Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Major business meeting - to discuss the perfectly obvious?

Expand Messages
  • empiricism101
    1 And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. 2 And
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      1 And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the
      brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of
      Moses, you cannot be saved."
      2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with
      them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain
      others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders
      concerning this issue. (Acts 15)

      Why?

      Exactly how do minds that are INSPIRED to write INERRANTLY about
      DOCTRINE, ever get to the point of needing to discuss some doctrine
      with each other? Such discussion is easily expected of non-inspired
      Christians, but sounds foolish when applied to apostles who were
      supposedly inspired to write inerrant doctrinal truth.

      The only way to justify this meeting of the major players, is if they
      issue they came together to discuss was indeed a cause of doctrinal
      disagreement within original Christianity.

      For example, your church believes in the Trinity.

      If a person who is a relative nobody starts teaching others that the
      Trinity is false, does anybody call a great meeting of the church
      leaders to have "much discussion and debate" about it?

      Hardly.

      Now then...how about if that person who denied the Trinity, is part
      of the leadership of your church? You'll end up with a major meeting
      of the church leaders as quick as you can say "like-minded".

      And you can bet your life savings, there will be PLENTY of debate and
      discussion, and then word to the rest of the congregation about the
      results of that discussion.

      I therefore conclude that those nameless legalists in Acts 15:1 were
      not relative unknowns, but rather major players in earliest apostolic
      Christianity. They could not have caused such division and such
      reaction, unless they were already deemed authoritative teachers by
      the majority of followers there. And with James and Peter and John
      being ultimate authorities in that area already, those legalists
      ability to cause so much fervor suggests even more strongly that they
      were part of the original discipleship ring, and were not
      simply "self-appointed teachers".

      If they WERE mere self-appointed teachers/heretics, and yet caused
      this major uproar, we can only conclude that the disciples of the
      apostles must have been as dumb as rocks. They just listened to
      whoever whenever, regardless have having heard Peter James and John
      and knowing what they believed.

      So the inerrantist Christian is in a pinch:

      Do you say the uproar was caused by those who were obvious heretics?
      If so, that makes the early church dumb and gullible.

      Do you say the uproar was caused by some original members of Christ's
      disciples? If so, then the early authentic church wasn't in total
      agreement about doctrine, making shipwreck of biblical inerrancy.

      Do you say the uproar was caused by authorities under James teaching
      false doctrine? Why then does Acts 15 say the so-called inspired
      apostle had gone through MUCH discussion and debate? Did several
      minds, inspired by the same God, not agree with each other on a
      doctrine?

      There is no concievable way that an inerrantist can maintain the
      doctrine of biblical inerrancy and correctly interpret Acts 15 all at
      the same time. Any interpretation of that insidious chapter of the
      bible carries negative consequences for the doctrine of full biblical
      inerrancy.
    • Paul Leonard
      For the Bible to be in error in this matter, it would have to be providing an innacurate report. Innacuaracy in the Biblical text has nothing to do with
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        For the Bible to be in error in this matter, it would have to be providing an innacurate report.

        Innacuaracy in the Biblical text has nothing to do with innacurate views held and discussed. Two different issues.

        empiricism101 <empiricism101@...> wrote:
        1 And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the
        brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of
        Moses, you cannot be saved."
        2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with
        them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain
        others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders
        concerning this issue.  (Acts 15)

        Why?

        Exactly how do minds that are INSPIRED to write INERRANTLY about
        DOCTRINE, ever get to the point of needing to discuss some doctrine
        with each other?  Such discussion is easily expected of non-inspired
        Christians, but sounds foolish when applied to apostles who were
        supposedly inspired to write inerrant doctrinal truth.

        The only way to justify this meeting of the major players, is if they
        issue they came together to discuss was indeed a cause of doctrinal
        disagreement within original Christianity. 

        For example, your church believes in the Trinity.

        If a person who is a relative nobody starts teaching others that the
        Trinity is false, does anybody call a great meeting of the church
        leaders to have "much discussion and debate" about it?

        Hardly.

        Now then...how about if that person who denied the Trinity, is part
        of the leadership of your church?  You'll end up with a major meeting
        of the church leaders as quick as you can say "like-minded".

        And you can bet your life savings, there will be PLENTY of debate and
        discussion, and then word to the rest of the congregation about the
        results of that discussion.

        I therefore conclude that those nameless legalists in Acts 15:1 were
        not relative unknowns, but rather major players in earliest apostolic
        Christianity.  They could not have caused such division and such
        reaction, unless they were already deemed authoritative teachers by
        the majority of followers there.  And with James and Peter and John
        being ultimate authorities in that area already, those legalists
        ability to cause so much fervor suggests even more strongly that they
        were part of the original discipleship ring, and were not
        simply "self-appointed teachers".

        If they WERE mere self-appointed teachers/heretics, and yet caused
        this major uproar, we can only conclude that the disciples of the
        apostles must have been as dumb as rocks.  They just listened to
        whoever whenever, regardless have having heard Peter James and John
        and knowing what they believed.

        So the inerrantist Christian is in a pinch:

        Do you say the uproar was caused by those who were obvious heretics? 
        If so, that makes the early church dumb and gullible.

        Do you say the uproar was caused by some original members of Christ's
        disciples?  If so, then the early authentic church wasn't in total
        agreement about doctrine, making shipwreck of biblical inerrancy.

        Do you say the uproar was caused by authorities under James teaching
        false doctrine?  Why then does Acts 15 say the so-called inspired
        apostle had gone through MUCH discussion and debate?  Did several
        minds, inspired by the same God, not agree with each other on a
        doctrine?

        There is no concievable way that an inerrantist can maintain the
        doctrine of biblical inerrancy and correctly interpret Acts 15 all at
        the same time.  Any interpretation of that insidious chapter of the
        bible carries negative consequences for the doctrine of full biblical
        inerrancy.




      • Dave Wave
        ... I was never talking about the biblical text, I was talking about doctrinal disgreements between two primary major players in apostolic Christianity, Paul
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:

          > For the Bible to be in error in this matter, it
          > would have to be providing an innacurate report.

          I was never talking about the biblical text, I was
          talking about doctrinal disgreements between two
          primary major players in apostolic Christianity, Paul
          and James.

          > Innacuaracy in the Biblical text has nothing to do
          > with innacurate views held and discussed. Two
          > different issues.

          Where did I ever say anything about the accuracy of
          the biblical text?

          I think you are misconstruing my reference to the
          apostles' alleged ability to write inerrantly.

          My point was not about the text, but about the fact
          that the level of inspiration a human must have to
          write inerrantly, doesn't harmonize with their
          disagreeing verbally or otherwise with other equally
          inspired apostles. If all the apostles were inspired
          to write their books inerrantly, we would never never
          expect them to disagree amongst themselves about
          doctrine, since it is YOUR claim that one and the same
          God is inspiring the lot of them. Correct?

          If so, then how do you explain all of the Apostles
          finding it necessary to have this great "meeting of
          the minds" in Acts 15?

          If what those Phariseeic believers in Acts 15:1 were
          teaching was clearly legalistic heresy, then why are
          the apostles getting together in round-table
          discussion and having "much discussion and debate"
          about it?

          Could it be that the apostles needed to have this
          extended debate because they were NOT as fully
          inspired by God as inerrantists say? Why not?

          Should we expect inspired apostles to be debating
          doctrine with each other?


          > empiricism101 <empiricism101@...> wrote:
          > 1 And some men came down from Judea and began
          > teaching the
          > brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to
          > the custom of
          > Moses, you cannot be saved."
          > 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension
          > and debate with
          > them, the brethren determined that Paul and
          > Barnabas and certain
          > others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the
          > apostles and elders
          > concerning this issue. (Acts 15)
          >
          > Why?
          >
          > Exactly how do minds that are INSPIRED to write
          > INERRANTLY about
          > DOCTRINE, ever get to the point of needing to
          > discuss some doctrine
          > with each other? Such discussion is easily
          > expected of non-inspired
          > Christians, but sounds foolish when applied to
          > apostles who were
          > supposedly inspired to write inerrant doctrinal
          > truth.
          >
          > The only way to justify this meeting of the major
          > players, is if they
          > issue they came together to discuss was indeed a
          > cause of doctrinal
          > disagreement within original Christianity.
          >
          > For example, your church believes in the Trinity.
          >
          > If a person who is a relative nobody starts
          > teaching others that the
          > Trinity is false, does anybody call a great
          > meeting of the church
          > leaders to have "much discussion and debate" about
          > it?
          >
          > Hardly.
          >
          > Now then...how about if that person who denied the
          > Trinity, is part
          > of the leadership of your church? You'll end up
          > with a major meeting
          > of the church leaders as quick as you can say
          > "like-minded".
          >
          > And you can bet your life savings, there will be
          > PLENTY of debate and
          > discussion, and then word to the rest of the
          > congregation about the
          > results of that discussion.
          >
          > I therefore conclude that those nameless legalists
          > in Acts 15:1 were
          > not relative unknowns, but rather major players in
          > earliest apostolic
          > Christianity. They could not have caused such
          > division and such
          > reaction, unless they were already deemed
          > authoritative teachers by
          > the majority of followers there. And with James
          > and Peter and John
          > being ultimate authorities in that area already,
          > those legalists
          > ability to cause so much fervor suggests even more
          > strongly that they
          > were part of the original discipleship ring, and
          > were not
          > simply "self-appointed teachers".
          >
          > If they WERE mere self-appointed
          > teachers/heretics, and yet caused
          > this major uproar, we can only conclude that the
          > disciples of the
          > apostles must have been as dumb as rocks. They
          > just listened to
          > whoever whenever, regardless have having heard
          > Peter James and John
          > and knowing what they believed.
          >
          > So the inerrantist Christian is in a pinch:
          >
          > Do you say the uproar was caused by those who were
          > obvious heretics?
          > If so, that makes the early church dumb and
          > gullible.
          >
          > Do you say the uproar was caused by some original
          > members of Christ's
          > disciples? If so, then the early authentic church
          > wasn't in total
          > agreement about doctrine, making shipwreck of
          > biblical inerrancy.
          >
          > Do you say the uproar was caused by authorities
          > under James teaching
          > false doctrine? Why then does Acts 15 say the
          > so-called inspired
          > apostle had gone through MUCH discussion and
          > debate? Did several
          > minds, inspired by the same God, not agree with
          > each other on a
          > doctrine?
          >
          > There is no concievable way that an inerrantist
          > can maintain the
          > doctrine of biblical inerrancy and correctly
          > interpret Acts 15 all at
          > the same time. Any interpretation of that
          > insidious chapter of the
          > bible carries negative consequences for the
          > doctrine of full biblical
          > inerrancy.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          >
          >
          > Visit your group "biblicalapologetics" on the
          > web.
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
          > to:
          > biblicalapologetics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
          > Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          >
          >
          >
          >


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • Paul Leonard
          Hi Dave, See below: ... I was never talking about the biblical text, I was talking about doctrinal disgreements between two primary major players in apostolic
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Dave,

            See below:

            Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:
            --- Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:

            > For the Bible to be in error in this matter, it
            > would have to be providing an innacurate report.

            I was never talking about the biblical text, I was
            talking about doctrinal disgreements between two
            primary major players in apostolic Christianity, Paul and James.

            (Paul2) OK.

            >   Innacuaracy in the Biblical text has nothing to do
            > with innacurate views held and discussed. Two
            > different issues.

            <<Where did I ever say anything about the accuracy of
            the biblical text?

            I think you are misconstruing my reference to the
            apostles' alleged ability to write inerrantly.

            (Paul2) Writing inerrantly is still a different issue than what they may have believed.

            <<My point was not about the text, but about the fact that the level of inspiration a human must have to write inerrantly, doesn't harmonize with their disagreeing verbally or otherwise with other equally inspired apostles.  If all the apostles were inspired to write their books inerrantly, we would never never expect them to disagree amongst themselves about doctrine, since it is YOUR claim that one and the same God is inspiring the lot of them.  Correct?

            (Paul2) You are assuming that to wrrite Inerrantly one must never be wrong about anything. That is n ot the case. Writing, as in recording the words we find in scripture, is done UNDER Inspirtaion. The writing is inspired and without error. That has nothing to do with the fallings of the instrument used to record the words.

            We already know from scripture that aside from Jesus there were no perfect servants of God. Thus all others will be flawed. It is inspirtaion in RECORDING scripture that is important, not their own uninspired opinions, that can be erroneous.They are not "Inspired" all the time, in the way they were when writing scripture.

            <<If so, then how do you explain all of the Apostlesfinding it necessary to have this great "meeting ofthe minds" in Acts 15?

            If what those Phariseeic believers in Acts 15:1 wereteaching was clearly legalistic heresy, then why arethe apostles getting together in round-table
            discussion and having "much discussion and debate"
            about it?

            (Paul2) God saw it was time to make the record clear.

            <<Could it be that the apostles needed to have this
            extended debate because they were NOT as fully
            inspired by God as inerrantists say?  Why not?

            Should we expect inspired apostles to be debating
            doctrine with each other?

            (Paul2) They were not inspired in the way they were when writing scripture. Otherwise Paul and others would never have needed to give counsel to other spirit anointed believers. Having God's Spriit does not make one error free in every aspect. It is not the same as being "inspired".

            They were "inspired" to WRITE the scriptures.

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.