Hello. Quoting from the New World Translation, I would like to start with the end of Acts chapter 14 and go through Acts chapter 15 for an analysis concerning a centralized Governing Body for Christians world wide.

But let's start with Acts 14:19-28(emphasis mine):

19 But Jews arrived from Antioch and I·co´ni·um and persuaded the crowds, and they stoned Paul and dragged him outside the city, imagining he was dead. 20 However, when the disciples surrounded him, he rose up and entered into the city. And on the next day he left with Bar´na·bas for Der´be. 21 And after declaring the good news to that city and making quite a few disciples, they returned to Lys´tra and to I·co´ni·um and to Antioch, 22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to remain in the faith and [saying]: “We must enter into the kingdom of God through many tribulations.” 23 Moreover, they appointed older men for them in each congregation and, offering prayer with fastings, they committed them to Jehovah in whom they had become believers.

24 And they went through Pi·sid´i·a and came into Pam·phyl´i·a, 25 and, after speaking the word in Perga, they went down to At·ta·li´a. 26 And from there they sailed off for Antioch, where they had been entrusted to the undeserved kindness of God for the work they had fully performed.

27 When they had arrived and had gathered the congregation together, they proceeded to relate the many things God had done by means of them, and that he had opened to the nations the door to faith. 28 So they spent not a little time with the disciples.

Therefore, from these scriptures, we can conclude that Paul and Barnabas were in the city of Antioch...with the Antioch congregation.

But now, let's continue with Acts 15:1-2:

1 And certain men came down from Ju·de´a and began to teach the brothers: “Unless YOU get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, YOU cannot be saved.” 2 But when there had occurred no little dissension and disputing by Paul and Bar´na·bas with them, they arranged for Paul and Bar´na·bas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and older men in Jerusalem regarding this dispute.

Therefore, we can conclude from these scriptures that certain men from Judea came down to Antioch and began teaching the brothers that they needed to be circumcised. However, the brothers in Antioch arranged for Paul and Barnabas and some others to go up to Jerusalem and talk to the apostles and elders there concerning this dispute.

Now moving on to verses 3-5:

3 Accordingly, after being conducted partway by the congregation, these men continued on their way through both Phoe·ni´cia and Sa·mar´i·a, relating in detail the conversion of people of the nations, and they were causing great joy to all the brothers. 4 On arriving in Jerusalem they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the older men, and they recounted the many things God had done by means of them. 5 Yet, some of those of the sect of the Pharisees that had believed rose up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and charge them to observe the law of Moses.”

From these scriptures we see that Paul and Barnabas and the other brother proceeded to go to Jerusalem, and when they got there, they were kindly greeted by the congregation, the apostles, and the elders. However, some of the Jewish Christians of the sect of the Pharisees asserted that circumcision and obervation of the Mosaid Law was necessary for non-Jewish Christians.

Now let's move on to verse 16-21:

6 And the apostles and the older men gathered together to see about this affair. 7 Now when much disputing had taken place, Peter rose and said to them: “Men, brothers, YOU well know that from early days God made the choice among YOU that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of the good news and believe; 8 and God, who knows the heart, bore witness by giving them the holy spirit, just as he did to us also. 9 And he made no distinction at all between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are YOU making a test of God by imposing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our forefathers nor we were capable of bearing? 11 On the contrary, we trust to get saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way as those people also.”

12 At that the entire multitude became silent, and they began to listen to Bar´na·bas and Paul relate the many signs and portents that God did through them among the nations. 13 After they quit speaking, James answered, saying: “Men, brothers, hear me. 14 Sym´e·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘After these things I shall return and rebuild the booth of David that is fallen down; and I shall rebuild its ruins and erect it again, 17 in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, 18 known from of old.’ 19 Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.”

Now from these scriptures, we see that the apostles and elders(and apparently the ones from Jerusalem and the ones who were sent from Antioch) gathered togother concerning this dispute. Also, Peter, who I'm not sure whether or not was a member of the Jerusalem congregation:

wiki.answers.com/Q/St_peter_where_did_he...

rose up and spoke and gave his contribution to settle this dispute. And then Barnabas and Paul also spoke and gave their contribution to the settlement of this dispute. However, James, who was a member and the head of the Jerusalem congregation spoke and finally gave the settlement to this dispute.

And finally, here are verses 22-31, the remaining verses in Acts chapter 15 that are related to the circumcision dispute:

22 Then the apostles and the older men together with the whole congregation favored sending chosen men from among them to Antioch along with Paul and Bar´na·bas, namely, Judas who was called Bar´sab·bas and Silas, leading men among the brothers; 23 and by their hand they wrote:

“The apostles and the older men, brothers, to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Ci·li´cia who are from the nations: Greetings! 24 Since we have heard that some from among us have caused YOU trouble with speeches, trying to subvert YOUR souls, although we did not give them any instructions, 25 we have come to a unanimous accord and have favored choosing men to send to YOU together with our loved ones, Bar´na·bas and Paul, 26 men that have delivered up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We are therefore dispatching Judas and Silas, that they also may report the same things by word. 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”

30 Accordingly, when these men were let go, they went down to Antioch, and they gathered the multitude together and handed them the letter. 31 After reading it, they rejoiced over the encouragement.

Notice in verses 22 and 23 that the apostles and the elders, along with the entire congregation(some of whom JWs refer to as the 'domestics' of the faithful and discreet slave) were involved in writing a letter to the Antioch congregation informing them of the outcome of the circumcision dispute...and who also decided to send certain men from the Jerusalem congregation to deliver the letter to the Antioch congregation.

Additonally, in the contents of the letter, verse 28 said(and keep in mine that this letter was written by "the apostles and the older men together with the whole congregation"): "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things..."  

Therefore, in examining Acts chapter 15, we can see that Paul and Barnabas, who were sent from the Antioch congregation, contributed what they contributed in settling the circumcision dispute. Also, Peter, who I am not sure if he was a member of the Jerusalem congregation, contributed what he had to say in settling the dispute. Plus, James, who was a member of the Jerusalem congregation, was moved by God to give the actual settlement of this dispute.

However, as I had already pointed out, verses 22-28 brings out that the apostles and the elders and the entire congregation were involved in the writing of the letter that was to be sent to the Antioch congregation, which expressed that they too were involved in the settlement of the circumcision dispute....and not just certain ones of the faithful and discreet slave class who were considered as being the 'teachers' amongst the FDS, aka the governing body, according to JWs.

And finally, one more thing that I wanted to mention is that if you go back in chapter 15 and read verses 1, 5, and 24, you will see that the real reason why this dispute was settled in Jerusalem was because the dispute and the trouble originated from Jerusalem. Therefore, it was only logical for a gathering to have taken place in Jerusalem to settle the problem that had originated in Jerusalem.

And similarly, I feel as if I can safely assert that if a problem that was caused by 1st century Christians originated in either Rome, Corinth, or Ephesus....or in one of the other 1st century cities that had a Christian congregation in it...and that problem spread and caused trouble in other cities, then Paul and some of the other apostles and leaders of the 1st century congregations would have been sent to those particular cities to settle those disputes that were started in those particular cities.

However, to come to the conclusion that the Jerusalem congregation was some sort of of centralized location that God had forordained to have all the other 1st century congregations turn to in order to help them resolve their problems and to govern over all the other 1st century congregations....just isn't accurate or scriptural. 

Also, thank you for taking the time to read my long post...and any comments or feedback or disagreements would be appreciated.

Jan 29, 2012 -- 11:34PM, Goodtobehomestill wrote:

Actually the trouble seems to have originated with brothers in Judea, as it reads in 15:1.

 

It appears you are taking 'from among us' to mean 'from among the Jerusalem brothers' when James may well mean 'from among fellow Christians' referring to the brothers in Judea. 

Well, apparently, you have me at a disadvantage because I never did quite learn the difference between Judea, Judah, Jerusalem, etc. All those "Js." ;-) 

However, I did look up some stuff and found this:

Is Judea in Jerusalem?

No Judea is not in Jerusalem. It's the city of Jerusalem that is in the Province of Judea or Judah.

wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Judea_in_Jerusalem...

Also, I found this map:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Levant_830.sv...

Therefore, from what I'm seeing, Jerusalem is a part of Judea. Therefore, in saying that the trouble originated in either Judea or Jerusalem, it seems like it's saying the same thing.

check the scriptures, though, Ed.  Jerusalem and Judea are spoken of seperately.

(Matthew 2:3-5) 3 At hearing this King Herod was agitated, and all Jerusalem along with him; 4 and on gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people he began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They said to him: “In Beth′le‧hem of Ju‧de′a; . . .

(Matthew 3:5) 5 Then Jerusalem and all Ju‧de′a . . .

(Matthew 4:25) . . .him from Gal′i‧lee and De‧cap′o‧lis and Jerusalem and Ju‧de′a and from the other side of the Jordan.

(Mark 1:5) . . .all the territory of Ju‧de′a and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem . . .

(Mark 3:7-8) . . .multitude from Gal′i‧lee and from Ju‧de′a followed him. 8 Even from Jerusalem and from Id‧u‧me′a . . .

(Luke 5:17) . . .had come out of every village of Gal′i‧lee and Ju‧de′a and Jerusalem . . .

(Luke 6:17) . . .multitude of people from all of Ju‧de′a and Jerusalem and the maritime country of Tyre and Si′don, . . .

(Acts 2:14) . . .: “Men of Ju‧de′a and all YOU inhabitants of Jerusalem, let . . .

(Acts 26:20) . . .to those in Damascus first and to those in Jerusalem, and over all the country of Ju‧de′a, and to the nations. . .

Luke was a writer striving for 'accuracy' when he wrote his Gospel, I think we can credit him with specificity as to place, in the book of Acts.

Not trying to have you at a disadvantage, you seem to be sincerely trying to grasp this. 

I am unsure, do you have this information?

I just know that when Judea was spoken of, it meant the provinces outside Jerusalem.

To use Ed's analogy, if there were a term for the counties outlying Houston, one could say 'Houston and _______.)  Obviously, you would fill in the blanks using the term meaning 'area outside Houston' but it would still be distinct from Houston.  In the same way, in Bible times, Judea was spoken of as distinct from Jerusalem.  So if Luke had meant Jerusalem, in Act 15:1, that would have been what he wrote.

Jan 30, 2012 -- 6:16AM, Goodtobehomestill wrote:

check the scriptures, though, Ed.  Jerusalem and Judea are spoken of seperately.

 

(Matthew 2:3-5) 3 At hearing this King Herod was agitated, and all Jerusalem along with him; 4 and on gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people he began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They said to him: “In Beth′le‧hem of Ju‧de′a; . . .

(Matthew 3:5) 5 Then Jerusalem and all Ju‧de′a . . .

(Matthew 4:25) . . .him from Gal′i‧lee and De‧cap′o‧lis and Jerusalem and Ju‧de′a and from the other side of the Jordan.

(Mark 1:5) . . .all the territory of Ju‧de′a and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem . . .

(Mark 3:7-8) . . .multitude from Gal′i‧lee and from Ju‧de′a followed him. 8 Even from Jerusalem and from Id‧u‧me′a . . .

(Luke 5:17) . . .had come out of every village of Gal′i‧lee and Ju‧de′a and Jerusalem . . .

(Luke 6:17) . . .multitude of people from all of Ju‧de′a and Jerusalem and the maritime country of Tyre and Si′don, . . .

(Acts 2:14) . . .: “Men of Ju‧de′a and all YOU inhabitants of Jerusalem, let . . .

(Acts 26:20) . . .to those in Damascus first and to those in Jerusalem, and over all the country of Ju‧de′a, and to the nations. . .

 

Luke was a writer striving for 'accuracy' when he wrote his Gospel, I think we can credit him with specificity as to place, in the book of Acts.

Not trying to have you at a disadvantage, you seem to be sincerely trying to grasp this. 

Jan 30, 2012 -- 4:17PM, Goodtobehomestill wrote:

I am unsure, do you have this information?

 

I just know that when Judea was spoken of, it meant the provinces outside Jerusalem.

 

To use Ed's analogy, if there were a term for the counties outlying Houston, one could say 'Houston and _______.)  Obviously, you would fill in the blanks using the term meaning 'area outside Houston' but it would still be distinct from Houston.  In the same way, in Bible times, Judea was spoken of as distinct from Jerusalem.  So if Luke had meant Jerusalem, in Act 15:1, that would have been what he wrote.

What you're saying seems to be true, GTBHS, but at the same time, scripture, history, and facts inextricably link Jerusalem and Judea together:

 Luke 21:20-24(NWT)

20 “Furthermore, when YOU see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·de´a begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her; 22 because these are days for meting out justice, that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and the ones suckling a baby in those days! For there will be great necessity upon the land and wrath on this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.

In the year 66 AD the Jews of Judea rebelled against their Roman masters. In response, the Emperor Nero dispatched an army under the generalship of Vespasian to restore order. By the year 68, resistance in the northern part of the province had been eradicated and the Romans turned their full attention to the subjugation of Jerusalem. That same year, the Emperor Nero died by his own hand, creating a power vacuum in Rome. In the resultant chaos, Vespasian was declared Emperor and returned to the Imperial City. It fell to his son, Titus, to lead the remaining army in the assault on Jerusalem.

The Roman legions surrounded the city and began to slowly squeeze the life out of the Jewish stronghold. By the year 70, the attackers had breached Jerusalem's outer walls and began a systematic ransacking of the city. The assault culminated in the burning and destruction of the Temple that served as the center of Judaism.

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jewishtemple...

Also, GTBHS, apparently you didn't know this, but:

 Jerusalem: capital of Judah or Judea, sacred city of Judaism.

www.livius.org/ja-jn/jerusalem/jerusalem...

Additionally(emphasis in red is mine):

Etymology

The name Judea is a Greek and Roman adaptation of the name "Judah", which originally encompassed the territory of the Israelite tribe of that name and later of the ancient Kingdom of Judah. Judea was sometimes used as the name for the entire region, including parts beyond the river Jordan.^[1] It was the name in use in English until the Jordanian occupation of the area in 1948. Jordan called the area of Judea and Samaria ad-difa’a al-gharbiya (translated into English as the "West Bank").^[2] "Yehuda" is the Hebrew term used for the area in modern Israel since the region was conquered and occupied by Israel in 1967.^[3]

Historical boundaries

The classical Roman-Jewish historian Josephus wrote: "In the limits of Samaria and Judea lies the village Anuath, which is also named Borceos. This is the northern boundary of Judea. The southern parts of Judea, if they be measured lengthways, are bounded by a village adjoining to the confines of Arabia; the Jews that dwell there call it Jordan. However, its breadth is extended from the river Jordan to Joppa. The city Jerusalem is situated in the very middle; on which account some have, with sagacity enough, called that city the Navel of the country. Nor indeed is Judea destitute of such delights as come from the sea, since its maritime places extend as far as Ptolemais: it was parted into eleven portions, of which the royal city Jerusalem was the supreme, and presided over all the neighboring country, as the head does over the body. As to the other cities that were inferior to it, they presided over their several toparchies; Gophna was the second of those cities, and next to that Acrabatta, after them Thamna, and Lydda, and Emmaus, and Pella, and Idumea, and Engaddi, and Herodium, and Jericho; and after them came Jamnia and Joppa, as presiding over the neighboring people; and besides these there was the region of Gamala, and Gaulonitis, and Batanea, and Trachonitis, which are also parts of the kingdom of Agrippa. This [last] country begins at Mount Libanus, and the fountains of Jordan, and reaches breadthways to the lake of Tiberias; and in length is extended from a village called Arpha, as far as Julias. Its inhabitants are a mixture of Jews and Syrians. And thus have I, with all possible brevity, described the country of Judea, and those that lie round about it."^[4]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea 

So hopefully, the information that I presented has helped to explain the seemingly 'separateness' of Jerusalem and Judea that you thought that you saw in the scriptures that you presented.