Then show the history. But to do that, you would have to show that Christ installed Peter as head of the Church - which all other denominations deny.
Based on scripture and history, I deny it as well. Acts 15:
“12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up...19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”
Interesting. Peter was there, yet it was James who made the decision, based on testimony from Paul & Peter both.
It would seem history denies Peter was Numero Uno in the Church.
“Then show the history. But to do that, you would have to show that Christ installed Peter as head of the Church - which all other denominations deny.
Based on scripture and history, I deny it as well. Acts 15:
“12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up...19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”
Interesting. Peter was there, yet it was James who made the decision, based on testimony from Paul & Peter both.
It would seem history denies Peter was Numero Uno in the Church.”
In Acts 12:17, Peter had fled Jerusalem “for another place” (which Tradition tells us is Rome — both Eusebius and Jerome count Peter’s episcopacy in Rome from this time, which was AD 42). However, the Council of Jerusalem took place in AD 49 and, strangely enough, Peter just happens to be there having disappeared from the narrative of Acts since chapter 12. Why so? Well, as we know from Seutonius, all the Jews were expelled from Rome by Emperor Claudius in AD 49 (same year as the Jerusalem council) and their expulsion was because of a riot over someone named “Chrestus” (i.e., “Christus” or Christ).
So, Peter was among the refugees which is why he was back in Jerusalem (thereafter to go on to Antioch, after the Council, and then back to Rome after Claudius’ death, when Jews could return).
Yes, Peter was at the Council. And, here’s how the Council operated:
“The apostles and presbyters met together to see about the matter. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them....”
And Peter’s teaching on the matter is conveyed through the next several verses. Thereafter, when Peter finishes, it says:
“The whole assembly FELL SILENT...” (That is, the other Apostles and presbyters) ... “...and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.”
So, did the Jerusalem Council operate like the Orthodox model of an Ecumenical council? Or rather like the Catholic model? Here’s how it worked:
The bishops met to examine the matter. They debated.
Then, Peter — after listening to the debate — gave HIS TEACHING (vox Petros).
After this, the Council FALLS SILENT (a la, the Tome of Leo).
Then, Paul and Barnabas were permitted to tell about their first missionary journey so as to back up Peter’s teaching with signs from the Holy Spirit.
And, thereafter, James gives a ruling. And, this is the only thing that seems unCatholic to some.
However, whereas it does say (in verse 13) how Paul and Barnabas “fall silent,” allowing James to respond, this does not take away from the entire assembly “falling silent” after Peter’s teaching in verse 12. Why? Because we are dealing with 2 Greek words. In 13, the verb is “sigesai” (infinitive aorist: meaning that Paul and Barnabas finished talking). In verse 12, it’s “esigese” (past tense aorist usage — meaning that the assembly REMAINED SILENT after Peter’s address). And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled.
So, why does James speak?
He’s the bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was just a visitor.
What he says, he ...like Paul and Barnabas ...ties into Peter’s declaration: “Brothers, listen to me. SYMEON has described how God...” etc.
And, most importantly, because James was the leader of the Church’s “Jewish wing.” Remember, in verse 1 and 2 how Acts 15 describes:
“Some who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.’
They were coming FROM JAMES! They were HIS disciples! Therefore, he renders judgment on the matter for his Jewish party, not as a superior or equal of Peter.
And, this is most clear in verse 19, where it says:
“It is my judgement, therefore, that WE ought to STOP TROUBLING THE GENTILES.”
Who was “troubling” the Gentiles?
Not Paul and Barnabas.
Not Peter and his disciples, who Baptised the first Gentiles without circumcision.
So, who?
ONLY the Jewish Christians under James. Therefore, it is NOT the whole Church, but only the “Jewish party” that James is giving a “judgment” to...
So again, the Council of Jerusalem was not an Ecumenical Council by Byzantine Orthodox definition. Rather, it was COMPLETELY based on the Petrine teaching office: the magisterium of the Church.
That statement is both true and flawed. First the flaw. It is false to say "other denominations" since the Catholic Church is not a denomination. That nomenclature is used to distinguish one protestant sect from another.
Second: of course they deny it! Doesn't mean much, but they'd hardly be proper protestants if they didn't protest against the Pope, Christ's Vicar on Earth.