Posted on 03/17/2012 7:26:45 AM PDT by GonzoII
An excellent question. It had not occurred to me that anyone would think that Paul's Epistles were listed in chronological order in the Bible.
Could you not have just opened your Bibles and seen the answer for yourself? Just askin'...
Scriptures are only an incomplete reflection of the Word. They are important only in that they give testimony to God. Jesus is found in the Eucharist and Grace in the Sacraments.
"You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." - - John 5:39-40
Thanks for your reply.
What is your source for dating the epistles?
Very kind response and, as usual, delivered well. But, (there's that "but"), the difference between an "organization" and a gathering is enormous. Rome has created an "organization", even a country. Yet, the English word translated "church" is a fabricated word from the Scottish term "kirk" intended to distinguish it. A feature not found in the Scriptural word. That word is of course "ecclesia" or "assembly" and the Greek NT will occasionally used it precisely for a chaotic mob. Acts 19:32; 19:39; 19:41. It was a common word, but not for a formal organization. The assembly Jesus is building is being done by His Holy Spirit blowing wherever He wishes.
I have reread Acts 2 and 10 and cannot find papalism. I find no apostolic succession. Again, please point out exactly where a "pope" is set up and a new one is going to be appointed after the death of the last one.
Sacerdotalism does not appear at the so-called "Last Supper" (a name the publishers added to the top of the pages). If this is the way Rome constructs a doctrine it is little wonder they could manufacture so much.
Indulgences are making a comeback but there is no evidence anywhere in the Scripture that a man can grant another man forgiveness before God. The Jews recognized that one would have to be God to do so.
Confession in booths. Of course I believe in confession. Even confessing sin against one another TO one another. But, this is not the confession in booths going on in the RCC which holds that men can grant one another forgiveness for some kind of penalty paid, such as six Hail Mary's, five Our Fathers. Nowhere is such nonsense found in the Scriptures.
I apologize for the Prada shoes remark. I actually thought this was the case. In view the enormous amount of gold, silk, decor, pomp & circumstance granted this man, I still find the contrast between him and Jesus shocking, yet Jesus was God on Earth. It was the errant Pharisees who loved the center stage and the RCC just looks oddly similar.
My intention is not to beat up the RCC (although that is tempting because of the great errors I notice), but to call to those involved with it to look closely at the Text. The doctrines this organization promulgates are simply not there. Much more could be said, but I have to go.
Throughout the Old Testament God had always chosen a single man to guide His Church and He has guided and protected that person through public and private Revelation. This was true of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Solomon, David and the many judges, kings and prophets that followed. It would be true of His Church too.
In His revelation Jesus specifically discussed the three possible forms of Church governance; the Democratic form, the Oligarchical form, and the Theocratic form before revealing His choice.
In this dialog Jesus asks His Disciples; "Who do the people say that I am?" (Matt 16:16). This was the Democratic option. He got answers varying from Elijah, to John the Baptist, to "One of the Prophets", but no clear, unambiguous or truthful answer. He then asked His Apostles; "Who do you say that I am?" This was the oligarchical form. None responded. These two forms were unambiguously rejected.
Then Peter stepped forward and without consulting the others said; "You are the Christ, the son of the living God.". In response to this Jesus revealed the basis and governance of His Church when He said:
“Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:17-19)
• I understand this objection, but there are many layers within the dialog of Jesus. Before we consider syntax we must consider context. Jesus and the Apostles had the conversation in Matthew 16 in Caesarea Philippi. Located near the Golan Heights the city, previously known as Panis, was built above a huge rock wall also known as the rock of the Gods. At the base of this wall was a flooded cave that local superstitions believed was a passage to the under world. It was before this wall, with the temple to Pan (the Greek God of chaos and confusion, that the conversation took place. When you factor in the possible play on words the syntax is not so clear.
Now, if this was the only passage in the Gospels that addressed the primacy of Peter there might be some room for disagreement, but there are about 50 verses that establish it. Peter, like Abram (Abraham) Jacob (Israel) and Sara (Sarah) was given a new name by God upon the bestowing of their holy office. Collectively these leave no doubt.
What is meant by Church? It certainly is not a loose aggregation of like minded persons. The English word “church”, with its history of usage, clouds and confuses the intention of this passage. The Greek word used was Ekklesia and the Hebrew / Aramaic word was Qahal. These had very specific meanings to the first century witnesses.
The concept of an Ekklesia, or the called out, was centuries old in the Greek culture. More correctly translated as a convocation, it was a specific group of people called into a hierarchical and structured assembly for a specific purpose. It was the supreme governing body of the Greek city states. It was limited to men over the age of 18 who had served at least two years of military service in the defense of the city. It alone had the power to pass a death sentence, to select, remove, or try a government official, and to declare war. There were also severe penalties for failure to assemble when called.
The Qahal is even more indicative of a fixed and hierarchical organizational structure. It was the theocratic organizational structure in ancient Israelite society.
II Tim 3:16,17, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for correction, for training in righteousness that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
I'll defer to the Scriptures over your opinion that we need your organization, my FRiend. Even though your private interpretation is that this is my "private interpretation". An "adequate" interpretation is better than an "incomplete" interpretation. And, I certainly want to find eternal life in Jesus, or rather as Paul said, to be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own, but a righteousness from Him.
Profitable or useful is quite different in meaning from entirely sufficient by itself.
thanks for your posts.
Thank you for proving my point. St. Paul is telling us that Scripture is a great training aid. No Catholic will argue with that. But The ministry of Jesus is infinitely more than is included in the Bible as we are taught in John 21:25
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. - John 21:25
At the time this letter was written the only Scripture available was the Old Testament. Since Jesus and His ministry was predicted over 450 times in the Old Testament it was indeed profitable ("useful" and "beneficial") for all of these things, but it was not by itself to be an object of worship, a gnostic key, or a book of incantations with special healing powers to be cited to ward off evil spirits and Catholics.
If that is not enough, then may I suggest you follow 2 Tim 2:15 and STUDY for yourself? It isn't that hard to figure it out.
Unless you've been told that your church tradition holds something like Paul wrote Ephesians on February 29, 64 AD, and because that was a leap year, then it only has to be followed every 4 years...
pardon my impatience, but a little study on your part, if even to prove me wrong, would be helpful.:)
No offense intended.
It just seemed to me that order and date were very important to your exegesis so I was asking how you arrive at this. I’m not aware of any precisely known dating for all the epistles.
If you have a source/chart, that would be appreciated, since it seems quite crucial to your points here.
To explain with an example:
>>>the Epistles he wrote BEFORE Israel was blinded and set aside, and I’ve given you the Epistles he wrote AFTER Israel was blinded and set aside.
It would seem that the before and after here would also need to match with chronology of writing.
There are other considerations of course, such as audience and purpose, that affect content; but it would help to match up the date/order at least.
thanks for your reply.
thanks for your posts."
Perhaps, but the text says, "adequate, equipped for every good work..." and does not refer to any organization needing to provide pronouncements about its meaning. It is tragic you are chained to a group which owns your interpretation. The believers in Christ are held only by Jesus.
"Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? - 1 Corinthians 12:29-30
The alternative you propose is every individual, a plethora that we see today.
Sola scriptura is neither scriptural, logical, nor practical.
I think that’s why Christ did not teach it.
:)
This would be almost laughable if it were not so pathetic. The “interpretation” in this passage is interpreting the foreign tongues. But, that would require one to read it in context, something evidently Rome won’t allow. Reading some of this junk really makes me want to take back that remark about not beating up Rome. On second thought that dark cult needs a good dose of hell. After all, that is where the organization is bound.
The problem quickly becomes: which believer to believe? Calvinism, Arminianism, Dispensationalism, Oneness Pentecostalism, Messianic Judaism, etc..?
We see in the NT that this is not what is taught. Paul does not say: read this letter and whatever you think is doctrine is doctrine.
The Council of Jerusalem did not arrive at two different doctrines, did not leave it up to each individual.
“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
I should add, regarding:
>>> and does not refer to any organization needing to provide pronouncements about its meaning.
Paul teaches with authority. The Council meets - with authority.
Paul wrote to specific people in specific churches in specific places. There is a hierarchy and an authority and a visible Church. This is organization not anarchy. What you describe is quite contrary to the NT Church.
I hope you are not implying that is an infallible interpretation? Why then would St. Paul draw an analogy between misunderstanding and tongues if we are to assume that is what he meant?
"If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me." - 1 Corinthians 14:11
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.