James in charge of Apostles‽ (Iglesia ni Cristo)

  • Thread starter Thread starter XndrK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

XndrK

Guest
I was watching a debate video between a Catholic and a member of Iglesia ni Cristo (a Unitarian (as opposed to Trinitarian) church very active in the Philippines, often referred to as INC). About twenty minutes in, the INC guy says something about how Acts 15:13-21 supports the claim that James was actually the premier apostle at the Council of Jerusalem, which I have never heard stated before.

The passage in question (from RSV CE):
Acts 15:13-21 RSV:
13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brethren, listen to me. 14 Symeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written,

16
‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will set it up,
17
that the rest of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
18
says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.’

19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues.”
Click to expand...
Apparently, INC says that since James a) has the last word and b) says “my judgment”, he’s actually the guy in charge.

Then in the video there was some weird word-picking on the phrase “my mouth” in 15:7 and how judgment overrules mouth or something like that. (I for one find it really hard to follow along on videos like that.)

Could somebody clarify this for me? I’ve never heard this before, so I’m a little bit confused.

Thanks.
 
James was the "bishop’ of Jerusalem. So he would have been heading up the council. The thing to note is that even though James was in ‘charge’ of the council, what happens when Peter speaks? Everyone stops and listens. They listen and then the council proceeds to have witnesses to back up what Peter has said. Then James affirms what Peter has said as well in agreement.

Peter is still shown to have authority beyond that of the rest of those present in that he was the one to settle the debate, not James. Everyone was debating and then Peter had the final word. That’s like saying that the President came to the Ways and Means committee and because Charlie Rangel ran the meeting he was the real President… it doesn’t work that way.
 
The Iglesia Ni Cristo has some explaining to do then, in light of all this regarding St. Peter:
  • When a list of the Apostles is presented, he is always listed first (Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13)
  • He speaks for/on behalf of the other Apostles (Matthew 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69)
  • Jesus taught from Peter’s boat (Luke 5:3)
  • In the Transfiguration account (Matthew 17:1, Mark 9:2, Luke 9:28), Peter’s name is first
  • At Pentecost, it is Peter who started preaching to the crowd (Acts 2:14-40)
  • It is Peter who decides who gets to take Judas’s place (Acts 1:15-20)
  • The angel in the empty tomb singles Peter out by name, when speaking of Christ’s disciples (Mark 16:6-7)
  • Ananias and Sapphira are struck dead when they lie to Peter (Acts 5:1-10)
🤷
 
To add my voice to the chorus, the council was basically being held in James’ jurisdiction, so that gave him addition authority in that council. However, this does not make him greater than Peter.

If anything, I think Peter’s priority over the other eleven is clear, not even because of the commonly quoted passages Catholics use for the Papacy, but simply by seeing how many times Peter and the others are referenced in the Gospels and Acts. When it comes to the Apostles, Peter is often named first, or alone (e.g. Peter and the disciples . . .). He’s the one speaking up on their behalf, stepping out of the boat, having visions, etc… It’s clear he was the most influential and important among the Twelve, simply by how much the authors focus on him. Not even considering a successor to Peter and that office, he was certainly first among the Twelve while they were alive, at least.
 
XndrK said:
I was watching a debate video between a Catholic and a member of Iglesia ni Cristo (a Unitarian (as opposed to Trinitarian) church very active in the Philippines, often referred to as INC). About twenty minutes in, the INC guy says something about how Acts 15:13-21 supports the claim that James was actually the premier apostle at the Council of Jerusalem, which I have never heard stated before.

The passage in question (from RSV CE):

Apparently, INC says that since James a) has the last word and b) says “my judgment”, he’s actually the guy in charge.

Then in the video there was some weird word-picking on the phrase “my mouth” in 15:7 and how judgment overrules mouth or something like that. (I for one find it really hard to follow along on videos like that.)

Could somebody clarify this for me? I’ve never heard this before, so I’m a little bit confused.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is: James was not one of the Twelve. So to have a person not one of the elite apostles that Jesus taught ordering the Prince of the Apostles would be a real problem.
 
XndrK said:
I was watching a debate video between a Catholic and a member of Iglesia ni Cristo (a Unitarian (as opposed to Trinitarian) church very active in the Philippines, often referred to as INC). About twenty minutes in, the INC guy says something about how Acts 15:13-21 supports the claim that James was actually the premier apostle at the Council of Jerusalem, which I have never heard stated before.

The passage in question (from RSV CE):

Apparently, INC says that since James a) has the last word and b) says “my judgment”, he’s actually the guy in charge.

Then in the video there was some weird word-picking on the phrase “my mouth” in 15:7 and how judgment overrules mouth or something like that. (I for one find it really hard to follow along on videos like that.)

Could somebody clarify this for me? I’ve never heard this before, so I’m a little bit confused.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
GREAT post:thumbsup:

James was the 1st Bid=shop of Jerusalem

BUT PETER is the one chosen by GOD {Jesus} to LEAD His Church:)

My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible? Which BTW is a Catholic Book.

**Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another
Verse, passage or teaching:
Were this even the slightest possibility;[it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or lean Christ Faith” **

Mt 16:18-19
"
[18] And I{GOD} say to YOU: That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU-PETER] this rock I [JESUS] will build my church, [SINGULAR] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU {Peter] shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU {Peter] shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" Amen!.

God Bless you,

Patrick
 
When the CEO is in town, the local guy still gets to speak, but nothing the local guy says can go against the CEO. That’s how local etiquette works in institutional organization. The CEO still gives the local guy “face” or in faith speak “honor”. In fact, the local guy opens the meeting and introduces his boss to the crowd. The local guy also closes the meeting by summarizing all the points and thanking everyone for coming. You won’t hear the CEO doing that, unless the local guy is no longer there (fired, emergencies).
 
PJM said:
GREAT post:thumbsup:

James was the 1st Bid=shop of Jerusalem

BUT PETER is the one chosen by GOD {Jesus} to LEAD His Church:)

My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible? Which BTW is a Catholic Book.

**Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another
Verse, passage or teaching:
Were this even the slightest possibility;[it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or lean Christ Faith” **

Mt 16:18-19
"
[18] And I{GOD} say to YOU: That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU-PETER] this rock I [JESUS] will build my church, [SINGULAR] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU {Peter] shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU {Peter] shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" Amen!.

God Bless you,

Patrick
Click to expand...
👍 👍

The One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible as per my own understanding = whatever the Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church says. 😃
 
Micosil said:
👍 👍

The One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible as per my own understanding = whatever the Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church says. 😃
Click to expand...
You GOT IT!😃

Amen,

God bless you,

Patrick
 
bmullins said:
James was the "bishop’ of Jerusalem. So he would have been heading up the council. The thing to note is that even though James was in ‘charge’ of the council, what happens when Peter speaks? Everyone stops and listens. They listen and then the council proceeds to have witnesses to back up what Peter has said. Then James affirms what Peter has said as well in agreement.

Peter is still shown to have authority beyond that of the rest of those present in that he was the one to settle the debate, not James. Everyone was debating and then Peter had the final word. That’s like saying that the President came to the Ways and Means committee and because Charlie Rangel ran the meeting he was the real President… it doesn’t work that way.
Click to expand...
This is the answer. bmullins is 100% correct.

When the US President goes to a foreign country he does not make policy statements. He offers his opinion but the official policy statement comes from the leader of the nation where he is a guest. The President of Mexico tried that while a guest at the White House and Obama tried that while visiting Europe. It was a complete breach of protocol and the media had a field day.

James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Even to this day, no Bishop would make a policy statement while a guest in another bishop’s territory. This is basic political protocol.

-Tim-
 
Wesrock said:
To add my voice to the chorus, the council was basically being held in James’ jurisdiction, so that gave him addition authority in that council. However, this does not make him greater than Peter.

If anything, I think Peter’s priority over the other eleven is clear, not even because of the commonly quoted passages Catholics use for the Papacy, but simply by seeing how many times Peter and the others are referenced in the Gospels and Acts. When it comes to the Apostles, Peter is often named first, or alone (e.g. Peter and the disciples . . .). He’s the one speaking up on their behalf, stepping out of the boat, having visions, etc… It’s clear he was the most influential and important among the Twelve, simply by how much the authors focus on him. Not even considering a successor to Peter and that office, he was certainly first among the Twelve while they were alive, at least.
Click to expand...
According to John Chrysostom, “James was teacher of Jerusalem, but Peter was teacher of the whole world.”
 
James might well have been chosen to head the Jerusalem Christian church because of his strong ties to the second temple priesthood.

He was known to follow Jewish ritual as much as was possible. In a way, James was protecting the rest of the Christians who otherwise would have been subject to severe persecutions. And remember they renained in Jerusalem because Jesus said he was going to return there at some point in time.

My own theory is that the former high priest Ananas somehow deliberately politicked for James to head the Jerusalem Church because he wanted peace amongst all Jews.
 
steve53 said:
James might well have been chosen to head the Jerusalem Christian church because of his strong ties to the second temple priesthood.

He was known to follow Jewish ritual as much as was possible. In a way, James was protecting the rest of the Christians who otherwise would have been subject to severe persecutions. And remember they renained in Jerusalem because Jesus said he was going to return there at some point in time.

My own theory is that the former high priest Ananas somehow deliberately politicked for James to head the Jerusalem Church because he wanted peace amongst all Jews.
Click to expand...
Interesting point.😃
 
JB_Brother_4446 said:
The funny thing is: James was not one of the Twelve. So to have a person not one of the elite apostles that Jesus taught ordering the Prince of the Apostles would be a real problem.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. The Apostles appointed bishops everywhere they planted churches. In fact, the line of Bishops suceeding Peter in Antioch is older than the one in Rome.

The problem was not that James wasn’t one of the twelve, it was that he was so thoroughly Jewish. He still believed that the Gentiles needed to convert to Judaisim to become Christian. He was a member of the “circumcision party”.

It is only right that James should be the one to stand up and change his position at the Council, since he was the origin of the conflict in the first place.

11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Galatians 2:11–14

James was the one that needed to stop stirring up conflicts by sending people from the circumcision party into Gentile areas insisting that the Jewish laws be kept. He was persuaded at the Council, and sent a formal letter to undo the damage.
 
guanophore said:
I don’t think so. The Apostles appointed bishops everywhere they planted churches. In fact, the line of Bishops suceeding Peter in Antioch is older than the one in Rome.

The problem was not that James wasn’t one of the twelve, it was that he was so thoroughly Jewish. He still believed that the Gentiles needed to convert to Judaisim to become Christian. He was a member of the “circumcision party”.

It is only right that James should be the one to stand up and change his position at the Council, since he was the origin of the conflict in the first place.

11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Galatians 2:11–14

James was the one that needed to stop stirring up conflicts by sending people from the circumcision party into Gentile areas insisting that the Jewish laws be kept. He was persuaded at the Council, and sent a formal letter to undo the damage.
Click to expand...
A plausible reason why James the Just was not the leader of the Church was precisely because he was not of the Twelve. So to have a person who was not one of His Chosen bossing around the Prince of the Apostles? Yeah, I’m buying that.:mad:
 
JB_Brother_4446 said:
A plausible reason why James the Just was not the leader of the Church was precisely because he was not of the Twelve. So to have a person who was not one of His Chosen bossing around the Prince of the Apostles? Yeah, I’m buying that.:mad:
Click to expand...
There is no reason to believe that Peter and the other Apostles did not leave James in charge. Someone had to be left Bishop of Jerusalem while the Aposltes took the Gospel to the world.

Are you saying you don’t believe that James was left in charge of the Church in Jerusalem? There is too much historical evidence to deny that!

Who said he was “bossing around” anybody?
 
guanophore said:
There is no reason to believe that Peter and the other Apostles did not leave James in charge. Someone had to be left Bishop of Jerusalem while the Aposltes took the Gospel to the world.

Are you saying you don’t believe that James was left in charge of the Church in Jerusalem? There is too much historical evidence to deny that!

Who said he was “bossing around” anybody?
Click to expand...
It’s a counterclaim to the Protestant perspective. Jesus told His Apostles to go and teach lall nations, so how could they supervise Jerusalem and do that at the same time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top