Weatherwax wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
Weatherwax wrote:
Christianity as a whole ignores the letter.
If the Apostles who wrote the letter were the christian
ONLY AUTHORITY, how can you say that Christianity
as a whole ignored the letter.
When did they ignored the letter? and why?
Paul's Christianity ignored the letter, but the Jewish disciples
did not, this is what got them into conflict , this is why
Paul called them the Dogs,"be aware of the Dogs he wrote
to the philippians, we are the true circumcised,,," Phil 3:2
Paul didn't recognize the disciples in Jerusalem as having authority over
him. In referring to the leadership in Jerusalem, Paul wrote:
Galatians 2:6
But from those who were influential (whatever they were
makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism
between people)-those influential leaders added nothing
to my message.
This is not what I said. Here is what I said. For the Jews
believers from Judaism, the Apostles' letter had more
weight than Paul's ranting. I did not say that the disciples
had more weight than Paul. Paul himself talked about what
others thought about him in detail. He talked about what
kind of welcome he got from the Jews believers.
The letter says that the gentiles are to restrain from meat which has been
sacrificed to idols, restrain from blood, and restrain from what had been
strangled. I know of no Christian strictures on those matters. I know of
no Christian leader who presented that letter as a guide.
AND YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ALL-KNOWING?
You are listening. We are still in first century Jerusalem or If
you would in the Ancient Mediterranean world.
Paul informs us about a party of believers who preaches
a different Gospel.
He calls them Dogs, they replied by calling him an intruder
He calls them false apostles who are trying to convince the Gentiles
to circumcise so that they may boast in flesh.
He informs us that even among his own flocks, they
boast to belong to CEPHAS, some to Appolos, and some to others,
Are they Hebrew? so am I wrote he later to the Corinthians
Are they servant of Christ? So am I.
These are first century Christian who presented their case to
the Gentile world
in competition with Paul. Don't pretend to ignore these
facts by acting as If everything was about you
The bottom line is that Paul and Barnas left ANTIOCH
and never returned there.
I cited Acts 15:35 above, and that shows that following the
Jerusalem Council Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch
and continued "teaching and proclaiming . . . the word of the
Lord."
Paul had no authority over the CHURCH of ANTIOCH. it was
not his Church.
It is obvous that the Church in Antioch accepted Paul's authority on
circumcism and dietary laws. Those are the issues which gave rise to the
Jerusalem Council.
I also cited Acts 18:22 which says that following Paul's second
missionary journey, he again returned to Antioch before going
to Jerusalem.
He was on his way to Jerusalem and just stopped by
In which case he must have still been on friendly terms with them.
Therefore, how can you make the absurd statement that "Paul
and Barnas left ANTIOCH and never returned there."
They returned physically in Antioch if you would, but not as
an auhtority but a visitor in need of Christian charity.
You are putting your own opinions into the text.
This is where your approach leads us.
If you think that you can inject your opinion
by claiming that Paul founded the Church
of Antioch contrary to what the text says, why do you think
I can't. If you can speculate that those who coined
the word Christian had Paul's disciples in mind, why do you
think I can't take the same APPROACH?
They never founded a CHURCH in Antioch and were
just visiting. There were Jews in Antioch Church before
Paul and after Paul, and since Jew would never follow Paul's
doctrine it is safe to believe that those Jews who remained in
the Church of Antioch lived according to their Mosaic culture.
There is nothing in the text to support that the
word Christian originated in Antioch applied only to
Paul's disciples
Don't dismiss the gentile membership in Antioch. According
to Acts 15:23 the letter from the Jerusalem Council was
addressed "to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria,
and Cilicia."
This is where it smells fishy. They are writing a letter asking
the gentiles to circumcise. while Paul said they should not
circumcise.
The letter did not ask the gentiles to circumcise.
But in the past, a Greek could not be a Jew by faith
without going through circumcision, then the dietary
Law was added. Circumcision was the door. So If I find
SOMEONE in my house when all doors are locked
I will reason that he must have the KEY.
The Gentiles, we are told, were asked to follow the dietary Law, but
since I know that htere can't be the dietary Law without
circumcision
I am just wondering why they left circumcision out.
BOTTOM LINE, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO DECREE A DIETARY
LAW WITHOUT CIRCUMCISION
Acts
15:23 . . . From the apostles and elders, your brothers,
to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria,
and Cilicia, greetings! . . . .
15:28 For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us
not to place any greater burden on you than these
necessary rules: 15:29 that you abstain from meat that
has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from
what has been strangled and from sexual immorality.
If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you
will do well.
Don't you know that the dietary Law go hand in hand with
circumcision?
The letter required the gentiles to follow only the minimum dietary rules.
It didn't impose restrictions on what types of food may be eaten, or how the
food is to be prepared. In other words, it dropped 99% of Jewish dietary
law.
Tell that to Paul, he was the one who told the Corinthians to eat
anything they found in the market place, the same thing was told
to the Galatians
Now the question is, was this dropping o 99% of the Jewish Law meant
for yhe Gentiles Christians or for the Hebrew Christians.
My answer is for the Hebrew disciples who follow Jesus.
Why the report makes it look like as If it was meant for
everybody, then?
This is another ISSUE
It is like saying you can't circumcise but you can still enjoy
the staff which come with circumcision.
Paul was more consistent with himself. He told his flocks in
Galatia, If you circumcise then you must follow the whole Law.
For someone familiar with the dabate and the Jews and Gentile
relation before Christ, something is wrong somewhere
The problem is that you do not understand what the letter is saying.
What the number of gentiles were in respect to the number of
Jewish members is unknown. We also do not have any real
knowledge of how the beliefs of the Jews and gentiles in this
church were the same, or differed. However, with Paul's
leading position in the church, it is certain that his views had
a definite influence at least upon the gentiles.
Hmmmm now I see. You don't know what is meant for a GREEK
to judaize, that is to say to become a practicing Jew.
We are not talking about Greeks becoming practicing Jews.
I am not either, but it is good to point out how similar
The requirement from the letter were
Ok let us break it down for you.
When a Greek was interrested in the Jewish religion
the first thing he was supposed to do before he was accepted
was to circumcise, then follow Moses Law and riutal.
But even in Moses Law were present some prohibitions
regarding a foreigner who converted,
prohibition which were different from those of
a true Jew. As a matter of fact, there were some areas in the
temple were a Gentile even converted would not set his feet,
Read James speech in Acts 15:13-21. In it James is quoting the LXX version
of Amos 9:11-12. In either version, basicall YHWH is saying that after the
kingdom of Israel is restored, then "the rest of humanity may seek the
LORD." It does not say the rest of humanity has to become Jews, or be
circumcised, or live by the Mosaic Law, but it does say that the rest of
humanity will seek the LORD. That is the point that James is making. This
is the coming of a new age. The gentiles did not have to become Jews in
order to worship YHWH.
Naturally other Jews disagreed, and that is where the conflick took place.
And that is my point
Paul dealt with this matter in depht in his letter to the Romans.
So basically the Law of Moses was a Law of a double standard.
It works one way with the Jew of a birth right and another way
for the Gentiles. That was before Christ,
Now that Christ has come, the pharisees were still
looking to perpetuate the same patern: Circumcision and the
Noachites Law or dietary Law. This is what Paul rejected arguing
in his Epistle to the Ephesians that the Gentile were
nolonger foreigner in Israel because CHRIST DEMOLISHED
the wall of separation.
So imagine Paul having made this point in Antioch as he would
have done before the Judaizers, imagine the same Paul turning
around and accepting what he had already rejected, then later
rejected it again in Galatia.
This is what Acts 15 want us to believe. But I am not going
to believe that because I know that since the issue was about
Gentile circumcision, prescribing the dietary
Laws to the Gentiles is equal to the same circumcision.
No Paul would accept it. But the HEBREW Christian could
Reread Acts 15. Paul did not change his position at any time.
This is how we ended up having two competing versions
of CHRISTIANITY.
The Gentile or Pauline version and the SEMITIC or Paul's opponent
version, version that the Qur'an later labelled as ISLAMIC
--Wax
.
