Posted on 06/27/2006 6:10:07 AM PDT by TaxachusettsMan
Never happened, sorry. "You believe" a lot of things that are just plain wrong.
That's bogus "church history". Paul would not have recognized the church you describe, especially the "no law and no sacrifices" part. Paul was performing "signs, miracles, and wonders" until very late in his ministry; it says so flatly in Acts.
Show us some of these signs, wonders and miracles in the Pauline epistles...
Paul was a physical wreck...He had to take a little wine for medicinal purposes...He couldn't heal himself, let alone anyone else...But do you know why???? It's in the bible...
Pope Damasus (Catholic) commissioned St Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymus) to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin.
So what did he use, a hammmer and a chisel?
The New Testament did not materialize out of thin air; it didn’t descend from heaven to the apostles as they prayed in the upper room; it didn’t just appear. Think about it for a minute: the many books and letters of the New Testament first had to be written. Paul had to make his missionary journeys, found his churches, and then write to them long before his letters could be collected and copied (by hand -- they had no copy machines). The earliest piece of literature to be included in the New Testament today is most probably 1 Thessalonians, which can easily be dated (depending upon who you ask) to about the year 50 AD. The rest of St. Paul’s letters date from the early 50s through to about 63 AD, when he was executed in Rome. The Gospel of St. Mark was probably written sometime soon after the death of St. Peter, also sometime in the mid-to-late 60s AD, because we know of an early second century Bishop and Church historian (named Papias) who tells us that Mark wrote down the words of St. Peter and then, soon after the Apostle’s death, formed them into the Gospel as we have it today. It is most likely that Matthew and Luke then used Mark as an outline for their Gospels, along with a now lost book that many scholars believe was written soon after the death of Jesus and which contained only the teachings of our Lord. Luke also wrote a companion book to his Gospel, called The Acts of the Apostle’s, which can also be easily dated to sometime soon after 70 AD. Indeed, Matthew and Luke were both probably written sometime after 75, and Acts was probably written at around AD 80.
I could go on, but for brevity’s sake let us just say that by the year 100 AD all the books which we now find in the New Testament had been written, and that the letters of St. Paul had been collected. This does not mean, however, that these were the only Christian writings that the early church used; quite the contrary, there were literally dozens of Gospels and hundreds of different letters to read. Some of this material has survived to today, but not in the Bible. The simple fact is that someone, somewhere and somewhen, decided which books and which letters would be compiled together to make up the Christian Testament. And, surprisingly enough, Church history gives us many of the steps that comprise the collection and adoption of the New Testament. Only, for whatever reason, most people don’t know about it.
It may come as a surprise to you, but even as late as the year 300 AD there was still no “official” Church position as to which books should be included in the New Testament. There were many different lists circulating among the various regional churches and, while there was a general sense of agreement as to the canonicity (authenticity) of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and the letters of Paul, there was far less agreement on much of the rest of the New Testament. The earliest list, which comes from a Heretical group lead by a man named Marcion and is dated at about 150 AD, has only the Gospel of St. Luke and 10 of the letters of St. Paul. The first list published by the Church at Rome has the four Gospels, St. Paul’s letters, and the letters of St. Peter and St. John. Some areas believed that “The Gospel of the Hebrews” should be added, and the Gnostic Churches of north Africa wanted the addition of a whole slew of books, including “The Gospel of Thomas.” Needless to say, there was a lot of confusion as to which books should be considered “authoritative.” Indeed, the later you go the more confusing things get. By 200 AD, some lists supported the authority of the letter of St. James and the Book of Revelation, while other lists did not; indeed, many lists included books like “The Shepherd of Hermas,” but didn’t include James or Revelation.
It wasn’t until the year 367 AD that the current contents of the New Testament were identified by St. Athanasius. Indeed, so sure was he that his list was the correct one that he sealed it with the following words:
These are the “springs of salvation,” so that one who is thirsty may be satisfied with the oracles which are in them. In these alone is the teaching of true religion proclaimed as good news. Let no one add to these or take anything from them.
I cannot think of a better description of the New Testament than this: they are the “springs of salvation.” but why did our Fathers and Mothers in the Faith require almost 300 years to decide which documents constitute the “springs?”
I can think of many reasons, but the simplest of them all is the best: human error. We are not perfect, and neither were the saints who came before us in the Faith. They listened to the voice of God as best they could when they wrote the scriptures, and they did the same when they chose which books would make up the scriptures, but they were not perfect--and neither are we. Frankly, I think it’s a miracle that they managed to listen well enough to the Spirit to get it right at all. Let us all pray for similar ears.
From: http://www.revneal.org/Writings/building.htm
Until the theology of the weak, suffering anything goes Christ is elaborated into Christ the victorious hero over Satan we will all be listening to liberal protestant drivel about any number of wacko causes.
Why should I have to? Isn't Acts in your Bible, or have you turned "the Bible alone" into "the Pauline epistles alone"?
Paul was a physical wreck
Since gifts like healing are performed by the Holy Spirit, I fail to see what Paul's physical condition has to do with anything.
He couldn't heal himself, let alone anyone else
Except that the Bible records that God even healed people through Paul's handkerchief. Too bad you don't believe the Scriptures.
The point is, the church structure went thru a transition from the time the churh was mentioned in Matthew to what the church became during Paul's ministry...
The miracles the apostles performed were for a 'sign' to the 'Jews'...The Gentiles don't require a sign...Therefore, the signs were done away with...
Except that the Bible records that God even healed people through Paul's handkerchief.
He sure did...For a sign to the Jews...Are you a religious Jew???
Too bad you don't believe the Scriptures.
Oh, I don't doubt I believe the scriptures even more than you...Difference is, I 'divide' the scripture where it needs dividing (2Tim 2:15)...
Hmmmm...
I guess that would mean that for 400 years they had the Greek and Hebrew, didn't they? Not to mention the Old Latin versions.
I'm grafted into the one Israel of God and am an inheritor of the promises given to Abraham.
I 'divide' the scripture where it needs dividing
Then your theology rests on a questionable translation. Orthotomeho need not mean "divide rightly"; it can also simply mean teach correctly or teach in a straightforward manner.
The division between Jew and Gentile no longer exists in the Church. Don't believe me, believe Ephesians 2:11-22.
More precisely, Orthotomeho means "make a straight cut";, "to dissect correctly"...
And that's a far more clear definition than 'teach correctly or teach in a straightforward manner'...And that means the scripture needs dividing, or dissecting...Makes no sense to 'water down' the definition unless there's a motive behind it...
Me...Are you a religious Jew???
You... I'm grafted into the one Israel of God and am an inheritor of the promises given to Abraham.
You answered my question here...The division between Jew and Gentile no longer exists in the Church. Don't believe me, believe Ephesians 2:11-22.
In the church... You are NOT a religious Jew...You have been adopted into the church, the spiritual inheritance offered to the religous Jews who, BTW, rejected it...
Therefore, the signs are not for you...
Whenever you post.
Don't make it personal.
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.