Talk:Council of Jerusalem

message: "The Council of Jerusalem" is also known as "The Apostolic Conference" and I think it would be helpful to readers such as myself if this were made note of somewhere on the page. I think I will add this at the head.If you want to add a reference then there is "Simon of Cyrene: The Miracle of the Messiah" pg 282 [see here ] Zark --129.78.56.143 (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Apostolic Conference 

message: "This indicates rather forcefully that the apostles and presbyters believed the Holy Spirit had guided them, even to overriding Scripture when necessary. Genesis 17:9-14 regarding circumcision, and all of Leviticus 11 regarding keeping kosher has no more validity to the Church. This also demonstrates thee awareness of the apostles and presbyters that the Church was to rule itself, as promised by Jesus. In Matthew 16:18 and 18:18, first to Peter, then to the Church, is granted absolute legislative power by Jesus ("whatsoever you bind ... whatsoever you loose ..."). In John 16:13 Jesus promises "But when he, the Spirit of Truth, has come, he will teach you all truth ...""
Are there any Wikipedia: Reliable Sources for this interpretation that the Council of Jerusalem rejected portions of the Bible? 75.0.5.72 07:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Looks like more original research

message: The anonymous editor who deleted recent edits on the gournds of  vandalism might care to engage in discussion. Much of the material was disputable :' A common interpretation'. Interpretion may not be necessary when the words in the text are explicit. I removed some anachronistic (fourth century) material and much that was only tangental to the topic.  Referances to the Noahide covenant can be found in many places and the matter is marginal to the Council which, of course, was never called a Council at the time.  I tried to defend each separate edit and would be gratified to receive by way of a response a reason why all, including the remarkable picture of a rainbow, were reinserted. 
The fact is that the council is but one small part of the dispute as to how Jewish christianity was to be, a topic which, unfortunately lacks really good coverage. It appears of course under 'Judaisers' and 'New Perspective' (on Paul) but there is no real grappling with the major authors of the last fifty years who have tangled with it. This, rather than quotations from online sources which, it might be suspected, are included because of their availability, is what should be tackled. I am trying to prepare some work for it.
But fianlly, my opinions may be wrong, but they were not intended to vandalise an article which was overlong, full of extraneous material and lacking is serious engagement with the issues in which it should be engaged. Roger Arguile 11:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been stable for some time. It is rather rude to just barge in and delete more than half of the current article, in a crude fashion with many mistakes, and slap a cleanup tag on it. 64.149.83.99 20:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As you say, let's take it incrementally, step by step, rather than just block deleting over half the current article. What is the first issue you propose changing? Let's see what the consensus is before the change is implemented. 64.149.82.195 20:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, above you appear to allude to some modern interpretations of the Council of Jerusalem, hopefully they are Wikipedia: Reliable sources, if so, please add them to Council_of_Jerusalem#Interpreting_the_Council.27s_decision. 64.149.82.195 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, so I can't speak to their interpretation. As for your claim about justification by the Ethiopian Church, are you refering to the quote of Jubilees Chapter 7, verses 20-33? You don't believe that is relevant to the Apostolic Decree? 64.149.82.195 23:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, about the book of Jubilees. I don't see what the relevance of that work has to this conference. -- llywrch 02:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And I'd like to add: clearly there are a lot of interpretations of Acts 15 the Council of Jerusalem. That shouldn't be a problem, let's just document them, rather then asserting that any particular interpretation is more relevant than others. I believe that is the spirit of NPOV. 64.149.82.195 23:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. However, as the article now stands, it appears to be a collection of odd-ball opinions that no significant group would endorse. (By this, I'm including the JH.) -- llywrch 02:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 75.15.207.230 and Vandalism

message: There is no one overseeing body established at the Jerusalem Counsel. If ever there had been an opportunity to do so this would have been it. There is NO where in the New Testament where authority is given for a single organizational or figure head of the church. The only heads of the church are the eldership. Angry Aspie 02:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Denominationalist and Catholics take note

message: This article has a bunch of footnotes but no actual references.  I tagged it for this.  I hope someone can improve on this article because it is a significant event in Christian history. Kristamaranatha (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific? For example, you can tag claims you think need a reference with Template:cn. 75.15.206.39 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I thought it might be worth mentioning that, according to Michael Grant's Saint Peter: A Biography, page 122-130, the so-called council may never have actually taken place, but may be a later myth to describe actions which may have taken place individually over a potentially longer period of time. Considering Grant's high esteem as a scholar, I personally think the question of whether the council ever actually took place is a reasonable matter to include in the article. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Go ahead and add the information. There are other scholars also who dispute the authenticity of the "Council of Jerusalem", see also Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles. 75.15.200.100 (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible myth? 

message: This looks rather a lot like a conservative lecture in a Bible college. Since when were we allowed to use the Bible almost exclusively as the source for an allegedly historical event? I have no qualms about including Biblical evidence as one voice amongst many, but the current state of the article is simply unencyclopedic. Even if this doesn't get a rewrite, a section on historicity and some non-biblical citations are required.
Alternatively, we can relate this council as an unsubstantiated account and adopt the tone of relating a biblical story such as that of Jonah or Ruth.
Something must be done. Anybody agree?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstpm (talk • contribs) 05:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A section on historicity sounds like a great idea, please start one. And of course references can always be added. I don't think the Council is in the same category as Jonah or Ruth. It's possible it's purely the invention of whoever wrote Acts, but unlike Jonah and Ruth, there is other evidence. But the evidence is weak, thus a section on historicity is a great idea. 75.15.193.9 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Incidently, Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament has an excellent summary of current research on the topic as of circa 1971. Here's a quote: "In conclusion, therefore, it appears that the least unsatisfactory solution of the complicated textual and exegetical problems of the Apostolic Decree is to regard the fourfold decree as original (foods offered to idols, strangled meat, eating blood, and unchastity--whether ritual or moral), and to explain the two forms of the threefold decree in some such way as those suggested above. An extensive literature exists on the text and exegesis of the Apostolic Decree. ... According to Jacques Dupont, "Present day scholarship is practically unanimous in considering the 'Eastern' text of the decree as the only authentic text (in four items) and in interpreting its prescriptions in a sense not ethical but ritual" ..." 75.15.193.9 (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite?

message: There was a dialog in this section that indicated that the apostle Paul had a changing view of circumsion, based on a misinterpetation of Philippians 3 verse 2. If you read the greek involved it's clear that the multilation referred to in verse 2, is not a reference to the circumsion in verse 3. Verse 2 is indicating things to watch out for, and circumsion is not mentioned by name or inference. Then verse 3 goes on to talk about the contrast to verse 2, not a reference to verse 2. Considering the above view, I deleted the section is question for the reason given above, namely, that Paul is referring to two separate ideas, not a linked set of similar ideas. Which. therefore invalidates the whole basis for the section I deleted. This section was also not second sourced and was of dubious source. 71.113.0.21 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted what I thought was blanking vandalism.  If there are no good secondary sources supporting this interpretation, then please remove it again. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation

message: I don't see a reason for the Ecumenical councils navbox to be in this article, given that the Council of Jerusalem is not listed in it.  Does anyone else see a reason to keep it? -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe it should be listed then?? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ecumenical councils navbox

message: ::cut:
Tim Hegg, a renowned Messianic teacher and apologist states in Do the Seven, Go to Heaven?:
::"We conclude, then, that interpreting the edict of the Jerusalem Council on the basis of the later Noachide Laws is both anachronistic and a misunderstanding of the function of the Noachide Laws in the post-destruction rabbinic literature. For not only did the formulation of the Noachide Laws await the post-destruction era, but even when they were formulated within the rabbinic theology of the later Centuries, they did not function as a separate body of laws given to Gentiles as a means of attaining a righteous status, nor even as an actual code of ethics for Gentiles. It is wrong, then, to conclude that the Jerusalem Council gave the gentile believers a minimal list of commandments, exempting them from the full expression of God's will in the Torah. Another explanation for the edict must be sought. Since all the prohibitions in the edict find a connection to practices in the pagan temples, it seems most likely that they were given to assure that the gentile believers had entirely distanced themselves from the idolatry of pagan worship."''
::Doesn't appear notable WP:source. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut, notability

message: In the section Interpreting the Council's decision, there is a statement:
:Most Christians consider circumcision to be only an optional ritual[citation needed],
As far as I know, circumcision is universally discouraged in Christianity, since it is put in opposition against the sacrifice of Jesus/God, and the "circumcision in spirit". I don't know whether it is forbidden, but very nearly so for religious purposes. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: About the "optional" circumcision

message: Abram believed God, and he was called Abraham and was given the sign of circumcision as a sign that he believed God.
In turning to God, the heart of the uncircumcised is circumcised to the law of God, so that circumcision in the flesh is not necessary as a sign, and this is what the Council of Jerusalem is about, it does not say to disobey the law of God, because then the heart would be uncircumcised, even if you are circumcised.
The commands given by James are an exhortation to continue in the Laws of God even though not being circumcised in the flesh.
“For circumcision verily profits, if you  keep the law, but if you are a breaker of the law, your  circumcision is made uncircumcision.  Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge you, who by the letter and circumcision does transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. 
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God. “
Romans 2:25-29
JosephLoegering (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia requires Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you have any wikipedia reliable sources for this viewpoint, please add them to the article. You might also be interested in the article on Christian views on the old covenant. 75.14.221.248 (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: This article goes completely around what was originally talked about in the scriptures.

message: I deleted the comment on the Greeks still observing the limitation pertaining to blood and strangulation, for two reasons. First, because what usually applies to the Orthodox Church is not limited to the Greek Orthodox Church (except for local customs), and therefore the reference should have been to the Orthodox or Eastern Christian Church.
More importantly, no modern Greek or other Orthodox source is given. Hefele reads medieval sources when he says this. If anyone has a modern source for this, then by all means you can bring it back and give the reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.200.1 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you edited a direct and referenced quote. We don't do that on wikipedia, it's not credible. 75.0.4.28 (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

text: If you have a reference that disputes Hefele, by all means add it, without modifying the referenced view of Hefele to fit your beliefs. 75.0.4.28 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greeks, blood and strangulation 

message: By other scholars, surely what is meant is all scholars who aren't fundamentalists or very conservative evangelicals. The way this is article's lead is currently written up to this point appears to assume that the Acts narrative is fully accurate, but that's pretty dubious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "other scholars dispute the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Council of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224002549/http://wesley.nnu.edu:80/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm to http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Council of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613184451/http://www.gentiles-and-circumcision.info/ to http://www.gentiles-and-circumcision.info/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, in the Issues and outcome section, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem#Issues_and_outcome, it says that the purpose of the Council of Jerusalem was to "resolve a disagreement in Antioch". Yet, in reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Council_of_Jerusalem, it says that "Despite the agreement achieved at the Council of Jerusalem, Paul recounts how he later publicly confronted Peter in a dispute sometimes called the "Incident at Antioch". So there is an inconsistency as to the relative order of the Antioch incident and the Jerusalem meeting. Perhaps the experts in NT history can fix this, or, if it is just about terminology, add some clarification. Thank you. 96.66.80.65 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antioch