If there is an internal contradiction, feel free to point it out.
There are some simple claims:
1. St Paul did not teach people to violate the Torah. Not only would this make him out to be a liar, because he denies this, but it would also put him at odds with Jesus, who also affirms the Torah.
2. The Apostles at the council of Jerusalem took a close reading of Leviticus and applied it to gentiles coming to the church, essentially affirming that the Torah was fully in force, and that it never had applied to gentiles in the same way it applied to the sons of Israel. Therefore, the things which in Leviticus say "say to the sons of Israel and to the foreigner among you" or similar, applied to the gentiles. These things include sexual immorality (Lev 18, explicitly by 18:26), idolatry (Lev 17:8, molech specifically in 20:2), and eating blood (17:12). Note this doesn't include the laws about other dietary restrictions, for example. Therefore, because we're following what the Apostles taught, which affirms the Torah given by God, we should not eat blood. Incidentally, this is the
exact same logic why we should not commit sexual immorality or idolatry. I don't see how you can throw away one and not the other.
3. No, I do not say the council of Jerusalem was correct because of the tightness of their argument. I say it was correct because the assembled bishops there made a judgment in the application of the Torah, just as Moses did. They spoke and Christ ratified it in Heaven. This is why they can say, truthfully, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us". You can either say - the council of Jerusalem was inspired by the Holy Spirit, because Acts 15:28 says so, your you can say that they were mistaken or lying. Or I suppose you could say St Luke in Acts was mistaken.
You seem to want to make this about rules, but it's not. It is about authority. The picture of the authority given to the Apostles, and subsequently to bishops, isn't novel - it comes straight out of Israel as the scriptures show us in Exodus and Leviticus.
Bishops are not
bound by canons. Canons are standards. Bishops are bound by their obligations toward God. So the canons which are standards expressed by bishops are just that - standards. The responsibility to apply them and make judgments about them is for bishops. Bishops are over canons, people like you and me are under the canons as a standard, and under the bishops application of them for the rule of the church. The authority isn't in councils in abstract, it is in bishops in a real practical way.
Quote:
Your false predicate is that some set themselves over the councils. They do not. They set Scripture over the councils.
Scripture doesn't *do* anything. It doesn't get up and make a council false. A person reading scripture may use their reasoning to accept or reject the ruling of a council. But all this is doing is making that person out to have the authority of a bishop. They don't have this authority. And, because of this kind of hubris, you get people making the claim that they have the authority because of what scripture says, even when they're wrong. Like Luther was.
Quote:
What do you propose when a council is clearly wrong, in violation of clear Scriptural teaching?
A hypothetical is kind of useless. And, this is above my paygrade. My role is to be obedient and submit to those in authority (like it says in the scriptures). I have no authority to set canons or judge them.
