Replies

"So I continued my study on my own."

It would be interesting to find out what you come up with, after doing a study on both the OT Deuts and the NT Deuts and then to see your conclusion on why you accept the latter but not the former. Or will you change your stand on this and take the Catholic viewpoint?

"However, it is in Acts 10 that he also finally understands that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses for all men"

I think you are jumping to conclusions. Where does the Scripture say that? It merely says that Peter realized that the Gentiles were to be allowed into the Christian community and that kosher laws need not apply. It says nothing about Jesus being the fulfillment of the Mosaic Laws. You are making a connection that is not necessary. The point that I am still making is that the Apostles did not have an instant, complete understanding of Jesus's teachings, even after Pentecost. God had to send a dream to two individuals to move the Church along. You are trying to ignore the implications of this: that the Church gradually develops doctrine and beliefs. The Holy Spirit guides the leaders of the Church to the understanding of the beliefs that it believes, proclaims, and defines. This is an ongoing process, the precedent set in Acts 15, your denials notwithstanding.

"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"

If you mean Saul taught that Jesus was the Messiah, you are correct. But we don't know at what point Paul began to teach that circumcision was no longer required. Also, to say he hadn't met Peter is wrong. Galatians 1:18 says after three years he conferred with Peter, and in Acts 9:23, Saul was preaching in Damascus, then after "a long time had passed", he then went to Jerusalem. This is where he met Peter, to confer with him for 15 days. It is certain that at this point, neither taught that kosher laws were no longer required - as the dream had not yet occured to Peter - and Peter said he had never eaten unclean food before then. Paul was not a renegade and teaching something different then Peter at this point. I think Paul learned of Peter's vision soon afterwards, since he was nearby in Tarsus by way of Caesarea (Acts 9:30), and Peter went to nearby Caesarea, where Cornelius lived, to baptize. So I think Paul heard about this, heard Peter's report, and likely consented to it as Peter reported it in Jerusalem in Acts 11:2. Acts 11:1 says "the apostles and brothers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the Word of God". At this point, we can safely say that Paul also accepted this news and began to preach it. We have no evidence that Paul taught no circumcision before this. Peter's words in Acts 15 were merely a repeat of his explanation of Chapter 11, the authoritative ruling that "this was how it was going to be". Years had gone by between Acts 11 and Acts 15.

Is this any different than any other development of doctrine within the Church? In Councils, we see that the Fathers believed "it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit". There is no Scriptural evidence or reason to say this has ceased to happen. What happened in Acts 15 continues to happen, to include at Vatican 2.

"It was the false traditions of man that said otherwise. (referring to the Pharisee sect continuing the preaching that kosher rules still applied)"

What you continue to ignore about this statement is that SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION were being cast aside by the Apostles' teachings! The Pharisees had the legitimate, constant teaching of the OT Scripture and God-given Tradition of Kosher Laws, yet the Apostles declared that it was no longer necessary. There opinion was based on a dream that Peter had!!! Does this speak of the authority of Peter or what?! It appears you have yet to fathom the implications of this and what it means for the Church, even today!! I have shown that the Apostles were not teaching the abrogation of Mosaic Laws until the dream Peter had. AFTER this coming of the Spirit, recognized by the Apostles, their teaching, once given by Christ, but not taught after Pentecost, was then brought out, in contradistinction from legitimately held Scripture and Tradition of the Pharisees (not man-made, like you imply. They were given to Moses and Abraham by God). A Sola Scriptura Protestant at Jerusalem (or Acts 11) would have been scandalized! Even with this example, from Scripture no less, you CONTINUE to be scandalized by what the Church continues to this day - you presume the Holy Spirit has left the Church - that God only was guiding at the first Council - merely because it was RECORDED in an inspired book (a book determined to be Scripture by the very same Church. Are you beginning to see the inconsistencies of your arguments?)

"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 is very inconclusive, as different translations have that as "spread" or "made public". Published does not necessarily mean written. It is certainly possible that a Hebrew Matthew was around, (which would probably be a much shorter version of the Greek Matthew) but this one verse is not convincing. Perhaps what was written was the so-called "Rule of Faith", a couple sentences found in the Creed about Jesus being born a virgin, suffered, died, and rose from the dead. Why would there need to be a written Gospel so soon after the resurrection when the Apostles were expecting the parousia at any day? You are going to need more evidence to show me that anything was written at this early stage.

"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..."

I am not. I am showing you that the Councils, beginning with Jerusalem, are so protected by the Holy Spirit. Definitions made at these councils are infallible. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Church have always believed it, and Scripture gives us evidence that the first one was so protected by the Spirit. There is absolutely no reason to think that Council declarations are no longer protected - not one dogmatic declaration has been overturned.

I wrote..."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)"

You wrote..."Stop right there. You are forming arguments for me that I've never made."

Your arguments say what you haven't written in words. You have constantly questioned the judgments made by the Church Fathers regarding what IS OT Scripture, (as if you can somehow "correct" them!) yet you accept the NT Scripture without concern. (Don't bother with "I haven't studied that yet". You aren't going to start ripping out James and Revelation from your NT). You made comments that either the Church was a bunch of liars or were sadly misled on several occasions. When I point out that particular Fathers directly mention 3 or 4 books of the OT Deut as being Scripture, you STILL are not convinced that that particular Father saw the Deuts as Scripture - you demand EVERY single book to be stated as Scripture for your rigid acceptance (although this requirement disappears for OT books such as Chronicles or Esther that are in both our canons) - not realizing or refusing to follow out the implications of this strict rule - that the NT Deuts are under the exact same levels of disagreement. In other words, you are highly selective of what Tradition you will allow into your predetermined system of beliefs. I find it interesting that you hold to particular Apostolic Traditions that are ambiguous in the Bible (like the Trinity) - yet refuse Apostolic Traditions that are very clear and held unanimously by the Church throughout 2000 years (like the Eucharist is Christ's Body). And you tell me you respect the Traditions of the Church? I have doubts on the reality of that statement based on what you have written and what you say you believe. Based on the above, am I wrong to conclude that you are paying mere lip-service to Apostolic Traditions? If so, please correct me.

"What Athanasius actually said, and what his words have been described as saying are not always the same thing."

And the same can be said of Scripture itself!!! How many manuscripts do we have? Do we have any originals? How about fraudelent letters? Do we have any of those? You see, if you trust the Fathers to report Scripture and accept it as such, you are going to have to also accept the defined declarations of these same Fathers made at Councils. It is no use fretting over such matters, somehow distinguishing between Scripture and the Counciliar decisions. As I have already stated over and over again, Councils are protected by the same Holy Spirit that inspired Scripture! Why you require absolute uninamity BEFORE such declarations at Councils is beyond me. It is inconsequential. I have given you the details of the very first Council, Jerusalem. They are in the same model!!! There was NO UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE WITHIN THE CHURCH BEFORE Acts 15! And before Acts 10, we don't have it AT ALL! Why the inconsistency with you? If you accept the reporting of the first Council, what about the second one at Nicene? And so on.

"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"

Interpretation is even more important than the words themselves. Isn't that obvious? This interpretation, finalized in the Councils, is clearly another example of Apostolic Tradition.

Regards