The origins of the RC Denomination?

I know that, but it was a poor one, since no one even signed the letter the apostles would take to the Gentile churches.
Those at the Council of Jerusalem did not sign the letter, but the purpose of signing is to give one's assent to the contents of the document. Those who spoke at the Council of Jerusalem were also giving their assent to the letter. That is the analogy. Signing the Declaration of Independence is analogous to making a speech at the Council of Jerusalem. And just as being the last one to sign the Declaration carried no special significance in that document, so also speaking last at the council carries no special significance in the Council of Jerusalem. Somebody had to go last, or else the speeches would have gone on forever. But at some point they all came to the realization that they were all in agreement and there was no need for more speeches. And so they stopped. This happens even when all attendees are of equal standing, as they were at that council.

Now I realize that this all started to refute the position that Peter was that person at the council who held a special position. But it is unnecessary to refute that point because I agree that Peter wasn't making the final decision at that council. If that is your point, then consider it won and move on, OK? I see no reason for you to want to promote James in importance.


Oh, for pity's sake! Of COURSE the HS guided James into making his decision! That should be patently obvious. But James still made the final judgment--didn't he?
No. He was just the last one whose speech was recorded. It means nothing beyond that.

MY sola Scriptura thinking is spot on. There MAY have been more testimony, but Luke does not tell us there was. In fact, just the opposite.

Vs 13--"When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me...."

What does "finished" mean?
It means the people who had been speaking just before James finally stopped talking, and it was James' turn. Luke does not tell us if anyone spoke after James. To assume that no one else spoke is to assume something that is NOT stated in Acts.


YOU are merely speculating. I am going by what is actually written in this passage, under inspiration of the HS.
YOU are speculation when you assume that nothing more was said.

Do you sing this hymn in your church?
"The Church's One Foundation". Yes. A beautiful hymn. We do sing it in our church, and we take it to heart too.
 
? Do YOU know that the NT was written in Koine Greek? Do YOU know that there IS a difference between "petros" for Peter, and "petra" of the Rock that Jesus would build His church upon? Do YOU know that a "petros" is masculine and a chunk of rock but that "petra" is a huge, rocky massif or bedrock? Do YOU know the difference between the two?
post 694
 
Bonnie said:
but what it all boils down to, is, do YOU believe the actual words of Scripture, or only what your church teaches you, with its blatant eisegesis of Scripture, in an attempt to justify its many unbiblical doctrines and practices? Like the Scripture where it says that all the 12 apostles make the foundation of the church, with Jesus as the Cornerstone. Where Paul writes that Jesus is the foundation that the church is laid upon. NOT Peter. That Jesus is the "petra", the rocky massif, upon which the church is built, since even Paul calls him the "Petra". Peter is the "petros" the chunck of rock, but Jesus Christ is THE Rock of our salvation upon which the church is built.

Do YOU believe the actual words of Scripture?
"You shall be called CEPHAS". John 1:42
pilgrim said:
Do YOU believe the actual words of Scripture?
"You shall be called CEPHAS". John 1:42
========================= end pilgrim reply

Matt.24:
-----------that which is to come--------
All these are the beginning of sorrows.

9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted,
and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations
for my name's sake.

10 And then shall many be offended,
and shall betray one another,
and shall hate one another.

11 And many false prophets shall rise,
and shall deceive many.

12 And because iniquity shall abound,
the love of many shall wax cold.

13 But he that shall endure unto the end,
the same shall be saved.

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world
for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

John 1:40​
One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him,​
was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.​
41 He first findeth his own brother Simon,​
and saith unto him,​
We have found the Messias,​
which is, being interpreted, the Christ.​
42 And he brought him to Jesus.​
And when Jesus beheld him, he said,​
Thou art Simon the son of Jona:​
thou shalt be called Cephas,​
which is by interpretation, A stone.​

reading comprendsion, there Pilgrim; reading comprendsion
grasp mentally; understand:
Proverbs 1:23​
Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you,​
I will make known my words unto you.​

and Peter is called "the rock" all over this world

but Moses says
I will publish the name of the Lord:
ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
He is the Rock, his work is perfect:
for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity,
just and right is he

Moses wasn't speaking of Peter

Maybe you can answer the question in this thread

was Peter ""GOD"

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world
for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
 
Last edited:
? Do YOU know that the NT was written in Koine Greek? Do YOU know that there IS a difference between "petros" for Peter, and "petra" of the Rock that Jesus would build His church upon? Do YOU know that a "petros" is masculine and a chunk of rock but that "petra" is a huge, rocky massif or bedrock? Do YOU know the difference between the two?

do YOU believe the actual words of Scripture? Like what Paul writes here:

"...and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ." (1 Cor. 10:4) Do YOU know that "Rock" here is also Petra? Just as it is in "Upon this Rock"?

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11)

"19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the [p]saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,( Eph. 2:19)

"14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." (Rev. 21:4)

Do you see anything in these verses that says that Peter is the church's foundation? ONLY Peter? Do you not see that in this last verse, ALL of the 12 apostles are treated equally....do you see Peter singled out here?

Do you not know that your church has been lying about this for many centuries, that Peter is the foundation of the church, when God's actual word says that the prophets/apostles are, with Jesus as the cornerstone?
Do you know that Jesus spoke Aramaic with His disciples?

"You are Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build My Church."
 
Do you know that Jesus spoke Aramaic with His disciples?

He probably did, though we don't know for certain. But have YOU forgotten that the NT was written in Greek?
"You are Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build My Church."
I know that, but have you perhaps forgotten that the NT was written entirely in GREEK, where there IS a distinct difference between "petros" and "petra"?

And why have you not dealt with those bible verses that show us WHO really IS the foundation of the church....?
 
Last edited:
He probably did, though we don't know for certain. But have YOU forgotten that the NT was written in Greek?

I know that, but have you perhaps forgotten that the NT was written entirely in GREEK, where there IS a distinct difference between "petros" and "petros"?

And why have you not dealt with those bible verses that show us WHO really IS the foundation of the church....?
The original language is important because meaning is always lost in translation.
What did Jesus mean by calling Peter "Cephas"?
Rock. Just... Rock.
 
I know that, but have you perhaps forgotten that the NT was written entirely in GREEK, where there IS a distinct difference between "petros" and "petros"?
William F. Albright and C.S. Mann (from The Anchor Bible series) --

"Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff; Matt 7:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19 (see below), one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. Cf. in this gospel 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cf. Gal 2:11ff)." (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew[Doubleday, 1971], page 195)
 
Do YOU believe the actual words of Scripture?
"You shall be called CEPHAS". John 1:42
Well RCs don't believe the actual words of scripture. If they did their leaders would meet the scriptural standards for leaders and they would apply 1 Cor 5:11 to their leaders which they don't.
 
The original language is important because meaning is always lost in translation.
What did Jesus mean by calling Peter "Cephas"?
Rock. Just... Rock.
ON spiritual matters Jesus would have spoken in Hebrew because that is the language the Jewish people of that day used to speak about the things of God. So your claim of aramaic is incorrect. The evidence is mounting with scholars that Hebrew was used by Jewish people of that day in the Israel area to speak about spiritual matters. Of course the Jewish people of those days were like Jewish people today and most spoke more than one language.
 
The original language is important because meaning is always lost in translation.
What did Jesus mean by calling Peter "Cephas"?
Rock. Just... Rock.
Oh baloney! The NT was originally written in Koine Greek and the HS inspired Matthew to use 2 different words for "rock" in Matthew 16:18! There IS a distinct difference between the two, which your church has been denying for centuries in order to promulgate the lie that Jesus built His church upon a finite, sinful human being, instead of on Himself and the "Rock" of Peter's confession.

All you are doing is regurgitating the same old tired talking points your church has indoctrinated you to believe. But READ the following AFTER you first take off your RCC glasses!

"...and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the Rock was Christ." (1 Cor. 10:4) Do YOU know that "Rock" here is also Petra? Just as it is in "Upon this Rock"?

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11)

"19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the [p]saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,( Eph. 2:19)

"14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." (Rev. 21:4

The city here represents the church.

You must not have read that post of mine where I quoted these, that ALL the Apostles are part of the foundation of the church, with Jesus Christ as the Cornerstone. Did you not read that and the others? OR did your spiritual eyes shut down and refuse to read them, in order to remain a good victim, pardon me, member of your RCC?
 
Last edited:
Those at the Council of Jerusalem did not sign the letter, but the purpose of signing is to give one's assent to the contents of the document. Those who spoke at the Council of Jerusalem were also giving their assent to the letter. That is the analogy. Signing the Declaration of Independence is analogous to making a speech at the Council of Jerusalem. And just as being the last one to sign the Declaration carried no special significance in that document, so also speaking last at the council carries no special significance in the Council of Jerusalem. Somebody had to go last, or else the speeches would have gone on forever. But at some point they all came to the realization that they were all in agreement and there was no need for more speeches. And so they stopped. This happens even when all attendees are of equal standing, as they were at that council.

This is a lot of word salad to deny that James made the final decision, using Scripture, and the rest of the council agreed with him. Whether or not the letter was signed is immaterial and irrelevant. But at the beginning, we read from whom the letter came.
Now I realize that this all started to refute the position that Peter was that person at the council who held a special position. But it is unnecessary to refute that point because I agree that Peter wasn't making the final decision at that council. If that is your point, then consider it won and move on, OK? I see no reason for you to want to promote James in importance.

Good! But Peter NEVER was a pope or the leader over the entire NT church in the first century. Again, that is just a fairy tale your church has been pushing for centuries. Jesus Christ is the head of the church, not some mere man.
No. He was just the last one whose speech was recorded. It means nothing beyond that.
James said "listen to me" and then proceeded to give his judgment after quoting Scripture. IMAGINE--he appealed to SCRIPTURE in making his judgment! Something YOUR church would do well to emulate! Instead, it used fairy tales and human reasoning and conjecture to come up with the 4 Marian Dogmas, Indulgences, Purgatory, celibate unmarried clergy; praying to saints dead in the Lord as one would to God; salvation by grace through faith and not by works--the list goes on....
It means the people who had been speaking just before James finally stopped talking, and it was James' turn. Luke does not tell us if anyone spoke after James. To assume that no one else spoke is to assume something that is NOT stated in Acts.

So? To assume that someone else DID speak after James is to assume something NOT stated in Acts!

It was James who came up with the final judgment after quoting Scripture.
YOU are speculation when you assume that nothing more was said.

I never said nothing more was said, only that I have only quoted what WAS said, and refuse to speculate on what else MIGHT have been said. Where Scripture is silent, so perhaps should we be.
"The Church's One Foundation". Yes. A beautiful hymn. We do sing it in our church, and we take it to heart too.
Do you? How can you, when you believe that the church was founded upon a mere human being....? OR do you think the church has TWO foundations--one of Peter and one of Jesus?
 
This is a lot of word salad to deny that James made the final decision...
Calling an argument "word salad" rather than responding to it is not a response. In fact, the term "word salad" is most often used by people who either can't find a good response or don't understand it. I believe that you DO understand my argument but can't find a satisfactory response. Really, "word salad" means nothing.


Whether or not the letter was signed is immaterial and irrelevant.
Whether or not James spoke last is immaterial and irrelevant.

But at the beginning, we read from whom the letter came.
The only indication of from whom the letter came is in verse 23 which says "...The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, send greetings..."


James said "listen to me" and then proceeded to give his judgment after quoting Scripture.
Irrelevant and immaterial, since the Scripture he quoted said nothing about the need for circumcision or other Jewish practices. The only thing that Scripture affirmed was that Christianity was destined for all nations. Everyone at the council already knew that. The question was whether bringing Christ to "all nations" meant also bringing those Jewish practices. The Scripture that James quoted does not answer that question.

IMAGINE--he appealed to SCRIPTURE in making his judgment! Something YOUR church would do well to emulate! Instead, it used fairy tales and human reasoning and conjecture to come up with the 4 Marian Dogmas, Indulgences, Purgatory, celibate unmarried clergy; praying to saints dead in the Lord as one would to God; salvation by grace through faith and not by works--the list goes on....
Duly noted. (and card punched)

So? To assume that someone else DID speak after James is to assume something NOT stated in Acts!
Same goes for assuming that no one else spoke after James. But that is exactly what you would need to assume to conclude that James made the "final judgement".


I never said nothing more was said....
Essentially you have by claiming that James' judgment was the final one.

only that I have only quoted what WAS said, and refuse to speculate on what else MIGHT have been said.
But you have already speculated on that by claiming that James' judgement was somehow more final than anyone else's.
 
Calling an argument "word salad" rather than responding to it is not a response. In fact, the term "word salad" is most often used by people who either can't find a good response or don't understand it. I believe that you DO understand my argument but can't find a satisfactory response. Really, "word salad" means nothing.



Whether or not James spoke last is immaterial and irrelevant.


The only indication of from whom the letter came is in verse 23 which says "...The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, send greetings..."



Irrelevant and immaterial, since the Scripture he quoted said nothing about the need for circumcision or other Jewish practices. The only thing that Scripture affirmed was that Christianity was destined for all nations. Everyone at the council already knew that. The question was whether bringing Christ to "all nations" meant also bringing those Jewish practices. The Scripture that James quoted does not answer that question.


Duly noted. (and card punched)


Same goes for assuming that no one else spoke after James. But that is exactly what you would need to assume to conclude that James made the "final judgement".



Essentially you have by claiming that James' judgment was the final one.


But you have already speculated on that by claiming that James' judgement was somehow more final than anyone else's.
No that is the best way to describe your posts, they are meaningless and tossed together without getting to the point.
 
Calling an argument "word salad" rather than responding to it is not a response. In fact, the term "word salad" is most often used by people who either can't find a good response or don't understand it. I believe that you DO understand my argument but can't find a satisfactory response. Really, "word salad" means nothing.

I gave you plenty of a response.
Whether or not James spoke last is immaterial and irrelevant.

Uh, isn't that basically what I wrote?
The only indication of from whom the letter came is in verse 23 which says "...The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, send greetings..."

Yes, I know, I made that exact observation in one of my posts. You must have missed it.
Irrelevant and immaterial, since the Scripture he quoted said nothing about the need for circumcision or other Jewish practices.

Relevant and material, since the OT quotation showed that God loves the Gentiles, too. Plus, all of the testimony from Peter, Paul, et. al. showed that the HS came to the Gentile believers just as He had to the Jewish believers--and the Gentiles were not circumcised, nor did they follow the LoM.
The only thing that Scripture affirmed was that Christianity was destined for all nations. Everyone at the council already knew that. The question was whether bringing Christ to "all nations" meant also bringing those Jewish practices. The Scripture that James quoted does not answer that question.

It answers it plenty. James made the final decision not to hamper the Gentile Christians turning to Christ with the ceremonial practices of the Jews under the LoM. Peter even called those practices a "burden, which even the Jews had not been able to keep perfectly.
Duly noted. (and card punched)


Same goes for assuming that no one else spoke after James. But that is exactly what you would need to assume to conclude that James made the "final judgement".

I assumed nothing. I am ONLY going by what is actually written in Acts 15. James spoke AFTER the others had FINISHED with their testimony. And right after James made his judgment, they drafted the letter and sent apostles off with it, to deliver to the Gentile Christias.
Essentially you have by claiming that James' judgment was the final one.

Sure looks like it to me based upon what is actually written in Acts 15.

12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me.
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers​

22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas....

Note, it says "finished" and "then". So, James did make the final decision about how it was not necessary for Gentiles to be circumcised and follow the LoM. The others in the council obviously must have agreed with him, for they drafted the letter and sent off apostles with it to the Gentiles.
But you have already speculated on that by claiming that James' judgement was somehow more final than anyone else's.
I speculated no such thing. I am going strictly by what is inthe words in Acts 15. It is YOU that is speculating, not I.
 
Uh, isn't that basically what I wrote?
No, you were using that "fact" to conclude that James' decision was somehow more significant than similar statements by others at the council.


Relevant and material, since the OT quotation showed that God loves the Gentiles, too.
It is not obvious that just loving the Gentiles means God would require less of them than He had required of His Chosen People of old.


Plus, all of the testimony from Peter, Paul, et. al. showed that the HS came to the Gentile believers just as He had to the Jewish believers....
Yes, but that was already noted by Peter earlier in the council.

It answers it plenty. James made the final decision not to hamper the Gentile Christians turning to Christ with the ceremonial practices of the Jews under the LoM. Peter even called those practices a "burden, which even the Jews had not been able to keep perfectly.
I am not questioning the wisdom of the final decision of the council. I am only questioning your interpretation of who "made the final decision". There is no reason to think James is any more significant than the others in that process.

I assumed nothing. I am ONLY going by what is actually written in Acts 15. James spoke AFTER the others had FINISHED with their testimony. And right after James made his judgment, they drafted the letter and sent apostles off with it, to deliver to the Gentile Christias.
That would be an unwarranted assumption. It does not say that the letter was drafted "right after" James made his judgement. It just doesn't. How do you conclude that it was immediately after? You would have to assume that there was no more conversation. But you said early that you DO NOT assume that there was no more conversation.


Note, it says "finished" and "then". So, James did make the final decision about how it was not necessary for Gentiles to be circumcised and follow the LoM. The others in the council obviously must have agreed with him, for they drafted the letter and sent off apostles with it to the Gentiles.
You are so convinced of this and have repeated it so many times that this probably makes sense to you.
 
2Peter 2:1
They will introduce their disruptive views
and even deny the very Master who redeemed them,
thus bringing swift destruction on themselves
.


2 Many will be seduced by their licentious ways,
and because of these teachers the way of truth will be brought into disrepute.
3 In their greed they will exploit you
with concocted stories.
NCB

Many will follow their depraved conduct
and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3 In their greed these teachers
will exploit you with fabricated stories.

NIV
and Pilgrim says;
Do you know that Jesus spoke Aramaic with His disciples?
"You are Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build My Church."
Do you know that Jesus spoke Aramaic with His disciples?

"You are Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build My Church."

Do you know that Jesus spoke Aramaic with His disciples?
=================== end Pilgrim's remark

Matt. 27:37​
And set up over his head his accusation written,
This Is Jesus The King Of The Jews.​
Mk.15:26​
And the superscription of his accusation was written over,
The King Of The Jews.
LK.23:38​
And a superscription also was written over him
in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,
This Is The King Of The Jews.​
Jn.19:19​
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross.​
And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.​
20 This title then read many of the Jews:
for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city:
and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.​
=================================

They have Moses and the Prophets,
let them hear them
,

and Pilgrim says;
Do you know that Jesus spoke Aramaic with His disciples?
=================== end Pilgrim's remark


Posters,
what did Moses say about
"the Language of the Heathen"
that would also include "Aramaic "

==================================================
 
Last edited:
No, you were using that "fact" to conclude that James' decision was somehow more significant than similar statements by others at the council.

I was going only by what the passage says--and it says "when they had FINISHED". Finished what? Speaking and giving their testimony. THEN James made his judgment after appealing to Scripture.
It is not obvious that just loving the Gentiles means God would require less of them than He had required of His Chosen People of old.

God didn't require the Jews to follow the LoM anymore, after Jesus' resurrection, so your point is moot.
Yes, but that was already noted by Peter earlier in the council.

Yes, and they also noted Paul's testimony, as well.
I am not questioning the wisdom of the final decision of the council. I am only questioning your interpretation of who "made the final decision". There is no reason to think James is any more significant than the others in that process.

Sorry, but it is patently obvious to those without RCC glasses on that JAMES made the final decision, since right after this, they all penned that letter and sent some apostles off with it to the Gentile churches.
That would be an unwarranted assumption. It does not say that the letter was drafted "right after" James made his judgement.

You DO know what "then" means, don't you? Can you not also read IN CONTEXT?

19 Therefore it is MY judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from [j]things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren...22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 and they [l]sent this letter by them...
It just doesn't. How do you conclude that it was immediately after? You would have to assume that there was no more conversation. But you said early that you DO NOT assume that there was no more conversation.

How would YOU conclude, based upon what Acts ACTUALLY SAYS, that there was MORE discussion AFTER James made his judgment? Why is it so all-fired important to think there could have been even MORE discussion about what to do with Gentile converts? I mean, AFTER The others had finished their testimonies, THEN James, after appealing to Scripture, made his judgment and even suggested that they send out a letter to the church at Antioch and what should be IN the letter. DO note vs. 23: "and they SENT this letter by them...."

I am simply going by what the Biblical witness ACTUALLY STATES. I am NOT speculating at all--that is what YOU are doing.
You are so convinced of this and have repeated it so many times that this probably makes sense to you.
I am convinced because that is what the Biblical witness actually states and that is solely what I am basing what I wrote upon. Try it, sometime.
 
I was going only by what the passage says--and it says "when they had FINISHED". Finished what? Speaking and giving their testimony. THEN James made his judgment after appealing to Scripture.
James judgement was no different from the ones spoken earlier before James. It appears that James was merely agreeing with what was already said. His quoting Scripture merely gave additional support to what had already become the consensus decision. James was no more important than anyone else.
Sorry, but it is patently obvious to those without RCC glasses on
Making personal insults may make you feel good but they do not prove your point and they certainly don't win souls for Christ.

that JAMES made the final decision, since right after this, they all penned that letter and sent some apostles off with it to the Gentile churches.
Two points: 1. Scripture does not say "right after". 2. Even if the letter was penned "right after" that would still not make James' the "final decision maker". It would just make him the final one to agree with everyone else .
How would YOU conclude, based upon what Acts ACTUALLY SAYS, that there was MORE discussion AFTER James made his judgment?
I don't have to conclude or assume any such thing. There is a difference between saying something "may have" happened and saying something did happen. It is yet another thing entirely to say some did not happen, which is what you assume in saying the letter was penned "right after" James spoke. Personally I think they would have written exactly the same letter even if James had said nothing. His presence changed nothing.

Why is it so all-fired important to think there could have been even MORE discussion about what to do with Gentile converts?
Because you are using the absence of such discussions to support your point.
 
James judgement was no different from the ones spoken earlier before James. It appears that James was merely agreeing with what was already said. His quoting Scripture merely gave additional support to what had already become the consensus decision. James was no more important than anyone else.

I never said James was more important than anyone else. Where did you get that idea? But he was a leader in the young church, was he not?
Making personal insults may make you feel good but they do not prove your point and they certainly don't win souls for Christ.

I am sorry you saw that as an insult, but I have used that terminology before, about RCC glasses. It is not meant as an insult but an observation, plus, I also wrote "to those." NOT "to you." It IS obvious to those not looking at the verses through RCC-colored glasses. But if you think it was a personal insult, then flag my post and a moderator will take care of it.
Two points: 1. Scripture does not say "right after".

Scripture says "When they finished, James spoke up." And "20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers​

22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas...."

Finished...then....
2. Even if the letter was penned "right after" that would still not make James' the "final decision maker". It would just make him the final one to agree with everyone else .

You are assuming again, without any scriptural backing for your assumptions. Nowhere does the Scriptural witness say that anyone had reached a decision on what to do with the Gentile Christians BEFORE James stood up and made his judgment. Certainly those who gave witness to the HS working among the Gentiles did NOT want the Gentiles to be required to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses. It was the believers among the Pharisees that needed convincing. AFTER everyone had finished their testimony, THEN James stood up and gave his judgment--to which all of the believers agreed to. That would need to include the Pharisee believers.


I don't have to conclude or assume any such thing. There is a difference between saying something "may have" happened and saying something did happen.

May have, could have--still nothing but conjecture on your part, whereas I have simply gone by the plain words in Scripture in Acts 15 which are simple and easy to understand. I mean, it's not as if they were written in Swahili or Chinese...
It is yet another thing entirely to say some did not happen, which is what you assume in saying the letter was penned "right after" James spoke.

ALL I did was quote scripture. Here it is, yet again:

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood....

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers​

22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:...

Now IF there was more discussion, it was most probably over the wording of the letter. But that would have been after the decision was made and all agreed to it.
Personally I think they would have written exactly the same letter even if James had said nothing. His presence changed nothing.

His presence and decision changed a LOT. Else why did the HS inspire Luke to include what happened at this council?
Because you are using the absence of such discussions to support your point.
So are YOU using the absence of discussions to support YOUR point. BUT--I have Scripture to back up MY conclusion--you have nothing but "couldas and maybes" so to speak.
 
Back
Top