Posted on 06/24/2014 2:13:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
So what other source of Truth is there and how do you know? Where in Scripture does it tell us there's another source of divine revelation truth for us to know and what that source is?
We have and it has been ignored.
You are obligated to Christ, not overseers.>>>>>
I am obligated to Christ only, but if I was a member sharing the food with a hundred other members I would be obligated to the overseers who was in charge.
It was argued that Scripture supporting Scripture alone is not valid because it's not an objective source. The problem with that is that since the Catholic church claims to have written Scripture from oral tradition, then their claims of Scriptural substantiation to support using *sacred tradition* cannot be valid as that makes the Scripture they claimed penned from oral tradition not an objective source to support oral tradition.
LOL...ain’t that the truth...
You seem to recommend we listen to the Holy Spirit according to CB, who is not a man?
Logic fail.
A made up term perhaps generated from a stark difference between us as to what "Church" is.
Nope, not adding a thing to it. Accept it as it is - which is not "scripture alone." It's when you try to use it for "sola" that something needs to be added - that something being sola or alone. The verse is perfectly fine and clear otherwise.
If someone doesn't believe there IS a God, then they wouldn't believe anyone who would say God spoke to him. See how that works? ;o)
Of what denomination or sect church are you a member ? I'm curious whose doctrine you espouse ?
I found this site helpful to do just that: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?cat=HW
But that NO is not at all clear. He wanted to be influential and he became so. Mission accomplished. Convincing others that God spoke to him was obviously very helpful.
Peter’s letters were saved. John’s letters were saved. Jude’s letter was saved. That doesn’t mean Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
They didn't need to make up anything, they actually knew Jesus during his lifetime.
Sometimes, but not all time. Also, he gave advice, not just directives. And none of that shows that Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
It shows he gained the influence he clearly wanted.
And he met with other Church leaders. So? None of that shows that Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
It shows that he was one of the church leaders. He had power and influence in this growing religion.
So totalitarian regimes only imprison and execute those who are “dangerous”? None of that shows that Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
Uhm... yeah, they tend to focus on the dangerous ones. Unless you want to tell me why they killed him. Did they not like his hair?
Malchus was name of the man whose ear was cut off by Peter. I know his name because it’s in the gospel of John. Was he influential?
I dunno, vlad, are we on a thread titled "Did Malchus invent Christianity?"
I’m not playing a game, but you sure are jumping around like you’re playing hopscotch.
No, my point has been simple and clear from the beginning. Like others on this thread, I wonder if Paul hijacked or invented Christianity.
“If Paul had not become a leading figure in the development of Christianity, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”
Sure we would - because your claim was that he did what he did to gain “power”.
No we wouldn't, because if he had not become a leading figure, I'd have never heard of him. So no, we would not be having this conversation. Indeed, this entire thread would not exist.
When you write "us" what specific denomination or sect do you represent as there are thousands of them and they certainly do not all agree with each other or you. As for your your contention with respect to 1 Cor 4, I found it useful to read more context than the verse you centered on to attack the Catholic teaching on Mary, who is forever the blessed virgin of Israel and mother of God with us, the LORD Jesus Christ. The context of 1 Cor 1 shows Paul was upholding one holy catholic apostolic church and the contentions were unscriptural. Your use of 1 Cor 4 seems quite out of place, to say the least.
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Exactly...Of all the things John could have written, that which he did write was what he was instructed to write...
The contentions are clear since Paul spelled them out...And then comparing scripture with scripture, the conversation unfolds...
1Co_1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
The contentions were over who had the most authority...Who was the holiest...
And Paul says, 'stick with the scriptures'...If one was over the other, or higher in rank than another, God would have told you in the scriptures...Do not go above what is written in the scriptures...Whether it be Peter, Paul or Mary...Pretty simple stuff there...And Paul say when you do this, it is carnal...
You acknowledge that the Apostles all knew Jesus and walked with him while he was on earth, but you deny that Paul could have had a similar experience with the risen Jesus and been used by God to further the knowledge and understanding of the Christian faith? Since we know from the writings OF those other Apostles that they believed the claims Paul made and they whole-heartedly approved of his ministry and supported his work, then how is it that you - two thousand years removed from the scene - can declare you know what Paul was up to and it was ONLY to gain power and prestige and not from a sincere heart and divinely-ordained mission?
You don't even believe in God much less who Jesus was, so why are you arguing with Christians about Paul's place in the Christian faith? If it was Thaddeus, for example, that God used to write the majority of the New Testament and he said the same things God led Paul to write, would you be dumping on him instead? Is the real reason you don't like Paul because he said some things you didn't like hearing? Things that annoy or bother you concerning women back then? Or is it really that you think Christians are fools for believing what we do and this was a good opportunity to express it?
Vladimir99 and others have given you some pretty good arguments that dispute your ideas about Paul and his motives and you barely acknowledge them. I hope you understand that it is not you specifically that is being criticized here but the false and illogical ideas you have expressed. I hope you will thoughtfully reconsider what has been said to you.
There is a limit to how specific a reply I can make to you because I have been forbidden to discuss atheism on this thread. So I will limit myself to observing that those who knew Jesus during his lifetime, knew Jesus. People who claim to have been visited or spoken to by God are simply in another category completely. We have dozens of them, and many times they are able to convince others that they are telling the truth. Mohammed has apparently convinced millions. That people who make this claim can convince others means nothing.
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.