Posted on 03/27/2018 6:59:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I saw it and really enjoyed it. We walked out thinking it was a 45 minute movie but it was almost 2 hours.
Agreed completely; indeed, Risen is now my very favorite film. I'll be watching it again on Resurrection Sunday.
And Paul rebuked Jim for trying to impose Jewish standards on those who were not Jews
Okay.
What would you consider as "proof"? Given that there are people who seriously suggest that the moon landing was faked on a sound stage, I'm not sure what sort of proof would establish Peter's presence anywhere 2000 years ago as "fact".
The vast preponderance of the evidence has him in Rome. The contrary evidence amounts to very little. It doesn't matter.
Then why do you argue about it?
Worth watching, but if I had it to over again I would have just waited to rent the video.
“This should up the post count, while the related issue is the Peter of RC propaganda”
—
Not at all intentional on my part, I was just making a historical point. While I wouldn’t agree with their interpretation of that era, the Catholic Church has brought much good into the world.
In fact, I commiserate with the Catholic folk who don’t like what has happened/is happening to their Church.
“I really doubt that Paul walked around quoting his own epistles all the time.”
—
Haven’t seen it, but does the actor do the lines as if he were quoting Paul’s writings, as opposed to them naturally coming up as regular speech/conversation?
If Scripture mentioned it, that would settle it. But it doesn't.
The vast preponderance of the evidence has him in Rome. The contrary evidence amounts to very little.
What evidence? Besides speculation and tradition?
Actually the perponderance of wishful thinking places Peter in Rome.
Nothing in Scripture even alludes to it.
It doesn't matter where Peter is buried but I'm not the one making a big deal about it to try to *prove* that Peter was in Rome.
So why are YOU arguing about it?
Thank you.
Which is what you did not do in the interest of focus on Peter bestowing authority on Paul, who was not even called by Peter to see him as being in need of manifest sanction and submission to him.
According to the men of the day, with whom Paul had to deal with, he had no authority as he was not one of the original 12 Apostles
Thus had there been no enemies seeking to draw away disciples into a different and damnable gospel then Paul would not have had the need for the manifest sanction of those who appeared to be pillars. And Paul's words in Gal. 2 and elsewhere indicate he did not consider himself any less an apostle than they.
. Peter recognized this and gave Paul his blessing as indicated in 2 Peter 3.
We are dealing with Galatians 2 and your singular focus on Peter, I presume as the singular manifest head of the church, but which simply is not there, but the contrary is. The brief affirmation of Paul in 2 Peter 3 was that of what could hardly be denied by that point.
Thus Paul was preaching with authority for years before going up again to Jerusalem (not Rome).
AFTER his visit with Peter.
Wrong: Paul was preaching long before his 15 day stay with Peter, finally, and also James, which is simply stated as historical record, testifying to Paul not shunning leadership despite being so independent, but with no manifest significance as regards Paul's status or ministry. .
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. (Galatians 1:15-18)
And in which Peter is not presented as the supreme head, but is named second among 3, after James and before John.
I believe this was because James was elected as Bishop of Jerusalem, not Peter. Peter humbled himself, IMHO, due to the conflict with Paul and the Gentile question
Meaning you cannot accept Peter being listed as other than first except because of local jurisdiction. And James was also the one who provided the definitive, Scripturally supported conclusive judgment in Acts 15, confirmation of Peter's counsel and the testimony of Paul and Barnabas. Both of which are contrary to the NT church looking to Peter as its infallible exalted head, and settler of disputes, and thus contrary to the historical Roman papacy, but not to non-assertive street-level Petrine leadership.
Does not stop Peter from being the head of the Apostles and the one that the majority of people in Jerusalem (and Judea for that matter) to be the Apostle that folks sought approval from.
Which assertion of historical Roman papacy is reading into the text what is not there. Again, rather than Peter being The Apostle that folks sought approval from as their singular and exalted head, Peter is not listed first, or even called Peter=stone but "Cephas" in that list of three "who seemed to be pillars," and apart from being part of that group "who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) in conference" (Galatians 2:6) and Paul's counterpart in reaching a people group, the only notable description of Peter was that of him leading sheep astray, even Barnabas.
And apart from Gal, 1+2 and being distinctively named in 1Co. 9:5 among the apostles who were all married, Peter is never named in any epistle save his own, with not even one reminder to the churches of who their supreme head was, or any exhortation to sub,it to him or specifically pray for him, etc. In short the Roman papacy is simply not manifest as such, and Peter is not not even mentioned among the 36 people Paul names in his letter the church there.
Agreed that Paul called out Peter on his hypocrisy (which also caused the separation between Paul and Barnabas),
Where do you get this? Scripture records that the cause of their separation was because (evidently in Antioch) Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark (Acts 15:37) to visit the churches.
but that does not change the fact that Peter was still considered the Big Apostle on Campus (Paul called him a 'Super Apostle').
Where do get this? Paul did not call Peter the the "Big" 'Super Apostle,' but said,,
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. (2 Corinthians 11:4-5)
I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:11-12)
They are Hebrews: so am I. They are Israelites: so am I. They are the seed of Abraham: so am I. They are the ministers of Christ (I speak as one less wise): I am more; in many more labours, in prisons more frequently, in stripes above measure, in deaths often. (2 Corinthians 11:22-23)
But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. (1 Corinthians 15:10)
Rather than Perter being the big super apostle, Paul refers to a group as being above the rest, and rather than they being "super" in power, Paul says he is not a bit behind such.
Contrary to Peter being looked upon as Catholic have historically looked to their pope are also the testimony of even Catholic researchers, among others.
Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:
“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”
If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)
Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,
“the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” “...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224
Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative historian, finds,
The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy. This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it....
Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church...
With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest... [Peter, according to Cyprian, was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone... ...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51 -61,63. transcribed using OCR software)
Eamon Duffy (Former president of Magdalene College and member of Pontifical Historical Commission, and current Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge) and provides more on the Roman church becoming more like the empire in which it was found as a result of state adoption of (an already deformed) Christianity:
The conversion of Constantine had propelled the Bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment...They [bishops of Rome] set about [creating a Christian Rome] by building churches, converting the modest tituli (community church centres) into something grander, and creating new and more public foundations, though to begin with nothing that rivaled the great basilicas at the Lateran and St. Peter’s...
These churches were a mark of the upbeat confidence of post-Constantinian Christianity in Rome. The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his rule…
Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. — Eamon Duffy “Saints and Sinners”, p. 37,38
For the so-called successor to Peter, as Damasus 1 (366-384) began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in securing his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint.
Damasus is much responsible for the further unscriptural development of the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as ''the apostolic see'' and enjoying a His magnificent lifestyle and the favor of court and aristocracy, and leading to Theodosius 1 (379-95) declaring (February 27, 380) Christianity the state religion.
Falsified history of the Roman church was also instrumental in the development of her unScriptural papacy and power. RC historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger:
In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.
That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians. - — Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870) Then you have the unScriptural Development of the distinctive Catholic priesthood More by the grace of God.
And thus you have the recourse of no less than Manning:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — "Most Rev." Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228; ttp://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt.
Can media makers resist adding their skewed idea of reality? Yet the book of Acts does not need such.
What basically makes them much like Bible Protestants.
“What basically makes them much like Bible Protestants.”
—
Pretty much only the former mainline denominations which have all but abandoned the bible. Their people have/are moving to the evangelical/fundamental/independent churches where the Bible is the centerpiece of beliefs.
Quite a few Catholics are also moving into the Prostestant independent churches. Some go “Catholic-lite”,i.e Anglican, but the Anglican communion is in just as bad shape as their Mother Church - with the exception of what’s called “Continuing” or “Traditional” Anglican movement churches.
While it is a fictional account, one redeeming quality of the movie I found was to visually see what Christian life must have been like during this time. With all the persecution, the problems of the churches, the heretics, and the normal human failings of Christians; I often wondered if Paul might have questioned whether the truth of the gospel would survive. There certainly are indications of this in his writings. Yet he knew the truth and through it all he was faithful to God and to the truth. What would he think if he was here and could see the grow God has given the church?
It is an inspiration to all of us that no matter how difficult our paths may be, God will use our faithfulness for His glory.
After reading this review yesterday I went and saw it with my wife after getting off work yesterday. First time I have been to a movie theater in months, and the first time on a weeknight in perhaps decades.
Great flick, go see it.
One time ?????
That is false.
And Paul rebuked Jim for trying to impose Jewish standards on those who were not Jews,,,,,,,,,,,,
Paul told the Galatians that he rebuked Peter, wow
But you notice if you have read that paul never said nothing at the council at Jerusalem when Peter made the statement that he had been called to preach to the gentiles.
Paul is the apostle to both the Catholics and the protestants in these last days.
1 Cor. 4:15
For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel.
You wonder why the Catholics call all of the priests Father?????
Paul is the Father of the Great harlot and her daughters.
I do not say this to put Paul down because he does appear to have a lot of common sense and i think he really did believe
but he was ambitous and he was also a back stabber.
The only thing we know about Paul is what came from Paul himself, the only thing Luke knew was what Paul told him except when he was with him.
Was Paul really converted on the road to damascus????
Why did all of those in asia quit him????
Why was the ones at Corinth the only ones left who believed him to be an apostle??????
Paul told the EPHESIANS that he was an apostle but
Rev 2 “To the angel[a] of the church in Ephesus write:
These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. 2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.
Could that be why they quit him?????
I believe you guys mean well But the apostles Jesus chose is the only ones who i am not very leary of especially when they are promoting them selves at all.
Maybe you need to start putting 2 and 2 together.
But you are right Paul is the greatest Apostle for the people today even though he is the only one besides Luke who recognized himself as one.
The learning pastor at my church did a sermon on the arrival of Jesus into Jerusalem. He did it like a historian, however, and gave the full context.
The lead up to the punch line of his sermon was impressive, but the end is what stays with you.
When you went through Sunday School, you learned about how Jesus returned to Jerusalem on a donkey, and people laid palm fronds at the donkey’s feet, returning like a king.
True, but it doesn’t really depict reality.
Jerusalem, during the festival season, held nearly 3,000,000 people, and in a quarter of a mile area, there were more people cheering Jesus into Jerusalem than there was cheering the Seattle Seahawks on their four mile route during their own Superbowl victory parade. Same level of intensity.
Eight days later, in the same city, He was hung on a cross.
Head shaker.
[Quote-But you are right Paul is the greatest Apostle for the people today even though he is the only one besides Luke who recognized himself as one.]
Not an accident, ravenwolf, many hold that opinion that Saul/Paul is the greatest apostle for the people today.
Saul was the first king of Israel.
That wasn’t an accident either.
Divine Providence.
Saul served as leader/king for 40 years.
In one way, so has Saul/Paul for 40 x 50 jubilee (2000) years
Divine Providence
I didn’t say he rebuked Peter one time. I said he rebuked Peter
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.