Question for conservative Christians

[spirit5er]

I have not read fully through the thread here and am not sufficiently learned to discuss specifics but do have a comment or two I’d like to make.
First, is that I think there might very well have been 2 or even more “competing” forms of Christianity in the Fisrt century. I say this, not from any feel for dissention among the Apostles but rather due to the logistics involved in dealing with such a new and widespread Church. Certainly the Early heresies are testimony to this.

First, if there is only one gospel, then it will say the same thing no matter what part of the world it is preached in.

Second, the biblical data alone are sufficient to show James and Paul in theological conflict.

Third, it is premature to discuss what was genuine “heresy” without first establishing “orthodoxy” by which to properly judge dissent as heresy. If it is “obvious” that Jesus was manifested in the flesh, where did the first-century gnostics get the idea that he hadn’t been (as related in 1st John), and how could such a “ridiculous” hypothesis as theirs have gained enough converts to motivate John to think a rebuttal was warranted? Problems admitted by biblical authors do a good job of removing dogmatism from “orthodoxy”.

Second, as to the idea of whether “The Law” remained in force after the resurection, certainly there were various aspects of this that needed to be worked out.

Why? Did Jesus not make it clear to his Jew/Gentile audience in his sermon on the mount, that they must follow the law very carefully, even more than Pharisees, in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven? This sermon, if historically valid, makes the “debate” in Acts 15 absolutely unbelievable. I have to wonder: did the apostles also call councils to debate whether Jesus was manifested in the flesh? How many other problems with obvious solutions did the apostles spend time arguing needlessly about?
Furthermore, nobody in the Jerusalem Council is recorded as having made use of the ultimate argument, the words of Jesus. My guess is that Jesus supported the Judaizers (as the canonical gospels show him to teach a legalistic salvation), so that is why nobody in this council (which is really nothing more than an apologetic to make James appear more in agreement with Paul than he really was) quoted Jesus.

Furthermore, if the great commission in Matthew 28:19 is true (preach the gospel to all nations, not just Jews), then the resurrected Jesus was talking to his apostles about specifically GENTILE salvation, before he ascended. What is the likelihood that he never brought up the issue of Gentiles in relation to the Law? Not likely in the least. So the biblical data warrant anybody to believe Jesus solved the Acts 15 problem before it ever got started, leaving us to wonder why the author of Acts presents the apostles as needing to hash a theological problem that never could have been a problem in the first place.

However this does not mean that the Church, under the true and correct guidance of Christ through the Holy Spirit was not able to resolve these issues.

Jesus appears to have solved the issue before it ever became an issue. There’s enough Gentile assocation with Jesus in the gospels to indicate what Jesus thought about which laws, if any, they needed to obey. They needed to obey all of them, see Matthew 5.

Third, earlier you had posted something to the effect that you thought the recording of the council of Jerusalem to be “a lie”, or some such fabrication to discredit the “Judiasers”. (I disremember the exact terms you used.) This I find to be somewhat disturbing. Certainly ANY presupposition can be proved if one simply chooses to deny the documented evidence, or some portion thereof.

Maybe your bad memory is also the reason you don’t remember the arguments I set forth to justify that view of Acts 15:

– Nobody is quoting Jesus, when in fact Jesus is the final authority on the subject of salvation. It seems that the Acts-author could not avoid making the apostles’ conduct appear unbelievable as he went about drawing up this account.

– The account does little more than provide an apologetic for Paul. This is supported by the observation that Luke gives Paul’s Judaizer enemies a mere sentences’ worth of representation, while he spills much more ink recording details of the speeches by the apostles.

– If Acts 15 truly is historically correct, then obviously James did not automatically assign legalistic Christianity to the “heresy” category as Paul did in Galatians 1:8-9. That places distance between him and Paul, and of course, the person who was closer to the real historical Jesus (James) is the one more likely to have a correct opinion. James choice to call this council and give “heretics” a theological say-so strongly implies that he did not believe the Judaizer gospel was as obviously false as you do.
When is the last time the Roman Catholic church called a council to debate Mormons? When you are sure something is heresy, the only reason you meet with the heretics is to refute them, not consider their opinion!

Finally I would like to add that, in discussing matters of faith and the development of Christianity, it is dangerous to do so from the athiestic perspective simply because that perspective denys or minimizes certain critical aspects of the Church’s development in those early days. Those elements are the ones that are highly spiritual, mystical, and Spirit Guided.

I have other hypotheses that demonstrate the falsity of the Mormon gospel, thereby regarded by Mormons as “dangerous” hypotheses, since I thereby deny any of them were ever led by the Spirit, etc.

But the fact that something is dangerous to a group of particular believer’s theology, doesn’t suddenly mean it must be wrong. Agreed?

 

[Dauphin]

First, if there is only one gospel, then it will say the same thing no matter what part of the world it is preached in.

Second, the biblical data alone are sufficient to show James and Paul in theological conflict.

Third, it is premature to discuss what was genuine “heresy” without first establishing “orthodoxy” by which to properly judge dissent as heresy. If it is “obvious” that Jesus was manifested in the flesh, where did the first-century gnostics get the idea that he hadn’t been (as related in 1st John), and how could such a “ridiculous” hypothesis as theirs have gained enough converts to motivate John to think a rebuttal was warranted? Problems admitted by biblical authors do a good job of removing dogmatism from “orthodoxy”.

I think this analysis is very revealing. It presupposes that there is no such thing as supernatural faith granted to the elect, and that the deceptions of Satan also do not exist.

You can’t possibly expect to find common ground with Catholics reasoning from that basis.

 

[Joe_5859]

Would a Jewish High Priest agree with the New Testament teaching, that the covenant of Moses is done away or “fulfilled” by Jesus, yes or no?

Isn’t this a question better answered by a Jewish High Priest?

 

[Dauphin]

Why? Did Jesus not make it clear to his Jew/Gentile audience in his sermon on the mount, that they must follow the law very carefully, even more than Pharisees, in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven?

Yes. Given that Jesus Christ himself is the Law incarnate and the “Lord of the Sabbath”, observance of the Law now rests in living in Christ.

I have to wonder: did the apostles also call councils to debate whether Jesus was manifested in the flesh? How many other problems with obvious solutions did the apostles spend time arguing needlessly about?

I’m not sure that this could be called “obvious”. One might be a Christian for many years without realizing the full meaning of Christ as “logos”.

Furthermore, nobody in the Jerusalem Council is recorded as having made use of the ultimate argument, the words of Jesus.

I think the person of Jesus is what’s relevant here, much more than His words.

My guess is that Jesus supported the Judaizers (as the canonical gospels show him to teach a legalistic salvation), so that is why nobody in this council (which is really nothing more than an apologetic to make James appear more in agreement with Paul than he really was) quoted Jesus.

Your guess is quite wrong.

Although Christ’s reference to not a “jot or tittle” passing from the Law is a bit oblique, it’s meaning has become quite clear with time: Christ is the Law.

 

[Dauphin]

Isn’t this a question better answered by a Jewish High Priest?

It was intended as a trap to get us to say that James the Just was a heretic, when absolutely no historical evidence even implies it.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

First, if there is only one gospel, then it will say the same thing no matter what part of the world it is preached in.

Spiriter,

Jesus was often evasive and cryptic in his answers. Perhaps he felt the best way to explain the gospel was to emphasize the laws of “love God” and “love thy neighbour” in the mosaic law, rather than pointing out that some of the mosaic laws weren’t necessary on that basis. He avoided undermining the pious beliefs of his followers, and instead built upon the good laws that they already had.

So this is why Peter, Paul and James and others had to debate and pray when it came to the gentiles. Jesus had not left instructions about gentile converts, and not all of his teachings made sense to them immediately.

 

[theistgal]

Isn’t this a question better answered by a Jewish High Priest?

Excellent point!

spirit5er, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you posed this question on a Jewish forum.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that they agreed with your conclusions. Would that then mean that God doesn’t exist?

(Hint: Jews believe in God too. )

 

[Ruthie]

I can’t think of a single situation where Jesus went out of his way to tell people to follow the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law.

You’re right.

In fact, He does the opposite in some places. Mt 12:1-14 is where He says the Sabbath is for men, revoking the strict law of doing no work on the Sabbath.

Mt 15:10-20 is where He revokes the dietary law, among other teachings.

As for the “Jews only” idea, that’s not true either, as is shown in Jesus’ own words and actions.

In Mt 8:10-12, Lk 13:29-30, Lk 17:11-19, Jesus shows that He came for all, not just for the Jews.

He also says, to the Samaritan woman in Jn 4:22, “salvation is from the Jews.” (Literally, “out of.”) That certainly shows that it is for more than the Jews.

The healings done because of the faith of certain Gentiles (the Centurion, and the Canaanite woman, for two) shows that He did not restrict Himself to Jews, but came for everyone who had faith in Him.

It was probably for the sake of the Apostles that He approached this gradually. They would have to overcome their belief that He was the King of only the Jews.

Heart of Jesus, tabernacle of the Most High, have mercy on us.

Ruthie

 

[spirit5er]

I don’t want to be rude, but I don’t think you’ve read Acts 10. What you’ve written is complete garbage and has nothing to do with the vision St. Peter actually received (hint: he wasn’t told the gentiles can be saved).

Then you obviously either haven’t read or don’t accept Peter’s own explanation for this vision:

First, from Acts 10, after the vision:

Acts 10:34-35
34 And opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,
35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him.

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.

Worse for you, the reaction of the Jewish Christians to the Gentiles manifesting spiritual gifts shows that Gentile salvation was “news” that was unexpected for them:

Acts 10:44-46
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
45 And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also.
46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.

To cap it off, Peter is criticized in the next chapter by more Jewish Christians for the choice to eat with and fellowship with Gentiles, AGAIN indicating that Gentile salvation was an unexpected theological development for the original non-Pauline Jewish converts:

Acts 11:1-17
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.”
17 “If God therefore 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?”

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?

Could it be that the gospel they converted to left no expectation of the salvation of Gentiles? The failure of early exclusively Jewish converts to notice the reality of Gentile salvation is not arguable, 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.

 

[Dauphin]

So this is why Peter, Paul and James and others had to debate and pray when it came to the gentiles. Jesus had not left instructions about gentile converts, and not all of his teachings made sense to them immediately.

Exactly. We cant expect the near-blinding light of Christs truth to have been assimilated perfectly by all His disciples. We can`t expect weak, fallen men to have been on exactly the same page at all times.

The assumption of the OP is that Christ had to have left a full set of instructions for the apostles, because once hes gone, thats it. For an atheist, that`s perfectly tenable position. To a Christian, it seems absurd.

Christ sent the Paraclete, so that the Church might not fall into error. He did not abandon his disciples.

 

[spirit5er]

Excellent point!

spirit5er, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you posed this question on a Jewish forum.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that they agreed with your conclusions. Would that then mean that God doesn’t exist?

(Hint: Jews believe in God too. )

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.

Second, you shouldn’t be participating in this debate if you need a Jewish High Priest to tell you whether or not they’d agree with Paul’s law-free gospel. It should be as clear as crystal that a Jewish High Priest trusts in the continuing divine signifiance of his duties (animal sacrifice, temple rituals). James could easily be both High Priest and Christian; all we need suppose is that he preached a version of Christianity that was far less offensive to Jews and the Mosaic Covenant than Paul taught.

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.

Fourth, the disagreement between James and aPaul, if admitted as you hypothetically allow, COULD be used to argue against the Christian god’s existence. Were James and Paul equally saved? Were they equally sincere in asking God to guide their minds as they pursued study of scripture? If so, the God has no reason whatsoever to give truth to one and not the other. But since their disgreement means one of them MUST be wrong, God is therefore refusing to answer the sincere biblically justified prayers of a genuinely saved Christian, and that’s an argument that God’s mysterious ways can’t answer, as James has already explained the lack of divine answer is due to asking for unbiblical things. God therefore has no reason to refuse to answer the prayers of James and Paul as they sought his guidence on the Gentile Salvation issue, and therefore, their continued disagreement calls for a conclusion that isn’t friendly to Christianity: One of them wasn’t genuinely saved, or wasn’t sincere in their prayers on this matter, or that God never answered anybody and their disagreement is purely because of human limitation, effectively leaving “god” out of the entire issue, leaving it to theists to justify inserting him into it.

 

[JRKH]

You certailny provide a great deal of data and detail in your responses which indicate you are a thoughful and intelligent (at least worldly intelligent) person. I will not presume to debate specifics with you as there are many others here more than adequately trained to do so.
However I will comment in my own humble way on some points.

First, if there is only one gospel, then it will say the same thing no matter what part of the world it is preached in.

First let us undertand the the term “Gospel” as such didn’t even exist in the 1st century. Godpel means “Good News” and as such this is what was being preached. The Good News of Salvation, Baptism, and belief in the risen Lord Jesus Christ. I know of nowhere in the Early Church where this essential Truth was not Preached and adhered to by the Christian community.
Second let us understand that logistics in the 1st century were not the same as they are today. Thus, where different ideas/explanations/practices etc come into being it takes time for the Church to sort them all out.

Second, the biblical data alone are sufficient to show James and Paul in theological conflict.

Personally I will grant you this one. By the same token you can get any several Bishops together today and find some points on which they diferentiate.

Third, it is premature to discuss what was genuine “heresy” without first establishing “orthodoxy” by which to properly judge dissent as heresy. If it is “obvious” that Jesus was manifested in the flesh, where did the first-century gnostics get the idea that he hadn’t been (as related in 1st John), and how could such a “ridiculous” hypothesis as theirs have gained enough converts to motivate John to think a rebuttal was warranted? Problems admitted by biblical authors do a good job of removing dogmatism from “orthodoxy”.

To this I would allude to my earlier statement regarding logistics. It is not as though the gnostic hyposthesis was written and widey disseminated by printing press and overnite delivery, nor was the rebuttal sent out via e-mail.

Why? Did Jesus not make it clear to his Jew/Gentile audience in his sermon on the mount, that they must follow the law very carefully, even more than Pharisees, in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven? This sermon, if historically valid, makes the “debate” in Acts 15 absolutely unbelievable. I have to wonder: did the apostles also call councils to debate whether Jesus was manifested in the flesh?

Jesus came and preached during a transatory time. In fact He Himself was the transistion. When speaking to the Jews before the resurection the Law of Moses remained in effect. Jesus did not foment rebellion. Rather a call to holiness. When Jesus prepared to ascend He gave thegreat commandment ot the inner circle. To Love each other, to Preach the Good news and make disciples of all nations. Basically to fill the world with God’s Love manifested through us.

How many other problems with obvious solutions did the apostles spend time arguing needlessly about?

Probabley a lot. Not because God, or Christ is complicated, but because Humans will twist and squirm and want every “out” they possibly can get to avoid following the Law of Love. It’s humans, under the tempations of the Devil who complicate things.

Furthermore, nobody in the Jerusalem Council is recorded as having made use of the ultimate argument, the words of Jesus. My guess is that Jesus supported the Judaizers (as the canonical gospels show him to teach a legalistic salvation), so that is why nobody in this council (which is really nothing more than an apologetic to make James appear more in agreement with Paul than he really was) quoted Jesus.

First of all, you are not reading the entire “minutes” of the council so you cannot know what might have been brought up. Second, from the viewpoint of the Church, the council’s deliberations and decisions ARE the words of Jesus. For Jesus gave His Church the Authority to Bind and Loose. Therefore the decision of the Council IS the word of Jesus.

(Continued Below)

 

[JRKH]

(Continued)

Furthermore, if the great commission in Matthew 28:19 is true (preach the gospel to all nations, not just Jews), then the resurrected Jesus was talking to his apostles about specifically GENTILE salvation, before he ascended. What is the likelihood that he never brought up the issue of Gentiles in relation to the Law? Not likely in the least. So the biblical data warrant anybody to believe Jesus solved the Acts 15 problem before it ever got started, leaving us to wonder why the author of Acts presents the apostles as needing to hash a theological problem that never could have been a problem in the first place.

Your supposition presupposes facts not in evidence. you don’t KNOW whether Jesus discussed the Gentile question at length before his ascention. Furthermore you ignore the fact that jesus DID tell His apostles that there was much more they needed to know but could not bear at the time. That is the reason He was to send the Holy Spirit upon them.

Jesus appears to have solved the issue before it ever became an issue. There’s enough Gentile assocation with Jesus in the gospels to indicate what Jesus thought about which laws, if any, they needed to obey. They needed to obey all of them, see Matthew 5.

Also see Acts 10: 9-16 and 27-29
Here Jesus, who had already ascended, revealed to Peter that nothing and no one, made by God, is to be considered impure.

Maybe your bad memory is also the reason you don’t remember the arguments I set forth to justify that view of Acts 15:

Maybe - I am unable to devote suffcient time to these studies and debates to really do them justice.
But I believe I answered the gist of your objection to the council of Jerusalem in my answer above. Mainly that, for Christians and Catholics in particular, the decisions of a Church Council become the words of Christ. For He promised the Church His protections and Gave it the Authority to Bind and Loose.

But the fact that something is dangerous to a group of particular believer’s theology, doesn’t suddenly mean it must be wrong. Agreed?

But when something runs contrary to the Will and Glory of God, threatening to turn persons from the path of salvation to that of damnation, it need be opposed both for the salvation of the one making the argument and for those witnessing the debate.
The entire thrust of your debate, it seems to me is that the Bible, written by different people at different times, must all meld together seemlessly to your own satisfaction. Yet the assembling of the Bible canon had no such intent in mind. It is the Church which Christ Founded that is Christ’s authority and it is through her prayerful stewardship of the Deposit of Faith that we are taught by Christ Himself. Therefore it is that the faithful are at rest in following our Risen Lord through His Church rather than becoming bogged down in the tit and tattle of every phrase in the Bible or all of the ins and outs of the Mosaic Law. Certainly there is this in Jesus Preaching. His intolerance of the Pharasees focus on the outward observance of “Law” instead of the inner focus on God and the journey toward Holiness.

Peace
James

 

[Dauphin]

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.

This is a reference to his observance of the ritual law, forbiding Jews to associate with or visit gentiles. He realizes that his strict observance of this prescript of the law is no longer necessary.

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.

Worse for you, the reaction of the Jewish Christians to the Gentiles manifesting spiritual gifts shows that Gentile salvation was “news” that was unexpected for them:

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.

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

To cap it off, Peter is criticized in the next chapter by more Jewish Christians for the choice to eat with and fellowship with Gentiles, AGAIN indicating that Gentile salvation was an unexpected theological development for the original non-Pauline Jewish converts:.

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

The “sticking point” was that the requirement for cicumcision was apparently being abandoned. It would have been a scandalous thing for Jewish converts. Their limited understanding of the nature of the New Covenant does not mean that they had any doubts gentiles could be saved as well. They simple assumed that it would require adherence to the prescripts of the Mosaic Law.

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. Clearly, their concern was for adherence to the ritual law. That they wouldn`t take the example of Jesus is perhaps evidence that they believed he had a singular privilege to “bend” the Law. 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.

Could it be that the gospel they converted to left no expectation of the salvation of Gentiles?

“Salvation” is the one word notably absent from any of the scripture youve quoted. Youve drawn unfounded inferences based on the predictable behavior of certain people.

The failure of early exclusively Jewish converts to notice the reality of Gentile salvation is not arguable,

I did my best. I`m convinced my case is solid.

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`ve provided an interpretation which allows for a conviction of gentile salvation, coupled with a desire to adhere legalistically to the old covenant. I think this is a much more reasonable interpretation.

 

[theistgal]

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.

If you’re an atheist, then you must believe the Bible is ALL lies about God - so why just pick this one?

Second, you shouldn’t be participating in this debate if you need a Jewish High Priest to tell you whether or not they’d agree with Paul’s law-free gospel.

Oh, I’m not really participating. Just enjoying the .

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?

Fourth, the disagreement between James and aPaul, if admitted as you hypothetically allow, COULD be used to argue against the Christian god’s existence. Were James and Paul equally saved? Were they equally sincere in asking God to guide their minds as they pursued study of scripture? If so, the God has no reason whatsoever to give truth to one and not the other. But since their disgreement means one of them MUST be wrong, God is therefore refusing to answer the sincere biblically justified prayers of a genuinely saved Christian, and that’s an argument that God’s mysterious ways can’t answer, as James has already explained the lack of divine answer is due to asking for unbiblical things. God therefore has no reason to refuse to answer the prayers of James and Paul as they sought his guidence on the Gentile Salvation issue, and therefore, their continued disagreement calls for a conclusion that isn’t friendly to Christianity: One of them wasn’t genuinely saved, or wasn’t sincere in their prayers on this matter, or that God never answered anybody and their disagreement is purely because of human limitation, effectively leaving “god” out of the entire issue, leaving it to theists to justify inserting him into it.

(shrug) Maybe neither of them was saved. Maybe the Jews were right all along. Still doesn’t prove God doesn’t exist.

 

[spirit5er]

Exactly. We cant expect the near-blinding light of Christs truth to have been assimilated perfectly by all His disciples.

How blinding was the Gentile salvation truth of John 3:16?

That theological promise appears early in Jesus’ ministry, so you are saying that three years of living with Jesus and all the intimate theological conversation entailed thereby, is still not enough, so that they continue to remain ignorant about the issue until Acts 15. Sorry, us atheists have limits in how stupid story characters can be, before we finally put our foot down and say this is downright nonsense. Many Christians maintain a faith while agreeing that the Gentile controversy is unexpected and ends up hurting the full inspiration of the New Testament.

First, in Matthew 28, the resurrected Jesus instructs the apostles to take the gospel to the Gentiles. It is absurd to suppose that he didn’t instruct them on what Gentiles must do to get saved. Since we have the right to assume Jesus wasn’t stupid, the apostles therefore WOULD have known the answer to the Gentile/Law issue, and Acts 15 would never have been necessary, and therefore appears to be spin-doctored history.

Second, the spiritual progress of the apostles before Acts 15 DOES allow you to make the assumption that they finally understood. If Acts 2 is correct (they all recieved the Spirit on Pentecost), if Acts 3-5 is correct (that Peter became a fearless wonder working preaching with the gift of knowledge), then his failure to understand that Gentiles can be saved too, as reported later in Acts 10, is just unbelievable.

We can`t expect weak, fallen men to have been on exactly the same page at all times.

Were the Galatians very stupid or very smart for accepting the Judaizer gospel and abandoning Paul, as he admitted in Galatians 1:6? If stupid, then you admit original Christianity was mostly attractive to people with near zero critical thinking ability, so that Christianity would have caught on even if the whole story was fake. If they were smart for apostatizing from Paul’s gospel, that must mean they discovered the Judaizers gave more convincing arguments than Paul, and carried higher authority than Paul. That could only be the case if they demonstrated linkage to the original apostles.

Stupid or smart?

I’ve already given plenty of biblical evidence to demonstrate that James and Paul DID disagree about the gospel. Worse, there were gnostics contemporary with the apostles, whose denial of the incarnation was so popular that the author of 1st John felt compelled to offer a rebuttal to it. First-century Christianity is shown from the New Testament to have been composed of many splinter groups pointing the finger at each other and crying “heretic”. Even Paul mentions divisions within the Corinthian congregation. It would make no sense for some to say “I am of Paul” and another to say “I am of Apollos”, if those two agreed on the gospel. The only way to make sense of these splinter groups is to assume they obviously DISAGREED with each other on theology, which therefore implies that the leaders whom they professed to follow, represented different theological opinions.

 

[bella_mama]

I’m having difficulty seeing the purpose of this thread.

Nowhere does St. Paul object to the observance of the Mosaic Law - he simply denies its necessity for justification.

There is no purpose…just someone who wants to argue their point point based on their own interpretation…kind of like the fundamental Protestants who claim “the literal sense” on every verse of the Bible except the ones regarding the True Presence. This one is here to argue and not to try and understand. Oh well, pray for them anyway.

 

[Dauphin]

First, in Matthew 28, the resurrected Jesus instructs the apostles to take the gospel to the Gentiles. It is absurd to suppose that he didn’t instruct them on what Gentiles must do to get saved. Since we have the right to assume Jesus wasn’t stupid, the apostles therefore WOULD have known the answer to the Gentile/Law issue, and Acts 15 would never have been necessary, and therefore appears to be spin-doctored history.

Actually, scripture itself records exactly what Christ`s instructions were: ...baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Certain apostles seem to have misinterpreted this as being an addition to the law, instead of something altogether sufficient. This is hardly a critical flaw in Christianity. It reveals that God chose to use even very poor instruments to achieve His aims.

Second, the spiritual progress of the apostles before Acts 15 DOES allow you to make the assumption that they finally understood.

Well, isn`t that gratifying?

If Acts 2 is correct (they all recieved the Spirit on Pentecost), if Acts 3-5 is correct (that Peter became a fearless wonder working preaching with the gift of knowledge), then his failure to understand that Gentiles can be saved too, as reported later in Acts 10, is just unbelievable.

Exactly, which is why your interpretation is incorrect. Peter`s dilemma does not involve the issue of salvation, but of strict adherence to the Mosaic Law.

But you sure expect that a weak fallen man called Paul sure was exactly on the same page at all times after his conversion! If you think more critically, YOU don’t even believe what you just wrote.

Yikes! Next you`re going to tell me to open my mind or something. Please refrain from using the atheist cliches.

Im doing plenty of critical thinking. Im sure that St. Paul sinned and made mistakes just like everyone else, except in Canonical scripture, which has its inerrancy assured by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Dauphin]

It’s absurd to think Jesus would mention the relation of Gentiles to the Law, after he told the apostles to preach the Jewish gospel to Gentiles?

No, thats not my point. Im saying it`s absurd to suppose that Christ had a critical concern to explain absolutely all of Catholic doctrine in every detail before His life ended. For the purpose of resolving disputes and keeping the Church from error, He sent the Holy Ghost, who is not somehow inferior or insufficient.

Were the Galatians very stupid or very smart for accepting the Judaizer gospel and abandoning Paul, as he admitted in Galatians 1:6? If stupid, then you admit original Christianity was mostly attractive to people with near zero critical thinking ability, so that Christianity would have caught on even if the whole story was fake. If they were smart for apostatizing from Paul’s gospel, that must mean they discovered the Judaizers gave more convincing arguments than Paul, and carried higher authority than Paul. That could only be the case if they demonstrated linkage to the original apostles.

Stupid or smart?.

Deceived I think would be more accurate.

Of course, saying Satan deceived, confused, and disoriented them isn`t going to cut it for an atheist. To a Christian, it seems very evident.

I’ve already given plenty of biblical evidence to demonstrate that James and Paul DID disagree about the gospel. Worse, there were gnostics contemporary with the apostles, whose denial of the incarnation was so popular that the author of 1st John felt compelled to offer a rebuttal to it. First-century Christianity is shown from the New Testament to have been composed of many splinter groups pointing the finger at each other and crying “heretic”. Even Paul mentions divisions within the Corinthian congregation. It would make no sense for some to say “I am of Paul” and another to say “I am of Apollos”, if those two agreed on the gospel. The only way to make sense of these splinter groups is to assume they obviously DISAGREED with each other on theology, which therefore implies that the leaders whom they professed to follow, represented different theological opinions.

Disagreements exist even today. You can read about them everywhere on these forums.

I`m having difficulty seeing your point. Yes, there were disagreements concerning the proper discipline of the Church. There were even theological disputes of the most fundamental nature in the early Church. Orthodoxy, however, always prevailed.

 

[spirit5er]

*Originally Posted by Dauphin
I’m having difficulty seeing the purpose of this thread.