Acts 15 v 1Corinthians 8: Did Paul Disagree With The Governing Body?

by Justitia Themis 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  JosephMalik

  Narkissos,

  Or we can say that Paul was highly respectful of them and overly cautious. After all there were other apostles involved as well as the brother of Jesus. Even so he would write: Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Can you imagine saying that such men like James, Cephas and John, "seemed to be pillars" or "But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:" But Paul was still pretty new and dependent on others as he was on Antioch. Later we would see the changes Paul was noted for. I know many here can relate to this growth and have experienced something like this themselves.

  Joseph
• 

  Terry

  They were stuck on the Law and wanted Gentiles to recognize it as well. A little was better than none at all for them. But you know that would still make Gentiles guilty as James finally pointed out. Not a good thing to do. Perhaps it was based on Laws that scripture does not record as Terry mentioned earlier. But the Jews in Jerusalem could not continue to keep the Law and circumcision while Gentiles were exempt. That was clearly wrong and dealt with later.

  The Gentiles were considered differently from the Jews in terms of what must be done/avoided to maintain a status in God's eyes of righteousness.

  This was a double standard.

  The Noahide Law was clearly an effort on the part of Judaism to quell grumbling among Jews held to a higher and more intricate behavior standard.

  Continuing to keep the Law was only an issue (ultimately) among Jews.

  This was suddenly problematic when there was no temple in Jerusalem any more and the priesthood was disbanded.

  Had it not been for the erasure of the center of Judaism and its ritual sacrifices Jews today would still continue as before and Christianized Gentile converts would still be held to the Law of Noah.
• 

  JosephMalik

  Had it not been for the erasure of the center of Judaism and its ritual sacrifices Jews today would still continue as before and Christianized Gentile converts would still be held to the Law of Noah.

  Terry,

  Had it not been for the book of Hebrews maybe. But we also saw that the Jews were not happy with such an arrangement and wanted Gentiles to get circumcised as well. Only Paul stood in their way. So if we speculate then it should be based on this reality which was recorded and not one that was not. And since the Jews were wrong as proven by this book would God accept them as faithful servents? We should know the answer even if we are not the judge.

  Joseph
• 

  TheListener

  Great thread.

  TD you beat me to it as well. The WTS' answer to this issue is weak and ridiculous. And it weakens their anti-blood stance.
• 

  greendawn

  There was no such thing as a governing body in the early church, taht is a silly myth produced by the GB members in order to validate their absolutist tendencies in their org. Note the Apostles in Jerusalem inquired with the local church about the matter something the FDS never does.
  
  And yes Paul did contradict that decision he was after all totally against the Mosaic law which was rigidly followed by Peter, James etc
• 

  JosephMalik

  Note the Apostles in Jerusalem inquired with the local church about the matter

  Greendawn,

  It was worse than this. The apostles conspired with the local church to support the Law and outsiders like Paul and his delegation opposed them. And after Paul won the fight they ignored the ruling since they did not apply it to themselves. And this went on for some 14 and more years? That is what Luke recorded for us. But we can see in Paul's letters that the problem existed elsewhere as well if we look, And we can also now grasp the reason why Paul had a battle with them and used men he laid hands upon to make overseers in such congregations to oppose them there as well. Did Peter appoint overseers to protect doctrinal views? No! Did John or any other apostle? No! No one else did for such reasons. Jews had a tendency to do this naturally but they were not elders appointed under apostolic authority. They were appointed traditionally and Judaism was now gone as an exclusive institution. They had no real authority as only an apostle personally appointed by Christ had. Such elders no longer exist but no one seems to notice.

  Joseph