The Gospel Verses Religion

[timothyu]

I wanna know who had the Wise Men going to the stable? Why is this perpetuated in nativity scenes?

 

[Daniel Peres]

This was nonsense when you posted it in the other thread.
However, We can put this to the test.

Sorry for the delayed response, but I had a health issue.

This post may seem a little long, but I assure you that you will find it very informative. I doubt you will join the Catholic Church, but if you are honest, you will conclude that you are wrong about the papacy in the early church.

Now, I do commend you for basing your beliefs by considering so many facts. However, you are missing several relevant facts, and you also choose to ignore others.

As for Constantine, and the Roman Empire’s relationship with the Papacy, I don’t condemn you for your errors. Most scholars and even Catholic Apologists are also very ignorant on this issue. This is probably due to intellectual laziness.

As for you your ignorance about scripture and the Council of Jerusalem, I do hold you accountable. You clearly consider yourself a devout Christian that loves scripture, and yet you don’t seem to know scripture very well on this issue. So I’ll start with this issue first.

The first council of the Church is recorded in Acts 15. With few exceptions, all of Christendom accepts this Council's decision. We don't know exactly who called for it, implications are it was Paul and Barnabas and it was presided over by James who was Bishop in Jerusalem. This does not fit your declaration above. In order to fit your model, it would have been Cephas/Peter who convoked the Council and/or presided over it. Neither is the case, yet we accept it.

As for who called the Council, it is certainly true that there are no New Testament verses that says anything like, “So-and-so called the council.” However, there are certainly facts that make it clear that neither Paul nor Barnabas called the council, and others that seem as if only Peter could have called the Council, and still others that indicate that Peter had already made his decision about Judaizing prior to the Council even commencing. I will also point out that, contrary to your belief, James did not preside over the council, although he clearly was the host.

Let’s start with the “alleged” possibility that Paul or Barnabas convened the Council. If you look at Acts 15:2, there is no doubt that neither Paul nor Barnabas called the council. This verse clearly states that Paul and Barnabas, “were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders.”

Furthermore, even if Paul or Barnabas had called for the Council, who would have answered their calls? It’s not like either one of them was one of the Twelve Apostles. In fact, according to you, no Christian had authority over other Christians.

Another fact you are ignoring, is the fact that Peter had already made his decision about Judaizing the Gentiles prior to the Council. His decision to put an end to Judaizing came as a result of a vision he received from the Holy Spirit, the details of which are provided in Acts 10:9-16. In the vision, Peter is instructed by the Holy Spirit with the following words. “What God has made clean; you must not call profane.”

The very next day after his vision, Peter arrived in Caesarea, where he was met by a non-Jewish man called Cornelius. The two then joined a group of men that had already been assembled. Because of the instruction he had received from the Holy Spirit in his vision, Peter, with authority, declared to all the men gathered, “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.” (Acts 10:28)

Once the Council of Jerusalem commenced, I have no reason to doubt that Peter declared his vision from the Holy Spirt to the others in attendance. How could anyone believe that Peter wouldn’t have shared his wonderful vision with the others. Not only would it have been selfish, but it would also have been unjust of him to not share the vision so the others could consider the details of the vision in their debates. Moreover, one can be sure that the others did consider Peter’s vision if they believed him. I sincerely doubt that any of the Apostles and Elders present at the Council would have doubted the vision’s veracity.

As indicated in Acts 15:7, the Apostles and Elders engaged in “much debate,” probably over Peter’s vision. However, the debate came to an immediate end when Peter stood up and that Judaizing contradicted their belief that the circumcised Jews will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as the Gentiles will.

And I am not just saying that it was Peter’s personal authority being demonstrated here. No, the Apostles and Elders fully believed that this decision was based on the guidance Peter had received from the Holy Spirit in his vision. This is no different than what Catholics currently believe about a pope’s infallible declaration (limited to matters regarding faith and morals of course) that the popes are guided by the Holy Spirit.

It is certainly true that Paul, Barnabas, and even James spoke after Peter’s declaration. But their words seem to be more words confirming Peter’s decision. They could not have been part of the debate since scripture is very clear that debate had ended. In fact, their words didn’t seem to be directed to the Council as a whole, but rather to James’ disciples who had twisted what they had been taught by James.

The next fact, that I’m sure you won’t like, that shows that Peter convened the Council can be found in Matthew 16:19. Immediately following Peter’s declaration that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus responded by giving Peter, “The keys of the Kingdom.” You can ignore this fact, but it is a fact, and it’s not insignificant, unless you are one of those Christians that likes to declare certain verses to be insignificant.

In order to understand the significance of Jesus giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter, you just need to read Isaiah 22:20-25. When you read Isaiah 22:20-25, it becomes very clear what Jesus intended by giving Peter the keys to the kingdom.

Jesus, as the new Jewish Messiah, just repeated what all the messiahs of the Old Testament did, when they named their second in command. Isaiah 22:21 even describes the holder of the keys to the kingdom as, “a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.” Just as this verse describes the holder of the keys of the kingdom, as a father to the entire kingdom, the Catholic Church refers to the person in the Petrine office as Pope, which means father.

Based on Matthew 16:19, and Isaiah 22:20-25, there was simply no other person who had authority over everyone in the Church, other than the Messiah Jesus, of course. But Protestant and Eastern Orthodox theologies render the keys to the kingdom as worthless; simply a waste of ink and writing space.

Let's move on to the 7 Ecumenical Councils accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Churches and by the Latin Church.

First Council of Nicaea (325) which was convoked by Emperor Constantine I and presided over by Hosius of Cordoba. This is an important council and again, All of Christendom (with few exceptions) accept this council. It was neither convoked by nor presided over by a Pope of Rome, yet we accept it.

Let’s move on to the second century and Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons…

Irenaeus learned his Christian theology from Polycarp, who in turned learned from John the Apostle, as well as others who had personally witnessed Jesus’ teaching. Irenaeus was very clear that there was and always had been a pope. Why would he lie?

In his book, Against Heresies, Irenaeus divides Christians into two categories, the Trinitarian, and the non-Trinitarian (which had their own scriptures). One of his arguments for the legitimacy of Trinitarian Christianity was the fact that it was in union with the pope, and this union could be traced back to Peter. I think it is very significant that Irenaeus never mentions any Trinitarian Christians who are not in union with the pope. The reason for this is obvious. All Trinitarian Christians were in union with the pope!

Now let’s go to the third century. In his “Church history,” Eusebius describes an incident in the Church at Antioch, where a heretical man had become Bishop. His name was Paul of Samosata. Something had to be done. Can you guess what that was? The church wrote a letter to Pope Dionysius asking for his help in getting rid of the heretic bishop. Gee, I wonder why they contacted the pope in Rome?

Anyway, the Pope convened the other Italian bishops and it was declared that Paul was no longer bishop of Antioch, and the true bishop was now Domnus.

Unfortunately, heretics don’t like to obey the Pope, so Paul refused to leave the Bishop’s house in Antioch. So, they asked Roman Emperor Aurelian for help. Guess what? The emperor declared that all church property in Antioch belonged to the bishop in union with Rome. This was years before Constantine made Christianity legal.

No let’s go to pre-Nicene 3rd century. Consider these facts:

1. You claim that Constantine did not recognize the Pope as the supreme leader of the Catholic Church. If this is true, then why did Constantine, shortly after taking control of the entire Roman Empire, give the Lateran Palace as a gift to Pope Miltiades, the place the popes would come to call their personal residence. Now it seems to me that if Constantine didn’t recognize the pope as the Church’s leader, he should have gifted a palace to his friend and personal Christian advisor, Hosius.
2. Before the council of Nicaea, Constantine, together with the assistance of Hosius, tried to deal with the Arian controversy on their own. In Eusebius’ “Life of Constantine” he even gives the details of a letter written by Constantine, and delivered by Hosius, to Alexander (Bishop of Alexandria) and the priest Arias. In this letter Constantine acknowledges that he does not have the authority to convene even a local council, and he couldn’t even convene one through military force. Yet you insist that Constantine called the Council of Nicaea. How can that be if Constantine admitted he had no such authority?
3. Constantine did not even want an Ecumenical council. You see, Constantine had a modern Protestant belief that Christians just had to believe in the “essentials,” and Constantine didn’t believe Jesus’ divinity was an essential part of the faith. He was worried that to make a universal decision on the issue would cause a schism.

Now on to the Council of Nicaea:

1. Now, in a way you could say Constantine did indirectly call the Council of Nicaea. He did, after all, have jurisdiction over the peace in the empire, and the Arian controversy was a disturbance in the peace. Therefore, you could say he told the pope to take care of the problem. However, the actual order that convened the council was from the pope. It’s like the chain of command in the U.S. Military. The president is the commander in chief, but the military gets its orders from the secretary of state.
2. As already stated above, Hosius did not have power to solve the Arian problem. However, he did preside over the council, but he did so as the pope’s authorized representative.
3. Another interesting thing about the Council was the determination of the status as second most important city in the Catholic Church. It had always been Antioch. However, the newly formed Patriarchate of Constantinople wanted to be declared the second most important city. Antioch won maintained its position. Why? Because it was Peter’s first church.
4. Modern day patriarchate of Constantinople now considers itself as supreme, above Rome. The funny thing is that it was established by the pope. In fact, the first Patriarch of Constantinople was consecrated by the pope.

 

[Der Alte]

I wanna know who had the Wise Men going to the stable? Why is this perpetuated in nativity scenes?

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,​

...​

Matthew 2:8-12​

(8) And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.​

(9) When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.​

(10) When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.​

(11) And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.​

(12) And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.​

 

[FenderTL5]

Sorry for the delayed response, but I had a health issue.

This post may seem a little long, but I assure you that you will find it very informative. I doubt you will join the Catholic Church, but if you are honest, you will conclude that you are wrong about the papacy in the early church.

Now, I do commend you for basing your beliefs by considering so many facts. However, you are missing several relevant facts, and you also choose to ignore others.

As for Constantine, and the Roman Empire’s relationship with the Papacy, I don’t condemn you for your errors. Most scholars and even Catholic Apologists are also very ignorant on this issue. This is probably due to intellectual laziness.

As for you your ignorance about scripture and the Council of Jerusalem, I do hold you accountable. You clearly consider yourself a devout Christian that loves scripture, and yet you don’t seem to know scripture very well on this issue. So I’ll start with this issue first.



As for who called the Council, it is certainly true that there are no New Testament verses that says anything like, “So-and-so called the council.” However, there are certainly facts that make it clear that neither Paul nor Barnabas called the council, and others that seem as if only Peter could have called the Council, and still others that indicate that Peter had already made his decision about Judaizing prior to the Council even commencing. I will also point out that, contrary to your belief, James did not preside over the council, although he clearly was the host.

Let’s start with the “alleged” possibility that Paul or Barnabas convened the Council. If you look at Acts 15:2, there is no doubt that neither Paul nor Barnabas called the council. This verse clearly states that Paul and Barnabas, “were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders.”

Furthermore, even if Paul or Barnabas had called for the Council, who would have answered their calls? It’s not like either one of them was one of the Twelve Apostles. In fact, according to you, no Christian had authority over other Christians.

Another fact you are ignoring, is the fact that Peter had already made his decision about Judaizing the Gentiles prior to the Council. His decision to put an end to Judaizing came as a result of a vision he received from the Holy Spirit, the details of which are provided in Acts 10:9-16. In the vision, Peter is instructed by the Holy Spirit with the following words. “What God has made clean; you must not call profane.”

The very next day after his vision, Peter arrived in Caesarea, where he was met by a non-Jewish man called Cornelius. The two then joined a group of men that had already been assembled. Because of the instruction he had received from the Holy Spirit in his vision, Peter, with authority, declared to all the men gathered, “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.” (Acts 10:28)

Once the Council of Jerusalem commenced, I have no reason to doubt that Peter declared his vision from the Holy Spirt to the others in attendance. How could anyone believe that Peter wouldn’t have shared his wonderful vision with the others. Not only would it have been selfish, but it would also have been unjust of him to not share the vision so the others could consider the details of the vision in their debates. Moreover, one can be sure that the others did consider Peter’s vision if they believed him. I sincerely doubt that any of the Apostles and Elders present at the Council would have doubted the vision’s veracity.

As indicated in Acts 15:7, the Apostles and Elders engaged in “much debate,” probably over Peter’s vision. However, the debate came to an immediate end when Peter stood up and that Judaizing contradicted their belief that the circumcised Jews will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as the Gentiles will.

And I am not just saying that it was Peter’s personal authority being demonstrated here. No, the Apostles and Elders fully believed that this decision was based on the guidance Peter had received from the Holy Spirit in his vision. This is no different than what Catholics currently believe about a pope’s infallible declaration (limited to matters regarding faith and morals of course) that the popes are guided by the Holy Spirit.

It is certainly true that Paul, Barnabas, and even James spoke after Peter’s declaration. But their words seem to be more words confirming Peter’s decision. They could not have been part of the debate since scripture is very clear that debate had ended. In fact, their words didn’t seem to be directed to the Council as a whole, but rather to James’ disciples who had twisted what they had been taught by James.

The next fact, that I’m sure you won’t like, that shows that Peter convened the Council can be found in Matthew 16:19. Immediately following Peter’s declaration that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus responded by giving Peter, “The keys of the Kingdom.” You can ignore this fact, but it is a fact, and it’s not insignificant, unless you are one of those Christians that likes to declare certain verses to be insignificant.

In order to understand the significance of Jesus giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter, you just need to read Isaiah 22:20-25. When you read Isaiah 22:20-25, it becomes very clear what Jesus intended by giving Peter the keys to the kingdom.

Jesus, as the new Jewish Messiah, just repeated what all the messiahs of the Old Testament did, when they named their second in command. Isaiah 22:21 even describes the holder of the keys to the kingdom as, “a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.” Just as this verse describes the holder of the keys of the kingdom, as a father to the entire kingdom, the Catholic Church refers to the person in the Petrine office as Pope, which means father.

Based on Matthew 16:19, and Isaiah 22:20-25, there was simply no other person who had authority over everyone in the Church, other than the Messiah Jesus, of course. But Protestant and Eastern Orthodox theologies render the keys to the kingdom as worthless; simply a waste of ink and writing space.



Let’s move on to the second century and Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons…

Irenaeus learned his Christian theology from Polycarp, who in turned learned from John the Apostle, as well as others who had personally witnessed Jesus’ teaching. Irenaeus was very clear that there was and always had been a pope. Why would he lie?

In his book, Against Heresies, Irenaeus divides Christians into two categories, the Trinitarian, and the non-Trinitarian (which had their own scriptures). One of his arguments for the legitimacy of Trinitarian Christianity was the fact that it was in union with the pope, and this union could be traced back to Peter. I think it is very significant that Irenaeus never mentions any Trinitarian Christians who are not in union with the pope. The reason for this is obvious. All Trinitarian Christians were in union with the pope!

Now let’s go to the third century. In his “Church history,” Eusebius describes an incident in the Church at Antioch, where a heretical man had become Bishop. His name was Paul of Samosata. Something had to be done. Can you guess what that was? The church wrote a letter to Pope Dionysius asking for his help in getting rid of the heretic bishop. Gee, I wonder why they contacted the pope in Rome?

Anyway, the Pope convened the other Italian bishops and it was declared that Paul was no longer bishop of Antioch, and the true bishop was now Domnus.

Unfortunately, heretics don’t like to obey the Pope, so Paul refused to leave the Bishop’s house in Antioch. So, they asked Roman Emperor Aurelian for help. Guess what? The emperor declared that all church property in Antioch belonged to the bishop in union with Rome. This was years before Constantine made Christianity legal.

No let’s go to pre-Nicene 3rd century. Consider these facts:

1. You claim that Constantine did not recognize the Pope as the supreme leader of the Catholic Church. If this is true, then why did Constantine, shortly after taking control of the entire Roman Empire, give the Lateran Palace as a gift to Pope Miltiades, the place the popes would come to call their personal residence. Now it seems to me that if Constantine didn’t recognize the pope as the Church’s leader, he should have gifted a palace to his friend and personal Christian advisor, Hosius.
2. Before the council of Nicaea, Constantine, together with the assistance of Hosius, tried to deal with the Arian controversy on their own. In Eusebius’ “Life of Constantine” he even gives the details of a letter written by Constantine, and delivered by Hosius, to Alexander (Bishop of Alexandria) and the priest Arias. In this letter Constantine acknowledges that he does not have the authority to convene even a local council, and he couldn’t even convene one through military force. Yet you insist that Constantine called the Council of Nicaea. How can that be if Constantine admitted he had no such authority?
3. Constantine did not even want an Ecumenical council. You see, Constantine had a modern Protestant belief that Christians just had to believe in the “essentials,” and Constantine didn’t believe Jesus’ divinity was an essential part of the faith. He was worried that to make a universal decision on the issue would cause a schism.

Now on to the Council of Nicaea:

1. Now, in a way you could say Constantine did indirectly call the Council of Nicaea. He did, after all, have jurisdiction over the peace in the empire, and the Arian controversy was a disturbance in the peace. Therefore, you could say he told the pope to take care of the problem. However, the actual order that convened the council was from the pope. It’s like the chain of command in the U.S. Military. The president is the commander in chief, but the military gets its orders from the secretary of state.
2. As already stated above, Hosius did not have power to solve the Arian problem. However, he did preside over the council, but he did so as the pope’s authorized representative.
3. Another interesting thing about the Council was the determination of the status as second most important city in the Catholic Church. It had always been Antioch. However, the newly formed Patriarchate of Constantinople wanted to be declared the second most important city. Antioch won maintained its position. Why? Because it was Peter’s first church.
4. Modern day patriarchate of Constantinople now considers itself as supreme, above Rome. The funny thing is that it was established by the pope. In fact, the first Patriarch of Constantinople was consecrated by the pope.

First, I pray and trust that your health has improved.


Your post is long and somewhat informative, however it does nothing to change the issue at hand.
I responded to your comment, "only the bishop of Rome has the authority to convene an ecumenical council.."
This is not true.
I gave several examples where this is not true. example:
Second Council of Constantinople 553, it was not convoked by the Pope, nor did the Pope even attend.
When one gives an absolute, as you did, it only takes one example to prove the error and I gave several.

As for the first council in Acts 15. You went to great lengths to ignore the text of Acts 15.
You said, "the debate came to an immediate end when Peter stood up.." as if that was the end of discussion.
After Peter rose up the following takes place:

12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had mworked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had 3become silent, nJames answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 oSimon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘After pthis I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the 4Lord who does all these things.’
18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works. 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who rare turning to God, 20 but that we swrite to them to abstain tfrom things polluted by idols, ufrom 6sexual immorality, vfrom things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, wbeing read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

Verse 19 is clear that the decision/judgement was made by James. James was more than mere host, he was responsible for the decree that went out following the council that was agreed to by all.

You said, "You claim that Constantine did not recognize the Pope as the supreme leader of the Catholic Church."
I made no such claim. What I said was your comment, "only the bishop of Rome has the authority to convene an ecumenical council.." is nonsense. It still stands.

 

[timothyu]

Perhaps the misunderstandings come from the assumption that one particular sect of Christianity was the centre of Christianity, which is not true.

 

[Valletta]

First, I pray and trust that your health has improved.


Your post is long and somewhat informative, however it does nothing to change the issue at hand.
I responded to your comment, "only the bishop of Rome has the authority to convene an ecumenical council.."
This is not true.
I gave several examples where this is not true. example:
Second Council of Constantinople 553, it was not convoked by the Pope, nor did the Pope even attend.
When one gives an absolute, as you did, it only takes one example to prove the error and I gave several.

As for the first council in Acts 15. You went to great lengths to ignore the text of Acts 15.
You said, "the debate came to an immediate end when Peter stood up.." as if that was the end of discussion.
After Peter rose up the following takes place:

12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had mworked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had 3become silent, nJames answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 oSimon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘After pthis I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the 4Lord who does all these things.’
18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works. 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who rare turning to God, 20 but that we swrite to them to abstain tfrom things polluted by idols, ufrom 6sexual immorality, vfrom things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, wbeing read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

Verse 19 is clear that the decision/judgement was made by James. James was more than mere host, he was responsible for the decree that went out following the council that was agreed to by all.

You said, "You claim that Constantine did not recognize the Pope as the supreme leader of the Catholic Church."
I made no such claim. What I said was your comment, "only the bishop of Rome has the authority to convene an ecumenical council.." is nonsense. It still stands.

​

​

​

After a long discussion, where Peter explained that he was speaking by what the Holy Spirit said (thus by the authority of the Church) James gave HIS judgment (not the Holy Spirit's, and thus not as head of the Church) for his diocese, affirming what Peter had said.

Acts 15: 8-9 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. RSVCE

 

[Daniel Peres]

Perhaps the misunderstandings come from the assumption that one particular sect of Christianity was the centre of Christianity, which is not true.

When Iraneaus wrote Against Heresies in the early second century, he divided Christians into two categories, the Trinitarian and the non-Trinitarian. According to him, all Trinitarian Christians were always in union with the Pope and that proved their legitimacy. If there had been Trinitarian Christians that were not in union with the Pope, then he would have criticized them too. But he didn’t for the simple reason they did not exist.

 

[Daniel Peres]

First, I pray and trust that your health has improved.


Your post is long and somewhat informative, however it does nothing to change the issue at hand.
I responded to your comment, "only the bishop of Rome has the authority to convene an ecumenical council.."
This is not true.
I gave several examples where this is not true. example:
Second Council of Constantinople 553, it was not convoked by the Pope, nor did the Pope even attend.
When one gives an absolute, as you did, it only takes one example to prove the error and I gave several.

As for the first council in Acts 15. You went to great lengths to ignore the text of Acts 15.
You said, "the debate came to an immediate end when Peter stood up.." as if that was the end of discussion.
After Peter rose up the following takes place:

12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had mworked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had 3become silent, nJames answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 oSimon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘After pthis I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the 4Lord who does all these things.’
18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works. 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who rare turning to God, 20 but that we swrite to them to abstain tfrom things polluted by idols, ufrom 6sexual immorality, vfrom things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, wbeing read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

Verse 19 is clear that the decision/judgement was made by James. James was more than mere host, he was responsible for the decree that went out following the council that was agreed to by all.

You said, "You claim that Constantine did not recognize the Pope as the supreme leader of the Catholic Church."
I made no such claim. What I said was your comment, "only the bishop of Rome has the authority to convene an ecumenical council.." is nonsense. It still stands.

I showed in my previous post that Constantine acknowledged that he did not have authority to convene any kind of council. So if Constantine didn’t call the council who did. We know it was not Hosius either since his efforts were of no use prior to the Council. By deductive reasoning it had to have been the pope.

That being said, Constantine could have ordered the Pope to convene the Council at Nicaea for the sake of peace in the empire which was within his jurisdiction, and therefore the pope would have to render unto Caesar….

Compare it to the US military chain of command. The president is commander-in-chief but he cannot directly command the military. He can give an order to the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary can give orders to the generals, and so forth.

 

[timothyu]

So you are saying the west would have held dominion over the east even though the west had lost the civil war?