Posted on 06/27/2009 10:33:55 PM PDT by bdeaner
Don’t confuse him with facts. His mind is made up.
And according to this Roman Catholic priest, 39 popes have been married. Wonder if they had a prenup? I bet those custody battles over ermine robes and red velvet shoes got pretty nasty.
What nonsense...Paul was the apostle to the adopted church (not Peter or any person thruout history that you claim succeeded Peter)...Paul knew and confirmed that what he preached was sanctioned by God...And it was such a big deal that every Christian was directed to their contents...
Col 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
1Th 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.
It may not have been written by Peter; scholars have placed it anywhere from 60 to 160 AD.
Only so-called Catholic scholars...
Revelation is the last book in the Holy line of scripture...Revelation covers the return of Jesus right up on thru the final judgment, the end of the earth and our new home in Heaven...
There was nothing written after that and no need for it...
And the book of Revelation was written before the 1st Century had run it's course...
The bird is the middle finger...LOL. I’m surprised he didn’t know that.
LOL. Amen!
Don’t forget the funny hats...
You forgot the parts where Paul said it's a good thing if God called a person to be so...Paul knowing it would be extremely rare, made sure we (and YOU) know that leaders in the church are to be married with families...
If you actually read the scriptures, you know it's there...And the verses are not Mystical, Mysterious, or Magic...They are plain and clear...
Or marriage annulments.
Lotsa luck on that!
Excellent.
Mr Rogers:
In no way was St. Paul refuting St. Peter’s office as an Apostle, you are reading what you want to read in the text. I stand by my original statement that what St. Peter was guilty of, was sin, not a doctrine. And in no way was St. Paul preaching something that was not in conformity with what the other Apostles preached. IT seems in Galations 2,that St. Paul is claiming that it was his argument that won the the day with respect to Gentile Converts not being circumcized. However, in Acts 15: 7-11, the credit is given to Peter. Regardless, the fact is that gentile converts were not circumcized, before being baptized into the Church. This was the main doctrinal point. The fact that Peter would not participate in fellowship/communion with the gentiles, is not a doctrine. It could be stated that Peter was being hypocritical [which later, St. Paul states c.f. Gal 2:13], or in fact, engaging an sinful and uncharitable behavior and Paul corrected him.
Pauls statement about James, Kephas, and John being reputed pillars is a statement that he [Paul] is not overawed by the prestige that the 3 original apostles had as being eyewitnesses to Christ life. It in no way challenged them or their authority as such. Nor, did the dispute over the dietary laws, documented in Acts 15 and Galations 1 and 2, cause St. Paul to break communion with the Church. The Letter to the Galatians was after St. Paul visited that area (c.f. Acts 16 and Acts 18) and in Acts 21, we see St. Paul going to visit St. James, who was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. So again, whatever you say about the dispute in Acts 15, also recorded in Galatians 1, Paul did not break communion with the other Apostles.
Regards
I like & respect bdeaner, and believe this thread was started by him in response to a private email I sent him. I enjoy reading his posts and appreciate the chance to discuss these issues with him.
However, how is “Protestants have your own traditions of interpreting the Bible. They just deny them, which is bad faith and false witness.” not personal. I’m a Protestant, so do I act in bad faith and false witness?
I’ve read every post on this thread. papertyger’s “Neither do you; the difference is we admit it.” is one of the mildest ‘personal’ statements on this thread.
See post 448, 426, 423, 417, 404, 402...like the sidebar discussion on who tortured who when, and who approves of it - plenty of mud has been slung around.
On a previous thread, I disparaged bdeaner & bronxville, both of whom I’ve come to sincerely appreciate. It is possible, even after getting a bit personal, to develop friendship and respect.
As Moderator, you have to do what you have to do, but it seems a bit uneven to me. Frankly, I thought this thread was getting a bit personal by post #4, when bdeaner’s article was described as “the same kind of Catholic Cult mentality that some of those ‘Radio Replies’ come from.” It I were him, I’d have taken that a bit personally...
You got that right and it’s the same in every Catholic thread. You try and explain truth to them and they explode with wrath. Nothing new here.
Careful. They think Jesus and the disciples were Catholic.
That’s funny...laugh lines, tee hee.
I didn’t mean to suggest that Paul didn’t think Peter was an Apostle, only that he did not consider him to be first among equals, let alone supreme.
And if you compel someone to do something, it sure SEEMS like it involves teaching or instruction, not just behavior.
Perhaps my military time biases my interpretation - I was once threatened with court-martial for a milder statement than Paul’s!
BTW - I wasn’t court-martialed. The other high ranking officers told my commander that I was well known for having a somewhat odd perspective on life. And since I was a couple of weeks away from a transfer...
He left the Holy Spirit. HE is our rudder.
AMEN. YOU win the big ceegar.
Entire beliefs or groups that hold certain beliefs may be ridiculed or demeaned on "open" threads in the Religion Forum.
I can and do intervene to prevent posters from "making it personal" but there is nothing I can do - or would do - for posters who "take it personally" other than to point out that thin-skinned posters should ignore "open" RF threads altogether and instead post to the other thread types: "prayer" "devotional" "caucus" or "ecumenical."
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.