Where does Paul fit into the authority debate?

[Catholic_Dude]

This is the last one I promise! (edited for size)
I will skip to Ch13:16 So Paul stood up, and said: "Men of Israel, and you that fear God, listen. … 24 Before his coming John had preached a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 25 And as John was finishing his course, he said, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. No, but after me one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.’ 26 "Brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you that fear God, to us has been sent the message of this salvation. 27 For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets which are read every sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning him. 28 Though they could charge him with nothing deserving death, yet they asked Pilate to have him killed. 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb. 30 But God raised him from the dead; 31 and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people. 32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.’ 34 And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way, ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ 35 Therefore he says also in another psalm, ‘Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption.’ 36 For David, after he had served the counsel of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid with his fathers, and saw corruption; 37 but he whom God raised up saw no corruption. 38 Let it be known to you therefore, brethren, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and by him every one that believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.
Now compare this Gospel by Paul with that of Peter said in Acts2:
21 And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ 22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. 25 For David says concerning him, ‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; 26 therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will dwell in hope. 27 For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.’ 29 “Brethren, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, 35 till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.’ 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
Wow, they are preaching the same Gospel!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TheOpenTheist-

Galatians may be just a “quick letter” to you, but even though it is not as voluminous as Acts, everything that Paul tells us in Galatians is true and not to be contradicted.

I agree, but it still has to be properly read in light of what Acts says. There are no contradictions, I agree.

You completely misunderstand the Acts 9 view dude. We have never ever claimed that the one and only church in history ever started at Acts 9 with the raising up of Paul. And we never referred to Paul as “the only Christian”. We recognize that a specific church, the Body of Christ, began with Paul as the first member (or the second if you count Christ, the head of the Body, as the very first). For example, there was “the church (ekklesia) in the wilderness” that Moses led for 40 years (Acts 7:38). That church did not believe 1 Cor 15:1-4 and that through trusting Christ they received from God a righteousness apart from the law (Rom 3:21).** It was a different “church” or “congregation” that was asked to believe something different then the Body of Christ is asked to believe in order to appropriate God’s salvation.**

You are not understanding what Paul is saying in this passage at all. Paul does not say that he never spoke to anyone about anything. He is simply saying that he “did not confer with flesh and blood” or any of the apostles like Peter and the others in Jerusalem concerning the gospel that Christ committed to him. Gal 1 is all about how Paul received the Gospel of the Uncircumcision directly from Christ and not from any man. Paul’s encounter with Ananias in Acts 22 is not an example of Paul confering with him about the gospel message that Christ gave Paul.

** And of course Ananias is going to say “be baptized, washing away your sins” because all Ananias knows of is the Gospel of the Circumcision. The only way that Ananias could have learned of the revelation of the mystery was after Paul had received it from Christ and then communicated it to Ananias. The mystery had not yet been revealed to Paul at the time he met Ananias.**

All the bold parts are unfounded, see my previous posts on Acts9-13.

 

[BM5]

Sound like a pretty hot debate !

The truth of the matter is that Saul of Tarsus who showed up nigh on ten years after the Crucifixion came in there on the instructions from his buddies the Scribes and Phaisees to subvert the truth and destroy the children of light from the inside out.
I further declare that the high drama on the road to Damascus was a complete hoax.
He is what Our Lord warned about. " Beware of men who come to you in sheeps clothing, inwardly they are ravenous wolves "
This unrepentant murderer of Our Lord’s Sheep deserved the full rigour of justice.
Saul of Tarsus is the “leader” prophesied by Daniel in Ch.10,versus 26 and 27 which run consecutively in time. He is cause of the A of D and is in the pit for all Eternity.
The longstanding explanation of Titus destroying the Temple in Jerusalem is nothing but rubbish, even the time frame doesn’t fit.
In this prophesy one day equals one year.

 

[The_Augustinian]

BM5:

Sound like a pretty hot debate !

The truth of the matter is that Saul of Tarsus who showed up nigh on ten years after the Crucifixion came in there on the instructions from his buddies the Scribes and Phaisees to subvert the truth and destroy the children of light from the inside out.
I further declare that the high drama on the road to Damascus was a complete hoax.
He is what Our Lord warned about. " Beware of men who come to you in sheeps clothing, inwardly they are ravenous wolves "
This unrepentant murderer of Our Lord’s Sheep deserved the full rigour of justice.
Saul of Tarsus is the “leader” prophesied by Daniel in Ch.10,versus 26 and 27 which run consecutively in time. He is cause of the A of D and is in the pit for all Eternity.
The longstanding explanation of Titus destroying the Temple in Jerusalem is nothing but rubbish, even the time frame doesn’t fit.
In this prophesy one day equals one year.

Go away, troll.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The Augustinian:

Go away, troll.

I dont even know what BM5 was saying.

Something about Paul not existing or something?

 

[FCEGM]

Catholic Dude:

I dont even know what BM5 was saying.

Something about Paul not existing or something?

I’ve seen this sort of “thought”? before from some “Jewish-Christians” who have a hatred for St. Paul that is beyond belief. :banghead:

 

[Catholic_Dude]

FCEGM:

I’ve seen this sort of “thought”? before from some “Jewish-Christians” who have a hatred for St. Paul that is beyond belief. :banghead:

Oh, I didnt understand the first time. That BM5 guy was basically saying that Paul was a spy sent to corrupt.

 

[Magicsilence]

BM5:

Sound like a pretty hot debate !

The truth of the matter is that Saul of Tarsus who showed up nigh on ten years after the Crucifixion came in there on the instructions from his buddies the Scribes and Phaisees to subvert the truth and destroy the children of light from the inside out.
I further declare that the high drama on the road to Damascus was a complete hoax.
He is what Our Lord warned about. " Beware of men who come to you in sheeps clothing, inwardly they are ravenous wolves "
This unrepentant murderer of Our Lord’s Sheep deserved the full rigour of justice.
Saul of Tarsus is the “leader” prophesied by Daniel in Ch.10,versus 26 and 27 which run consecutively in time. He is cause of the A of D and is in the pit for all Eternity.
The longstanding explanation of Titus destroying the Temple in Jerusalem is nothing but rubbish, even the time frame doesn’t fit.
In this prophesy one day equals one year.

I’m 18, 18!!! And i can see the insanity in your arguement. You are 53, and have never thought to search for Truth?

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Magicsilence claimed

While you have a compelling argument, you unfortunately miss the fact that your view of the Body of Christ was not present among the church fathers, or any early christians at all.

It was too. It was held and taught by Paul in his epistles. You should realize this since that is where much of my Scriptural evidence comes from.

you said

If we are to believe you, and accept that up till a certain point in history, the Body of Christ was not present, then that little promise from Jesus about hell not prevailing was pretty much wrong.

You don’t understand what Christ was talking about. Christ did not say that Hell would not prevail. He specificly said that “the gates of hell will not prevail”. This means that when God empowers the Circumcision Believers at Pentecost that they will be able to overtake Hell and bring in “the times of restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21). God will empower them to overcome the Devil and Hell. This fact should be pretty obvious since gates do not attack anyone. They just sit there for the sake of protecting those in the city within. For “the gates of Hell” to prevail those gates would have to succeed in protecting the kingdom of Satan from the onslaught of the church in early Acts. So, just because most of Israel did not accept Christ and make it possible for Christ to return and rule over Israel within the apostles lifetime does not mean that “the gates of Hell” prevailed on that church.

Also, you seem to misunderstand what I believe about the Body of Christ. I believe that the Body of Christ was a concept in the mind of God that He wanted to ultimately bring about. The Body was not known to men until God revealed it to Paul. Until God revealed it to Paul it had been “kept secret since the world began” (Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 3:9; Col 1:26). The Scriptural witness reveals that the Body of Christ began when its existence was revealed to Paul, so that he could preach the gospel Christ committed to him according to the revelation of the mystery (Rom 16:25; Gal 2:7). This is a specific church with specific “house rules” (Eph 3:2). The present-day church is “the church, which is His Body” (Eph 1:22-23).

you said

Your very position which YOU HAVE CONFIRMED as being true (i.e that your way of thinking is a recent establishment), by definition makes you a heretic and a teacher of a false gospel.

I “confirmed” that my position is true? That doesn’t seem accurate. I have shown through Scriptural evidence that my position is reasonable. I do not assume to possess absolute certainty about the correctness of my views. That being said, my research and my experience have given me a fair amount of confidence that my views are accurate. For example, experience shows that what Paul wrote and taught is the truth for those in the Body of Christ today. When we pray, what follows is what Paul said would follow in Phil 4:6-7. Not what Jesus said would follow in Matt 18:19 and Matt 21:22. In other words, there is no promise that you will get “whatsoever you ask for” when you make your requests known to God today as there was during Jesus’ earthly ministry and the early Acts period.

And another thing. No priest I have talked with has ever claimed that I am a “heretic” or preaching a “false gosple”. But you probably know better than they do so you can make such claims. I am sure that your bishop sends you books so you can stamp the imprimitur on it

you claimed

You have come only to mislead and confuse others who have already found the truth, and know it well enough to distinguish falsehood.

Anyone that has Christ possesses The Truth. That is what really matters. Not whether you have most or all the answers or understand the storyline in the Bible perfectly or participate in sacraments. We don’t have to know all the words because Christ is the song.

you said

The sedevacantists can argue well enough that they are the true Body of Christ, but while they are fully correct on doctrinal matters they reject the authority of the pope.

So what? Obeying what the bishop of Rome says is in no may necessary for salvation.

you go on

As do you, and although your very biased strange views are backed up with scripture and reasoning, you fail to make sense.

I make very good sense. If you think my view does not make snes then you need to read more of my posts or ask questions so I can clarify my position and make it clear.

you said

I have read the NT, numerous times, with different versions of the bible on different occasions.

So have many other people and groups who didn’t get everything right and even taught heresy, such as the Arians and Marcionists and the Docetists etc.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

…continued

you said

Tell me, if it was so obvious that early Christians were split into two camps, and Pauline christianity prevailed, why didnt i get that from reading the bible,

Because you have been indoctrinated by those around you that the New Testament is one complete source of teaching for the Body of Christ where distinctions between the two groups are insignificant. Your presuppositions and assumptions that you hold will not allow you to see that the Body of Christ had its historical beginning in Acts 9 with the revelation of the mystery to Paul.

for, as you know, although you dont hold to sola scriptura, your view cannot work unless one has read the bible.

Yes, the evidence for my view comes primarily from the New Testament record. The preeminent source that reveals who God is and what He has done. Next comes experience. Then reason. And last tradition.

you claimed

Your view is false for the following reasons, and i challenge you to refute them:

1. It relies on the bible and a complete and perfect translation of the original texts. Without so, your arguments are refutable on the notion that innacuries crept in over the centuries.

Thats easily refuted because I can demonstrate that the Bible we have today is the same one that was being read in the early 2nd century.

• 
  *]If we list the 36,000 quotations by the early church Fathers from the second to third centuries we can reconstruct the entire New Testament excluding 11 verses.
  *]In addition to the Greek manuscripts there are over 19,000 translations from Greek into Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, Latin and other languages.
  
  There are other proofs I can use to show that the Bible we have today is accurate and not corrupted, but those two should be enough for any reasonable person
  
  you said
  

  1. You yourself have admitted that the train of thought you hold has not been present since the beginning of christianity and i quote:

  I am not sure how you attempt to convince others that your position is correct when you admit that it has not been a position held from the beginning of christianity. It defies logic.

  I did not mean to give the impression by that statement that those in the Body, including Paul and his converts, did not believe that the gospel that was to be preached was the Uncircumcision Gospel committed to him (as he attests in Gal 1:8-9; 2:7-8) and not the Circumcision Gospel committed to Peter. Paul did indeed believe that his gospel was the only one that was to be preached and believed on. So, I do affirm that the view I hold was held by Paul and those members of the Body of Christ from the time God brought into existence the Body of Christ sometime around Acts 9.
  
  you said
  

  1. Your view is held by precious few, we as Catholics have over 1 billion members. Why is this significant?

  Its not significant! Truth does not depend upon its being accepted by many people for it to be true. You could say the same thing about Muslims. Since there are over 1 billion muslims, thats evidence that their views are correct according to this bogus reasoning.
  
  And furthermore, there is a WIDE variety of views held by catholics the world over. You should take a look at the surveys that this professor at Purdue University has done which finds out what Catholics in the USA really believe. One of them I looked at a while back showed that over half of Catholics deny that Christ is present body, soul and divinity in the eucharist.
  
  you go on
  

  Because of the original members of Christianity. Your view asserts that within 2000 years God has only decided to keep his flock to a precious few,

  That was not God’s decision. The fact that a precious few seem to truly understand the gospel that Christ committed to Paul is because the mass of men and many in the church have rejected his gospel because they want to have some glory, some credit, in their salvation. They want to believe that their works make them acceptable to God instead of God’s pure grace through faith in Christ alone. Believing that your works have some affect on your standing with God gratifies the flesh.
  
  you claimed
  

  [God] has not allowed you to prevail over the Catholic Church who in relation to you is teaching a different gospel.

  God’s goal is not that I prevail over the catholic church. Its that I communicate the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes (Rom 1:16).
  

  One [gospel] must be wrong.

  Its not that one is wrong. Its just that the gospel I present is more accurate and has a more liberating effect because I communicate it more accurately. Thats been my experience and verifies that what I am saying is accurate.

 

[The_Augustinian]

It’s funny. You seem to use the early Christian writers for your own purposes. Even though you can accurately piece together the entire Bible from their sayings, you reject their interpretation of it. Now tell me, who is closer culturally and linguistically to the original culture of the Bible? Who shed their blood for the Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? You, or these men? It seems that, standing on the shoulders of these giants, you are willing kick at their heads. Doing so, you shall surely fall.

It’s ironic, that you are so willing to believe that the Bible has been communicated totally accurately, but the men who wrote it were so inept as to let their followers so easily corrupt their teachings. All for the sake of your convenient theology.

According to you, many, no, I would say all of the Catholic teachings come from God. Don’t be surprised. That’s from the implications of what you say. You say that water baptism was necessary for salvation, as well as that one could lose their salvation, among other things. Indeed, I believed exactly the same theology as you. Until I realized that the so-called “Kingdom Believers” did not die out as you thought they did. Neither do they require circumcision or the practice of Jewish ceremonial law, as you erroneously interpreted. They still exist, and they still are here. And St. Paul was one of them, and so am I.

The Kingdom of God is among us! Be happy, and glad!

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you said

However the Catholic Church has flourished from the original 12 to 1.2 billion. I challenge ANY man to create an organisation that holds to specific doctrine ( that is very tough to follow), and condemns man’s sinful nature, and see it grow to over a billion members in 2000 years.

Islam has done that in less than 2000 years. In your mind, does that mean that God has empowered Islam to grow?

you asked

If God is not the author of confusion why has he allowed us to grow so strong, and allowed you guys to remain invisible until a few centuries ago.

Grace Believers such as myself are not at all invisible. The pro-life ministry that I direct influences youth in my area and across the nation, many of them catholics. And my views are not communicated in detail to a lot of people because many don’t really care to know or have developed theologies to discuss and the environment needed to talk about this does not often present itself.

you said

1. Jesus said that we could tell a believer by his fruit. I can take it that you are one that is a typical representative of your flock, and just give you a few of your quotes in this thread alone:

None of my comments were harmful or sinful. What I said was accurate from my reading. One indeed “whined”. John demonstrated that he did not know his Bible well. Another did pull a statement from his butt (same as “he sucked it out of his thumb”), meaning it has no basis in fact.

By the way, Jesus and Paul used much harsher language than I did, and I do not doubt their standing with God one bit. Elijah mocked the pagan god of those who challenged his God when he asked if their God was on the toilet or going to the bathroom.

And YOU called me a “heretic” and “a teacher of a false gospel”. I have never made such serious statements about anyone on these forums.

you said

When Christ foretold that we could tell a man by his fruits, he was indeed correct.

In that case, you ought to be very concerned about the health of your own soul.

you go on

Whether or not we disagree on your doctrinal opinions does not invalidate the fact that you have been less than charitable on this thread.

Wrong. I have been pretty doggone charitable given the attitude of those responding to me. They have twisted my words and not made much of an effort to understand my position, which is by far the most uncharitable attitude you will find in this thread. So, I guess all of those who have set out to oppose me without having listened to my explanation of my view ought to be concerned about their souls, and not only yourself.

you said

However, a silent witness is a guilty witness.

If that’s true then Christ was guilty of a crime and was justly executed because he was silent when he was put on trial. Of course, that would be blasphemy. You may want to proof-read your posts and consider what you are saying more seriously from now on.

you said

What you are preaching is a heresy,

The priests in Northern Indiana disagree with you.

you claimed

you deny the Body Of Christ (or invalifate it by claiming it exists elsewhere)

The Body of Christ is not limited to location. Members of Christ’s Body are all over the world and live in just about every country. And you’ll find them in many denominations and communities.

you claimed

and are calling others to leave the Catholic faith and embrace yours.

I never put out the call for anyone to leave the “catholic faith”. If they did I would not lose sleep over it though. My main goal is to find where there is agreement between my view and those who post on these forums.

you said

If you do not repent of your sin and embrace the fullness of the Truth found in the Catholic faith, Christ will not have pity on you.

I repented and believed the gospel 8 years ago and was forgiven of all my sins (past, present and future) and sealed with the Holy Spirit for the Day of Redemption. Christ has indeed showed pity on me and loved me. And He demonstrated His love for me while I was yet a sinner (Rom 5:8). I am sealed and complete in Christ (Col 2:10) )whether or not I embrace the alleged “fullness of truth found in the catholic faith”. I am motivated by love, not by laws or the fear of Hell.

you said

You are intelligent, as evidenced by your thorough knowledge of scripture, however you persist in this falsehood which you proclaim to be from God.

Not only do I claim that Paul’s gospel is from God, but so does Paul in Gal 2:7 and in Eph 3:2. You have yet to show that what I believe is false. If it were false then I would not believe it.

you asked

The Devil is the author of confusion, why do you assume he has not confused you?

Because I am not confused.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The Augustinian:

***It’s funny. You seem to use the early Christian writers for your own purposes. Even though you can accurately piece together the entire Bible from their sayings, you reject their interpretation of it… It seems that, standing on the shoulders of these giants, you are willing kick at their heads. Doing so, you shall surely fall.

It’s ironic, that you are so willing to believe that the Bible has been communicated totally accurately, but the men who wrote it were so inept as to let their followers so easily corrupt their teachings. All for the sake of your convenient theology.

According to you, many, no, I would say all of the Catholic teachings come from God. Don’t be surprised. That’s from the implications of what you say. You say that water baptism was necessary for salvation, as well as that one could lose their salvation, among other things. Indeed, I believedexactly the same theology as you. Until I realized that the so-called “Kingdom Believers” did not die out as you thought they did. Neither do they require circumcision or the practice of Jewish ceremonial law, as you erroneously interpreted. They still exist, and they still are here. And St. Paul was one of them, and so am I.

The Kingdom of God is among us! Be happy, and glad!***

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian:

This is because he is asserting his authority as an apostle equal to that of the Twelve. This does not invalidate the power of the Apostolic College to appoint successors, of course. Moreover, even if Paul recieved his knowledge of Christ directly from Him, it doesn’t mean that his gospel is different from the Twelve. For then it would be another gospel as it is said.Another gospel which is preached by YOU.

Paul is telling the Galatians that there is no other gospel other than the one that HE preaches. The one that he refers to as “my gospel” (Rom 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8). The gospel that the “men from James” or the judaizers preach which requires circumcision and obeying the law of Moses is not another gospel that people have the option of believing. Paul’s gospel is the only game in town ever since Christ committed that gospel to him.

 

[The_Augustinian]

So, if it’s the only game in town, then why didn’t Peter, James and the rest convert? If there’s neither Jew nor Greek in the Body of Christ, then it makes no sense for the Kingdom Believers to practice circumcision. So, they should have become believers according to Paul. Yet, you claim they believed differently. Something is fishy, either with the actions of the Apostles, or what you’re claiming.

 

[The_Augustinian]

A heresy seems clearer than the real truth; the Trinity confounded the Jew, the Muslim, and the Arian, but was counted as sublime. The Incarnation of Our Lord was and remains a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. Like Christ, Holy Church is a stumbling block as well, and Protestantism seems to have a clarity to it, as clear as the muezzin’s call. So it is with your theology, although relatively speaking it is rather muddled compared to the Reformed faiths. So, do not assume the strength of your position based upon the clarity of your beliefs. Because you can be clearly wrong.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Catholic Dude asked

Show me where Peter commanded people to be circumcised

Peter did not need to command anyone to be circumcised in order to be accepted by God because he was preaching to Jews who had already been circumcised. Every Jew was circumcised on the 8th day as God commanded Abraham to do to all of his descendants in Gen 17.

We do not find Peter telling anyone to be circumcised, since his audience was already circumcised. What we DO find is Peter and the other Circumcision Believers strongly opposing the idea of going in the way of a Gentile or the uncircumcised which is opposed to Christ’s teaching to them given in Matt 10:5-6. The following passages show this

Acts 10:28a Then [Peter] said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation.

Acts 11:2-3 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, "You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!"

Acts 15:1,5 And certain [men] came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses."

These passages show that the Circumcision Believers had required circumcision. Had they not required circumcision then there would be no objections to Peter or anyone else going into an uncircumcised Gentiles house and no one would be saying that “it is necessary to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.” That The Twelve and those in Jerusalem required circumcision should also be obvious to anyone who reads Acts 10 where God shows Peter that He has now cleansed the Gentiles which were unclean up to that point.

you said

the only Apostle who circumcised was Paul.

Paul circumcised one man for the sake of having access to the Jews he was trying to reach. He did not circumcise Timothy because he was keeping the law so that Timothy could participate in the covenant made with Abraham given in Gen 17. Paul circumcised Timothy “because of the Jews who were in that region” (Acts 16:3). He was not circumcised so that he would be accepted by God, but for the sake of being accepted by the Jews in that region.

you said

As far as abstaining from foods, Peter DID EAT WITH THE GENTILES

I never claimed that Peter did not eat with the Gentiles. Gal 2 shows that he did eat with them until “men from James” came and he separated himself from the Gentiles at that point, which was wrong. This is why Paul withstood him to his face. Because he was to be blamed.

you claimed

Notice that Peter feared what Paul feared, but guess what? Peter didnt bow down and circumcise those gentiles like Paul did to Timothy. We see that Peter and Paul do have something in common…fear of radicals.

Man, you are not very bright dude. For you to claim that Paul bowed down to the circumcision is very wrong. He did not yield submission to them for even an hour (Gal 2:4-5). All that Paul did was take precautions so that he would be able to reach those Jews in a heavily Jewish area. Had they found out that Timothy was not circumcised, then they would have been run out of town and none of those Jews could have heard Paul preach and be saved. Paul did not “fear radicals” as you claim. He wisely approached his audience so that he could reach them with the gospel. To the Jews he became as a Jew as he says in 1 Cor 9:20.

you said

Well lets start from Acts9 then and see what you have to say:

Good grief! Do you think I’ve never read and studied Acts 9? Get real dude!

you said

Look at this. Paul started off doing evil to Christians, was God rewarding Paul by entrusting him with the new Gospel that Jesus didnt teach to the Apostles?

Not at all. God was not rewarding Paul in any way. It was by God’s grace that he chose Paul “from his mother’s womb” (Gal 1:15) to have a part in God’s plan of bringing about salvation to the world. God did, however commit to Paul a gospel that had new revelation in it which Paul refers to as “the mystery”. The Body of Christ was a mystery that was not revealed until it was revealed to Paul.

you said

Paul didnt get rewarded with being the sole truth holder, but he did get rewarded by coming to Christ.

Well, of course, Paul is not “the sole truth holder”. I’ve never claimed such. All I am claiming is that Paul was the first to receive the revelation of the mystery and he received it directly from Christ. Anyone who learned about it after Paul received it heard it through Paul’s preaching and teaching…

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you said

Notice that The same Lord talking to Ananias is the same one that Paul talks to.

I never claimed otherwise.

you go on

You would think that Lord is not throwing the truth that Ananias holds to in the garbage.

God has yet to reveal to Paul the mystery at this point. God does this after Paul’s meeting with Ananias. God does everything in order. For a detailed breakdown of Paul’s travels, check out this site which does a pretty good job of explaining when Paul traveled where and gives the Scriptural and historical evidence to back it up matthewmcgee.org/paultime.html

you said

First Ananias LAID HAND ON, and BAPTIZED Paul. Look at the order of events and how stuff is worded…“regain your sight, be filled with the Holy Spirit”…regain your sight corresponds to “scales fell from his eyes” while “be filled with the Holy Spirit” corresponds to “Baptism”

So what? That should be expected at this point. God has not yet revealed to Paul the mystery which He will do once Paul returns to Damascus.

you said

Then v19 is important, it says FOR SEVERAL DAYS PAUL STAYED WITH THE DISIPLES AT DAMASCUS, now compare it to Galatians1 where Paul said he talked with no one, did Luke lie to us? No. Paul is using shorthand.

No, there are no lies being told. You are just being thickheaded when it comes to understanding what Paul is talking about in Galatians. First of all, Acts 9:23 tells us that “after many days were past” the Jews at Damascus plotted to kill Paul. Paul escaped and went to Jerusalem. This occured after 3 years in Damascus.

Now, Gal 1 and 2 DOES NOT say that Paul did not talk with anyone after he was converted and went back to Damascus. What Gal 1 and 2 are saying is simply that when it comes to the gospel that Paul preaches he received it directly from Christ and not from any man (including Ananias in Acts 9). Paul never said “he talked with no one” as you claim he did.

you said

Thanks be to God the Church is alive and well. No wonder those other dispensationalists start at Acts15, starting at Ch9 is sure death. Again, what Paul said in Gal1-2 is SHORTHAND, ie left out a lot of details. In the end v31 the CHURCH WAS BUILT UP! NO DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE JESUS OF THE APOSTLES AND THAT OF PAUL.

You just don’t get it! Its like you have a V-Chip in your brain that does not allow you to understand the simplest explanations that I post.

There is no distinction between “the Jesus of the apostles and that of Paul”. The distinction is in the “house rules” (administration) that the Circumcision Believers are under and the “house rules” that those in the Body of Christ are under.

The fact is that God BEGAN to take a new route in order to reach the lost world around Acts 9 when he cut off Israel and grafted in the Gentiles creating the Body of Christ. Some claim that that route began at the end of Acts 7 with Christ standing in judgment showing that He was judging Israel and cut them off. All that matters is that it was around the time of Paul’s conversion that God made the decision to “cut the fig tree [Israel down]” since Israel did “not bear fruit” of repentance and belief (Luke 13:9; Rom 11:11,17,19-20).

you asked

Where is Paul here [in Acts 10]?

According to Acts 9:30 Paul is in Ceasarea or Tarsus at this time. The story in Acts 10 does not concern Paul. God is sending Peter to Cornelius’ house for the benefit of Peter and the circumcision in Jerusalem who believed. And as a result this would benefit Paul because those in Jerusalem, for the most part, would not be going around telling Gentiles that they had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved. God had already revealed to Paul that He was accepting Gentiles apart from the law. So Paul did not need this vision that Peter received.

you claim

Peter is the one in charge here, no time was he pushed out of the way.

Well, of course he is in charge in Jerusalem and the surrounding area where the Circumcision Believers are located. Peter was not, however, in charge of those churches that Paul helped birth through his preaching in Gentile territory. Thats why Peter had to listen to and obey the rules that Paul gave when Peter visited Paul and his converts in Galatia.

you said

Sorry bro, but its an uphill battle if you start from Acts 9.

No its not. All that is needed is some understanding of why things happened the way that they did. Why the transition in Acts occured as it did.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you asked

And from v34-43 tell me how this Gospel differs from what Paul says.

I could, but I will tell you how Peter’s preaching in v34-48 are similar and differ with the gospel committed to Paul instead.

First of all, Peter is faithfully preaching the gospel Jesus committed to Him in Acts 10. He is not preaching “Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery” (Rom 16:25) as Paul did because that gospel was committed to Paul, not to Peter. Peter shows that the Circumcision Gospel requires works for justification when he says

Acts 10:34b-35 "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 "But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

This agrees with what Jesus taught in Matt 19 where he responded to the question “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” by telling the man to keep the commandments. He also included the work of selling all of his possessions to the poor and following Him. James also showed that the Circumcision Gospel required works when he wrote to the Circumcision Believers in his epistle “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” (Jam 2:24).

This teaching is contrary to the Uncircumcision Gospel which requires no works to be done to receive eternal life. We see that Cornelius’ house responds to the core of the gospel that Peter and Paul had in common which is believing that Christ died and rose from the dead and remits sins (Acts 10:38-43; 1 Cor 15:1-4).

Notice how the Holy Spirit falls on Cornelius’ house in verse 44 once they hear that “whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins” in verse 43. This event astonished the Circumcision Believers who witnessed it in verse 45.

The way Cornelius’ house received the Holy Spirit is in accordance with the way those in the Body receive the Holy Spirit according to what Paul has written. Two good examples are Rom 10:9-10 and Eph 1:13-14.

Romans 10:9-10 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ephesians 1:13-14 In Him you also [trusted,] after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

The experience of Cornelius’ house shows that they were saved through faith the moment they believed in Christ apart from any works, such as water baptism.

you said

Note that ALL of CH10 was for Peter (and we know 9 comes before 10)

That is because the vision God gave to Peter and the resulting command to go to Cornelius’ house was FOR THE BENEFIT OF PETER AND THE OTHER CIRCUMCISION BELIEVERS. And besides, Acts is a historical record, not a theological treatise or epistle where Peter or Paul or anyone else spells out the details of their message.

you said

anyway onto Ch11:

1 Now the apostles and the brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, 3 saying, "Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?"

Notice that the Gentiles received the same word as the Jews.

It doesn’t say that they received “the same word as the Jews” as you insist. It says that they received the word of God, which clearly shows in Acts 10 that water baptism was not a part of that word since they received the Holy Spirit and had their sins remitted APART from water baptism. And the Word they received did not include the necessity of circumcision or keeping the law as Christ had commanded in Matt 5:17-20 for example. That the word of God Peter communicated to Cornelius’ house did not include circumcision and keeping the law is shown by the reaction of the circumcision who contended with him in Acts 11:2-3

 

[The_Augustinian]

And he said to them: You know how abominable it is for a man that is a Jew, to keep company or to come unto one of another nation: but God hath shewed to me, to call no man uncommon or unclean.

You’re right in that certain Christians (the Judaizers) thought that circumcision was required. However, you are mistaken in thinking that they were right in their own way, that it was part of their dispensation. The “house rules” did indeed change, but that is because the Church herself changed them, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit: “Whatsoever you bind in heaven, will be bound in heaven, &c.” This of course happened at the Council of Jerusalem. Now, you may object, saying that St. Paul already had his gospel to the Gentiles before that. In doing so you misunderstand the role of a Council. A Council does not proclaim new doctrine. It merely confirms doctrine that is already true in order to clear up conflicts. Thus, the Council of Jerusalem confirmed St. Paul in his belief, and confounded the Judaizer party which were mainly composed of converts from the Pharisees (Acts 15:5). Thus:

1. 
   *]Not all Christians in Jerusalem believed that circumcision was necessary, it was mainly the Judaizing sect.
   *]The apostles and elders were deliberating among themselves. This implies that circumcision and keeping the law of Moses was something debatable, and not ordered by Jesus Christ.
   *]St. Paul commanded the Church in Syria to “keep the precepts of the apostles and ancients.” (Acts 15:41)
   
   I predict you will claim those Churches in Syria were “of the Circumcision” although you have no such evidence of that. Because that is your MO in deciphering the Bible: you throw out whatever is against your believe in a strict separation of Kingdom Believers and the Body, and conveniently string together unrelated verses in order to prove your point. Are you willing to obey your pope Bob Hill that earnestly?
   
   You see? We Catholics believe in organic change, through the acts and teachings of the Apostles. So, our feathers are not ruffled when we hear of the Judaizers in Acts, thinking that they are some sort of valid sect. We accept the authority of St. Peter and the apostles, in that they changed the discipline of the Church early on and started to distinguish her from Judaism. No need to invent new dispensations!