Beyond Today - How Christian is Easter?

DouglasKC and boatbums, Do you agree with Diego 1618’s analysis here?

Well, yes and no. I do think the council in Acts 15 came together at first to determine the question of circumcision.

Act 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

But during the discussion the Pharisee's changed the direction:

Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

I think that the Pharisees wanted the gentiles to keep ALL of the Jewish laws, including the laws that fell outside of scripture...the Jewish traditions and rites that had marked their religion for so long. They wanted them to keep the law as Jew would BEFORE being admitted as a member of the Christian community.

I think the council wisely determined this would have been difficult to immediately. However, they also needed to be sensitive to the Jewish Christians who would have been highly offended by keeping company with those who might engage in practices they found abhorrent.

So they did what they could:

Act 15:19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
Act 15:20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

The would immediately stop doing those things listed, which as a I understood were some of the main hallmarks of pagan religious belief, and would essentially learn through scripture, on the sabbath, other laws and beliefs.

I do find Diego's take on circumcision though appealing and it's very possible that this could have been the burden they were referring to. But I find that difficult to reconcile as the ONLY thing being referred to as a burden considering the steps above. But I'm willing to have my mind changed!

Thank you for the kind words Douglas....and of course you are aware of my utmost respect for your opinions, your position....and your theology.

Let me expostulate a little more on my interpretation of the Council....and their results.

I think most folks probably agree with what we find as an explanation in the "Encyclopedia Britannica". Quote: The Jerusalem Council was "A conference of the Christian Apostles in Jerusalem in about AD 50 which decreed that Gentile Christians did not have to observe the Mosaic Law of the Jews".

Let's look a little closer. [Acts 15:1]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. The circumcision party came to Antioch and told Paul and Barnabas that the Gentile converts must be circumcised [Galatians 2:12]. The Greek word "after the manner" is ETHEI and can mean "Custom" [Luke 2:42][Acts 6:14][Acts 21:21].

Here is Yahweh's instructions to Moses regarding circumcision: [Leviticus 12:1-3]And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2Speak 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. 3And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

The Pharisees of the circumcision group were using the other command to Moses regarding "Strangers among us" as their authority: [Exodus 12:43-49]And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: 44But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. 45A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. 46In 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. 47All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48And 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. 49One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

The Passover had been fulfilled in Yeshua [I Corinthians 5:7] and the Pharisees felt that the Gentile converts were "Strangers" who also wanted to dwell among and celebrate with Israel.....and observe the true Passover that Paul was instructing them in [I Corinthians 5:7-8]. So....in addition to baptism, these Jews from the Headquarters Church (and James) felt circumcision was also required for membership in the New Testament Church.

Well...........this upset Paul to no end [Acts 15:2] and he then and there decided to go and have it out with James. The Greek identifies this position as an issue (ZETEMATOS). This word is singular and identifies the original motivation to go to Jerusalem as a singular issue. Keeping the entire Law of Moses was not being considered.

Now....here comes the confusion. King James:[Acts 15:5]But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

When you read most translations this is just about what you get.....buts it's an inaccurate portrayal of what the Greek is really saying. Let's translate literally: "dei [It is necessary] peritemnein [to circumcise] autous [them], paraggellein [to instruct] te [and] terein [to keep] ton [the] nomon [Law] Mouseos [of Moses]."

So....what does this mean? "It is necessary to circumcise them, to instruct and to keep the Law of Moses." The Greek particle (TE) joins together the Greek verbs (PARAGGELLEIN) and (TEREIN) which mean "to instruct and to keep together". So.....it means the Pharisees were really saying......"It was necessary to circumcise the Gentiles in order to instruct them in the Law of Moses." The Pharisees believed that the act itself (of circumcision) would serve two purposes. It would educate the Gentiles while they were obeying the Law of Moses.

Both sides were presented at the Council. Peter stood up and presented his case....followed by Paul and Barnabas. Peter's main thrust was that Cornelius and Family had received the Holy Spirit without circumcision and he asked the question, "Why do you test Yahweh"....rebuking the Pharisees. Since we now know there was only one issue up for discussion we can see that the "Yoke" on the neck of the disciples [15:10] was adult, male circumcision and by my narrative in the previous post you can tell just how debilitating this would have been to an adult male convert. Peter then goes on to say it is not circumcision which saves but the grace of Yahweh through Yeshua....our savior, again rebuking the Pharisees [15:1]. Paul and Barnabas then add points showing that Yahweh had blessed their ministry among the Gentiles without the circumcision requirement sought by the Council.

James then rises to speak and confirmed what Peter had said [15:13-18] and mentions the prophetic verses from [Amos 9:11-12] but let's look at the entire passage [Amos 9:8-15]Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the kingdom of sinners, and I will cut it off from the face of the earth; only I will not utterly cut off the house of Jacob, saith the Lord. 9 For I will give commandment, and sift the House of Israel among all the Gentiles, as corn is sifted in a sieve, and yet a fragment shall not in any wise fall upon the earth. 10 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, who say, "Calamities shall certainly not draw near, nor come upon us." 11 In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: 12 that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things. 13 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when the harvest shall overtake the vintage, and the grapes shall ripen at seedtime; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall be planted. 14 And I will turn the captivity of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities, and shall inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and shall drink the wine from them; and they shall form gardens, and eat the fruit of them. 15 And I will plant them on their land, and they shall no more be plucked up from the land which I have given them, saith the Lord God Almighty.

By quoting Amos, James is obviously equating these Gentiles with Israelites who were scattered previously (700 years prior) [II Kings 17:6] and his judgment is that we should not trouble them any longer regarding this issue......but they should be required to observe the Halakah Laws and abstain from these four things found in [Leviticus chapters 17 & 18] which deal with both Israelites and the strangers among them:

(1) Eating food sacrificed to idols; (2) Sexual immorality; (3) Eating the meat of strangled animals; and (4) Eating blood.

So....why did James insist upon the observance of these things........but not circumcision? Halakah means...."The path that one walks" and each of these commandments were based on the requirements for "Strangers among us" who desired to live with the tribes of Israel. James had defined the path the Gentiles should walk in order to be accepted by the Jews.

So....by reviewing [Leviticus chapters 17 and 18] we can see what James considered important from Torah to be taught these converted Gentiles in addition to not requiring them any longer to submit to circumcision. The elimination of the Law of Moses was not the focus of this debate at all because he then adds:[Acts 15:21] For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. He obviously concluded that by being accepted into the congregation and learning the Halakah Laws that these converts would soon acquire an understanding of the Law of Moses by attending weekly Sabbath services in the synagogues.

I so enjoy your posts. Not that I agree with them all, but they are thoughtful and this is no exception.

I'm not sure how to answer your question: So why do Protestants treat his un-Scriptural teaching of "the Bible alone" as infallible?

As an ex-Lutheran, I came to the conclusion that most Protestants are nothing more than cafeteria Catholics. They are just inserting dogmas of their own to compete with Catholic dogmas which they find so objectionable.

If God has a favorite brand of Christianity then there are only three viable candidate groups:

The Catholics, including the Eastern Orthodox sects, who claim direct lineal authority through St. Peter, the first Pope.
The Restorationists, of whom the Mormons are the biggest and best know, who claim the original church went off the beam and required a complete restoration.
The Ana-baptists, who claim the original church went off the beam and will require a dramatic event like Christ's second coming to effect a complete restoration.

There are very few remaining in group #3 other than a small Foursquare Baptist sect which I once attended who claimed to be the true followers of Jan Hus and considered mainline Baptists as sellout for accepting the authority of the Council of Nicea.

There may be other small independent sects with similar beliefs, but the vast majority of other Protestants put themselves squarely in the "cafeteria Catholic" category by accepting the Council of Nicea while rejecting the authority of the church which organized it.

Just the way I see it . . .

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.