Posted on 01/06/2013 3:56:49 PM PST by NYer
And how many have voted for it as opposed to against it?
The RCC can't even get people to vote right. There isn't going to be much door blockading going on.
No, Paul was NOT there. That was exactly my point.
While you pointed out that all the Christians referred to in Acts 15:8 (the Gentiles) received the Holy Spirit, that does not in the least mean that the Holy Spirit treated all Christians who received the Holy Spirit EXACTLY alike, or gave them the same faculties and assignments.
We do NOT treat all the writings (such as letters and other writings) of all those "Holy-Spirit-filled Christians" from that time period alike. The Holy Spirit (guiding the Church) only selected a very small fraction of all the writings of all those "Holy-Spirit-filled Christians" to be included in the "New Testament".
Paul is credited with writing more "Books" of the "New Testament" than any other Christian, and he was NOT among that group who were directly taught by Jesus, and who Jesus assured (in John 14:26) that He would refresh their memory later, but Paul was STILL selected to write Sacred Scripture, which most of the other "Holy-Spirit-filled" Christians mentioned in the Book of Acts were NOT, a very distinct, exclusive assignment.
What you referred to as "nits", is actually the main point. The Holy Spirit only picked a select few people (out of ALL the "Holy-Spirit-filled" Christians of that time) to fulfill certain, specific roles in the Church, such as to write the documents which were to later be included in Sacred Scriptures, or for "Apostolic Succession" -- picking the actual successors to the Apostles (see Acts 1:24-26), who Jesus directly and specifically gave the distinct faculty to forgive or retain sins.
John 20:22-2322 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.
- - - - - - -
Acts 1:24-26The Holy Spirit assigned different roles to different Christians -- they were not all treated in exactly the same way by the Holy Spirit, just because they received the Holy Spirit. Some were specifically assigned to write portions of Sacred Scripture (most were NOT), and others were specifically assigned (by God) to forgive sins (again, most were NOT). (That was the point. If you think those distinctions and specific assignments made by God, and those portions of Sacred Scripture and their instructive messages involve mere "nits", then perhaps you would do well to carefully reevaluate that disparaging view. If they were "nits", why would Almighty God include them in Sacred Scripture?)24 And they prayed and said, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen
25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.
26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
Now the Scriptures do NOT tell us the specifics of how the Gentiles mentioned in Acts 15 actually entered the Church and received the Holy Spirit (those texts are vague about that), but is is quite likely that they were received into the Church and received the Holy Spirit in the same ways as the converts mentioned here in another part of the Book of Acts:
Acts 2:37-3937 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
Are you sure about that, or are you just parroting another RC polemic?
All that to try to prove that it was the Catholic Church that should get the glory for bringing us scripture? Even to the point of implying that because of that we should all somehow become part of that religion? I dont think you got my point? I said all that was picking at nits because it matters not how or who God used to bring the scripture as we know it to this point. History is replete with evil people being used by God to further His plans. Time and time again even the Israelites fell from following Gods wishes and commands. Even if it was the Catholic Church which was the implement that God used to preserve His word it would be foolhardy to imply that they are therefore the one true church.
When the scriptures were translated from the original Greek instead of from the Latin of the Roman Catholic Church was when many of the errors of the RCC were brought more into focus. It was clear that translating from Greek to Latin and then translated to some other language brought forth errors. In that regard it could easily be said that the Catholic Church was trying to thwart true scripture from getting to us since all but Catholics understand that it was the Catholic Church who attempted to keep the scriptures out of the hands of lay people.
Do you believe that one group of apostles mentioned in the Bible were the "one true group of apostles" chosen by God at that time?
If so, did that "one true group of apostles" include an evil man named "Judas Iscariot"?
When the other 11 apostles chose "Matthias" to replace "Judas Iscariot", was that newly updated group of 12 apostles the "one true group of apostles" (as viewed by God) at that point in time?
(This has absolutely NOTHING to do with trying to get the glory for being the conduit which God chose to give us His Sacred Scriptures. Rather, it has EVERYTHING to do with trying to find the TRUTH about the Church that Jesus Christ gave His most solemn word He would build.)
Are you sure about that? A simple keyword search of Paul's name alone kind of blows that statement out of the water.
You want to make a better try for supporting the claim of authority for Peter than that?
Peter - 162 occurrences
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=peter&version1=ESV&searchtype=all&bookset=2
Paul - 195 occurrences
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=paul&version1=ESV&searchtype=all&bookset=2
That is another example of the exaggeration Rome engages in as she preaches herself, and by your logic you have just negated the authority of Peter as supreme and crowned the apostle Paul as pope.
"Peter" is mentioned 162 times in all of the NT. and "Cephas" 6 times, for a total of 168, but which includes duplicate accounts.
Using just the synoptic gospel in which he is mentioned most (24), Matthew, and John thru Revelation the rest of the NT (105), then Peter and Cephas occurs 129 times total.
However, Paul is mentioned 163 as "Paul" and 26 times as "Saul" giving him a total of 189 times.
In addition he wrote 13 books of Scripture, nearly 50 percent of the New Testament, and mentions Peter after James in Gal. 2:9, and the latter gave the definitive final decree in Act 15, and Peter is not even heard of after Acts 12, nor in Paul's extensive list of acquaintances in Rm. 16, nor is submission to or prayers for Peter or mention of him as the supreme head in Rome ever seen in any of the church epistles.
While i am not arguing against holy Peter being the brethren-type leader of the apostles and initially of the church, and who served in a general pastoral role (the perpetuation of his office, and assuredly infallibility, and the demi-god aspect of the historical papacy of Rome are the real issues), yet in contrast to Rome thinking of men above that which is written, (cf. 1Cor. 4:6), and if one wanted to make a case for the primacy of Paul, consistent with Rome's logic, then,
Here are the 51 Biblical proofs of a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy, using popular Catholic reasoning:
From 51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy
So according to your logic, being the instrument and steward of Holy Writ makes you the infallible interpreters of it, and who could not be perpetrators of fables, and one cannot be considered valid without their sanction?
Affirm or deny. Thank you.
BTW The eleven apostles didnt select Matthias, God did.
Acts 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Now, as far as the church Jesus promised. He did indeed establish a church. It was NOT the RCC. Anyone who honestly compares the teaching of the RCC with scripture understands that the RCC is often in contradiction to scripture.
The Church as established by Jesus Christ with its Magisterium is the voice of the Holy Spirit.Your answer: "Not in the denying Church Teaching on things like Sacraments"Assuming you mean the Catholic church, and not the church that is made of the body of believers who are born again, have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ and have eternal salvation, I strongly disagree.
The voice of the Holy Spirit can not be restricted like that.
Oh I think the Holy Spirit is doing a great job working through posters on this and other threads to point out the extra-Biblical errors deeply embedded in some of the "sacraments"
Restricting the Holy Spirit in any area is counterproductive to understanding the Truth. And the Way and the Life.
From the excerpts:
Whatever the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures and religions, serves as a preparation for the Gospel and can only be understood in reference to Christ, the Word who took flesh by the power of the Spirit 'so that as perfectly human he would save all human beings and sum up all things'.Like the bolded phrase, then thre is this:
...these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted toI adjusted the last sentence in the interest of truthfulness in posting.the Catholic Churchall born again believers.
Good to see the accusation of defectiveness as some posters denied that was said in the official writings of the Catholic denomination.
This is not the Koran but the Book of Gospels of the Orthodox Church — usuaally green.
Check it out.
Are you just repeating what you think is true?
Truth is exclusive by nature, and Christianity began in division from others, and its perpetuation often requires the same, (1Cor. 11:19) while by condemning dispute then you yourself are posting a divisive view against others who disagree.
Here the contention is against those who incessantly preach a particular church here as supreme, and exclude Prots who preach Christ as being Christian churches in the proper sense. And some deny they can be saved unless they convert to Catholicism. And thus we reveal the lack of clothes the emporer has, while "a living dog is better than a dead lion." (Eccl. 9:4) As Daid said, , "Is there not a cause?"
Are you sure about that? A simple keyword search of Paul's name alone kind of blows that statement out of the water.
You want to make a better try for supporting the claim of authority for Peter than that?
Peter - 162 occurrences
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=peter&version1=ESV&searchtype=all&bookset=2
Paul - 195 occurrences http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=paul&version1=ESV&searchtype=all&bookset=2 "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi metmom!
Good to "see" you again.
I don't presume to speak for Salvation, but the way I would have taken that, I would assume it would have had to involve the people who were with Jesus Christ when he said it -- that is, one of the twelve original apostles, most likely the one Jesus was replying directly to.
(It couldn't have been Paul -- he wasn't there when Jesus made that proclamation -- he was still named Saul, and hadn't been converted yet.)
(By the way, I replaced "Peter" with "Holy Spirit" in your search link, and it came back with only 100 occurences.) :-)
I hate to "post and run" again, but I have other stuff I really have to do right now, but I'll try to check back again as soon as I can, to see if you replied.
Take care metmom, and goodnight!
Holy Spirit - 100 occurrences
Salvation - I used your screen name in my previous post, and I forgot to adress it to you too. Sorry!
no
Actually the "Fathers" only have the authority Rome gives them, as the Church judged them more than they judge "the Church," and and she fails of their unanimous consent, and thus you mean The Roman Reformers reject all authority in favor of their own in reading of Tradition, Scripture and history, substantially differing even with the Orthodox on papal power and infallibility, purgatory, indigence, etc.
Thus no less an authority than Manning stated,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
No, that is not so obvious about Judas. There is much greater evidence to support just the opposite. Judas DID believe Jesus (especially after witnessing firsthand miracles plus hearing of the resurrection of Lazarus. Judas did not understand the ministry of Jesus, as well as the church elders, but thought to capitalize on it. Since Jesus was God, He could overthrow the Roman rule which was a sticking point to all Jews. What better way to prove that than pit one against the other?
Thanks
That is an impressive argument.
Well isnt that interesting. Thanks for posting that daniel1212.
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.