Pet Peeve...A comment of Tim Staples

[Randy_Carson]

differently than St. John Chrysostom in regards to who held the highest authority at the Council of Jerusalem, at some point in the next 24 hours I’m going to let go of this thread because so far it’s proven to be a complete waste of my time and energy since the Catholics posting here are bent on changing the topic of the thread and then arguing about issues unrelated to this thread.

I note that you have ignored the post from Aspirant above.

You have 24 hours to respond.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Amen to that!!!

I think the primacy of Peter and his role in the church is a separate discussion from what the OP is asking.

I’d like to offer some additional dialogue to the board. Some of you may have heard of Father Pacwa who is part of EWTN and has appeared on radio and television participating in some very spirited debates. In a debate with a few Presbyterian (I believe) ministers this very conversation of the Jerusalem council surfaced and the role of James in the early church. Pacwa flat out admitted that the Roman Catholic church saw James as the initial leader of the church administratively. Peter’s role like the current Pope was and is purely spiritual i.e. shepherding the flock. For some reason Catholics and non-Catholics debate over Acts 15 and its significance for either asserting or not asserting Peter’s primacy in the early church.

If we look at the events leading up to the Jerusalem council, as mentioned by many in previous posts, the entire issue surrounded the need for Gentiles to become Jewish first before converting to Christianity. Peter, Barnabus, and Paul knew that the church of Christ was truly Catholic/Kathilocos/Universal and had no barriers with regard to age, race, sex etc. etc. So the need to become Jewish was out of the question. The Jerusalem council was presided over by James and all sides gave their (name removed by moderator)ut. The case Peter made followed by the good news Paul and Barnabus delivered was proof enough to show Gentiles did not need to convert to Judaism.

When James issues his judgement he’s not issuing a self serving judgement but one that is representative of the council as a whole. This is the key point here and Father Pacwa does an excellent job of explaining this. The main thing that James did to resolve the issue was refer back to scripture and the written words of the Prophets. Peter’s spiritual position on this matter was in conjunction with scripture as was Paul’s and Barnabus’.

Pacwa explained in great detail how many Roman Catholics and non-Roman Catholics completely misunderstand the office of the Papacy. Everything the Pope states is not infallible and the Pope’s opinion on matters is not the final opinion. The behavior of the Jerusalem council is consistent with almost all other councils including Vat 1 and 2, Chalcedon etc. etc. The decisions of the councils do not represent solely the opinions and decisions of the Pope. The Pope is subject to just as much scrutiny as anyone which is why we see Paul rebuking Peter for his misconduct when eating with the Gentiles and then backing away once the circumcision party shows up. If we look at that section of Acts we see how the example Peter set was followed by many other Jewish folk which Luke flat out calls hypocritic behavior.

I think the simple answer to the OPs question is yes James did preside over the Jerusalem council and probably the early church from purely an administrative point of view. The debate about Peter’s leadership and his role as the first Pope should probably be taken to another thread.

PEACE

Is there any evidence supporting the idea that James was the administrative head of the Church? Is there any evidence supporting that the Church looked to anyone OTHER THAN Peter for leadership?

FWIW, it’s not Catholics constantly bringing up Acts 15…this is a favorite of those seeking to deny the papacy. Consequently, we must point out that the Council of Jerusalem does not prove what they want it to prove.

 

[NDfan]

Is there any evidence supporting the idea that James was the administrative head of the Church? Is there any evidence supporting that the Church looked to anyone OTHER THAN Peter for leadership?

Randy the Catholic Church itself admits James was leading the church administratively from Jerusalem. Pacwa admitted this and then proceeded to admit that he doesn’t understand why any Catholic would deny that given how clear scripture is on this. The church did not look to Peter exclusively for leadership just as the church today does not look exclusively to the Pope for leadership. The church councils throughout history never relied solely on the Pope for leadership. Scripture never shows Peter as the sole leader which is another thing Pacwa admitted to.

FWIW, it’s not Catholics constantly bringing up Acts 15…this is a favorite of those seeking to deny the papacy. Consequently, we must point out that the Council of Jerusalem does not prove what they want it to prove.

I think I made this point in my previous post, that both sides will point to Acts 15 and try to cherry pick verses to support their point. That’s an exercise in futility because it just demonstrates the misunderstanding of how the church functioned. If we read verse 22 of Acts 15 and I quote:

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.

Once James issued his decision, it represented everyone including the Apostles, Elders and the entire church. The leadership of the church did not operate in a vacuum and James most certainly was not representing only the faction that was for Jewish conversion of the Gentiles. This is where you and others are trying to cherry pick verses in an effort to isolate James from Peter and subdue his role. James’ decision was for the entire council and the entire church.

It gets old seeing people post the same isolated comments from ECFs as if it somehow vindicates their position. Many of those quotes are taken out of context and only represent their opinion. It’s not representative of the entire church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Why do you only bold the first time they fell silent? What is the purpose of that?
I know it cannot be because it does not support your interpretation. Surely not…
What is the reason that you do not include the scripture; the very last thing. What Peter stated earlier is compared against scripture. Heck, Im no Sola Scriptura advocate but when you say people doubt God’s word you know very well that good people disagree on interpretation.

Brian, I read your comment here but? for the life of me, I have no clue what your driving at?

Peter’s statement earlier is against scripture? I only know of "one time the whole assembly fell silent after the Only Speech recorded in Acts 15 was from Peter followed by Paul’s and Barnabas signs and wonders. James concession begins after the one silence of the whole assembly. Do you know of 2 silence occasions?

Do you deny that Peter possessed the Word from heaven to dictate the authoritative teaching about Gentiles, before the councile convened, from Acts 10?

When it is black and white, interpretation is not needed, when one tries to force a 20th century interpretation into the what is black and white in the scriptures, is either doubting God’s word to be what it is, or reject the revealed Truth, because it rejects any new interpretation outside Apostolic Tradition and Teaching.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It seems everyone is going in circles. The OP just won’t look at Early Fathers’ evidence that contradicts her opinion. If you’re going to look just at Act 15, then lets talk about that. It’s obvious that people have different “readings” or interpretations of that passage. This leads to the bedrock of the issue. How do we, who read the Word of God, know what is the proper interpretation? There must be Authority on the Scriptures-i.e. Tradition. Last I checked, St. John Chrysostom is not the sole keeper of Tradition-so why has all of the posts citing the other Fathers been ignored or dismissed? Why? Tradition, preserved by the Holy Spirit, must necessarily safeguard the interpretation of Scripture. Again, IT DOES all come back to the question of Authority. Hopefully this was as clear as mud Also, if you are going to make claims about heretical, false homilies of Chrysostom, and Heretics who were burned for it, where and what is your evidence? The onus is on you to provide proof for such claims.
In Christ,
Kiechlin

Amen, I had to turn my computer off, when I read John Chrysostosom teaching was a “Lie”. I am glad others are addressing this issue. I am taken back by it

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Catholic posters here do not conflict with Father Paqwa’s interpretation.

Let us be clear. James the Bishop of Jerusalem has full Apostolic authority, as does any other apostle in his diocese. What is transparant and is being ignored, is that Catholics agree to James authority, but not to one over the whole universal “Catholic” Church, Jesus was very specific when he renamed Simon to Peter and gave him personally the Keys of the Kingdom. PLease dont put other words into Father Paqwa’s mouth.

This does not change the OP, it clarifies the OP question and dispute of James having authority over Jerusalem or the Whole Catholic Church? James from his own words proves he only represents his diocese, not the whole Church of Jesus Christ.

What happened in Jerusalem continues today; The Pope respects and adheres to every Bishop from his own diocese. The Bishops dictate and adminster order and liturgical practice for the faithful, in language and culture in their own respected diocese. So long as it does not conflict with Apostolic teaching and Apostolic Tradition. The Pope does not and cannot interfere with a Bishop’s community. The Bishop of Rome has this same duty to his diocese. The Pope from Peter’s Chair comes in when teachings and morals affect the Whole of Christendom, just as Peter did in Acts 15.

Another fact that should be mentioned is that this is the first and only Council the Popes ever attended including our first Pope Peter.

 

[ralphinal]

It is possible St. Peter was one of the “they”, but if so, it is strange that he wasn’t named there and wasn’t named as a traveler with Sts. Paul & Barnabus.

Another thing I always found strange as a Catholic is that in Acts 15 he is referred to as Simon, not Simon Peter and not as Peter? Does anyone have a good explanation for this? Makes it seem like being called “Rock” was not important during a Council? I don’t know?

Here is one translation

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2This 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. 3The 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 brothers very glad. 4When 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.

Who appointed them? Who sent them?

Here is another one

 1 Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved." 2

2
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.
3
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.
4
When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them.
5
But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.”

Again, who decided it? Two translations and I do not see the “They” that you are talking about

And as far as James calling him Simon instead of Peter, that is no big deal. My wife’s family call her by her middle name. They always have. She goes by her first name to everyone else, including me. James knew Peter as Simon for longer than he knew him as Peter

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I think I made this point in my previous post,** that both sides will point to Acts 15 and try to cherry pick verses to support their point.**

Excuse me? havent’ you heard that the Church is built upon the blood of these martyrs and saints (which include the Apostles themselves who were all martyred for one), and you wish to blow them off, like as if their blood did not account for nothing? I would ask you to reconsider blowing off the ECF’s.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.

---

**This destroys your entire position, but you won’**t consider it because you can’t argue the point intelligently.

Please re-read what you typed above…and answer this question:

Whose Judgement was it?

“It is MY Judgement” Remind me again…who was the one speaking here?

Oh yeah, that’s right, it was ST. JAMES!!!

And you claim that the passage destroys my entire position!?!

Wow! You really have been blinded. I am truly sorry for you and I have prayed for you that your scales will be removed when you read Sacred Scripture.

**May the blessings of God be upon you, Elvisman, now and always. **

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Thank you!

Amen to that!!!

I think the primacy of Peter and his role in the church is a separate discussion from what the OP is asking.

I’d like to offer some additional dialogue to the board. Some of you may have heard of Father Pacwa who is part of EWTN and has appeared on radio and television participating in some very spirited debates. In a debate with a few Presbyterian (I believe) ministers this very conversation of the Jerusalem council surfaced and the role of James in the early church. Pacwa flat out admitted that the Roman Catholic church saw James as the initial leader of the church administratively. Peter’s role like the current Pope was and is purely spiritual i.e. shepherding the flock. For some reason Catholics and non-Catholics debate over Acts 15 and its significance for either asserting or not asserting Peter’s primacy in the early church.

If we look at the events leading up to the Jerusalem council, as mentioned by many in previous posts, the entire issue surrounded the need for Gentiles to become Jewish first before converting to Christianity. Peter, Barnabus, and Paul knew that the church of Christ was truly Catholic/Kathilocos/Universal and had no barriers with regard to age, race, sex etc. etc. So the need to become Jewish was out of the question. The Jerusalem council was presided over by James and all sides gave their (name removed by moderator)ut. The case Peter made followed by the good news Paul and Barnabus delivered was proof enough to show Gentiles did not need to convert to Judaism.

When James issues his judgement he’s not issuing a self serving judgement but one that is representative of the council as a whole. This is the key point here and Father Pacwa does an excellent job of explaining this. The main thing that James did to resolve the issue was refer back to scripture and the written words of the Prophets. Peter’s spiritual position on this matter was in conjunction with scripture as was Paul’s and Barnabus’.

Pacwa explained in great detail how many Roman Catholics and non-Roman Catholics completely misunderstand the office of the Papacy. Everything the Pope states is not infallible and the Pope’s opinion on matters is not the final opinion. The behavior of the Jerusalem council is consistent with almost all other councils including Vat 1 and 2, Chalcedon etc. etc. The decisions of the councils do not represent solely the opinions and decisions of the Pope. The Pope is subject to just as much scrutiny as anyone which is why we see Paul rebuking Peter for his misconduct when eating with the Gentiles and then backing away once the circumcision party shows up. If we look at that section of Acts we see how the example Peter set was followed by many other Jewish folk which Luke flat out calls hypocritic behavior.

I think the simple answer to the OPs question is yes James did preside over the Jerusalem council and probably the early church from purely an administrative point of view. The debate about Peter’s leadership and his role as the first Pope should probably be taken to another thread.

PEACE

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Yes, it is called Sacred Tradition.

Every Christian who knows St. James the elder step-brother of Jesus Christ and his life and who knows the history of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem knows that St. James was the first head of the Church in Jerusalem.

The Sacred Tradition shows that the Church Faithful looked to each of the Apostles for leadership. Particularly those Apostles who established the Church in the cities in which the Faithful resided.

*Side Note: I’m continuing to be annoyed by the fact that the Catholics here are persistently posting the Apostles by name without giving them the honor and respect of their title of Saint. I’m annoyed because it is completely disrespectful! *

Is there any evidence supporting the idea that James was the administrative head of the Church? Is there any evidence supporting that the Church looked to anyone OTHER THAN Peter for leadership?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Great so you believe St. John Chrysostom’s teaching then. Wonderful! You agree that St. James was the one in “high authority” at the Council.

Amen, I had to turn my computer off, when I read John Chrysostosom teaching was a “Lie”. I am glad others are addressing this issue. I am taken back by it

Mickey:

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). 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. 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.

---

St John Chrysostom, Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.

The known lies that have been perpetuated here are those not lies of St. John Chrysostom, but quotes that created in the 8th & 9th centuries that have been falsely attributed to him. Those forgeries did Not contain the teaching of St. John Chrysostom - which is why they are lies.

As far as the Catholics Historians (not heretics) who were burned alive in Strasburg for doubting the authenticity of these forgeries in 1229-1230, you can learn more about them in “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” Second Series, Vol. I.

To read about the Catholic Italian Scholar Lorenzo Valla from 1407 to 1457 and his revealing through critical analaysis of content and style the writings were forgeries you can read Christopher B. Coleman’s translation of the “The Treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine” by University of Toronto Press in 1993.

You may also want to read:
Catholic Historian Lord Acton “Lectures on Modern History” by MacMillan & Co. Ltd. 1960
Michael Whelton’s “Popes and Patriarchs” by Conciliar Press 2006
Philip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church” p. 3 (www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/5_chI5.htm)
“Cambridge Medieval History” Vol. 5 & Vol. 11,
“New Cambridge Medieval History” Vol. VIII
I.S. Robinson’s “The Papacy, 1073-1198”
Peter De Rosa’s “The Vicar of Christ” by Poolbeg Press in 1988, 2000.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Okay, so you choose not to use the link I provided to the accepted English Translation of the Greek Scriptures by the Greek Orthodox Church (who knows the Greek better than any other “Christian” community on earth). You want to go outside of that to a couple of other translations which change the meaning of the Greek so that it does not read the same - whatever!

Here is one translation

Who appointed them? Who sent them?

Here is another one

Again, who decided it? Two translations and I do not see the “They” that you are talking about

And as far as James calling him Simon instead of Peter, that is no big deal. My wife’s family call her by her middle name. They always have. She goes by her first name to everyone else, including me. James knew Peter as Simon for longer than he knew him as Peter

St. James wasn’t the Author of the Acts of the Apostles, it was St. Paul who wrote that Simon spoke. St. Paul who hadn’t met St. Peter until after Jesus giving him the new name. This was just a side note curiousity to me and I’m not trying to prove anything with why or why not St. Peter was refered to as Simon in the context of the Council of Jerusalem. I’m just curious as to “why”.

 

[crazzeto]

So let me get this straight, we’re going to exclude any discussion about who is the head of the church… Just so we can come to the conclusion that James was in charge at Jerusalem, just to ultimatly try and prove that there is no one Apostle who was “the rock” upon which the church was built? Is that about right?

 

[ralphinal]

Okay, so you choose not to use the link I provided to the accepted English Translation of the Greek Scriptures by the Greek Orthodox Church (who knows the Greek better than any other “Christian” community on earth). You want to go outside of that to a couple of other translations which change the meaning of the Greek so that it does not read the same - whatever!

The link you provided to me was the King James Version. I posted the Catholic one and the New American. I think you might be mistaken about it being the official GO translation (no way they would use the KJ). I would like to see the official one, if you don’t mind reposting it.

St. James wasn’t the Author of the Acts of the Apostles, it was St. Paul who wrote that Simon spoke. St. Paul who hadn’t met St. Peter until after Jesus giving him the new name. This was just a side note curiousity to me and I’m not trying to prove anything with why or why not St. Peter was refered to as Simon in the context of the Council of Jerusalem. I’m just curious as to “why”.

Paul did not write it, either. Luke did. James called him Simon. That is what I am addressing. I gave you a possible answer to your aside

 

[Kiechlin]

Great so you believe St. John Chrysostom’s teaching then. Wonderful! You agree that St. James was the one in “high authority” at the Council.

The known lies that have been perpetuated here are those not lies of St. John Chrysostom, but quotes that created in the 8th & 9th centuries that have been falsely attributed to him. Those forgeries did Not contain the teaching of St. John Chrysostom - which is why they are lies.

As far as the Catholics Historians (not heretics) who were burned alive in Strasburg for doubting the authenticity of these forgeries in 1229-1230, you can learn more about them in “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” Second Series, Vol. I.

To read about the Catholic Italian Scholar Lorenzo Valla from 1407 to 1457 and his revealing through critical analaysis of content and style the writings were forgeries you can read Christopher B. Coleman’s translation of the “The Treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine” by University of Toronto Press in 1993.

You may also want to read:
Catholic Historian Lord Acton “Lectures on Modern History” by MacMillan & Co. Ltd. 1960
Michael Whelton’s “Popes and Patriarchs” by Conciliar Press 2006
Philip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church” p. 3 (www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/5_chI5.htm)
“Cambridge Medieval History” Vol. 5 & Vol. 11,
“New Cambridge Medieval History” Vol. VIII
I.S. Robinson’s “The Papacy, 1073-1198”
Peter De Rosa’s “The Vicar of Christ” by Poolbeg Press in 1988, 2000.

Thanks for at least posting your sources.
In Christ, Kiechlin

 

[NDfan]

Excuse me? havent’ you heard that the Church is built upon the blood of these martyrs and saints (which include the Apostles themselves who were all martyred for one), and you wish to blow them off, like as if their blood did not account for nothing? I would ask you to reconsider blowing off the ECF’s.

Pardon me Gabriel but I most certainly do not become a victim of my own demise by cherry picking. If you want to go down that path then let’s be very careful about choosing specific verses of Acts 15 to justify somehow that Peter was in charge of the council. I didn’t cherry pick any verse to make a point. I merely pointed out that the letter dispatched from the Council to the Gentiles had the blessing of the Apostles, the Elders and the church in its entirety from Jerusalem.

Obviously the church in Antioch viewed the church in Jerusalem as having some type of judicial power otherwise Paul and Barnabus would not have been sent there to receive clarification on the issue at hand. So if James was the Bishop of that church then where oh where was Peter located?? The short answer is that Peter was all over preaching the Gospel as he admitted to in his presentation. Unless you’re trying to imply that Jerusalem had 2 Bishops

As far as blowing off the ECFs I don’t believe I’m doing that. I made the point that many here on these forums will use cherry picked comments from the ECFs to justify their statements when many are misunderstood and also represent their own opinion. Just because someone died for Christ does not imply I hold what they said about scripture to be correct. Let’s not overlook that fact that many Christians lost their lives over centuries whether it be at the hands of Rome, The Nazis, the Muslims etc. etc. Christian persecution continues to be a problem today and is no different than it was 2000 years ago. Yet for some reason you want to uphold something someone said in the 3rd or 4th century as if it were sacred because they died for their faith. That makes no sense.

The bottom line is James was in charge of the Jerusalem Council as confirmed by the book of Acts.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The very problem with using the ECF quotes is that so often the quotes contradict each other. Trust me, if you want to make the case that, for example, the “rock” was NOT Peter, but rather Peter’s confession, there are plenty of ECF quotes to prove that angle. If you want to prove that Peter himself was the rock and the pope personally there are plenty of ECF quotes to support that as well. Many quotes I have run across support Orthodox arguments and plenty support Catholic positions nicely. It’s very arduous turf.

Pardon me Gabriel but I most certainly do not become a victim of my own demise by cherry picking. If you want to go down that path then let’s be very careful about choosing specific verses of Acts 15 to justify somehow that Peter was in charge of the council. I didn’t cherry pick any verse to make a point. I merely pointed out that the letter dispatched from the Council to the Gentiles had the blessing of the Apostles, the Elders and the church in its entirety from Jerusalem.

Obviously the church in Antioch viewed the church in Jerusalem as having some type of judicial power otherwise Paul and Barnabus would not have been sent there to receive clarification on the issue at hand. So if James was the Bishop of that church then where oh where was Peter located?? The short answer is that Peter was all over preaching the Gospel as he admitted to in his presentation. Unless you’re trying to imply that Jerusalem had 2 Bishops

As far as blowing off the ECFs I don’t believe I’m doing that. I made the point that many here on these forums will use cherry picked comments from the ECFs to justify their statements when many are misunderstood and also represent their own opinion. Just because someone died for Christ does not imply I hold what they said about scripture to be correct. Let’s not overlook that fact that many Christians lost their lives over centuries whether it be at the hands of Rome, The Nazis, the Muslims etc. etc. Christian persecution continues to be a problem today and is no different than it was 2000 years ago. Yet for some reason you want to uphold something someone said in the 3rd or 4th century as if it were sacred because they died for their faith. That makes no sense.

The bottom line is James was in charge of the Jerusalem Council as confirmed by the book of Acts.

 

[NDfan]

The very problem with using the ECF quotes is that so often the quotes contradict each other. Trust me, if you want to make the case that, for example, the “rock” was NOT Peter, but rather Peter’s confession, there are plenty of ECF quotes to prove that angle. If you want to prove that Peter himself was the rock and the pope personally there are plenty of ECF quotes to support that as well. Many quotes I have run across support Orthodox arguments and plenty support Catholic positions nicely. It’s very arduous turf.

Yes excellent point. That’s why I’m guarded when people quote the ECFs because it’s easy to make the argument both ways.

 

[elvisman]

Please re-read what you typed above…and answer this question:

Whose Judgement was it?

“It is MY Judgement” Remind me again…who was the one speaking here?

Oh yeah, that’s right, it was ST. JAMES!!!

And you claim that the passage destroys my entire position!?!

Wow! You really have been blinded. I am truly sorry for you and I have prayed for you that your scales will be removed when you read Sacred Scripture.

**May the blessings of God be upon you, Elvisman, now and always. **

James said:
"It is my judgment (as the leader of the diocese in Jerusalem), therefore, that we (the diocese in Jerusalem) ought to stop troubling the Gentiles** who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood."**

---

He said this AFTER Peter spoke about being saved by grace alone.

---

It’s amazing to me that you don’t see that. Maybe a wire brush for those scales?

Truly, there is none so blind as he - OR she - who refuses to see.