Skip to comments.When Paul Corrected Peter
Posted on 09/29/2013 1:45:04 PM PDT by ebb tide
click here to read article
I still don’t see any facts there. Was there really a “ban”? Was there a reason attached? Was it for ever or for one occasion? Who was it exactly who ordered a “ban”? All I see someone turning one instance of something not explained with any precision, into a reversal of Summorum Pontificum.
I don't get how that supports the opposite of what salvation stated. Of course they wouldn't be silent forever after. The text clearly seemed to emphasize the importance of Peter's words by bothering to mention the fact that everyone went silent. If you notice, the Acts only tells us a simple summery of what Paul and Barnabas had to say afterwords. It gives us nothing of the same word for word emphasis of the words of Peter. There was no silence following the accounts of Paul and Barnabas.
Clearly the described narrative sequence emphasizes role of Peter at the council.
“There was no silence following the accounts of Paul and Barnabas.”
Actually, there was:
Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
What follows is an emphasis on James words, including the phrase “wherefore my judgment is,” and then the conclusion.
The Catholics are pathological in reading things into the text that simply aren’t there.
No there wasn't, after they held their peace does not equate to "all the multitude kept silent." This narration indicates the transition from the action of Paul and Barnabas finishing what they said to the James standing and speaking. Other translations say, after they had finished. Clearly, it is meant to signal that the narrator wanted to say: "Paul and Barnabas had things to say, and when they were done, James rose and spoke." The pathology of misinterpreting scripture is Catholic alone?
In reference to James "judgment," this is not a final word of one who passes a judgment that all should follow. Your strong's number would be 2919, the greek "Kirino," Not Kirisis, which is much more specific and is seen as a final judgment elsewhere in scripture. Luke 10:14, is one example. Rather, you should look at the end of the very verse you yourself cited in Acts 15:13. James says, "Men and brethren, hearken unto me." These are the words of one humbly trying to propose a solution, not one speaking with the authority over the whole assembly.
The narrative of "Harken to me," (Acts 15:13) is a plead to pay attention to what he says.
Do you see why this is not necessarily an indication that James had authority when he proposed to give his judgment? There are several senses to the word judgment. Not all of theme carrying the weight to be definitive decision based on authority.
“No there wasn’t, after they held their peace does not equate to “all the multitude kept silent.”
To hold one’s peace is to keep silent after speaking. Your assumption, of course, is that everyone was just dumbfounded silent at Peter’s words, as if he said something that wasn’t what was the basics of Christianity, or because he had so much authority no one could disagree with the Gospel at that moment. Then, following that silence, comes the discourse on Paul and Barnabas. Followed by James’ decree.
“In reference to James “judgment,” this is not a final word of one who passes a judgment that all should follow. Your strong’s number would be 2919, the greek “Kirino,” Not Kirisis,”
Actually, the word IS strong’s number 2919:
Act 15:19 WhereforeG1352 myG1473 sentence is,G2919 that we troubleG3926 notG3361 them, which fromG575 among theG3588 GentilesG1484 are turnedG1994 toG1909 God:G2316
without Catholics, all you'd have to read would be the Old Testament, and you'd have to go to synagogue to do that!!
Without Catholic doctrine, the world would be a better place, obviously, and there’d be less Papists spamming on FR.
“But as Pope when acting on faith and morals, he was guided by the Holy Spirit and thus was in falliable,”
Well, he was called out and corrected for acting on faith and morals. Please understand I am not disliking Peter (Cephas), but am asserting he is not a Pope. He was “just” an apostle, a great thing to be sure, but not a Pope.
“When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.”
true, maybe, but you wouldn't have a Bible.....nor would you know who Jesus was....The Jews certainly wouldn't have brought you up to date on the New Testament!!!
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.