Posted on 06/22/2009 7:01:44 PM PDT by delacoert
LDS was not needed...
Yes.
And if two demonic imposters show up I'll tell them to get lost - but that would be redundant.
Yes I have.
I've think I've got the root of your problem:
The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentiles believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings.We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul-men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
JS = Joseph Smith?? I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question...
Your interpretation of these verses is illogical. Taken to its logical conclusion you would have to say that gentiles were free to steal, kill, covet and commit any other sin not specifically listed here. Clearly MORE was expected of gentile Christians than just these.
The last sentence is the one that's germane. The list was for starters. These were the practices most prevalent in pagan worship. The council decided that they should stop these thing right away and they would learn the rest as the scriptures were read to them EVERY SABBATH.
I'm amazed that folks use [Acts 15] as an example of the dissolution of the Sabbath and other things by the Jerusalem Council.
Consider: What do the first two verses address as the Problem? And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. What question (singular)? CIRCUMCISION!
Now.....you gotta ask yourself this question. What in the world did circumcision have to do with the manner of Moses? Wasn't the circumcision covenant with Abraham? Why were these men (brethren) from the Jerusalem church concerned about circumcision and the "Custom" of Moses?
The Greek tells us that the word "ETHEI" is the one used for "Custom"....or "Manner" in some translations. The root word "ETHOS" is used also to denote various commands from the Law of Moses in scripture. Examples are: [Luke 2:42][Acts 6:14] & [21:21]. Here is the circumcision command found in the Law of Moses:
[Leviticus 12:1] 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Well.....this certainly wasn't a big problem as all of the Apostles had already been circumcised as Jewish children. But.....the Jews from Jerusalem were evidently not using this scripture as their argument. Instead they were using this one:
[Exodus 12:43-49] 43 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: 44 But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. 45 A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. 46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
These "Brethren" from Jerusalem were upset because Paul and Barnabas were allowing "Uncircumcised Gentiles" to observe and participate in the Passover with them. And they thought that in addition to baptism these Gentile males must also be circumcised to partake of The Lord's sacrifice at Passover. This would then allow them (the Gentiles) to become part of the covenant people of Israel and no longer be considered strangers (Gentile).
Now....let's go back and look again at verse 2: 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. The word "question" here in the Greek is "ZETAMATOS". It is a Greek noun, sometimes translated as "Issue" and it is being used in the singular! Circumcision was the only issue that brought Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem.....and it was the only issue that was discussed at the council. The entire Law of Moses was not the issue in question.....at Antioch.....or Jerusalem!
When Paul spoke at the council he was rebutted by some Pharisees who thought that circumcision was still necessary (verses 4-5). The Pharisees were not advocating that the Gentiles had to keep the entire Law of Moses. Unfortunately some translations give this impression. If you translate verse 5 literally this is what comes out: "It is necessary to circumcise them to instruct and to keep the Law of Moses". The Pharisees therefore believed that by submitting to circumcision a dual purpose would be satisfied. One, education of the Law of Moses.....and to keep the Law of Moses with regards to Passover [Exodus 12:43-49].
This is one more place in scripture which shows the Early Church still observing God's Festivals (Passover) and Sabbaths.
In verses 6-7 they considered the question....and then Peter got up and recalled the Holy Spirit descending upon Cornelius.....an uncircumcised Gentile. So, after hearing both sides of a heated discussion Peter asks: "Why do you test God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
What was this yoke? It was adult male circumcision! Peter was telling the council that the Jews themselves were unable to endure this rite as adult males. They were not physically able themselves to submit to circumcision. Let's look at [Genesis 34:24-26] 24 And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city. 25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males. 26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out. Simeon and Levi slew all the males of the city. They couldn't defend themselves as they were in so much pain. It was traumatic and debilitating for adult males to undergo circumcision! This was the yoke that Peter spoke of. Peter finishes by stipulating it is through grace that we are saved.....just as they are (verse 11).
Then Paul and Barnabas again spoke recounting all the miracles and wonders that God has worked through them for the Gentiles. They pointed out that these things were all done without submitting to circumcision.
Now....this is what James says: [Acts 15:13-18] 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. He quotes the prophet Amos (verses 16-17) but here is the entire prophecy in context: [Amos 9:8-15] 8 Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the LORD. 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. 10 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us. 11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. 13 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. 14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. 15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.
This is a Messianic prophecy and James has clearly indicated that he realizes that these "Gentiles" coming to faith in Jesus are among the ones that have been scattered among the Gentiles mentioned in verse 9. And he says in verse 19 of Acts that he believes that we should not trouble those among the Gentiles who are turning to God but will write to them about abstaining from things polluted by idols, from sexual immortality and from things strangled and from blood.
Why did James announce these four things? Eating food sacrificed to idols; Sexual immorality; Eating the meat of strangled animals; Eating blood. These are all things found in Mosaic Law and are referred to as "Halakah"....which literally means, "the path that one walks". Each of these requirements are to be found in the Law regarding strangers among us....those who desired to live among the Israelites. They can all be found in the 17th and 18th chapters of Leviticus. James is defining the path that these Gentiles should walk in order to be counted among the Jews.
The entire Law of Moses was never the subject of the Jerusalem council (A.D. 49)....only the subject of circumcision of adult male converts. James finishes up by stating that Moses is read every Sabbath anyway.....so he answers the Pharisee's earlier question about keeping the Law of Moses, indicating they (the Gentiles) would learn about Moses by attending Sabbath services, and if they truly became converted they would have knowledge of the Law by their simple attendance.
These newly converted Gentiles would then realize that they should indeed circumcise their 8 day old infant boys, but they themselves would not have to undergo this procedure....this yoke.
The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentiles believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings.We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul-men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
You assume wrongly.
Why can you NOT agree with what Scripture SAYS?
WHY does you claim that I am INTERPRETING it?
"a yoke that even our FOREfathers were not able to bear".
'Interpret' this:
All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.
'Interpret' this:
Rom 3:19
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
Ooops
sorry for the double post.
I should not sleep for a while and not check what I’ve already posted.
Because you are. You're looking at it through the prism of culture and history. You're bringing a bias to it that you don't recognize or acknowledge. I read those exact same words and nowhere do I see or read "You no longer have to keep the sabbath". Those words don't exist. Whether or not to keep the Lord's sabbath isn't even an issue in the bible. It's a given that people did. It is a biblical command from the Lord observed by the Lord's people.
Well, if it really happened, I'd at least accurately recall:
#1 The age I was (Depending upon which version you read, Smith handwrote he was "in the 16th year of my age" vs. other versions where he was "about 14" (two mention this)...the first published version by Orson Pratt in 1840 says he was "about 14 or 15")
#2 If a pillar of light appeared to me [a couple of the versions don't mention that]
#3 How many personages appeared to me [three of the versions mention only a single personage...his 1830 version doesn't mention two...his 1832 version only says "The Lord"...his 1835 version talks about a "visitation of angels"]
#4 If he or they identified himself/themselves -- or fail to do so [In Joseph's case -- was there a "father" personage there? Only one of the half-dozen or so versions I checked mentioned that...the official version...how curious is that? And even here, this "father" never identifies himself as God]
#5 If it was more than one, did that one also identify or fail to ID itself/himself? [In Joseph's case -- was there a "son" personage present? Surprisingly a few of Smith's versions actually don't mention a "son" personage as being present...his 1830 version doesn't...his 1835 version doesn't...and a third version mentions a second personage without reference to him being a "son" identifier...In fact, the name "Jesus" is never used...the closest reference is his 1832 version where he says "the Lord"]
#6 And I'd also accurately recall if I asked these beings any question(s) [Smith? Well, the "official" version says he does. But in 4 of the other versions, no, he doesn't ask any questions -- and in a fifth version, an "angel" answers him -- as he doesn't even mention any father-son combo in that version...In fact, this Nov. 9, 1835 journal version of Smith's is his first written copy...in this one, neither personage is id'd ]
The problem is, TheDon, is this you put this Q as a "first-person" Q when the only way we as "jury members" who weren't at the scene-of-the-crime can properly evaluate it is to compare the alleged witness' conflicting statements.
I dare Lds. Get ALL of the First Vision Accounts together & compare them for these six distinct discrepancies mentioned above.
I believe there's also a 7th First Vision version I didn't reference...plus several of the Lds ensuing "prophets" commented on what they recollected hearing directly from Joseph Smith which focus only on angels -- no other personages appearing to him.
That's a great idea! Oh wait, it's already been done. :-)
Even the different accounts of the apostle Paul's first vision in the NT are not harmonized. And all the different accounts given, considering his long missionary service, have been lost to time. Poor Stephen only lived long enough to give one account of his first vision of Jesus Christ and God the Father. Those who didn't believe him killed him on the spot.
Why can you NOT agree with what Scripture SAYS?
If you were walking along the road to Damascus with Saul, the Saul from Acts, and Jesus appeared and told you that you were called to be a witness for Him, how would you respond?
_____________________________________________
That would never never happen...
Those with Paul were never called to be a witness for Him...
And nor was Paul...in the first account of the story...
the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. Acts 9:6
And they heard what Paul heard...
But Jesus did not “appear” to any of them...
there shined round about him a light from heaven: Acts 9:3
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Acts 9:7
Later Paul told King Agrippa that, after Jesus had knocked him off his horse and blinded him for 3 days...He said to him..
Acts 26:16 “... I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
Act 26:17 Delivering thee from the people, and [from] the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
Act 26:18 To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”
Act 26:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. Acts 26:16
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Joey never told anyone about his “vision” not commenced to preach, but instead stole a sheep on the way home...
However, Joey Smith was somewhat the same as Paul in his attitude towards the Christians..
Paul was “exceedingly mad against them,” Acts 26:11
Joey was mad at the Presbyterian Church for some real or imagined slight or other ..
It could have been a young Presbyterian girl spurned him or the Presbyterian minister told him he had to change his ways..
So you may be partly right when you suggest his experience was like Paul’s..
Acts 9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
Act 9:2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. Acts 9:1, 2
Is that why the Apostle John says this......years later? [I John 5:1-3] 1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
Grievous: 926. barus (bar-ooce') burdensome, grave grievous, heavy, weightier.
You are finally getting it!
Mat 22:35-43 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Excellent summary.
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.