Where does Paul fit into the authority debate?

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian:

Could you then outline the various theological similarities and distinctions between Circumcision Believers and the Body of Christ? In bulleted explanations of one sentence each, please.

Unlike you, we are not so well-read and knowledgeable of Acts-9 Dispensational theology, nor of its huge impact on the Church throughout 2,000 years.

The Augustinian

That is a very helpful suggestion The Augustinian! Yes, I will gladly list the similarities and differences between the two tomorrow evening sometime

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian

The fundamental disagreement in this debate, as in most debates involving Catholics and Protestants, is over the nature of the scriptures. Because TheOpenTheist is a sola scripturist, he does not care if there is no extrabiblical support for his theology, nor does the fact that his distinct theology was only developed in the last couple of centuries bother him. The Holy Bible, insofar as he has interpreted it, is his guide.

That is not the case at all. I know very few people who hold to the same views as I do that think that way. I, along with my friends and many others who hold similar views, reject the doctrine of Sola Scripture. That idear is retarded.

My pals and I use what most everyone else uses to form our views. Many refer to it as The Wesleyan Quadrilateral. The four parts of the quadrilateral are

1. 
   *]Scripture
   *]Reason
   *]Tradition
   *]Experience
   
   And that is what I use to form my beliefs and in that order.
   
   Also, everyone uses more than just Scripture to inform their beliefs. EVERYONE. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura deny this obvious fact.
   

   In other words, since we have fundamentally different approaches to interpreting the scriptures, I doubt that there will be any good conclusion to this debate.

   Oh, c’mon now. We can at least agree that Scripture is saying what it actually says in the passages we discuss, right?
   

   TheOpenTheist, I apologize for provoking you, but you really need to tone down the polemic. Also, insults are not acceptable. I do not think calling you a heretic is an insult, because to me, as a Catholic, you are indeed a heretic since you left the Church. To most orthodox Christians who believe in the omniscience of God, you are a heretic. However, I will refrain from using such language.

   Hey, I believe that God is omniscient. I just disagree with most of the tradition on the kind of future God fully knows. I believe, backed totally by many many passages describing God’s relating to man, that God knows the future as partly settled and partly unsettled.
   

   Also, you shouldn’t assume that everyone else knows what you know about your theology.

   I don’t assume that. That is why I explain myself so thoroughly and respond in such detail.
   

   I think you (and I) should focus on a few distinct points. Going all scatter-shot like this does nothing to clarify our points of view.

   Yes, that would make things much easier to understand and will actually move discussion along much better.
   

   I accept that you have an explanation for your views. Your views are indeed, defendable. But, so is Islam. It doesn’t make them correct.

   The Augustinian

   I don’t believe Islam is defendable at all. There are so many clues as to the demonic origins of Islam that we know of that make it very hard to defend with any sort of reasonable arguments. Plus, it denies the historically verifiable resurrection of Christ and His many claims to deity. When someone denies historical events like the resurrection they lose their intellectual integrity.

 

[The_Augustinian]

A good way to frame our disagreement is: is there one dispensation after the Abrahamic Covenant, or two? Of course, I do know what dispensation or oikonomia is: the point I was trying to make was that there wasn’t a convincingly clear evidence of two distinct dispensations. In the case of the New Testament, since Peter and Paul both seemed to be ministering to the same community, and in II Peter it seems that Paul had written to Peter’s congregation, it would seem that Christendom was united under a single Church. There has been no distinction between Christian believers in the New Testament nor in Church history. Why would God be the author of confusion? If Jesus secretly revealed a new way of salvation to Paul, then what about the other disciples? They must’ve been revealed this revelation as well, or else they would have cast Paul out as a heretic. Yet this new revelation is missing from the Scripture.

TheOpenTheist:

I, along with my friends and many others who hold similar views, reject the doctrine of Sola Scripture. That idear is retarded.

I certainly commend your views, but until you provide some extrabiblical support for your theological views, such as a writing by a church father, I hold that your theology is only based on your particular interpretation of Scripture. As far as tradition is concerned, the general two-millenia consensus is that there is only one dispensation after the Old Covenant.

I honestly think this thread has outlived its usefulness. Can we move this to another thread?

 

[I_Leatherman]

In the “Catechetical Discourses” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he insists on the one hand (sect. 26): “And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is–for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord–nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all.”
It is not easy to be homeless. He promised to be with them always, but the problem for protestants is that they were not with Him always.
This protestant must provide evidence of his home through time.
Otherwise he remains just an heretical offshoot from the Church Christ remains with through time.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian said

A good way to frame our disagreement is: is there one dispensation after the Abrahamic Covenant, or two?

OK. Thats fair enough and easily demonstrated by many Scriptures.

Of course, I do know what dispensation or oikonomia is: the point I was trying to make was that there wasn’t a convincingly clear evidence of two distinct dispensations.

You say that now. I thought that at first too. After I considered the evidence and grasped the view well I felt like anyone that did not recognize that the Body of Christ began in Acts 9 with the raising up of Paul and Christ revealing to him the revelation of the mystery was blind and the victims of centuries of bad theology and philosophy.

you claimed

In the case of the New Testament, since Peter and Paul both seemed to be ministering to the same community, and in II Peter it seems that Paul had written to Peter’s congregation

Hold on there! Its important to keep in mind that because Peter and Paul held many doctrines in common that both groups could make good use of the others writings. The Circumcision Believers could make use of much of Paul’s writings and those of us in the Body can likewise make use of much of the Circumcision Epistles (Hebrews - Revelation). Peter and Paul had converts in the same areas. So, its only natural that they would share their writings with each other, even though the epistle was not addressed specificly to them. Its much like how we use Genesis through Malachi for our benefit, that is, where those books do not contradict what God has revealed to us in this dispensation of grace.

You go on to say

it would seem that Christendom was united under a single Church.

Well, its safe to say that Paul and Peter and the other apostles were united in preaching Christ according to the revelation of the mystery. The only ones still trying to teach the Gospel of the Circumcision were the judaizers. So, yes, there was unity after a brief period of contension and debate between the two groups.

You claimed

There has been no distinction between Christian believers in the New Testament nor in Church history.

That is not entirely true. Even though no church father I know of comes right out and says “there were two groups of believers in the New Testament” there is still the recognition of the majority of the Acts 9 view with the differences between the Gospel of the Circumcision and the Gospel of the Uncircumcision. For example, the church fathers realized that they and the other members of the present-day church were not required to sell all they had and live together in a big commune as the apostles and disciples did in early Acts. And they realize that when they recover from an illness that they are not required to offer “the gift that Moses commanded” (Matt 8:4) which was two doves according to Lev 12:8 and Lev 14:22. In other words, they realize that they are not required to obey the Mosaic Law since they are not under the Law, but under grace as Paul wrote.

You asked

Why would God be the author of confusion?

He wouldn’t and isn’t. The Devil is the author of confusion and wants people even today to believe that they must perform at least some of the works of the law in order to be accepted by God.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

If Jesus secretly revealed a new way of salvation to Paul, then what about the other disciples? They must’ve been revealed this revelation as well, or else they would have cast Paul out as a heretic. Yet this new revelation is missing from the Scripture.

What!!?!!?!?!? How in the world can you make such a statement!?

God did a LOT to alert the Circumcision believers in Jerusalem to the fact that He was now accepting Gentiles apart from being circumcised and obeying the law. First of all, he confronted Paul and made him the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was the top student of Gamaliel who was the top teacher of the law in the area at that time other than Jesus. Then shortly after that we read that God showed Peter that He was accepting Gentiles by faith apart from the law. God even sent Peter from Joppa, where Jonah had started his journey, to make the link between God offering salvation to the Gentiles much like He had gone to the Gentile nation of Nineveh. Then Peter shared this news with the others in Jerusalem, after they charged him with having done wrong by entering a dirty Gentile dog’s house. This news spread throughout the area. Then God brought Paul down to Jerusalem to share with those in Jerusalem what God was doing through him. And Paul wrote Romans and Galatians to explain in some detail what his doctrine was. He also explains the significance of the revelation of the mystery in other epistles like Ephesians and Colossians. These epistles and their message undoubtedly found their way into the hands of Peter’s converts who had believed in early Acts and were living out their faith to the end.

So, there was much that God did to help the Circumcision Believers understand what He was doing through Paul’s ministry. Heck, 3 times Paul informs the Jews who reject Christ that God is turning from them and going to the Gentiles. And on top of all this, the Holy Spirit helped to verify that Paul’s ministry was legitimate.

You said

I certainly commend your views, but until you provide some extrabiblical support for your theological views, such as a writing by a church father, I hold that your theology is only based on your particular interpretation of Scripture.

Why is that? The church fathers held some pretty horrible beliefs and have even influenced those following them in bad ways for as long as the last 1600 years. And Paul noted “that all those in Asia have turned away from me” (2 Tim 1:15). Its important not to give extra-biblical tradition more authorioty than what we find in the Scripture addressed to us, because the writings of the church fathers is not God-breathed as Scripture is.

As far as tradition is concerned, the general two-millenia consensus is that there is only one dispensation after the Old Covenant.

Yes, that is true. But, then again, not one of the church fathers that I am aware of can be shown to explain how it came about that circumcision and obedience to the law became unnecessary for obtaining salvation. None of them seem to explain when the old rules gave way to BUT NOW…

I honestly think this thread has outlived its usefulness. Can we move this to another thread?

Sure, we can do that. If you want to start the thread and give it a title I am OK with that. A good title would be something referring to How Many Dispensations Are There After The Abrahamic Covenant? or something like that, or even better, How Many Dispensations Are There in the New Testament Period?

 

[TheOpenTheist]

I Leatherman:

In the “Catechetical Discourses” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he insists on the one hand (sect. 26): “And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is–for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord–nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all.”
It is not easy to be homeless. He promised to be with them always, but the problem for protestants is that they were not with Him always.
This protestant must provide evidence of his home through time.
Otherwise he remains just an heretical offshoot from the Church Christ remains with through time.

So I am to believe that none of “the sects of the profane” ever called their own dens and houses of the Lord “the Catholic Church”? Is that what Cyril expects us to believe? If so, that is really retarded. As if a sect would claim to be lots of good things pertaining to Christ, but never ever “the Catholic Church”! Good grief! This is more evidence that much of what the church fathers wrote was bananas.

The catholic church is no better off than any other Protestant or naabaptist or any other sort of church. They are both have their share of lost people who are on the path to Hell. The only church membership that matters is being a member of the Body of Christ. Once a part of the Body you are complete in Him, are accepted by the Beloved and are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the Day of Redemption.

 

[I_Leatherman]

TheOpenTheist:

So I am to believe that none of “the sects of the profane” ever called their own dens and houses of the Lord “the Catholic Church”? Is that what Cyril expects us to believe? If so, that is really retarded. As if a sect would claim to be lots of good things pertaining to Christ, but never ever “the Catholic Church”! Good grief! This is more evidence that much of what the church fathers wrote was bananas.

The catholic church is no better off than any other Protestant or naabaptist or any other sort of church. They are both have their share of lost people who are on the path to Hell. The only church membership that matters is being a member of the Body of Christ. Once a part of the Body you are complete in Him, are accepted by the Beloved and are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the Day of Redemption.

“Re: Cyril is bananas!”
You wrote this.

I dont think St. Cyril was retarded.
After all you dont call your church Catholic.

 

[The_Augustinian]

I would agree that God guided Paul to the Gentiles, and that there was a radical shift in practice which allowed the Apostles to abolish circumcision and dietary practice. However, I do not think this was a result of a formation of a **totally new **body of believers, but as a result of a clarification of doctrine resulting in a change in disciplinary practice at the local Council of Jerusalem. The post-Jerusalem Church was the same, just as the post-Vatican II Church is the same, although there were certain huge differences.

A better question would be, were the Judaizers sinning? If your position is correct, the Judaizers would be “Circumcision Believers” and thus do not sin by practicing the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law, although arguably they would sin by trying to proselytize Gentile believers. However, if the Catholic position is correct, the Judaizers were committing a sin. I hope this is an accurate distinction between the two positions.

I also hold the following theses:

1. That there is absolutely no support by the Church Fathers for a second dispensation.
2. That water baptism has been valid ever since its promulgation by Our Lord and is necessary for salvation.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian said

I would agree that God guided Paul to the Gentiles, and that there was a radical shift in practice which allowed the Apostles to abolish circumcision and dietary practice.

Good.

However, I do not think this was a result of a formation of a totally new body of believers, but as a result of a clarification of doctrine resulting in a change in disciplinary practice at the local Council of Jerusalem.

A “clarification”? What gives you the impression that no longer requiring circumcision and obedience to the law is just a “clarification”? And what is it that those in Jerusalem believe that needs to be clarified that Christ taught them during His earthly ministry? I mean, Jesus taught The Twelve for a good 3 years and never said anything about the Body of Christ in which there is no Jew or Gentile and which obtains a righteousness apart from the law. Jesus gave The Twelve a complete set of doctrine (Matt 28:20) and a plan to reach the entire world through a redeemed Israel (Acts 1:8). So, do you really want to say that Christ raised up Paul and revealed to him the mystery to simply “clarify” what He had taught The Twelve for 3 years during His earthly ministry.

You said

The post-Jerusalem Church was the same, just as the post-Vatican II Church is the same, although there were certain huge differences.

The sort of new knowledge that Christ revealed to Paul is of a totally higher order then any new changes to practice or the like that we find in Vatican II. For one thing, we are informed that the Body of Christ was a secret hid in God until it was revealed to Paul, and even more importantly we are told that the Body of Christ is God’s “eternal purpose” (Eph 3:11). Israel was a means to an end. God’s plan was to use that nation in order to bring about the Body of Christ at some point, probably after Christ had returned to rule over a united Israel (made up of Judea and Samaria) during The Twelve’s lifetime.

You said

A better question would be, were the Judaizers sinning? If your position is correct, the Judaizers would be “Circumcision Believers” and thus do not sin by practicing the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law, although arguably they would sin by trying to proselytize Gentile believers.

Yes, that is exactly what we find in the New Testament record! The Circumcision Believers were obeying Christ’s teaching, which they had no reason to doubt was innacurate or incomplete in any way. Christ taught His desciples and their converts to go only to Jews and to not have anything to do with the Gentiles as the following passages demonstrate.

• Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
• Matthew 15:22-24 And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” 23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” 24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
• Acts 10:28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation.** But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
• 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!"

These passages clearly establish that The Twelve and their desciples were to not associate with uncircumcised Gentiles who do not keep the law. This command was to be followed until God made it clear that He had accepted the uncircumcised by faith apart from keeping the law. God did this around Acts 9 according to what Paul tells us of his experience with Christ and according to what Peter informs us of his dealings with Cornelius’ house and the others in Jerusalem in Acts 10 and 11.**

 

[John_Henry]

Any and all authority that St. Paul had within the Catholic Church was given to him here:

“Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.” (Acts 13:3)

 

[TheOpenTheist]

…continued

You said

However, if the Catholic position is correct, the Judaizers were committing a sin. I hope this is an accurate distinction between the two positions.

I don’t know any Catholics who I have talked with who believe that Peter and the others in Jerusalem were committing a sin by keeping the law as Christ commanded them to do. Most everyone I have talked with about this recognizes that their keeping the law, both the weightier and the lesser matters, were doing the right thing since Jesus explicitly commands them to obey the law (Matt 5:17-20; 28:20) and to even go beyond obeying the law by doing things like selling all their possessions and leaving their families (Matt 19:2,29; Acts 1:14-15; 2:1; 5:1-6). The only way that these Circumcision Believers would be sinning is if they tried to make those in the Body of Christ feel obligated to become circumcised and keep the law, which the leadership of the Circumcision Believers in Jerusalem recognized as not being the right thing to do (Acts 15:24).

You said

I also hold the following theses:

1. That there is absolutely no support by the Church Fathers for a second dispensation.

So what? They don’t even try to tackle the topic. Silence by the church fathers does not nullify what is found in Scripture. The vast majority of church fathers have nothing to say about the alleged assumption of Mary and there is no evidence at all for the doctrine in Scripture. Do you not believe the assumption of Mary then, because the large majority of church fathers have nothing to say about the idear in their writings?

1. That water baptism has been valid ever since its promulgation by Our Lord and is necessary for salvation.

Just because some people believe this does not make it true. We have Paul’s rejection of the necessity of water baptism and his explicit statement that water baptism is not a part of the gospel he preached in 1 Cor 1:14-17. Passages such as 1 Cor 12:13, Eph 4:5 and Col 2:10-11 corroborate this doctrine that the only baptism necessary today is the baptism by the Holy Spirit which baptizes us into the Body of Christ upon our acceptance of the gospel. Besides, water baptism is an ordinance of the law that Israel was to perform (Num 8:7; 19:13,18-21; Ezek 36:25). In the Body of Christ, we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law, including the work of water baptism.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

John_Henry:

Any and all authority that St. Paul had within the Catholic Church was given to him here:

“Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.” (Acts 13:3)

You don’t know the Bible very well John. Paul’s authority did not come about as a result of anyone laying hands on him. Paul makes it very clear that the authority given to him is directly from Christ, not from Peter or any other man.

But I make known to you, brethren, that gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it [the Gospel] from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:11‑12

Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ… Gal. 1:1

and I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. Gal. 1:22

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.) Gal. 1:18‑20

 

[Magicsilence]

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.

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.

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

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

I have read the NT, numerous times, with different versions of the bible on different occasions. 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, for, as you know, although you dont hold to sola scriptura, your view cannot work unless one has read the bible.

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

Quote:
5. Moreover, this particular interpretation of the scripture (MAD) has only been around for several centuries.

So what!? Augustinianism has been around much longer, yet it is far more messed up than the Acts 9 view is.

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.

1. Your view is held by precious few, we as Catholics have over 1 billion members. Why is this significant? 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, has not allowed you to prevail over the Catholic Church who in relation to you is teaching a different gospel. One must be wrong. 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. 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.

cont…

 

[Magicsilence]

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:

you whined

Quote:
Also, please do not post so many words at a time. It takes a while to scroll down.

Just read faster or take some flax oil so your mind and eyes can operate better

Do you even know what the word dispensation means? Or even where it comes from in the New Testament? It doesn’t sound like it from your posts.

So you claim to have common sense?

Quote:
Anyway, I am not a trained theologian, nor am I as well-read as you are.

That fact is extremely evident from your postings.

If you are close, I will come to your college and debate there. That is, if you think you could handle such a debate.

You pulled that statement out of your butt.

You are pretty thick dude.

You don’t know the Bible very well John.

Unfortunately, much as we cannot tell a mans nature over a forum, one would accept that a man who claims to be from the real Body of Christ would be overflowing with kindness, humility, and a zeal for souls. This would be evident by his posting, and any admission of humility or lack of knowledge by a poster is met by you with mockery.

When Christ foretold that we could tell a man by his fruits, he was indeed correct. Whether or not we disagree on your doctrinal opinions does not invalidate the fact that you have been less than charitable on this thread. However, a silent witness is a guilty witness. What you are preaching is a heresy, you deny the Body Of Christ (or invalifate it by claiming it exists elsewhere), and are calling others to leave the Catholic faith and embrace yours. 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. You are intelligent, as evidenced by your thorough knowledge of scripture, however you persist in this falsehood which you proclaim to be from God. The Devil is the author of confusion, why do you assume he has not confused you?

I offer God Almighty the precious body and blood of His Son Jesus Christ as a sacrifice that you may grow in faith and be brought home to the Truth. May all those who read this do likewise.

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[The_Augustinian]

TheOpenTheist:

You don’t know the Bible very well John. Paul’s authority did not come about as a result of anyone laying hands on him. Paul makes it very clear that the authority given to him is directly from Christ, not from Peter or any other man.

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.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TheOpenTheist:

Also, just because there are a lot of similarities between the gospel Peter preached and the gospel Paul preached does not mean that they are similar in every way. For example, I am sure that you realize that Peter’s gospel required circumcision and abstaining from certain foods while Paul’s gospel does not require that anyone become circumcised or abstain from certain foods. Right?

Show me where Peter commanded people to be circumcised, the only Apostle who circumcised was Paul. As far as abstaining from foods, Peter DID EAT WITH THE GENTILES, Gal2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
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.

No its not. If it were, then I would refer to myself as holding to the Acts 15 view. I do not do that because I hold the Acts 9 view.
Well lets start from Acts9 then and see what you have to say:
1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. …[pauls vision]…
10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani’as. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Anani’as.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11 And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying, 12 and he has seen a man named Anani’as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.” 13 But Anani’as answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name.”
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? Keep reading:
15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”
Paul didnt get rewarded with being the sole truth holder, but he did get rewarded by coming to Christ. Notice that The same Lord talking to Ananias is the same one that Paul talks to. You would think that Lord is not throwing the truth that Ananias holds to in the garbage. Anyway, next:
17 So Anani’as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized, 19 and took food and was strengthened. For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus.
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”…NO DISTINCTION.
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.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

TheOpenTheist:

Now for a very important part:
20 And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, “He is the Son of God.” 21 And all who heard him were amazed, and said, “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called on this name? And he has come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests.” 22 But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ. 23 When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night, to kill him; 25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket. 26** And when he had come to Jerusalem** he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, 29 preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. And he spoke and disputed against the Hellenists; but they were seeking to kill him. 30 And when the brethren knew it, they brought him down to Caesare’a, and sent him off to Tarsus. 31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.
Where do I begin? 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.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(edited for size not content)
Now Ch10;
9 Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.
…
25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.” 27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons gathered; 28 and he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
…
34 And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36 You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), 37 the word which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.39 And we are witnesses to all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree;40 but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest; 41 not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that he is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead.43 To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” 44 While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
Where is Paul here? Peter is the one in charge here, no time was he pushed out of the way. Sorry bro, but its an uphill battle if you start from Acts 9. And from v34-43 tell me how this Gospel differs from what Paul says.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Note that ALL of CH10 was for Peter (and we know 9 comes before 10), 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. What was that you said about Peter forcing certain diets on people? Thats not what v3 says.
4 But Peter began and explained to them in order: … 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" 18 When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life."
Glory to GOD in the highest! The Gentiles are accepted at the hands of Peter and welcomed by all! Next:
19 Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoeni’cia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none except Jews. 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyre’ne, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number that believed turned to the Lord.
Thanks be to God! Next:
22 News of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 23 When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad; and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose; 24 for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a large company was added to the Lord. 25 So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul; 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples **were for the first time called Christians. **
First called Christians at Antioch!! Both Jews and Gentiles welcome!

(one more to go)