P
pablope
Guest
I suggest that you start your own thread about the council in Jerusalem.
- Status
J
jmcrae
Guest
D
Dokimas
Guest
Maybe, but most likely not. Thank you for your concern.That’s how I became a Catholic.
Perhaps you too will one day become a Catholic.
J
jmcrae
Guest
No. Acceptance of the Gentiles without circumcision became the law of the Church when Peter declared it so at the Council of Jerusalem. Before that time, there would have been nothing for St. Paul to “correct” St. Peter on, since it was not yet a law of the Church.
Afterwards, when Peter was showing favoritism to the circumcised party, St. Paul reminded him of the Church law (which he himself had given) - but it was law because Peter had made it so. ("What ye bind on earth … " etc.)
Peter was teaching correctly, but acting incorrectly. St. Paul was not correcting his teachings, but rather, his actions.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Peter had received his own vision concerning the Gentiles (see Chapter 11). He was in agreement with Paul. Yes, the issue was about circumcision being required in order to be saved which was being promoted by certain Christians from the party of the Pharisees. It went beyond circumcision, however, and extended to Mosaic law in general being imposed upon the Gentile Christians. The point, however, is that “after much debate”, when Peter spoke “the whole assembly fell silent”; a clear indication of his authority above the other Apostles.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Could you point out the Bible verses that teach your point?
B
benedictus2
Guest
which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they." (Acts 15:10)
Now therefore, why do you Pharisees in the church of Jerusalem who
sent men out to the gentile believers to convert them to Judaism] test God by putting a yoke burden of the Law] on the neck of the disciples all followers of Christ, both Jew and Gentile alike – see verse 9] which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we all the apostles] believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we Jews] shall be saved in the same manner as they the Gentiles].
It is obvious that the apostles understood from the beginning of their commission to preach the Gospel that circumcision was not a requirement for any believer.
If you read from Verse 1 of Chapter 15, you will very quickly realize that your explanation does not hold water.
Code:
As a matter of fact, I find there is something rather disingenuous in your omission of these verses from your explanation. I wonder why you think it is necessary to chop up the chapter to prove a point.
Back step a little to end of Chapter 14 when Paul and Barnabas were in Antioch. While there Chapter 15 starts.Verse2 – Paul and Barnabas had a rather heated argument with then over circumcision
Code:
Verse 3 – So they were sent by the church in Antioch to Jerusalem so that they can discuss this with the apostles.Verse 5 – Some Pharisees stood up and insisted on the law
Verse 6 – the Apostles and presbyters met together to discuss the matter
Verse 7 -11 These verses I quote now verbatim from the New American Bible
*-*After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "**My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth **the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
*On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they." *
So based on the foregoing, I would say that you are wrong. the apostles DID NOT understand from the beginning of their commission to preach the Gospel that circumcision was not a requirement for any believer. Peter had to make a decree that it was not necessary based on what God had revealed to him.
So for some reason your Bible does not have verse 7 of Acts 15?
Again, it seems you need to get a new Bible because it seems your does not have verse 7 of Acts 15.
Please read the entire chapter so you can get your facts right.
Paul and Barnabas would not have needed to get clearance from the Apostles and Apostles if this was so.
Acts did not say that James wrote the letter.
As for the mandate, the apostles did not tell the church to adhere to circumcision but neither did they say it was not necessary. That was only decided at the Jerusalem council. That is why Paul and Barnabas needed to consult the apostles.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Hmmm, Just like Brian you seem to be guilty of selective reading. What ever happened to verses 7 to 12?
As regards verse 19, James was only concurring with what Peter has already decided in verses 7-12.
B
benedictus2
Guest
If you are referring to this:
Gal 2:11-12
And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself,** because he was afraid of the circumcised.**
It was not about circumcision.
The issue was not about circumcision but mingling with the gentiles as is clearly seen here. Peter was afraid of the circumcised - the Jews - so he would not eat with the Gentiles.
Paul was correcting Peter’s conduct not his teaching.
B
benedictus2
Guest
I think you just discussed that. Acts 15 from verse 7.
Paul told Peter off as he wrote in Gal 2:11-14
R
rinnie
Guest
The RCC. The only difference between the CC and the RCC is we are bound to the teachings of the Pope no matter what.
But the CC has all of the same teaching’s when it comes to Dogma of the faith. But it is not wrong to say the Church is the RCC or the CC. It is still the same teaching;s.
R
rinnie
Guest
You will, we all will when we try to intrepret the bible with the understanding of human means and of this world. The Lord say we cannot grasp the meanings of his words because we do not have the power of the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture.
That is why when the Apostles questioned him why he talked parables he explained it to them.
Look how he had to explain them to the apostles. Even they did not always understand. That is why he said he must leave and send the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truths.
Look at before Pentecost the Apostles were hiding and all scared, and did not know what to do. Until the day at Pentecost the Holy Spirit came upon them and then Peter was speaking in all languages etc.
Read what Peter said, This man God raised on the 3rd day granted that he be visible. not to ALL people but to US the witnesses CHOSEN BY GOD IN ADVANCE. He commissioned US to PREACH TO THE PEOPLE.
R
rinnie
Guest
No I never question myself about where I get my teaching’s and understanding. I know they come from God.
R
rinnie
Guest
Maybe’s good, Its a start
R
rinnie
Guest
Now with this said, if the People were to hear the good news by the Power of the Holy Spirit on their own, why does the word of God say certain were commissioned by him to do so.
I mean one thing I believe we can agree on, if God wanted to work through the Holy Spirit and the Holy SPirit only in an individual way he sure could do so. But he chose to use the Church the Holy Spirit working through the ones Chosen by God.
D
Dokimas
Guest
If you look back, you may find out that someone else mentioned verses 7-12 but left out those I quoted. Remember when you point a finger at others, there’s fingers pointing backward.
D
Dokimas
Guest
B
benedictus2
Guest
But the difference is, verse 7-12 makes a lie of your explanation of the verses you quoted but the verses your quoted in no way refutes our explanation of verse 7-12.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
CC is an abbreviation for “Catholic Church.” This is the name of the Church. Roman Catholic Church (RCC) refers to the fact that the CC has its headquarters in Rome. Either signifies the Church founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world. “Roman” was added by the Anglicans in the 16th century.
RCC also refers to the Roman Rite (also known as the Latin Rite) of the Catholic Church. There are many rites (ways of celebrating the Divine Liturgy) within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Jesus called it simply “My Church.” No name was necessary since there it was one of a kind. During the time the Apostles taught and the New Testament was written, heresies began to develop. So it became necessary to give the Ekklesia (Church) a name. The first record of the name was in A.D. 107, written by Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch: ** "Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" Letter to the Smyrnaeans
Ignatius was trained by St. John, ordained by St. Peter, and friends with St. Paul. He likely learned the name – which means ‘universal’ – from them.
Jim Dandy
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
You’re right. I should have said, since the time gentiles first believed the Gospel and received the Holy Spirit. You can read about it in Acts 11.
“When they heard this, they stopped objecting and glorified God, saying, “God has then granted life-giving repentance to the Gentiles too.”.” (v18)
Up until this time they understood that if gentiles are to be counted among the people of God they must become Jews and be circumcised according to the Law. (Exd. 12:48) But based on Peter’s experience, they all understood that salvation had come to the gentiles. No conversion to Judaism was necessary.
You appear to be under the impression that the apostles had a private meeting over this issue. The meeting took place in the church and involved the whole congregation.
Do you think that Peter received a revelation from God while convening in Jerusalem with the other apostles, telling him that the gentiles need not be burdened with circumcision? If so, who do you suppose he was referring to when he said, “we believe”?
It seems rather ridiculous that Peter would receive this revelation then immediately rebuke the other apostles by saying, “Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? But that is what you believe, isn’t it?
The church in Antioch sent them to Jerusalem concerning the question because both Paul with Barnabas and the Judaizers from Jerusalem were adamant. Since the Judaizers came from the church in Jerusalem, that is where they were sent to get the truth of the matter. The implication would have been that they were sent to preach the Law by the authority of the apostles, but Paul and Barnabas would have known that was not the case. In fact, on the way there they relayed the conversion of the gentiles and that news caused great Joy. Doesn’t sound like the folks that heard that news thought that gentiles needed to be circumcised into Judaism. Remember, the Pharisees in the Jerusalem church were troubled by the news of gentiles being added to the church without first converting to Judaism.
As the bishop of the church in Jerusalem, it was incumbent upon James to set the record straight. It was his idea to write the letter and in it he clearly stated that the Judaizers were not sent on behalf of the apostles or the church in Jerusalem.
- Status