Peter, James and Barnabas were very wrong..... Why accept 1 and 2nd Peter or James?

[jeremiah1five]

I believe that but you said what you said about Atonement yearly in the lives of the Jews. This not true of Abraham, Moses and others. Just admit it and move on. Change or not. You should change your argument.

I'll let the Word of God prove me right:

Abraham:
7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him. Gen. 12:7.

18 Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD. Gen. 13:18.

Abraham built many altars to the Lord. I'm pretty sure he offered an animal, too, which was first taught to Adam and Eve in the Garden. Abel gave offering of a lamb from his flock, and so did the group of people who were the seed of the woman and NOT the seed of the serpent but were the obedient ones, like Seth, Enoch, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Salah, Eber, Abraham, and the list goes on. Now, Moses.

Moses:
3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD.
6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
Exodus 24:3–8.

1 And Moses with the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, Keep all the commandments which I command you this day.
2 And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaister them with plaister:
3 And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee.
4 Therefore it shall be when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaister them with plaister.
5 And there shalt thou build an altar unto the LORD thy God, an altar of stones: thou shalt not lift up any iron tool upon them.
6 Thou shalt build the altar of the LORD thy God of whole stones: and thou shalt offer burnt offerings thereon unto the LORD thy God:
7 And thou shalt offer peace offerings, and shalt eat there, and rejoice before the LORD thy God.
8 And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly.
Deut. 27:1-8

God's obedient people, the children of Israel obeyed God and built a great many altars to worship God, they offered animals, birds, grain, etc.
So, yes, there were offerings for atonement for sin. That was the basis upon which the Lamb of God in obedience to the Law of Moses would offer Himself as substitute for the animal sacrifice and die finally and forever for the sins of the children of Israel. This is why Saul said:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Gal. 4:4–5.

Christ was under the Law and Christ fulfilled the Law, especially the part where the animal was sacrificed for the sins of the children of Israel as commanded under the Law.

 

[TheLayman]

This is an academic exercise to show just how ill prepared the average Christian is to defend their canon of choice".....

These are questions that caused bible.org to abandon their forum in the early 2000s.

Paul's letter itself details how Peter was living in sin for a significant amount of time.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Notice how this particular "James" was in sin himself....

If these men acted like this for an extended time, which evidently they did, then why trust their writings?

Did Peter repent? Did James change?

Again. This is an academic exercise in your ability to defend the veracity of the NT as canonized among both Catholics and Protestants.

The idea of any writer of any book of the Bible, and in particular the NT since this is what your question pertains to, having to be perfect and sinless in order for their writings to be accepted, was never a consideration or condition. No one ever taught that they were sinless including the Apostles themselves. Jesus gave them authority over the church and thus their preserved instructions to the church were considered authoritative.

TheLayman

 

[praise_yeshua]

The idea of any writer of any book of the Bible, and in particular the NT since this is what your question pertains to, having to be perfect and sinless in order for their writings to be accepted, was never a consideration or condition. No one ever taught that they were sinless including the Apostles themselves. Jesus gave them authority over the church and thus their preserved instructions to the church were considered authoritative.

TheLayman

Do you know how many times I've heard that argument in my life?

Let me give you a response that you've never heard/recognized.....

You're presenting a hypocritical scenario.

"James" is demanding an adherence to the laws of God to find acceptance or be "justified" before God. Yet, you're claiming that no such requirement exists for the writers of the NT.

How can you miss this hypocritical argument you just made.

You are basically making a "what I preach for you is different than what I preach for myself.

Not to mention you're committing the "authority fallacy". You.... know.... "don't do as I do, do as I say".....

I eagerly await your response. Please don't keep me waiting.....

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'll let the Word of God prove me right:

Abraham:
7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him. Gen. 12:7.

18 Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD. Gen. 13:18.

Abraham built many altars to the Lord. I'm pretty sure he offered an animal, too, which was first taught to Adam and Eve in the Garden. Abel gave offering of a lamb from his flock, and so did the group of people who were the seed of the woman and NOT the seed of the serpent but were the obedient ones, like Seth, Enoch, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Salah, Eber, Abraham, and the list goes on. Now, Moses.

Moses:
3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD.
6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
Exodus 24:3–8.

1 And Moses with the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, Keep all the commandments which I command you this day.
2 And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaister them with plaister:
3 And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee.
4 Therefore it shall be when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaister them with plaister.
5 And there shalt thou build an altar unto the LORD thy God, an altar of stones: thou shalt not lift up any iron tool upon them.
6 Thou shalt build the altar of the LORD thy God of whole stones: and thou shalt offer burnt offerings thereon unto the LORD thy God:
7 And thou shalt offer peace offerings, and shalt eat there, and rejoice before the LORD thy God.
8 And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly.
Deut. 27:1-8

God's obedient people, the children of Israel obeyed God and built a great many altars to worship God, they offered animals, birds, grain, etc.
So, yes, there were offerings for atonement for sin. That was the basis upon which the Lamb of God in obedience to the Law of Moses would offer Himself as substitute for the animal sacrifice and die finally and forever for the sins of the children of Israel. This is why Saul said:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Gal. 4:4–5.

Christ was under the Law and Christ fulfilled the Law, especially the part where the animal was sacrificed for the sins of the children of Israel as commanded under the Law.

Where did you reference the 40 years that Moses spent away from Egypt?

Where is it said that Abraham keep the day of Atonement every year? Don't bloviate. Just provide the reference.

 

[TheLayman]

Do you know how many times I've heard that argument in my life?

Perhaps there is a reason for that.

Let me give you a response that you've never heard/recognized.....

You're presenting a hypocritical scenario.

"James" is demanding an adherence to the laws of God to find acceptance or be "justified" before God. Yet, you're claiming that no such requirement exists for the writers of the NT.

I provided not one sentence of exegesis of even one verse of James so I could not have made such an argument. That means you didn't understand my answer...you certainly haven't responded to it.

How can you miss this hypocritical argument you just made.

I made no hypocritical argument,,,I made no argument at all. It is clear you have a high opinion of your "debating skills," but perhaps you should learn what an argument is and what it looks like. For example, you are not making an "argument," you are simply "arguing." You just throw around unsupported assertions, accusations, and strawmen. Of course such things are not worth any of my time.

You are basically making a "what I preach for you is different than what I preach for myself.

Again, never said any such thing...I didn't talk about myself at all.

Not to mention you're committing the "authority fallacy". You.... know.... "don't do as I do, do as I say".....

I didn't tell anyone to do what I say...and again, you apparently don't know what the "authority fallacy" is (I'm assuming you mean the "appeal to an authority" fallacy). That goes like this: Premise + authority who agrees with my premise = my premise is correct. I, on the other hand, was actually talking about "church authority," I wasn't appealing to someone who agreed with my premise.

I eagerly await your response. Please don't keep me waiting.....

I responded to you, I answered you, and you like accept my answer. I don't care, I don't have the power to convince anyone of anything. Anything beyond this from me you will be waiting on for a long time.

TheLayman

 

[praise_yeshua]

Perhaps there is a reason for that.

There is always a reason for everything. You know, cause and effect. The reason I've heard this before because the many times I've debated this topic. It is easy to recognize an "appeal to authority fallacy".

I provided not one sentence of exegesis of even one verse of James so I could not have made such an argument. That means you didn't understand my answer...you certainly haven't responded to it.

Can you read the title of this thread? Don't be ignorant. It is about James.

I made no hypocritical argument,,,I made no argument at all. It is clear you have a high opinion of your "debating skills," but perhaps you should learn what an argument is and what it looks like. For example, you are not making an "argument," you are simply "arguing." You just throw around unsupported assertions, accusations, and strawmen. Of course such things are not worth any of my time.

You have an high opinion of the value of your time.....

You made an argument because you responded to what I said to another, thusly, it became your argument.

Again, never said any such thing...I didn't talk about myself at all.

Wrong, you talked about the value of your time. Do you remember?

I didn't tell anyone to do what I say...and again, you apparently don't know what the "authority fallacy" is (I'm assuming you mean the "appeal to an authority" fallacy). That goes like this: Premise + authority who agrees with my premise = my premise is correct. I, on the other hand, was actually talking about "church authority," I wasn't appealing to someone who agreed with my premise.

What church authority? Define the "church" you're referencing and it will "boil down" to a canonical council that had not authority at all. You don't understand where you're going.

I responded to you, I answered you, and you like accept my answer. I don't care, I don't have the power to convince anyone of anything. Anything beyond this from me you will be waiting on for a long time.

TheLayman

Then bow out. Your choice. You're simply realizing that your fallacy can't be defended. So claim victory and run away.

The argument made was hypocritical in that you do not meet the requirements to be trusted. With your "authoritative claims".

What I said was "technical" and "rhetorical" I'm at least a 10 steps ahead of you. So come on back and lets finish this. Your time isn't valuable as you think it is. It will not cost anything but your integrity. I'm sure that is "beyond question" because "you said so".

 

[jeremiah1five]

The idea of any writer of any book of the Bible, and in particular the NT since this is what your question pertains to, having to be perfect and sinless in order for their writings to be accepted, was never a consideration or condition. No one ever taught that they were sinless including the Apostles themselves. Jesus gave them authority over the church and thus their preserved instructions to the church were considered authoritative.

TheLayman

Jesus never gave them authority over the church. Post the Scripture of this and we'll see whether your interpretation is sound.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Where did you reference the 40 years that Moses spent away from Egypt?

Where is it said that Abraham keep the day of Atonement every year? Don't bloviate. Just provide the reference.

I never said he sacrificed for forty years in the desert every year. I am merely saying at events and highlights of God showing up Abraham built an altar and worshiped (called on the name of the Lord - you've heard of that before, yes? It means worship and only someone in relation with God can worship God. Anyone who is not called of God and has relationship with God cannot worship God because God does not anoint it to be acceptable and if God hasn't called someone then no one can come.)

But in forty years I am sure he spoken daily with His God.

 

[David Koberstein]

Jesus never gave them authority over the church. Post the Scripture of this and we'll see whether your interpretation is sound.

I never said he sacrificed for forty years in the desert every year. I am merely saying at events and highlights of God showing up Abraham built an altar and worshiped (called on the name of the Lord - you've heard of that before, yes? It means worship and only someone in relation with God can worship God. Anyone who is not called of God and has relationship with God cannot worship God because God does not anoint it to be acceptable and if God hasn't called someone then no one can come.)

But in forty years I am sure he spoken daily with His God.

Pure conjecture.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Pure conjecture.

Good response.

 

[jeremiah1five]

This is an academic exercise to show just how ill prepared the average Christian is to defend their canon of choice".....

These are questions that caused bible.org to abandon their forum in the early 2000s.

Paul's letter itself details how Peter was living in sin for a significant amount of time.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Notice how this particular "James" was in sin himself....

This, coming from one who's been infected with Constantinian Gentile theology.
Petr, James, Barnabas, Saul, every born-again Hebrew were not sinning for obeying and observing the Law.
In having God put in their inward parts His Law they were now as perfectly righteous as Christ the moment they were born-again and by having every gift of the Father given to His born-again people God could only see them all just as Christ was and did, and that is being seen and accepted as also obeying the Law as perfectly as Christ did as their Substitute.
The issue Saul had with Peter was exactly as he explained it in Galatians 2:14.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Gal. 2:14.

And what was the "truth of the gospel?" The good news that Israel's Messiah had come to atone for the sins of the children of Israel and that there was no problem living as a Hebrew/Jew and doing those things commanded under the Law as good, obedient, observant Hebrews/Jews do under the Law. Now that their Substitute, Jesus Christ, fulfilled the Law and nailed the Law to His cross, the letter of the Law died with Him, but it also resurrected in newness of life with Christ as well and when Christ dwells in the born-again believer ("the kingdom of God is within you"), the Law which Saul said is spiritual was now imparted and put as spiritual Laws in their inward parts and God sees them and every born-again believer as also obeying perfectly the Law as Christ did as their Substitute. This is, after all, the grounds of their justification and God declaring them, "Not Guilty!" Why else would God declare them "Not Guilty" and justify them as such? For obeying Roman Law??? No, it all had to do with their failure of obeying the Law perfectly before the cross (offend in one offend in all) and being declared "Guilty" having no Advocate or Intermediary.
That is, until Christ.

If these men acted like this for an extended time, which evidently they did, then why trust their writings?

It has nothing to do with their behavior by which anyone would trust what they wrote or said, but instead have they written and spoken the same things as God which is written in the Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and Prophets? It is THIS Scripture Jesus said cannot be broken. It is THIS Scripture Peter says, "lives and abides forever", and the same Scripture that now as a spiritual being having the Law put in their inward parts is used of the Holy Spirit for instruction in righteousness so that they may NOW be "perfect and throughly furnished unto all good works."

Did Peter repent? Did James change?

What Pete and Jim needed to do was to live as they had before, as Hebrew/Jewish men under the Law and stop with their hypocrisy of what Saul confronted them with in Gal. 2:14. This was the issue they needed to correct (repent.)

Again. This is an academic exercise in your ability to defend the veracity of the NT as canonized among both Catholics and Protestants.

No need to do that. There's no need to defend anything except ONE THING: to defend everything written in the New Covenant writings from Matthew to Revelation that does not break or contradict the Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and Prophets. There is nothing wrong with these men (and woman) who were born-again and continued to obey and observe the Law of Moses. As born-again Jewish Christians they were already justified and declared "Not Guilty!" and with that the resurrected Christ has made them all free from the law of sin and death.

 

[David Koberstein]

This, coming from one who's been infected with Constantinian Gentile theology.
Petr, James, Barnabas, Saul, every born-again Hebrew were not sinning for obeying and observing the Law.
In having God put in their inward parts His Law they were now as perfectly righteous as Christ the moment they were born-again and by having every gift of the Father given to His born-again people God could only see them all just as Christ was and did, and that is being seen and accepted as also obeying the Law as perfectly as Christ did as their Substitute.
The issue Saul had with Peter was exactly as he explained it in Galatians 2:14.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Gal. 2:14.

And what was the "truth of the gospel?" The good news that Israel's Messiah had come to atone for the sins of the children of Israel and that there was no problem living as a Hebrew/Jew and doing those things commanded under the Law as good, obedient, observant Hebrews/Jews do under the Law. Now that their Substitute, Jesus Christ, fulfilled the Law and nailed the Law to His cross, the letter of the Law died with Him, but it also resurrected in newness of life with Christ as well and when Christ dwells in the born-again believer ("the kingdom of God is within you"), the Law which Saul said is spiritual was now imparted and put as spiritual Laws in their inward parts and God sees them and every born-again believer as also obeying perfectly the Law as Christ did as their Substitute. This is, after all, the grounds of their justification and God declaring them, "Not Guilty!" Why else would God declare them "Not Guilty" and justify them as such? For obeying Roman Law??? No, it all had to do with their failure of obeying the Law perfectly before the cross (offend in one offend in all) and being declared "Guilty" having no Advocate or Intermediary.
That is, until Christ.

It has nothing to do with their behavior by which anyone would trust what they wrote or said, but instead have they written and spoken the same things as God which is written in the Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and Prophets? It is THIS Scripture Jesus said cannot be broken. It is THIS Scripture Peter says, "lives and abides forever", and the same Scripture that now as a spiritual being having the Law put in their inward parts is used of the Holy Spirit for instruction in righteousness so that they may NOW be "perfect and throughly furnished unto all good works."

What Pete and Jim needed to do was to live as they had before, as Hebrew/Jewish men under the Law and stop with their hypocrisy of what Saul confronted them with in Gal. 2:14. This was the issue they needed to correct (repent.)

No need to do that. There's no need to defend anything except ONE THING: to defend everything written in the New Covenant writings from Matthew to Revelation that does not break or contradict the Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and Prophets. There is nothing wrong with these men (and woman) who were born-again and continued to obey and observe the Law of Moses. As born-again Jewish Christians they were already justified and declared "Not Guilty!" and with that the resurrected Christ has made them all free from the law of sin and death.

Gosh you sure have an overactive imagination. Sounds like reverse antisemitism to me. Why are you so racist against Gentile Christians?

 

[jeremiah1five]

Gosh you sure have an overactive imagination. Sounds like reverse antisemitism to me. Why are you so racist against Gentile Christians?

Wow, that's a great comeback. But then again what I have said is the truth despite your ignorance.
I find it interesting a person with what seems a "Jewish" surname is teaching Gentile theology.
What's the matter? The Hebrew Scripture isn't good enough for you? It was for Jesus, Peter, James, John, and the rest of the Jewish Christians who after meeting the Holy Spirit of Promise PROMISED to the children of Israel continued to obey and observe the Law of Moses and did an excellent job of it, too. But that's what true, biblical Christians did in the first century. I wonder what happened to you?

 

[David Koberstein]

Wow, that's a great comeback. But then again what I have said is the truth despite your ignorance.
I find it interesting a person with what seems a "Jewish" surname is teaching Gentile theology.
What's the matter? The Hebrew Scripture isn't good enough for you? It was for Jesus, Peter, James, John, and the rest of the Jewish Christians who after meeting the Holy Spirit of Promise PROMISED to the children of Israel continued to obey and observe the Law of Moses and did an excellent job of it, too. But that's what true, biblical Christians did in the first century. I wonder what happened to you?

You have never spoke the truth on this forum, so why start now? Of course I believe you are not capable to speak the truth, much less live⁷ it biblically. Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians are one in Yeshua. Sure we have minor differences between us. But with you it's Gentile Christian racism. Was your Gentile parents not nice to.you? Therapy could help you.

 

[jeremiah1five]

You have never spoke the truth on this forum, so why start now? Of course I believe you are not capable to speak the truth, much less live⁷ it biblically. Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians are one in Yeshua. Sure we have minor differences between us. But with you it's Gentile Christian racism. Was your Gentile parents not nice to.you? Therapy could help you.

I see you don't reply to what I said with counter argument with Scripture to support your reply.

The New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah when rightly understood IS the Mosaic Covenant fulfilled by Christ.
And that this New Covenant which is fulfilled by Christ and initiated in His body and blood at the last Passover meal (a Hebrew observance) and that in fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant who was sent as the Lamb OF GOD as substitute for the animal sacrifice which under the Law was sacrificed yearly to temporarily atone (for one year) for the sins of the children of Israel under the Law and as substitute and fulfilling the Law His sacrifice also in place of the animal was to atone for the sins of the children of Israel finally and forever?

Tell me...have I rightly understood the animal sacrifice and Christ sent by God as substitute of the animal sacrificed and by fulfilling the Law God use Christ's substitution of the animal to atone for the sins of the children of Israel?
Have I got this right? Or does "substitute" and "fulfilling the Law" mean something else entirely? If so, what is it?