How or why?

[jericho777]

All you have to do is read Acts 15.
Judaizers were telling gentiles that they had to be circumcised before converting to Christianity. After much discussion - it was PETER who got up and made the decision. James also stood up after him and concurred.
They sent out Paul and Barnabas to them and commissioned Judas and Silas to go along with them (v. 25-27)

Did Paul disagree with Peter’s decision? Did he say, “Hey, Peter - you can’t send me. I do my own thing!”
No - he obediently went where he was sent.

Paul and Barnabas were the primary witnesses. Peter was a witness because he was a missionary and had seen firsthand Gods’ work in the Gentiles. Peter wasn’t making a decision. He was making an appeal to the council. Remember he was a MISSIONARY which means he was on the road. When do you think he had time to be on the council? It was our Lords brother, James who was the leader of the council as shown by the text. After the testimony it is James who ultimately makes the decision and no one else.

Acts:13,19James spoke up: 19“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

 

[Sufjon]

"
‘One of the greatest tragedies in life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts’. -Ben Franklin

Now THAT’s a gem!

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[elvisman]

Paul and Barnabas were the primary witnesses. Peter was a witness because he was a missionary and had seen firsthand Gods’ work in the Gentiles. Peter wasn’t making a decision. He was making an appeal to the council. Remember he was a MISSIONARY which means he was on the road. When do you think he had time to be on the council? It was our Lords brother, James who was the leader of the council as shown by the text. After the testimony it is James who ultimately makes the decision and no one else.

Acts:13,19James spoke up: 19“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

**Wrong. That’s not how it works and it’s never worked that way. **

**Peter, being the Chief apostle and Church leader made the decision. James reiterated what he said. ****James was the Bishop of Jerusalem so he hosted the council in his diocese. James agreed with Peter - he didn’t make a council judgement in spite of Peter. The fact that he said it is my judgement doesn’t mean that he had the final say. **

It was a council decision based on what Peter said but the decision was made by the Holy Spirit and the Council (Acts 15:28).

Finally, Acts 15:2-3 tells us in no uncertain terms that Paul and Barnabas bowed to the authority of the Church:
*Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question. *
*They were sent on their journey by the church, and passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling of the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. *

 

[elvisman]

Feel free to give evidence that Paul recognized Peter’s authority.

No less than four times in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5) and one time in Galations (Gal. 2:8-9) Paul refers to Peter as Cephas, which is the Greek rendering of the Aramaic word, Kepha.
Kepha means massive boulder or large mass of rock.

We first read this word in Matt. 16 when Jesus calls Simon this and gives him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose. Paul recognizes this authority when he refers to Simon Peter as Cephas.

 

[NoAvailableName]

All you have to do is read Acts 15.
Judaizers were telling gentiles that they had to be circumcised before converting to Christianity. After much discussion - it was PETER who got up and made the decision. James also stood up after him and concurred.
They sent out Paul and Barnabas to them and commissioned Judas and Silas to go along with them (v. 25-27)

Did Paul disagree with Peter’s decision? Did he say, “Hey, Peter - you can’t send me. I do my own thing!”
No - he obediently went where he was sent.

Paul, writing in Galatians, clearly did not think he was under Peter’s authority.

Galatians 1-2 “…my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was… Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas…God does not show favoritism – they added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles… They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised…”

In Acts 15, which you reference, all we have is a disagreement which got resolved in favor of the position Paul already held. And since Paul had left Antioch to come to Jerusalem to convince the apostles he was right, the fact that Peter send some of his own men back with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch hardly shows Paul went there because Peter said so.

Acts 15 “…After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch…”

In other words, those that Peter sent returned to Jerusalem to continue their mission for the Jews, and Paul continued his mission for the Gentiles.

 

[NoAvailableName]

No less than four times in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5) and one time in Galations (Gal. 2:8-9) Paul refers to Peter as Cephas, which is the Greek rendering of the Aramaic word, Kepha.
Kepha means massive boulder or large mass of rock.

**We first read this word in Matt. 16 **when Jesus calls Simon this and gives him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose. Paul recognizes this authority when he refers to Simon Peter as Cephas.

The fact that Paul refers to Peter as Cephas does not mean that he believes that he is under the authority of Peter. In fact, he is clearly arguing against Cephas’ authority in some of those passages, and you missed other places where Paul refers to Peter as Cephas in his letters. But just dealing with the ones you mentioned:

1 Corinthians 10-13 is arguing for the supremacy of Christ over both himself and Peter
"What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? "

In other words, there is one church in Jesus, not Peter or Paul.

1 Corinthians 3:20-23 again does not raise Peter up

“So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”

1 Corinthians 9:5 certainly isn’t proclaiming the authority of Peter. And what is this about Peter being allowed to have a wife ?

“Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”

1 Corinthians 15:5 is your best hope, but doesn’t explicitly state Peter has authority over Paul.

“and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve”

I think I’ve already covered Galatians a ton.

 

[benidict]

The fact that Paul refers to Peter as Cephas does not mean that he believes that he is under the authority of Peter. In fact, he is clearly arguing against Cephas’ authority in some of those passages, and you missed other places where Paul refers to Peter as Cephas in his letters. But just dealing with the ones you mentioned:

1 Corinthians 10-13 is arguing for the supremacy of Christ over both himself and Peter
"What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? "

In other words, there is one church in Jesus, not Peter or Paul.

1 Corinthians 3:20-23 again does not raise Peter up

“So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”

1 Corinthians 9:5 certainly isn’t proclaiming the authority of Peter. And what is this about Peter being allowed to have a wife ?

“Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”

1 Corinthians 15:5 is your best hope, but doesn’t explicitly state Peter has authority over Paul.

“and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve”

I think I’ve already covered Galatians a ton.

i love it when protestants attack the celibacy of priest. celibacy is a discipline. not a dogma. it could be discontinued at any time by the pope. and priest would be free to marry. our priest know what they are getting into when they join. im under a vow of celibacy myself. i am not a priest. the question should be, why should i have a wife to be complete? are our priest not complete in Christ?**maybe they have no desire to marry, like the apostle paul. he wishes all men were like himself. **trust me, there is more to life than attempting to find someone to copulate with. this seems to be a big issue with protestants. if i were on a mission, i would rather have my faithful companion fido. oh. and i would definitely have to bring my guitar. taking care of a dog, and playing a guitar are much more satisfying than marital life. and im free…

 

[elvisman]

The fact that Paul refers to Peter as Cephas does not mean that he believes that he is under the authority of Peter. In fact, he is clearly arguing against Cephas’ authority in some of those passages, and you missed other places where Paul refers to Peter as Cephas in his letters. But just dealing with the ones you mentioned:

1 Corinthians 10-13 is arguing for the supremacy of Christ over both himself and Peter
"What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? "

In other words, there is one church in Jesus, not Peter or Paul.
1 Corinthians 3:20-23 again does not raise Peter up

“So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”

**And that’s absolutely what we believe as Catholics. We are not in the Church be Benedict VI or John Paul II. We are part of the one Church established be Jesus Christ. **

I lovethe way some Protestants think they know Catholic teachings only to spew forth that kind of nonsense. **

1 Corinthians 9:5 certainly isn’t proclaiming the authority of Peter. And what is this about Peter being allowed to have a wife ?

“Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”

1 Corinthians 15:5 is your best hope, but doesn’t explicitly state Peter has authority over Paul.

“and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve”

I think I’ve already covered Galatians a ton.

**You have completely missed the point again - although, the way you take things out of context, I’m not surprised.

The mere fact that he refers to Peter as Cephas (Kepha, large mass of rock in Aramaic) - and NOT Petros (Greek, small stone) speaks volumes. It speaks against the false idea that many anti-Catholics Protestants espouse about Matt. 16:16-19, wherein Jesus tells Peter he is going to build the Church upon him (Kepha).

**I always here the argument that the Church was built upon Peter’s confession and not him. Paul’s references to “Cephas” in 1 Corinthians and Galations solidifies the fact that Jesus built the Church on Kepha (Peter).

 

[NoAvailableName]

i love it when protestants attack the celibacy of priest. celibacy is a discipline. not a dogma. it could be discontinued at any time by the pope. and priest would be free to marry. our priest know what they are getting into when they join. im under a vow of celibacy myself. i am not a priest. the question should be, why should i have a wife to be complete? are our priest not complete in Christ?**maybe they have no desire to marry, like the apostle paul. he wishes all men were like himself. **trust me, there is more to life than attempting to find someone to copulate with. this seems to be a big issue with protestants. if i were on a mission, i would rather have my faithful companion fido. oh. and i would definitely have to bring my guitar. taking care of a dog, and playing a guitar are much more satisfying than marital life. and im free…

This thread is about whether or not there is one Church united under Peter and his successors as Catholics claim, or one Church united under Christ as Protestants and Paul claim. I only mentioned the verse about Peter being allowed to marry because elvisman erroneously thought it bolstered his argument. Your beliefs about the inferiority of women as companions to dogs and guitars are disturbing and anti-Christian, but not germane to this discussion.

 

[elvisman]

Paul, writing in Galatians, clearly did not think he was under Peter’s authority.

Galatians 1-2 “…my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was… Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas…God does not show favoritism – they added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles… They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised…”

In Acts 15, which you reference, all we have is a disagreement which got resolved in favor of the position Paul already held. And since Paul had left Antioch to come to Jerusalem to convince the apostles he was right, the fact that Peter send some of his own men back with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch hardly shows Paul went there because Peter said so.

Acts 15 “…After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch…”

In other words, those that Peter sent returned to Jerusalem to continue their mission for the Jews, and Paul continued his mission for the Gentiles.

I see you ignored my response to Jericho777 in post #43, wher I pointed out the following:
**Finally, Acts 15:2-3 tells us in no uncertain terms that Paul and Barnabas bowed to the authority of the Church:
Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question. **
They were sent on their journey by the church, and passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling of the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.

---

They went to check things out with the CHURCH to make sure what the teachings was o the matter. The Holy Spirit did not enlighten them to make the decision on their own. The Holy Spirit showed them that they needed to seek counsel from the Church, where Peter proclaimed the decision not to burden the gentiles about circumcision.

 

[NoAvailableName]

And that’s absolutely what we believe as Catholics. We are not in the Church be Benedict VI or John Paul II. We are part of the one Church established be Jesus Christ.

I lovethe way some Protestants think they know Catholic teachings only to spew forth* that* kind of nonsense.

elvisman,

There is nothing wrong with my understanding. You are the one that claimed Paul was under the authority of Peter. I refuted your incorrect proclamation using quotes from Paul himself. I made zero claims about Catholic teachings in the text you quoted. However, the Catholic church clearly asserts their authority is firmly grounded in Peter and Apostolic succession.

You have completely missed the point again - although, the way you take things out of context, I’m *not *surprised.

The mere fact that he refers to Peter as Cephas (Kepha, large mass of rock in Aramaic) - and NOT Petros (Greek, small stone) speaks volumes. It speaks against the false idea that many anti-Catholics Protestants espouse about Matt. 16:16-19, wherein Jesus tells Peter he is going to build the Church upon him (Kepha).

One could read into the fact that I called you elvisman that what I am actually saying is that you are an iconic singer. Or one could try to comprehend what it is that I am actually saying with all these words I write. Paul’s words are clear – “I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me”, “I opposed him [Cephas] to his face”, “As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism – they added nothing to my message”, “I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised”

He did not say or imply, “I defer to Peter’s authority” anymore than I called you an iconic singer.

 

[NoAvailableName]

I see you ignored my response to Jericho777 in post #43, wher I pointed out the following:
Finally, Acts 15:2-3 tells us in no uncertain terms that Paul and Barnabas bowed to the authority of the Church:
Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.
They were sent on their journey by the church, and passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling of the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.

---

They went to check things out with the CHURCH to make sure what the teachings was o the matter. The Holy Spirit did not enlighten them to make the decision on their own. The Holy Spirit showed them that they needed to seek counsel from the Church, where Peter proclaimed the decision not to burden the gentiles about circumcision.

Paul did not bow to anyone, he never wavered in his position, and never suggested he would change his position based on any other man’s beliefs. If I send a visitor off back to their home with a soda, are they bowing to my authority? When one of the churches I attend sent a group of missionaries to Nicaragua, were those missionaries implying that their church was the sole authoritative church? Also, the passage starts in Acts 14. Note how church refers to specific congregations in the passage (Antioch in some cases as well as Jerusalem in the last). All of the individual churches are part of the larger Christian one.

From Attalia they sailed back to Antioch, where they had been committed to the grace of God for the work they had now completed. 27 On arriving there, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. 28 And they stayed there a long time with the disciples. 1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

There is nothing in that passage that says Paul ever intended to defer to or bow down to any man’s authority. Paul went to Jerusalem to convince the church that his position right and his words in Galatians make it abundantly clear that he would never let any man, Peter or otherwise, have authority to modify the message he received from Jesus.

Any question that might arise about Paul’s view in Acts is easily resolved when reading Paul’s own words in Galatians.

 

[Nicea325]

This thread is about whether or not there is one Church united under Peter and his successors as Catholics claim, or one Church united under Christ as Protestants and Paul claim. I only mentioned the verse about Peter being allowed to marry because elvisman erroneously thought it bolstered his argument. Your beliefs about the inferiority of women as companions to dogs and guitars are disturbing and anti-Christian, but not germane to this discussion.

One church united under Christ as Protestants and Paul claim? There is some contradictions with your statement. How can you claim ‘united’ when there exists thousands of different non-Catholic denominations? Show us where Christ and Paul advocated,praised and encouraged denominations and yet still calling them united?

 

[elvisman]

elvisman,

There is nothing wrong with my understanding. You are the one that claimed Paul was under the authority of Peter. I refuted your incorrect proclamation using quotes from Paul himself. I made zero claims about Catholic teachings in the text you quoted. However, the Catholic church clearly asserts their authority is firmly grounded in Peter and Apostolic succession.

There most certainly is a problem with your understanding if you think we claim to be part of the Church of this or that Pope.

---

One could read into the fact that I called you elvisman that what I am actually saying is that you are an iconic singer. Or one could try to comprehend what it is that I am actually saying with all these words I write. Paul’s words are clear – “I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me”, “I opposed him [Cephas] to his face”, “As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism – they added nothing to my message”, “I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised”

He did not say or imply, “I defer to Peter’s authority” anymore than I called you an iconic singer.

Read the opening lines of Acts 15 again. Read every verse where he refers to Peter as Cephas that I provided.

---

This name that was given to Simon by our Lords says it ALL – and Paul recognized it.
He COULD have referred to him as Petros, which is the Greek translation of small stone. BUT, he didn’t. He referred to him in the Greek transliteration of the large mass of Rock that Jesus called him. Jesus never referred to Peter as Petros and neither does Paul.

---

Additionally - I already pointed out to you that Paul opposed Peter on a disciplinary and behavioral matter – not in a matter regarding the faith.

---

Finally – Paul’s admonitions to the people he is writing to in his letters to stay away from factions (i.e., Protestantism) he is telling them not to divide over an individual person. Protestantism completely ignored those warnings some 500 years later.

 

[NoAvailableName]

One church united under Christ as Protestants and Paul claim? There is some contradictions with your statement. How can you claim ‘united’ when there exists thousands of different non-Catholic denominations? Show us where Christ and Paul advocated,praised and encouraged denominations and yet still calling them united?

United with Christ does not mean everyone will believe the exact same thing. I am not claiming that it is a good thing, or that Paul considered it a good thing. As can be seen in Paul’s letters, the various churches he established did not all believe the same thing, and he did not consider this a good thing. However, it appears that he still considered them all part of Christ’s church, despite their individual flaws. He explicitly told them they were under Christ – not him, Peter, or anyone else.

"What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? "

 

[elvisman]

Paul did not bow to anyone, he never wavered in his position, and never suggested he would change his position based on any other man’s beliefs. If I send a visitor off back to their home with a soda, are they bowing to my authority? When one of the churches I attend sent a group of missionaries to Nicaragua, were those missionaries implying that their church was the sole authoritative church? Also, the passage starts in Acts 14. Note how church refers to specific congregations in the passage (Antioch in some cases as well as Jerusalem in the last). All of the individual churches are part of the larger Christian one.

There you go again misrepresenting the Church.

The Church does NOT believe what its leaders believe because THEY said it. We believe what they have said because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit that Jesus guaranteed the Church in John 16:12-15. In other words, it’s not true because they have said it. We believe it because it’s true – and we have Jesus’ word on that. You can’t get much better than a guarantee from God himself.

**Finally – the Church in this area or that area as spoken of in the Bible is the ****same **Church. They are different dioceses, led by different Bishops. The Church is STILL set up that way today.

There is nothing in that passage that says Paul ever intended to defer to or bow down to any man’s authority. Paul went to Jerusalem to convince the church that his position right and his words in Galatians make it abundantly clear that he would never let any man, Peter or otherwise, have authority to modify the message he received from Jesus.

Any question that might arise about Paul’s view in Acts is easily resolved when reading Paul’s own words in Galatians.

WRONG**.**
Paul went to seek counsel from the Church. The fact that he stated he would not bend on the matter (later on in Galations) is because of the decision the Church came to because his personal opinion on the matter was correct. He did not possess the Authority to make that declaration on his own and so he appealed to the Church, as an obedient follower of Christ should do.

**The Church was guaranteed the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15). Do you actually think that Paul was not aware of that fact?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
One church united under Christ as Protestants and Paul claim? There is some contradictions with your statement. How can you claim ‘united’ when there exists thousands of different non-Catholic denominations? Show us where Christ and Paul advocated,praised and encouraged denominations and yet still calling them united?

United with Christ does not mean everyone will believe the exact same thing. I am not claiming that it is a good thing, or that Paul considered it a good thing. As can be seen in Paul’s letters, the various churches he established did not all believe the same thing, and he did not consider this a good thing. However, it appears that he still considered them all part of Christ’s church, despite their individual flaws. He explicitly told them they were under Christ – not him, Peter, or anyone else.

Exactly! Non-Catholics always claim to be united in Christ,yet so divided,so how does it jive with Christ words: May they ALL be one. So it is okay to believe infant baptism and at the same time claim its unbiblical for others? That is what Christ founded?

Precisely why Paul was not happy with the Corinth Church. So are you saying the early church founded the Protestant model of being divided and totally independent and still considered as ONE Body of Christ? I truly hope you are not serious.

So care to show me where Christ or Paul gave anyone the authority to found their own churches and teach conflicting doctrines/dogma, which leads to thousands of denominations? Non-Catholics claim to follow the Bible to the last letter,so I am curious where such a belief was taught by Jesus?

Quote:
"What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? "

Exactly! Look at the last words: Is Christ divided? Isn’t that exactly the Protestant model?

 

[PJM]

=NoAvailableName;7348277]Feel free to give evidence that Paul recognized Peter’s authority.

***My dear friends in Christ,

Knowing that not everything is written in the Bible [see the endings of John Chapters 20 and 21]***, the VERY FACT That provides this evidence lies in understanding that Peter’s position was so DOMINATE and clearly understood * that there simply was no need to articulate it. EVERYONE KNEW!

However, these two passages taken togeather add further evidence of this FACT:

** Matt.10: 2** “The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother;”

Acts 9: 2 -28 “And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem.”

God’s continued Blessings,
Pat*

 

[jericho777]

Wrong. That’s not how it works and it’s never worked that way.

Peter, being the Chief apostle and Church leader made the decision. James reiterated what he said. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem so he hosted the council in his diocese. James agreed with Peter - he didn’t make a council judgement in spite of Peter. The fact that he said it is my judgement doesn’t mean that he had the final say.

It was a council decision based on what Peter said but the decision was made by the Holy Spirit and the Council (Acts 15:28).

Finally, Acts 15:2-3 tells us in no uncertain terms that Paul and Barnabas bowed to the authority of the Church:
Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.
They were sent on their journey by the church, and passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling of the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.

Elvis please read more closely Acts 15:19 “It is my (James) judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. This is James the brother of our Lord who is speaking. The simple rules of the English language dictate it is James fully making the final decision by the Holy Spirit and no one else.

Paul’s apostleship was not by or through the 12 or any other human entity. It was by God alone. He did not consult any human entity for doctrinal issues in fact he was starting churches apart from the apostles and the council. He was led by God and only answered to God.

He also was on the cutting edge doctrinally recognizing salvation is by grace alone and not by the works of the law. His zeal for the truth led him to the council to plead the case for the gentiles and grace. Again elvis Paul’s LOCAL church sent him. Not the CHURCH. The church can’t send him to the church, that doesn’t make sense.

 

[cooterhein]

Exactly! Non-Catholics always claim to be united in Christ,yet so divided,

In what way are non-Catholics “divided in Christ”?

Look at all three words, please.

1. Divided.
2. In.
3. Christ.

All together. Divided in Christ. In what way are non-Catholics “divided in Christ”?

We say we’re “united in Christ.” You appear to disagree. Do you? Are you saying we’re “divided in Christ”?

So care to show me where Christ or Paul gave anyone the authority to found their own churches and teach conflicting doctrines/dogma, which leads to thousands of denominations?

What does Christ say on the matter? Does He give something of a guarantee that all Christians will be united (that is to say, inevitably, come Schism or Reformation or what have you)- or does He say you must be united under the headship of one worldwide leader in order to say you’re united in any sense?

In other words, does Christ say all Christians will be united, or does He say we might be united, depending on what we do?

Exactly! Look at the last words: Is Christ divided? Isn’t that exactly the Protestant model?

Christ is not divided, nor is the Body of Christ. Christians in the world today are the Body of Christ on earth, and there is a sense (the one that Jesus meant) in which they are all united. That is the reality of the situation, which is in agreement with the things Jesus said of Himself and His Church. We agree with it as well. It seems that you do not.

Are you prepared to acknowledge that this is the reality of the situation, or would you prefer to do something different?