>>595217
>Does this imply some sort of conflict between James and Paul? These men are "from James", implying James sent them. The Greek actually further suggests this.
It suggest only one thing that is monarchical bishops. For we read in Luke's acts (and Luke was Paul disciple) "And some coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Only possible conclusion from those two is that in 50 AD alredy was concept that diocese (in this case Judea) was equaled with person of it's one bishop. See letters of Ignatius.
> I've just been reading scholarly work that pits James against Paul while having Peter as the middle man between them.
Same scholars also say that Gospels had to be written after 70 AD I bet.
> I read a scholarly hypothesis that the Acts of the Apostles doesn't mention the collection of Paul for the Jerusalem Church because James rejected Paul's collection and the author of Acts wanted to hide this out of embarrassment.
<Luke
<Hiding embarrassing parts about Paul
<Paul
<Not delighting in humiliations
Also: Galatians 1:19, 2:9
> Also, why didn't James defend Paul or help him when he got arrested? Josephus implies that James was respected in Jerusalem among even non-Christian Jews. Does this mean James turned a blind eye to Paul's arrest because he didn't care what happened to Paul? Help.
Why did he do the same thing to Peter? Answer: because even if he was respected he was still just a jew from God knows where.