J
joe370
Guest
English of course. LOL…
- Status
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
Pilate spoke Aramaic. Sidon s spoke Aramaic. We Know they spoke Aramaic in the region because all of the recordings of Jesus’ death were written in Aramaic.
Why did you think the Holy Ghost had someone translate the bible into Greek? That’s because the bible was written in Aramiac.
It is possible that Jesus knew Greek. Philosophers say it is more likely that Jesus spoke Aramiac.
If you go top this link you will read that Aramaic was spoken in the Palestinian are that Jesus grew up in:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language
1
1voice
Guest
When people receive the revealed word of God and act on it … they become as solid as the word of God (rock)… in that area. “Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.” “My mother and Father and brothers are those that hear my words … and act on them.”
Peter was the first one of his disciples, as recorded in scripture, to declare it. Jesus honored him by identifying him with the most important revelation that anyone can have.
Jesus said …You are rock …
(you have entered into/ received in your spirit … the exact revelation from the Father that I (Jesus) am establishing in the Earth)
… and it is upon this spiritual communication between God and man, in people just like you, that I (Jesus) will build my Church.
… And
…that which is established directly by God through the indestructible rock of revelation … and in no way by man … cannot be destroyed by satan.
Jesus pulled to the surface, the revelation that was in Peter’s heart, through the tool of inquiry … and then elaborated on how and where Peters words came from.
“Out of the heart… the mouth speaks.
Jesus consistently focused on the value of exercising faith in his revealed truth. That was the goal of his ministry. Jesus was revealed as God’s Son through God’s own declaration …” This is my beloved Son … listen to him" … it was/is always about the words of truth … and each individual’s response to those words.
“Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you … but it was revealed by my Father in heaven.” Jesus was focusing his words on Peter’s “aha!!” moment. Jesus was pointing out to Peter (as well as the rest of us) that he got it. The rock of revelation is the foundation of every Christian’s life … The truth, implanted by God … satan cannot destroy.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I am not projecting anything onto you. You asked me to provide evidence that James says, “I judge,” in acts 15:19, and I complied with your request by showing that both the latin Vulgate and the original Greek of acts have james saying either, “ego iudico,” or, “ego krino,” both of which literally translate to, “I judge,” as I demonstrated to you by showing you that both krinai and iudicare are both used to mean judge in the nicene creed, as well as the DR translation of Acts 15:19. That you choose to disregard the evidence I have presented to you with red herrings (arguing that the council was over by acts 15:13 is faulty reasoning, because it doesn’t mean that James was not passing judgment in acts 15:19, which was the original contention), means that there is no further point in debating you. If you wish to believe that James did not act as the head of the council of Jerusalem, then that is your prerogative.Whatever your feelings are yours alone. Please stop “projecting them on to me”. I simply disagree with you and am trying to show you where. Somehow its confusing and distracting. Lets try “again”. Maybe its me.
Its irrelevant you don’t seem to get this or my point.
The Council of Jerusalem started where in the Bible? 15:1! And it ends where? at 15:12! Then starts “James on Dietary Law”…15:13.
Your saying we should be reading in “context” yet you fail to do so?
Let me walk you through this once more…
Lets “back-up” in context to the actual Council of Jeruselem.
Let us start at…
15:7 AFTER MUCH “Discussion” Peter took the floor and said to them: "Brothers you know well enough that from the early days GOD selected “ME”[PETER] from YOUR numbers to be the ONE from who’s lips the Gentiles would hear the message of the Gospel and believe.
15:8 God, who reads the hearts of men, showed His approval by granting the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us.
15:9 He made no distinction between us and them, but purified their hearts by means of faith also.
15:10 Why then do you put God to the test by trying to place on the shoulders of these converts a yoke which neither WE nor the our fathers were able to bear.
15:11 OUR BELIEF is…[thats the entire council with Peter speaking]…that WE are saved by the favor of the Lord Jesus and so are they.
15:12 At that the Whole Assembly Fell Silent. [Notice the period at the end of that sentence] They listened to Barnabas and Paul as the two described all the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them. [Another period]
Thats its the Council is over. St Peter spoke for the Council “WE” as so noted…“Our Belief” as so noted. Thats St Peter speaking for ALL the Apostles.
The original dialogue starts and goes back and forth with St Peter and St Paul. Which btw St Peter originally didn’t grasp St Pauls thinking. Which simply was…How in the world can we ask a 40-yo old man converted to consent to this? He had a very good point. However, not of consequence.
…
“James on Dietary Law” and lets use your word which “isn’t” the point again.
15:13 When they CONCLUDED their Presentation. James spoke up [again the Council is over, concluded]
“Brothers listen to me” James is now talking about the meat of strangled animals, and blood.
15:19 It is my [its his not the councils, not we, or us, or our, but MY] “judgement” therefor etc etc etc. and St James goes on to speak NOT of the already concluded council but what follows in the NEXT verse 15:20:shrug:
That is “proper” context.
Now as far as the GREEK? What language did Jesus Christ speak on the Cross? So we should the “assume” that Greek was His language of preference? I fail to see the logic?
Again SORRY if I disagree with you. My point wasn’t judge, sentence etc. It was St James speaking for himself, and not in context with the Council of Jerusalem.
Maybe its my explaination, if so I am sorry. But somehow you seem to be missing my points.
And no, I also never said anything about ECFs from the 4th foward being irrelevant. What in the world made you thnk this? I stated why start at the 4th. and not from the begining? Don’t you find thats a bit out of Chronological order? I do.
And “judge” is not the only Greek translation, nor has it been through History. I simply again disagree. But nor is it the point of my dialogue. Which somehow you suggest this one sentence of St James is! Go back through this thread, and you will see where I mention "its “MY” judgement/sentence/words whatever you deem fit. I’m good with. However its St James own words and not on the Council of Jerusalem. Sorry I disagree.
Your prays are much appreciated, Thank You btw. I pray for everyone here daily.
Peace
J
joe370
Guest
So you believe that it is upon the spiritual communication between God and man, in people just like you, that Jesus build His Church? I guess if that makes sense to you that’s all that matters.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
The council was not over. Only James had the right to conclude the council. When James rendered his judgment, his judgement was the judgement of the council. “After they had stopped speaking, James answered…” (NASV) Your word “concluded” from whatever version you are quoting from is “sigEsai” in Greek, and it means to-hush, that is to stop speaking.
I have another scripture verse for you to consider: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.” (Galations 2:11-12). My question to you now is, why did Peter fear men from James?! I will tell you the, plain as day, answer: it is because James outranked Peter, James was Peter’s boss!
Help me to understand, is there some dogma that requires you to never be able to believe that St Peter was in second place in the Church? If so, I certainly don’t wish to try to make you brake a vow you made or some such thing. It’s not a dogma for me that James is in first place in the Church, if I deny that I will not loose my salvation, it just seems to be the plain truth.
J
joe370
Guest
John, you and Gary have been going back and forth and are still unable to resolve your differences regarding Acts 15. How is a fledgling outsider (who happens across this thread) - to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong?The council was not over. Only James had the right to conclude the council. When James rendered his judgment, his judgement was the judgement of the council. “After they had stopped speaking, James answered…” (NASV) Your word “concluded” from whatever version you are quoting from is “sigEsai” in Greek, and it means to-hush, that is to stop speaking.
I have another scripture verse for you to consider: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.” (Galations 2:11-12). My question to you now is, why did Peter fear men from James?! I will tell you the, plain as day, answer: it is because James outranked Peter, James was Peter’s boss!
Help me to understand, is there some dogma that requires you to never be able to believe that St Peter was in second place in the Church? If so, I certainly don’t wish to try to make you brake a vow you made or some such thing. It’s not a dogma for me that James is in first place in the Church, if I deny that I will not loose my salvation, it just seems to be the plain truth.
Perhaps that is why Jesus left us with His church leadership via His guidance?
Or, in your opinion, is there another possible way for you and Gary to resolve what appears to be the unresolvable, for our hypothetical outsider also seeking firm resolution regarding Acts 15?
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Jon…
Guess I better go to confession… LOL…
And I don’t mean this flippantly, but sincerely. It is the answer I continue to wait for.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I think a fledgling outsider would stop reading after page 2 or 3, and scratch his head very confusedly. I’ve long lost track of what we’re even debating in this thread, and I think everybody is just talking past each other at this point.
Resolving this sort of impasse probably requires some vodka and shot glasses.
J
joe370
Guest
LOL…I think a fledgling outsider would stop reading after page 2 or 3, and scratch his head very confusedly. I’ve long lost track of what we’re even debating in this thread, and I think everybody is just talking past each other at this point.
Resolving this sort of impasse probably requires some vodka and shot glasses.
Just a cold Budweiser for me. LOL…Seriously though, in your opinion, is there another possible way for you and Gary to resolve what appears to be the unresolvable, or any teaching for that matter, that leads to similar disputes, in this case petra and petros, if not church leadership?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Not really. I think the difference is that the Orthodox would include time in the mix for finding an answer. We don’t have guidelines for infallibility which are quite as well defined as the Catholics do, and given the huge amount of robber synods of the past (held by numerous Arian, Monophysite, and Iconoclast heretics), we tend to feel that time is an important factor in declaring that a council was guided by the Holy Spirit, whereas the Catholic model has more of a list of criteria which must be met for a council or papal statement to be infallible.LOL…
Seriously though, in your opinion, is there another possible way for you and Gary to resolve what appears to be the unresolvable, or any teaching for that matter, that leads to similar disputes, in this case petra and petros, if not church leadership?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Ah, OK let me further elaborate. No everyone didn’t leave and St James conversation takes place at some other time. Not my intended “point”.
Yes St James was the administor of the Jerusalem community, and he obviously plays a important role here at the council. Highly favored Apostle. Who is claiming otherwise?
However St James is speaking on a completely different issue. When St Peter is finished talking, the council falls silent. Barnabas and St Paul comment. This issue is a done deal. Its over my brother, finished.
Yes the Council is still existing in attendence. The conversation now “changes” with St James discourse to exactly as I discribe above. The discourse now becomes St James on dietary law. The issue with St Peter is finished, complete.
Heres exactly what St James “is” talking about in context. “St James on Dietary Law”
15:19 It is my judgement, therefore that we ought not to cause God’s Gentile converts any difficulties.
Here now is the proper context to what St James is speaking about…“in 15:19”
15:20 “We should” merely write to them to abstain from anything contaminated by idols, from illicit sexual union, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. 21 After all, for generations now Moses has been proclaimed in every town, and has been read aloud in the synogogues on every sabbeth.
St James conversation has nothing to do with St Peters in context. The subject has changed with St James speaking.
From this point dialogue again switchs to the “Letters of the Apostles”.
I stand by what I said.
Peace
J
joe370
Guest
I understand.
Of course certain doctrines in the CC weren’t defined over night, as you know. They came with time, mostly out of necessity when catholic doctrines were being challenged by many movements such as the Arian and Monophysite movements.It seems that time was an important factor for the CC as well, in declaring that a council was guided by the Holy Spirit. Of course, anyone convoking and claiming that their council is guided by the holy spirit doesn’t make it so, but why open that whole can of worms…LOL…
Given the many heretical movements of the past, (phew, there sure were quit a few of them) - I am kind of glad that there was a criteria in place which had to be met for a council or papal statement to be considered infallible, eg the Trinity, during the whole Arius debacle.
What do you think?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
If you happen to pick up a Bible, read St. Paul 2 Corinthians Chapter One 8-11 Verse’s. This is how Rome and the EO and all the Apostolic Churchs connect in my mind and thinking. Replace the word Asia with Schism.
Truth is no-one gains by these issues. While we can debate them for hundreds of years. Its to no avail. Two years ago everyone here was quick to say, ah Gary you have some doomsday thinking. Look at what happened in the world in “just two” years. Were not passing decades as we once were. We are racing to chaos faster and faster like we are traveling downhill. While these moments of concern may not be Rome or the EO, look at the persecution of all the middle-east apostolic churchs? Its a shame.
The connection with all of it, is no different than the Council of Jerusalem. If the elect of these churchs cannot sit down and iron out these issues. All suffer. You may compare Peter to Rome, and James to the EO. and place it in the reality of now. Only there is no foward dialogue taking place, for some reason, no-one is talking. I fail to see where everyone believe’s we have all the time in the world. Everything in not OK. The fact that Rome or the EO isn’t on the chopping block today, means very little in the grand scheme of stark truth. I can clearly remember two years and the, oh it may be another 1000-years. Were anyone see’s that at the moment, I’m not sure.
Not sure how one would imagine anything being resolved, I see it no different than this Council. Certainly there are bigger fish to fry than what one actually thinks about the IC. Aside from a great majority of issues we discuss.
If it takes an open mind, give and take, like any relationship, and sometimes some just give more. I say lets make the world a better place to live for mankind. Who in the world is helping the Copts? Are they not worthy of attending yours or my church? I find all that a bit hard to accept. In fact I find it very cold.
Love means to Give. Theres no other way to understand it. You can’t keep it, can’t share it, can’t hold it, can’t save it, its simply to give. Or its not there, or not understood.
In my mind there’s just something fundementally wrong with all of this. The middle-east is exploding. Everything being fine in CT does little for my soul when viewing the larger picture. If I seen a “glimmer” of hope, I’d shut-up and go away.
Peace
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Hey People! Been quite busy, sorry I haven’t replied to any posts.
Also, Peter is listed first each time the NT lists all the Apostles, so even conceding (and I do) that James, bother of the Lord is not James who witnessed the transfiguration, how about my last citing from Acts of the Apostles meeting in the upper room in Jerusalem? Is this James not among them?
For you to makes such a claim as you do in the blue part and have done in other posts surely, there must be several such instances to establish this pattern that you’re claiming. Could you please provide some other places/verse where the same thing/listing has happened?
Also, Peter is listed first each time the NT lists all the Apostles, so even conceding (and I do) that James, bother of the Lord is not James who witnessed the transfiguration, how about my last citing from Acts of the Apostles meeting in the upper room in Jerusalem? Is this James not among them?
Who says? Peter was both an infallible teacher and ruler, all pretty evident in the Book of Acts. And what exactly are the functions of the keys of a kingdom? To teach? I don’t think so.
M
Marybeloved
Guest
What is this "of course" “it’s obvious” "how can you doubt it" ? It’s not! You’re trying to force an opinion that contradicts scripture and the fathers, insist that it’s “obvious” and wonder how we could doubt it? I’ll tell you what authority could send Peter and John- the answer is in the scripture you quote **The college of Apostles headed by Peter! **That’s who!
That is ridiculous- The Apostles include St. Peter! They did not sit in a room away from Peter, make a decision, and command Peter and John to do this/that- That’s insane! They all sat together, discussed it between themselves and together settled on the decision that Peter and John would go to Samaria- So of course Peter and John were “sent” by the Apostles (who included the two of them). Nothing shocking about that at all.
How in God’s name could anyone get "James had the highest authority" from *“Now when the Apostles which *were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John”?
M
Marybeloved
Guest
More insane assumptions! The verse clearly says that Peter feared "the party of circumcision" These men were from James’ church in Jerusalem (the pharisee converts who caused the fight that caused the Council we’re discussing!) And you want us to think that he feared James? Tell us, JohnVIII, was St. James of the party of circumcision?****" Why don’t you read James’ conclusion at the Jerusalem Council that we’re all discussing and tell us?
And by your reasoning (fear=authority) then all the party of circumcision had authority over Peter- Absurd! Was St. Peter wrong in mixing with the Gentiles that he should change this for James? Did James expect Peter to contradict his own teaching? Or was St. Peter just being a hypocrite amongst those he knew as strict “mosaic” Christians, caring about what they thought of him more than the actual truth and causing scandal thereby due to his primary place in the Church?St. Paul rebuked St.Peter (who had stood up against this party at the council and rubbished their entire reasoning) for his hypocrisy! More than this, St. Paul did it because when Peter withdrew from the Gentiles, its implications to the believers was such that a burden was placed on the Gentiles to circumcise contrary to Peter’s own teaching! Peter’s action (not teaching) was of such great influence that it caused the faithful to assume the same behavior which amounted to placing a burden on the Gentiles that they had to be circumcized! That speaks of a man looked upon as the leader- not 2nd to James (a claim which you’re yet to substantiate)
Help me understand. Is there some dogma that compels you to believe that James was in first place, despite the fact that it does not exist in scripture or the fathers and that Christ clearly chose st. Peter in numerous places? Tell us, just who else looks upon James as the ruler of the whole church over Peter apart from you?
It’s good that it’s not a dogma for you because it would be a plain heresy and falsehood. This “plain truth” you refer to is simply false! All you’ve done is quote one line from Galations that places Cephas between James and John, and two completely false claims about the verses on the Apostles sending Peter and John and the one about Peter fearing the circumcision party in Jerusalem (a failure of character and nothing to do with authority by any stretch of the imagination). This plain truth is plain to you alone- Show us at least which fathers looked upon James as the highest Authority in the Church and higher than Peter?If so, I certainly don’t wish to try to make you brake a vow you made or some such thing. It’s not a dogma for me that James is in first place in the Church, if I deny that I will not loose my salvation, it just seems to be the plain truth.
And do the Orthodox believe in a single ruler over the whole church apart from Jesus? Hasn’t Cavaradossi been arguing the opposite? I’m convinved this is something that exists with you alone, unless you can show us otherwise.
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Why? Weren’t all the Apostles Jewish? And how could this be significant only to the Jews when it was the Gentiles who benefited more than anyone from Peter’s central position? Both the issue of their inclusion in the church and the freedom from mosaic law was proclaimed by the same mouth, the mouth cited by James with the scriptures in making his disciplinary laws for the Gentiles. Besides, why would that even matter? It’s the scriptures! And it was **Christ! **who said, Blessed art thou Simon bar Jonah, For…but my father…And I say to you that you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church…I will give you keys to the Kingdom of heaven…whatever you bind/loose etc etc. Was it only the Jewish believers who cared a wit about the will of the Lord and his plans for his own church and his kingdom? Gentiles didn’t care about the foundation upon which their churches were built, nor about the keys to the kingdom in which they were citizens, right?
And besides, Peter’s centrality was not only spoken of in St. Mathew. St. John tells us that Peter means Cephas (Rock) and records also Christ saying to Peter “Simon bar Jonah, Do you love me more than these?” Why not just -do you love me? If it was simply a matter of repentance and restoration- Why add more than these in the first line? Why is he demanding more of Peter than all the others? And notice the tone with which our Lord speaks…Simon Son of Jonah- Why? Reminds me of the St. Mathews Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah. So serious and formal! This is no ordinary conversation, because the Lord is about to entrust his most prized possession to him, and before he does that, he requires a solemn oath.
When St. Peter replies, the Lord answers, feed my lambs, tend my sheep and feed my sheep. Christ entrusts his sheep and lambs to the same one upon whom he builds his church and entrusts the keys of his kingdom- For whom he specially prayed against Satan- To whom he commanded to strengthen the brethren after he had turned back- And these are only mere coincidences right? All this time, it’s really James to whom Christ entrusts his sheep. Christ identifies himself as the good Shepherd, but we see him entrusting his flock to just one- Why discount that? Peter does not become that shepherd, just as he does not become King when he receives the Keys, just as he does not replace Christ as the ultimate foundation when he becomes Rock upon which the church is built- But he is the steward that the Lord has entrusted with his house and possessions- not anyone else.
It’s good that you say your assertions and beliefs because obviously there is simply no support for your ideas in scripture or the fathers. That Peter went to Rome has nothing to do with Simon Magus- These are things you’re saying contrary to the earliest traditions. That Peter was martyred in Rome is fact in Christian tradition, both Eastern and western. That he was Bishop of Rome is fact in early tradition. Do you know of any tradition that says otherwise? Anyone who claims that Peter dies somewhere else, in a different manner, and is buried elsewhere? You mean someone fabricated a whole History of the chief of the Apostles and the whole church just willingly complied with this lie including the church which he truly lead and where he really died and was burried? Really? This just makes rubbish of both Catholic and Orthodox Churches and our tradition, and suggests that we have no reason to trust the early church. Indeed we have no reason to trust St. Mathew’ Gospel- After all, where the Lord chooses to build his Church and entrust the keys to his kingdom is only a Jewish preoccupation, right?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
When we say “so how did St James get the throne over St Peter at Jerusalem”. What we have to remember. St James as I was saying earlier was the administer for the Church in Jerusalem. St Peter arrives “back in Jeruselem” In Acts 12:17, Peter had fled Jerusalem “for another place” which in fact is Rome.
Eusebius and St.Jerome count Peter’s episcopacy in Rome from this time, which was AD 42. However, the Council of Jerusalem took place in AD 49. St Peter is already there having fled Rome all the Jews were expelled from Rome by Emperor Claudius in AD 49 (same year as the Jerusalem council) due to a persecution over Christs followers. This the how St Peter arrived in Jerusalem. Also from here he leaves for Antioch, then following Claudius’ death. the Jew’s are allowed to return to Rome.
“Which bring up another point seperate from my conversation, we have to remember also who are the Jews among the Apostles and those first choosen. Here is another doubt as to “greek” being spoken. Is it possible Greek was also St Peters native tongue as a Fisherman? And what language would we say is most probable in the context of Jesus and St, Peter at their meeting?”
However , no need to dialogue the council again, since I posted it. St James is speaking to not the council. The council was completed with St Peters ruling “And all fell Silent”.
St James focus of attention becomes the “Jewish community”. Those were his disciples of his church whom had issues, and other than what was just ruled on, as I mentioned above. Remember the earlier verse “SOME who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” These are not apostles but disciples of the Church of Jerusalem and St James. Thus as I mention in context when St Peter finished his discouse the Apostles were done with there meeting/Council. Not to say as I mentioned the dialogue of St James occurs elsewhere, the dialogue then becomes St James to his flock of Jerusalem and the conversation addressed the Dietary Law which also His followers had and issue with. What is St James judgement?..
“It is my judgement, therefore, that WE ought to STOP TROUBLING THE GENTILES.”
Well, who was troubling the Gentiles? St Paul, St Peter, Barnabas? No its the followers of St James flock. Again their is no judgement on the council, that was done after St Peter spoke, only the flock of St James Church is adressed now, an in further elaboration of the Dietary Law.
The Council of Jerusalem therefor is completely based on Petrine teaching, in other words the Magisterium of the Church.
Thus this is NOT St Peter acting as a “First Among Equals” at Jerusalem, we see Peter as Head of the Church, speaking for the Church, making decisions for the Church, acting unilaterally on behalf of the Church. He does not share this authority with other bishops. Nor does he even participate in this debate. For the Scripture states, After Much Debate transpire…St Peter Stood Up …His teaching ends the debate! And that is the position given through Divine Providence to St Peter by Jesus Christ, sorry no one else per Bible received this through Divine Providence. Thus St. Peter responds as POPE to ALL.
Contrary to the Orthodox understanding that Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem all share equal authority. As I explained above. In Acts 15, Peter does not act as a Bishop of a See. He acts in accordance with the God given authority in Matthew and as a “visitor”.
And of course this is done through the Holy Spirit and is infallible. And that Biblical also. The simple fact is through the authority to Bind and Loose, the Keys of the Kingdom, this does become an infallible ruling. Has it changed? St Peters authority is in place and thats even among St James who’s Bishop of Jerusalem and thus his flock.
As St. John Chrysostom puts it: “And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.”
Peace
Eusebius and St.Jerome count Peter’s episcopacy in Rome from this time, which was AD 42. However, the Council of Jerusalem took place in AD 49. St Peter is already there having fled Rome all the Jews were expelled from Rome by Emperor Claudius in AD 49 (same year as the Jerusalem council) due to a persecution over Christs followers. This the how St Peter arrived in Jerusalem. Also from here he leaves for Antioch, then following Claudius’ death. the Jew’s are allowed to return to Rome.
“Which bring up another point seperate from my conversation, we have to remember also who are the Jews among the Apostles and those first choosen. Here is another doubt as to “greek” being spoken. Is it possible Greek was also St Peters native tongue as a Fisherman? And what language would we say is most probable in the context of Jesus and St, Peter at their meeting?”
However , no need to dialogue the council again, since I posted it. St James is speaking to not the council. The council was completed with St Peters ruling “And all fell Silent”.
St James focus of attention becomes the “Jewish community”. Those were his disciples of his church whom had issues, and other than what was just ruled on, as I mentioned above. Remember the earlier verse “SOME who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” These are not apostles but disciples of the Church of Jerusalem and St James. Thus as I mention in context when St Peter finished his discouse the Apostles were done with there meeting/Council. Not to say as I mentioned the dialogue of St James occurs elsewhere, the dialogue then becomes St James to his flock of Jerusalem and the conversation addressed the Dietary Law which also His followers had and issue with. What is St James judgement?..
“It is my judgement, therefore, that WE ought to STOP TROUBLING THE GENTILES.”
Well, who was troubling the Gentiles? St Paul, St Peter, Barnabas? No its the followers of St James flock. Again their is no judgement on the council, that was done after St Peter spoke, only the flock of St James Church is adressed now, an in further elaboration of the Dietary Law.
The Council of Jerusalem therefor is completely based on Petrine teaching, in other words the Magisterium of the Church.
Thus this is NOT St Peter acting as a “First Among Equals” at Jerusalem, we see Peter as Head of the Church, speaking for the Church, making decisions for the Church, acting unilaterally on behalf of the Church. He does not share this authority with other bishops. Nor does he even participate in this debate. For the Scripture states, After Much Debate transpire…St Peter Stood Up …His teaching ends the debate! And that is the position given through Divine Providence to St Peter by Jesus Christ, sorry no one else per Bible received this through Divine Providence. Thus St. Peter responds as POPE to ALL.
Contrary to the Orthodox understanding that Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem all share equal authority. As I explained above. In Acts 15, Peter does not act as a Bishop of a See. He acts in accordance with the God given authority in Matthew and as a “visitor”.
And of course this is done through the Holy Spirit and is infallible. And that Biblical also. The simple fact is through the authority to Bind and Loose, the Keys of the Kingdom, this does become an infallible ruling. Has it changed? St Peters authority is in place and thats even among St James who’s Bishop of Jerusalem and thus his flock.
As St. John Chrysostom puts it: “And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.”
Peace
- Status