Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Yep. It's changed.
1 Cor 12:18 reads (my emphasis) "And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers..."
The "appointment" is carried out by the laying of the hands, which was done in the Church, as was the case with +Paul and +Barnabas. This appointment is ordination to a specific function (deacon, priest, bishop...), the reception of Holy Orders.
Furthermore, the gifts are not given to everyone. It is written: "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." (Mar 16:17-18, the part you acknowledge as having been "added" but dare not call it a forgery)
Forest Keeper himself argued not so long ago that in this case "those who have believed" did not apply to "all" but somehow only to some, otherwise believers could be distinguished by those who to have them (as the actual text suggests), which is not the case!
You, on the other hand, are arguing that these gifts were given to "everyone."
And Ephesians 4:11-12 reads "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ."
"Some," BD, doesn't equal "everyone."
Clearly, not all were elders in the Church. There were those who were appointed (ordained), Clearly and also those, the majoirty (the "sheep") who were not given much, who had no role in the Church.
This is actually a 15th century innovation by Annius of Viterbo.
Luke 2:23,38: When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph...the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Matthews' genealogy (Mat 1:1-3,16)says (in the opposite order): The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of [a]Judah and his brothers...Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born.
I don't see the genealogy of Mary here. No one in the Middle East in those days counted genealogies accoridng to female lines. Inheritance (birthright) was strictly along male lines. Women were "fertile ground" and men were carriers of family "seed." All genealogy belong to male "seed" in ancient Israel. Thus, S. Jerome, who was very familiar with Jewish customs and language says "It is not the custom of the scriptures to count women in their genealogies."
The two accounts give different starting points and different fathers of +Joseph, namely Eli and Jacob. Luke's account traces the lineage all the way back to Adam, the Son of God (my emphasis). Matthew's genealogy begins with Abraham.
The numbers and names of generations don't match either. The divergence, aside form Joseph's father begins in ancestor number 5 (Elezear/Levi according to Matthew/Luke respectively).
Where is there a disagreement?
Minor details such as who heard/saw what. Also Acts says +Paul wen to Jerusalem twice and +Paul says it was once. Acts never repeat what +Paul claims in Gal 4:14, as having been received "as an Angel of God, as [wV] Christ Jesus." Talk about "alter Christus" and the Chirst-complex!
There are many other differences also, too numerous to list.
You bet! We don't think or believe like the ancients did.
Bingo!
“1 Cor 12:18 reads (my emphasis) “And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers...”
Mine reads “But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.”
Eph. 4:10-12 reads, “He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:”
This is the same giving of gifts mentioned in Eph. 4:8, “Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men” and in 1 Cor. 12:7-11, “But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.”
These are also mentioned in Romans 12 and the implication is every believer is gifted in some way ,by God for the work of the ministry, but there is no requirement that these gifts are bestowed by the laying on of hands. To the contrary, the evidence is that the laying on of hands was a recognition of the ministry that god had called individuals to and bestowed nothing but that recognition. Paul and Barnabas were set apart by god for the mission and those in the church signaled their recognition of this by the laying on of hands. The signal bestowed no power or authority; God had already given it.
“Some,” BD, doesn’t equal “everyone.”
The Greek word “men” that you translate “some” means “indeed” or “truly”. It does not limit numbers but intensifies the idea that gifts were given to everyone as is said in 1 Cor. 12.
Notice also that the gifts were to perfect the saints (members) to do the work of the ministry, i.e.the “Great Commission”. It was for the members, not the Apostles only, that were to be witnesses.
Neither was Adam and he was free to disobey the will of God; and He chose to exercise (actually abuse) his freedom. From that we learn that when we absue our freedom, we loose it.
The difference is that Christ in His humanity chose not to disobey. That was His choice. Was He double-predestine as well and subject to the necessity of His own "plan?"
Neither could fully human Jesus serve both God and satan, AS God. It just couldn't happen.
But neither can we!
Kosta: Then the Son is subordinate to the Father. That's Arian heresy
FK: John 6:38-39 : 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day...
And Jesus is also quoted as saying (John 14:28) "...If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. [my emphasis]
No wonder heretics also quote scriptures! Perhaps that's why Origen, who cannot be accused of theological poverty, eventually began teaching the error of "hierarchichal" Trinity.
If such theological giants as Origen and Tertullian can fall, the danger of private interpretition for teaching and reproof of the scriptures as one sees fit is loud and clear.
Your argument is with Jesus Himself, not me
I have no arguments with Christ, FK. In His humanity, He chose not to sin. He was tempted like the rest of us, but He chose not to follow His temptations. He did that on His own free will. In His Humanity, He possessed human soul, experienced passions, and death.
Otherwise He was an illusion of a man, and His suffering and death were illusions as well, and that is yet another ancient heresy.
That was my typo. Obviously the verse was 28 not 18.
Notice also that the gifts were to perfect the saints (members) to do the work of the ministry, i.e.the “Great Commission”. It was for the members, not the Apostles only, that were to be witnesses.
Again, the Great Commission was given specifically to 11 Apostles (as to women we can argue about that), but it was not given to all the members. The Church established hierarchy as "God appointed" some to be apostles, prophets and teachers.
Yes, that's the way I see it. Unfortunately, some really do see it as nothing more than a nudge. I wouldn't be able to accept the scriptures as authority if that's what I thought.
The way I deal with this is to postulate the involvement of the Holy Spirit at many stages of production, guiding editors as well as original writers, and leading the Church to designate these books as sho' 'nuff holy and therefore different in important ways from all other books.
Amen, MD. I fully agree that God has had His hand in the process from beginning to end. It is either HIS word or it is not. We must be able to trust His word as well as His WORD. :)
They may not have gotten everything, but you appear to deny what Jesus said to Peter:
Matt 16:17 : Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
What, the same Revelation that you have all but denied as being real scripture? You can't have it both ways. :) For those of us who accept the Book of Revelation we recognize the symbolism and correspondence of the 12 judges and 12 tribes, but that does not translate into a view that Gentiles are shut out. That would be forced, ridiculous, and totally unnecessary. The totality of scripture takes care of all of your objections.
He sent them specifically to the lost sheep of Israel, specifically FORBADE them to go to Samaritans and Gentiles, and he specifically states that he was sent ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel. He never, ever commanded them to go to the Gentiles, nor did he ever himself go to them.
You and I have a fundamental difference on who "Israel" is, and what Jesus did. I think God was right when He spoke through Paul.
You keep repeating ad nauseum that his mission included "some" Gentiles but cannot for the life of you come up with a single verse quoting him as saying that.
You deny all (or most of) the verses in which Jesus talks about saving His elect. We have showed you many times.
FK: Oh no, not at all. "God-breathed" is from God's breath.
That is a latter-day Protestant innovation.
NO, that is CURRENT day Catechism. Before you even have a hint of getting to me, you must first rip through your Latin brethren. :)
God's breath is power that animates.
Sure, the Bible animates people every day.
In the OT, the Spirit of God is equivalent to the Power of God.
No, you appear to be attempting to depersonalize God. The Spirit of God is distinct.
FK: "God breathed life into Adam."
And that's what it means! God brought, moved, "infused" him to life, to existence ("and he became man"). It doesn't mean Adam was made free from error, potential or otherwise.
You must be kidding. You can't compare God's creation of us to His revelation of Himself to us in scripture. That's ridiculous. God breathed life into an Adam who turned out to be flawed, but that has nothing to do with whether He left us a reliable written word or not.
God-inspired means God moved the authors to write and bring scripture to existence. Without God as a concept in our imagination, there would be no scriptures. It does not say the scriptures are free from potential error, FK.
"God as a concept in our imagination". I am speechless.
What world? Who was demanding a proof?
The nature of man WANTS proof. That's how He built us. The Bible is a testimony FROM God TO us. I'm pulling out my hair here. :)
If he was seen as God by the early Gospels, did they think God needed to learn or proves something?
I honestly don't even know what this means.
And since when is God doing things to prove to the world for the world's sake?
Since Genesis 1:1. For reference, see "The Holy Bible". :)
When I ask for proofs, you tell me that God doesn't condescend to human demands for such proofs. Yet, here he is doing just that!
I have never told you that. No, on many topics you have been given scriptural proofs from many posters, and you have rejected them. That is your choice based on your view of the value of scripture. I will say that my opinion is that among Christians, your view of the value of scriptures is unique.
And if he could not be tempted, as you claim, what proof was made? It was no challenge but a charade.
I don't claim that. Jesus WAS tempted, just as the Bible tells us and Paul explains. Most followers of Christ have learned that Christ fully understands all of our problems, and that He relates to us on a human level. The demonstration in the desert is evidence.
Then Job 1:1 is a lie. Make up your mind.
My mind is already made, by God. No credit to me. And seeing as how I am a lawyer dude, let me ask you this: Do you believe that Job 1:1 has God telling us that Job was without sin? You are either arguing that or saying that this scripture was a lie. You pick. I say that Job was a sinner just like the rest of us, and that only by God's grace was he able to remain faithful through his trials.
The verse referred to how other men saw him, not to his standing before God.
Kolo seems to have missed that God whistled for "the gentiles".. In Persia and Assyria to punish the Jews during various especially heinous times of apostacy in Israelis history..
It seems that God is not fazed by dogma and ceremony or tradition by Jews or anybody else..
By the way western political systems seem about to be "disciplined" by the Muzzies.. You know, "the gentiles".. Democrats wining President would exacerbate the Muzzie problem.. because of left wing weakness militarily..
While I certainly do NOT support any Democratic Candidate,I do not self illusion myself that the Republicans are willing to do the right thing either.
Case in point -Take a look at what is happening to the Christians in Iraq
Excerpt from http://www.ccgaction.org/index.php?q=freedom/Christians_in_Iraq
"Christian villages are surrounded by hostile Muslim populations. And life is even more dangerous for Christians in the capital of the region, Mosul. Kidnappings are extremely common. The victims are released after their families have paid a sum of 10,000 to 20,000 dollars, or after they have agreed to hand over their homes and leave the city. But kidnapping can also end in bloodshed. In September of 2006, after Benedict XVI’s address in Regensburg, a group called “Lions of Islam” kidnapped Father Paulos Iskandar, a Syro-Orthodox priest. The kidnappers demanded that thirty fliers apologizing for the offenses brought against Islam be posted on the churches of Mosul. Then they decapitated him. On the same day, in Baghdad, another priest was killed, Father Joseph Petros. A sister told the Vatican news agency Fides: “The imams preach in the mosques that it is not a crime to kill Christians. It is a hunting of men.”
This country is looking the other way,HP, when Christians are being killed in Iraq for what they must have determined is the good of the people in the name of their false idea of freedom and Democracy.
True Freedom is being Free from Error in EVERY Moral issue and the US does NOT promote this type of freedom.
It promotes the religion of Pluralism -to do whatever you want as long as it does not interfere with the progress and agenda of the powerful
I wish you a Blessed Day!
I know folks that believe christ was a myth that call themselves christians..
could be Sadaam murdered any decent people long ago.. in Iraq..
Sharia law does not deal kindly to non muslims..
In America many "christians" are going to vote for two obvious Marxists.. or one covert one.. Some "chrisitians" believe Jesus was a Marxist.. I know some..
What is a christian?..
For kicks, ask a Unitarian or a Mormon.
Ugh Ugh.. I'll ask YOU...
What is a christian, Dawg..?..
Ulg to you too!
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.