Christ's Christianity and Paul's Christianity are Not the Same

lawrance · Oct 5, 2012

Stan said:
I'm going to assume you are responding to my post #151. Please try to use the quote feature in future. It makes it so much easier to keep the posts within context.

I am in fact 100% right....Matthew 15:24; “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

This of course did NOT preclude Him from ministering into peoples lives, even if they were not of the Israel sheep pen. He actually confirmed this in John 10:16, and called Paul to be the minister to these sheep.

The curtain was torn by God, notice from the top to the bottom, to signify we would no longer reside in a temple of brick and stone, but in our hearts.

I understand your feelings about the RCC, but they border on vehemence. I challenge you to let God worry about the RCC and you worry about individuals. Don't let the enemy make you focus on THINGS. The RCC will go the way of ALL organizations. The saints will be the ones moving on, and the RCC does contain saints just as any other organized Christian church does. As Christians, we do need to focus on our commonality, Jesus Christ, and not on our differences. BTW, I was raised RCC bit left it many many years ago. A personal choice, NOT a condemnation of the people.

John 10:16 does in not make Paul that at all, as you think there is one flock and then another. no all are one as there is nether Jew or Greek etc in the light of Christ as all are one in Christ.
You think the Jew is a people of God by race, and that is not true at all.
What about the prodigal son he was lost and if he never came back ?

Stan · Oct 5, 2012

MR ROSENBERGER said:
John 10:16 does in not make Paul that at all, as you think there is one flock and then another. no all are one as there is nether Jew or Greek etc in the light of Christ as all are one in Christ.
You think the Jew is a people of God by race, and that is not true at all.
What about the prodigal son he was lost and if he never came back ?

I'm not really sure what you are on about? I never said two flocks, I said two pens or folds, as Jesus said. They are NOW one flock.
The Jews or more aptly Israelites, are a people of God both as a nation and as a belief. If you don't think that is true I suggest you go online and study it.
What about the prodigal son? I'm not into hypothesis here, just what the Bible says.

epostle1 · Oct 5, 2012

Williemac sez:

Why? Just because you are convinced? Paul did not write his letters in light of the gospels. He wrote them in light of what was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit and with his vast knowledge of what we call the old testament.

Paul had to receive the Gospel message from the Holy Spirit all right, no argument there. But by what means did the Holy Spirit use for Paul to receive it? Or did God just shoot him in the head with a truth bullet?

The other epistles in the new testament are no different. The authors did not collectively have access to anything remotely what we now call the gospels.

If you mean the written transmission of the word of God, you are correct. The authors had the full gospel message passed on to them. Then they wrote it down. The full gospel message had to be received. It was entrusted from the Apostles to Paul directly or indirectly. The Apostles received the Gospel message from the lips of Christ. No one can receive anything unless someone else possesses
it. Paul could not have been instantly filled with knowledge because he was blind all the way to Damascus.

In our case, it is more accurate to say that scripture needs to be understood in light of scripture.

What doctrines like the "perspicuity of Scripture" or "scripture understands scripture" really means is, "Scripture means what I take it to mean – no more, no less. The easy-to-understand parts are the parts that agree with what I think. The hard-to-understand parts are the parts that

a) talk about unimportant stuff or

B ) must be subordinated to what I understand."

It's a useful fiction elevated to the level of Revealed Teaching so that self-appointed, one-man Magisteria can say, "Ignorant and unstable people may twist Scripture, but I am safe from all that so I understand perfectly what Scripture means. And when the Catholic Church disagrees with me, that's because the ignorant and unstable Church is disagreeing with me, who is not ignorant or unstable."

In short, it's the rationale for erecting the sundry semi-permeable membranes of the sundry Protestantisms. Not surprisingly, then, the Bible teacher who claims that his special take on Scripture "disproves" the Church will react to criticisms of the absurd doctrine of the "perspicuity of Scripture" with the claim that it is an attack on God Himself. He has to say that, or his whole shell game comes apart. He has to say, in essence, "Oh sure, criticisms on the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture work in reality. But do they work in theory?" Because, as with Marxism, theory trumps reality, not simply in the experience of anybody who has ever attempted to read the Bible, but in the experience of the fragmented and mutually contradictory Protestantisms.

source

That said, we can observe time frames through history and throughout the bible. For example, we do not have animal sacrifices in our lifetime. But they did take place at one stage. This has passed. When Jesus came on the scene, they were still in place. His sacrifice for sin, being far superior in every sense, replaced the old sacrifices. But this did not happen without resistance. In fact, Jesus did not reveal the full truth about it until after His resurrection. And even then, it took some time for it to sink in; for some, a longer time than others.

Agreed.

But in looking back, some of God's chosen were given insight into these things and were inspired of God to share it in letters. Then, as the light became brighter concerning the new covenant, things were expounded on by those writers.

Yes and no. The oral gospel message and the written gospel message complement each other. Just by being different modes of transmission does not make one superior to the other. The Gospels are not an abridged version of the Epistles. They complement and are in harmony with other.

It happens that in the days of the epistles, the gospels were not compiled into any kind of scriptural availability for the believers of that day. Thus, each church was dependant upon the truths that were revealed to them by their founder and mentor, and by the Holy Spirit within them. In that regard, Paul did not have the luxury of informing the Romans or Corinthians, or Galatians, etc., to read the letter in light of the gospels. He rather explained and summerized what he considered to be the most relevant and important things they needed to know at the time he wrote each letter.

Correct. But Paul didn't create what he had received, and he didn't start his ministry until he had hands layed on him by a representative of the Church. Acts 9:17 Paul stayed with the disciples "some days" before he began to preach. Acts 9:19

Thus, each church was dependant upon the truths that were revealed to them by their founder and mentor, and by the Holy Spirit within them.

Their founders and mentors all taught the same things. 1 Cor. 1:10

williemac · Oct 6, 2012

kepha31 said:
Williemac sez:

Why? Just because you are convinced? Paul did not write his letters in light of the gospels. He wrote them in light of what was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit and with his vast knowledge of what we call the old testament.

Paul had to receive the Gospel message from the Holy Spirit all right, no argument there. But by what means did the Holy Spirit use for Paul to receive it? Or did God just shoot him in the head with a truth bullet?

The other epistles in the new testament are no different. The authors did not collectively have access to anything remotely what we now call the gospels.

If you mean the written transmission of the word of God, you are correct. The authors had the full gospel message passed on to them. Then they wrote it down. The full gospel message had to be received. It was entrusted from the Apostles to Paul directly or indirectly. The Apostles received the Gospel message from the lips of Christ. No one can receive anything unless someone else possesses
it. Paul could not have been instantly filled with knowledge because he was blind all the way to Damascus.

In our case, it is more accurate to say that scripture needs to be understood in light of scripture.

What doctrines like the "perspicuity of Scripture" or "scripture understands scripture" really means is, "Scripture means what I take it to mean – no more, no less. The easy-to-understand parts are the parts that agree with what I think. The hard-to-understand parts are the parts that
a) talk about unimportant stuff or
B ) must be subordinated to what I understand."

It's a useful fiction elevated to the level of Revealed Teaching so that self-appointed, one-man Magisteria can say, "Ignorant and unstable people may twist Scripture, but I am safe from all that so I understand perfectly what Scripture means. And when the Catholic Church disagrees with me, that's because the ignorant and unstable Church is disagreeing with me, who is not ignorant or unstable."

In short, it's the rationale for erecting the sundry semi-permeable membranes of the sundry Protestantisms. Not surprisingly, then, the Bible teacher who claims that his special take on Scripture "disproves" the Church will react to criticisms of the absurd doctrine of the "perspicuity of Scripture" with the claim that it is an attack on God Himself. He has to say that, or his whole shell game comes apart. He has to say, in essence, "Oh sure, criticisms on the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture work in reality. But do they work in theory?" Because, as with Marxism, theory trumps reality, not simply in the experience of anybody who has ever attempted to read the Bible, but in the experience of the fragmented and mutually contradictory Protestantisms.

source

That said, we can observe time frames through history and throughout the bible. For example, we do not have animal sacrifices in our lifetime. But they did take place at one stage. This has passed. When Jesus came on the scene, they were still in place. His sacrifice for sin, being far superior in every sense, replaced the old sacrifices. But this did not happen without resistance. In fact, Jesus did not reveal the full truth about it until after His resurrection. And even then, it took some time for it to sink in; for some, a longer time than others.

Agreed.

But in looking back, some of God's chosen were given insight into these things and were inspired of God to share it in letters. Then, as the light became brighter concerning the new covenant, things were expounded on by those writers.

Yes and no. The oral gospel message and the written gospel message complement each other. Just by being different modes of transmission does not make one superior to the other. The Gospels are not an abridged version of the Epistles. They complement and are in harmony with other.

It happens that in the days of the epistles, the gospels were not compiled into any kind of scriptural availability for the believers of that day. Thus, each church was dependant upon the truths that were revealed to them by their founder and mentor, and by the Holy Spirit within them. In that regard, Paul did not have the luxury of informing the Romans or Corinthians, or Galatians, etc., to read the letter in light of the gospels. He rather explained and summerized what he considered to be the most relevant and important things they needed to know at the time he wrote each letter.

Correct. But Paul didn't create what he had received, and he didn't start his ministry until he had hands layed on him by a representative of the Church. Acts 9:17 Paul stayed with the disciples "some days" before he began to preach. Acts 9:19

Thus, each church was dependant upon the truths that were revealed to them by their founder and mentor, and by the Holy Spirit within them.

Their founders and mentors all taught the same things. 1 Cor. 1:10

Thanks for your reply. I feel no need to respond to it point by point, as we agree on many things. I will however respond to the last part. if you read the history as presented in scripture, there was no absence of disagreement between some of the parties involved. Paul had a dispute with Peter, for example, and withstood him to his face. Paul, as you might recall, before his conversion, was a Pharisee, a teacher. The disciples were not. Thus Paul had an advantage, that I assume God was fully aware of when He interrupted Paul's agenda on the road to Damascus. I find it interesting that he went away and spent 14 years in the wilderness to learn directly from God, I suppose. In no way did he write and teach the exact same things as the other Apostles. I believe he was called of God to understand and relay the deeper truths of the new covenant that the others could not have understood without the same previous vast knowledge of the scriptures that Paul had.

Each member of the body of Christ is unique, and therefore each called according to their character and personality among other traits, to their individual purposes. It would be in my opinion, a naive conclusion to say that all the founders and mentors had all the same knowledge and understanding.

My original point in stating the time frames was to suggest that Jesus taught many things that were not intended to be brought into new covenant doctrine. Paul explained to the Galatians that the law, for example, was given to reveal to the individual that he was a sinner unable to comply with the righteous requirement of the law. One cannot be expected to come to God for the gift of life by grace if he feels he is to earn life through his works. The first thing needed is the inner conviction that one is a sinner in need of a savior. This is what Jesus accomplished in many of his encounters with certain individuals. He never let anyone off the hook. He always told them they were lacking something. Was He teaching the new covenant when He told them to keep the law? Not a chance.

I always marvel at the teachings I hear concerning the principle of forgiveness. The Lord's prayer is inevitabley brought into play in teaching the sheep to forgive others so that God can forgive them (Mark 11:26). Is this new covenant? If so, then why did Paul contradict it in two places, by teaching to forgive just as we also HAVE BEEN forgiven? (Eph.4:32, Col.3:13). Which of these two motivations seem the most burdensome? We need to really think hard about the context, remembering that the new covenant did not begin until after the death of Jesus.
Therefore I feel it is over simplified to suggest we read the epistles in light of the gospels.

Thus we have many discussions and disagreements on sites such as this as to just what we should do with the apparent contradictions with Paul's teachings and Jesus' teachings. It is no use pretending they do not exist. But this is not a paper-covers-rock game we play with the bible. However, if things are not understood in their context then this is exactly what transpires in the debates. Scripture winds up being used to contradict scripture. I see this all the time.
Blessings, Howie

epostle1 · Oct 6, 2012

williemac said:
Thanks for your reply. I feel no need to respond to it point by point, as we agree on many things. I will however respond to the last part. if you read the history as presented in scripture, there was no absence of disagreement between some of the parties involved. "

It was a pleasure reading your post.
The Church makes the final ruling binding on all believers, not just one individual community, as you suggest. If a ruling is to be binding on all Christians, then some entity must exist to do the binding. That entity is refereed to as the Magisterium. Without authority you have chaos. Heaven cannot bind an error.

Can a corporation operate without a CEO?
How can our sons and daughters fight a war in the middle if no one is in charge?
Surely, you don't think that disputes were resolved based on the authority of the Holy Spirit utilizing character traits. They (not individuals) had the same authority as Jesus himself. Matt. 10:1 Matt. 10:40 Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world,

Paul had a dispute with Peter, for example, and withstood him to his face.

Yes, for his behavior, not his teaching. In other words, Paul does not oppose Peter's teaching, but his failure to live by it.

Gal. 2:11 Gal. 2:12 Gal. 2:13 Gal. 2:14

With this rebuke, Paul is really saying "Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!" The verse really underscores, and not diminishes the importance of Peter's leadership in the Church. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile's salvation in Acts 10,11.

The Gospels magnify and complement the Epistles. The light has to come from the sun, and pass through the magnifying glass that is close to the object that you want to see. If you hold a magnifying glass up and look at the sun you'll burn your eye out.

Paul, as you might recall, before his conversion, was a Pharisee, a teacher. The disciples were not. Thus Paul had an advantage, that I assume God was fully aware of when He interrupted Paul's agenda on the road to Damascus. I find it interesting that he went away and spent 14 years in the wilderness to learn directly from God, I suppose. In no way did he write and teach the exact same things as the other Apostles. I believe he was called of God to understand and relay the deeper truths of the new covenant that the others could not have understood without the same previous vast knowledge of the scriptures that Paul had.

Scripture doesn't say Paul learned directly from God. He was called directly by God. There exists in scripture one of two criteria for being a man of God.
1) be called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders
2) be ordained by a higher authority

Paul was called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders.
Paul was ordained by a higher authority with the laying on of hands by a representative of the Church. His ministry started when he could see.
Timothy was being prepped for ordination as bishop.
Moses and angels were called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders.
St. Francis of Assisi was called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders, and he was never ordained.
The Apostles were called by God to preach, not write, and only 3 of them wrote, so the preaching of the other nine is no less holy than the writing of the 3, because they were called directly by God. This is BEFORE Paul was sanctioning the execution of us Christians. Viewing the Gospels through the epistles is a contortion I'm just too old for, I'll get a brain cramp.

It is true that St. Paul spent long periods of time in solitude (not isolation), but totally alone?

Biblegateway search "man of God" This title is never used to mean each and every bible reading believer. You can sift through all 72 results and not find a single usage for any individual believer. Or you can trust me and save yourself the time.

Each member of the body of Christ is unique, and therefore each called according to their character and personality among other traits, to their individual purposes. It would be in my opinion, a naive conclusion to say that all the founders and mentors had all the same knowledge and understanding.

The body is made up of many members who are distinguished one from the other by functions for which they have a fixed structure. In the Body, the bishops have the function of teaching and guiding, and this task they perform through the power of the Spirit who transfuses the whole Body, making each member effective in his function.

The Body is one, and so the episcopate is one, and the unity of the episcopate is achieved through solidarity with the prime source of Episcopal power, the Bishop of Rome. In the Catholic vision the pope teaches in the name of the episcopate and the episcopate teaches in the name of the Church and the Church teaches in the name of Christ, and Christ teaches in the name of God.

My original point in stating the time frames was to suggest that Jesus taught many things that were not intended to be brought into new covenant doctrine. Paul explained to the Galatians that the law, for example, was given to reveal to the individual that he was a sinner unable to comply with the righteous requirement of the law. One cannot be expected to come to God for the gift of life by grace if he feels he is to earn life through his works. The first thing needed is the inner conviction that one is a sinner in need of a savior. This is what Jesus accomplished in many of his encounters with certain individuals. He never let anyone off the hook. He always told them they were lacking something.

Agreed.

Was He teaching the new covenant when He told them to keep the law? Not a chance.

When he told them to keep the law, he was teaching them to to be obedient to authority. "Do as they say, not as they do".

John 11:51 John 11:52 God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus' death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

I always marvel at the teachings I hear concerning the principle of forgiveness. The Lord's prayer is inevitabley brought into play in teaching the sheep to forgive others so that God can forgive them (Mark 11:26). Is this new covenant? If so, then why did Paul contradict it in two places, by teaching to forgive just as we also HAVE BEEN forgiven? (Eph.4:32, Col.3:13). Which of these two motivations seem the most burdensome? We need to really think hard about the context, remembering that the new covenant did not begin until after the death of Jesus.

I don't see a contradiction. The degree that you forgive others is the same degree you will be forgiven by. The Lord's Prayer says it; Paul says the same thing. If you mean forgiveness happened at the cross therefore we are automatically forgiven every time we sin, I would call you a heretic. But I know that is not what you mean.

Therefore I feel it is over simplified to suggest we read the epistles in light of the gospels.

Thus we have many discussions and disagreements on sites such as this as to just what we should do with the apparent contradictions with Paul's teachings and Jesus' teachings. It is no use pretending they do not exist. But this is not a paper-covers-rock game we play with the bible. However, if things are not understood in their context then this is exactly what transpires in the debates. Scripture winds up being used to contradict scripture. I see this all the time.
Blessings, Howie

Christian understanding is a synthesis of many beliefs, and Biblical teachings are often interpreted through this background belief which has been synthesized. Such a synthesis may include other facts, not directly related to the contradiction in question, but nevertheless, relevant. When the critic proposes a contradiction, he ought to do so within the context of this background belief. By failing to do this, he merely imposes alien concepts into the text as if they belong. This error is common when the critic tries to cite contradictions related to doctrine or beliefs about the nature of God. For example, orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity. One could argue about this concept elsewhere, but trying to impose contradictions by ignoring Trinitarian belief violates the context provided by the Christian's background belief.

Or consider a mundane example. Say that Joe is recorded as saying that Sam is not his son. But elsewhere, he is recorded as saying that Sam is his son. An obvious contradiction, right? But what if one's background belief about Joe and Sam includes the belief that Sam is Joe's adopted son? By ignoring the context this belief provides, one perceives contradictions where there are none.

The critic sometimes assumes that the Biblical accounts are exhaustive in all details and intended to be precise. This is rarely the case. As such, the critic builds on a faulty assumption and perceives contradictions where none exist.

Also related to the context problem: Let's say that the only records of Joe speaking about Sam are the two cases where he affirms and denies that Sam is his son. Certainly Joe said many other things in his life, but they were not recorded -- including the fact that he adopted a boy and named him Sam.

Countering Bible Contradictions

lawrance · Oct 7, 2012

Stan said:
I'm not really sure what you are on about? I never said two flocks, I said two pens or folds, as Jesus said. They are NOW one flock.
The Jews or more aptly Israelites, are a people of God both as a nation and as a belief. If you don't think that is true I suggest you go online and study it.
What about the prodigal son? I'm not into hypothesis here, just what the Bible says.

Jews are not Israelites at all, as only the People of God are Israel. go have a in depth study how Jacob got his name and why, as this is the center point of it all and all the other things in the bible can just end up misleading people. you have to focus on this point and only then when you grasp it, then you can move on to tribe of Israel etc and being born of the tribe does not make one an "Israel" at all. so as with the prodigal son he lost his inheritance and why did he ? the Jews lost there's and it was given to another, "tenants". they brought it on them self's and why would God do it and then want them back when they still reject Jesus Christ. now if anyone thinks they are coming back by Gods hand ? that means Jesus Christ is not who us Christians believe at all. and that means we Christians are all bewitched. and a Jew must believe this is so, or he would not be a Jew now would he.

One can not really call ones self a Israel, that is not up to ones self to say really, others may think one is, but God knows if one is and you need not be of the blood line at all.
One could say he is of the tribe of Israel. and i can say that, as i am one of the tribe but to say i am a Israel that would just be boasting.
I get sick of it when people blasphemy the true name of Israel. and it's a sin.

Axehead · Oct 7, 2012

kepha31 said:
The Church makes the final ruling binding on all believers, not just one individual community, as you suggest. If a ruling is to be binding on all Christians, then some entity must exist to do the binding. That entity is refereed to as the Magisterium. Without authority you have chaos. Heaven cannot bind an error.

And with some kinds of authority, you still have chaos.

That is a statement that has a nice sound to it, but we can see from all the Catholic sites on the web and in the official writings of Catholicism itself that there is nothing BUT chaos within her walls. Catholic documents oppose other Catholic documents and there are many schisms within her. There are severe schisms within the Catholic Church.

So, authority in and of itself is not the guarantee of order or a mark that the authority comes from God. Ungodly authority always brings chaos and confusion and we see this not only in Catholicism, but also in non-Catholic religions.

Paul, tells us there are many churches (not one church) and where the saints dwell, there is peace. There is peace because they are looking to God as their authority.

1Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Axehead

epostle1 · Oct 7, 2012

Axe, your chronic Catholic bashing is boring. Spend some of your rage on helping the poor; volunteer at a soup kitchen, visit the sick, be a pastoral volunteer at the local jail. Better still, make friends with someone who has had the same childhood as you. http://www.adultchildren.org/ There are lots of ways to spend your energy other than scourging Catholics at the pillar.

Stan · Oct 7, 2012

MR ROSENBERGER said:
Jews are not Israelites at all, as only the People of God are Israel. go have a in depth study how Jacob got his name and why, as this is the center point of it all and all the other things in the bible can just end up misleading people. you have to focus on this point and only then when you grasp it, then you can move on to tribe of Israel etc and being born of the tribe does not make one an "Israel" at all. so as with the prodigal son he lost his inheritance and why did he ? the Jews lost there's and it was given to another, "tenants". they brought it on them self's and why would God do it and then want them back when they still reject Jesus Christ. now if anyone thinks they are coming back by Gods hand ? that means Jesus Christ is not who us Christians believe at all. and that means we Christians are all bewitched. and a Jew must believe this is so, or he would not be a Jew now would he.

One can not really call ones self a Israel, that is not up to ones self to say really, others may think one is, but God knows if one is and you need not be of the blood line at all.
One could say he is of the tribe of Israel. and i can say that, as i am one of the tribe but to say i am a Israel that would just be boasting.
I get sick of it when people blasphemy the true name of Israel. and it's a sin.

Tenants....what tenants? I'm sorry but I think you are mixing up two parables. Jews are from Judah and Judah was made up of the Tribe of Judah and Benjamin. These two united as a result of being loyal to the House of David. Later on, Levi became a part of Judah. Israel was made up of the rest of the tribes. These tribes split from The House of David, under the reign of Jeroboam. It was after the Babylonian exile that all the tribes came back together to form the nation of Israel.
FYI, they all come from Isaac as descendants. I get sick of people who should know these rather simple and well known historical facts, and yet go off on some strange tangent.

kepha31 said:
Scripture doesn't say Paul learned directly from God. He was called directly by God. There exists in scripture one of two criteria for being a man of God.
1) be called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders
2) be ordained by a higher authority

Paul was called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders.
Paul was ordained by a higher authority with the laying on of hands by a representative of the Church. His ministry started when he could see.
Timothy was being prepped for ordination as bishop.
Moses and angels were called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders.
St. Francis of Assisi was called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders, and he was never ordained.
The Apostles were called by God to preach, not write, and only 3 of them wrote, so the preaching of the other nine is no less holy than the writing of the 3, because they were called directly by God. This is BEFORE Paul was sanctioning the execution of us Christians. Viewing the Gospels through the epistles is a contortion I'm just too old for, I'll get a brain cramp.

It is true that St. Paul spent long periods of time in solitude (not isolation), but totally alone?

Actually this assertion about Paul NOT learning directly from Jesus, is NOT correct. Please read 2Cor 12:1-10

Axehead · Oct 7, 2012

kepha31 said:
Axe, your chronic Catholic bashing is boring. Spend some of your rage on helping the poor; volunteer at a soup kitchen, visit the sick, be a pastoral volunteer at the local jail. Better still, make friends with someone who has had the same childhood as you. http://www.adultchil...children.org/��There are lots of ways to spend your energy other than scourging Catholics at the pillar.

I'm glad you're here, Kepha. You give me many opportunities to set the record straight. And, I only have to use RCC writings.

epostle1 · Oct 7, 2012

Stan said:
Actually this assertion about Paul NOT learning directly from Jesus, is NOT correct. Please read 2Cor 12:1-10

Good point, Stan. I retract. However, visions and revelations have to do with spiritual growth as well as the development of the gospel message in the heart of Paul. Lots of people have visions and revelations The thrust of 2Cor 12:1-10 is about "... the repugnance he had of speaking in his own praise, and that if he did it, it was only through constraint, and for the advantage of the Corinthians; as also to defend himself from his calumniators.[color="000000"] Haydocks commentary [/color]Paul was not asserting his authority from the standpoint of an Apostle, but from the standpoint of a weak man.

Sure, he "learned" more of the gospel message through visions and revelations, but he still had to "test all things", and there was no New Testament for him to test himself against.What did he do?
Trip #1: 36 A.D. Galatians 1:18-19 Paul spends 15 days with Peter.

Trip #2: 47-50 A.D. Galatians 2:1-2: "...I submitted to them the gospel which I preach..."

In this second visit, Paul mentions that he explicitly brought his gospel before the Jerusalem apostles (Peter, James, and John). He indicates that he had a fear "that I might be running, or had run, in vain." Paul wanted to verify the content of his preaching to be sure that he was correct. Therefore, he goes up to Jerusalem a second time to see Peter, James, and then John.

I would not use this as an argument for the primacy of Peter, but for Paul submitting his gospel for verification to the Magisterium.... twice.

It's not about the Magisterium having one-up-manship over Paul, that is worldly thinking.

Stan · Oct 7, 2012

kepha31 said:
Good point, Stan. I retract. However, visions and revelations have to do with spiritual growth as well as the development of the gospel message in the heart of Paul. Lots of people have visions and revelations The thrust of 2Cor 12:1-10 is about "... the repugnance he had of speaking in his own praise, and that if he did it, it was only through constraint, and for the advantage of the Corinthians; as also to defend himself from his calumniators. Haydocks commentary Paul was not asserting his authority from the standpoint of an Apostle, but from the standpoint of a weak man.

This sentiment by Haydock's, indicates a self loathing that is NOT found in that scripture. The fact is that this commentary is over 100 years old and was most probably meant to convey meanings of old English translations, that is no longer necessary. You may want to seriously consider more modern English translations of the Bible and more current commentaries. Sticking to strictly RCC ones is just doing yourself a dis-service when it comes to properly exegeting the scriptures.Paul's position comes from His undeniable faith and trust in Jesus, by whom he was personally called. Paul does not suffer from an inflated ego nor a deflated one. He walks most circumspectly and knows even as regards his own thorn in the flesh, why God does what he does. Paul never put himself as a weak man, but as a man who has weaknesses that he himself recognizes. If you read 2 Cor 11:5 (NIV) you will see how Paul feels about himself in the light of Jesus' call on his life.

kepha31 said:
Sure, he "learned" more of the gospel message through visions and revelations, but he still had to "test all things", and there was no New Testament for him to test himself against.What did he do?
Trip #1: 36 A.D. Galatians 1:18-19 Paul spends 15 days with Peter.
Trip #2: 47-50 A.D. Galatians 2:1-2: "...I submitted to them the gospel which I preach..."
In this second visit, Paul mentions that he explicitly brought his gospel before the Jerusalem apostles (Peter, James, and John). He indicates that he had a fear "that I might be running, or had run, in vain." Paul wanted to verify the content of his preaching to be sure that he was correct. Therefore, he goes up to Jerusalem a second time to see Peter, James, and then John.
I would not use this as an argument for the primacy of Peter, but for Paul submitting his gospel for verification to the Magisterium.... twice.
It's not about the Magisterium having one-up-manship over Paul, that is worldly thinking.

Yes, Paul did recognize the authority of the leaders in Jerusalem, as well he should. Knowing what he had learned and knowing the reputation of the leadership, this was not a gamble at all, but a chance to showcase the message he had been given. Who doesn't want to be sure when God ministers through them. If you read further you will find that Paul felt no inferiority at all, as he related to the leaders about his ministry. In fact, Gal 2:6-8 clearly indicates how he felt as he wrote; As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. [sup] [/sup]On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[sup] [/sup]just as Peter had been to the circumcised.[sup] [/sup]For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.

This does not sound like a man who had any feelings of inadequacy.

dragonfly · Oct 7, 2012

Sure, he "learned" more of the gospel message through visions and revelations, but he still had to "test all things", and there was no New Testament for him to test himself against.What did he do?
Trip #1: 36 A.D. Galatians 1:18-19 Paul spends 15 days with Peter.

Trip #2: 47-50 A.D. Galatians 2:1-2: "...I submitted to them the gospel which I preach..."

In this second visit, Paul mentions that he explicitly brought his gospel before the Jerusalem apostles (Peter, James, and John). He indicates that he had a fear "that I might be running, or had run, in vain." Paul wanted to verify the content of his preaching to be sure that he was correct. Therefore, he goes up to Jerusalem a second time to see Peter, James, and then John.

I would not use this as an argument for the primacy of Peter, but for Paul submitting his gospel for verification to the Magisterium.... twice.

It's not about the Magisterium having one-up-manship over Paul, that is worldly thinking.

Hi kepha,

I had thought better of your grasp of scripture, than the misrepresentation you have made of Luke's account of Paul's ministry. True, the verses you quoted say what they say, but Paul had been preaching for a long time before he met Peter the first time, or the second.

epostle1 · Oct 8, 2012

Stan said:
[/color][/size][/font]

This sentiment by Haydock's, indicates a self loathing that is NOT found in that scripture. The fact is that this commentary is over 100 years old and was most probably meant to convey meanings of old English translations, that is no longer necessary. You may want to seriously consider more modern English translations of the Bible and more current commentaries. Sticking to strictly RCC ones is just doing yourself a dis-service when it comes to properly exegeting the scriptures.Paul's position comes from His undeniable faith and trust in Jesus, by whom he was personally called. Paul does not suffer from an inflated ego nor a deflated one. He walks most circumspectly and knows even as regards his own thorn in the flesh, why God does what he does. Paul never put himself as a weak man, but as a man who has weaknesses that he himself recognizes. If you read 2 Cor 11:5 (NIV) you will see how Paul feels about himself in the light of Jesus' call on his life.

It's not a sentiment, it's not an interpretation, it's a commentary. If you can recommend a good on line commentary that has no pre-reformation bias please share it with me instead of slamming mine. I don't understand how you extracted "self-loathing" out of it. There is nothing wrong with the Douay Rheims version. I contrasted an authoritarian with one who has authority "who has weaknesses that he himself recognizes". that is what I meant. I should have been more clear. Lets not argue about what we agree on.

Here is the full text of the commentary. How you get "self loathing" out of it is anybody's guess.

[color=000000]Ver. 1. If I must glory. St. Paul in the whole of this discourse shews the repugnance he had of speaking in his own praise, and that if he did it, it was only through constraint, and for the advantage of the Corinthians; as also to defend himself from his calumniators. (Calmet)[/color]
[color=000000]Ver. 2. I know a man, &c. He speaks of himself, as it were of a third person. --- Whether in the body, I know not. If St. Paul himself knew not, how can we pretend to decide, whether his soul was for some moments separated from his body, or in what manner he saw God. (Witham) --- It appears that this took place about the period when the Holy Ghost commanded that he should be separated for the work whereunto he was called. (Acts xiii. 2.)[/color]
[color=000000]Ver. 4. Caught up into paradise. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are of opinion that this third heaven and paradise are the same place, and designate the abode of the blessed. In order to understand the language of the apostle, we must observe that the Hebrews distinguished three different heavens. The first comprised the air, the clouds, &c. as far as the fixed stars. The second included all the fixed stars; and the third was the abode of Angels, in which God himself discovered his infinite glory, &c. The first is called in Scripture simply the heavens, the second the firmament, and the third the heaven of heavens. (Calmet)[/color]
[color=000000]Ver. 7-10. A sting of my flesh,[1] an angel, or a messenger of Satan, to buffet me. The Latin word signifies any thing that pricks or stings, the Greek word a sharp stick or pale: he speaks by a metaphor, as also when he says to buffet me; that is, by causing great trouble or pain. Some understand by it a violent headache or pain, or distemper in the body. St. Augustine mentions this opinion, and does not reject it, in Psalm xcviii. tom. 4. p. 1069.; in Psalm cxxx. p. 1465. St. Jerome also speaks of it in chap. iv. ad Galatas, tom. 4. p. 274, Ed. Ben. But St. Chrysostom, by the sting, and the angel of Satan, understands that opposition which St. Paul met with from his enemies, and those of the gospel; as Satan signifies an adversary. Others understand troublesome temptations of the flesh, immodest thoughts, and representations, suggested by the devil, and permitted by Almighty God for his greater good. --- Thrice I besought the Lord. That is, many times, to be freed from it, but received only this answer from God, that his grace was sufficient to preserve me from consenting to sin. And that power and strength in virtue should increase, and be perfected in weakness, and by temptations, when they are resisted. St. Augustine seems to favour this exposition, in Psalm lviii. Conc. 2. p. 573. St. Jerome, in his letters to Eustochium, to Demetrias, and to Rusticus, the monk. And it is the opinion of St. Gregory, lib. 23. moral. tom. 1. p. 747. and of many others. (Witham) --- If there were any danger of pride from his revelations, the base and filthy suggestions of the enemy of souls must cause humiliations, and make him blush. But these are to be borne with submission to the will of God, for his power is more evident in supporting man under the greatest trials, than in freeing him from the attacks. --- Power is made perfect. The strength and power of God more perfectly shines forth in our weakness and infirmity; as the more weak we are of ourselves, the more illustrious is his grace in supporting us, and giving us the victory under all trials and conflicts. (Challoner) --- When I am weak. The more I suffer for Christ, the more I perceive the effects of his all-powerful grace, which sustains, enlightens, and strengthens me: the more also the glory and power of God appeareth in me. The pagans themselves were not ignorant that calamity was the soil in which virtue usually grows to perfection. Calamitas virtutis occasio est. (Seneca) --- Optimos nos esse dum infirmi sumus. (Pliny vii. ep. 26.)[/color]
[color=000000]Ver. 11-13. Although I am nothing. These words are a demonstration of the humility of St. Paul, when forced to speak his own praises. --- The signs and marks of my apostleship....on you, by your conversion, especially being accompanied by wonders and miracles. --- Pardon me this injury. A reproach by irony, against such as seemed to value him less, because he lived in poverty, and took nothing of them. (Witham)[/color]
[color=000000]Ver. 14. Now the third time I am ready to come. So he says again in the next chapter. That is, he was once with them, he had purposed to come a second time, and now a third time. --- I seek not the things that are yours, but you. That is, says St. Chrysostom, your souls, not your goods; your salvation, not your gold. --- For the children. A modest pretty turn in their favour, by saying that fathers and parents are commonly supposed to leave their goods and riches to their children, not children for their parents. (Witham) --- St. Paul came to Corinth for the first time in the year 52[A.D. 52], remaining with them 18 months. (Acts chap. xviii.) He came the second time in 55, but did not remain long with them; on which account it is omitted by St. Luke in the Acts. The date of this letter is in 57, when St. Paul again came to them towards the end of the year. (Calmet) --- Other interpreters, with no less authority question this sentiment, see ver. 1. of the following chapter, and say he only went twice; the first time as mentioned in Acts xviii. 1.; the second time, as we may draw from Acts xx. 2 and 3, after this epistle, as it is evident from comparing 2 Corinthians i. 15.[/color]
[color=000000]Ver. 15. I most gladly will spend [2] all, and even my life, for your sake, and so as to be spent, and even sacrificed, for your souls; though the more I love you, the less you or some of you love me, a kind and modest reproach. (Witham)[/color]
[color=000000]Ver. 16-18. I caught you by guile. He answers an objection or suspicion of his adversaries, as if he took no presents himself, but employed others to do it for him: he appeals to them, if Titus did not serve them in all things as he had done, in the same spirit, treading the same steps. Think you, as some pretended of old, formerly, or of a long time, that we make vain and false excuses to you, and at the bottom aim to be gainers by you? He appeals with an oath to God, that he does all things for their good, for their advantage, and edification. (Witham)[/color]
[color=000000]Ver. 19. After having answered one of their objections with regard to his disinterestedness, he thus proceeds: I perceive that of old, or for a long time, you have regarded this lengthened discourse merely as an apology to justify myself from the suspicion of avarice. But we speak before God in Christ; or, God is my witness that I have acted thus only for your edification. (Theodoret) --- Seeking not the things that are yours, but yourselves, most willingly to spend our strength and life, and to be spent or completely exhausted for the sake of your souls.[/color]
[color=000000]Ver. 20-21. He puts them in mind to be all of them reformed, to lay aside animosities, dissensions, swellings,[3] proceeding from pride, uncleanness, fornication, &c. which indeed will be a humiliation and trouble to him, to be forced to use his power by severities; for if he find them such as he would not, they will also find him such as they would not. (Witham) --- Ton me metanoesanton. This, according to St. Augustine, is spoken here of doing great penance for heinous sins, and not merely of repentance, as some moderns would fain interpret it. (ep. 198.)[/color]

Where is the "self loathing" and "feelings of inadequacy" ??? Please use the quote feature.

Yes, Paul did recognize the authority of the leaders in Jerusalem, as well he should. Knowing what he had learned and knowing the reputation of the leadership, this was not a gamble at all, but a chance to showcase the message he had been given. Who doesn't want to be sure when God ministers through them. If you read further you will find that Paul felt no inferiority at all, as he related to the leaders about his ministry. In fact, Gal 2:6-8 clearly indicates how he felt as he wrote; As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. [sup] [/sup]On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[sup] [/sup]just as Peter had been to the circumcised.[sup] [/sup]For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.

"as for those who were held in high esteem" is not Peter, James and John. Paul is talking about the Pharisees. In Gal. 2:4 he calls them "false brothers". As you know, Paul was a Pharisee.

Funny thing happened to me the other day, Stan. I was surfing for a good Protestant web site on the virtue of humility and I couldn't find one. Maybe you can help me, we can collaborate and open a thread on the subject.

This does not sound like a man who had any feelings of inadequacy.

I never implied that, and neither did the commentary.

dragonfly said:
Hi kepha,

I had thought better of your grasp of scripture, than the misrepresentation you have made of Luke's account of Paul's ministry. True, the verses you quoted say what they say, but Paul had been preaching for a long time before he met Peter the first time, or the second.

Hi dragonfly. Yes, Paul had been preaching for about about 3 years prior, minus the times he spent in solitude. How long he had been preaching beforehand has no bearing on the reasons for his visit to the Apostles. It could have been 40 years.

Luke didn't write Galatians.

If I have made a misrepresentation, please use the quote feature.

Stan · Oct 8, 2012

kepha31 said:
It's not a sentiment, it's not an interpretation, it's a commentary. If you can recommend a good on line commentary that has no pre-reformation bias please share it with me instead of slamming mine. I don't understand how you extracted "self-loathing" out of it. There is nothing wrong with the Douay Rheims version. I contrasted an authoritarian with one who has authority "who has weaknesses that he himself recognizes". that is what I meant. I should have been more clear. Lets not argue about what we agree on.
Here is the full text of the commentary. How you get "self loathing" out of it is anybody's guess.
Where is the "self loathing" and "feelings of inadequacy" ??? Please use the quote feature.
"as for those who were held in high esteem" is not Peter, James and John. Paul is talking about the Pharisees. In Gal. 2:4 he calls them "false brothers". As you know, Paul was a Pharisee.
I never implied that, and neither did the commentary.

If you don't think the words "the repugnance he had of speaking in his own praise" does not indicate a self loathing, then I suggest you go to a few online dictionary sites and check it out. It's the English language, and I have a very good vocabulary.
Gal 2: 2 (NIV) , Gal 2:6 (NIV) and Gal 2:9 (NIV) ALL talk about the same leaders. Again you fail to read within the proper context of the scripture you're dealing with and practice eisegesis to make your point.
I read what you quoted before, and went to the link. This commentary fails in big ways. It also tries to assert that Paul's thorn in the flesh was a spiritual attack, when indeed the term flesh means just that, a physical ailment. I suggest you use BibleGateway.com and the tolls they have there. In addition, as I have already admonished you, use a modern English Bible. NIV, NASB, HCSB or MOUNCE for the NT. All are very good translations and effectively convey God's Word. You will find you won't really need a commentary when using those versions.
You didn't imply it kepha, you agreed to it, by accepting the Haydock's as fact. Did I not tell you I was raised RCC. I know all the doctrine and all the tricks.

epostle1 · Oct 8, 2012

Stan said:
If you don't think the words "the repugnance he had of speaking in his own praise" does not indicate a self loathing, then I suggest you go to a few online dictionary sites and check it out. It's the English language, and I have a very good vocabulary.

It means Paul loathed bragging, not self loathing. You are bragging, but then again, you are not Paul.

Gal 2: 2 (NIV) , Gal 2:6 (NIV) and Gal 2:9 (NIV) ALL talk about the same leaders. Again you fail to read within the proper context of the scripture you're dealing with and practice eisegesis to make your point.

The recommended version for this forum is the New King James Version. If you prefer the NIV, that's fine with me. I have no need to go translation farming for the most suitable support for a bias. My preference is for the the St. Joseph Edition of the New American Bible, because it is the work of both Protestant and Catholic scholars.

I agree that Gal 2: 2 (NIV) , and Gal 2:9 (NIV) talk about the same leaders, but not Gal 2:6 (NIV). I am not taking Gal. 2:6 out of context. You are claiming that Peter, James and John are false believers. You are wrong.

Galatians 2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+2&version=NIV

New International Version (NIV) (my words in italics)
Paul Accepted by the Apostles

2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. [sup]2 [/sup]I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders (Peter, James and John), I presented to them (Peter, James and John) the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. [sup]3 [/sup]Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. [sup]4 [/sup]This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. [sup]5 [/sup]We did not give in to them (false believers) for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

[sup]6 [/sup]As for those who were held in high esteem—(esteemed Pharisaical leaders) whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they (esteemed Pharisaical leaders) added nothing to my message. [sup]7 [/sup]On the contrary, they (Peter, James and John) recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[sup][a][/sup] just as Peter had been to the circumcised.[sup][b][/sup] [sup]8 [/sup]For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. [sup]9 [/sup]James, Cephas[sup][c][/sup] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. (this is what Catholics call a blessing from an authority, a practice long abandoned by Protestants) They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. [sup]10 [/sup]All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

This is how you read Galatians 2:6
[sup]6 [/sup]As for those who were held in high esteem—(Peter, James and John) whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they (Peter, James and John) added nothing to my message.

Your interpretation of Galatians 2:6 is in error, because you have bought the anti-authority lie taught to you by esteemed Pharisaical leaders that you defend. You are arguing that Peter, James and John added nothing to Pauls message, and he travelled there just for a vacation.

I read what you quoted before, and went to the link.

You may have read it, but you didn't comprehend it. You didn't need to go to the link because I had to waste screen space and post the whole page, for your convenience to easily use the quote feature, so why go to the link?

This commentary fails in big ways. It also tries to assert that Paul's thorn in the flesh was a spiritual attack, when indeed the term flesh means just that, a physical ailment.

For the second time, use the quote feature, that's why I posted the whole page. It asserts a spiritual possibilty.

I suggest you use BibleGateway.com and the tolls they have there. In addition, as I have already admonished you, use a modern English Bible. NIV, NASB, HCSB or MOUNCE for the NT. All are very good translations and effectively convey God's Word. You will find you won't really need a commentary when using those versions.

I use Biblegateway all the time. I used Haydocks because of its user-friendly format. I will use a poem written by an atheist if it glorifies God's creation. It's the content that matters, not who wrote it. And why do all those versions have footnotes?
Bible Translations Guide

You didn't imply it kepha, you agreed to it, by accepting the Haydock's as fact. Did I not tell you I was raised RCC. I know all the doctrine and all the tricks.

I never accepted Haydock's as fact, I accept it as a commentary, the same you would accept a footnote. It is not facts, but opinions based on multiple approaches to scripture from scholars, saints, early church fathers spanning many centuries. Christianity without consistency is not Christianity. Please stop harping about a commentary. Its a nowhere discussion. In your system, everybody and their dog is entitled to an opinion. You afford yourself the Principle of Private Judgement but hypocritically deny it when a Catholic uses the very principles you stand on.

Try harping about the virtue of humility that you ran from. I have no tricks. Protestants who convert to Catholicism are rarely hostile to their former faith, because their former faith is embellished, not supplanted. So why is it that ex-Catholics become anti-Catholics? I know the answer, do you?
How Can Catholicism Be True When Catholics Are So Dead?

Xian Pugilist · Oct 8, 2012

Christ didn't teach Christianity. Christ taught "Theosianity".
Paul didn't contradict Christ. Paul merely taught CHRIST'S teachings from an Eastern Religion, in a way to make sense to a Western logic thinking audience.

It would be like discussing HONOR with a Spartan and a Shogun. Same Honor, different thoughts and words to get the point across.

Christ came to speak TO THE JEWS, but after His death had a Church established which HE is the head of. A church established in the order of Melchizedek's Church. What does that mean?

When Mel was High Priest to God Most High, there was.....
no law
no jew
no gentile.

And this is the Church Prophecy said we live under today. SO AS CHRIST came to appeal to the JEWS who were under a law His Church wouldn't be under, and was a law given ONLY TO A CHOSEN PEOPLE, not all of mankind, to pick pendanticly at difference in wording, without trying to reconcile them is rather shameful.

They had no differences. The only time there are differences are when someone hasn't finished reconciling issues they don't yet understand.

Like how Paul is perfect and NOT perfect within 3 verses in Phil three. <<< just an example<<<<

veteran · Oct 8, 2012

Xian Pugilist said:
Christ came to speak TO THE JEWS, but after His death had a Church established which HE is the head of. A church established in the order of Melchizedek's Church. What does that mean?

When Mel was High Priest to God Most High, there was.....
no law
no jew
no gentile.

And this is the Church Prophecy said we live under today. SO AS CHRIST came to appeal to the JEWS who were under a law His Church wouldn't be under, and was a law given ONLY TO A CHOSEN PEOPLE, not all of mankind, to pick pendanticly at difference in wording, without trying to reconcile them is rather shameful.

Now that is a crazy doctrine, and most definitely NOT some Church prophecy a believer is supposed to live under today.

Lot of Biblical proof that Christ did not do away with all of God's laws for His Church. It's the lawless ones today who are trying to say He did. Paul clearly showed the difference in Scripture like 1 Timothy 1, and Galatians 5 with the difference between walking by The Spirit vs. not doing so with walking by the flesh, which he clearly showed can keep one out of God's Kingdom.

Gal 5:16-21
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(KJV)

There's also a lot of Bible prophecy about God re-establishing the people of Israel in their old habitations, and their being gathered specifically. God's Word even reveals the nations will STILL exist after Christ's coming (Zech.14).

Xian Pugilist · Oct 8, 2012

veteran said:
Now that is a crazy doctrine, and most definitely NOT some Church prophecy a believer is supposed to live under today.

And this is an empty accusation that avoids my arguments and just blankely says I'm wrong and you are right. Can't we discuss this or must we accept you as God's angel on this topic? My inclination is to ignore the rest of the post after it starts off with such disrespect. But I'm hard headed so....

veteran said:
Lot of Biblical proof that Christ did not do away with all of God's laws for His Church.

I can't wait to see that proof. It will be life changing.

veteran said:
It's the lawless ones today who are trying to say He did. Paul clearly showed the difference in Scripture like 1 Timothy 1,

WHERE?

veteran said:
and Galatians 5 with the difference between walking by The Spirit vs. not doing so with walking by the flesh, which he clearly showed can keep one out of God's Kingdom.

Please show the way you deduct those conclusions from those scriptures. Gal 5:16-18 contradicts your claims directly.

veteran said:
Gal 5:16-21
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

(KJV)

Romans 8:9 would show us that if you are INDWELLED BY THE SPIRIT you are no longer in the flesh, thus you are walking by the Spirit, thus you aren't giving into temptation. UNTIL that occurs you have a battle with the flesh, where the Spirit is outside fighting to get in. Romans 8:9 shows you are EITHER flesh, or Spirit. Not choosing between the two forever.

veteran said:
There's also a lot of Bible prophecy about God re-establishing the people of Israel in their old habitations, and their being gathered specifically. God's Word even reveals the nations will STILL exist after Christ's coming (Zech.14).

People of Israel are not gentiles. PROPHECY says Christ will establish a Church and will be a priest forever in the order of melchizedek. I'm sorry that you don't accept prophecy as prophecy when it's not convenient to your views.

The Levitical laws were NEVER EVER EVER upheld for Gentiles. That is PART of the law that they didn't keep all the laws.

Also the council of Jerusalem, James decreed to Barnabas, Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the Church, that the gentiles wouldn't keep all the law, or be under them. So the History of the Church as well as the scriptures disagree with your position. OR SO IT SEEMS. I'm willing to be wrong, but you have to explain and show how your claims are supported with the scripture you referenced. I can't manage to squeeze it into the box you got it in.

But, the three comments you quoted and practically ridiculed me for saying, are biblical. If you don't want to address those facts, then we have nothing to discuss.... We just put credit in the bible differently. You ignore parts I acknowledge. Thus we'd have as fundamental a difference as me and an LDS church member would have.

At the time of MELCHIZEDEK, there was no jew, no gentile and no law. Levi wasn't born yet, or at least CERTAINLY wasn't a High Priest yet. MEL was High Priest.

This is the priesthood that Christ's Church is founded after.

Thus there is no "jew or gentile" has some meaning when you consider it with this priesthood.

Stan · Oct 8, 2012

kepha31 said:
It means Paul loathed bragging, not self loathing. You are bragging, but then again, you are not Paul.

NOT what they said, but then again you are apt at twisting words into what you want to see. "His own praise", is NOT the same as bragging. You continue to read into the Word, what is NOT there. True eisegesis.

kepha31 said:
The recommended version for this forum is the New King James Version. If you prefer the NIV, that's fine with me. I have no need to go translation farming for the most suitable support for a bias. My preference is for the the St. Joseph Edition of the New American Bible, because it is the work of both Protestant and Catholic scholars.

Whether that is the case or not, my signature makes it very clear what versions I use. If your preference is the NAB, then why quote the DR. It is older than the KJV, unless you are using the Challoner revision, which is about 150 years newer than the Authorized Version. The NAB used 50 RCC scholars whereas the NIV used 104 multi-denominational scholars. The bias is definitely on the NAB side.

kepha31 said:
I agree that Gal 2: 2 (NIV) , and Gal 2:9 (NIV) talk about the same leaders, but not Gal 2:6 (NIV). I am not taking Gal. 2:6 out of context. You are claiming that Peter, James and John are false believers. You are wrong.
This is how you read Galatians 2:6
[sup]6 [/sup]As for those who were held in high esteem—(Peter, James and John) whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they (Peter, James and John) added nothing to my message.
Your interpretation of Galatians 2:6 is in error, because you have bought the anti-authority lie taught to you by esteemed Pharisaical leaders that you defend. You are arguing that Peter, James and John added nothing to Pauls message, and he travelled there just for a vacation.

As I said, all those verses in Galatians refer to the same leadership group, which included Peter, James and John. The fact that you see that in verse 6 and apparently don't in verses 2 and 9 is rather bizarre. Verse 9 clearly shows Peter, James and John, and verse 2 the 'acknowledged leaders', which were also obviously Peter, James and John.
Of course I state that they all had no influence on Paul's message. He said so himself at the end of verse 6. You seem rather lost in just 3 verses in Galatians. Why would you say you agree with verse 2 and 9 being about Peter, James and John, then say you don't agree verse 6 is talking about them, then assert it is talking about them in your argument? Then why do you falsely assert I am claiming Peter, James and John are false believers and I am wrong? You are rather confused my friend.

kepha31 said:
You may have read it, but you didn't comprehend it. You didn't need to go to the link because I had to waste screen space and post the whole page, for your convenience to easily use the quote feature, so why go to the link?

I went to the link when you posted it the first time, I didn't need to see it again. How do you think I knew what it said?

kepha31 said:
For the second time, use the quote feature, that's why I posted the whole page. It asserts a spiritual possibilty.

It asserts a RCC opinion and stance, which you obviously agree with as you posted it. I told you why I do not. Instead of quoting what others think, you should study God's actual Word and know what it says, then form an opinion based on proper hermenuetical exegesis.

kepha31 said:
I use Biblegateway all the time. I used Haydocks because of its user-friendly format. I will use a poem written by an atheist if it glorifies God's creation. It's the content that matters, not who wrote it. And why do all those versions have footnotes?

It's called full disclosure and helps to form a rational perspective of what the Word actually says.

kepha31 said:
I never accepted Haydock's as fact, I accept it as a commentary, the same you would accept a footnote. It is not facts, but opinions based on multiple approaches to scripture from scholars, saints, early church fathers spanning many centuries. Christianity without consistency is not Christianity. Please stop harping about a commentary. Its a nowhere discussion. In your system, everybody and their dog is entitled to an opinion. You afford yourself the Principle of Private Judgement but hypocritically deny it when a Catholic uses the very principles you stand on.

By quoting it, you accept it as fact. A footnote in a Bible translation, as I just said, is full disclosure, NOT an opinion. I'll stop harping when you stop using bad commentaries. I treat anyone who does what you do the same way, RCC or not. The fact is though that this type of acceptance of RCC sanctioned rhetoric is consistent with many RC's I encounter on forums. FYI, the RCC nor the Pope is infallible when it comes to expositing scripture. Jesus said very clearly that is why He sent the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 (NIV)

kepha31 said:
Try harping about the virtue of humility that you ran from. I have no tricks. Protestants who convert to Catholicism are rarely hostile to their former faith, because their former faith is embellished, not supplanted. So why is it that ex-Catholics become anti-Catholics? I know the answer, do you?

So you are telling us that you are an ex-protestant? Really? I am anti RCC not anti RC. Big difference. From what I have gathered so far in this thread, I doubt very much you actually KNOW the answer.

Christ's Christianity and Paul's Christianity are Not the Same

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads