Posted on 05/02/2009 2:35:35 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
I have no argument with Sts. Paul and James.
I simply reject your misinterpretations and half-quotes.
The thread reflects your tactics, misstatements and misinterpretations quite well, which would provide all the incentive you would need to run away.
So I’ll ask yet again: In what verse does Paul claim “complete observance?”
Very good point and one of the reasons I hesitate to engage Catholics in debate....as they do not understand scripture. They repeat, by rote.... what their organization has brainwashed them with since early childhood. Most of what they learn is false doctrine, non scriptural and designed to conceal the truth from the masses.
Protestants are similar to a point. They at least understand that they came from Catholicism, and some of the garbage they originally took on with Martin has now been analyzed and purged as silly. Thus they are not totally immune to logic and are receptive to truth when presented in scripture.
Folks like you and I worship and believe according to the tenets of The Church of the First Century. We are the Church that was founded by Our Savior.....not them. This is one of the most frustrating things Catholics learn eventually.....that they are the ones that took Our Lord's legacy and are destroying it piece by piece, line by line with their "Make it up as you go along" doctrine. The problem is......most of them have not yet learned that.
Like I said....I hesitate to engage them because it's so frustrating and embarrassing for them to actually debate anything scriptural with modicum of intelligence. They stand on shaky ground, they know this....but cannot understand it because of all the garbage they have learned from Rome about them being superior, first in line and infallible. I actually feel sorry sometimes for them when their pathetic little arguments begin to fall apart and all they can say is: "Dude, are you getting as tired of watching all these "victors" run away as I am?" or "I must say, a new invention of the protestant heresies presents itself pretty regularly, but this is a spanking new one".
They're not even aware of what constitutes a Protestant. How can you discuss intelligent things with folks who are so mixed up about what you believe they can't even understand something that obvious?
When you get a chance go back up thread and check for all their scriptures they have offered defending the word of God. It's enlightening, and like I said somewhere earlier......they may as well throw out the book as they have no need for it in their "Make it up as you go along" theology.
Act 21:21 To forsake Moses. In the Greek, to depart or apostatize from Moses and the law. This is more than was true. For St. Paul circumcised Timothy, (chap. xvi.) and did not absolutely hinder converts who had been Jews, from practising the Jewish ceremonies. (Witham) --- There is a manifest falsity in this accusation against St. Paul. He had never commanded or advised the Jews, to whom he had preached, to renounce the law, abandon the ceremonies of Moses, or reject the ancient customs of the nation. He had never hindered any one from following in this respect the bias of his inclinations. He had indeed defended the liberty of the converts from these ceremonies; he had taught that Christ had taken away the necessity of this yoke; but he left them at liberty still to carry it if they pleased. (Calmet) --- For these things were not then to be sought after as necessary, nor yet to be condemned as sacrilegious. The law of Moses at that time was dead, but not deadly. (St. Augustine, ep. lxxxii.) --- These considerations will sufficiently explain the apostle's motive for submitting on this occasion to one of their ceremonies. He became all to all, that he might gain all to Christ. (Haydock)
This is the Catholic Church.
We are the Church that was founded by Our Savior.....not them. This is one of the most frustrating things Catholics learn eventually.....that they are the ones that took Our Lord's legacy and are destroying it piece by piece, line by line with their "Make it up as you go along" doctrine. The problem is......most of them have not yet learned that.
Look in the mirror, you are describing yourself.
I think this “make it up as you go along” accusation is quite a revealing peace of psychological projection, seeing how the accusation comes from someone who does not know Catholic teaching, but still posts about it, making it up as he goes along.
Exodus 20:16 must have been deleted from some protestant bibles.
By birth and education, of course. But St. Paul was a disciple of Christ, a father of the Catholic Church.
To me the same way any serious Christian does - within the context of the scripture passage. You cited Romans 11:1 - is Paul declaring a mandatory observance of Jewish rituals and laws? Not only no but what part of no do you not understand no. Paul had been in the previous chapter (infact as far back as chapter 8), and continued into this chapter to discuss Israel and their rejection of Jesus Christ in favor of the law. Paul uses his own heritage to show that God has not totally forsaken them.
Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the Law. (and he ain't talking "Christian Law" unless it madates circumcision on the eighth day, because that is the context) Acts 21:24
Yep, context here is important - these were Jews who had taken a Nazarite vow. Paul sponsored them out of the appeal of James so that there would be a semblence of peace between the Judiazers and the Christians. But what DID the word come for the Gentiles? You conviently left the next verses out:
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
Wow, really evidence of required observance by gentiles here.
In Acts 28 Paul claims complete observance.
LOL, hardly in the manner YOU claim. As a Jew before Christ he was ceremonially correct. Through Christ - the fullness of the law - he maintained that he had continued to be faithful to that heritage
Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening.
And the response of these who prided themselves as following the law - Act 28:24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and [that] they will hear it.
Yes words mean things, especially when they are placed into the context that God intended for them to be read and understood within.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Many who call themselves Christians can not or do not
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
distinguish between Kosher and the what YHvH commanded.
There’s no mind-reading in that post of mine, though a general reminder is well-placed.
And, yes, I have posted several warnings to avoid a flame war. This subject can become heated.
Intelligence as typified by your pithy post #300?
I haven’t the time to go into it at the moment....probably never will.... because you folks are evidently incapable of understanding. But I will leave you with these words....”you’re wrong!”
Bwahahahahaha!
We're wrong.... You provide the perfect example of the "Judaizer" Paul wished would castrate themselves, but we're wrong.
I never cease to be amazed at what a person can convince themselves of when the only person they answer to is themselves.
Hey! Where were you the other day?.....(smiling)
Says the same thing in the Latin, "prima autem sabbatorum". Twas the first Sabbath after Passover as explained by Lev. 23:15.
OOOOOHHH....you're really gonna get it now!
Frankly, I find the “poor and uneducated” usually understands this principle. It's normally those who strive for legalism who don't understand that Christ has set us free from the law that gets wrapped around the axle.
But I've got to ask you the same question as I asked Lee and that is What do you think about the order of Salvation from the physical death of Christ to the Resurrection. Did Christ enter heaven inbetween his death and Resurrection or was he figuratively sleeping in the grave. I tend to believe he enter heaven, and that he did not rest in Heaven but was doing some more work atoning for us, and after the Resurrection he rest. Of course this is all speculation on my part since I'm not all up on the nit and picky, and fine print of the Gospel. Anyway back to the final question reworded. Do you believe the Death was the final act between his death and Resurrection. You can either post a comment or freep mail me, Since the subject may not be approiate for the posted article. Response would be appreciated.
Maybe some day when I can handle bigger theological issues I would like to handle the book "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" by John Owen, I started reading it once but had to put it aside, other things came up and it was really over my head.
Where was I? posting elsewhere. I’m still trying to figure out this forum interface. Can’t seem to find any rules — don’t know whether posting links is legal, etc. — don’t see anyone else posting links.
Go here and click on "HELP" at the top of the page. It'll tell you just about everything you need to know.
Welcome!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.