Posted on 06/24/2014 2:13:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Recently, a friend emailed me with a very common claim, namely, that, “Paul hijacked Christianity with no personal connection with Jesus and filled his letters with personal opinions.” This could be rephrased in the more common claim: Paul invented Christianity.
This claim is especially common among Muslim apologists who use it in an attempt to explain why the Qur’an simultaneously affirms Jesus as a true prophet while also contradicting the Bible at every major point. However, since my friend is not a Muslim and is not coming at the issue from that angle, I will just deal with the question more broadly.
My friend alleges that some of the “personal opinions” of Paul that were interjected into the New Testament include: “slaves obey your masters; women not to have leadership roles in churches; homosexuality is a sin (though there is Old Testament authority for this last, Paul doesn’t seem to base his opinion on it).”
“None of [of the above] were said by Jesus and would perhaps be foreign to his teaching,” he wrote. “I think Paul has created a lot of mischief in Christianity, simply because he wrote a lot and his letters have survived.”
Let’s deal with this point-by-point.
No personal connection to Jesus
Paul, in fact, did have a personal connection to Jesus. This is revealed in the famous “Damascus road” accounts in Acts 9:3-9, Acts 22:6–11 and Acts 26:12–18. Paul refers back to this experience elsewhere in his letters, though it is only laid with this level of detail in Acts, written by Paul’s traveling companion Luke.
The only way one can maintain that Paul had no connection to Jesus is to rule out the conversion experience of Paul a priori based on a presupposition. Of course, I can argue that such a presupposition is untenable, but that would take an entire post to itself. For the sake of brevity, I would just point out that it is illogical to employ such reasoning. It would go something like, “It didn’t happen because it couldn’t happen because it can’t happen therefore it didn’t happen therefore Paul had no personal connection to Jesus.”
Personal opinions
Yes, Paul does interject his personal opinions into his writing! However, when he does, he clearly delineates what he is saying as his personal opinion as an Apostle.
For instance, in dealing with the issue of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul clearly distinguishes between his own statements and the Lord’s.
In 1 Corinthians 7:10, Paul says, “To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord)…” and in 1 Corinthians 7:12, Paul says, “To the rest I say, (I, not the Lord)…” This example shows that Paul was not in the business of putting words in the mouth of Jesus. Paul had no problem showing when he was giving his own charge and when it was a statement made by the Lord Jesus, as it was in this case (Matthew 5:32).
Yet it is important to note that other Apostles recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture from the earliest days of Christianity, as seen the case of Peter (2 Peter 3:15–16).
Paul’s “personal opinions” and the Law
Out of the three examples, two are directly from the Mosaic Law. Obviously the Mosaic Law couldn’t have stated that women should not preach in the church because the Church did not yet exist and wouldn’t for over 1,000 years.
The claim that there is only Old Testament authority for the last of the examples is false. The same goes for the claim that Paul does not base his statements on the Law.
It is abundantly clear that Paul actually does derive his statements on homosexual activity from the Law.
For instance, in 1 Timothy 1, Paul mentions homosexuality in the context of the type of people the Law was laid down for (1 Timothy 1:9-11). This short list indicts all people, just as Paul does elsewhere (Romans 3:23), showing that all people require the forgiveness that can only be found through faith in Jesus Christ.
When Paul deals with it elsewhere, he mentions it in the context of other activities explicitly prohibited by the Law (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), again going back to the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ sets apart (sanctifies) His people and justifies them.
As for the command for slaves to obey their masters, this is regularly claimed to be objectionable by critics. By way of introduction, is important to distinguish between what we have in our mind about the institution of slavery as Americans and the institution of slavery as it existed in Paul’s day. After all, Paul explicitly listed “enslaverers” (or man-stealers) in the same list mentioned above (1 Tim 1:10). Since the entire institution of slavery in the United States was built upon the kidnapping of people, it is clearly radically different from what Paul spoke of. Furthermore, the stealing of a man was punishable by death under the Mosaic Law (Exodus 21:16). The practice of slavery in America would never have existed if the Bible was actually being followed.
Paul also exhorted his readers to buy their freedom if they could (1 Corinthians 7:21) and instructing the master of a runaway slave to treat him as “no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother” (Philemon 11). Paul grounded his statements in the defense of “the name of God and the teaching.” Paul said that bondservants should “regard their masters as worthy of all honor,” not just for the sake of doing so, but so there might be no chance to slander the name of God and the gospel.
The fact is that Paul knew the Law quite well (Philippians 3:5-6) and the Law does deal with slavery.
Ultimately, the claim made by my friend requires more fleshing out on his end and some evidence on his part in order to be more fully dealt with.
Paul’s teachings foreign to Jesus’ teachings?
This is another common claim. First off, one must ask if this statement implies that Jesus would simply have to repeat everything Paul said and vice-versa or else they would remain foreign.
The fact is that there is nothing contradictory between Paul’s writings and Jesus’ teaching. One must wonder why Luke – a traveling companion of Paul and the author of Luke-Acts – would have no problem writing the gospel that bears his name if he perceived such a contradiction. Furthermore, one must wonder why this apparent conflict was lost on the earliest Christians, including the Apostle Peter, who viewed Paul’s letters as Scripture (see above).
In affirming the Law (Matthew 5:17), Jesus affirmed all that Paul that was clearly grounded in the Law. Furthermore, if there was a real contradiction between Paul’s writings and the teachings of Jesus, Paul would have been rejected, instead of accepted as he has always been.
The Christian community existed before Paul became a Christian, as is clearly seen by the fact that he was persecuting Christians (Acts 8:1,3), and he even met with the leaders of the early church. They did not reject Paul, but instead affirmed what he had been teaching (Galatians 2:2,9). This makes it even clearer that Paul could not have invented or hijacked Christianity.
As for the claim that Paul has had such a large impact “simply because he wrote a lot and his letters have survived,” all one has to do is look at the other early Christian writings that survived in order to see that is not a valid metric.
We have seen that the claim that “Paul hijacked Christianity” is without evidence. While I have taken the burden of proof upon myself in responding to this claim, in reality the burden of proof would be on the one making the claim in the first place. No such evidence has been presented and no substantive evidence can be presented since Paul did not invent Christianity or hijack Christianity or anything similar to it. Instead, Paul was an Apostle of Jesus Christ commissioned to spread the gospel, something that he clearly did by establishing churches and penning many letters under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we can still read today.
When one reads the gospels and the other writings contained in the New Testament, the message is cohesive and clear: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Ro 3:23), God demands complete perfection (Mt 5:48) and all we have earned through our sin is death (Ro 6:23) and hell. Yet God offers the free gift of eternal life to all who repent and believe (Mk 1:15, Ro 10:9–11) in Jesus Christ, who died as a propitiation (Ro 3:25, Heb 2:17, 1 Jn 4:10) for all who would ever believe in Him (Jn 6:44) and rose from the grave three days later, forever defeating sin and death. Those who believe in Him can know (1 John 5:13) that they have passed from death to life (Jn 5:24) and will not be condemned (Jn 3:18), but will be given eternal life by Jesus Christ (Jn 6:39-40). Paul and Jesus in no way contradict each other on what the gospel is, in fact the four gospels and Paul’s letters (along with the rest of the New Testament) form one beautiful, cohesive truth.
You are speaking to the choir in this matter, when you speak to me. I believe ALL of the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, even Daniel... But it doesn't matter as much to me as the anthropological setting of the mores and customs of the Hebrew people - looking at the words through Hebrew eyes, with Hebrew understanding, rather than Greek or Roman understanding.
Speaking of Luke, read the prodigal son, chapter 15 and note, the Older Brother is Judaism the younger Christianity, the older brother never left The Father. The younger brother is dead without Torah.
Oh, but I will take it a step further - the elder brother is Judah, and the younger brother is Ephraim. Whenever the prophecy is talking of 'the two brothers', it is most normally an allegory toward the Two Houses, and that truly changes the complexion of what is being said - And it is true, the younger brother is lost without Torah.
Acts 26:14 And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
Isn't it funny how 'Hebraini' is translated to 'Aramaic' in English translations?
The Books of Moses. The Pentateuch. That is Torah.
NOWHERE in the New Testament writings are there commands for believers in Christ (Christians) to keep the WHOLE law [...]
Wherever it is referring to Torah, it is necessarily speaking of the WHOLE law. But one must be careful to discern what is actually being spoken of, as in the Greek, there is no distinction between Torah and Halakha, and even at times, I would submit, Roman civil law. Without some experience with Torah, one can easily miss the fact that the passage is referring to something else (usually Halakha).
For instance, in Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council, the question is whether one has to be circumcised to be saved... The Torah does not require circumcision of adults, and especially not 'to be saved', so one knows this whole passage is talking about Halakha - the Law of the Elders, the Jewish Tradition, which Yeshua summarily rejected.
To further bolster that position, The 'yoke' the Apostles rejected necessarily MUST be Halakha, because the 'yoke' of Yeshua is necessarily based upon Torah, because He necessarily kept Torah.
[...] in order to either gain salvation, keep salvation or maintain a relationship with God.
There is the sticky wicket - I reject any idea that Torah affords salvation - That, we know, is only found in One place. But if you would care to wipe the Greece from your eyes, you will find that Torah is a part of a relationship with YHWH - It is the 'way' of His House, which He keeps, and His Son keeps... Do you think then that His Bride would not? Can the Head keep Torah and the body refuse it? Wouldn't the Sons of YHWH follow the way of YHWH's House too, even as a son on earth follows his father's way naturally?
Jesus said that if we loved him we would keep his commandments, so what are His commandments?:
His yoke is to love YHWH with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself - The BIG TWO. But the big two are a summary of the Big 10, which are a summary of the rest - Torah is necessarily indivisible, and true, or YHWH is not God. His challenge to those that follow the posers is that what He said in the beginning is what will be in the end. That is primarily why Yeshua cannot have changed it, nor added to it, nor made it null.
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. His word cannot be made null, nor will He change His mind.
Because, as I have said countless times, if we love YHWH, we will keep his commandments. We are not bound to the law by curses anymore - the better Blood has come. But if we love Him, we will keep his commandments.
You wrote earlier that you have "no idea what I am talking about," as to my posts on the matter, even though I have even posted the scriptures showing that all foods can be sanctified by the word of God and prayer [...]
I didn't see that. However, I can tell you right now that I would disagree with your interpretation.
[...] and you have seen the verses from Acts 15 more than once.
And I have replied thereto more than once, any that I know of that were addressed to me. I am not here as much as others, so I tend to 'catch up' by replying to the stuff that is in my pinglist... But in the flow of things, I might have missed some.
Many more have been posted, and neither you nor any of the Hebrew Roots cultists on this thread will do anything about it, but will keep spamming us anyway with these assertions [...]
As if your own replies are other than assertions...
[...] when these hypocrites probably do not even follow the law of Moses to the letter. And for the record, the Roodites are not Christians. None of them will affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, amongst other things. Do not think for a moment that I do not regard you and the others as opponents from non-Christian religions.
LOL!
The old pope gathers himself up, his wrinkled countenance bitter and full of hate... Spittle flies from his mouth as he smacks his crosier forcefully into the floor and growls menacingly: "LET THEM BE ANATHEMA!"
No one is squirming.
If you fulfill the greatest commandment, you automatically fill the rest.
No need to try. It will happen.
There are two ways to read Jesus comment of *If you love me, you will keep my commandments.*
One is that if you claim you love Him, you have to obey the Law. It’s a requirement that obligates one and puts them in bondage, but anyone can obey the law for self-serving purposes, as the Pharisees did.
The other is that if you love Jesus, the natural outworking of that love is obedience to the Law. If you love Jesus, you will be keeping the commandments and you don’t have to worry about trying to do it. It’ll happen and when you walk in the Spirit as the natural response of a person born again. IOW, don’t worry about it guys. It’ll happen.
The demands being made that people keep the letter of the Law, the Law that kills, is useless. It may make the person who thinks they’re doing it feel good and feed their spiritual pride, as we see on these threads, but it does nothing to save us, justify us, sanctify us, or anything else that God gives us by His grace, His unmerited favor.
Amen!
No, in fact, it isn't contradicted.
You claim that Christians were "attending the synagogues"
It isn't a claim - More often than not, Paul was speaking from synagogues, and even secular history and the Roman church agree that the Christian Church began as a sect of Judaism, in the synagogues. Every office of the Church has it's counterpart in the synagogue, and every legitimate rite/remembrance finds it's beginning in Judaism as well. Often, finding the Hebrew root of such a thing is quite eye-opening.
and, therefore, hearing that they are commanded to be circumcised and to follow the law of Moses.
The law of Moses does not command an adult proselyte to be circumcised. A righteous gentile might never be circumcised, though his children will be, and his children, born into Israel, are native born Israelites... Conversion to Judaism need not focus upon the current generation.
Yet, the Apostles explicitly declare that no such commandment had ever been given, even though, if you are to be believed, it was the central part of the Gospel and not some new thing:
Only if they are indeed speaking of the Law of Moses - The law of Moses does not say circumcision is salvific (though it does say the circumcision of the heart is), nor does it say an adult proselyte must be circumcised... How then, can the Law of Moses be what they are speaking of? What you don't understand is that Halakha is interchangeable and united to Torah, according to Judaism, even as the Roman tradition is inseparable from the Scriptures to a Romanist. It is the very same thing.
Catholic walk words speak louder than their talk words.
Sorry if I missed something in the discourse but that's exactly why Jesus died on the Cross...HE became the sacrifice because we could not keep the laws of the Torah...HE paid the price for us...
Please show your proof that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew rather than in the common language of the day which was Greek.
Because He was a Jew living prior to His death and resurrection.
>>His word cannot be made null, nor will He change His mind.<<
But He did change His dealings with man. We are now justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Paul even rebuked Peter for preaching like you do.
Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
You are in serious error preaching like you do.
Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
Galatians 5:4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
If you think God doesn’t change His dealing with man check out the but now.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
If the Spirit dwells inside of you and is recreating you day by day, then following the Two greatest commandments will automatically bring your behavior and spirituality into focus to where God dwells...that is in Mount Zion. We follow after Melchizidek as Christ was of that order of priests...not of Aaron and Moses.
The Good Samaritan of the parable as well as all Samaritans were never in good standing with the Law as the priests and levites (you know the “editor-surveyers” of the day). Yet, in terms of Christ’s understanding of the law, the Samaritan was already in the door of eternal life by showing mercy, loving the man as he loved himself!
Interpretation? There was no “interpretation” given nor needed. When scripture clearly states something no interpretation is needed.
If you claim we are under the same dietary laws you had better show scripture to prove it.
Those who are stuck on trying to put people back under bondage will be the ones “squirming”.
According to this,
Sources of Halakhah
Halakhah comes from three sources: from the Torah, from laws instituted by the rabbis and from long-standing customs. Halakhah from any of these sources can be referred to as a mitzvah (commandment; plural: mitzvot). The word "mitzvah" is also commonly used in a casual way to refer to any good deed. Because of this imprecise usage, sophisticated halakhic discussions are careful to identify mitzvot as being mitzvot d'oraita (an Aramaic word meaning "from the Torah") or mitzvot d'rabbanan (Aramaic for "from the rabbis"). A mitzvah that arises from custom is referred to as a minhag. Mitzvot from all three of these sources are binding, though there are differences in the way they are applied (see below). Mitzvot D'Oraita (in Hebrew)Mitzvot D'Oraita:
Commandments from the Torah
At the heart of halakhah is the unchangeable 613 mitzvot (commandments) that G-d gave to the Jewish people in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible).
halakha is also the Torah...And, Halakha whether from Rabbinical traditidon or not still has the weight of the Torah...Therefore, the discussions in Acts 15 ARE of the Torah laws from here...
Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
If salvation is a free gift, why does this has to be so complicated? It is about the only free gift that people won’t go for, by enlarge.
I am aware of James...”be ye doers of word and not hearers only”. The work of the Spirit enables us to do the works he would have us do and there is some effort, faith and practice involved. Much soul searching, much asking of grace and forgiveness. Some of us may yet die in defending the faith. Paul said “I die daily”. So my work is to show mercy where I can show mercy, clothe the naked where I can, pray without ceasing, visit the sick and imprisoned, work for my bread, love my wife as Christ loved the church, share the goodnews where I can, be not drunken, to believe on Christ whom the father sent! The new Testament is full of commandments and admonishments that fall under the rubric of the two greatest commandments. And when I look closely at the admonishments that I am to follow from the New Testament...astonished am I that in squaring up to the 10 commandments, I have been following them all along! Yeah some days the bear gets me and I need to repent! Christ said his yoke is easy and his burden is light. Christ makes it so thru the Spirit! If we concentrate on what Christ emphasized thru his words in the New Testament and have an understanding that the two great commandments are the sinews binding the rest of the Law together...then none of us need “be far from the Kingdom of Heaven!”
Lets look at Mark 12 from which that phrase comes and for another look at the two greatest commandments:
Mark 12:28And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, which is the first commandment of all?
29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord;
30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; this is the first commandment.
31And the second is {like, namely} this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these.
32And the scribe said unto Him, Well, Master, Thou hast said the truth; for there is one God; and there is none other but He.
33And to love Him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, He said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask Him any question.
Note verse 33 “is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices”.
“Nuff said”!!!
This raises several beautiful problems for you which you are apparently unaware of. Judaism, at least its modern and talmudic counterpart, believes in two different places for the poor Goyim, one better than the other:
The first and best is the proselyte of righteousness, who, even as an adult, is required to be circumcised and to follow the whole law. Hence the Jews say:
"[A] stranger that comes to be made a proselyte at this time, they say unto him, what dost thou see, that thou comest to be made a proselyte? dost thou not know that the Israelites at this time are miserable, banished, drove about, and plundered, and chastisements come upon them? If he says, I know this, but it does not satisfy me, they receive him immediately, and make known some of the light commands, and some of the heavy commands to him... if he receives these things, they immediately circumcise him". (From John Gill's Commentary on the Bible (Matt 23:15), referencing Ib. fol 47. 1, 2.)
These also are commanded to keep the Sabbath and all the ordinances. This agrees very well with the scripture, which teaches that there is but "one law and one manner" with the Jews and the strangers who sojourn with them, and requires circumcision of whoever would eat of the Passover, saying "No uncircumcised flesh shall eat thereof" (Num 15:16, Exo 12:48).
The second class of proselytes, who are inferior and subordinate to the former, are the proselytes of the gate. These are not circumcised for any reason, neither their children, but they also are not required to follow the law of Moses, but only the seven "laws of Noah," which are: "the first forbad idolatry, the second blasphemy, the third murder, the fourth uncleanness, the fifth theft, the sixth required judgment, or punishment on malefactors, the seventh forbad eating the member of any creature alive" (John Gill's Exposition of the Holy Bible {Matt 23:15), referencing lb. Hilch. Melachim, c. 9. sect. 1.)
(Strangely, modern Jews dissuade people from becoming Proselytes of righteousness, while the ancient Pharisees went to great lengths to gain such converts, as Christ testifies, although he describes them as making them twice the devils they were, Matt 23:15.)
As an aside, these laws of Noahide can actually be summed up from Acts 15, particularly the "eating the member of any creature alive" (as the Jews understood it) wherein it says:
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Though Christians are not even bound by these prohibitions of not eating food offered to idols or food with the blood or had been strangled either. As Paul makes clear, it was prohibited only on the basis of refraining to cause offense to the Jews or to those who would see it as endorsing paganism, and not because we ourselves are dirtied from it. As Paul explains on eating meat offered to idols, "neither if we eat, are we the better; neither if we eat not, are we the worse", and again, in another places, makes the standard of sinning against the brethren as offending those who are weak (1 Co 8:4-13, 10:28-29, Romans 14:15).
Thus Christians do not even qualify as "proselytes of the gate," who, nevertheless are free from the Laws of Moses, are bound to refraining from eating meat that was not killed properly and naturally from foods offered to idols.
Back to your claim then, you are forced into believing in two classes of proselytes: One that must be circumcised, which you claim does not exist, and the other that is not bound to the laws of Moses, but only to some general universal laws, and not feast days, dietary prohibitions (most of them), and the other ritual and cleanliness laws. These you also claim do not exist, as you conflate the two types of proselytes since the scripture plainly commands against circumcision.
There is also another point of yours which offends common sense:
"A righteous gentile might never be circumcised, though his children will be"
Now this is illogical for a couple of reasons. As far as I can tell, you are denying the necessity of circumcision in the first place, so why make it a requirement for children? Secondly, this would require circumcision for your fictional class of proselytes at least as a command for all children, and yet, Paul makes no such requirement, but equates the condition of circumcision and uncircumcision, making it absolutely of no value for anyone, even under the spurious logic that if we "love God" we will grab some sissors and gladly circumcise ourselves, even though it does not save us:
1Co_7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
Thus your claim that children ought to be circumcised is false, and even contradicts your other arguments, since you only make "circumcision and the law of Moses" delayed by one generation (a pointless distinction), and your claim that the adults who are keeping the law of Moses can escape circumcision is also false, as explained previously.
It isn't a claim - More often than not, Paul was speaking from synagogues, and even secular history and the Roman church agree that the Christian Church began as a sect of Judaism, in the synagogues.
Notice your wording and lack of any scriptural evidence. Paul "spoke" in the synagogues. You seem to be acknowledging that the task of the Apostles in the synagogues was evangelism, not co-equal worship between two groups who are essentially the same except for their belief in Christ.
Only if they are indeed speaking of the Law of Moses
This is a red herring and also very irrational. My response was directed in wondering, if the Christians were in the synagogues being subjected to the law of Moses, how is it that they avoided being commanded to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses? Now unless you do not believe the law of Moses isn't taught in the synagogues, then your statement is simply absurd. They would have received the command, no matter how it was couched, whether for the "purpose of salvation" or for the purpose of being holier than thou. Secondly, the "law of Moses" is specifically the subject of contention in the chapter, as it says directly "circumcision and the law of Moses," and whether or not one is "commanded" to obey it or not, whether for salvation or not.
Now, having refuted your distractions, I am going to ask you again to address the following which you largely ignored before:
"Now if "no such commandment" was given, how is that possible if the commandment was given by Christ? Who came first? Christ? Or the Apostles? And what do they preach all the time in the synagogues they are supposedly present at?
I will also point out the characterization of it. They called it the "subverting" of their souls to be commanded to be circumcised and to keep the Law. Peter described it as the "yoke" that neither he nor his fathers could bare, and he also says that the Gentiles, who were not following the Law of Moses, are "purified" by their faith, and lastly, that they are saved by grace, "the same as we" (Acts 15:7-11).
You also quote the fact that the Pharisees considered it essential to salvation to follow the commandments, by which you probably mean "Well, you should still do it, although it makes no difference for your salvation." Yet you have repeatedly implied that it is a "sin" to not be circumcised and follow the law of Moses, and have explicitly stated that it is part of becoming more Christ like to refrain from eating Bacon (because what is the worst sin of all? Not denying the trinity, but eating a piggy). By this we can then presume that you would believe that Peter was in obedience to the "law of Moses," although he clearly called it a unbearable "yoke."
As absurd as that already is from the context, I will put another nail in the coffin and point out that Peter was, in fact, living as the Gentiles do all along:
"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"(Gal 2:14)
I didn't see that. However, I can tell you right now that I would disagree with your interpretation.
Who cares what your opinion is? Stop giving me assertions instead of well-defended arguments.
The old pope gathers himself up, his wrinkled countenance bitter and full of hate... Spittle flies from his mouth as he smacks his crosier forcefully into the floor and growls menacingly: "LET THEM BE ANATHEMA!"
But of beautiful note is that you did not dispute my statement on the failure of the Roodites to affirm the Trinity. Though they try to hide this, the Roodites are indeed extremely heterodox on every subject, whether they like it or not, and therefore no denomination, knowing these facts, will accept them. Indeed, the Roodites are anathema, along with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Armonstrongites, and all the other cults, and not condemned by the Pope, but by God.
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.