prayer …as you discovered, since your conscience gave u a thumbs up on both.

Rather, pray as Christ taught us in scripture, and as Peter taught the new converts to do on Pentecost, when the Church was born and 3000 people were converted . Once you follow the GuideBook/Rules that Christ & Church gave us …then you will get the CONFIRMATION that your prayers for truth were indeed answered.

 

[Dan_471]

The “drawing” can be a powerful thing if it is present; it can also lead you astray as is the case with Mormon “burning in the bosom”. Reasoning about history and facts are important, also.

Yes, I agree

In answer to your opening question, yes, accepting a few basic facts is sufficient to lead one to the Catholic Church.

Good. Let’s follow it out…

Here’s how:

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy.

I think this assumes that the Gospels contain accurate quotes/history… also, I think it’s interesting that the most direct claims by Jesus to being God that people usually point to are found in John, which most scholars say was written later than the others… one would think that the biggest claims of Jesus would appear in the early ones, too…

(The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

If He did in fact make them, yes… now, I write these comments as I read the post, so I haven’t looked beyond where we are now… if the rest of the post assumes a completely accurate Bible/Gospels, then I can go along with that for the sake of discussion… is it only the four Gospels that we should consider completely accurate? earlier in the thread I mentioned the Gospel of Thomas as an example… many scholars say it’s not very accurate… but then, some scholars say that about the Gospels, too…

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death.

OK, I’m with you there, assuming accurate Gospels…

Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead.

Right, I’m with you there…

Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

OK, still with you…

Further, Christ said he would found a Church.

Well, He says it one time, I think… I think it would be very important to know which church and the characteristics of it, so if Jesus had given more details, I think that would be a good thing…

Both the Bible and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church

Well, the Bible, yes,… the other ancient works wouldn’t know if it was Christ doing it or some other historical force or group…

with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

OK, still with you…

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

Well, with the exceptions I noted above, yes…

Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

(rest of quote responded to next)

 

[Dan_471]

Now, the following part I know I’ve answered at least once, possibly twice, but I’ll be happy to take a third stab at it…

When a Protestant

Kind of a broad statement, imo… some protestants are very liberal, some quite conservative…

objects to the above argument, it will be to the proposition that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded.

Some protestants are of the we-live-by-the-Spirit variety (that’s how I grew up)… I never even heard of the idea of Christ establishing a Single Church until I was much older…

Here is a limited proof.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18).

Yes, given the questions about accuracy I talked about above…

The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for t

I’m curious about this… don’t the Orthodox say that it’s Rome that broke with them?.. and that they go back to the time of the Apostles? is this a matter of something that historically clear and obvious, or is it a matter with a large degree of interpretation, each side seeing what it wants to in the documents and histories?

the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist).

or that dead people aren’t safe from the power of the Church… they can be saved and rescued…

Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23).

to me this simply shows that Paul has a different idea about how the church works than ‘Matthew’ does…

Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse).

Well, Revelation talks about the ‘key to the abyss’… is that a similar use of the word? perhaps it refers to the power of excommunication… I think that would bolster your cast…

But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline.

doesn’t He give it to all the Apostles (or is it disciples) at the end of John?

But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

yes, love 'em all the more…

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Paul seems to feel he has the power to hand someone over to Satan…

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish.

or that it could save dead people

But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature.

at the time Jesus made the promise, was there a heavenly Church?

Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

seems like a lot rests on that passage in Matthew, plus a few others…

Hope this helps.

well, it might if you want to address the stuff I mentioned above… peace to you!

 

[Dan_471]

And finally, some humor…

“There’s nothing wrong with ignorance, per se. Ignorance with humility is harmless and curable, but ignorance combined with pride blossoms into arrogance, and is most often incurable, the patient being highly resistant to the only antidote.” - Jimmy Akin

Akin seems to be doing the “there are two kinds of people in the world”… well, how about there are 10 kinds of people… those who understand binary, and…

 

[Dan_471]

No, has Steve_b pointed out, Paul went to confer with Peter to make sure he hadn’t been “running the race in vain”.

Well, that’s one possible reading… to me, a better one is that Paul was looking for acceptantce, the ‘right hand of fellowship’… he used to hang out with other strickly observant Jews, but now they want nothing to do with him, and some of them are trying to kill him, which is why he meets with the Apostles in Jerusalem ‘privately’, I think…

IOW, he wanted to double-check his gospel against that of the head of the Church, Peter.

again, a possible reading…

He had it right, of course, but this incident reveals how all of us, even the great Paul, have moments of doubt and need communion with fellow believers to strengthen us in times of darkness.

Paul definitely needed communion with other believers, yes… Paul was having doubts? I’m not seeing that in the context here of Galatians… maybe it’s there and I’m not seeing it… possibly

 

[Dan_471]

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15.

Right, and I’m not claiming that Peter couldn’t have been the pope, rather that a person just reading that part of Acts, not knowing that Peter was supposed to be in charge, would think that James was in charge… imo

This position indicates a complete misunderstanding

a complete misunderstanding… that’s a big claim, and probably very difficult to show… do I have a least a partial misunderstanding? yes, almost certainly… do I understand at least part of the situation? again, probably…

of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

ok, let’s check it out…

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end.

good point

However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.”

actually, James uses the phrase ‘my judgement’…

Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

    “Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how ...” (Acts 15:13-14).

true

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

    “It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10).

not so sure about that… since Peter seems (imo) to be causing some problems in Galatia

Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

    “Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised ..., you cannot be saved.”

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

ah, so you’re of the opinion that there were people under James (is it implied with his approval?) who were teaching something different than Paul and others were… so we do have at least one example of a time where different Apostles were teaching different things… I bring this up because someone on this thread or the other one said that all the Apostles taught the same thing… I think they said that… Anyway, I agree with you, that there probably was a Jewish faction ‘under’ James, which was teaching that Gentiles had to follow the Law, possibly including circumcision…

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council.

actually, I think the ‘we’ James uses refers to the ‘my brothers’ that he starts with, i.e. the whole council… that doesn’t mean that the whole council, everyone at it, was troubling the Gentiles, rather that the council as a whole should put an end to those who are troubling…

Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all

actually, from the context, I think his remarks are recorded because he comes up with the idea of sending a letter… not that the idea of sending a letter in this kind of situation would be new… also to show that the one of the leaders often associated with ‘Judiazerization’ was willing to take a reasonable approach, and rein them in…

I think it’s interesting to note that the council doesn’t say that the Gentiles don’t have to keep the Law… they just reduce it down to four… an approach which (imo) is not held by Paul and others…

—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)

 

[Dan_471]

In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians.

very true…

I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

yes, odd that he was ‘afraid’, I think, if indeed James and Paul and a lot of other people knew he was the head…imo

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps:

well, at least two… probably those who thought Gentiles should keep all of Torah… those who thought they shouldn’t keep any of it… those who thought they should keep the moral/social laws, but not the ceremonial ones… Jewish people like to dispute things like that, then as now (no slam of any sort against Jewish people intended here)

those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:

“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also:

"Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter's Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God's work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself...19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them..." (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

a possible reading… to me, a more natural reading is that James repeats and then builds on what Peter has said, thus putting his ‘seal of approval’ on it, letting those in the Jerusalem area know that they should follow it… indicating (imo) that there were those for whom simply Peter saying something wasn’t enough… implying (imo) that not everyone knew that Peter was the head…

 

[steve_b]

Well, that’s one possible reading… to me, a better one is that Paul was looking for acceptantce, the ‘right hand of fellowship’… he used to hang out with other strickly observant Jews, but now they want nothing to do with him, and some of them are trying to kill him, which is why he meets with the Apostles in Jerusalem ‘privately’, I think…

When Paul was worried he was running in vain, the Greek word for vain [Gal 2:2] is

Vain κενός kenos]
1) empty, vain, devoid of truth
a) of places, vessels, etc. which contain nothing
b) of men
1) empty handed
2) without a gift
c) metaph. destitute of spiritual wealth, of one who boasts of his faith as a transcendent possession, yet is without the fruits of faith
d) metaph. of endeavours, labours, acts, which result in nothing, vain, fruitless, without effect
1) vain of no purpose

That’s why Paul was seeking validation for his message. It’s also why Jesus told Peter, in front of all the apostles, it would be Peter who would be the one to strenghten THEM, his brothers, in their trials [Lk 22:32] because Jesus prays especially for Peter in this role which He gave Peter… and i.e in extension, when Peter strengthens the Church

 

[Dan_471]

Randy_Carson:
Hi Randy,

I checked out your link

bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm

but for me, it took me to an amazon search site…
so I googled the debate name, and used this

philvaz.com/apologetics/debate13.htm

Both Bonocore and Engwer seem to be using a ‘the Bible is a single cohesive unit’ approach… a view that I don’t really accept at this point… indeed, I’m not sure why Engwer would want to use that approach, since using what would be (imo) an essentially Catholic Bible would tend to lend support to the catholic Church, which I think he’s basically debating against…

 

[Dan_471]

btw, my mind keeps coming back to this, from post #55
do you honestly believe that Paul is a deceiver?

Of course not.
What was meant by that, I think was adaquately explained.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10132569&postcount=55

Ok, good… I’m glad you don’t think Paul was a deceiver… I don’t think he was either… at least I think he told things as he honestly believed they were…

which leaves us with two basic possibilities, I think…
when Paul says Peter was ‘clearly’ wrong, one possibility is that Paul is right about that, and Peter actually was wrong, which lends support to what I talked about earlier, Paul presenting Peter more as part of the problem than part of the solution… the second possibility is that Paul just really misunderstands the whole situation… which then brings up the question of what else Paul just really misunderstands… and we have an easy solution to the Paul/James controversy ( or Paul/Anyone)… Paul just maybe really misunderstood any given situation…