Is the new testament catholic?

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 25 2005, 01:07 PM']And following the death of James, the Brother of Jesus, Eusebius in his History of the Church, 3: 11 tells us:

"Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. "

There is dispute, of course, on that cousin business started by Jerome. Some are of the opinion that this was Jesus' brother Simon, who in turn was succeeded by Jesus' other brother Judas.

Whatever the case, Peter was not the leader of the first "Christian" community.
[right][snapback]623087[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Peter's leadership role among the apostles is well-documented in Scripture.

Here is an excert from an article on this:
(For the complete article, go [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp"]here.[/url]


In the director's chair: James or Peter?


With these facts in mind, we can now look at Acts 15 and the council. How do Eastern apologists describe the role of Peter? First of all, why did the council assemble? "When a decision had to be made as to whether Gentile Christians were to be circumcised, Peter was not asked for his single-minded decision. Instead, a council of the apostles was convened." [Myth, 31.] But the decision had already been made by God through Peter. This interpretation completely ignores Acts 10 and 11.

Why did Peter speak? Because he felt obliged to speak to the other apostles and "renounce publicly his opinion upon the necessity of circumcision and other Judaical ceremonies." [Guettée, 41.] One must ask, why?

He had already renounced his opinion in Caesarea before a number of witnesses. This interpretation will not stand. Even if it were true, it would raise another question. Why was it so important for Peter, and Peter alone, to renounce an opinion which had been held by all the apostles? Why, indeed, unless he was the head of the apostles, their strengthener?

Peter did make an intervention, "but his action was not based on his present position in the Church." It was based on his past experience. Peter had no authority except "to bear witness of past events."[ Koulomzine, 131.] But does not everyone have authority to bear that kind of witness? And to what past event did Peter bear witness? To the event in which God had spoken and acted through him to reject the Judaizers' opinions.

All Eastern apologists consulted in this study agree that James presided at the Council, James summed up the proceedings, James "pronounced the final judgment." [Ibid. The same assertion occurs in Peter Gillquist, Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith (revised edition; Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 1992), 29. John Meyendorff in his Orthodoxy and Catholicity (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), 9, says that Peter and James "jointly directed the Jerusalem council.]" So much for Petrine primacy.


Emphatically yours


But take a closer look at the role of James in the council. James's words (verse 19) "my judgment is" (RSV) translate the Greek verb krino. In Acts 13:46; 16:15; 26:8, the verb is used to denote expression of an opinion. Michael Winter says it could better be translated by "in my opinion" or "as for me." [Winter, 32. He quotes several Protestant scholars who concur.]Friedrich Buchsel makes the same point: krino as used in Acts 15:19 means "to think" in the sense of hold an opinion.[ Friedrich Buchsel, in Gerhard Kittel, editor, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 923.]

Another Protestant interpreter makes the same point more strongly. In the Greek, the "I" in "I judge" or "I think" is emphatic. "The emphatic 'I' must be interpreted in harmony with the rest of the New Testament and the Bible. It is absurd to believe that James at this moment gave his personal opinion as the final word, from which there could be no appeal. . . . The very emphasis on the 'I' shows that he was only expressing a personal conviction." [G. Campbell Morgan, The Acts of the Apostles (Tarrytown, New York: Revell, 1924), 362-63.]

Attempts to exalt the role of James in order to minimize the role of Peter all go against the facts. The issue was whether Gentiles could become Christians without observance of the Jewish law. The issue already had been decided. God had revealed the answer to Peter. Peter acted on God's initiative. Humanly speaking, Peter had already made the decision. (Rulings of early Church councils always reflected decisions already made by one or more of the popes.)


James's role


What did James do? He repeated what Peter had already said. For reasons of his own he added to the council's instructions some judaizing elements (requirements about not eating meat sacrificed to idols, not consuming blood). What happened to Peter's decision? It became the law of the Church. What happened to James's additions? Scripture never mentions them again. The Church ignored them. In 1 Corinthians 8, written well after the council, Paul taught that whether one eats meat which has been sacrificed to idols is purely a prudential judgment.

Edited June 26, 2005 by Socrates

[Cam42]

And we are going over this again why? The thread dealing with the Petrine History was closed a month ago.

Following suit....LittleLes is not discussing anything new, but rehashing closed topics.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 25 2005, 09:15 PM']Peter's leadership role among the apostles is well-documented in Scripture.

Here is an excert from an article on this:
(For the complete article, go [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp"]here.[/url]
In the director's chair: James or Peter?
With these facts in mind, we can now look at Acts 15 and the council. How do Eastern apologists describe the role of Peter? First of all, why did the council assemble? "When a decision had to be made as to whether Gentile Christians were to be circumcised, Peter was not asked for his single-minded decision. Instead, a council of the apostles was convened." [Myth, 31.] But the decision had already been made by God through Peter. This interpretation completely ignores Acts 10 and 11.

Why did Peter speak? Because he felt obliged to speak to the other apostles and "renounce publicly his opinion upon the necessity of circumcision and other Judaical ceremonies." [Guettée, 41.] One must ask, why?

He had already renounced his opinion in Caesarea before a number of witnesses. This interpretation will not stand. Even if it were true, it would raise another question. Why was it so important for Peter, and Peter alone, to renounce an opinion which had been held by all the apostles? Why, indeed, unless he was the head of the apostles, their strengthener?

Peter did make an intervention, "but his action was not based on his present position in the Church." It was based on his past experience. Peter had no authority except "to bear witness of past events."[ Koulomzine, 131.] But does not everyone have authority to bear that kind of witness? And to what past event did Peter bear witness? To the event in which God had spoken and acted through him to reject the Judaizers' opinions.

All Eastern apologists consulted in this study agree that James presided at the Council, James summed up the proceedings, James "pronounced the final judgment." [Ibid. The same assertion occurs in Peter Gillquist, Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith (revised edition; Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 1992), 29. John Meyendorff in his Orthodoxy and Catholicity (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), 9, says that Peter and James "jointly directed the Jerusalem council.]" So much for Petrine primacy.
Emphatically yours
But take a closer look at the role of James in the council. James's words (verse 19) "my judgment is" (RSV) translate the Greek verb krino. In Acts 13:46; 16:15; 26:8, the verb is used to denote expression of an opinion. Michael Winter says it could better be translated by "in my opinion" or "as for me." [Winter, 32. He quotes several Protestant scholars who concur.]Friedrich Buchsel makes the same point: krino as used in Acts 15:19 means "to think" in the sense of hold an opinion.[ Friedrich Buchsel, in Gerhard Kittel, editor, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 923.]

Another Protestant interpreter makes the same point more strongly. In the Greek, the "I" in "I judge" or "I think" is emphatic. "The emphatic 'I' must be interpreted in harmony with the rest of the New Testament and the Bible. It is absurd to believe that James at this moment gave his personal opinion as the final word, from which there could be no appeal. . . . The very emphasis on the 'I' shows that he was only expressing a personal conviction." [G. Campbell Morgan, The Acts of the Apostles (Tarrytown, New York: Revell, 1924), 362-63.]

Attempts to exalt the role of James in order to minimize the role of Peter all go against the facts. The issue was whether Gentiles could become Christians without observance of the Jewish law. The issue already had been decided. God had revealed the answer to Peter. Peter acted on God's initiative. Humanly speaking, Peter had already made the decision. (Rulings of early Church councils always reflected decisions already made by one or more of the popes.)
James's role
What did James do? He repeated what Peter had already said. For reasons of his own he added to the council's instructions some judaizing elements (requirements about not eating meat sacrificed to idols, not consuming blood). What happened to Peter's decision? It became the law of the Church. What happened to James's additions? Scripture never mentions them again. The Church ignored them. In 1 Corinthians 8, written well after the council, Paul taught that whether one eats meat which has been sacrificed to idols is purely a prudential judgment.
[right][snapback]623774[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Acts 15: 19

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


Note: "It is my judgment, therefore...." Note: James' judgment, not Peter's. James was the leader of the community of the original disciples.

QED

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 26 2005, 09:43 AM']RESPONSE:

Acts 15: 19

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. "
Note: "It is my judgment, therefore...." Note:  James' judgment, not Peter's. James was the leader of the community of the original disciples.

QED 
[right][snapback]624258[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This was answerred in the article just cited James was giving his personal assent to the teaching of Peter. Peter, not James is repeatedly given primacy in the Scriptures, and is shown to be the leader of the Apostles. (See [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp"]complete article here.[/url].

There is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate James had authority or primacy over Peter. Peter was Pope, James bishop of Jerusalem.

Of course you will dismiss all this, LittleLes, as you routinely dismiss all other else which gives support to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Your arguments are all based on a priori assumption that the Church is false, and your bias is obvious to all. You've again proven nothing but your own prejudice.