Posted on 05/15/2008 8:29:34 AM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
In the beginning of the church (first ten years) all the believers were Jews. The church began and was established in Jerusalem where Jesus did a good portion of his preaching and was crucified and raised.
The gospel went out from Jerusalem "you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" Acts 1:8
Luke 24:47-48 that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (see Acts 10:36-37)
It wasn’t until years later that the gospel went to the Gentiles Acts 8:1 “At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.”
It was Saul who was given the commission who bought the gospel to the Gentile regions, even Rome., Paul tells his story to Agrippa Acts 26:19-20 "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea , and then to the Gentiles."
The "Jerusalem Council" in Acts 15 shows us a number of things- first, Rome was not headquarters of the Church; Jerusalem was the focus (not the head) because the Jewish leadership had to decide on how to act with the Gentiles being saved in great numbers A serious doctrinal disagreement had arisen with the Gentiles beginning to be saved. Paul was present because he was the main apostle sent out to the gentiles with Barnabas. Then the Apostles and Elders met to consider the matter (15:6). If Peter had any special authority above all the other apostles, he would have called the Council together, officiated at the meeting, and given his final judgment in these matters by himself, but he did not. There was no Pope over the church then. James, who was the pastor of the Jerusalem church stood up and became the central figure in this council, and his appeal was in agreement with the other elders, it was to the Word of God and the Spirit (Acts 15:13-21) not to the church itself.
It was not until the early 300’s the church stopped hiding underground from persecution and became a legal entity that the power was shifted to pagan Rome, specifically under Constantine the conqueror. The Pope became like the Caesars before him in Rome, only now with a Christian veneer. First there was little influence, but the doors slowly swung open to allow the pagans to enter the church through water baptism instead of a confession of faith. The church mixed other teachings not found in the Bible and polluted itself to becoming religious and giving meaning to the outward rituals not understanding their spiritual intent.
I've already done it. You refuse to believe it. And your whole argument in "proof" is a total logical contradiction. If Paul was the "Apostle to the Uncircumcised", then by your argument, he should have evangelized SOLELY to the Gentiles. He did not, therefore that title was NOT an exclusive domain. By the EXACT SAME LOGIC then, Peter's mission to the Circumcised was also NOT an exclusive domain (and by extension, neither were the other Apostles so limited). You CANNOT "have it both ways" which is what you are trying to do.
Can you point out to me where I ever said Paul was the Apostle to the uncircumcised?
By the EXACT SAME LOGIC then, Peter's mission to the Circumcised was also NOT an exclusive domain (and by extension, neither were the other Apostles so limited).
Then.....my good Freeper FRiend....you are in denial of Holy Scripture. Paul was not a member of the original "Twelve" told by Our Lord to stay away from the Gentiles. Paul was selected by Our Lord for that exact purpose....to evangelize the Gentiles.....and others [Acts 9:15]. On the other hand....Peter and the original eleven other Apostles were give very specific instructions [Matthew 10:5-6] to stay away from these folks.
I understand your frustration in coming to grips with these very clear scriptures. In doing so....and admitting their truthfulness.... you must toss your theology "under the bus". It must be very difficult for you....now that I've shown you the obvious truth.
"Sent to the Uncircumcised", "Apostle to the Unircumcised"--it amounts to the same thing. The key idea is "...to the Uncircumcised..." as an exclusive domain of evangelization. It is either exclusive or it is not exclusive. Since Paul evangelized to both Jews and Gentiles, it is NOT exclusive.
Since the Bible uses PRECISELY THE SAME verbal construction, "...to the Circumcised..." for Peter, then it is obvious that his evangelization mission was to both Jews and Gentiles as well.
The above is simple logic based on the actual words and actions in Scripture. I don't know how else to state it. You appear to debate according to no rules of logic or consistency. Meanings change to whatever you happen to think supports your position at the moment.
"It must be very difficult for you....now that I've shown you the obvious truth."
Not. Nice ego you have, though.
I read your link but none of those definitions of “keepa” are anything upon which a church could be built. They are however in line with the Hebrew “keph”, which may not be the “hollow rock” that Strong’s describes, but is also not the substantive rock described by the Hebrew “tsur”, the rock foundation for the city of Tyre, and “cela, selah” which incidentally became the rock city we know today as “Petra” — not “Petros” or “Cephas”.
Reading the mind of another Freeper is "making it personal."
Well that's not entirely accurate. Greek noun gender doesn't have anything to do with the actual gender of the subject. For example, the greek word for "dog" is male gender, but there are clearly female dogs and you can clearly give a female name to a dog.
The greek word for "rock", Petra, is female noun gender, but it's used elsewhere to refer precisely to Christ:
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (Petra) that followed them: and that Rock (Petra) was Christ.
So it's perfectly reasonable withing the confines of the greek language to compare a male person to a female object and vice-versa.
Yup! You're correct. I apologize.
Be very careful with personal pronouns.
Shabbat Shalom
O.K. I'll go over this once again.
Here is where the Apostle Paul gets his commission: [Acts 9:15] But the Lord said unto him , Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. These words were spoken to Ananias.
There are three separate entities spoken of here by the Lord. Paul is to evangelize the Gentiles. Up to this point this has not yet been done. Peter's visit to Cornelius has not yet transpired and this is a radical new concept! When Peter finally does visit Cornelius to show that the way is open to the Gentiles (Chapter 10) the other Apostles and disciples are simply astonished (verse 45). Paul at this time is in Arabia for three years [Galatians 1:17-18] before returning to Jerusalem and his divinely appointed Apostleship.
The next entity was the Kings and indeed Paul finds himself before kings.....both in Jerusalem and in Rome defending the faith [Acts 23:26-35][Acts 24:1-2][Acts 25:23-27][Acts 26:32].
The third entity to whom Paul's commission was directed was The Children of Israel. This includes all Twelve Tribes (Ephraimites, Danites, Ruebenites, Jews, Levites, Benjamites, Issacharites....etc.) who by now....since the dispersion 600/700 years prior....are scattered all over the world [Amos 9:9] For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. As Paul goes on his missionary journeys he evangelizes Israelites as well as Gentiles and he does this with the help of Luke, Barnabas, Timothy, Mark.....etc.
Now....Peter's commission....and the other original eleven Apostles: [Matthew 10:5-6] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This scripture is the reason the rest of the Apostles and disciples were so astonished and indignant when Peter got back to Jerusalem after visiting Cornelius [Acts 10:45][Acts 11:1-3]. This is also the main reason you never see scripture speaking of Peter in Rome. He wasn't ever there!
Now.....if you really cannot see the distinction in these two separate, different commissions from The Lord to these two different Apostles....Peter and Paul...then I'll just assume that I didn't do a very good job explaining it. Hopefully......some lurkers will understand and see the differences....so my time is not spent in vain.
I meant that James was the first bishop of the “church” and not Peter. If present day Christian Church wants to trace its lineage of popes to the first “bishop” it should be to James the Just, not Peter.
That's a big 10/4.
Shabbat Shalom to you as well......
Great post diego. The above really shows the Lord's wisdom. Suppose Paul had come back and starting talking about how gentiles were now being offered salvation? Considering his history he wouldn't have made much of an impact. But God first had gentiles contact Peter and revealed to him that gentiles were now being offered the chance to know God. He (God) went right to the Jerusalem church and planted the seeds there first.
. That's a big 10/4.
Shabbat Shalom to you as well......
Please put both me and my wife in your prayers, as we are steppingPaying particular attention to third person singular personal pronouns.
Shabbat Shalom
out with the Spirit and starting a Messianic Bible study this coming
Tuesday evening.
We are praying to be able start a Messianic Fellowship in the basement
of someone's Church on Shabbat.
Great news, Chuck! I will pray that you and your wife will have guidance and inspiration in your endeavor.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Another day, another attack thread against the Roman Catholic Church. Sigh.
Wow! I wish you lived close enough so that I could attend that gathering/study!
Of course, if we wanted to enlivent the discussion further, we could bring in the whole Avignon episode. :-)
LOL............they'd strung him up....in fact that almost happened anyway: [Acts 9:28-29] And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.
This was shortly after his conversion and his discourse among the "Grecians" (Alexandrian Jews) darn near got him waylaid! This is why he went to Arabia for three years....to learn how to win friends and influence people!
And..........Shabbat Shalom to you as well......too!
Well, sorry if I repeat what others have said already, but I haven’t time to read a couple of hundred posts.
Peter was the first head of the Church. He called the Jerusalem Council in Jerusalem, because he hadn’t yet gone to Rome.
When Peter went to Rome, where he was later crucified, that was when the HQ of the Church moved to Rome.
The Church has always included the Council of Jerusalem among the official Councils, usually considered to be the first. Incidentally, there have also been councils in Constantinople, Trent, and elsewhere, under papal authority.
Actually, although Rome has been the center of the Church of 2000 years, from the time that Peter went there, nothing says that the Papacy could not move elsewhere, I God so determines. The central promise was that Peter was the Rock on which Christ would build his Church, and that there would be an apostolic succession of bishops and popes to govern the Church.
The Exile to Avignon was seen as being against the will of God, and the Pope was urged by St. Catherine of Siena to move back to Rome. Undeniably, Rome has a special significance. But the central continuity is Peter and his successors.
I just try to follow the L-rd.I am humbled.
b'SHEM Yah'shua
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.