Agie95,

What is your opinion about Jesus appointing Peter and the apostles and giving them authority? Do they have unique authority?

Matt 16 18-19 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


Matt 18 16-18 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

As you know. The decision that it is not manditory for gentiles to follow the entire (613 rules) of Moses, was made by the apostles. See Acts 15. Counsel of Jerusalem in roughly 50AD. Also See St. Paul's letters to Galatians.

Very very clear- no circumcision is required. Circumcision was one othe 613 laws. So I guess Peter, Paul, James were wrong?

Edited so as to not speak for agie.

RetiredAg said:

---

booboo91 said:

---

As you know. The decision that it is not manditory for gentiles to follow the entire (613 rules) of Moses, was made by the apostles. See Acts 15. Counsel of Jerusalem in roughly 50AD. Also See St. Paul's letters to Galatians.

Very very clear- no circumcision is required. Circumcision was one othe 613 laws. So I guess Peter, Paul, James were wrong?

---

He's addressed this before, but basically the gist of his argument is that they were addressing the belief that circumcision was required for salvation, not the command of circumcision itself. Of course, it doesn't take into account Paul and Titus traveling together and Paul never seeming to press Titus to be circumcised. Nor does it address the inconsistency of saying circumcision isn't required for salvation while then turning around and saying that following the Mosaic law, which required physical circumcision, is required for salvation.

---

I believe his position is not that following Torah justifies, but that one who loves God wants to obey Him.

You know what, thanks for pointing that out. I should refrain from speaking for others, and will edit my post to remove that.

booboo91 said:

---

Agie95,

What is your opinion about Jesus appointing Peter and the apostles and giving them authority? Do they have unique authority?

Matt 16 18-19 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


Matt 18 16-18 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

---

The debate over appointing Peter over everything, I don't agree with it. Peter is not the rock. In the Torah, God is the rock. He did give them authority on binding and loosing. In rabbinic nomenclature, that is in regards to halacha, or how to walk their faith out.

I think Jacob (James) shows that he is the leader of the group based on Acts 15 and Acts 21.

booboo91 said:

---

As you know. The decision that it is not manditory for gentiles to follow the entire (613 rules) of Moses, was made by the apostles. See Acts 15. Counsel of Jerusalem in roughly 50AD. Also See St. Paul's letters to Galatians.

Very very clear- no circumcision is required. Circumcision was one othe 613 laws. So I guess Peter, Paul, James were wrong?

---

The apostles don't have the authority to subtract from the commandments that God set out. The question at hand in Acts 15 and Galatians is circumcision required for salvation. If one understands or connects everything that just went on prior to Yeshua's arrival (200 years or so) one would have a better understanding what all is going on with the circumcision party.

Peter, Paul, and Jacob all state to follow Torah.

agie95 said:

---

booboo91 said:

---

As you know. The decision that it is not manditory for gentiles to follow the entire (613 rules) of Moses, was made by the apostles. See Acts 15. Counsel of Jerusalem in roughly 50AD. Also See St. Paul's letters to Galatians.

Very very clear- no circumcision is required. Circumcision was one othe 613 laws. So I guess Peter, Paul, James were wrong?

---

The apostles don't have the authority to subtract from the commandments that God set out. The question at hand in Acts 15 and Galatians is circumcision required for salvation. If one understands or connects everything that just went on prior to Yeshua's arrival (200 years or so) one would have a better understanding what all is going on with the circumcision party.

Peter, Paul, and Jacob all state to follow Torah.

---

Except, of course, when it came to Paul, Titus and physical circumcision.

agie95 said:

---

Peter, Paul, and Jacob all state to follow Torah.

---

Verses?

agie95 said:

---

The debate over appointing Peter over everything, I don't agree with it. Peter is not the rock. In the Torah, God is the rock. He did give them authority on binding and loosing. In rabbinic nomenclature, that is in regards to halacha, or how to walk their faith out.

I think Jacob (James) shows that he is the leader of the group based on Acts 15 and Acts 21.

---

1) Ok fine, you don't believe Peter was the Rock, you believe James was the leader. Do the apostles have any unique authority? Does James have any authority?

2) Also - what do you think Jesus meant? When he calls Simon, Peter (Rocky) Matt 16 18-19 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Quote:

---

1) Ok fine, you don't believe Peter was the Rock, you believe James was the leader. Do the apostles have any unique authority? Does James have any authority?

2) Also - what do you think Jesus meant? When he calls Simon, Peter (Rocky) Matt 16 18-19 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

---

From above:

Quote:

---

1. He did give them authority on binding and loosing. In rabbinic nomenclature, that is in regards to halacha, or how to walk their faith out.

---

2. These 2 verses have been debated for centuries, so you and I aren't going to make a final conclusion. Nor are we going to agree. The rock is Peter's reply in v16 - Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

The rock did not change from God/His manifestations to a man.

tehmackdaddy said:

---

agie95 said:

---

Peter, Paul, and Jacob all state to follow Torah.

---

Verses?

---

Romans 2:13 - For it is not the hearers of Torah who are righteous before God; rather, it is the doers of Torah who will be justified.

Romans 3:31 - Do we then nullify the Torah through faithfulness? May it never be! On the contrary, we uphold the Torah.

Romans 7:22-23 - For I delight in the Torah of God with respect to the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in my body parts, battling against the law of my mind and bringing me into bondage under the law of sin which is in my body parts.

Romans 7:25 - So then, with my mind I myself serve the Torah of God; but with my flesh, I serve the law of sin.


James 1:22 - But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding yourselves

James 1:23-24 - For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror 24 for once he looks at himself and goes away, he immediately forgets what sort of person he was.

James 1:25 - But the one who looks intently into the perfect Torah, the Torah that gives freedom, and continues in it, not becoming a hearer who forgets but a doer who actshe shall be blessed in what he does.

James 2:12 - So speak and act as those who will be judged according to the Torah that gives freedom.
Romans 2:12 - and all who have sinned according to Torah will be judged by Torah.

1 Peter 1:15-16 - Instead, just like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in everything you do. 16 For it is written,

"Kedoshim (holy) you shall be, for I am kadosh (holy)."

Leviticus 11, 19, and 20 are the only places where we are told to be Holy. Peter is quoting this.

Revelation 12:17 - So the dragon became enraged at the woman and went off to make war with the rest of her offspringthose who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Yeshua.

The book of John and his epistles speak over and over again about following the commandments.

Plus more...

agie95 said:

---

Quote:

---

2. These 2 verses have been debated for centuries, so you and I aren't going to make a final conclusion. Nor are we going to agree. The rock is Peter's reply in v16 - Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

---

The rock did not change from God/His manifestations to a man.

---

So what was building the church about? Why does Jesus make this comment?

agie95 said:

---

I think Jacob (James) shows that he is the leader of the group based on Acts 15 and Acts 21.

---

But if you read all of the NT including the Gospels.

Did you know that if you add up all the verses on Peter, they are more than all the other apostles combined. Also we see the many special one on one moments with Jesus & Peter.- Jesus call - do you love me? Feed my lambs.

Also interesting that every time apostles are listed- Peter is listed first.

There is a reason, the christian church recognizes Simon (Peter)- the Rock, because Jesus declared it! He will build his church.

agie95 said:

---

The apostles don't have the authority to subtract from the commandments that God set out. The question at hand in Acts 15 and Galatians is circumcision required for salvation. If one understands or connects everything that just went on prior to Yeshua's arrival (200 years or so) one would have a better understanding what all is going on with the circumcision party.

Peter, Paul, and Jacob all state to follow Torah.

---

Agie95, please define the Torah. What do you mean by Torah? Is this following ALL 613 laws of moses? The first 5 books of the OT- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy?

I don't think anyone is arguing we should not follow parts of the Torah. We all agree Jew and Christian alike we need to still follow the great Shema which still applys to all of us today. Detr. 6 4-5 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength.

Rather the question is, do we need to follow ALL mosaic 613 Laws? On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Leviticus 12: 3. Do all male followers all and young alike need to be circumcised?

Do we need to follow ALL the food allowances? Not to eat creatures that live in water other than fish- No shrimp, Lobster, Crab, Calamaril? - Leviticus 11:43
Do we need to follow the same civil laws today- The courts must carry out the death penalty of stoning? Detr. 22:24

I find it interesting- Jesus church that he built on Peter is the oldest active organization in the world. Roughly 2000 years old. Jesus is the new high priest, the new final sacrifice and new temple is still around. We see that Jesus has superceded the old temple, the old high priest, the old animal sacrifices- are no more.

These laws from the Torah are obsolete. No longer required. Jesus fullfills.

369. To offer all sacrifices in the TempleDeuteronomy 12:11

337. Not to dedicate a blemished animal for the altarLeviticus 22:20
339. Not to sprinkle its bloodLeviticus 22:24
340. Not to burn its fatLeviticus 22:22
341. Not to offer a temporarily blemished animalDeuteronomy 17:1
342. Not to sacrifice blemished animals even if offered by non-JewsLeviticus 22:25
343. Not to inflict wounds upon dedicated animalsLeviticus 22:21
344. To redeem dedicated animals which have become disqualifiedDeuteronomy 12:15
345. To offer only animals which are at least eight days oldLeviticus 22:27
346. Not to offer animals bought with the wages of a harlot or the animal exchanged for a dogDeuteronomy 23:19
347. Not to burn honey or yeast on the altarLeviticus 2:11
348. To salt all sacrificesLeviticus 2:13
350. Carry out the procedure of the burnt offering as prescribed in the TorahLeviticus 1:3

agie95 said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

agie95 said:

---

Peter, Paul, and Jacob all state to follow Torah.

---

Verses?

---

Romans 2:13 - For it is not the hearers of Torah who are righteous before God; rather, it is the doers of Torah who will be justified.

Romans 3:31 - Do we then nullify the Torah through faithfulness? May it never be! On the contrary, we uphold the Torah.

Romans 7:22-23 - For I delight in the Torah of God with respect to the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in my body parts, battling against the law of my mind and bringing me into bondage under the law of sin which is in my body parts.

Romans 7:25 - So then, with my mind I myself serve the Torah of God; but with my flesh, I serve the law of sin.


James 1:22 - But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding yourselves

James 1:23-24 - For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror 24 for once he looks at himself and goes away, he immediately forgets what sort of person he was.

James 1:25 - But the one who looks intently into the perfect Torah, the Torah that gives freedom, and continues in it, not becoming a hearer who forgets but a doer who actshe shall be blessed in what he does.

James 2:12 - So speak and act as those who will be judged according to the Torah that gives freedom.
Romans 2:12 - and all who have sinned according to Torah will be judged by Torah.

1 Peter 1:15-16 - Instead, just like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in everything you do. 16 For it is written,

"Kedoshim (holy) you shall be, for I am kadosh (holy)."

Leviticus 11, 19, and 20 are the only places where we are told to be Holy. Peter is quoting this.

Revelation 12:17 - So the dragon became enraged at the woman and went off to make war with the rest of her offspringthose who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Yeshua.

The book of John and his epistles speak over and over again about following the commandments.

Plus more...

---

ttps://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1355-is-the-law-of-moses-torah-still-binding

ttps://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/should-we-obey-old-testament-law

booboo91 said:

---

agie95 said:

---

Quote:

---

2. These 2 verses have been debated for centuries, so you and I aren't going to make a final conclusion. Nor are we going to agree. The rock is Peter's reply in v16 - Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

---

The rock did not change from God/His manifestations to a man.

---

So what was building the church about? Why does Jesus make this comment?

---

I hope it is understood there was no "church" back then. The word used is ekklasia which means an assembly, a group of people. The Israelites are supposed to be a light to the nations.....to build the assembly. Unfortunately, wasn't done. Due to Israelites not being a light, not following Torah, the curses have been placed on them. The Messiah, in addition to redeeming mankind, is to reconcile the two houses, Judah and Israel. The prophets speak about this many, many times.

Other than a couple of times, Yeshua, based on the Gospels, didn't speak to Gentiles. One of the times He did, He called them dogs. Yeshua didn't come to start a new religion, with a new set of rules. The intent was always for the people to live according to the Wisdom of God, which is Torah. He called people to repent. To return to the ways that God established. The Hebrew concept of repent means to return. The root word of teshuva (repent) is shuv which is to turn. Teshuva is returning back to God and His ways. That is what Yeshua is wanting to build, people willing to live according to God's Wisdom.

booboo91 said:

---

agie95 said:

---

I think Jacob (James) shows that he is the leader of the group based on Acts 15 and Acts 21.

---

But if you read all of the NT including the Gospels.

Did you know that if you add up all the verses on Peter, they are more than all the other apostles combined. Also we see the many special one on one moments with Jesus & Peter.- Jesus call - do you love me? Feed my lambs.

Also interesting that every time apostles are listed- Peter is listed first.

There is a reason, the christian church recognizes Simon (Peter)- the Rock, because Jesus declared it! He will build his church.

---

Not all of the Christian church recognizes Peter as the rock. That is a fact. Catholics and others built up their structure when the people in general were ignorant. They kept the Bible from them. Even if one had it in their hands, they more than likely could not read it. Catholicism is built upon the ignorance of people.

Typically, who gives the final word on a matter? The leader. In Acts 15:7 Peter gets up and speaks. Basically reiterating the meaning of his own experience/vision.

Then after Barnabus and Paul say some things Jacob gets up and speaks. He gives the final verdict. The leader gives the verdict.

In Acts 21:18 it says this: On the next day, Paul went in with us to Jacob; all the elders were present.

They went Jacob....all the elders were present.

Regarding listing Peter first, he was called first. It can be as simple as that. There can be a number of reasons, but leaders give the final word. People go to the leader.

booboo91 said:

---

agie95 said:

---

The apostles don't have the authority to subtract from the commandments that God set out. The question at hand in Acts 15 and Galatians is circumcision required for salvation. If one understands or connects everything that just went on prior to Yeshua's arrival (200 years or so) one would have a better understanding what all is going on with the circumcision party.

Peter, Paul, and Jacob all state to follow Torah.

---

Agie95, please define the Torah. What do you mean by Torah? Is this following ALL 613 laws of moses? The first 5 books of the OT- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy?

I don't think anyone is arguing we should not follow parts of the Torah. We all agree Jew and Christian alike we need to still follow the great Shema which still applys to all of us today. Detr. 6 4-5 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength.

Rather the question is, do we need to follow ALL mosaic 613 Laws? On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Leviticus 12: 3. Do all male followers all and young alike need to be circumcised?

Do we need to follow ALL the food allowances? Not to eat creatures that live in water other than fish- No shrimp, Lobster, Crab, Calamaril? - Leviticus 11:43
Do we need to follow the same civil laws today- The courts must carry out the death penalty of stoning? Detr. 22:24

---

The Torah is both the 613 commandments and the first five books of the Bible. Some though do call Genesis through Malachi the Torah.

When you state that we should all follow the Shema, it is clear you don't truly understand what that means.

Here are the verses surrounding the Shema:

"Now this is the commandment, the statutes and ordinances that Adonai your God commanded to teach you to do in the land you are crossing over to possess 2 so that you might fear Adonai your God, to keep all His statutes and mitzvot that I am commanding you and your son and your son's son all the days of your life, and so that you may prolong your days. 3 Hear, therefore, O Israel, and take care to do this, so that it may go well with you and you may increase mightily, as Adonai the God of your fathers has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey. 4 "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 Love Adonai your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These words, which I am commanding you today, are to be on your heart. 7 You are to teach them diligently to your children, and speak of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down and when you rise up. 8 Bind them as a sign on your hand, they are to be as frontlets between your eyes, 9 and write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Loving God with all your heart, soul, and strength is following the commandments. These words (the commandments) are to be on your heart (v6). You can't take the Shema out of this context.

Regarding all 613 commandments, not one person ever has done all 613, even Yeshua. For some commandments relate to the high priest, some to Levites, some to farmers, some to women, some to judges, etc. It is impossible for anyone to do all of them. Only through a united group can all of the commandments be followed.

Regarding circumcision and needing to be circumcised, depends on what you mean by need. Need for what? I can tell you that circumcision of the flesh will be a requirement in the Third Temple (Millennial Kindgom Temple built by the Messiah):

Ezekiel 44:9 - Thus says Adonai Elohim: "No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, may enter My Sanctuary, not any foreigner who is among Bnei-Yisrael.


To which commandments to follow today. Yes, all of the restrictions on what to eat. Those other things are not food for God's people. There are even fish which one should not eat...catfish, mullet, etc.

Regarding civil laws, it is the same as in Daniel's day. We don't live in a land that is setup with the Torah as the constitution so to speak. We can institute our God's laws over other governments. We must follow the laws of the land you reside in to a point. One day Israel will be a true nation setup under God's laws again. The borders will be larger than ever, then we will have judges again. Then we will have the Torah the guiding principle again for all of the people. Those who choose not to follow, well, they will be dealt with.

booboo91 said:

---

I find it interesting- Jesus church that he built on Peter is the oldest active organization in the world. Roughly 2000 years old. Jesus is the new high priest, the new final sacrifice and new temple is still around. We see that Jesus has superceded the old temple, the old high priest, the old animal sacrifices- are no more.

These laws from the Torah are obsolete. No longer required. Jesus fullfills.

369. To offer all sacrifices in the TempleDeuteronomy 12:11

337. Not to dedicate a blemished animal for the altarLeviticus 22:20
339. Not to sprinkle its bloodLeviticus 22:24
340. Not to burn its fatLeviticus 22:22
341. Not to offer a temporarily blemished animalDeuteronomy 17:1
342. Not to sacrifice blemished animals even if offered by non-JewsLeviticus 22:25
343. Not to inflict wounds upon dedicated animalsLeviticus 22:21
344. To redeem dedicated animals which have become disqualifiedDeuteronomy 12:15
345. To offer only animals which are at least eight days oldLeviticus 22:27
346. Not to offer animals bought with the wages of a harlot or the animal exchanged for a dogDeuteronomy 23:19
347. Not to burn honey or yeast on the altarLeviticus 2:11
348. To salt all sacrificesLeviticus 2:13
350. Carry out the procedure of the burnt offering as prescribed in the TorahLeviticus 1:3

---

One fulfill doesn't mean end. Matthew 5:17 abolish means misinterpret and fulfill means to properly interpret.

Regarding your use of fulfill, the Messiah was not a sacrifice in this world. He was not properly slaughtered. He was not offered on the alter.

When He was taken to be hung, he was bruised and bloodied. He was blemished from a levitical sacrifice viewpoint.

Not trying to pry into the rest of this conversation, but to me it is clear from Acts that James was the "lead" Apostle. They all clearly deferred to him at the Council of Jerusalem, and James was the one to decide Paul's trial over teaching against Torah. We never see anyone in Acts defer to Peter in this way.

From a logical standpoint, James being in charge also makes more sense. In the decades following the Resurrection, Jerusalem had by far the largest population of Christians and it's spiritual center. James was the head of the Jerusalem church. James was always available for disputes and judgements. We see that in Acts and there are other documents that talk about how even non-Christian Jews would go to James for judgements.

By contrast, Peter was a missionary. He was often traveling. In that era it would be very difficult to reach someone who was traveling. It would not make sense for the head of the church to always be away from the largest concentration of Christians and unreachable for weeks or months at a time. It also wouldn't make sense to start a small church in the heart of a pagan empire and suddenly make it the focal point of your faith. It would be like relocating the Vatican to Tehran. Seems to me that James and the Jerusalem church started as the "heads" of Christianity. Then after 70 AD Jerusalem was destroyed. Of the remaining churches, Rome was closest to the seat of power and therefore the most influential, and it therefore became the single most important church. The Roman church was the exemplar for the powerful, and anything good or bad done with regards to the Roman church affected the entire empire. This solidified when Christianity was made the offical state religion.

I never really saw the point in trying to claim Roman preeminence based on Peter. Rome was plenty preeminent without that.

I read the first article completely and the 2nd article about half way.

There is so much wrong in both of these that I am unable right now to show everything that is clearly wrong.

Let's look at the easiest issue to resolve with this guy's theology. He states that Colossians 2 states that not only did the Messiah pay our debt, but He nailed the Torah to the stake.

If that is so, then why is Paul trying to reach Jerusalem for festivals and making a nazarite vow, paying for others sacrifices for their vows, saying he kept the Torah...no offense against it? Seems strangely odd.

Second the author parallel's Ephesians 2:14-15 with Colossians 2. Ephesians says this:

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

I have a problem with this "parellelism as the author calls it. One b/c Yeshua said He did not come to abolish the Torah, yet Ephesians 2 is saying He did? Call me confused.. If Ephesians 2:14-15 is about the Torah, then you have to either accept the Messiah's or Paul's words. Or, Ephesians 2 is referring to the Torah.

If one wants to take a look at v15 there are several issues with the line of thought that it is referring to Torah. The one I will address at this time is the word translated as ordinances. The Greek word is dogma and means
[ol]

doctrine, decree, ordinance
[ol]

of public decrees

of the Roman Senate

of rulers

[/ol][/ol]
The second definition states that this also is used to refer to the Torah. Yet I contend, that every time this word is used elsewhere in the gospels or epistles it never refers to the Torah. Let's take a look:

Luke 2:1 - And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Acts 16:4 - And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

Acts 17:7 - Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.


Colossians 2:14 -having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.


Here is Colossians 2:13-14 - When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The context is about forgiving our transgressions, our sins. When one sins there is a debt one must pay. You have a penalty. This was hostile towards us. If this is the Torah, then how could Paul also write that the Torah is holy, righteous, spiritual, and good. Is it hostile towards us or holy, righteous, spiritual, and good? It can't be both.


The author also states that the Torah was not meant to be forever. Well, there are many verses in the Torah,
Prophets, and the Writings that refute that thought. The author never provides any support for this thought.

We know that God said about the New Covenant that is between the Houses of Israel and Judah, that He will write the Torah on their heart. Which is also discussed in by Ezekiel.



The second article starts off with a picture of bacon. How sad. His first reference to Scripture is Mark 7, which I have refuted many times. How could the Messiah be calling some of the Pharisees hypocrites for negating a Torah commandment and then negate a Torah commandment? How could the Messiah live perfectly life, yet break a commandment? How could Peter, approx.10 years later not only not have eaten anything unkosher or common, but still call them unkosher and common. It doesn't add up.

Unfortunately, the authors articles were more of the same.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Not trying to pry into the rest of this conversation, but to me it is clear from Acts that James was the "lead" Apostle. They all clearly deferred to him at the Council of Jerusalem, and James was the one to decide Paul's trial over teaching against Torah. We never see anyone in Acts defer to Peter in this way.

From a logical standpoint, James being in charge also makes more sense. In the decades following the Resurrection, Jerusalem had by far the largest population of Christians and it's spiritual center. James was the head of the Jerusalem church. James was always available for disputes and judgements. We see that in Acts and there are other documents that talk about how even non-Christian Jews would go to James for judgements.

By contrast, Peter was a missionary. He was often traveling. In that era it would be very difficult to reach someone who was traveling. It would not make sense for the head of the church to always be away from the largest concentration of Christians and unreachable for weeks or months at a time. It also wouldn't make sense to start a small church in the heart of a pagan empire and suddenly make it the focal point of your faith. It would be like relocating the Vatican to Tehran. Seems to me that James and the Jerusalem church started as the "heads" of Christianity. Then after 70 AD Jerusalem was destroyed. Of the remaining churches, Rome was closest to the seat of power and therefore the most influential, and it therefore became the single most important church. The Roman church was the exemplar for the powerful, and anything good or bad done with regards to the Roman church affected the entire empire. This solidified when Christianity was made the offical state religion.

I never really saw the point in trying to claim Roman preeminence based on Peter. Rome was plenty preeminent without that.

---

1) On letting the gentiles into church. Peter receives a vision from God, Peter alone lets the gentiles into the church. Peter goes back to Jerusalem and discusses with the other Apostles- council of Jerusalem roughly 50AD. Peter speaks first, James does speak last.

2) Also- agree James was apostle over Jerusalem. Peter was a missionary especially since he escaped jail, death at hand from Herod, by angels. Makes logical sense to leave town.

3) The big (3) apostles were Peter, James and John. Peter by far has the most press and leader comments. The one on one comments from Jesus. Also overall in book of Acts significantly about Peter and Paul. shows the leader Peter was, not much on James. Gospels are clear Words of Jesus- Peter you are the rock.

4) Rome is not important. What is important is Peter. Peter dies hands over his authority. in same way beginning of Acts picks Matthias to replace Judas.