Acts 15:21 is often misused and misunderstood. A no spin zone thread!

[Frogster]

Soyeong, look at how the temple Jews got enraged, as soon as Paul used the gentile "word". Why would synagogue Jews not react negatively to Christians, especially Gentile ones, in their synagogues? Everyone knows that the Jews and Greeks did not get along, for the most part. Gosh, Paul said "gentile", then they wanted to kill him. This is all why it is obvious that Acts 15:21, is not as you suppose, too much history, practical common sense, logic, and just the facts, disprove your view of said verse.



Acts 22:21 And he said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’”

22 Up to this word they listened to him. Then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live.”

 

[Soyeong]

Oh please, there are so many biased sites out there, I won't waste my time.

As said I've never seen you be persuaded by evidence when your speculation is in the way. It doesn't matter how much evidence I can provide about what 1st century Christians were like if it can all be dismissed as biased without even looking at it. Everyone is biased, but that doesn't mean everything is false, but rather it means that you should be discerning about whether biased as unduly influenced someone's work. If you just blindly dismiss everything that doesn't support your speculation, then you should be far more concerned with reducing your own bias. I found those sites in under a minute and could easily find more, so I'm curious if you can even find one that supports your speculation.

Give me text, and disprove all of the common sense I posted. You want to post links, instead of talking about what makes sense.

What you posted was a bunch of made up nonsense that has nothing to do with common sense. But really, just because you can't make sense of someone's decision doesn't mean you can alter history to fit your wims.

Acts 8

, there were persecutions against the Jewish Christians, synagogues were no longer safe, and wow, by Acts 12, it pleased the Jews to try to kill Peter. Read 12, it is there, and they were glad James was killed too.

All of the Christians for at least the first seven or so years after Christ's ascension were Jews who were not persecuting themselves. Yes, there were a group of Jews who were persecuting Christians, but that was hardly all of them.

So do you really think, that by 49 AD, years later, at the time of the council meeting, that there were Christians in synagogues? Let alone Gentile Christians!?

Of course, that's what Acts 21 and pretty much all the historical sources say. Personal incredulity is not a counterargument, nor does it count as proof.

 

[listed]

Paul was fighting off the circumcision group, not Judaism. The covenant was made with Jews and Gentiles are grafted in.



Again, the Jews who were trying to kill him does not mean that all Jews were trying to kill him. The were trying to get gentiles to follow both the written and oral law in order to be saved, which is what Paul didn't want, but Paul did not reject the law of God. Similarly, not all Jews were trying to kill Jesus.



The word used refers to an assembly, not the building.



Galatians 5:4 makes it clear that he is talking about justification. They would be required to keep the whole law if they were going to be justified by it. The laws says that to keep passover one had to be circumcised, not be Jewish.



This shows that Paul submitted to their authority, in accordance with how he encourages gentiles to do in Romans 13.



Jesus laid down his own life and died because of me and everyone else. Blaming the Jews for killing the Messiah didn't start up until later when Christianity had begun separating itself from its Jewish roots.



I thought you said this was a no spin zone? The "For" in verse 21 connects it with the previous thought about what Gentiles were doing. The idea in verses 19:21 is not to make it too difficult for new converts by teaching them to follow all of the laws up front and Paul excused that by saying they would continue to learn how to keep them every Sabbath.

The circumcision group are people subscribing to Judaism. You can not have 1 without the other when it comes to religious matters.

 

[listed]

You speculate about that. I proved clearly that the synagogues were no place for the Christians historically, and just by reason, that is the thread. Show me one part here where you give sound reason, to contradict my whole premise. The synagogues were not for Christians, you did not refute my facts, you just tried to say things that really were not about proving me wrong, about he synagogues.

Mark 13:9
“But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them.

Besides that he most likely does not attend the synagogue himself.

 

[Soyeong]

The circumcision group are people subscribing to Judaism. You can not have 1 without the other when it comes to religious matters.

Of course, they were subscribing to a form of Judaism, but they were not following Judaism as God intended it to be followed.

 

[listed]

It's nice that you call your speculation proof while denouncing what happened historically as speculation. No spin zone, no siree! All throughout Acts they are meeting the temple or in synagogues.

Who exactly is they? The synagogue is a place where Jews meet for religious activity. It was run by Jews who were for the most part unbelievers and hated the Christians. Read Acts.

 

[listed]

It's nice that you call your speculation proof while denouncing what happened historically as speculation. No spin zone, no siree! All throughout Acts they are meeting the temple or in synagogues.

What do you want or expect from their side of the unbelieving fence?

 

[listed]

Paul preached and rebuked the UNsaved, they were not saved when Paul came, that is a fact, , now please prove the red above. I await...

It does seem rather odd Paul was preaching to Christians seeing the people he preached to found his preaching novel meaning they have never heard such prior to his arrival.

 

[Frogster]

As said I've never seen you be persuaded by evidence when your speculation is in the way. It doesn't matter how much evidence I can provide about what 1st century Christians were like if it can all be dismissed as biased without even looking at it. Everyone is biased, but that doesn't mean everything is false, but rather it means that you should be discerning about whether biased as unduly influenced someone's work. If you just blindly dismiss everything that doesn't support your speculation, then you should be far more concerned with reducing your own bias. I found those sites in under a minute and could easily find more, so I'm curious if you can even find one that supports your speculation.



What you posted was a bunch of made up nonsense that has nothing to do with common sense. But really, just because you can't make sense of someone's decision doesn't mean you can alter history to fit your wims.



All of the Christians for at least the first seven or so years after Christ's ascension were Jews who were not persecuting themselves. Yes, there were a group of Jews who were persecuting Christians, but that was hardly all of them.



Of course, that's what Acts 21 and pretty much all the historical sources say. Personal incredulity is not a counterargument, nor does it count as proof.

well, the other stuff is no about text, or fact, it is just sort of personal stuff. If had no technical merit to respond too.

But the red, well that dog won't hunt!

It pleased the Jews to kill James, that was talking about the mass of people in Acts 12.

In Matt 27, it was the masses of people, who said "His blood on us".

"we have Caesar as our king", they said.

Paul talked about the plots of the Jews, that was a broad statement, it was not about a band of 5 men.

The priests gave letters to persecute, they would not do that if the masses were not in agreement.

So lets not act like it was just some small band of killers, some ("group") running around doing the persecution, it was accepted by the majority, and their government.

Even early in Acts, they ordered Peter to get beaten, so again, this was saturated, especially by 49AD.

Acts 5:40 and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

5:33 When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them.

All and all....the facts stand that I posted.

 

[Frogster]

The circumcision group are people subscribing to Judaism. You can not have 1 without the other when it comes to religious matters.

Exactly. Case closed, the verdict is in!

 

[Frogster]

It does seem rather odd Paul was preaching to Christians seeing the people he preached to found his preaching novel meaning they have never heard such prior to his arrival.

Interesting point.

 

[Soyeong]

It pleased the Jews to kill James, that was talking about the mass of people in Acts 12.

A single stirred up crowd is not representative of all Jews. Most Jews didn't even know Jesus had been arrested.

 

[Soyeong]

Who exactly is they? The synagogue is a place where Jews meet for religious activity. It was run by Jews who were for the most part unbelievers and hated the Christians. Read Acts.

Not all Jews were unbelievers, many were followers of Christ. The thousands who converted in Acts 2 were pretty much all Jews. For the most part it wasn't easy for to distinguish which people at a synagogue were believers in Christ and which ones weren't.

 

[Frogster]

A single stirred up crowd is not representative of all Jews. Most Jews didn't even know Jesus had been arrested.

red above, where does it say that? Again, believe me alot of Jews knew who Peter was and James, and just what was going on, lets let go if this mindset, that all this stuff happened by a group of 5. If it did not please the masses, Herod would not have been do quick to go for Peter. "he saw" it pleased the masses, if it did not, he would have been hesitant.


12:3 and when he saw that it pleased the Jews,

 

[Frogster]

Not all Jews were unbelievers, many were followers of Christ. The thousands who converted in Acts 2 were pretty much all Jews. For the most part it wasn't easy for to distinguish which people at a synagogue were believers in Christ and which ones weren't.

Excuse me, but believers would identify themselves as testimony, what you say here does not jive. Why in the synagogues, when the unsaved Jews were still seeking the Messiah in the OT public readings, would the Christians not say anything, thus identifying their faith? PS, not all were in synagogues, they also were in home churches, and again, Christians after a few years, would not be in the synagogues, especially when hostilities really heated up. Acts 8 was not exactly 30 years later, the ones, in the synagogues, were not there for long!

 

[bugkiller]

As said I've never seen you be persuaded by evidence when your speculation is in the way. It doesn't matter how much evidence I can provide about what 1st century Christians were like if it can all be dismissed as biased without even looking at it. Everyone is biased, but that doesn't mean everything is false, but rather it means that you should be discerning about whether biased as unduly influenced someone's work. If you just blindly dismiss everything that doesn't support your speculation, then you should be far more concerned with reducing your own bias. I found those sites in under a minute and could easily find more, so I'm curious if you can even find one that supports your speculation.



What you posted was a bunch of made up nonsense that has nothing to do with common sense. But really, just because you can't make sense of someone's decision doesn't mean you can alter history to fit your wims.



All of the Christians for at least the first seven or so years after Christ's ascension were Jews who were not persecuting themselves. Yes, there were a group of Jews who were persecuting Christians, but that was hardly all of them.



Of course, that's what Acts 21 and pretty much all the historical sources say. Personal incredulity is not a counterargument, nor does it count as proof.

You're simply unbelievable.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Not all Jews were unbelievers, many were followers of Christ. The thousands who converted in Acts 2 were pretty much all Jews. For the most part it wasn't easy for to distinguish which people at a synagogue were believers in Christ and which ones weren't.

What's your point?

You really think the Jews were that dumb?

bugkiller

 

[Lulav]

People try to Act like Acts 15:21, meant that Gentile converts to Christianity, were to go to the synagogues, to learn the law. That is incorrect, big time!

Everyone already knows, they met from house to house...we know they did not have churches with steeples. But the Christians were not in synagogues, were they?

Acts 17:17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. 5 But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd.

Give me text, and disprove all of the common sense I posted. You want to post links, instead of talking about what makes sense.

Case closed!

You proved it yourself that Gentiles were in the synagogues.

In the ancient Roman world, Gentile God-fearers were present in synagogues and were a source of many early Christian converts. There is no reason to think that Paul's gentiles, now that they've made the incredible commitment to the God of Israel by not worshiping their own gods anymore, would stop going to the synagogue and listening to the Bible.
http://www.kesherjournal.com/plugins/editors/jce/tiny_mce/plugins/paste/blank.htm#_ftn10
Judaism was popular enough that Juvenal* satirized Roman citizens for keeping the Sabbath, food laws, and other Jewish practices. Centuries later, John Chrysostom gave sermons against Christians attending both church and synagogue, providing evidence for the popularity of the practice. Chrysostom and others dissuaded Christians from praying with Jews by outlawing the practice and by espousing a teaching of contempt for Jews and Judaism. This teaching has in recent years been repudiated by the Roman Catholic church and several Protestant bodies, yet much estrangement still exists.

* A Roman satirical poet writing in the late 1st century into the early second century.

 

[Lulav]

You're simply unbelievable.

bugkiller

Better I guess than being unteachable.

Proverbs 12:1

 

[Lulav]

Soyeong, look at how the temple Jews got enraged, as soon as Paul used the gentile "word". Why would synagogue Jews not react negatively to Christians, especially Gentile ones, in their synagogues? Everyone knows that the Jews and Greeks did not get along, for the most part. Gosh, Paul said "gentile", then they wanted to kill him. This is all why it is obvious that Acts 15:21, is not as you suppose, too much history, practical common sense, logic, and just the facts, disprove your view of said verse.



Acts 22:21 And he said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’”

22 Up to this word they listened to him. Then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live.”

Didn't you also quote this:

“This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.