The Council of Jerusalem . . .
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.พ. 2021
- For a topic of monumental importance for the future of Christianity, the Council of Jerusalem is often given only a cursory treatment by scholars and podcasters alike. Here, the Brothers reconstruct the council and flesh out the details.
Who was there? Where was it held? What were the arguments all about? And, finally, what was the resolution?
.
.
.
SOCIAL:
/ thecatholicb. .
/ thecatholic. .
/ thecathbros
NOW STREAMING ON ALL MAJOR PODCASTING PLATFORMS!
SEND US AN EMAIL WITH QUESTIONS OR TOPIC REQUESTS:
thecatholicbrothers@gmail.com
I've been studying the council of Jerusalem in detail. And your video is the only one I've watched that has found the same conclusion :).
I have found other videos on the subject, but they come to other conclusions and I just shake my head and think, "Read the text" lol.
You both come across so approachable, and knowledgable. Thank you for taking the time to share this :).
I am a Protestant and it doesn't really matter to me if I'm watching videos from my Catholic or Protestant brothers :). I appreciate you and we're all family in Jesus 🙏❤️.
Talking about how the councils go [ 21:21 ], we have half of that equation (talking about where most debates happen, which is modeled after an academic setting): there is no recanting! Whether it’s online or in person at an event, there’s this cliff hanging, half finished conclusion which is “you decide who wins” attitude, and not that God hasn’t used that, but we are definitely not empowering ourselves to remain there, keeps us divided I feel
What an interesting discussion! I couldn't stop watching. I really learned so much from this video.
watched several of your videos. Very, very good. Have learned many details that have been unanswered for decades by my own feeble research and from reviewing the writings of many modern church "experts". Clear, detailed, easy to follow your lines of reasoning and explanation. Breaking them into half hour segments might make them more accessible to a wider audience. Keep it up!
Daniel and I just talked about bringing the eps back down to ca. 30 mins ! Lol
Thank you for that feedback and for the really generous comments! Glad that the series has been helpful so far 👍🏻
Can't get enough of these videos!
Well done, and helpful information! Thank you!
Very insightful. Thank you for this
🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🕊🕊🕊💯🔥✝️✝️✝️✝️
Great video! I love your channel, guys. I just discovered it, but I’ve been watching through some of your videos and have been learning a lot. Keep it going!
Great to have you aboard, Sean, and thanks for the kind words!
Always brilliant.
Awesome discussion guys!
Hearing what you said here, 8:04, and contemplating on other work based religions, I can see why circumcision would be a stumbling block to what salvation truly entails verses the self righteous salvation works based salvation produces
Love these videos!
Thanks man! Spread the word ;)
Watched this on repeat.
This is great
Thanks for posting. Do you have any Jewish links (Jewish perspective) RE: this issue and the Judiezers? (Paul's letters to Galatians) thanks!
Nice ❤
There are other reasons Peter connected his dream to Gentile circumcision. One, it's the biggest issue dividing Christianity at the time and two, there is a upcoming Council meeting to discuss this issue. It has got to be the reason God showed him this dream.
I have enjoyed this video so far. Do you guys plan on possibly doing a video on Justification?
Thanks! Perhaps down the road. What, specifically, do you have in mind on the topic of justification that you would like to hear us cover?
@@TheCatholicBrothers Perhaps what Trent means by 'Increases in Justification,' Justification not merely being an imputation, and perhaps whether or not Church Fathers like St. John Chrysostom taught imputed righteousness.
But also support how Justification is a process rather than merely it being a legal declaration. You guys come from an Anglican background so I know y'all could slam dunk this lol
@@catholicgabe2876 haha I like it. I definitely see us naturally hitting this topic when we come to the Pelagian Controversy in our First 500 Years series. That will surely springboard us into all sorts of dialogue on grace and justification. 👍🏻
Why is this council not on any list i see when i look up lists for all catholic councils?
Because this was a council that took place among the actual apostles, so it’s not typically counted among the ecclesiastical (and ecumenical) councils.
Well, I have heard some Jewish believers say that if the Jerusalem counsel is looked at as a Sanhedrin then James would be the Nasi. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasi_%28Hebrew_title%29. I know as Catholics you have to believe Peter is the chief Apostle but is that what we read here?
Yes, it is. Peter is the lead apostle, both by the accounts of the Gospels, the account in Acts, the epistles, and the witness of the early Christian writers.
I have a question on verse 7. I think Peter here is the Pope. He is the one to decide. I see very little to connect his words to his baptising Cornelius, nor banned foods.
I think he speaks of his office.
I think it’s a both/and situation. To me, and to most scholars, it seems clear that he is referring to the vision and Cornelius incident that followed. But he was shown the vision and sent to Cornelius *because* he was leader of the apostles.
@@TheCatholicBrothers me too. I would like to think that the opposing side caved in to his authority, rather than, they 'finally accepted his opinion'. Because, we know it was getting really hot, seems like the Judeans and Pharisees were no slouches themselves and they defended their opinion well.
Peter's position (given by God) made the decision, for me.
I thought Catholics believed that those referred to as 'brothers' were actually cousins or some other relation?
Check out our episodes on James and the Jerusalem church.
Gentiles are grafted into Israel. True. We are saved by faith in Messiah. As for how we live? The scripture (Old Testament) instructs us. 2 Tim 3:16
I don't understand how you can conclude from the text that it is Peter's decision rather than James'. Galatians 2 reinforces the fact that Peter (and Barnabas) defer to James' authority, and Acts 21 portrays the same with regards to Paul.
I don’t know how you can conclude that James decides the issue when Peter is the one who speaks, after much debate, telling the assembly that to insist on circumcision would be to put God to the test, and once Peter has finished speaking, the assembly falls silent and yields the floor for Paul and Barnabas to recount how God had confirmed what Peter is deciding, and then James (who led the party that needed the most convincing) acquiesces *in reference to Peter’s speech* - “Simon has declared” (Acts 15:14-18) issues supplementary decrees for implementing the decision in a letter to the churches, and shows how there is actually provision in the Law for this, since the laws regarding resident aliens did not require circumcision but merely adherence to the Israelite sexual code, and certain dietary restrictions.
The language from James of “Therefore, I judge that we should not trouble….” is certainly not to be taken as James rendering the decision; it is James recognizing that Peter’s decision is correct. When James says “we should not trouble those…,” he is obviously not referring to the whole assembly (since at least half of the assembly was already in agreement with Peter and Paul), it is rather James referring to his own party in Jerusalem who had, theretofore, been of the mind that Gentiles needed to be circumcised.
The idea that James decided the issue is a very contorted reading of the account, IMO, and seems to be more influenced by prior ideological commitments to downplay Peter’s authority as leader of the apostles than it is by an unbiased, contextual reading of the narrative.
@@TheCatholicBrothers contextual reading makes me ask what you make of the fact that James speaks last in this meeting, or of the other textual references in my first comment? Do you feel that the word 'declared' is an accurate translation in 15:14?
In Gal 2, Paul says Peter acted out of fear. Says absolutely nothing about authority. We only hear Paul's side of the story too. Could Peter have had reasons of prudence to act as he did? Paul gives no indication he "won" the confrontation, as he does earlier regarding the council of Jerusalem.
You're gonna have to be more specific about what you are conjuring out of Acts 21.
@@tonyl3762 are you replying to me or to Kyle?
@@TheCatholicBrothers Kyle, not you. You responded very well to part of his comment. Thought I'd address the other parts. This is Catholic Tony L, not SDA tony, who I am tragically often confused for.