What is the one true Church?

[Grailhunter]

NOBODY is listed as the “leader” – and this proves that James was in charge??

Nope it is the storyline.

You say that Peter is NOT listed among the leading men at the Council – yet, we read that HE spoke FIRST.

James cannot present their concerns.

We are just looking at what the Bible says and it gives no indication that Peter was the leader of the Apostles.
If it did we would not be having this conversation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nope it is the storyline.

James cannot present their concerns.

We are just looking at what the Bible say and it gives no indication that Peter was the leader of the Apostles.
If it did we would not be having this conversation.

Ummmm, wasn't it YOU who said that Peter couldn't have been the leader because the word "leader" was not applied to him?

Can you show me where it is applied to James?
Chap[er and Verse, please. You can't have it BOTH ways . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

View attachment 31659

Oh, I thought you were going tpo say something intelligent - like actually refuting what I said.

Well, maybe next time . . .

 

[Grailhunter]

Ummmm, wasn't it YOU who said that Peter couldn't have been the leader because the word "leader" was not applied to him?

Yep and I also said that no one person was directly defined as the leader of the Apostles.

Can you show me where it is applied to James?

The storyline shows that James was the leader at the Jerusalem council.
Anyone that reads that chapter knows that.
It is common knowledge. Go look it up.

 

[Illuminator]

 

[Grailhunter]

These scripture follow the event where Peter recognizes exactly who Yeshua was.

Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

These scriptures are like the hate your mother and father and be perfect like your Father in Heaven scriptures….they read clearly, but their meaning is unclear and they are not congruent with the rest of the scriptures.

Which is one of the reasons that I warn against taking a set of scriptures and building a religion on them. For one they have to go along with the other scriptures and the storyline and if you place an exaggerated significance to them they can skew the meaning of legitimate scriptures. False beliefs can be harmful but in this case it maybe the primary reason that the Catholic Church developed an overwhelming desire for authority and power which lead them down a dark path.

Christ told Peter And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

So what does build my church mean? What does it not mean? We are not talking about a building and Peter did not single-handedly do anything. It was the effort of all the Apostles and disciples that built the church as a religion.

Then He said, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Is this about Peter making Christian doctrine? Does it indicate that Peter would be a leader above the other Apostles?
What did this mean? Did it mean he had the right to make decisions regarding Christianity? Possible. He did say that all meat was fit to eat. Basically setting aside the Kosher dietary restrictions of the Mosaic Law. But this was a one time event. And then He went to James to get a ruling on Gentile-Christians observing the Mosaic Law.

What about him being a leader….the only place that the storyline places Peter as a leader is the Jewish-Christian commune and it apparently did not last long. Nowhere in the scriptures is Peter designated as the leader of the Apostles.

We do not see the other Apostles addressing him or referring to him as a leader. We do not see the Apostles coming to him for rulings or he issuing rulings.

Does Keys to Heaven mean he would decide who went to Heaven or Hell?
It probably did not mean that and he did not do that….that we know of.

So what was different about Peter? Well Peter performed more miracles than any other Apostle. He was associated with the death of a couple that had lied. He was a very active Apostle and appears in a lot of scriptures. He joined the winning team….because it would be the Gentile-Christians that would take the helm of the Church and become the majority. As it was the concept of maintaining 12 Apostles died out with the Jewish-Christians.

Did the scriptures that we are looking at imply that Peter would have special abilities to perform miracles? They do not imply that ….but he did.

So as it turns out….Peter was a very active and special Apostle. But the scriptures here caused the Catholic Church to focus on one Apostle. Thinking they could draw authority and power from a man. And it was this desire for authority and power that lead the Church down a very dark path.

Conversely if the Catholic Church would have focused on the following scriptures below it would have been a lot more accurate and better off.

Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Matthew 10:1

“These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” Mark 16:17-18

 

[Illuminator]

Some Protestants, appealing to Acts 15, argue that James the Just (aka “the Lord’s brother”) was in charge of the council, proving that Peter could not have been head of the early Church as the first “pope.” They point to James’s use of the imperative mood for “listen” (Greek, akouō) as proof for this: “Brethren, listen [akousate] to me” (v.13).[2] Moreover, they assert that James decides the results of the council when he says, “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God” (v.19).

1. The imperative mood for akouō doesn’t necessarily connote authority over the group.

Imagine that everyone is throwing around ideas in a business meeting, and you say, “Listen!” and then go on to share your ideas. This doesn’t necessarily mean that you are in charge of the meeting. You may be simply trying to get the others there to pay attention to what you have to say.

This is how the imperative of akouō is used later, in Acts 22:1, where Paul says to his Jewish brethren, “Brethren and fathers, hear [akousate] the defense which I now make before you.” Paul wasn’t exercising authority over the group; he merely was asking for their undivided attention. The following verse bears this out: “And when they heard that he addressed them in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet” (v.2).

Given that the imperative mood of akouō doesn’t necessarily connote authority, its use in Acts 15 doesn’t establish that James had authority over the council proceedings. Context must be taken into consideration in order to determine the force of the imperative.

So what does the context tell us? Let’s move to our other ways of meeting the challenge and see.

2. Peter is the one who speaks first and settles the substance of the debate.

Luke sets up Peter’s speech by highlighting the tension among the apostles and presbyters in verse 6: “There was much debate.” And subsequent verses reveal that it is Peter’s speech that settles the debate:

Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith . . . we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will (Acts 15:7-11).​

​

This all happens before James rises and requests the assembly to listen to his words (v.13). James does direct the council proceedings after Peter’s speech, but it’s Peter who speaks first and settles the debate. And in verse 14 James even recognizes as much: “Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.” If James had just as much authority over the group as Peter (or more), he would have been the one to take the initiative and settle the substance of the debate, not Peter.

3. James’s speech is a pastoral proposal, whereas Peter’s speech is a doctrinal declaration.

The content of Peter’s speech was a matter of divine revelation. It was God who chose to reveal that the Gentiles could be saved, for he had given them the Holy Spirit just as he did the apostles, cleansing their hearts by faith and making no distinction between the circumcised and the uncircumcised (Acts 15:8-9). Based on that revelation, Peter makes a doctrinal statement that is more than mere opinion: “We believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they [the Gentiles] will” (v.11).
Peter doesn’t offer this view as what he thinks should be believed. He offers it as what is believed.

James’s speech stands in stark contrast with Peter’s. First, it was for the most part pastoral in nature, intended to address the problem of how to unify Jewish and Gentile Christians (Acts 15:1-5). It’s a practical problem that only arises because of the theological issue already settled by Peter.

Gentile converts were coming into a community of Jewish Christians who were still holding fast to many of the Old Testament precepts (Acts 21:15-26). And in order to keep the Gentiles from offending Jewish sensibilities, James proposes that the Gentile converts adhere to certain precepts that Jewish converts would have considered it scandalous to violate: abstinence from “the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood” (Acts 15:19). Of these four precepts, only one is of a moral nature, namely “unchastity” (Greek, porneia), which may refer to invalid marital unions that the Gentiles contracted before becoming Christian.

James’s speech also stands in contrast to Peter’s because unlike Peter, who stated what is the case, James offers his ideas for consideration: “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them” (Acts 15:19-20). In fact, the Greek word translated “judgment” in verse 19 (krinō) means “to hold a view or have an opinion with regard to something—‘to hold a view, to have an opinion, to consider, to regard.’”[3]

The first century Christians believed that the Holy Spirit guides the Church through judgments made by the body of authoritative officials, not apart from them. (contrary to the psychotic babbling of groanhunter)

For example, concerning the decisions of the council, the council fathers state in Acts 15:28: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” This is a far cry from the belief that all we need is the Holy Spirit to guide us, which is common among those who promote the doctrine of sola scriptura.

The 'James over Peter' argument is a false man made tradition, first proposed by sceptics and atheists in the 18th century. (Modernism)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yep and I also said that no one person was directly defined as the leader of the Apostles.

Then you're a LIAR on top of everything else because YOU says that James was clearly the LEADER at the Council of Jerusalem.

The storyline shows that James was the leader at the Jerusalem council.
Anyone that reads that chapter knows that.
It is common knowledge. Go look it up.

James was the Bishop of Jerusalem.
He was in charge (Overseer) of the Church in Jerusalem - not the leader of the Church. That title goes to the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Grailhunter]

Some Protestants, appealing to Acts 15, argue that James the Just (aka “the Lord’s brother”) was in charge of the council, proving that Peter could not have been head of the early Church as the first “pope.” They point to James’s use of the imperative mood for “listen” (Greek, akouō) as proof for this: “Brethren, listen [akousate] to me” (v.13).[2] Moreover, they assert that James decides the results of the council when he says, “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God” (v.19).

1. The imperative mood for akouō doesn’t necessarily connote authority over the group.

Imagine that everyone is throwing around ideas in a business meeting, and you say, “Listen!” and then go on to share your ideas. This doesn’t necessarily mean that you are in charge of the meeting. You may be simply trying to get the others there to pay attention to what you have to say.

This is how the imperative of akouō is used later, in Acts 22:1, where Paul says to his Jewish brethren, “Brethren and fathers, hear [akousate] the defense which I now make before you.” Paul wasn’t exercising authority over the group; he merely was asking for their undivided attention. The following verse bears this out: “And when they heard that he addressed them in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet” (v.2).

Given that the imperative mood of akouō doesn’t necessarily connote authority, its use in Acts 15 doesn’t establish that James had authority over the council proceedings. Context must be taken into consideration in order to determine the force of the imperative.

So what does the context tell us? Let’s move to our other ways of meeting the challenge and see.

2. Peter is the one who speaks first and settles the substance of the debate.

Luke sets up Peter’s speech by highlighting the tension among the apostles and presbyters in verse 6: “There was much debate.” And subsequent verses reveal that it is Peter’s speech that settles the debate:

Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith . . . we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will (Acts 15:7-11).​

​

This all happens before James rises and requests the assembly to listen to his words (v.13). James does direct the council proceedings after Peter’s speech, but it’s Peter who speaks first and settles the debate. And in verse 14 James even recognizes as much: “Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.” If James had just as much authority over the group as Peter (or more), he would have been the one to take the initiative and settle the substance of the debate, not Peter.

3. James’s speech is a pastoral proposal, whereas Peter’s speech is a doctrinal declaration.

The content of Peter’s speech was a matter of divine revelation. It was God who chose to reveal that the Gentiles could be saved, for he had given them the Holy Spirit just as he did the apostles, cleansing their hearts by faith and making no distinction between the circumcised and the uncircumcised (Acts 15:8-9). Based on that revelation, Peter makes a doctrinal statement that is more than mere opinion: “We believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they [the Gentiles] will” (v.11).
Peter doesn’t offer this view as what he thinks should be believed. He offers it as what is believed.

James’s speech stands in stark contrast with Peter’s. First, it was for the most part pastoral in nature, intended to address the problem of how to unify Jewish and Gentile Christians (Acts 15:1-5). It’s a practical problem that only arises because of the theological issue already settled by Peter.

Gentile converts were coming into a community of Jewish Christians who were still holding fast to many of the Old Testament precepts (Acts 21:15-26). And in order to keep the Gentiles from offending Jewish sensibilities, James proposes that the Gentile converts adhere to certain precepts that Jewish converts would have considered it scandalous to violate: abstinence from “the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood” (Acts 15:19). Of these four precepts, only one is of a moral nature, namely “unchastity” (Greek, porneia), which may refer to invalid marital unions that the Gentiles contracted before becoming Christian.

James’s speech also stands in contrast to Peter’s because unlike Peter, who stated what is the case, James offers his ideas for consideration: “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them” (Acts 15:19-20). In fact, the Greek word translated “judgment” in verse 19 (krinō) means “to hold a view or have an opinion with regard to something—‘to hold a view, to have an opinion, to consider, to regard.’”[3]

The first century Christians believed that the Holy Spirit guides the Church through judgments made by the body of authoritative officials, not apart from them. (contrary to the psychotic babbling of groanhunter)

For example, concerning the decisions of the council, the council fathers state in Acts 15:28: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” This is a far cry from the belief that all we need is the Holy Spirit to guide us, which is common among those who promote the doctrine of sola scriptura.

The 'James over Peter' argument is a false man made tradition, first proposed by sceptics and atheists in the 18th century. (Modernism)

Anyone that reads acts chapter 15 can tell they traveled there to get James ruling.
And he made a ruling and sends a letter and the leading men....which is not Peter to take the letter to the churches.
And there is nothing like this where Peter is presiding.

 

[Grailhunter]

Then you're a LIAR on top of everything else because YOU says that James was clearly the LEADER at the Council of Jerusalem.

The sentence..... And James became the leader of the Apostles....does not occur.....it is all in the story line.

If nothing else you lose for yourself and the Church because they see your intelligence and character in the words you use.
You need to represent the Catholic Church better.

 

[Jim B]

The one true church is the body of Christ. It is not a single denomination, Catholic or otherwise.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The sentence..... And James became the leader of the Apostles....does not occur.....it is all in the story line.

If nothing else you lose for yourself and the Church because they see your intelligence and character in the words you use.
You need to represent the Catholic Church better.

Soooo, what you're saying is that the context shows James to be the leader at the Counsel of Jerusalem?
Gee - earlier you said that it needed to be explicitly stated as it pertains to Peter.
Here is some context fo you my woefully-hypocritical friend . . .

Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19)

Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19)

Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32)

Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7)

Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22)

Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36)

Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12)

Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)

Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40)

Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6)

Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) and his name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) – even though he was NOT the first Apostle chosen.

His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.

Soooooo, by your OWN measuring stick - Peter was the leader . . .

 

[Grailhunter]

Soooo, what you're saying is that the context shows James to be the leader at the Counsel of Jerusalem?
Gee - earlier you said that it needed to be explicitly stated as it pertains to Peter.
Here is some context fo you my woefully-hypocritical friend . . .

No I have been very consistent.
I have said that the scriptures do not designate anyone as the leader of the Apostles. As in word for word saying James was the leader of the Apostles.
It is the storyline that designates James as the leader of the Apostles.
And it is the storyline that does not indicate that Peter is the leader of the Apostles.

As far as the rest of this I have already given Peter credit for being great.

 

[Illuminator]

Soooo, what you're saying is that the context shows James to be the leader at the Counsel of Jerusalem?
Gee - earlier you said that it needed to be explicitly stated as it pertains to Peter.
Here is some context fo you my woefully-hypocritical friend . . .

Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19)

Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19)

Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32)

Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7)

Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22)

Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36)

Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12)

Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)

Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40)

Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6)

Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) and his name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) – even though he was NOT the first Apostle chosen.

His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.

Soooooo, by your OWN measuring stick - Peter was the leader . . .

I avoid Hislopites, and J.Chicklets. They are all MODERNISTS.

1. Hebrews 13:7
   Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2. Hebrews 13:17
   Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
3. Hebrews 13:24
   Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those who come from Italy send you greetings.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

but not Peter??? What a s-t-r-e-t-c-h of the imagination!!!

modernism: it is that ideology which reduces both divine revelation and the supernatural life of grace to being the result of a subjective attitude or tendency on the part of human nature. Modernism thus retains all the vocabulary and external forms of orthodox Church life but reinterprets them along the lines of modern, “subjectivist” philosophy.

Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies.

Is Modernism Still a Heresy?

The answer is yes. What Pope St Pius X defined as he...

www.catholic.com

 

[BreadOfLife]

No I have been very consistent.
I have said that the scriptures do not designate anyone as the leader of the Apostles. As in word for word saying James was the leader of the Apostles.
It is the storyline that designates James as the leader of the Apostles.
And it is the storyline that does not indicate that Peter is the leader of the Apostles.

As far as the rest of this I have already given Peter credit for being great.

Your "storyline proof" that James was in charge is based on a SINGLE verse:
Acts 15:19, “It is my judgment, therefore, . . .”

I just supplied you with FIFTY verses with ”storylines” of Peter’s leadership – and an additional ONE HUNDRED and NINETY ONE mentions in the NT, when the next most-mentioned Apostle has only FORTY-EIGHT.

According to YOUR own standards – Peter is FAR and AWAY the leader.
You can't have it BOTH ways. You've LOST this argument . . .

 

[Grailhunter]

Your "storyline proof" that James was in charge is based on a SINGLE verse:

No it is the whole Chapter.

I just supplied you with FIFTY verses with ”storylines” of Peter’s leadership – and an additional ONE HUNDRED and NINETY ONE mentions in the NT, when the next most-mentioned Apostle has only FORTY-EIGHT.

There is no doubt that Peter was a leader.....he was an Apostle.....all the Apostles were leaders. We are talking about the leader of the Apostles

And there is no doubt that Peter was very active and mentioned often in the New Testament.

But James was the leader of the chosen Apostles....Jewish-Christians.
Paul was the leader of the Gentile-Christians. And Paul wrote most of the New Testament.
Peter was a really great Apostle.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No it is the whole Chapter.

There is no doubt that Peter was a leader.....he was an Apostle.....all the Apostles were leaders. We are talking about the leader of the Apostles

And there is no doubt that Peter was very active and mentioned often in the New Testament.

But James was the leader of the chosen Apostles....Jewish-Christians.
Paul was the leader of the Gentile-Christians. And Paul wrote most of the New Testament.
Peter was a really great Apostle.

Show me AANYWHERE else in Acts 15 - other than verse 19 - where James is described or even hinted as being the leader.

Show me where James is shown as the leader of the Jewish Christians and the Apostles in ANY Biblical OR extrabiblical writing from the Early Church.
There is ZERO record of that in either.

In fat – Peter is UNANIMOUSLY regarded as the leader by the Early Church Fathers.

As I stated earlier – James was the Bishop pf Jerusalem.
After his death, which occurred only a few years after Christ ascended, he was succeeded by Simeon, another one of the named adelphoi of Jesus.
Are you saying that this Simeon became the leader of the Church?

 

[Grailhunter]

Show me AANYWHERE else in Acts 15 - other than verse 19 - where James is described or even hinted as being the leader.

Don't have to give one verse it is the whole story.
They came to Jerusalem to get a ruling from James.
And after they had stopped speaking, James answered, Brethren, listen to me...
“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.

In fat – Peter is UNANIMOUSLY regarded as the leader by the Early Church Fathers.

Peter is a favorite of a lot of people.
But people do not come to him for a ruling.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Don't have to give one verse it is the whole story.
The come to Jerusalem to get a ruling from James.
And after they had stopped speaking, James answered, Brethren, listen to me...
“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.

Ever wonder why I magnify your comments in RED?
The bigger the LIE - the BIGGER ton Font. And the text above is a MASSIVE LIE.

Acts 15:2
So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the APOSLES AND THE ELLFERS about this question.

They didn't go to get a "ruling from James".
Go peddle your lies somewhere else . . .

Peter is a favorite of a lot of people.
But people do not come to him for a ruling.

Then explain to me why the Church at Corinth went to Pope clement, the 2nd successor to the See of Peter, to resolve an issue when there was ALREADY a Bishop in Corinth.

This happened circa, 85 AD - while some of the Apostles including John werre STILL alive.

 

[Grailhunter]

Ever wonder why I magnify your comments in RED?
The bigger the LIE - the BIGGER ton Font. And the text above is a MASSIVE LIE.

You so funny.

They didn't go to get a "ruling from James".

Yes they did. Paul's ministry was being harassed by the Judaizers-Jewish-Christians. They came to James for a ruling to call them off.

Then explain to me why the Church at Corinth went to Pope clement, the 2nd successor to the See of Peter, to resolve an issue when there was ALREADY a Bishop in Corinth.

This happened circa, 85 AD - while some of the Apostles including John werre STILL alive.

I have already explained that all the Apostles were leaders.....but in 85 AD James and Paul and Peter were dead and the Temple was destroyed and both Christianity and the Jews were experiencing severe persecutions. At which point the Jews and Christians were renegades in hiding. What we take away from this period is anything but a structured church. There were Christians that were writing but that does not make them leaders either in the authoritative sense. And there are no Popes in this period. At this point it is a matter of being the senior Christian in the region.....more likely unofficial Bishops....it takes a organized church to nominate or designate Bishops or anybody could stand up a claim they were Bishops. And the "see" of Peter or "victor of Christ" are more modern Catholic terms.