Posted on 03/30/2003 12:41:35 PM PST by NYer
By Stephen Hand
Back in 1999, on the 14th of May, according to the Patriarch of the Chaldeans, at the end of an audience between the Pope and some delegates of the Islamic Shiite and Sunni factions, the Pope bowed as “a sign of respect” toward a copy of the Koran which was presented to him as a gift. When the book was officially “presented to him,” the Pope, perhaps a bit perplexed concerning the appropriate protocol for such an official gesture, kissed it; again, as a “sign of respect toward the 34 million followers of Islam”. The event was reported by the Fides news service. It turned out to be more controversial a sign than the Pope and Vatican ever expected, since both Neomodernist and Integrist reactionaries pounced on it. The former to suggest that all religions were essentially one, and the latter to suggest that the Pope had, well, er, left the Faith.
Both, of course, were utterly wrong, and both---who are temperamentally and psychologically joined at the hip in not a few ways---refused to look long at the Church’s actual teachings, the texts which clearly explain what the Church’s attitude toward other religions is-----and is not.
It is the reaction of the latter which concerns us here.
Every religion, sadly, has its Pharisees, the ones who are more royal than the king, the (only) “true” believers. It is an attitude, a psychological type, which comes in degrees of severity and is tied up with legalism, a preference for the letter as opposed to the spirit of the law. What the Taliban is to Islam, Integrism approximately is to Catholicism.
Pharisees, thinking themselves the only true observers of the law, love to debate, to bait and trap the unwary victim, as they tried to do with our Lord on many an occasion. This attitude finds its logical completion in the Essenes who broke off entirely from the Temple (unlike Jesus, His Mother and St. Joseph) and fled to the desert proclaiming themselves the true temple, the remnant of Israel. They are, it is obvious, seldom aware of the pride which feeds such behavior or the logs in their own eyes.
In Catholicism, if the Neo-modernists are the Saducees, i.e., the rationalists who tend to doubt articles of Faith, then the Integrists are very clearly our modern Pharisees, the ones who fancy themselves the true interpreters of the “fathers” and of the letter of the law.
The Pharisee wants an easy, hyper-logical world, a world of airtight Yes-No compartments, where people are either “in” or “out”. In Our Lord’s day they considered Jesus lax with sinners and heathen, dubious in doctrine, fickle regarding the inviolable law. They viewed him with suspicion and ultimately felt he had to be removed altogether. They preferred a religion where the question of the "spirit," or the heart of the law----the ultimate telos / goal to which the law tends----was not welcome, despite the warnings of the major and minor prophets. For the Pharisee it is easy: The woman sinned against her husband? Stone her. The Pope kissed the Koran? Throw him out, follow the law. Such is the spirit of the Pharisee, then and now.
The Pharisee is more comfortable with executing judgment than mercy which is considered a complicating factor. He prefers a simple world where one always knows what to do. That makes debating easier; and our modern Pharisee loves to debate. He wakes up in the morning and aims straightway for the computer to either engage the debate or aid his fellows in it. His religion often exists in chat rooms or on email lists where he seeks to draw the first blood. Mercy is like an ‘X’ in the equation of justice and makes the Pharisee uncomfortable. Just the same with love and the kind of religion as described in Isaiah 58 or Matt 5-7. Such concepts complicate their neat rule book (though most of these guys have never been trained in Catholic theology and hermeneutics).
The Pope Kissed the Koran
The Pope kissed the Koran. Our new version Pharisee immediately salivates. He is ready to pounce and add such an indictable emblem to his files. And what does it prove? That the Pope is a secret Muslim maybe? That the Pope doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ maybe? That the Pope is a relativist, perhaps? A syncretist for sure? That all religions are one in the Pope’s mind? The Pope also kisses the ground upon landing in various countries on pastoral visits. A secret pantheist?
The Pope, of course, teaches the very opposite everywhere. The facts are well known, if one would take the time to learn. Yet the Pharisee has a penchant for turning ones eyes from anything that will reveal his opinion to be an absurdity. Even authoritative texts matter little if they can be simply brushed under the rug of bigotry.
Yet facts are stubborn. The gesture of the Pope by no means indicates syncretism, relativism, or anything of the sort. Cynical Integrists simply seek to make hay of it, as they do of everything else. It is the way of the Pharisee. That way they sell their papers to the gullible. They would rather not believe that the kiss was merely a gesture, as one would bow before a king, or a President, or even kiss the Pope’s ring. They would rather put the worst and most absurd construction on it, like with everything else. Had they been there they would have sent the Three Wise Men---heathens---packing; the Roman Centurion whom our Lord helped too (pagan). And the good Samaritan would have been viewed very simply as a dismal heretic. I know rigroist Feeneyites who must first baptise (in their minds) the good thief on the Cross before they will concur with our Lord's pronouncement concerning him. Legalism...
I adduce the following texts, from innumerable others, not for debate, but to show those confused by them that the Pope’s teaching is nothing like the accusations and framing of the Integrists.
For the Holy Father, dialogue does not substitute for evangelism/mission, but is a part of that mission of evangelism, divorced from neither love nor truth.
The emphasis is mine throughout below.
NOSTRA AETATE
2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense. Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)
55. Inter-religious dialogue is a part of the Church's evangelizing mission. Understood as a method and means of mutual knowledge and enrichment, dialogue is not in opposition to the mission ad gentes; indeed, it has special links with that mission and is one of its expressions . This mission, in fact, is addressed to those who do not know Christ and his Gospel, and who belong for the most part to other religions. In Christ, God calls all peoples to himself and he wishes to share with them the fullness of his revelation and love. He does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression, even when they contain "gaps, insufficiencies and errors."(98) All of this has been given ample emphasis by the Council and the subsequent Magisterium, without detracting in any way from the fact that salvation comes from Christ and that dialogue does not dispense from evangelization.(99)
In the light of the economy of salvation, the Church sees no conflict between proclaiming Christ and engaging in interreligious dialogue. Instead, she feels the need to link the two in the context of her mission ad gentes . These two elements must maintain both their intimate connection and their distinctiveness ; therefore they should not be confused, manipulated or regarded as identical, as though they were interchangeable
CDF’s Dominus Iesus: See CDF document here
4. The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability — while recognizing the distinction — of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church.
6. Therefore, the theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be complementary to that found in other religions, is contrary to the Church's faith. Such a position would claim to be based on the notion that the truth about God cannot be grasped and manifested in its globality and completeness by any historical religion, neither by Christianity nor by Jesus Christ.
7. ...Thus, theological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance.
Most critical to our concern:
8. The hypothesis of the inspired value of the sacred writings of other religions is also put forward. Certainly, it must be recognized that there are some elements in these texts which may be de facto instruments by which countless people throughout the centuries have been and still are able today to nourish and maintain their life-relationship with God. Thus, as noted above, the Second Vatican Council, in considering the customs, precepts, and teachings of the other religions, teaches that “although differing in many ways from her own teaching, these nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”.23
The Church's tradition, however, reserves the designation of inspired texts to the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, since these are inspired by the Holy Spirit.24 Taking up this tradition, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council states: “For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 20:31; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself”.25 These books “firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures”.26
Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'”.27 Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.
It is very clear, then, that neither the Pope nor Vatican II promotes doctrinal relativism, much less syncretism. This is why the neo-modernists consider the Pope a veritable inquisition. They can read. Yet the joyless Integrist can be counted on to always put the worst possible construction on any event or text (even if they usually prefer to simply ignore than compare texts). Thus they alleviate some of their anxiety for airtight security, even if it means fleeing from the vulnerability and suffering of the cross in our time. The Integrist is never so gleeful as when in [the diversion of] debate. Those of us who have known them intimately consider this one of their most striking and constant characteristics. To debate them is to feed their pride. Better to sincerely pray for them often. It is tragic beyond words when truth itself is inconsequential to the act of debating.
The Church, then, rejects nothing which is good, true or holy in other religions, but condemns all syncretistic theology as it did with Frs. Anthony de Mello's and Tissa Balasuriya's writings; see also the CDF's warnings to the bishops of India regarding syncretism and erroneous christologies; also its warnings about eastern meditation, etc.
I think we are looking at it from different perspectives. I see it as good works shows your faith.
This is what James says ... and I agree.
You see it as faith will bring forth good works.
This is what Paul says ... and I agree.
These two viewpoints do not contradict one another.
The only problem with that is that faith may not necessarily bring forth good works. The dead faith that James speaks of.
True faith in God will always result in good works. False faith (or dead faith ... as James puts it) is good for nothing.
Such false, dead faith is not what is being addressed here.
Paul said that we are not saved by works. He was constantly urging his fellow believers to good works in Christ. To have read his letters is to know that. Surely you have done so.Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.JESUS also said the following ...John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, ... that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but will have everlasting life.So, there you have it. You can either attempt to keep the commandments (*perfectly) ... or ... you can believe in JESUS.
17 For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world, through Him, might be saved.
18 He that believeth in Him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Which do you think that you can do ?
* James also said that, even if you only break one commandment, you are guilty of breaking the whole Law. (James 2:10)
God clearly says to love both Him and your neighbor.
The first four of the Ten Commandments can be thought of as an elaboration of God's command for us to love Him (i.e. no other gods before me, no idols, do not use My Name in vain, remember the Sabbath).
Likewise, the last six of the Ten Commandments can be thought of as an elaboration of God's command for us to love our neighbor (i.e. do not kill, do not steal, honor your parents, do not commit adultery, do not covet, do not bear false withness against thy neighbor).
God commands us to do both ... to love Him ... and to love our neighbor.
It is not enough to do one or the other.
That I obeyed God rather than man. By obeying his commandments, and doing the works asked of me, my love and respect for him is shown. And I have 'faith' that he is telling me the truth, to follow his 'way'.
Paul is a man. God commanded that we obey his commandments. (the law) The Holy Ghost is given to those that OBEY God, not those that obey Paul.
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Is it backed up by the Old Testament?
Deuteronomy 12
32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Deuteronomy 13
4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
Now, here is an interesting verse which comprises several things that I have mentioned earlier.
Judges 2:17
And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.
Their fathers obeyed the commandments and thus walked in 'the way'.
Jeremiah 7:23
But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
Yep. Obedience to God's commandments of 'the way' are backed up in the Old Testament.
This is the point.
God allowed His only Son to die to make it possible for you to avoid having to pay for your sins yourself.
No matter how many good works you (or anyone else) does, you cannot do enough to balance out the non-acknowledgement of the death of the only begotten Son of God.
JESUS' death, and thus, His unique identity, must be acknowledged or you will die in your sins."I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM He, you shall die in your sins" (John 8:24).That's JESUS, by the way.
Are you saying that Jesus and James disagree with Moses?
No, I am not saying that JESUS and James disagree with Moses. If you prayerfully study what they are saying ... you will see that they are all in agreement.
Prayerful study ... that's the ticket!
Oddly enough, John also says, just a few verses later:
John 3:36 :: New Living Translation
36And all who believe in God's Son have eternal life. Those who don't obey the Son will never experience eternal life, but the wrath of God remains upon them."
John 3:36 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)
36 "He who (1) believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who (2) does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
John 3:36 :: English Standard Version (ESV)
36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
The Kind James Version doesn't use the word OBEY. but, there are versions that do.
As for breakin one, means breaking all, there is thing out there.... it's called repentence. And quite often it is paired with 'and sin no more'. The thing is, that we should be trying.
Since you brought up the Sabbath, can you tell me what verse, God changed the Sabbath. Where did God change this commandment?
Deuteronomy 12
32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Then why did you pick Paul instead?
I make no claim that God has changed His Sabbath. There is no Biblical support for such that I know of.
I did not pick Paul. My position has been that they all (JESUS, Moses, Paul and James) teach the same truth ... from different perspectives perhaps.
Doesn't Paul tell us that the law is dead?
Not that I'm aware of.
Paul does teach that the Law cannot save us ... for we cannot keep it.
Oh, that's right, he says it can't lead to eternal life, even though Jesus tells us it does.
JESUS did not say that following the Law would yield (for us) eternal life.
Rather, JESUS, when approached by those wishing to know the way to eternal life, answered with the only answer that was available at the time ... obey the Law. Didn't mean that one could actually successfully travel this path, ... only that it was the only way.
This was not a declaration that any attempt to follow the Law could actually result in eternal life, only that following the Law was the only way which currently existed.
All of this was, of course, prior to JESUS' sacrificial death on the cross, for, once this was accomplished, there was another way to gain eternal life ... through JESUS and the power of His sacrifice.
To be fair, JESUS spoke of this way (i.e. I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life ... Noone comes to the Father but by Me) also to those whom He chose.
Paul simply taught from the perspective of the sacrificial death of JESUS having already occurred.
And now a question for you ... If we can gain eternal life by keeping the Law, ... why did JESUS have to die ?
Paul simply taught from the perspective of the sacrificial death of JESUS having already occurred.
Hosea 6
6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
I seem to recall certain 'heathens' being castigated (Aztec? Maya?) for human sacrifices.
Numbers 23
19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
The Jews do not believe that God can be a man.
Were there those among the people that thought he lied? That thought he didn't make good on this prophecy?
Mark 9
1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Matthew 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mark 1:15
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
At hand implies imminent. The people may have felt that as month after month after month passed, that this was a failed prophecy.
20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
However, he also taught on the "mount" (5:1-7:28), by the sea (Matthew 13:1), on the plain (Luke 6:17-49)
Mark 4
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Not exactly 'openly', if it is done in a 'coded' manner. And then there is:
John 7:8-10
8 "Go up yourselves to the festival. I am not going up to this festival because the time is not yet ripe for me."
9 Having said this, he stayed on in Galilee.
10 However, once his brothers had gone up to the festival he too went up, but as if in secret and not for anyone to see.
The people may have thought that he was a false prophet.
Deuteronomy 13:1-5
1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
This may have been seen by the people as violating God's commandment pertaining to their dietary laws, turning them away from God.
Mark 7:18-19
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
So, he may have been 'despised' by the people, the people would have thought they were doing what they had been told to do by God according to scripture, regarding someone they thought was a false prophet.
Deuteronomy 21
Various Laws
22 If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree,
23 you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Now, that is from the Jewish perspective. Now, let's look at the Roman perspective. King of the Jews. Was Jesus seen as someone that was trying to usurp Roman power? Jews mostly stoned people, particularly for acts they considered blasphemy. Crucifixtion was basically a Roman death used for those considered traitors.
Since the Romans wouldn't have cared if Jesus had blasphemed (they did it all the time) it is more than likely that the Romans considered him a threat.
Who were the victors of the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD? The victors get to write or re-write history.
As I mentioned in a much earlier post. James was the successor of Jesus, not Peter. So, why are we told that it was Peter? Why is Peter listed as the first pope, reigning from 32AD-67AD, BUT James isn't assassinated until 62AD.
Yet, in Galatians it is plain that James is in charge. So, what's up with Peter supposedly being pope in 32AD?????
Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History
http://biblefacts.org/ecf/cvol1/euseb_b2.html
Book II
CHAPTER I.
The Course pursued by the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ. First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias, who, as has been shown was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to the apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate, for the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom Stephen was one. He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been promoted for this very purpose. And thus he was the first to receive the crown, corresponding to his name, which belongs to the martyrs of Christ. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, "was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together," as the account of the holy Gospels shows. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Savior, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."
In Galatians 2:1-10, Paul gives more information about the pre-eminence of James in the confrontation in Antioch that follows his discussion of what transpired in Jerusalem in regard to 'the Gospel as he proclaimed it among the Gentiles.'
This event is also called the Jerusalem Council, and its parrallel is in Acts 15.
Acts15
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Galatians 2:6,9
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
Paul must have forgotten about this part:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
James was the successor of Jesus. James was the Leader of the Jerusalem Community (Assembly) and of the Church as a whole. James was the Head of Christianity of his day, whatever this may have been said to be. Bishop of Jerusalem is not simply one among equals, but the leader. This is why Paul resented James so much, and it is why James sent others to spy on Paul. And this is why Peter left the table at Antioch. If Peter had been 'in charge', why feel guilty about breaking table fellowship with gentiles? Answer, because James was in charge and Head of the Church
Galatians 2
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
The left because James who was in authority sent people to check up on things in Antioch, and they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar so to speak.
Notice how Paul refers to them:
"But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:"
Very vague... those who seemed to be somewhat... whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me... These were the Pillars and Paul doesn't care who they seem or whatever they were! LOL
Perhaps you could point us to the verse that commands the Sabbath to the church and the changing of the day to Sunday?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.