The Presumptive Arrogance Of Studied Christians.

[dadof10]

I shall then arrogantly presume you to be Eastern Orthodox!

:yes It's the only other reasonable choice.

 

[Stormcrow]

Read Acts 15 and note how the disagreement was settled, with a council.

I was thinking more along the lines of a Galatians 2-style disagreement.

Acts 15 does, in fact, describe the operation of what is probably the first church council (not in Rome but in Jerusalem) but the solution they arrived upon was not a reflection of the liberty from the Law Paul taught in Galatians, but was a compromise that essentially addressed this question: how much Law was too much Law for Gentiles to bear?

This is further seen in Acts 21, when these same elders ask Paul to compromise his own beliefs for the sake of the Jews.

The council of Jerusalem may have been in one accord, but they were wrong.

Yes, Protestantism is like a lawless frontier town sometimes (no sheriff), but it came about precisely because all authority centralized in one person (the Pope) led to the kind of corruption that caused reformers to leave the RCC in the first place.

Christ is the head of His church, not the Pope or the president of the Southern Baptist Association.

 

[Stormcrow]

Is this the way Protestant churches deal with disagreements and heresy, or do the dissenters simply break off and start their own church?

Dissenters leaving one church to start another is usually a "win-win" for both sides.

 

[zeke]

Which "scholarship regarding church history that does not come out of Catholicism"? Could you please list some of the historians or at least a few of the books or accounts you are referencing?

Let's start with one of your own first. Peter de Rosa (Catholic historian-writer) appears to be on the right course revealing some of the many errors coming from the RCC. His work hardly presents a story of the true church of God we read about in the NT.

“After Peter, the centuries roll by, full of controversies, any one of which today would involve immediate recourse to Rome for a decision... We have already noted that not a single Father can find any hint of a Petrine office in the great biblical texts that refer to Peter. Papal supremacy and infallibility, so central to the Catholic church today, are simply not mentioned. Not a single creed, nor confession of faith, nor catechism, nor passage in patristic writings contains one syllable about the pope, still less about faith and doctrine being derived from him.”

“Most Catholics go through life and never hear in school or church a word of reproach for any pope. Yet a devout Catholic like Dante had no scruple about dumping pontiff after pontiff in the deepest pit of hell."*

"Impeccable Catholic sources, papal documents, letters of reforming saints, all paint the same depressing picture. Monasteries full of women; every friar had his 'Martha', every nun her lover. Bishops, in every sense the fathers of their people, kept harems."*

"Young men who spent their youth in rape and adultery were rising in the ranks of the clergy. They were spending their nights with four or five women, then getting up in the morning — in what state, he leaves to the imagination — to celebrate mass."*

" ... many monasteries were the haunts of homosexuals, many converts were brothels."*

"As to the sex-starved secular clergy, they were so often accused of incest that they were at length forbidden even to have mothers, aunts or sisters living in their house."*

"Promiscuity was rife in monasteries and convents. The great Ivo of Chartres (1040-1115) tells of whole convents with inmates who were nuns only in name. They had often been abandoned by their families and were really prostitutes."*

----Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy​

Thus the words of Peter remain true...

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.*
(2Pe 2:1 NKJV)​

 

[Tina]

The Catholic Church has taught the same doctrine for over 2000 years. To prove your point, you need to show historically a "Lord''s church" that existed beside the Catholic Church since the beginning.

I knew it , I knew this thread will head in this direction ...... :D


But I cannot resist asking --- Where is "Catholic" church found in the Bible ??

I searched all versions and translations and could not find the word "Catholic" anywhere !

Did Christ really founded a "Catholic" church ?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I knew it , I knew this thread will head in this direction ...... :D


But I cannot resist asking --- Where is "Catholic" church found in the Bible ??

I searched all versions and translations and could not find the word "Catholic" anywhere !

Did Christ really founded a "Catholic" church ?

If I'm not mistaken 'catholic' church means 'universal' church. So, if that's true, I'd say, 'yes', God did found a universal (catholic) church. It's just that the Catholic's are sure they are it...and so do several other denominations. It's interesting to know that you will find 'catholic church' in some Protestant statements of faith. Maybe someone who is knowledgeable about this can share with us in more depth.

 

[Elijah674]

Yes, and they had a system in place to settle these disagreements. Read Acts 15 and note how the disagreement was settled, with a council. This is what the Catholic Church has done throughout history and still does today. Note, also that the decisions reached in Jerusalem were binding on the WHOLE CHURCH.

"As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem." (Acts (RSV) 16:4)

Protestant disputes are never settled because the entire basis of Protestantism is private interpretation of Scripture, and one interpreter has as much authority as another. "Every milkmaid with a Bible thinks she's the Pope." The end result is division and splinter churches.



...and which personal interpretation is the correct one, and why? Who is the final authority?



OK, let me rephrase the question: If you claim the above and someone else also claims "I don't "privately interpret scripture" apart from what we know from the rest of the canon of Biblical text and the history that surrounds it, including the cultural context in which such letters or books were written", and you both come to completely opposite conclusions, which view is the Biblical view and why?



I agree, but this still doesn't solve your problem. We are trying to discern Truth, not merely study Scripture, and subjective interpretation won't get us there. We need a final Authority.

There is no problem with that. (Acts 15) But the reason that they were there is flawed by most. And some churchs (one art least) has a Jer. 17:5 man of earth who all of these men bow in obedience to, and he does indeed have the last say in ALL of their matter.

And for me? that 'IS ANTI/CHRIST'!

--Elijah

 

[Slider]

It is an innate part of human culture to recognize and appoint various authorities and experts on any number of given issues. The concept of authority, however, is easily confused in English speaking societies because the English word "authority" has two distinct meanings, not very often discerned when people deal with authority.


Any teacher, expositor, preacher, pastor, writer, conversationalist, or forum poster who makes such statements is presumptuously arrogant. They need loving correction.

I think I understand what you are trying to say JoReba, but I still don't agree. Sheep to sheep... That is, paritioner to paritioner, you would be correct, and I think I know why you wrote this. We get a lot of "well that's your interpretation!" And sometimes that is true. These message boards are full of mere sheep bleeding and baaing. Me included.

The problem with your essay is that it isn't true. It sounds very similar to the men who confronted Moses and said, we are famous too. Would you put this essay before him? Would you put it before Paul? Some of us are truly in authority. Not me, and I'm not pointing to anyone else except my Pastor whom I truly believe is called of God.

There was a time that every man did that what was right in his own eyes... That's about the time God packed up and left for 400 years until Jesus came.

Today, is it any different? Will you be willing to follow a preacher above yourself?

 

[Slider]

There is a lot of talk about the Council at Jerusalem... I'm going to be bold here, and say it really proved nothing. I'll start another thread if you like, because I think it deserves intense study. For now, I'd like to pose some questions:

1. Did Paul abide by the council's decisions 100%?
2. Did the decision apply to all "Christians"?
3. If the council ruled differently, would Paul have listened and abided by it?

Please, look at the questions, then the verses and think on it a while. Obviously, I wouldn't be asking these questions if I didn't have an opinion. My answer to all three of these questions is "no". Search the scriptures, my friends.... Look for the reasons why I am right! Also, why I am wrong.

 

[Slider]

never mind this post

 

[dadof10]

I was thinking more along the lines of a Galatians 2-style disagreement.

You mean when Paul chastised Peter for his "insincerity"? Aren't we talking about authority? Paul rebuked Peter for his personal behavior. He wasn't angry with Peter for heresy, he was upset because Peter was "not straightforward about the truth of the gospel" in his personal actions.

Acts 15 does, in fact, describe the operation of what is probably the first church council (not in Rome but in Jerusalem) but the solution they arrived upon was not a reflection of the liberty from the Law Paul taught in Galatians, but was a compromise that essentially addressed this question: how much Law was too much Law for Gentiles to bear?

No, it addressed the question:"Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved", as Scripture says. "Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question." The authoritative letter they wrote addressed the question by leaving circumcision out of the requirements. "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." I don't know how you come to the conclusion that there was any kind of compromise here. The council definitively sided with Paul, that Gentile converts didn't have to obey the Law to be Christian, only abstain from things abhorrent to Jews.

This is further seen in Acts 21, when these same elders ask Paul to compromise his own beliefs for the sake of the Jews.

I think you're misinterpreting Acts 21.

The elders in Jerusalem said to Paul "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; they are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads."

Are the Jews right about Paul? Is he telling them to "forsake Moses"?

"Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law."

Obviously the new Jewish converts were wrong about Paul, he did "live in observance of the law" and this was being misunderstood. Paul accepted the vow to demonstrate this point in a public way. Again, Paul ACCEPTED the vow, so according to your interpretation of these events, Paul wasn't only asked "to compromise his own beliefs for the sake of the Jews", he actually DID compromise. Paul doesn't strike me as a appeaser, does he strike you as one?

The council of Jerusalem may have been in one accord, but they were wrong.

You may want to rethink this. This is the letter they sent with their decision.

"The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. 24 Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts (RSV) 15)

[FONT=&quot]This is the decision of the council and the Holy Spirit. It couldn't possibly have been wrong.[/FONT]

Yes, Protestantism is like a lawless frontier town sometimes (no sheriff), but it came about precisely because all authority centralized in one person (the Pope) led to the kind of corruption that caused reformers to leave the RCC in the first place.

[FONT=&quot]You would have a point if corruption within Christianity ceased with the Reformation, but it didn't. The Catholic Church hasn't cornered the market on corruption. Any cursory, unbiased reading of the history of the Reformation and the churches that came out of it, should make any open-minded person conclude that the problem isn't "centralized authority", but human nature. [/FONT]

Christ is the head of His church, not the Pope or the president of the Southern Baptist Association.

Amen. The Catholic Church has never taught any different.

 

[dadof10]

Dissenters leaving one church to start another is usually a "win-win" for both sides.

Wow, really? Where does Scripture teach that dissenters are to go start their own church? Scripture teaches SUBMISSION to authority, not dissension. The problem is, to the Protestant mind, you and your own personal interpretation of Scripture are the ultimate authority.

We have a biblical model in Acts 15. A council was called, the issue was debated, a decision was made and a letter written. That decision was BINDING on the entire Church and as far as we know, the members of the Church submitted. Which Church follows this model?

 

[zeke]

The Catholic Church hasn't cornered the market on corruption.

Then we are all in agreement - Catholicism has been and remains a corruption within Christendom? The apostolic church was certainly not a corruption within Christendom. Where does that leave you?

 

[zeke]

Wow, really? Where does Scripture teach that dissenters are to go start their own church?

Those folks who have submitted to the corruption of Catholicism are given this advise from Paul...

"Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. (2 Corinthians 6:17) ​

This is straightforward advice that we all can understand - yes?

 

[dadof10]

Let's start with one of your own first. Peter de Rosa (Catholic historian-writer) appears to be on the right course revealing some of the many errors coming from the RCC. His work hardly presents a story of the true church of God we read about in the NT.

Peter de Rosa is not "one of ours". He is a dissident ex-priest who, according to author Dennis J. Murphy, "wants the Church to approve contraception, homosexual acts, divorce and, under certain conditions, abortion. He sees the papacy as the main obstacle to this, particularly Paul VI and John Paul II. His aim therefore is to discredit popes as thoroughly as possible so that nothing they have to say about these or other matters will be taken seriously again."

Be that as it may, is he an accurate historian? Let's see. And keep in mind the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and the "Patristic" era ended in the 5th century.

“After Peter, the centuries roll by, full of controversies, any one of which today would involve immediate recourse to Rome for a decision... We have already noted that not a single Father can find any hint of a Petrine office in the great biblical texts that refer to Peter. Papal supremacy and infallibility, so central to the Catholic church today, are simply not mentioned. Not a single creed, nor confession of faith, nor catechism, nor passage in patristic writings contains one syllable about the pope, still less about faith and doctrine being derived from him.â€

Ignatius of Antioch
"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).


Irenaeus
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).


Cyprian of Carthage


"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).


"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).


"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).


"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men ... when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:8).
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).


Council of Sardica

"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).
"f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (canon 4).


Optatus of Milevus

"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367]).

There are more, but this should suffice to prove this man is not a very accurate historian or has an axe to grind. I haven't read "Vicars of Christ", but I suppose you have. Does he have ANY quotes from the Early Church Fathers arguing against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome? It seems to me, that if a Bishop was trying to usurp power that wasn't his, there would be some backlash in writing.

“Most Catholics go through life and never hear in school or church a word of reproach for any pope. Yet a devout Catholic like Dante had no scruple about dumping pontiff after pontiff in the deepest pit of hell."*

"Impeccable Catholic sources, papal documents, letters of reforming saints, all paint the same depressing picture. Monasteries full of women; every friar had his 'Martha', every nun her lover. Bishops, in every sense the fathers of their people, kept harems."*

"Young men who spent their youth in rape and adultery were rising in the ranks of the clergy. They were spending their nights with four or five women, then getting up in the morning — in what state, he leaves to the imagination — to celebrate mass."*

" ... many monasteries were the haunts of homosexuals, many converts were brothels."*

"As to the sex-starved secular clergy, they were so often accused of incest that they were at length forbidden even to have mothers, aunts or sisters living in their house."*

"Promiscuity was rife in monasteries and convents. The great Ivo of Chartres (1040-1115) tells of whole convents with inmates who were nuns only in name. They had often been abandoned by their families and were really prostitutes."*

----Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy

The first quote had some merit to our discussion on authority, these do not. They do, however show the character of the author and the tone of the book. I have read your posts in the "Baptism" thread, Zeke, and you seem to be quite reasonable. Anti-Catholic accusations like these have been debunked for years and NO historian, either Catholic or Protestant, take them seriously. They are along the lines of Jack Chick, Alberto Rivera and Lorraine Boettner. Please research Mr. deRosa and the other authors mentioned above. Note how many footnotes are used in their books and the sources they do cite. Please don't believe these ridiculous claims made by people with an agenda.


​

 

[dadof10]

I knew it , I knew this thread will head in this direction ...... :D


But I cannot resist asking --- Where is "Catholic" church found in the Bible ??

I searched all versions and translations and could not find the word "Catholic" anywhere !

Did Christ really founded a "Catholic" church ?

It's not. What's your point?

 

[dadof10]

There is a lot of talk about the Council at Jerusalem... I'm going to be bold here, and say it really proved nothing.

Scripture disagrees with you. "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. (Acts (RSV) 15)

It settled the question ""Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

I'll start another thread if you like, because I think it deserves intense study. For now, I'd like to pose some questions:

1. Did Paul abide by the council's decisions 100%?

Of course, haven't you read all the admonitions against circumcision in his letters? HE WAS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THE DISPUTE TO JERUSALEM. They ruled in favor of Paul.

2. Did the decision apply to all "Christians"?

Of course it did: "As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. 5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily. (Acts (RSV) 16)

"But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." (Acts (RSV) 21)

Which Christians do you think were excluded from this "observance"?

3. If the council ruled differently, would Paul have listened and abided by it?

This is a hypothetical, but I think he would have. I know he wouldn't have ran off and started his own denomination.

 

[dadof10]

Then we are all in agreement - Catholicism has been and remains a corruption within Christendom? The apostolic church was certainly not a corruption within Christendom. Where does that leave you?

I think you missed my point. There is corruption in ALL churches, synagogues, mosques..in all groups period. Even in your church, Zeke. There are sinners doing sinful things everywhere. That there's been corruption in the past or currently has nothing to do with authority. Even the apostles argued and fought with each other, with the "Judaizers" and heretics throughout history. That's how we bang out doctrine and separate Truth from error. But in the end there was submission to the proper authority of the Church founded by Christ.

 

[dadof10]

Those folks who have submitted to the corruption of Catholicism are given this advise from Paul...

"Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. (2 Corinthians 6:17) ​

This is straightforward advice that we all can understand - yes?

Yes, for the people it's intended for. These are the verses before:

"Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (2Corinthians (RSV) 6)

These verses have NOTHING to do with breaking off and starting your own denomination if there is a scandal within the Church. It is commonly misused by anti-Catholics. Are you one, Zeke?

 

[Slider]

Scripture disagrees with you. "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. (Acts (RSV) 15)

It settled the question ""Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."


Of course, haven't you read all the admonitions against circumcision in his letters? HE WAS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THE DISPUTE TO JERUSALEM. They ruled in favor of Paul.



Of course it did: "As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. 5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily. (Acts (RSV) 16)

"But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." (Acts (RSV) 21)

Which Christians do you think were excluded from this "observance"?



This is a hypothetical, but I think he would have. I know he wouldn't have ran off and started his own denomination.

Check what James said. Then check what Paul preached. James said that Gentiles couldn't eat things offered to idols. Paul said it doen't matter. James put diet restrictions on the Gentiles and Paul said it doesn't matter. Eat it, and be happy.

Furthermore, James put these restricitons on the Gentiles. He didn't put them on believing Jews. The way it reads, James still put the law on Jews who believed in Jesus.

The fact is that Paul cared little for what the council had to say. He preached what Christ gave him. Paul went against the council.