Alexei, peace to you
Please let me now try and explain your next comment.
That's why the Council of Jerusalem was held to solve these problems. This council itself had many gaps:
I think it's true to say, that within Christendom back in the early church as today, there was a basic foundation of faith.. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Now, the how to follow your faith does show variations amongst Christians.How these differences come about are no different in many ways than that of Islam. The Bible likewise calls for unity amongst believers, but it is not always the case. I guess, the simplest way to explain is to quote from this article
The Quran condemns dividing into religion into sects . That means Quran condemns all sects :
[42] He decreed for you the same Deen decreed for Noah, and what we inspired to you, and what we decreed for Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: "You shall uphold this one religion, and do not divide it." The idol worshipers will greatly resent what you invite them to do. GOD redeems to Himself whomever He wills; He guides to Himself only those who totally submit.
All sects and divisions in Islam, whether Sunni, Shias, Ahmaddis, Ismailli......etc have disagreements about hadith and sunnah attributed to the prophet. However, these same sects have no disagreements about the Quran.
Muslims divide because they follow different sources besides the Quran
It is sources of religious law, stories, conjecture, etc. outside the Quran which have
created these sects. At the end of this article three "authentic" hadith have been produced
about the last sermon of the prophet. The different versions/conjecture gave rise to sects.
Muslims divide into sects because they follow different sources of religious law, stories, conjecture, etc besides the Quran . If the Muslims follow one consistent source i.e the Quran , they can never be divided .But most of them choose to follow disputing Hadiths that contradict each other :
http://groups.msn.com/SubmissionToGodAl ... islam.msnw
(the purpose of that quote is to show that there are differences in Islam amongst different groups, so you can hopefully see, that what is true in Islam is therefore not unique to Christianity.)
Returning to our subject... what existed in the early church was many different groups each with their own particular view on how Christianity should be practised. The Council in Jerusalem was the Church's first attempt to try and put some of these differences away and come to an agreement that all would be happy with. Of particualar concern, was how Judaistic should the new Church look.
Yes, there are many gaps and even contradictions of practice, for if you read on, there continues to be controversy, but the value of the Council wans not it's resolutions, but the fact that there was a universal agreement amongst all that were present that the Gospel was for everyone.. whether they be Jew or Gentile.
Now to some of those gaps you have mentioned... in 15:5 you have a description of the Pharisees who stood and said that "the Jews must be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses."
There was obviously discussion amongst themselves on this subject, no doubt some agreed and some disagreed, but no unity could be reached on this subject, which to the jews was very important. Why? Because to the Jew, circumcision represented a "setting apart of a person to God". It was a voluntary method used to show a Gentile convert to Judaism, and many thought this should be the same for a Christian also. (Baptism actually became the accepted method of identifying yourself publically as a Christian but this is discussed in another forum thread if it is still in the forum somewhere).
Now Peter, obviously had seen that God didnot require circumcision.. He had personally seen how God was touching the lives of Gentiles without the need for them becoming like Jews. He stands and declares what he has seen, something that is in sharp contrast to what the pharisees were teaching. God is not constrained by race to bring a people to Himself in worship.. infact Revelation 7 echos Matthew 28:18-20 where it states that people of every tribe, tongue, nation and people group will be worshipping God around His throne for all eternity.
Now.. in answer to your question Alexei in relation to the usage of Edom vs Humanity, can I say it doesn't matter? Let me explain or at least try to.
John Sailhamer in his *Introduction to Old Testament Theology* has this to say:
The theological impact of con-textuality on the meaning of the various parts of the Canon can be illustrated from the books of Amos and Obadiah. The book of Amos closes with the “salvation oracle” of Israel’s restoration. Consistent with the inter-textuality of the Hebrew Bible, the salvation of Israel is made to rest on God’s promise to the house of David in 2 Samuel 7. Amos says, “In that day I will restore David’s fallen tent…so that they may possess the remnant of Edom” (9:11-12 NIV). Not only does this oracle ground the prophetic hope in the Davidic Covenant (2 Sa 7), but, by the mention of the “remnant of Edom,” it traces that covenant back to the eschatology of the poetic seams in the Pentateuch: “A star will come out of Jacob…and Edom will be [his] possession” (Nu 24:17-19). The inter-textuality is transparent. The eschatology of Amos is the same as that of the Pentateuch. The future Davidic king will rule victoriously over Israel’s enemies and establish his eternal kingdom. Israel’s enemies are collectivized here in the form of the nation of Edom, not only because Edom was historically a perennial enemy of Israel, but more importantly because the Hebrew name Edom can also be read as “humanity.” Thus the imagery of the Davidic king’s subjugation of Edom can also be understood in terms of the universal rule of the future King (cf. Da 7:10-14)
At this point we should recall that the book of Amos is followed in the canonical sequence by the book of Obadiah. Ostensively about the destruction of Edom, the book of Obadiah is a composite of a poem about the future divine judgment of Edom (1-18) and a narrative epilogue which briefly recounts the events of the establishment of God’s messianic kingdom (19-21). Though the translation of this brief narrative is difficult, the gist of it is clear: Israel’s possession of Edom is taken as a sign of Edom’s (humanity’s) membership in God’s kingdom membership in God’s kingdom. The “survivors” of Edom will be no more (Ob 18b) because the “exiles” of their armies, who are Canaanites (!), will belong to Israel and God’s kingdom (Ob 20). The messianic Savior will rule over Edom from Mount Zion to Jerusalem (Ob 21). In the final composition of the book of Obadiah, the writer envisions the inclusion of Edom into God’s messianic kingdom as an image of the universal reign of the messianic king. The picture of Edom in the book of Obadiah, then, portrays the inclusion of the gentile nations into God’s blessings. The theology found here in the composition of the book is clearly that of the Pentateuch (cf. Ge 12:3).
Viewed con-textually with the book of Amos, the book of Obadiah sheds much light on the imagery of Amos 9:12, Israel’s possession of the “remnant of Edom” in the days of the restored Davidic kingdom. By taking up precisely that theme from the close of the book of Amos, and employing the same terminology and imagery, the book of Obadiah provides a theological interpretation of Amos’s “remnant.” It represents the inclusion of the Gentile nations in God’s messianic kingdom. The Septuagint translation of Amos 9:12, “and the rest of mankind and all the nations will seek (the Lord)…” shows that such an interpretation was already known at that early period. The fact that the Septuagint’s translation is likely also based on a different Hebrew text shows that its interpretation antedates the process and time period of that translation. The hermenutical and theological interpretation reflected in the con-textual sequence of the Hebrew Canon has played a fundamental role in the interpretation of these crucial texts. The fact that a central issue in the NT, that is, the Gentiles’ relationship to Judaism, turns precisely on this passage (cf. Ac 15:16-21) and, in fact, on the very words of Amos 9:12, shows the important role which this passage played at the time, or at least shortly after the time, of the formation of the Hebrew Canon.
source is
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lxx/message/465
So you see Alexei, what you have here (I hope you can understand the quote, it is heavy going.. sorry
) is that the central idea of the remnant of Edom from Obadiah, Amos and Acts is the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Messianic Kingdom, something I have said was God's sole purpose in choosing a nation of people to be His representatives on this earth.
I'll close for now, but please do respond
Carol