Posted on 04/11/2010 6:09:57 PM PDT by stfassisi
=================================
Acts 7:59-60
59And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
60And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
==============
κοιμάω: 1) to cause to sleep, put to sleep 2) metaph. a) to still, calm, quiet b) to fall asleep, to sleep c) to die ======================================= So Wag, do you wake Stephen up before you unbiblically communicate with him?
I never thought I would see the day when someone who professes to be a Christian would dismiss what He said as “not much”.
----------------------------------
"Saint Stephen (the FIRST Christian martyr) "
=================================
Acts 7:59-60
59And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
60And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
==============
κοιμάω: 1) to cause to sleep, put to sleep 2) metaph. a) to still, calm, quiet b) to fall asleep, to sleep c) to die
=======================================
So Wag, do you wake Stephen up before you unbiblically communicate with him?
Here is what the actual Bible says:
59 And falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, saying: Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep in the Lord. And Saul was consenting to his death.
Is this really the best you can come up with in your quest to prove that sainthood doesn't exist in Heaven? Is our Lord alive in your estimation?
Do you even believe that Saint Stephen was a Christian? Based on some of the heresy on this thread, it appears that not everyone does.
Too many in the so-called reformed (revisionist) Christian cults are actually Pauline in their theology. There is too little Christ in their Chrstianity.
You are absolutely right.
I see the finger frothers are at it again!
Congrats on your testimony in behalf of the Biblical Gospel.
Thank you, FRiend. Ever since reading about Fatima, I’ve been curious.
Would be those who believe that saints in Heaven are alive?
or
Those who believe that Saint Stephen and Saint James were actually Christians?
or
Those who believe that there actually is much to the Gospels of our Lord?
Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
[Follow the miracles.]
Well it's far bigger than just Paul...Luke's account in Acts must be just as illegitimate as Paul's epistles...
Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Apparently then, Luke lied...
Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Well pity for you...Salvation wasn't offered to you...It was only offered to Jews...Your church is illegitimate as well...
Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
What's really funny is that you don't know for sure whether Jesus said any of that stuff that is printed in red ink...All you know for sure is that the authors of those books make the claim that Jesus said those things...
Luke writes what he says Jesus said, before the resurrection...Paul writes what he claims Jesus said, after the resurrection...Don't you guys ever think these things thru, or you just blindly accept what your religion tells you???
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
THX THX.
You wrote:
“Without the authority of Paul’s epistles, you don’t have a religion...Well you do, but it’s not Christian...”
Christianity comes from Christ, not Paul. St. Paul merely taught what Christ taught the Apostles. In some cases he taught his opinions, but he makes that clear.
Papists blindly accepting INSTITUTIONAL hogwash from the pit?
What a surprise!
/sar
My journey to Catholicism was circular. I was born into a devout Catholic family, but as a teen in the 1960’s developed a doubt, bordering on contempt for all authority, school, parents, government and church. For a significant period of time I was an agnostic and believed that I was a Catholic and Christian only by accident of birth. In this time I looked at virtually every religion. I studied the Buddha, I read many of the Upanishads and the Ramayana. I read the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moroni and A Perl of Great Price. I read the works of Calvin, Luther, and the writings of Aquinas and Augustine among many, many other works in my search for the truth.
What I concluded was that there were far too many instances in the history of religion in which an individual or class would establish themselves as the intermediary between man and God and required that all communication in both directions went through them. Only they could speak to God and God only spoke to them and in exchange for this there was a price to be paid by man. Often this was in the form of wealth, power, influence, access to women, cattle, the proceeds of sacrifice, palaces, etc. Whether the Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, or Calvin there was little difference in the shake down.
I found the one exception to be Christianity. Jesus preached that no one was denied a personal relationship with God. He preached that all could communicate with God and that no one was excluded except by their own deeds and lack of faith. He asked nothing in return except the two greatest commandments and offered himself up to a horrific death, not for his exhalation and enrichment, but for us.
Jesus also differed in that he did not author an Opus that generations of theological lawyers and priests could manipulate and reinterpret for their own benefit. He gave us a very simple message perfectly summarized in the Beatitudes. He also relied on eye witnesses to spread this to all mankind.
This is why I believe that all that is needed for Christianity and Salvation is completely contained within the Synoptic Gospels. Everything that preceded them was in preparation for Christ and everything that followed them had a single purpose; that was to help to explain them. It was not to add to, extend, modify, reform or revise the Synoptic Gospels. Those who rely on single versus or Paul’s letters to establish or rationalize a position that is not found within the Synoptic Gospels are simply, ignorantly, or intentionally wrong.
What's really funny is that you don't know for sure whether Jesus said any of that stuff that is printed in red ink...All you know for sure is that the authors of those books make the claim that Jesus said those things...
Luke writes what he says Jesus said, before the resurrection...Paul writes what he claims Jesus said, after the resurrection...Don't you guys ever think these things thru, or you just blindly accept what your religion tells you???
So, now you are saying that the Gospels are lies?
You don't know for sure if Paul wrote what it attributed to him.
Fortunately, WE have the authority of the Church and its tradition. You have, at best, the theories of a 16th century cleric.
Paul merely taught what Jesus taught the other apostles??? Not even close...Paul taught what the resurrected Jesus taught Paul...
Now I understand why the Protestants misinterpret the term "alter Christus". You really believe that there was another Christ named Paul.
Exactly...That's what I and the scriptures are telling you...
Before the resurrection, salvation was to Jews only...Jesus told the apostles to avoid all Gentiles...After the resurrection, Jesus says to preach salvation to all nations and people...
You know it, you admit it but yet you can' figure it out...Things changed after the resurrection...And NO, the 2nd command does not make the first one moot...
Under the first command, the Gospel was directed at Jews...The Jews for the most part rejected the Messiah...Jesus then blinded the minds of those Jews and sent the apostles into all the world to preach to the Gentiles and offer than what was only intended for the Jews...
There is a time coming again, when the times of the Gentiles gets fufilled; when God will lift the blinders from the minds of the Jews and he will deal with THEM again...
It's probably not fair to put all of them in the same bucket. That would be like putting all Catholics in the same bucket as "Catholic Worker" types or "Liberation theology" types, etc.
It might also do you some good to look up a fellow by the names of John Nelson Darby and Ethelbert William Bullinger. Understanding what he taught would help explain much of what is passed here as orthodox protestant belief. (From what I understand, there are as many protestants that categorically reject doctrines promulgated by those two as accept them). When you start hearing the elevation of Pauline epistles over the gospels, you should always think about those two names.
One question that is worthy of asking is if the posters in question have a particular affinity for the Gospel of Luke, as well.
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.