You wrote:
“That’s funny, I heard Him say, “my Church.” Can you show me where He said “Roman Catholic Church”?”
Catholic Church. I’m not Roman. I’m Catholic. And Christ never said “Christian” either, so your question makes no sense. Originally Christians called what they shared The Way don’t forget.
“While you’re busy curing my confusion, perhaps you can tell me why it was James who issued the ruling on the Apostolic Decree, and not Peter?”
Read Acts again. Peter ruled - James agreed. That’s why everyone held their silence when Peter spoke. The issue was done when he was finished speaking.
“Then tell me how the Apostolic Decree prohibited drinking blood while allowing that “transubstantiation” thingy.”
Simple. 1) The Eucharist is a Divine command, 2) it is a sacramental presence, not a bloody one.
“If you folks want to wallow in ignorance of your Jewish Messiah following one man go for it. I’d rather follow The Man, thank you.”
We do follow the Man - the God-man. I am not ignorant of our Jewish roots. I bet I know more than you do. So far that is clearly the case.
I just did. You are beyond stretching the truth.
And Christ never said “Christian” either, so your question makes no sense.
You don't like the question, so you pose another and fail to answer both. Pathetic.
Simple. 1) The Eucharist is a Divine command, 2) it is a sacramental presence, not a bloody one.
There is no precedent for this anywhere in Jewish practice. You can't find in the Tanakh anything presaging this conclusion. His statement was metaphorical and symbolic, just as was the passover lamb was a symbol of Him. It was a device for us to recognize Him and remember, just as were teffilin or mezuzot, just as his citation of Hillel of the Shema as the most important Law.
We do follow the Man - the God-man. I am not ignorant of our Jewish roots. I bet I know more than you do. So far that is clearly the case.
Somehow I've missed the RCC keeping that Sabbath thingy. This is pure spin on your part.
Not quite. Read Acts 15:7-21. Peter spoke, then Barnabas and Paul, and James rules, even saying "My judgment is this...." It was not a consensus, but a ruling by James.
Galatians 2:11-13, which takes place before the passage I cited in Acts, also indicates that Peter was subordinate to James, even though James was wrong in his beliefs at the time:
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.Note that Cephas (Peter) was in Antioch, which means that James' influence was not just confined to Jerusalem.Early Christian tradition (see the writings of Eusebius, for example) also places James as the head of the church in Jerusalem. Eusebius, quoting Hegissupus, also records that Jesus' cousin, Simeon, was appointed head of the church in Jerusalem after James was martyred.
I agree with you that Peter was Bishop of Rome. History records that. As a Protestant, I disagree with you that this means anything special, but that disagreement doesn't rise to the level of anything worth arguing about, especially in these perilous times. We're both brothers in Christ and are called to be the salt and light of the world. That's the important thing.