[Wangdoodle]

This started with De Maria from another thread and I addressed the issue in that thread. De Maria also started this discussion over Peter if memory serves me correctly.

I forgot to ask. What thread would this be?

[Tj3]

After the long debate Peter got up and spoke. James in his remarks refers to what Peter had said.

Well, I have to get to bed. You may have the last word for to night if you like.

Peter spoke in the middle of the discussion, after some had spoke, and before Paul and Barnabas and James. He gave his opinion.

James spoke last and made the decision - that is not my claim, that is the Biblical record of the Council proceedings. Further, notice that James' decision is in part based upon Peter's opinion, but differs from Peter's statement. Let's look at both of them in comparison.

Peter suggested:

Acts 15:7-11
En and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."
NKJV

Peter gave no specifics as to what he thought should be done and thus this could in no way be considered a final decision.

James' final decision gave specifics:

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

And what happened? Without further discussion, James' decision was carried out exactly as he stated it:

Acts 15:22-23
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren. 23 They wrote this letter by them:
NKJV

And the letter said exactly what James instructed them to put in it.

Acts 15:23-31
He apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law'--to whom we gave no such commandment-- 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.

30 So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter.
NKJV

[Wangdoodle]

Why was the Council of Jerusalem convened? To decide if Gentiles needed to be circumcised. Paul did not just search the Scriptures alone.

What was the decision of the council?
Gentiles did not have to be circumcised.

Who announced the council’s decision?
Peter did after the long discussion had ended.

Why Peter?
Peter exercised his head ship in announcing the doctrine. James also gave instructions. He is the Bishop of Jerusalem. As the hosting Bishop it is acceptable to give instructions concerning how to proceed with the councils decision. He, in no way undermined Peter’s leadership by giving further instructions. It would be expected that his instructions would be carried out perfectly.

This is a fine example of a well-organized church exercising apostolic authority rather than just going to the Scriptures alone.

[Tj3]

Why was the Council of Jerusalem convened? To decide if Gentiles needed to be circumcised. Paul did not just search the Scriptures alone.

What was the decision of the council?
Gentiles did not have to be circumcised.

Who announced the council's decision?
Peter did after the long discussion had ended.

Why Peter?
Peter exercised his head ship in announcing the doctrine. James also gave instructions. He is the Bishop of Jerusalem. As the hosting Bishop it is acceptable to give instructions concerning how to proceed with the councils decision. He, in no way undermined Peter's leadership by giving further instructions. It would be expected that his instructions would be carried out perfectly.

You have stated your opinion, but scripture was quite explicit about who decided. You may disagree with it and that is your right, but that will not change what it says. Despite your claim, Peter spoke in the middle of the discussion. Maybe your Bible is missing some verses!

This is a fine example of a well-organized church exercising apostolic authority rather than just going to the Scriptures alone.

Ah nice try, but you forget that what they were penning was in fact to become scripture! Further, if you try to use that argument for going beyond what God's word says, the argument dies on the table since all 12 of the Apostles have since passed away.

Though they did hold a special position, they left us with what they wrote as scripture.

[Fr_Chuck]

It is obvoius TJ3 has some agenda to disprove the bible as true or write their own version for some reason. The issues using bible verses are very clear unless you just don't want to accept them.

Sad when on their own web site it merely says to question, but I guess it should say to accept it after it is proven not to question it without end.

I would have to ask, if Peter was not the head of the group, who was according to your denominations teachings.

[Tj3]

It is obvoius TJ3 has some agenda to disprove the bible as true or write their own version for some reason. The issues using bible verses are very clear unless you just don't want to accept them.

Oh yes, Chuck, when you don't agree, then just go after the person. One cannot simply disagree with the Catholic Church - they must have an agenda - right?

I don't know how you ignore the fact that James said "I judge". That is very clear. The fact that he gave detailed instructions and a detailed decision is very clear. If you feel that I have agenda, should I assume that you ignore this because you have an agenda?

I think that the Bible is very clear.

I would have to ask, if Peter was not the head of the group, who was according to your denominations teachings.

Strange, I keep saying that I have no denomination, and yet you keep asking questions like that. BTW, I accept what the Bible says about that also:

Eph 5:22-24
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
NKJV

Do you agree with the Bible or not?

[speechlesstx]

Sola scriptura is basically the belief that all things necessary for salvation and pertaining to faith and practice are found in the scriptures, that the bible is the source of and authority on these truths.

I admit some take it too far, such as some in the King James only crowd who can't seem to figure out that Sola scriptura does not mean we can't use extra-scriptural material to help in our understanding. They should understand that every time they pull out their concordances, commentaries and lexicons or when the preacher stands and delivers his take on the scriptures, but apparently the irony is lost on them.

This is a tired, old argument I doubt will ever be resolved here on earth. Catholics don't seem to be willing to consider there may have been an error or two down the long, long, long, long, line of traditions and thus it might be wise to settle on the scriptures as the authority - and we will never submit to the authority of the Pope or the Catholic church because experience tells us our relationship with God is not dependent on either. I found God just fine without the Catholic church, and I recall the unkind things Jesus had to say about the traditions of men.

I get that private interpretation can be a dangerous thing, but so is leaving the final authority in the hands of men. It is logical to me to have the traditions and teachings of men subject to scrutiny against the scriptures as opposed to giving man the final say.

Steve

[Wondergirl]

No, Jesus did not tell Peter to establish a church. (A post on page one explains that.) And Martin Luther wasn't the one who started the first Protestant movement. There were others before him.

[Tj3]

I do not like the idea of "multiple churches". Jesus told Peter to establish one church, so why so many denominations?

First, Jesus did not tell Peter any such thing. Jesus established one church and one church only - the body of all believers. Afterward, there were a number of churches and denominations started by men, but none of these, no matter how good they are can claim to be the church that Jesus established. That does not mean that there is anything wrong with a denomination if it remains true to God's word, but Jesus' church is the only one in which ALL members are saved.

Even Martin Luther (the guy who started the first protestant movement) on his deathbed said something like "can one person truly be right" or something along those lines.

First, you give no reference for this and second, I don't see what relevance it would have to the discussion in any case.

Sola Scriptura was Martin Luther's idea, him thinking that ordinary people don't need holy people such as bishops and popes to interprate the bible.

First, why would you saythat a person is holy because they have been given a title?
Second, since 2 Peter 1:20 says that no man is tyo interpret scripture, why would you say that some men can?

Sola Scriptura is innaccurate, because how could there be so many different interpretations (there are over 33 thousand protestant churches because of their different interpretations).

That has nothing to do with the issue. Further, I am not a protestant.

So if I smoked weed I could say that the parable of Jesus' sowing seeds is interpreted by me that I'm allowed to sow weed seeds and smoke them. Ok well that was an exaggeration, but if people are aloud to interpret the bible their way, sometimes they'll interpret it in a way that fits their lifestyle better.

Who said that any person is permitted by scripture to interpret their Bible? The only people that I see saying this are Catholics trying to argue against a strawman definition that they created of what they claim sola scriptura is, but that is NOT what the doctrine of sola scriptura teaches.

[Wangdoodle]

You have stated your opinion, but scripture was quite explicit about who decided. You may disagree with it and that is your right, but that will not change what it says. Despite your claim, Peter spoke in the middle of the discussion. maybe your Bible is missing some verses!!

I think you are over looking the point of the council. Do Gentiles have to be circumcised to be saved? This is the answer to that question.

Act 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

That was said by Peter. The fact that the council continued with further instructions does not change the fact that Peter announced the answer.

[Tj3]

I think you are over looking the point of the council. Do Gentiles have to be circumcised to be saved? This is the answer to that question.

Do Jews have to be circumised to be saved? Show me where you find that in scripture.

This is important - too many people take that which is symbolic and try to make it essential for salvation - whether it be the rituals of the OT or baptism.

Act 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

That was said by Peter. The fact that the council continued with further instructions does not change the fact that Peter announced the answer.

Scripture disagrees with you. Who does it say judged?

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


judge
- Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, judged, judg·ing.
–noun
1. a public officer authorized to hear and decide cases in a court of law; a magistrate charged with the administration of justice.
2. a person appointed to decide in any competition, contest, or matter at issue; authorized arbiter: the judges of a beauty contest.
3. a person qualified to pass a critical judgment: a good judge of horses.
4. an administrative head of Israel in the period between the death of Joshua and the accession to the throne by Saul.
5. (esp. in rural areas) a county official with supervisory duties, often employed part-time or on an honorary basis.
–verb (used with object)
6. to pass legal judgment on; pass sentence on (a person): The court judged him guilty.
7. to hear evidence or legal arguments in (a case) in order to pass judgment; adjudicate; try: The Supreme Court is judging that case.
8. to form a judgment or opinion of; decide upon critically: You can't judge a book by its cover.
9. to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge: The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.
10. to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess: He judged her to be correct.
11. to make a careful guess about; estimate: We judged the distance to be about four miles.
12. (of the ancient Hebrew judges) to govern.
–verb (used without object)
13. to act as a judge; pass judgment: No one would judge between us.
14. to form an opinion or estimate: I have heard the evidence and will judge accordingly.
15. to make a mental judgment.
(Source: Dictionary.com, Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.)

To judge is to make the decision. Why reject what scripture states explicitly?

[Wangdoodle]

Do Jews have to be circumised to be saved? Show me where you find that in scripture.

This is important - too many people take that which is symbolic and try to make it essential for salvation - whether it be the rituals of the OT or baptism.

Hold on there TJ3! I did not say that. And Nether did the Council.

Act 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

The Jews and the Gentiles are saved through the grace of the Lord.

[Tj3]

Hold on there TJ3! I did not say that. And Nether did the Council.

Act 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

The Jews and the Gentiles are saved through the grace of the Lord.

Good!

Now answer my question - Who does scripture say judged?

[Wangdoodle]

Good!

Now answer my question - Who does scripture say judged?

James' Judgement is based on what the Council had already decided.

[Tj3]

James' Judgement is based on what the Council had already decided.

Heh heh heh, that is not what scripture says. A "judgment" is a decision and that is the ONLY decision mentioned at the council.

Ultimately we all have to decide if we will accept what scripture says, or submit ourselves to what others tell us to believe.

[Wangdoodle]

heh heh heh, that is not what scripture says. A "judgement" is a decision and that is the ONLY decision mentioned at the council.

Ultimately we all have to decide if we will accept what scripture says, or submit ourselves to what others tell us to believe.

The statement "But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will", was the conclusion of the "long debate". Yes, James decided to give further instruction on how to proceed. I never said James was not in a position of authority.

[Tj3]

The statement "But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will", was the conclusion of the "long debate". Yes, James decided to give further instruction on how to proceed. I never said James was not in a position of authority.

The debate continued. Peter spoke in the middle. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Peter did anything other than give some quality input to the debate, as did others.

But again - James "judged", and James was the last person to speak in the debate, and James gave direction, and James was unchallenged.

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

I cannot imagine how an unbiased reader who read this for the first time by themselves would come to any other conclusion.

[Tj3]

Let me add to this that the word that James chose to use for "judge" is krino, which means:

NT:2919
Krino (kree'-no); properly, to distinguish, i.e. decide (mentally or judicially); by implication, to try, condemn, punish:

(Strong's Concordance)

James decided. No one else.

[De Maria]

Before we get side tracked, please answer the opening question:

Would you define the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and show me where it is in Scripture?

Actually, what you gave was a denominational position

I gave the Catholic doctrine as confirmed in Scripture. If that is what you call the denominational position, then you are correct.

which is contrary to what scripture says.

Not so. The verse you are showing has no relevance to the topic at hand. However I will show you that it does prove that Jesus established a Church which He said would never fall.

Matt 16:13-19
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" 14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
NKJV

What do we see here?

- Jesus was speaking to his disciples as a group

At first. But then 16 SIMON PETER answered and Jesus then focused on him saying to him directly, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter,...."

You can compare this to a class room where the Teacher is asking all the students a question. But when one student answers, the Teacher addresses that one student directly but for all to hear.

- The topic was "who is Jesus"

Correct. The disciples all got it wrong, but Jesus expressly states that Simon Bar Jonah got it right and that he could only get it right if the Father had inspired him to do so.

"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

- Peter answered that he is the Messiah, son of the living God.

Correct.

- Jesus does not immediately refer to Peter, but rather the fact that the revelation of the truth came from God the father.

Wrong. He immediately speaks to the person who answered, Simon Bar Jonah and declares him to be Peter.

The word Peter here is Petros, which means stone

Correct. It means stone.

or a piece of a rock,

It means stone or rock, not "piece of" stone or rock.

and then Jesus refers to the "rock" which is the revelation of who he is, and states that His church shall be built upon this revelation that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

No, no, no. Please point to the exact reference where Jesus say, you are the rock and I am the Rock. I don't see it.

As I see it, Jesus is directly speaking to Simon and telling him how the Father has inspired him to make this statement and as a result Jesus renames Simon, calls him Peter or Rock and says He will build His Church on this Rock which He has just named.

The word "rock" here is Petra,

Peter is the masculine derivative of Petra. They mean the same thing, exactly, except Peter is addressed to a man. Petra has the 'a" or feminine ending and is therefore inappropriate for use as a man's name.

which means rock, or a mass of rock. We do not build a building upon a piece of a rock or a stone, but rather upon a rock that is massive enough to provide a solid foundation.

Peter does not mean "piece of" Rock but simply Rock. The Greek word for piece of Rock or small rock is "lithos".

In addition, Jesus prophecied that Simon would be renamed early on when He first met him. In that instance, St. John explains that Jesus called Simon, "Cephas", Aramaic for large "Rock".

John 1 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

Jesus' choice of words made it clear which should be the foundation of His church. This is confirmed in Paul's letter to the church at Corinth:

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

That is precisely the point isn't it? Jesus gave Simon His Own Name. When Jesus gave Simon His Own Name, He did precisely what God did for Moses in the Old Testament:

Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

In other words, God is saying to Moses, when you see Pharaoh, you will be in My Place. You will be My Representative.

And Jesus is saying to Simon, when I build my Church, you will be in My Place. You will be My Representative.

Sincerely,

[Wondergirl]

If Matthew had wanted to write that the Church would be built on Peter, he could have phrased it more explicitly. The Catholic argument also misapplies the English use of the demonstrative pronoun to the Greek language. This assumes that it refers to the noun previously referenced (Peter) when it actually refers to the subject closest to the speaker (Jesus himself).

If Matthew had written "and on you, Peter, I will build," or "and on your confession, Peter, I will build," or "on the Rock which is Me, I will build with you who is the stone," there would be no grounds for debate. But he did not, thus the controversy.

From christiancourier.com --

"If this conversation between Christ and Peter was intended to establish the fact that the church was to be built upon the apostle himself (with the implication of successors), it is strange indeed that Mark, who produced his Gospel record from the vantagepoint of Peter (see Eusebius, 2.15), totally omits the exchange (see Mk. 8:27-30)."