Question for conservative Christians

[spirit5er]

Originally Posted by spirit5er
Even when Jesus is physically standing next to you answering all your questions about that subject? Sorry, that’s most absurd.

Would it matter if I did? After all, the papacy wouldn’t approve of such evidence, so why are you asking me to produce evidence that your presuppositions force you to deny?

Paul gave in to Jewish scruples and circumcised Timothy “because of the Jews in those parts” (Acts 16:3), …Why then does he rebuke Peter for giving in to the views of some Jews in Galatians 2:14, on the basis that Peter didn’t truly feel that this Jewish way was the correct way, when in fact Paul similarly didn’t truly agree with the Jews that Timothy needed to be circumcized, but only complied out of conscience?

These two circumstances are very different. St. Paul circumcized Timothy for utility. St. Peter’s actions imposed the requirement of the Old Law on the gentiles.

Or maybe Peter was doing this for utility, to avoid offending Jewish brethren, since by Paul’s rebuke itself, Peter didn’t act like that when the Jewish brothers weren’t in town?

in Galatians 2, Peter’s conduct which Paul criticizes, was his choice to stop eating with Gentiles. But Paul’s hypocrisy concerned circumcision, which was the basis of the dispute in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

If Peter is a hypocrite for giving into Jewish scruples concerning eating with Gentiles, which is not directly called a heresy, then Paul is a worse hypocrite for giving in to Jewish scruples on circumcision, which IS directly called a heresy in Acts 15, right?

Again, the difference is that Paul’s action was done for utility and affected no one adversely, while Peter’s actions imposed Jewish customs on the gentiles.

What makes you think Peter’s imposition of these customs on Gentiles was something more than for mere utility while James’s legalists were in town?

I have the perfect right to expect Jesus and not just Paul to have explained this, and to therefore be suspicious of the “gargantuan change” theory when I never find Jesus addressing the matter.

I’m not sure that there’s any “change in theology”.

Hebrews 8:13
When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear

The idea that salvation is in Christ, and not adherence to the prescripts of the Law (which Christ himself treated as mutable), seems to be in accord with what Christ taught.

Jesus taught specifically adherence to Mosaic prescripts, ALL of them, not just some of them, in Matthew 5. He was too specific and his words do not leave room to allow for muting any parts of Mosaic Law later. Jesus either changed his viewpoint or gospel editors made him appear to do so.

If you admit Paul and James disagreed, how did you figure out which one had the truth?

The one that’s in agreement with the positive judgment of scripture.

How about, the one that walked and talked with the real historical earthly pre-resurrection Jesus, is more likely to correctly understand what Jesus meant?

James can’t be called a heretic since it’s clear He isn’t culpable for heresy. He had no clear, definitive judgment to adhere to.

Where do you think James’s converts got the idea to remain zealous for the law after their conversion (Acts 21:20). Sure sounds like the gospel James gave them, was perfectly harmonious with their continued observance of the law, doesn’t it?

Now you are saying two people, the highest authorities of the gospel under Christ at the time, who gained their gospel knowledge by walking and talking with Jesus for at least three years, “got it wrong”, while Paul, who never knew the earthly Jesus, got it right.

When it came to the requirements of the Law, this certainly seems to have been the case.

The mere fact that the author of Acts makes this appear to be the case, certainly doesn’t mean it IS the case.

I’m sure Peter and James would have been much more intimately familiar with the details of Christ’s life, however.

Justifying skeptics who think these two are more likely to have understood what Jesus wanted of Gentiles, than Paul, whom they disagreed with.

 

[spirit5er]

and no words of his anticipation that the Cross would change the criteria of salvation survive today.

The criteria of salvation did not change, since salvation was impossible before Christ’s Crucifixion.

Unless you can find where Jesus made an exception for Gentiles respecting circumcision, Pauline theology says the criteria for salvation changed. Before the cross, Jesus is telling the rich young ruler, “obey the commandments, and come follow me.” After the cross, Paul is saying “we are no longer under a tutor of the law after Christian faith has come.” it’s obviously two different recipies for salvation.

Do I really have to say that? This is such a central concept to Christianity. You’d think that even the most ignorant atheist would be able to say that Christians believe that Christ’s Crucifixion opened the way to heaven!

You think even the most ignorant Catholics would have known about biblical cases of people going to heaven before Jesus died!

Where did I claim that the criteria of salvation had changed?

Your admission that your first Pope, who was in a better position than Paul to know the truth, didn’t know it when he should have. That means you’ve got original apostles disagreeing on the critiera of salvation, when I’ve already shown the idea that Peter got it wrong and Paul got it right is nonsense, given Peter was far closer to the real earthly historical pre-resurrection Jesus than paul ever was. You simply and blindly assume Peter’s stupidity merely because Acts and Paul paint that picture, and you are totally closed to the possibility that ancient religious writers could embellish a story for their own personal gain. There is no reason to think the New Testament authors were free from such biases.

 

[spirit5er]

What ever would have given a contemporary of Jesus (as 1st John’s gnostics were) the idea that he wasn’t manifest in the flesh?

When you insist that the idea is the type that is sufficiently stupid so as to expect it would never create a huge following, yes.

If I started preaching something that clearly contradicts common sense, such as Jesus being a raccoon, what are the chances I’d gain enough of a following to compell your church to make a formal pronouncement against it?

Gnosticism doesn’t contradict common sense. It’s perfectly itelligible.

The idea that Jesus wasn’t manifested in the flesh, which 1st John says is from the anti-christ, is perfectly intelligible?

Are you just talking stupid because you know you’ll be forgiven later, regardless?

The viability of the Gnostic idea, given their ability to know the earthly Jesus personally, is not possible.

What? I don’t think you know what gnosticism is. It doesn’t propose that Christ didn’t appear as flesh.

I am talking about the early gnosticism the author of 1st John spoke against. Gnosticism is multi-faceted, you cannot tell me I don’t know what it is just because the form you are familar with doesn’t deny the incarnation.

The only way such a “radical” view could have gained so much momentum that it needed checking by an authority of the Church, is if what they believed was easily reconcilable with the known facts. Nowhere do our canonical gospels state that Jesus taught that matter is just an illusion or evil, so what make you think this gnostic idea was “viable”?

It doesn’t follow that because Christ never made such a teaching, the teaching is irreconcilable with the facts.

I’m sorry, did you give an argument for this assertion? Or did you fancy yourself to be the pope and just assume that whatever you say is the end of the discussion?

Might it be that there were early gospels showing Jesus teaching gnosticism, but which were censored by the party that eventually won history’s popularity contest?

Anything might be.

What’s the likelihood that the winners of history’s popularity contest censored and destroyed early forms of Christianity?

How about that Gospel of Thomas? Thank God Constantine didn’t burn all copies of this curious oddball from the first-century, or we might never have any proof that Jesus taught gnostic ideas, eh?

The Gospel of Thomas is “proof” that Jesus taught Gnostic ideas?

I’m glad, at the very least, that you can admit “oddballs” existed in the first century. Maybe that can help you account for some of the ideas floating around at the time

Do you seriously think I view Thomas as “oddball”? Obviously I was only referring to how YOU must view it, in spite of the fact that it testifies to a very early form of Christianity that you’d likely never have known about had your forbears been more successful in their attempt to white-wash history.

 

[spirit5er]

Remember … Galileo’s theory was not correct either.
He argued against an earth-centered universe (rightly so) in favor of a sun-centered universe (which is not correct).

Good thing the church did jump up and say Galileo was correct.

michel

That is a distraction argument. I’m talking about the Roman Catholics using the bible to “refute” Galileo, such as where the sun is said to be moving and to then stop, in Joshua 10:13.

So my point remains valid. “God” did not tell Roman Catholics that their interpretation of Joshua 10:13 was wrong, until science forced them to hear God differently.

Which boils down to nothing more than: Roman Catholics don’t have god more than anybody else, which is why they make just as many mistakes as everybody else, and why they bought into false biblical cosmology for so long.

 

[Tomb54]

While I will not say I am very well versed on early history or anything else, when I read about Jesus saying follow the law I think the ten commandments. He also tells the Jewish leaders that the greatest commandments are to love God with your whole heart and soul and to love your nieghbor as yourself. Even the Jew he is talking to concede this is the root of the law and that Jesus is correct in saying this. Jesus also says later all about Divorce is that will the Jew could divorce because they we weak and God allowed this, a couple should not divorce because they become one under the law. This show Jesus coming to fullfill the law and correct it in some areas. If you believe that the root (Mt Sinia) of the Jewish law is the ten commandaments the Almost all Christians follow these laws or at least say they try. I am circumised and never have been a Jew but I thought the arguement Paul stated was grown men on conversion did not need to be circumised and this was the main problem to be addressed. If you go to a Catholic Mass and a Jewish service you will see many similiarities because the first Chriastians were Jews. I also think Peter converted the first Gentile so it was not part of the disagreement that Gentile should be part of the faith just what extra precepts of the Jewish Faith put on later for weak people above the root law that they needed to follow to be saved. God Bless

 

[Tomb54]

Even when Jesus is physically standing next to you answering all your questions about that subject?

Who is more likely to know what the true gospel is?

First one I would guess you would not believe either even if he took you to heaven to answer your questions but that right you do not believe in heaven either, just that when your life is over it is over as you believe it is for all us and your family.

Who knows the bible best – Jesus (God) and the Devil know it best and they both use it – Jesus to save and the Devil to lead a stray.
God Bless and if you do want to believe I hope it is before it is too late. I will Pray for you and your family even if you think it doesn’t do any good.

 

[spirit5er]

I also think Peter converted the first Gentile so it was not part of the disagreement that Gentile should be part of the faith just what extra precepts of the Jewish Faith put on later for weak people above the root law that they needed to follow to be saved. God Bless

The Jewish Christians were amazed at Gentile SALVATION:

Acts 11:17-18
17 “Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”
18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”

So bible-believers still need to explain how modern Christians 2000 years after the fact have no problems understanding stuff like John 3:16 (early in Jesus’ ministry), but the people who actually knew Jesus, along with their first followers, had so much difficulty with such an otherwise simple obvious truth.

What’s worse, the summary statement of Gentile salvation put into the resurrected Jesus’ mouth in Matthew 28, indicates at the very least that Jesus spoke to his apostles about Gentile salvation before leaving earth. The chances that their relation to the law would NOT have been discussed are extremely low.

Nobody is quoted in Acts 15 as having relied on the words or teaching of Jesus to support their view of Gentiles in relation to circumcision, yet it is ridiculous to think this sort of question would not have been answered by Jesus during his earthly three-year ministry, where he (assuming gospel accuracy) offered salvation to both Jew and Gentile. If Jesus did NOT answer this question, it sounds like his mission was never intended to be expanded to Gentiles, hence no need to discuss the Gentile circumcision issue. If Jesus DID answer this question (assuming he was just as interested in saving Gentiles as Jews), then the question of what Gentiles needed to do to get saved would never rise to the level of a fierce debate that required a meeting of Christianity’s finest to solve.

Is it not obvious that the book of Acts is trying to justify Paul’s gentile ministry, and in doing so, makes Jesus original apostles seem to be especially unbelievable? Luke’s task was to make James and Peter look more in agreement with Paul than they really were. How to do this? Easy: James and Peter’s view, that Gentiles really have no part in salvation, must be shown to be mistaken in some way, so that Paul’s pro-Gentile view, will be shown correct.

Acts would be the perfect bit of whitewashed history for Paul to take on his Gentile mission far away from Jerusalem. Should he meet anybody who says “we heard that your gospel is different than the one Jesus’ original apostles are preaching”, he could simply supply them with the book of Acts, declare triumphantly that he’d already come to agreement with them on the gospel, and increase his chances of gaining in popularity.

Paul would have known that it would be especially unlikely for a prospective convert, with such questions, living so far away from Jersualem, to make a costly dangerous time-consuming trip to Jerusalem merely to verify what the book of Acts said. Such Gentiles in the first-century would be needed daily by their families, and would be left with no real reason to dispute what Acts said, given Paul’s complete failure to give them the actual words of Jesus. It was a good business idea for the time, but the Pauline bias seen in Acts is too great to think it’s historicity hasn’t been impinged thereby.

 

[spirit5er]

First one I would guess you would not believe either even if he took you to heaven to answer your questions but that right you do not believe in heaven either, just that when your life is over it is over as you believe it is for all us and your family.

Who knows the bible best – Jesus (God) and the Devil know it best and they both use it – Jesus to save and the Devil to lead a stray.
God Bless and if you do want to believe I hope it is before it is too late. I will Pray for you and your family even if you think it doesn’t do any good.

Your answer leaves the door open to the possibility that James and Paul disagreed on the gospel, which means Pauline Christianity might indeed be the heresy, not the Judaizers.

That might dispute your belief that the Roman Catholic church never leads anybody astray, but so what? Mormons are sure the Mormon church won’t lead anybody astray, but you’d insist they consider that possibility anyway. Don’t demand more of others than you demand of yourself. People are discovering all the time that their long-held dogmatic views were actually false, and the fact that you are dogmatically certain of the truth of your faith only puts you in line as possible future apostate.

 

[Teflon93]

Your answer leaves the door open to the possibility that James and Paul disagreed on the gospel, which means Pauline Christianity might indeed be the heresy, not the Judaizers.

That might dispute your belief that the Roman Catholic church never leads anybody astray, but so what? Mormons are sure the Mormon church won’t lead anybody astray, but you’d insist they consider that possibility anyway. Don’t demand more of others than you demand of yourself. People are discovering all the time that their long-held dogmatic views were actually false, and the fact that you are dogmatically certain of the truth of your faith only puts you in line as possible future apostate.

When may we look forward to you following your own advice?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Your answer leaves the door open to the possibility that James and Paul disagreed on the gospel, which means Pauline Christianity might indeed be the heresy, not the Judaizers.

Spiriter,
Are you familiar with the passage in Peter’s letter where he refers to Paul’s letters? Or do you think they’re forgeries? Anyway, here it is:

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

Peter urges caution with Paul’s letters, but he doesn’t condemn Paul’s letters.

 

[spirit5er]

Peter regards it as “news” that God welcomes anybody who fears him and does what is right. As a Jew, there is every reason to suppose he’d have held the Jewish view that only the Jews are welcomed by God.

the pre-resurrection Jesus already showed by his example that being a follower of Jesus allows Jews and Gentiles to fellowship together. Peter’s regarding this as “news” in Acts 10 and 11 is likely Pauline prejudiced embellishment, not likely due to bad memory.

Peter does not speak of any “revelation” that the gentiles can now be saved. His issue concerns precisely how the law is now to be observed.

Peter’s Jewish Christian brothers criticized him for associating with Gentiles, but then changed their minds after hearing his vision-story, concluding with amazement that God also saves Gentiles:

NAU Acts 11:1-2,17-18
1 Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him, 3 saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” 4 But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them in orderly sequence…
17 “Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”
18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, **“Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” **

Repentence that leads to life is not “law”, it is “salvation”. Therefore, Peter’s Jewish fellow Christians found it shocking that God also saved Gentiles. You continue to insist that what they found shocking was something other than salvation, but “repentence that leads to life” pins you down.

It`s very understandable why the people would have been “amazed”. Something was being accomplished which they have never seen before - something that appeared totally outside the Mosaic Covenant.

It is NOT understandable that they would be amazed, under your assumption that Jesus taught salvation of Jew and Gentile (John 3:16). If Peter taught them the true gospel, why are they regarding things that Jesus spoke about and did (i.e., Gentile salvation) as amazing? What’s so unexpected about something Jesus has been teaching for his entire ministry?

Someone might be amazed to see an eclipse, but that doesn`t mean that they had no idea eclipses were possible. Nice try, though.

False analogy, the amazement of the first Christians at Gentile salvation includes a report that shows they didn’t believe Gentile salvation was possible:

NAU Acts 11
1 Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him,
3 saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

They would not criticize Peter for eating with Gentiles, if they thought Gentiles could be saved.

You`re drawing an inference there that has no foundation in the text. There is no mention of salvation.

What else does “God has granted them repentence that leads to life” mean, except “salvation”?

The “sticking point” was that the requirement for cicumcision was apparently being abandoned.

The amazement of Peter’s cohorts wasn’t “Then God has allowed Gentiles to get circumcized”, but rather “then God Gentiles the repentence that leads to life.”

It would have been a scandalous thing for Jewish converts.

How can you say that, under your assumption that the stories or Jesus interacting with uncircumcized people in the gospels are part of the same gospel Peter and his fellows converted to?

Their limited understanding of the nature of the New Covenant does not mean that they had any doubts gentiles could be saved as well.

Their specific words show it. Please deal with their specific words.

They simple assumed that it would require adherence to the prescripts of the Mosaic Law.

They had every reason to think so, since that is exactly what Jesus required of Gentiles.

Where do you suppose these circumcised “apostles and brethren” got the idea that Jews fellowshipping with Gentiles in Christian spirit is wrong, especially since Jesus himself fellowshipped with Gentiles and caused the same sort of stir among the Pharisees?

Conjecture is all we have at this point.

Some conjectures are more likely true than others. If the gospel you read today is the exact same as the gospel which Peter’s Jewish Christian friends converted to, they had no reason whatsoever to hold the non-Christian view they held. One of Jesus’ most popular scandles was his association with uncircumcised Gentiles. Unless you have a better argument, the criticism of Peter in Acts 11 gives us a rare glimpse into what Christianity was before Paul got a hold of it.

 

[spirit5er]

Clearly, their concern was for adherence to the ritual law.

You still aren’t dealing with the specific words of amazement in Acts 11:18.

That they wouldn`t take the example of Jesus is perhaps evidence that they believed he had a singular privilege to “bend” the Law.

not likely, since in his associations with Gentiles, he justifies himself in a way that any Jewish Christian could. In Luke 15:7 and 10, Jesus defends his association with Gentiles by saying that their repentance causes joy in heaven.

If that was the gospel Peter’s associates in Acts 11 converted to, then the same story which told them Jesus ate with Gentiles, also told them that Jesus said heaven rejoices when Gentiles repent. Your position does not explain their amazement at Gentile repentence.

Or perhaps they had become disoriented by the deceptions of Satan, and were unable or unwilling to see this point out of some form of Jewish chauvanism.

Gee, the deceptions of Satan is a convenient way to duck out from the ramifications of early resistance to Gentile salvation, eh?
No historian in the world would think “deceptions of Satan” qualifies to help explain any historical anomoly. Your resort to the conveniently unfalsifiable speculation about Satan is indicative of your inability to refute me on historical grounds.

yet is unbelievable, and it’s ramifications are devastating to all Pauline Christianity. Either Jesus never preached Gentile salvation, or the apostles and brethren had unbelievably bad memories.

Hardly devastating. These are rather strong conclusions to draw from such an ambiguous text.

I disagree with you that the text is ambiguous. Maybe you don’t see the point because you refuse to deal with SALVATION as was spelled out for you in Acts 11:18? Why do you keep denying that this issue is about salvation?

 

[spirit5er]

Originally Posted by spirit5er
First, I do not present the “James-against-Paul” viewpoint to argue that God doesn’t exist. The best arguments against God’s existence are the incoherency of the word “god” iself, and the self-contradictory attributes of God found throughout the bible. No object with self-contradictory properties can exist as described. If God does exist, the bible must be telling SOME lies about God, since it’s picture of God is inconsistent.

I pick the James vs. Paul issue because it uses the same evidence Christians use to deny it, the New Tesetament, and I believe I can show that my hypothesis explains the data better.

Originally Posted by spirit5er
Third, the biblical data on James alone are enough to establish that he was the leader of the Judaizers and therefore regarded Paul as a heretic. Paul’s stated concord with James in Galatians 2 must be interpreted in context, and in the same context where he says James gave him the right hand of fellowship, he also trivilaized the authority and office of James (“what they were, it doesn’t matter to me”).

Third, your response does absolutely nothing to defend the harmony between James and Paul you trust in.

(bold added by me)

Numbers are hard, aren’t they?

What, I didn’t give you enough information to refute?

(shrug) Maybe neither of them was saved.

Maybe all of apostle Paul’s statements about himself being genuinely saved are false?

Maybe the Jews were right all along. Still doesn’t prove God doesn’t exist.

Hypotheses which are based on incoherent words or concepts disprove their own existence thereby.

I am willing to discuss your presumption that God exists, and my presumption that she doesn’t, if you are willing to start a new thread for that purpose here.

 

[spirit5er]

Spiriter,
Are you familiar with the passage in Peter’s letter where he refers to Paul’s letters? Or do you think they’re forgeries?

I think the letters of Peter are forgeries.

Peter urges caution with Paul’s letters, but he doesn’t condemn Paul’s letters.

We must not overlook the fact that we see everyday, that a person’s theological views change over time. The idea that this didn’t happen with the apostles is not likely. As such, I wouldn’t even be surprised if correspondence between James and Paul is found showing their agreement on doctrine. But for now, the biblical data pit Paul against James and Jesus.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think the letters of Peter are forgeries.

We must not overlook the fact that we see everyday, that a person’s theological views change over time. The idea that this didn’t happen with the apostles is not likely. As such, I wouldn’t even be surprised if correspondence between James and Paul is found showing their agreement on doctrine. But for now, the biblical data pit Paul against James and Jesus.

Oh, do you think Peter’s letters were written by followers of Paul? Yes certainly you can see theological development in the NT.