First, hello again. I appreciate your comments regarding the tone of our postings. It is unfortunate that our previous threads ended when they did, as a lot of work went into them, and somehow, I feel we didn't conclude them. I suppose we have to agree to disagree.
Now to your comments (which I appreciate).
"I tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to point out to you that Peter’s statements regarding circumcision were by no means a new revelation. The Apostles had been spreading the Gospel years before the events recorded in Acts 15."
This is one of the subjects that was an offshoot on our previous discussion that we never concluded. And while I agree that Peter was not given new revelation, it was apparent that there was NOT total agreement as you imply regarding this question. First of all, you omit the verse where Peter in Acts 10 says "I never ate profane meat". He STILL was practicing the customs of Judaism in this case. Secondly, Paul confronts him later on this. Whether this happened before or after Acts 15, I don't know. In that vein, much of the writings of the Pauline Corpus were written AFTER Acts 15, so you are chronologically incorrect to point to these latter writings to prove the teachings of the Apostles BEFORE Acts 15.
While we know what Jesus taught the Apostles regarding the eating of unclean meat, it was apparent in their actions that they were not yet taking this teaching seriously. The fact that there was a Jewish-Christian faction oppposing this idea of Paul and Barnabas proves this. And Peter himself, probably James and the others, were also remaining within this old custom. The necessity of God sending a dream to Peter was the breakout message to the early Church, don't you think?
"But among the Apostles, there was none, and first Peter and then James confirmed Paul’s message and explained the “correct” answer to the assembled elders."
This came only after the dream of Peter and he explained his baptism of Cornelius. It is obvious that the Apostles were not teaching this before Cornelius was baptized.
"Finally, the fact that ALL these events are actually recorded in what we all agree is God breathed Scripture makes them an invalid proof that tradition is required to understand the Word or Will of God."
You are forgetting that there was no "Word of God" written yet on the subject at hand!!! This was all done before the NT was written. What Scripture did the Apostles use to base their argument that non-kosher meat was OK? What Scripture basis did Peter use to say that circumcision was no longer required? "It seemed good to the us and the Holy Spirit" - that was their basis. And that is the basis that the Church continues to use when defining what the Church is to believe, teach, and proclaim. Why would you say that God no longer sends His Holy Spirit to aid us in such matters? Why stop at Acts 15? This goes against the written Word of God (Mt. 28:20 and Jn 15:16, for example).
"In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter describes ALL of Paul’s epistles as Scripture."
Even if I was not to argue that statement, which letters were written by Paul? Can we say, without using Tradition, which letters are actually from Paul. We have no originals, Paul was concerned about forgeries in several verses (I'll get them later if you want actual verses, I don't have them handy now). Only a few actually state that Paul wrote them. So you are relying on extra-Biblical tradition to tell you which letters are Scripture! Who wrote the Gospels? Who wrote Acts? Hebrews? Etc... Your basis of the content of the NT is entirely based on a circular argument, totally ignoring that tradition is how we can know what books are rightfully placed (and none left out).
"I think it would be more useful to your argument to reference an Apostolic tradition that cannot be found in the written Word"
How about the correct way to interpret Scripture? My long previous post regarding Arianism explains the danger of presuming that private interpretation can be done. Peter tells us this in his epistle as well. I would like to tell you, also, that all teachings of the Catholic Church that have been defined are found within Scripture, either implied or explicit. Apostolic Tradition and Scripture are taken as part of God's Word. We use both so that we know what we are to believe, teach, and to proclaim. Arianism is a perfect example of relying on human ration and Scripture alone without the use of Apostolic Tradition.
Brother in Christ
With regard to this latest topic, we will most likely have to agree to disagree as well. You correctly point out that in Acts 10, Peter was still obviously following the customs of Judaism. However, it is in Acts 10 that he also finally understands that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses for all men. Three times Peter is told that "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." And once the three messengers from Cornelius arrive, he understands the truth, and in Acts 10:28 he says "God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." And he continues in Acts 10:34-35 "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." And in Acts 10:43 says that "through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." With those words, Peter has already begun to spread the news that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Law of Moses. Then in Acts 10:45 we read "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." In Acts 11, Peter repeats this news to the church in Judea and in verse 38 we learn "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."
Meanwhile, Paul has already begun his journeys spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles, teaching exactly the same thing that Peter has revealed to the church in Judea, yet Paul has yet to meet Peter. In fact, in Galatians we learn that Paul did not receive the Gospel from man, but by "the revelation of Jesus Christ". Obviously, Peter's words quoted in Acts 15 had nothing to do with Paul's knowledge that Jewish customs and traditions were not a requirement for anything.
ALL of these events happened before what is described in Acts 15. In fact, they happened at least 14 years before Acts 15. (That was the time between Paul's first visit to Jerusalem and his journey there to seek relief from the Judean Pharisees stirring up trouble among the Gentiles.) The truth was already out there. Both Peter and Paul had already spread the news that Christians were no longer bound by the Law of Moses. That "a sect of Pharisees" traveled from Judea to falsely teach something different is only further evidence of the fallibility of man. The truth was already known. Both Peter and Paul had been teaching it for years as revealed to them by God. It was the false traditions of man that said otherwise.
With regard to whether or not there was anything written regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ (ie the New Testament) read Acts 10:37-38 "That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." Realize that Peter is talking to Cornelius here and is assuming that Cornelius already knows the Gospel of Jesus Christ because it is already "published throughout all Judaea". The Gospel is already known. It may not have been called the "New Testament" yet, but it was known nonetheless.
With regard to whether or not the Holy Spirit still helps us understand God's Word...of course I believe He does. Jesus Christ tells us that is His purpose. But if you are trying to compare what the Holy Spirit revealed to Peter and Paul with the role He plays inside each one of us today, then I guess you will have to explain why our New Testament is not being continuously added to. What was revealed to the Apostles was recorded forever as the inspired Word of God. Yet, the newest book of the New Testament was written early in the 2nd century (I think). If the Holy Spirit is still revealing what isn't already revealed in the words of the Apostles, why isn't it considered the inspired Word of God and added to the Bible?
"Your basis of the content of the NT is entirely based on a circular argument, totally ignoring that tradition is how we can know what books are rightfully placed (and none left out)."
Stop right there. You are forming arguments for me that I've never made. I have never stated that we should "totally ignore" tradition. Never. Not once. In fact, I am the guy who wanted to study each of the early church fathers to learn exactly what they said about the content of the Biblical Canon. I respect tradition. I don't trust the church's (any church's) ability to accurately report that tradition. What Athanasius actually said, and what his words have been described as saying are not always the same thing. I believe Scripture is the inspired Word of God. It is Truth. That is not my assumption of anything not recorded in Scripture. In my last post to you, I merely stated that your argument would be better served by finding an example of "tradition" that isn't already recorded in the Bible. I believe that what actually constitutes the Bible is probably your best example of a tradition that cannot be fully answered by reading the Bible. That is why I am studying the development of Biblical canon.