Posted on 06/24/2014 2:13:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
1.) The Eucharist
2.) Authority of Sacred Tradition
3.) Papal Infallibility
4.) The Marian Doctrines
That's a good start.
Al Gore... in a previous life...invented Christianity...everyone knows that... /s
Acts 15
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up , and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe .
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness , giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence , and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace , James answered , saying , Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written ,
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well .
30 So when they were dismissed , they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together , they delivered the epistle:
31 Which when they had read , they rejoiced for the consolation.
32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
Paul being THE apostle to the gentile and the one who invented Christianity come from his own words
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication:
what did Paul say regarding this same account?
Gal 2
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
How about what it says in acts 29
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication:
Why did Paul leave that out?
Did Paul deny that Peter had been sent to the Gentiles? no but in Paul`s letter to the Galatians he said
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Acts does not record any thing like that.
I believe it was because Paul may have been getting old and senile but regardless of the reason it is contradictions and pretty big ones which would give people reason to doubt Paul.
RE: Paul being THE apostle to the gentile and the one who invented Christianity come from his own words
Where in the above verses you quoted from Acts 15 does it show that he INVENTED Christianity?
The words: “For it seemed good to the HOLY GHOST, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;”
Those words clearly tell us that it was the HOLY SPIRIT ( i.e. GOD ) who helped them (not simply Paul) make that decision.
RE: Paul is telling a different story here than what is told in acts, ( only that we should remember the poor )
I see NO CONTRADICTION between this and Acts 15.
In Acts 15, James and the rest of the council, based on Paul and Barnabas’ testimony, made a decision they say was from the Holy Spirit. That was a COLLECTIVE decision.
In Galatians 2 , Paul tells us that the apostles tells him not to forget the poor.
How are these contradictions?
Paul is simply giving us MORE INFORMATION as to what transpired and their conversation in Acts 15.
Acts 15 did not give us every detail of Paul’s conversation with the rest of the apostles. In Galatians 2, he gives us some more details. THAT’s ALL.
RE: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; Acts does not record any thing like that.
So?
Did Matthew record everything that John recorded in his gospel? No.
Did John record everything Matthew wrote? No.
Are we then to conclude that one of the two is fabricating his gospel story?
Just because Acts does not record every single detail of Paul’s conversation with the rest of the apostles does not mean there are no details.
So, if Paul gives us more details in his own epistle and Peter ( in his later epistle ) does not question what Paul wrote in his epistle ( See 2 Peter 3:15-16 where Peter ENDORSES Paul’s epistles and equate them to scripture ) why conclude that Paul is fabricating things?
Only those who are biased against him would do that.
No? They just decided for themselves what was. I guess Luther relegating the deuterocanonicals to the status of apocrypha was an example of proper canonical/doctrinal development.
Clearly the RCC decided that MORE was . On what basis do they find Scripture inadequate?
Protestant fallacy. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are both valid sources of Revealed Truth and Authority. Neither contradicts the other.
“But that NO is not at all clear. He wanted to be influential and he became so.”
No. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that he “wanted” to become influential. None. He did what he did out of sense of religious duty. That is the only possible explanation for his actions as both a Jew and a Christian. He knew he was going to be persecuted. You keep avoiding that fact.
There was one holy catholic apostolic faith for which the Apostles Paul and Peter were martyred. You apparentlydefend Luther, so I'll apparently consider you of Luther.
from Wikipedia, but there are lots of sources:
On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word antisemitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.
...
The prevailing scholarly view[5] since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany's attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust. Four hundred years after it was written, the Nazis displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published.
Okay, you are of Wesley; just don't post any more of that Mormon heresy to me. I took you for a Mormon.
At its heart, the theology of John Wesley stressed the life of Christian holiness: to love God with all one’s heart, mind, soul and strength and to love one’s neighbour as oneself. See also Ministry of Jesus. Wesley’s teaching also stressed experiential religion and moral responsibility.[1]
although it does not have apostolic succession, as the LORD said, recorded by Luke: 25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
Mmm... we'll never know the truth, but you have to look at what you know about Paul and leave out what religion he stands for, because that is clouding your vision. Here's a mental exercise: pretend we're talking about some guy in late 1960's Florida who used to be against Communism, and was outspoken about it, maybe a kid from a rich family whose interests would naturally be against it.
Then he is visited by the ghost of Che Guevara, and becomes an ardent convert. Now he's setting up CPUSA chapters in Miami, printing leaflets, the FBI is monitoring him but he's getting local fame amongst the Cuban-American kids who agree with him... maybe making connections in Cuba and slowly becoming rather famous in that little circle...
If you heard of a guy like this, you'd roll your eyes and think "mm hmm." You'd know that despite the fact that he believes in what he's doing, there's an ardent desire there for recognition and the feeling of efficacy, the feeling that you are important, you are leading the way, you are the change! You were chosen! You are a hero of the Revolution!
It's a personality type. Idealistic, ego-centric, a little unstable... you'd recognize it if it weren't within a framework you've taught yourself to accept.
“Mmm... we’ll never know the truth, but you have to look at what you know about Paul and leave out what religion he stands for, because that is clouding your vision.”
Your prejudice against religion apparently is clouding YOUR vision. My vision isn’t clouded at all. I am merely taking the man at his word until evidence to the contrary is presented. You have failed to present ANY evidence whatsoever. Not a single scrap of evidence. Nothing. You, however, apparently are assuming you know why he did everything he did with not a single scrap of evidence to back it up.
“Here’s a mental exercise:”
No “mental exercise” is needed when you have the actual writings by and about St. Paul. You have NO EVIDENCE. Your “mental exercises” are not evidence. They are merely an aid to bolster your sad prejudice.
Jesus said on the cross, “It is finished”.
Just why does the Catholic church teach that what He did wasn’t enough and that those things have to be added.
So if someone doesn’t do those things, then are they saved or not?
And that's different from The Catholic church deciding for themselves what is Scripture just how?
Protestant fallacy. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are both valid sources of Revealed Truth and Authority. Neither contradicts the other.
That doesn't answer the question. I asked only about Scripture. You brought in the tradition part.
If *sacred tradition* doesn't contradict Scripture then its redundant and not needed after all.
They were martyred for faith in Jesus, not Catholicism, which didn't exist back then.
Don't have faith in your *faith*. Put your faith in Jesus.
Having faith is only effective if it's placed in the right Person.
Seriously, what is YOUR evidence other than a book put together by the Catholic church (there's a trustworthy organization), half of whose pages are of extremely uncertain origin, full of 2000 year old promises that have not been kept?
Where in the above verses you quoted from Acts 15 does it show that he INVENTED Christianity?>>>>>>>>
I quoted the verses in acts 15 not to show that Paul invented Christianity but that he did not invent it.
Those words clearly tell us that it was the HOLY SPIRIT ( i.e. GOD ) who helped them (not simply Paul) make that decision.>>>>>>
That is right, Paul did not make those decisions.
In Galatians 2 , Paul tells us that the apostles tells him not to forget the poor.>>>>>>
No, here are the exact words.
Gal 2
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
That is not the only thing.
Act 15
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well .
Acts 15 did not give us every detail of Paul’s conversation with the rest of the apostles. In Galatians 2, he gives us some more details. THAT’s ALL.>>>>>>>
Why did Paul say ( only )when that was not the only thing they were to heed?
Gal 1
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Paul is talking of himself as the him they are removed from.
You can see very plainly that Paul is once again complaining about this church recognizing doctrine other than his own.
Peter seems to recommend at least some of Paul`s writings 2 Peter 3:15-16
Luke applies Apostle to Paul and Barbabas.
In acts 15:25 they are called beloved brothers.
These three scriptures come up every time there is a discussion of the dozens of contradictions regarding Paul, as if they explained the whole thing and there is nothing to discuss.
Every thing else comes from Paul.
Gal 1
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
That we have preached unto you, who is the we?
1 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Who is the we?
No one except Paul and he goes on verse after verse talking about him self and making others look less, and it is really hard to tell who the others are that he is talking about.
16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Paul is defending him self to the Galatians as he did the Corinthians.
John 5
43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
When I was attending church I could count the sermons of what Jesus said on the fingers of one hand but there would not be enough fingers in the church to count the sermons about the great apostle Paul.
why conclude that Paul is fabricating things?
Only those who are biased against him would do that.>>>>>>
I am only pointing out these things so you can understand what people are looking at to get their opinions,
I can also see your opinion as I myself argued for years that Paul never had any differences with the apostles.
Personally I do not believe any one is infallible, including the apostles and that includes Paul, if People are of the mind that Paul could do nothing wrong why would they believe that Peter could?
but by Paul`s words Peter did do something wrong or at least Paul thought he did.
If Peter was not perfect then neither was Paul.
We are not to judge men, but only their actions and words.
If some one talks enough they are bound to make some mistakes.
I do not believe every thing in scripture is wrote down by the holy spirit but is only inspired by the holy spirit.
I was sitting with a group of people and had not said a single word for about an hour, they all started looking at me as if they might think I was dumb, so I started talking and left them no doubt.
So I will get off of here.
RE: I quoted the verses in acts 15 not to show that Paul invented Christianity but that he did not invent it.
Good. Then we are in agreement here. I apologize if I misread you.
Now on to the next issue....
RE: No, here are the exact words.
Gal 2 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
That is not the only thing.
Act 15 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well .
____________________________________
That was the advise they made to a GROUP of people they commissioned.
Acts 15:22 22 “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers.”
Among them were Judas and Silas.
What Paul was referring to in Galatians 2 is ADDITIONAL ADVISE given to him by those who sent him.
Again, I see no conflict at all.
RE: I am only pointing out these things so you can understand what people are looking at to get their opinions,
Well, you seem to be doing a good job refuting them. Continue doing it like Apollos... :)
Good. Then we are in agreement here. I apologize if I misread you.>>>>>
No problem.
What Paul was referring to in Galatians 2 is ADDITIONAL ADVISE given to him by those who sent him.>>>>>>>
We can just assume that but it can also be assumed just the opposite.
Well, you seem to be doing a good job refuting them. Continue doing it like Apollos... :)>>>>>
Well,,, seriously now? Lol.
“Your evidence seems to be the writing of Paul.”
And the writing about him. Is there any other evidence than that?
“He wrote God spoke to him,”
Luke wrote that God spoke to Paul.
“so you decide that of course that must be true.”
Do you have even a scrap of evidence to the contrary?
“After all, he SAID so.”
Luke said so.
“Do you accept Mohammed’s similar claim based on similar evidence? No, of course not.”
Again, to correct you, I do indeed believe an other worldly voice spoke to Muhammad. I just don’t believe it was God. So, yes, I believe Muhammad was telling the truth when he said someone essentially channeled through him. I just don’t see it as being God and that isn’t what he claimed anyway. You probably know no more about Islam than you do Christianity.
“Do you think Bernadette Soubirous was visited by the Virgin Mary? Probably not.”
Actually, I do believe it. Again, I have no reason to not believe it.
“Do you believe all the saints of the Catholic faith who claim Jesus has spoken to them?”
How many is that even? Seriously, you’re making a lot of assumptions here - all apparently to avoid the complete lack of evidence for your beliefs.
“If you’re Catholic, you might, if not, probably not. Do you believe Joseph Smith Jr, founder of the Latter Day Saints?”
Believe what about him?
“Seriously, what is YOUR evidence other than a book put together by the Catholic church (there’s a trustworthy organization), half of whose pages are of extremely uncertain origin, full of 2000 year old promises that have not been kept?”
That’s your prejudice talking. That’s not a rational argument in the least.
Just admit it: you have no evidence for your prejudice against Paul.
1.) The Eucharist
We celebrate the Biblical Lord’s Supper “doing it in memory of Him until He comes.”
2.) Authority of Sacred Tradition
Which is not Biblically on par with Scripture. Nor are there any traditions that we know are authoritative.
3.) Papal Infallibility
Ha! He isn’t. Ever.
4.) The Marian Doctrines
Ha! Made up out of whole cloth, like “papal infallibility.”
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.