You.
Peter did however settle the famous dispute in Jerusalem which saw turmoil in the Church until he stood and spoke giving the "doctrinal" understanding of gentiles, for which James gave "local" rules
Well, that's assuming that really happened. Besides, there was no doctrinal understanding of gentiles in what Jesus taught. We're told very clearly that it was an afterthought (Acts 13:46). That's about all the "doctrine" there was. Besides, the Church in Israel was dying...
What "extention" is that? I know of no "extention" for you to toss around like corner church theologian
I guess one has to be one to know one.
Postulating is not "teaching" but I wouldn't expect you to recognize the difference between rolling grain in ones hand, and "harvesting."
Mind over matter, pal, I don't mind and you don't matter to me. My pay is the same. But you are straying into ad hominem waters, pal. Being so angry isn't good for you.
So your argument is still from silence, and your definition of "heresy" is protestant except your totem is patristic instead of scriptural
Yes, silence because it did not exist. What are you going to say about that which doe snot exist? And heresy is by definition that which the Church does not teach.
After Acts 15, count how many times Peter's ministry is again emphasized. The count is ‘0’. Peter, being a minister to the circumcision (Galatians 2), fades in emphasis, while the emphasis on the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, expands.
That is because Israel was diminishing after their fall (Romans ch. 11), and the office of Paul was being magnified (same chapter). Peter, having a primary position with the Jews of Jerusalem, along with the other eleven “Apostles of the Lamb” (a reference to those who were called during our Lord's earthly ministry), would not be the one to expand the churches to the European sphere. That would be the work of Paul.
When Peter gets into a Gentile situation, he messes up, and has to be rebuked by the Apostle to the Gentiles.
Peter didn't settle anything in Jerusalem in Acts 15; he gave his testimony, which clearly stated that before the events of Acts 10, he was ignorant of the transitions taking place. This is not a negative statement, particularly, as Peter had been in obedience according to the revelation that he had from the Day of Pentecost, but he was without the advanced revelation being given by God to the Apostle Paul.
None of them knew that there would be a “Church Age,” much less one that would last for 2,000 years, and all of them were really expecting the return of Jesus Christ (Acts 3:19-21) in their life time as a consequence of Israel's repentance of the sin of having murdered their Messiah/King. Even Paul preached and was bound for “the hope of Israel,” not the Body of Christ, all the way to the end of the Acts history (Read Acts 28).
It was after the close of the Acts history, when the leaders representative of the dispersed Jews rejected Christ in finality, that it was clear to them that a definite change in order was taking (or had taken)place.
Ephesians ch. 3 — Now Paul is a prisoner for Gentiles, instead of being bound for the hope of Israel.
The mistake made is reading into the Acts history what we see today, and thinking it is the same thing. It is not.