Posted on 12/12/2006 10:51:32 PM PST by Coleus
Would you call her:
"Mary the Mother of the Godhead?"
how sad for the churches st paul founded since they could not kniw 'everything' as you out it since scripture wasn't even written yet.
this is the full text of the portion of the letter you cite. there is nothing in the letter concerning apostolic succession. the close the letter comes to it is in the apostles appointing "firstfruits" to be leaders of the church. After their death it is the church that appoints just as the Didsche states. There is nothing in the letter stating only ordained men can appoint, in fact, it does not mention ordaination.
Chapter XLII.—The order of ministers in the Church.
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from178178 Or, “by the command of.” the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from Or, “by the command of.” God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments,Literally, “both things were done.” then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established Or, “confirmed by.” in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit,Or, “having tested them in spirit.” to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops Or, “overseers.” in righteousness, and their deacons Or, “servants.” in faith.
Chapter XLIV.—The ordinances of the apostles, that there might be no contention respecting the priestly office.
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour
"Acts covers Pauls death so it had to have been written later."
You have posted this twice, now where in the book of Acts do you find this. The Acts in my bible only goes up to chapter 28 and ends with Paul's first prison stay in Rome. That would be around 61 A.D. Maybe I didn't get all of Acts. I know I got a good price on the bible, maybe too good.
Honest wagglebee, the Book of Acts does NOT cover Paul's death.
There is no self-respecting CATHOLIC scholar who would claim that.
It simply doesn't. It ends with Paul arrested, in Rome, awaiting his hearing before the emperor.
Can an act be objectively and intrinsically evil, and the doing of it be not sinful? Yes. How? If the person does not know that the act is evil. Say that a child takes the Lord's name in vain, having learned the practice from his parents, and never having been told that doing so is a violation of the Second Commandment. What the child is doing is intrinsically and objectively wrong, but the child is not morally culpable nor is the child sinning, for the child does not know that taking the Lord's name is wrong, nor could the child have known this by any means available to it. The child's ignorance is 'invincible ignorance'. So, not all evil acts are sinful acts.
What about the Muslim suicide bombers? God has given us each a conscience. The reason we can be held responsible by God for what do is precisely because we have all been given a conscience. It is possible to sear one's conscience, but one is morally culpable for doing so, because we know deep inside that we should not sear our conscience. So, if the Muslim suicide bombers have seared their consciences, that doesn't get them off the divine hook, anymore than it gets a drunk driver off the hook; the drunk driver is responsible for what he does in his state of drunkeness, precisely because he knowingly and culpably put himself in his drunken state without ensuring that he would not get behind the wheel of a car in that state. Likewise, the Muslim suicide bombers with seared consciences are for the same reason still morally responsible for all that they do in that seared state, even if at that time they no longer know that it is wrong. But if the Muslim suicide bombers have not seered their consciences, then they are sinning when they pull the detonating cord in a crowded restaurant or marketplace, or fly a hijacked plane into a building, for in that case they still know that the murder of innocents is wrong.
-A8
human
Having the nature or attributes of a man.
Are you saying that Jesus was NOT fully man yet also fully God? He surely "shared in our humanity" and He was "found in appearance as a man".
"Beware of the fallacy of the argument from silence."
Not an argument just an observation from the Didache's statement of how bishops and deacon were appointed.
You are both absolutely correct (I think I mentioned this earlier to xzins). I was at my office yesterday when I was posting and I have no idea what I was thinking. However, my premise that much of the New Testament was written AFTER St. Paul's martyrdom is still accurate.
I see you have your marching orders.
The fact that it is there in Acts 17:11 is pretty trustworthy now though.
If Paul died in about 67 or so, then we are saying that the 3 synoptic gospels, all of Paul's letters, James, Hebrews, and Acts could all have already been written.
That would mean that most of the NT was already written before Paul's death.
Did you read the post on qumran's 7Q5 that I sent you?
Ha! There's not only no intercession due to Mary, there's no purgatory...
I don't see anything in Acts 17:11 that cites solo scriptura?
What "fact" do you allude to?
Post 208 and on.
"Therefore...if it is not in the scriptures...it is not so."
Darn....! There goes gravity!
With over a thousand Protestant interpretations of the Bible, how do you discern "Truth"?
You assign individual revalation as valid, while denying that authorty to the Pope.
There can only be ONE Truth!
It's a Trinity. Mary is the Mother of God.
"Therefore...if it is not in the scriptures...it is not so."
By the way, this is a bogus conclusion from Acts 17:11.
It is the Jews examining the Old Testament and learning how it was fullfilled in the New Testament, to learn that it was true.
Do you suppose that the Books of the Bible were complete at the writing of Acts?
Thank you. I guess my explanation was a bit on the brief side. :)
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.