Posted on 01/24/2007 8:41:04 AM PST by Joseph DeMaistre
Sorry, I got lost in the posts - should have read the whole thing more carefully. I thought this was posted to me - mea culpa!
You asked the question "WHY WOULD GOD DEVISE A THEOLOGY THAT HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT FOR FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS?". The verses quoted demonstrate that God's reasons and timing are known to Him and if it 40 days, 40 years, 400 years, 2000 years or 1500 years, in the fullness of His time His truth is revealed.
I have in various places (both Catholic and Protestant sources) seen Luke, Barnabas and Apollos referred to as Apostles. And many times, the word Disciples is used to differentiate these from the original twelve called by the Lord.
In any event, the point I was trying to make is that neither Paul nor Luke ever "knew" Jesus during His lifetime.
LOL. But you're wrong, Steven. Must me something to that ignorant part of your FR tag. ;o) They honestly do not agree on it. I've heard radio ministers from the Protestant side of the fence claim it as truth, I've heard others say it isn't Biblical. There is no agreement on the truth of the belief. You, of course, know my views on it.
The body of Christ is the Church, which is comprised of its members universal (catholic). The "catholic" church of antiquity was united under the Bishop of Rome. The properization of the word "catholic" (to capital "C") was not a result of filing articles of incorporation down at the Roman Chamber of Commerce. It was that which most completely described the body of Christ - the church - universal - Catholic.
no prob -- I didn't even realize it wasn't you I posted to.
Which means exactly "zero."
God did not quicken a man named Saul 400 years later to preach the Gospel of Christianity.
Christianity spread like a ripple from a stone thrown into a pond -- outward from the source.
Not 400 years later.
According to II Timothy 3:14-17, what else besides "Scripture" did Paul say was beneficial or profitable for doctrine, correction, exhortation and instruction ...? What else? Anything else? Then it is Scripture alone or sola Scriptura or sola Scripture that is profitable for these things --- and nothing else.
I'll grant you that there is no Scriptural support of either having met Jesus during his pre-Resurrection life. However, we know that Paul had more than one direct encounter with the Lord, post-Resurrection.
I think the odds are pretty good that both Paul and Luke were direct witnesses to Jesus during his ministry. Both were prominent men, and lived in the area. Given the stir Jesus created, they were likely exposed to Him. Although, I AM simply speculating.
"Paul testifies that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, (Eph. 2:20). If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter began to exist... For if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have existed. Nothing therefore can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends." Book 1, Chapter 7, Section 2
"A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed, viz. that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men... On the determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted into the canon. Thus profane men, seeking, under the pretext of the Church, to introduce unbridled tyranny, care not in what absurdities they entangle themselves and others, provided they extort from the simple this one acknowledgement, viz. that there is nothing which the Church cannot do." Book 1, Chapter 7, Section 1
Luke knew both Paul and Peter.
Where does Paul refer to his own writings as "Scripture"? These were letters to the churches. "Scripture" as Paul could only have known it referred to the Old Testament. He couldn't have possibly known that his letters would become part of something called "the New Testament" some 300 years later. Thus, if Paul is really saying here, "Scripture alone", he's effectively declaring his own epistles subordinate to the Old Testament.
But from God's perspective, that's the blink of an eye. Less than a day.
We have no proof that he talked to Peter, an eyewitness. Paul was not an eyewitness.
Ya but, of course and as usual, your views suck. lol.
You haven't changed a bit, have you? ;o)
Am I supposed to? :-)
Furthermore, Paul said "all Scripture" is beneficial. That's true. But you can't infer that other things aren't equally beneficial. And then you have to understand the reason Paul even said this in the first place. He was addressing Jewish Christians in Greece who were questioning the need to even pay attentiton to the Pentateuch, given the New Covenant. He was emphasizing that, in spite of the New Covenant, the Old Testament was still valid and necessary to embrace.
Apples and oranges.
For the entire Christian world to be ignorant of Mary's supposed bodily assumption into heaven for 400 years defies belief.
Christ's bodily assumption into heaven was believed immediately by all those who had been given faith in Him.
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.