Catholism

[precept]

A few important things to note about Paul's Galatians epistle as quote above:

(1) Paul expressly repudiates the argument that Christians must follow Jewish custom or practice. Moreover, he calls those who would push non-Jewish converts to follow Jewish customs "hypocrites."

Not so! The leader of the Christian church says to the apostle Paul: "Thou seest brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; AND THEY ARE ALL ZEALOUS OF THE LAW; and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses...."

At this juncture Paul's response, if he disagreed with the charges against him;would have been to justify why "he was teaching the Jews to forsake Moses"....Note; Paul did not use this opportunity to make the Jerusalem council see why he taught the Jews as they had charged.

The Jerusalem church then commanded Paul to keep the law as they did; by commanding him to do as follows:"Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them and be at charges with them; that they may shave their heads:AND ALL MAY KNOW THAT THOSE THINGS, WHEREOF THEY WERE INFORMED CONCERNING THEE; ARE NOTHING; BUT THAT THOU THYSELF ALSO WALKEST ORDERLY, AND KEEPEST THE LAW."...........Well here Paul also had yet another opportunity to do as you say...ie Convince his fellow apostles that "he did not keep the laws of Judaism"....Instead Paul showed that HE DID KEEP THE LAWS OF JUDAISM because "Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them". Acts 21:20-26

Now are you still insisting that Paul did not keep the laws of Judaism?

(2) Paul specifically points out that Peter lives like a Gentile rather than a Jew. Which made Peter's actions in Galatians that much more hipocracy.

You seem confused as to the reason for Paul's rebuking Peter for Peter's discriminating behaviour towards the Gentile Christians.

(3) Paul rejects the authority of those "reputed pillars" of the faith who "seemed" to be the leaders of the Jerusalem church: Peter, James and John. Now this is a problem for Catholics as well, but it flat out directly contradicts to your image of Paul learning and teaching about the Gospel of Jesus Christ by hanging out in synagogues with practicing Jews.

I am sure your position has now changed after reading of Paul's compliance re keeping the Laws of Judaism when so ordered by the leaders of Christianity to keep the law so that there can be no doubt among the Jews at Jerusalem that Paul "also walkest orderly, and keepest the law".

Paul also like his Master Jesus went to synagogue on the sabbath day...."After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth....And he reasoned in the SYNAGOGUE EVERY SABBATH, and persuaded the Jews[Jews of Judaism} and the GREEKS.[Pagan Gentiles worshipping alongside the Jews in their synagogue EVERY SABBATH

Now do you still say that Paul; not only did not keep Jewish laws; but that he also did not worship as a Jew?

In light of the above! How do you plead?


precept

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Not so! The leader of the Christian church says to the apostle Paul . . .

Who wrote the Acts of the Apostles? When? For what purpose? Regardless, Paul repudiates your teaching. Read it for yourself.

Now are you still insisting that Paul did not keep the laws of Judaism?

Yes.

You seem confused as to the reason for Paul's rebuking Peter for Peter's discriminating behaviour towards the Gentile Christians.

Don't worry. I'm not.

I am sure your position has now changed after reading of Paul's compliance re keeping the Laws of Judaism when so ordered by the leaders of Christianity to keep the law so that there can be no doubt among the Jews at Jerusalem that Paul "also walkest orderly, and keepest the law".

My postition hasn't changed a bit. I don't believe the exchange recorded in Acts actually occurred. Who wrote it? When? Why? It doesn't agree with Paul's own writings on the subject.

Now do you still say that Paul; not only did not keep Jewish laws; but that he also did not worship as a Jew?

Absolutely, yes. HE says so in his own writings.

When are you going to answer my questions? They aren't terribly complicated.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

The irony, precept - and I've been pointing this out through my questions to you from the very beginning of this coversation on another thread - is that you justify your position with an appeal to a document (Acts) that was probably written in the second half of the second century to bolster the early Church fathers' appeal to apostolic authority for their doctrinal positions by the very Catholic Church fathers you disdain. At best, you have Paul directly contradicting himself by comparing his personal writings to the accounts created by the author of Acts. At worst, you have an argument based on a dubious document written by the very people you so disagree with. Moreover, you accept doctrines like the Catholic Canon, set in place by the Church leadership on the one hand, but reject many of the other decisions on issues of doctrine and history made by these same Catholic fathers on the other hand.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Just in case it got lost in the long post above, here's what Paul himself has to say on the topic in Galatians:

1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. 3Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.


6As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Paul Opposes Peter </B>

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Paul wrote what he wrote. It's that simple. Indeed, he corroborates this same attitude throughout his epistles.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Here are various other things Paul has to say about the notion that non-Jewish Christians must observe Jewish law and customs:

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
The Jews and the Law

17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."[b]


25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. 28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."[b] 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.


7You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9"A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." 10I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! 13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love. 14The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 15If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

12Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. 14May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which[b] the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. 16Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.

2Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. 3For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4though I myself have reasons for such confidence.
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.


9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[a] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,[b] God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[d]

16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. 20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

And BTW, in case I haven't said it before:


"Paul Rocks!"

 

[precept]

It was formed as a question, you'll note. I've noticed you aren't really here for a debate. I've asked several times of you now and not received an answer to a fairly simple question.

Where did the idea originate that the books of the New Testament are the inspired Word of God, and are the final authoritative source for all disputes regarding the meaning of the Gospel?

This question presumes that if the Council of Trent had not convened to agree on the canon of scriptures; there would be no scriptures and hence no Christianity. You unfortunately have ignored the fact that Christianity was alive and well for more than three hundred years prior to the council of Trent. That also that Christianity thrived on the very literature you credit the council of Trent for cannonizing...long before those who presided in that council were even born. You also have conveniently forgotten that the entire scriptures are the very words of God and need no human help for its preservation...that you have also forgotten that though the Jewish nation rejected the Author of Christianity-their very God, that God none-the-less entrusted His entire scriptures of the old testament to their care, for more than three thousands of years...long before any Council of Trent was ever thought of... and that despite the Israelites worshipping idols and that despite His rejecting outright the whole nation of the Israelites[Brian et al before you accuse me of any wrongdoing read 2Kings 21:12-15;and 2Kings 22:27] and yes! despite rejecting the entire nation of the Israelites God still preserved His entire word of the old testament; leaving it as intact as He preserved His entire word of the new testament. God's preservation of His word is despite any human help; hence no human no matter how well intentioned is due credit for helping God to preserve his word. God sent His word via a human to tell the people of Nineveh His intentions; and He used a Fish to preserve His words...if he can so do; and since the Fish IS NOT DESERVING OF ANY CREDIT; SO NEITHER IS ANY HUMAN.

In case you are unaware--the entire scriptures are about Jesus the Author of salvation. He was first prophesied as coming to save huimanity by God Himself when He God told Adam and Eve that "the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent"----God then told Abraham that "in his seed all the nations of earth will be blessed"....This God told Abraham about two thousand years after He had told this same prophecy to Adam and Eve....About a thousand years after Abraham God told Isaiah that "he was brought as a lamb to the slaughter; as a sheep before his shearer is dumb"...God also told Daniel that "from the going forth of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem...TO MESSIAH, THE PRINCE, would be seven weeks and three score and two weeks" In other words God prophesied re the exact time Messiah would be born and that; after prophesying for more than four thousands of years since He first prophesied about Messiah's coming to Adam and Eve....I think by now you have your answer! re whether God needed any human to reveal His plan of salvation to His wayward, sinful humanity! His plan as contained in the teachings of His Son, His Eternal Sacrificial Lamb of God needed no human to help it along!

Interestingly enough, the council of Trent also approved Jerom's vulgate; clearly a work that contained uninspired writings....The council also approved inthe cano of scriptures as we know it today; "two book of the Machabees"; clearly again the book of the Maccabees" are uninspired writings.....The council continued that "If any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, AS THEY HAVE BEEN USED TO BE READ IN THE cATHOLIC CHURCH and as they are contained in the old latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."
It is therefore more than apparent that Christendom as exist outside of the Roman Catholic church has rejected the inclusions of the "books of macabees" and the "book of Judith";and are hence under a curse as proclaimed by the council of Trent. If such a curse is of no effect; neither is any authority as weilded by the council of Trent over its authorizing which books of scripture are to be accepted as the words of God.

Okay, so if we must "follow without fail every act of worship He practiced while human; which if we do, we can't but worship as He worshipped", then I guess all of his were doomed to fail, since there hasn't been a Temple in nearly two millenia.

Jesus, being blessed as an infant was a Jewish tradition that still continues to this day in Christendom. Following Jesus' example doesn't mean that one needs to be blessed in the identical building in which He was blessed.

So are you offering animal sacrifices to God? If so, where are you doing it, since there is no Temple right now?

The plan of salvation of which Jesus was the core and around whom the entire plan revolved; included the offering of animal sacrifices; which was but a foreplay of His' offering His own life as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity. His sacrifice was a once and for all sacrifice; and was planned that way from the beginning by God Himself...In other words humanity was being prepared for Messiah who would be the sacrifice to replace all animal sacrifices, BY THEIR BEING TAUGHT THAT WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF THE BLOOD OF A SACRIFICE, BE THAT THE SACRIFICE OF A COW OR A DOVE, THERE WOULD BE NO REMISSION OF SIN. If the people of the Jews had studied and accepted the truth of messiah and learnt the reasons for the animal sacrifices as prophesied by the prophets, they would have seen this truth, and abolished animal sacrifices after the Supreme sacrifice of Messiah was fulkfilled.

So are you Jewish? Do you follow Torah?

"He is not a Jew; who was so born; but he IS a Jew whose circumcision is of the heart and not of the flesh".....Paul. Romans 2:28

So should we emulate Jesus in the precise details of how he worshipped or should we emulate Jesus in choosing our own way of worshipping our father?

We must emulate him in exactly the way that all the twelve disciples exactly emulated Him...And they all similarly emulated Him!

This doesn't follow from any premises you've given. But let's stop here for a moment and engage in a simple exercise. We are now talking, apparently, about the Jewish requirement of baptism, yes? Would you mind pointing out where this practice is disclosed in Torah?

The practise of baptism is entirely Jewish.
The jews practiced a ritual bath called "mikvah"; which was a ceremonial washing or cleansing..."The last step for a gentile convert in the process of joining the Jewish faith after study and circumcision for men was and is a ritual bath in a mikvah". When the convert emerges from the water, he is accepted as a Jew. The Jews of the early church would have been familiar with the process of mikvah as the ritual acceptance of the truth of Christianity necessitating baptism or mikvah on accepting Christianity.

An indication of the familiarity of Jews wwith what John the Baptist was doing id found in John 1:25.

Verse 25...They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ.....?,[which indicates that the Jews expected Messiah, when he came to be baptizing as John was]

They didn't ask, "What are you doing," but "Why are you doing it?"

For your information: "The Mikveh can be any body of natural water, though the term iusually refers to a specific pool that is built for the purpose of ritual purification......the person goes and bends into the water to cover 100%."[taken from the Jewish forum]

Baptism was a Jewish rite used by the founders of Christianity-themselves Jews; to convert Jews and gentiles to Christianity by ritually emersing 100% of the converts body in naturally occuring water.

Where is this coming from? There is one mention of the Sabbath in the writings of Paul, it's from Collosians:


So . . . Sabbath or no Sabbath?

Again, who wrote Acts? Here's what Paul himself says on the subject of the Jewish customs among Jerusalem Christians (from Galatians, ch. 2):

This does not line up with your characterization of Paul or what he taught. Do you follow Torah?

If Paul had to follow and obey the commads of the Jerusalem church to show to the Jews that Paul 'walkest orderly, and keepest the law;" don't you at least think that Paul would also be "walking orderly and keeping the law" as it relates to the holiest day in Judaism, the sabbath? And since Paul while in Athens and outside of the influence of the Jerusalem council, did habitually go to synagogue on the sabbath day; and not just him but the gentile Christian Greeks also went to synagogue on the sabbath day[Acts 18:4...Don't you then think you need to revise your interpretation of Colosians to reflect Paul's habitual and voluntary attendance of the synagogue on the sabbath?

I'm sorry, but this proposition cannot be reconciled with Paul's writings.

Do you still believe this to be so?



precept

 

[lunamoth]

And BTW, in case I haven't said it before:


"Paul Rocks!"

I concur!

lunamoth

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

This question presumes that if the Council of Trent had not convened to agree on the canon of scriptures; there would be no scriptures and hence no Christianity. You unfortunately have ignored the fact that Christianity was alive and well for more than three hundred years prior to the council of Trent.

I think you meant to say the Council of Nicaea. The rest of your post I've already responded to above.

"He is not a Jew; who was so born; but he IS a Jew whose circumcision is of the heart and not of the flesh".....Paul. Romans 2:28

So do you follow Torah?

We must emulate him in exactly the way that all the twelve disciples exactly emulated Him...And they all similarly emulated Him!

You have their writings to confirm this?

The practise of baptism is entirely Jewish.
The jews practiced a ritual bath called "mikvah"; which was a ceremonial washing or cleansing..."The last step for a gentile convert in the process of joining the Jewish faith after study and circumcision for men was and is a ritual bath in a mikvah".

Ahhh . . hold up there a sec. The practice of baptism is not Jewish. The practice of tevilah in mikveh (or a mikveh) is Jewish. Do you know when it is supposed to be done? How? What are the other steps for a gentile convert to Judaism?

If Paul had to follow and obey the commads of the Jerusalem church to show to the Jews that Paul 'walkest orderly, and keepest the law;" don't you at least think that Paul would also be "walking orderly and keeping the law" as it relates to the holiest day in Judaism, the sabbath?

Absoutely not. He says in his own writings that he doesn't care. And as far as obeying the commands of the Jerusalem church that is, as I've said before, taken from a story made up at least a hundred years later and in direct contradiction of Paul's own writings.

Do you still believe this to be so?[Not being able to reconcile Paul's writings with the notion that Christians are bound to follow the Jewish law]

Yes. I definitely think it to be so. You can quote Acts 'til your blue in the face. It won't change the complete consistency on this very issue expressed by Paul throughout the genuine epistles. There are 8 or 9 lenghty excerpts from five different epistles posted above that demonstrate your error regarding Paul stance vis a vis Christians and the law.

 

[precept]

The irony, precept - and I've been pointing this out through my questions to you from the very beginning of this coversation on another thread - is that you justify your position with an appeal to a document (Acts) that was probably written in the second half of the second century to bolster the early Church fathers' appeal to apostolic authority for their doctrinal positions by the very Catholic Church fathers you disdain. At best, you have Paul directly contradicting himself by comparing his personal writings to the accounts created by the author of Acts. At worst, you have an argument based on a dubious document written by the very people you so disagree with. Moreover, you accept doctrines like the Catholic Canon, set in place by the Church leadership on the one hand, but reject many of the other decisions on issues of doctrine and history made by these same Catholic fathers on the other hand.

Abogado.......I find you quite engaging and sincere in defending unjustifiable positions. Your claim that "early church fathers" of third century[2nd half of the 2nd] could have written the book of Acts...which in your case would provide a means to defend what you are now unable to defend. But you are left "without legs" when called to explain the words of Peter that the "scriptures are not of any private interpretation" 2 Peter 1:20. If as you say the Acts were "probably written by early church fathers"; wouldn't that be contradicting the "the first pope, Peter, who would have spoken ex cathedra" re the scriptures is not of any private interpretation?
Because your argument are "without legs"--your argument "falls" re the book of Acts was "probably written by the early church fathers"...the rest of your argument is without merit. and cannot be discussed because your premise is without foundation.


precept

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Abogado.......I find you quite engaging and sincere in defending unjustifiable positions. Your claim that "early church fathers" of third century[2nd half of the 2nd] could have written the book of Acts...

Early church fathers would be in the second half of the second century. The era of Iraeneus would be the likely culprit. I'm not alone in that assessment of Acts. Many scholars agree that Acts coincided with major revisions to Luke sometime after 150. There are no extant records of its existence until the latter half of the second century. It directly contradicts the writings of Paul and it is obvious from its style and structure that it is a theological polemic meant to justify a certain viewpoint. Nobody has the slightest clue who actually wrote it even.

The unjustifiable stance here is ignoring that Paul himself disagrees with you on numerous occassions. Like I said before. At best you have a conflict between Paul's own account of his beliefs and those of an unknown polemicist writing 100 years later.

But you are left "without legs" when called to explain the words of Peter that the "scriptures are not of any private interpretation" 2 Peter 1:20. If as you say the Acts were "probably written by early church fathers"; wouldn't that be contradicting the "the first pope, Peter, who would have spoken ex cathedra" re the scriptures is not of any private interpretation?

1 Peter is psuedoepigraphical. So no, that doesn't present a problem. What "scriptures" is the writer talking about, BTW? Do you know?

I'm quite sure I've made a convincing case for how Paul felt about the need for Christians to observe Jewish customs. I don't even need to "spin" what he wrote. Anyone who wants to can read lengthy and clear statements from Paul himself on the issue quoted above and make up their own minds.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=29963&postcount=25


QED.

As far as I'm concerned, this debate is over.

 

[precept]

Abogado......Your many quotations re your trying to prove that Paul did not keep Jewish laws still is in conflict with the fact that he did; and that is whether you think the book of Acts was written by 'early church fathers or not!

If you were to examine the facts; an easy explanation for Paul's statements against keeping Jewish laws as a means to salvation is quite forthcoming and readily availble from scripture.
You already saw how the disciples of Jesus were themselves ardent lawkeepers[notwithstanding your rejecting the book of Acts as the word of God... but your accepting the book of Acts as probably the words of sinful humans] But whether you so accept the book of Acts as the word of God or not; it yet is the word of God to all of Christendom excepting the Roman Catholic church....as such I must crave your indulgence with me in my accepting this book as the very words of God.
That we are now on the same page! I'll continue.....Because the disciples believed that in conjunction with accepting Christianity all Jews would continue to be 100% Jewish; they were at loggerheads with Paul for telling the Jews, converted to Christianity and living in gentile lands; that they did not need to keep the Jewish laws anymore now that they were Christians....Note the disciples and all the Jews in Jerusalem still Kept all the Jewish laws and ceremonies.

This without a doubt explains why Peter was reluctant to enter the house of the Gentile Cornelius and why Peter withdrew from associating with the Galatian Gentile Christians. The disciples told Paul that not only should he not teach the Jews to not keep Jewish laws; but that he should command Gentiles to also keep some of these laws; now that they were Christians. This indicates without any doubt that the Christian Jews in Judea, including all the disciples were against any abrogation of any of Judaism's laws; and that; despite their having accepted Christianity over Judaism.

Again this is not surprising, given that the disciples were "unlearned and ignorant" of the scriptures[this by the way was true...[apart from Matthew and Luke...others like James and John and Peter were probably illiterate, their being fishermen]
Christ had to explain the scriptures to two of his disciples who were on their way to Emmaus just after Christ was crucified. The disciples were not clear on the interplay of Jewish sacrificial ceremonies and their relationship to the eternal sacrifice of their Lord. They consequently kept observing these ceremonies just as ardently; even though this was now unnecessary. Paul inderstood the interplay; and his was a mission to explain to the Christian Jews of Judaism that though they were Jews; and though they need not abandon their culture[they could still practice their Jewish laws and ceremonies] yet thry must see the laws and ceremonies for the purpose for which they were originally intended...He then makes the arguments that you have presented to show that "the law was a school master to point us to Christ" He even makes the point that the entire play of salvation was not about their being descendants of Abraham and being Jewish...He explained this by making the point that "he is not a Jew; if born one and circumcised as one; but that he is a Jew only because of his being circumcised in his heart".

The discussion of Paul is a discussion with him and his fellow Christian Jews who held that Jew and Gentile alike must follow all or some of Judaism's laws. Paul's intent was not to downplay the importance of Jewish laws; as can be seen by his keeping the sabbath himself and participating in ceremonial ritual.
He made the point that "there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ Jesus"... meaning that by identifying with Jewish laws one does not any more resemble a Christian than if he were a Greek Gentile Christian who was never associated with the laws of Judaism.

Paul's reference to ceremonial law observance re "let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days'...Colosians 2:16...are direct references to ceremonial observances of:

....1/'eating foods sacrificed to idols"[meat] This is a directive given by the Jerusalem council to the Gentile Christians. A directive that the Christian Jerusalem church expected that the Christian gentile church would indeed be judged by.

....2/[drink] was a reference to ceremonial drink as in ceremonially washing the cup before drinking from it.
In one of Christ's encounter with Pharisees; He referes to this ceremony in Matthew 23:25.

....3/"holydays" the Jews were commanded by God to keep many holydays...and hence the Christian Jews who still ardently kept these holydays, including "passover" a rite that any Jew even Christian should keep[if only because it comemorated their Eygptian deliverance] Christ Himself authorized His disciples to keep on celebrating "passover" but when they do they were to remeber His Supreme Sacrifice for the sins of humanity.
Another proof that keeping Jewish laws together with accepting Christ as Saviour was allright; as long as one understood the interplay of the ceremonial to the truth and intent to which the ceremomial pointed.

....4/[New moon} the ceremony of the new moon marks the exact beginning of the new month in each calendar year of twelve months. This ceremony was most important to all Jews; it was the only way that allowed them to know dates and times in a calendar year. In much the same way as we of modern society depend upon the rotation of the earth to determine our "days", "months", "year', and "seasons".
Again the Christian Jews because they understood the importance of knowing the seasons they also expect their Christian Gentile converts to also practice this ceremony.

.....5/[sabbath days ] Note "sabbath "days" and not sabbath day...."sabbath days" because there were many "sabbath days" declared as days of rest and gladness. These sabbath days were celebrated with regularity; and again the Christian Jews wanted the Christian Gentiles to celebrate these "sabbath days' as well. I say "sabbath days" in contradistinction to the seventh day sabbath; because Paul already in Acts 18:4 went to synagogue with the Gentile Greek Christians....and hence could not be saying that no man should judge anyone for observing the sabbath when they were already observing the seventh day sabbath.

There is therefore no doubt that the ongoing discussion be it re "circumcision' or "eating meat sacrificed to idols" or within the broad context of the reasons for continuing to keep the laws of Judaism, that Paul spent the greater part of his epistles explaining the interplay between the reasons for the ceremonial system of laws and their fulfillment in Christ.

Paul's conclusion is also quite revealing in that his intent was not to abrogate the laws of ceremonies; but to explain to those who had no understanding of how these laws of ceremonies related to Christ and His Sacrifice for the sins of humanity....This is seen in Paul's statements re:..."To the Jew I became a Jew; in order to win the Jew[to the truth of Christ's Christianity] To them that are under the law; I became as under the law, thqt I might gain them that are under the law. To the Gentile ; I became as a Gentile[ie to win the Gentile to the truth that Christianity had no more need of the laws of ceremonies. although in the process he did not win the favor of the Christian Jews who condemned Paul for not keeping Judaism's laws.] 1 Corinthians 9:20-21

Certainly it is not surprising that you think Paul contradicts himself if the book of Acrs was authentically the words of God...and hence you must find a way to discard the book of Acts to explain away Paul's seeming contradiction. You are in a multitudinous company because Most Christians misunderstand and quotes Paul not knowing the "whys" and "wherefores" of Paul's theology.


precept

 

[precept]

Early church fathers would be in the second half of the second century. The era of Iraeneus would be the likely culprit. I'm not alone in that assessment of Acts. Many scholars agree that Acts coincided with major revisions to Luke sometime after 150. There are no extant records of its existence until the latter half of the second century. It directly contradicts the writings of Paul and it is obvious from its style and structure that it is a theological polemic meant to justify a certain viewpoint. Nobody has the slightest clue who actually wrote it even.

The unjustifiable stance here is ignoring that Paul himself disagrees with you on numerous occassions. Like I said before. At best you have a conflict between Paul's own account of his beliefs and those of an unknown polemicist writing 100 years later.

I'm quite sure I've made a convincing case for how Paul felt about the need for Christians to observe Jewish customs. I don't even need to "spin" what he wrote. Anyone who wants to can read lengthy and clear statements from Paul himself on the issue quoted above and make up their own minds.

Not so fast! Abogado.....A quick exit by no means make your point. You refer to pseudographical writers[false writers] of God's holy word as if His word was written by mere men who chose to remain anonymous for unclear reasons. This you choose to do when you are found "without legs". You are again "without legs" to explain how the word of God itself speaks, not only of its "not being of private interpretation" but that the word of God is perfect"...Psalm 19:7-8. How can you pontifically say that the word of God contradicts itself as in Paul contradicting himself re [the]his writings in the book of Acts; yet have God's handpicked prophet David saying that the word of God is "Perfect"?
If the choice is given between accepting the "Word of scholars" who thmeselves are without understanding of God's word in the slightest; and between accepting the "Word of God's prophet" who so understands God's word that he is proclaimed by God Himself as a "man after God's own heart"; whose "word, Abogado...would you, without a doubt, choose to believe?

Your proposition that the book of Acts "was probably written between 150AD-200AD makes Gentile the author/authors of the book of Acts. This is an impossible proposition; if only because the Gentile Christians took over the leadership of the Christian church in 130AD after the Jewish Christian leadership was forcibly removed by the emperor Adrian from the very Jewish Christian church centered in Jerusalem. You make gentile author/authors glorify the Jewish Acts of the Apostles when in fact the opposite was true[the Christian Gentiles were busily preoccupied in distancing themselves from their very Jewish origins; as they sought the emperor Adrian continued favors. Yet would have gentile writers commanding Paul to adhere to Jewish rituals and Jewish laws; in two councils that were held in Jerusalem and chaired by Jews. You have them writing about Paul habitual attendance in Jewish synagogiues; synagogues that were not even in Judea; making Paul's attendance at these synagogues quite voluntary. Not only do you have Gentile writers as in "early church fathers"[/B]ESTABLISHING PAUL'S AND THUS JEWISH SABBATH OBSERVANCE; BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THE SAME GENTILE WRITER SAYING THAT HIS FELLOW GREEK GENTILE CHRISTIAN ALSO ATTENDED SYNAGOGUE ON THE SABBATH! Acts 18:4.
Is the dilemna mine or is it still yours?[/B[

1 Peter is psuedoepigraphical. So no, that doesn't present a problem. What "scriptures" is the writer talking about, BTW? Do you know?

The scriptures to which Peter refers is "All scripture is written by inspiration of God" Paul:2 Timothy 3:16. Which annuls your supposition that the book of Acts was "probably written by sinful men".


precept

 

[shepard]

I am sorry that I have not responded back to my question, I had to go out of town this weekend. I have read some not alll of the responses. I would first like to say that I have based my study from the King James Bible and I am very careful in trying to make sure that other things I read alighn with it. No disrespect to any one who bases their belief on something else. I have accepted this by Faith first, and many of the words written in it have been proven, I have yet to find any evidence to the contrary.

With that being said through my study I have found that the Catholic Church openly admits that their church is also based on the Bible. For I have found that they have listed many verses from the Bible to support some of their positions. So anyone who would disagree with this, is simply not accepting the facts.

Now first on their position of Peter being named head of the Church. This was my first topic of study. For I have learned that the four gospel Matt, Mark , Luke and John are all telling the same story of Jesus, but from four different prespectives. So this gives us a beautiful picture from different sides and we are better able to understand the characters of the disciples as well as Jesus.
I have found that through out the Gospels Jesus is trying to show us man's different characters, for we all have different faults and weakness as well as strong points. This goes to show us that Jesus can use any of us even in our flaws.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Precept:


I'll say this one last time. Apparently you just refuse to read it. Your problem is much, much deeper then whether Acts is genuine. Regardless, your argument that Paul taught people they must observe Jewish customs to be Christian is directly contradicted in Paul's own writings at least 10 times. You continue to ignore it, but Paul disagrees with you numerous times. The fact that you keep ignoring it tells me you really aren't here to debate this issue. Which is why this discussion is over.

 

[Quahom1]

Well, interesting debate going on. However, there is another perspective of the separation of Judaism and Christianity, and when.

AD 41 (circa), began the emergence of Christianity from its Jewish roots. And it started with the stoning of Stephen. Let us consider why:

The Counsil (Sanhedrin) had a serious problem to deal with. Stephen was causing an uproar with the people. So they had him arrested. But that was merely the tip of the iceberg. There was a movement concerning Jesus eight years in the making, and it was spreading fast, and no one knew how to stop it. Over and over the counsil ordered the "Nazarenes" to stop their gibberish about Jesus, but the prototype Christians only grew louder. The council was even accused of killing the "messiah".

Stephen, having renouncing the law of Moses and attacking the temple of God (in the council's eyes), had to be stopped. At trial, Stpehen acknowledged Jewish history, but insisted men could worship God apart from the temple. He showed that Moses prophesised the Messiah's arrival. (Acts 7:37), and he quoted Isaiah to prove that God does not dwell in temples built by man. Then Stephen accused the council and their forefathers of killing both the prophets who foretold the coming of the Lord, and they themselves of killing the Lord. The infamous "You have received the Law...but do not obey it..." (Acts 7:51-53). Stephen was done for. They took him out and stoned him, while Saul (not yet known as Paul), as leader of the attack upon the Nazarenes, stood nearby. He had to wonder how anyone could profess following a hanged savior? Wasn't a "messiah" the one favor of God rested? How could being hung on a cross be a favor? Then Saul found his answer on a dusty road near Damascus. Blind and afraid he was asked why he was persecuting Jesus (sic). Then Saul understood what Stephen was about.

Saul/Paul explains it thus: "The law pronounces a curse on everyone who fails to keep it in its entirety, so all who hope to gain god's favor by keeping the law are exposed to a curse. fortunately, God provided a way of escape. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us..." (Gal 3:10-14)

The law of God was given for a time to convince men of their inability to carryout that law (obey God), and to provide for no option but to accept Jesus' death and resurrection....a very hard truth to swallow for Judaism.

End of my first part.

What am I leading up to here? The birth of the Catholic church.

v/r

Q

 

[shepard]

Now I found these text which the Curch has listed: John 21:15-17, luke 22:31-32 , Matt 16: 18,19
18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. This one really caught my attention, so I began to read the whole gospels
As with any story or book we must be very carefull not to take what is said out of context. For I wanted to know the whole story. So this is what I have found: That the gospels were full of lesson to the disciples as an example to us.


Another lesson Christ had to give, relating especially to Peter. Peter's denial of his Lord had been in shameful contrast to his former professions of loyalty. He had dishonored Christ, and had incurred the distrust of his brethren. They thought he would not be allowed to take his former position among them, and he himself felt that he had forfeited his trust. Before being called to take up again his apostolic work, he must before them all give evidence of his repentance. Without this, his sin, though repented of, might have destroyed his influence as a minister of Christ. The Jesus gave him opportunity to regain the confidence of his brethren, and, so far as possible, to remove the reproach he had brought upon the gospel.

Here is given a lesson for all Christ's followers. The gospel makes no compromise with evil. It cannot excuse sin. Secret sins are to be confessed in secret to God; but, for open sin, open confession is required. The reproach of the disciple's sin is cast upon Christ. It causes Satan to triumph, and wavering souls to stumble. By giving proof of repentance, the disciple, so far as lies in his power, is to remove this reproach.

While Christ and the disciples were eating together by the seaside, Jesus said to Peter, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me more than these?" referring to his brethren. Peter had once declared, "Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended." Matt. 26:33. But he now put a truer estimate upon himself. "Yea, Lord," he said, "Thou knowest that I love Thee." There is no vehement assurance that his love is greater than that of his brethren. He does not express his own opinion of his devotion. To Him who can read all the motives of the heart he appeals to judge as to his sincerity,"Thou knowest that I love Thee." And Jesus bids him, "Feed My lambs."

Again Jesus applied the test to Peter, repeating His former words: "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me?" This time He did not ask Peter whether he loved Him better than did his brethren. The second response was like the first, free from extravagant assurance: "Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep." Once more the Saviour put the trying question: "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me?" Peter was grieved; he thought that Jesus doubted his love. He knew that his Lord had cause to distrust him, and with an aching heart he answered, "Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou knowest that I love Thee." Again Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep." Three times Peter had openly denied his Lord, and three times Jesus drew from him the assurance of his love and loyalty, pressing home that pointed question, like a barbed arrow to his wounded heart. Before the assembled disciples Jesus revealed the depth of Peter's repentance, and showed how thoroughly humbled was the once boasting disciple.


I have found that Peter was naturally forward and impulsive. Just before the fall of Peter, Jesus had said to him, "Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Luke 22:31, 32.

 

[shepard]

Continued.

I have found that the first work that Christ entrusted to Peter on restoring him to the ministry was to feed the lambs. This was a work in which Peter had little experience. It would require great care and tenderness, much patience and perseverance. It called him to minister to those who were young in the faith, to teach the ignorant, to open the Scriptures to them, and to educate them for usefulness in Christ's service. Heretofore Peter had not been fitted to do this, or even to understand its importance. But this was the work which Jesus now called upon him to do. For this work his own experience of suffering and repentance had prepared him.
Before his fall, Peter was always speaking unadvisedly, from the impulse of the moment. He was always ready to correct others, and to express his mind, before he had a clear comprehension of himself or of what he had to say. But the converted Peter was very different. He retained his former fervor, but the grace of Christ regulated his zeal. He was no longer impetuous, self-confident, and self-exalted, but calm, self-possessed, and teachable. He could then feed the lambs as well as the sheep of Christ's flock.

Jesus walked alone with Peter, for I belive there was something which He wished to communicate to him only. Before His death, Jesus had said to him, "Whither I go, thou canst not follow Me now; but thou shalt follow Me afterwards."

Peter had failed when the test came, but again he was to have opportunity to prove his love for Christ. That he might be strengthened for the final test of his faith, the Saviour opened to him his future. He told him that after living a life of usefulness, when age was telling upon his strength, he would indeed follow his Lord. Jesus said, "When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake He, signifying by what death he should glorify God."

Peter had been restored to his apostleship, but the honor and authority he received from Christ had not given him supremacy over his brethren. This Christ had made plain when in answer to Peter's question, "What shall this man do?" He had said, "What is that to thee? follow thou Me." Peter was not honored as the head of the church. The favor which Christ had shown him in forgiving his apostasy, and entrusting him with the feeding of the flock, and Peter's own faithfulness in following Christ, won for him the confidence of his brethren.
I think Peter's own words should sum it up: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who I am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." 1 Peter 5:1-4.

 

[Quahom1]

Welcome back Shepard

(Precept, remember ...)

Let us begin with First off "Catholic" never appears in the NT. In fact it is coined by the Bishop of Antioch in the early second century, named Ignatius. He stated that "Wherever Jesus Christ is, ther is the Catholic church." By the end of the second century catholic was in wide use, and meant that it was universal, and orthodox (as opposed to local parishes or heretical groups).

So, how did the disparate congregations of an apostolic way work themselves into a "catholic" Christianity?

Christianity afterall, began as a tiny offshoot of Judaism...?

v/r

Q