Philip said:
Huh? The Council of Jerusalem agreed with St Paul against the Judaizers.
Um, immediately after the Resurrection, Paul was Saul. He was killing Christians.
Um, the Council of Jerusalem agreed with Paul in not requiring circumcision.
AD 29-30 - Jesus Crucifixion and Resurrection
AD 32-34 - Pauls Conversion
AD 49-50 - Jerusalem Council
The interpretation of the results of the Jerusalem Council depends on which version you read. Lukes version in Acts 15:1-35, stands in marked contrast to Pauls account in Galatians 2:1-10. In what should have been one of his greatest successes, Paul describes in a terse 10 verses and never mentions again.
Paul does go on to describe the split between Jewish/Gentile Christians and his public confrontation with Peter (schism at Antioch) immediately after the Jerusalem Council. It is interesting that while the events of the Jerusalem Council are described in detail, this behind-the-scenes split was not mentioned by Luke
(a member of the Jerusalem Church).
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived , he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (Galatians 2:11-13)
The subsequent actions of Peter and James, two of the major participants in the Council of Jerusalem, undermine whatever understanding had occurred. Members of the circumcision group are synonymous with Judaizers.
Judaizers -Jewish Christians who accepted the Mosaic Law and its traditions and sought to impose circumcision upon the Gentiles (McDonald/Porter).
The remainder of the Galatian Epistle shows how gravely Paul viewed the point at issue (split with Peter,and ultimately James). The immediate question is that of the necessity of circumcision, but it was clearly for Paul but one of the most obvious aspects of the deeper underlying problem. The adversaries remain unnamed, but there can be no doubt about their identity, namely they are representatives of the Jerusalem Church, for the remark in 4. 17 that They zealously seek you in no good way; nay, they desire to shut you out, that ye may seek them clearly alludes to the policy which produced the schism at Antioch. Consequently the vehemence of Pauls condemnation of his antagonists attempt to undermine the loyalty of the Galatians must be seen as ultimately reaching back to the leaders at Jerusalem........
(Brandon S. G., The Fall of the Jerusalem and the Christian Church pp.138-139)