You keep saying that the abolishment of circumcision is clear in Amos 9:11-12 but it isn’t. No one could make that connection because the verse is too vague and could’ve been referring to almost anything. Which is why they had to meet together to reach a decision instead of just quoting Amos 9 to begin with.
You are both misrepresenting me and Scripture. If you keep it up you will further marginalize yourself. I did not say the abolishment of circumcision is clear in Amos 9:11-12 but that "James would hardly be thinking of Amos 9:11-12 in isolation, while revelation of what [prophecy of] Scripture is being fulfilled and its meaning is different than a revelation apart from Scripture." And that the revelation or illumination that "conversion of the Gentiles and Amos 9:11,12 signified was that this was a result of the institution of of the new covenant with its justification by grace thru faith, like as Abraham had appropriated before circumcision."
And as just said, "the revelation that indicated the New Covenant was in force and thus the ceremonial purity laws of uncleaness no longer applied was that of Peter being told to eat unclean foods, and thus to eat with Gentiles. James recognized this as a fulfillment of prophecy."
But which you ignored. Now while Amos 9:11,12 did not actually mention circumcision as it was confirming the coming of Christ, which thus instituted the new cov., yet the revelation of James did not begin with Amos, but with Peter being told to eat unclean animals. Which meant he thus could eat with Gentles who were also not circumcised, and which was what upset his brethren who charged, "Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." (Acts 11:3) That was a very Big Deal.
Thus we see a connection btwn the abrogation against eating unclean foods and thus communion with uncircumcised regenerated Gentiles, which made it rather obvious that circumcision was not necessary for either conversion or Christian fellowship. Therefore while Peter had them baptized, he did not have them circumcised, as he understood that that a covenantal change was taking place.
Therefore we next have the exhortation of Peter, "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 15:10-11)
It is rather obvious that Peter was not referring to a little change being allowed, but instead he is referring to the new covenant of grace, which the conversion and inclusion of uncircumcised regenerated Gentiles signified.
Next comes James, who invokes Messianic prophecy as being fulfilled by what Peter described, and whose judgment as to what should be done, as I said, was "confirmatory of Peter's exhortation and his testimony and that of Paul and Barnabas." Meaning James also recognized that the yoke of the Law, which included circumcision, was not to be imposed upon converts whom God had already confirmed as members of the body of Christ.
So if you to major on revelation, look to that which was given to Peter first of all, and then realize that it was revelation of what Scripture prophesied, with the ramifications being explained by men (Paul above all) speaking and writings by wholly inspired of God, versus your non-apostles making doctrines out of the traditions of men that are not
fulfillments of Scripture or taught therein as beliefs of the NT churc h.
I believe Jesus’ church of God still exists today and has always existed since the day it was established in Jerusalem.
Believing that will not make it true, and it is very manifest that it is not.
I don’t believe that it was silenced for 1500 years by evil.
It was not, and which is another example of your tendency to argue using either/or fallacies.
So the problem is where is Jesus’ church for the first 1500 years of Christianity? If it wasn’t the Catholic Church was it hiding silently producing no fruit or was it silenced by evil?
True believers existed as a remnant within Israel despite is overall apostasy, and thus the faith persevered, and likewise in the history of Christianity. Thanks be to God. The organized structured OT church (as a called-out assembly) as well those in the history of Christianity are not the one true church, but it is the Lord's body, to which He is marriefor it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.
I also believe that His Church will receive revelations from the Holy Spirit.
We are speaking not of private revelations (like pastors may hope for during the offering
but public revelations like as Paul received, and speaking or writing them as wholly inspired of God. And which your church is not as, and manifestly does not, but seeing as unlike Paul,
Catholic distinctive are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation, then I can understand the weight you must place upon your church speaking as men such as apostles could.
The debates between Orthodox and Protestants reminds me of debates between Christians and atheists. Christians say God exists atheists say prove it. If you can’t prove it He doesn’t exist. Much the same with Protestants and Orthodox. If you can’t prove it with the scriptures it isn’t true.
And requiring evidence, if not 100% laboratory proof, is valid, as God did not require blind unwarranted faith, but provides evidential warrant sufficient to take a step of faith, which results in proof.
And as we provide evidence to atheists that the universe and Scripture have a supernatural origin, so we also provide evidence as to what the NT church manifestly believed.. By which your church, and more so Rome, is disqualified as uniquely being the one true church.
In contrast to which is making the church itself an object of faith, so that in any conflict, including that of the future, Scripture, tradition and history only surely consist of and mean whatever she says. Which is cultic, not Christian.
Ensured infallibility was never required or promised to the people of God, but God raised up men who spoke by the Spirit the word of God, and God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31) Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)
And thus as
abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.