So where Mike claims that Wierwille said such-and-such, we can go to PFAL and refute him. Which has been done. Wierwille's works often do not say what Mike says that they say, unless you have a gnostic-like secret knowledge that allows you to understand what it really means.
And yet, Mike's detractors refer back to "the bible", a collection of writings put together by a committee of the victors in a centuries-long battle of words and political influence.
Are you saying it's like using a rubber noodle to fight against a water gun? :P
On another thread Bob said:
.... A lot of back and forth with Mike. Pretty standard. He has his religion, others have theirs. Difficult for me to see the difference. No offence, but religion is religion to me, no matter what form it takes. Seems to be all worshiping dead people, or gods made up to explain the unknown. Not that it's a bad thing. If it makes you feel better about life, then I'm all for it. God knows people need to feel better about life.
Either way, it’s a good read. Everyone writes so well here, and defends their position with passion.
I think that fits here, too. I'm currently reading a book about why people believe weird things and it's pretty interesting how people have the tendency to believe ANYTHING that makes them feel like they have answers to SOMETHING.
My main beef is with the clowns who claim to have that inside track, and use their supposed knowledge to put down others, call them stupid or evil, and condemn them to some form of hell or condemnation.
I think you may be talking more of doctrine here than attitude. If you want to just take alook at the doctrine, it's in Ephesians 2. Attitude... well that's individual and the Word says to release the Word with boldness but sometimes that comes across as arrogance.
Is the reason why you might think is arrogance because you no longer necessarily believe these things?
My main beef is with the clowns who claim to have that inside track, and use their supposed knowledge to put down others, call them stupid or evil, and condemn them to some form of hell or condemnation.
I think you may be talking more of doctrine here than attitude. If you want to just take alook at the doctrine, it's in Ephesians 2. Attitude... well that's individual and the Word says to release the Word with boldness but sometimes that comes across as arrogance.
Is the reason why you might think is arrogance because you no longer necessarily believe these things?
No, you are mistaken.
I have no problem with those who hold to the doctrine based on the bible. I get along quite well with, for example, dmiller, Raf, WordWolf, Belle, etc.
My opinion is not based on whether or not I believe the bible, but on the way it is presented. I have seen the most vicious attacks on this board be Christian-against-Christian, over differences in opinion on this or that doctrine. As a non-Christian, I haven't been directly attacked here that often.
And by the way...you used the term arrogance in your quote of my statement, not me.
I have seen the most vicious attacks on this board be Christian-against-Christian, over differences in opinion on this or that doctrine. As a non-Christian, I haven't been directly attacked here that often.
Makes me want to be a Christian so I can know it all and show those other idiots who "say" they are Christian just how wrong they are. Being a Christian gives you license to attack does it not? I mean the whole OT is nothing but wars, battles, attacks and incest. The whole NT is religion on religion attacks and political on religion attacks. Just look at the examples..... makes perfect sense to me. :huh: :blink: :mellow:
Paul has been known as the first heretic for centuries... God protecting Pauls writings? I doubt it...Paul's doctrine and Christ's doctrine are not the same... I am of Jesus, if I had to choose...
Honestly, reading some of the epistles makes me think of LCM.
Belle, I'll second your opinion here.. but may go a little further..
Being around the most confrontational, loathsome, hateful, arrogant "Christians".. and seeing what they often do and say to other people.. almost makes me want to deny that I even belong to the same club..
Paul has been known as the first heretic for centuries... God protecting Pauls writings? I doubt it...Paul's doctrine and Christ's doctrine are not the same... I am of Jesus, if I had to choose...
Honestly, reading some of the epistles makes me think of LCM.
Was that too blasphemous?
No Karmicdebt, I don't think that was too blasphemous. And I think I know what you're getting at with the comparison to LCM, although I've never posted or even said anything about it. But, calling Paul a "heretic" is a bit far-fetched in my opinion. Paul was the only Apostle to actually carried out Jesus last commandment. He told his Apostles to Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. According to Luke, he told them, on the day of the Acencion that they would be witnesses unto him in Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.
But what did Peter & co. do? They stayed in Jerusalem! Rather than preaching the gospel to every creature, they avoided contact with the Gentiles. It took an unprecedented triple revelation to get ONE of them to set foot in the home of a Gentile--what, 15 years later? And even after that, they refused to accept the fact that God had given the Gentiles equal standing in the Church. If it weren't for Paul and his commitment to carry out the ministry that his predeccors had neglected, the gospel of Christ would have died in Judaea.
So I don't buy the whole Paul vs. Jesus argument. The only reason there seems to be such a gulf between Paul's gospel and the Jesus' gospel of the Kingdome is because the bridge that was supposed to be built between the two by the Twelve never got built.
Peace
JerryB
THat is soooo true
We are to be followers of Jesus Christ
Nowhere are we told to be Followers of Paul
Yet in many CHristian churches not just TWI, Paul is the central focus.
Paul was a man, who made mistakes, and didn't always get it right.
To build your faith on an imperfect man, no matter who or wht he was , will eventually lead to disaster.
I don't think that following Paul will keep you from finding Christ. A look at history will show that the opposite is true. As I said to Karmicdebt, if not for Paul, the Christian Church as we know it wouldn't even exist. It was Paul who brought the gospel of CHRIST to the Gentiles, and eventually, to all of Asia and Europe! Since every protestant denomination owes its roots to Paul's epistles, I think it's rather illogical to think that following Paul will lead people away from Christ. Sure Paul made mistakes. That doesn't disqualify him to preach the gospel.
Paul was the only Apostle to actually carried out Jesus last commandment.
First Paul was not an Apostle when Jesus gave this commandment
Second Christ's first priorty was the the Jews-- he came as their Messiah, it was the Apostles job to see that that news was spread. Gentiles were the wild branches grafted in but only after the the natural branches failed to bear fruit.
and Third Paul was but one of many Jewish followers of Christ who preached outside of Jerusallem
Paul is the one we know about because he was literate, and had time in Rome to write letters and make copies of same which were preserved. The Mediteranean region was no stranger to the news of Christ carried by many, Paul himself mentions, Timothy, Barnabus, and others. Their writings if any and the groups that they converted remain largely a mystery to us.
Since every protestant denomination owes its roots to Paul's epistles
By this statement you prove my point precisely
We DO NOT owe our roots to Paul
Protestestant denominations owe their roots to the Roman Catholic Church
To the monks who labored through the dark ages preserving scriptures
To Peter who sat on the throne of the Holy See
To Christ who taught Peter
And to the Apostles who spoke and taught the words of Christ from firsthand knowledge until they could be preserved in writing
Paul would have been nothing without them
Paul's epistles are Paul's interpretation of the Message of Christ --The message he learned from others who actually spoke and learned from the living Christ.
If it weren't for Paul and his commitment to carry out the ministry that his predeccors had neglected, the gospel of Christ would have died in Judaea
.
Do you really think GOd couldn't have gotten the job done with out Paul??? Stephen died for his efforts, Timothey and Barnabus, Aquilla and Priscilla carried on long after Paul was cooling his heels in a Roman villa.
After Paul was imprisoned and sent to Rome he carried the message of Christ nowhere new. He simply kept in contact with the churches he had preached at.
In the early days before the "canon" of scripture was settled, Paul was looked upon as a heretic by some, but not by those who eventually came out on top.
Of course, once the dust cleared, the victors were able to retroactively declare their view has having been orthodox and dominant from the beginning.
Paul is the one we know about because he was literate, and had time in Rome to write letters and make copies of same which were preserved. The Mediteranean region was no stranger to the news of Christ carried by many, Paul himself mentions, Timothy, Barnabus, and others. Their writings if any and the groups that they converted remain largely a mystery to us.
There were many other writings that were considered by some as diveinely inspired, some we still have, and some are lost. Even some of Paul's letters may not really have been written by Paul
Edited by Oakspear
Instead of crying about "lost" letters and gospels, why not try dealing with what we have and seeing how that fits. I've heard much talk about lost books, but most of those were eliminated based on the fact their authors could not demonstrate they had been appointed by Christ. None of the writings of the early Church fathers were included in the canon, even though some wanted them.
Instead we got a compiltation of the letters that survived and were confirmed by many synods over the decades after Paul and the Apostles died.
Templelady, you suggest Paul was somehow disqualified because he was not an Apostle when Jesus issued his commandment, do you not believe that Jesus knew about Paul already?
their authors could not demonstrate they had been appointed by Christ.
We only have Paul's word that he was--I'm not saying he wasn't but this is a mighty thin argument for rejecting the work of others
Instead we got a compiltation of the letters that survived and were confirmed by many synods over the decades after Paul and the Apostles died.
After Paul died is the key here, he wasn't around to confirm their authenticity--Am I saying they weren't authentic-- no--but synods convened years even centuries after the fact are not always the best of arbitrators.
you suggest Paul was somehow disqualified because he was not an Apostle when Jesus issued his commandment, do you not believe that Jesus knew about Paul already
Never said he was disqualified--was pointing out that Christ's mandate to the 12 was to preach to the JEWS. It was only after the 'natural" (Jews) branches rejected what was taught, and not all of them did, that the "wild" (Gentile) branches were to be grafted in.
Did Jesus know about Paul already??? I honestly don't know-- he knew someone would be called by God to preach to the gentiles but whether he know it would be Paul specifically -----
And while we are on the subject of Paul let us review exactly what those epistles contain
Instead of crying about "lost" letters and gospels,...
If you were addressing me, I'm not crying about anything. B)
why not try dealing with what we have and seeing how that fits.
I see no reason to make it "fit". In my opinion, the "canon of scripture" is a collection of books, some of which may be divinely inspired, some not. making it all fit together is an exercise that I choose not to indulge in
I've heard much talk about lost books, but most of those were eliminated based on the fact their authors could not demonstrate they had been appointed by Christ.
There were many reasons why books were eliminated. A major reason was that the theology of the eliminated (not all were "lost", some still exist) books did not fit the theology of the dominant faction.
First Paul was not an Apostle when Jesus gave this commandment
That's why Jesus went out of his way to commission him on the road to Damascus. Barnabus is referred to as an Apostle too, but he didn't see the Lord outshining the midday sun. He was simply annointed in Antioch.
Second Christ's first priorty was the the Jews-- he came as their Messiah, it was the Apostles job to see that that news was spread...
That happened before the crucifixion. According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, after his resurrection, Jesus told the Apostles to Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. His exclusive ministry to Israel was over, and it was time to bring in the sheep from his other folds (John 10:16). For whatever reason, they failed to do so. So Christ found someone who would carry out his will.
and Third Paul was but one of many Jewish followers of Christ who preached outside of Jerusallem
True, there were a few others, but they didn't get far beyond Judaea and they founded only a fraction of the churches Paul did. Paul was by far the most effective. And he was the one to whom God gave the revelation of the mystery.
Gentiles were the wild branches grafted in but only after the the natural branches failed to bear fruit.
It's funny that you speak of the Gentiles having been grafted in to the olive tree, because you're quoting the man you call a heretic. It was Paul who penned those words. :-)
We DO NOT owe our roots to Paul
Protestestant denominations owe their roots to the Roman Catholic Church
To the monks who labored through the dark ages preserving scriptures
To Peter who sat on the throne of the Holy See
To Christ who taught Peter
Tish tosh. The Roman Catholic Church buried and obscured the Scriptures. Their masses and liturgies were all conducted in Latin, which most of the parishoners didn't know. When a few brave souls tried to translate the Scriptures into languages the people could understand, the Roman Catholics burned them at the stake. Under the rule of the so-called "Holy See", the average "Christian" lived in ignorance of God's Word and will. Why do you think they call it the Dark Ages?
The Bible was not widely read or disseminated until after the Protestant Reformation. And do you know what started the Reformation? Martin Luther read Paul's epistle to the Romans and realized how corrupt, legalistic, and ungodly the Catholic Church had become. It was Paul's words that broke the rule of the Pope and brought an end to the Dark Ages. That's why I said all Protestant Denominations owe their roots to the Apostle Paul.
templelady, I think you've just dug in your heels at a particular spot. Of course Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the foundation. Nobody is saying He isn't. But remember that foundation is the apostles and prophets. Paul was an apostle.
Followers of Paul's teaching are following Christ, for he got it "by revelation of Jesus Christ". The gospel message he received from the Lord has become the foundation of Christianity for in it is articulated the doctrine of grace. What doctrine does Peter contribute in the Bible?
Tish tosh. The Roman Catholic Church buried and obscured the Scriptures. Their masses and liturgies were all conducted in Latin, which most of the parishoners didn't know. When a few brave souls tried to translate the Scriptures into languages the people could understand, the Roman Catholics burned them at the stake. Under the rule of the so-called "Holy See", the average "Christian" lived in ignorance of God's Word and will. Why do you think they call it the Dark Ages?
The Bible was not widely read or disseminated until after the Protestant Reformation. And do you know what started the Reformation? Martin Luther read Paul's epistle to the Romans and realized how corrupt, legalistic, and ungodly the Catholic Church had become. It was Paul's words that broke the rule of the Pope and brought an end to the Dark Ages. That's why I said all Protestant Denominations owe their roots to the Apostle Paul.
Peace
JerryB
First, for 1500 years, there was nothing but the Catholic Church. Had they wished to bury the scriptures, they could have done so and utterly destroyed them, particularly if they were as all-powerful as you claim they were. Before printing presses, how were the scriptures preserved and transmitted? They were hand-written: normally by Catholic monks working and living in Catholic Monastaries. Curious behavior for a group who wished to "bury the scriptures."
Secondly, its curious that the first English edition of the Bible approved for use by the Catholic Church was published 2 years before the King James Version. (The NT section was released a full 25 years before the KJV) -- strange behavior for a group that wished to bury the scriptures.
Also curious that the scriptures are read during each and every liturgical service performed by the Catholic Church and always have been (in the ancient days, it was called the Mass of the Catechumens). In fact, if one goes through the Lectionary (the calendar of scripture readings), one will find that about 40% of the scripture is covered during the 3-year Sunday calendar. If one adds the 2-year daily calendar, the number goes up to about 70%. Curious behavior for people who wished to bury the scriptures--reading them in public. Oh, by the way, its also curious that the American Baptist Churches in the USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Anglican Church of Australia, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, .Anglican Church of Canada, Presbyterian Church in Canada, Christian Church [Disciples of Christ], Presbyterian Church in the USA, Christian Reformed Church in North America, United Church of Canada, Church of England, United Church of Christ, Anglican Church in South Africa, and United Methodist Church use substantively the same lectionary (the Common Lectionary) in their services as the Lectionary developed by that evil Catholic Church. Again, strange behavior for a group trying to destroy God's Word.
Did you ever consider that the vast majority of people had no more exposure to the Bible than the readings they heard in the church because they were ILLITERATE? Why were they illiterate? Because they were too busy eking a living for themselves to spend time on foolishness like school. Even if they had been able to read, books were all done by hand...Gutenburg didn't invent the moveable type press until the 1440s and didn't publish his famous Gutenburg Bible until 1455. Even then, one of his Bibles would cost an average person more than three years' wages. (as a point of interest, you know who subsidized Gutenburg's operation? The Catholic Archbishop of Mainz, Germany -- pretty strange behavior for an Evil Catholic who wanted to bury the scriptures, supporting publication of a Bible)
Jerry, you make inaccurate assumptions that are clearly ignorant of the reality of history.
And why am I lashing out at you? Because you offend me personally when you spout this garbage (why? because I'm Catholic). I don't care if you agree with what I believe or not. But when you continue to propagate your lies that are based on something only casually related to the facts and to history, I need to set the record straight.
Sorry Mark but the only reason the 'Catholics' never suceeded in stopping the free course of the Word of God was because in persecution the church of God flourishes ! Even today this principle holds true.
Templelady..you forgot the part where Jesus went to the Americas and preached to the American Indians (who are the lost tribe of Israel) (all 'divinely' revealed to Joseph Smith of course)!!!!!!!!!
aaahhh..so YOU were the Mark that private topiced me berating me for not believing in the 'trinity' etc..
Just for Oakspear and DMillers 'enlightenment' are you another one who never were involved in twi ??!!
Sorry Mark but the only reason the 'Catholics' never suceeded in stopping the free course of the Word of God was because in persecution the church of God flourishes ! Even today this principle holds true.
Templelady..you forgot the part where Jesus went to the Americas and preached to the American Indians (who are the lost tribe of Israel) (all 'divinely' revealed to Joseph Smith of course)!!!!!!!!!
aaahhh..so YOU were the Mark that private topiced me berating me for not believing in the 'trinity' etc..
Just for Oakspear and DMillers 'enlightenment' are you another one who never were involved in twi ??!!
On edit, to reduce the repetitions of the "Maniacal Laugh"
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
15
15
23
Popular Days
Oct 9
24
Oct 8
21
Oct 1
20
Oct 10
15
Top Posters In This Topic
Allan 10 posts
Oakspear 15 posts
templelady 15 posts
markomalley 23 posts
Popular Days
Oct 9 2005
24 posts
Oct 8 2005
21 posts
Oct 1 2005
20 posts
Oct 10 2005
15 posts
Belle
Oak said:
So where Mike claims that Wierwille said such-and-such, we can go to PFAL and refute him. Which has been done. Wierwille's works often do not say what Mike says that they say, unless you have a gnostic-like secret knowledge that allows you to understand what it really means.
And yet, Mike's detractors refer back to "the bible", a collection of writings put together by a committee of the victors in a centuries-long battle of words and political influence.
Are you saying it's like using a rubber noodle to fight against a water gun? :P
On another thread Bob said:
I think that fits here, too. I'm currently reading a book about why people believe weird things and it's pretty interesting how people have the tendency to believe ANYTHING that makes them feel like they have answers to SOMETHING.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Is the reason why you might think is arrogance because you no longer necessarily believe these things?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Unfortunately, usually it is the opposite that is true..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I have no problem with those who hold to the doctrine based on the bible. I get along quite well with, for example, dmiller, Raf, WordWolf, Belle, etc.
My opinion is not based on whether or not I believe the bible, but on the way it is presented. I have seen the most vicious attacks on this board be Christian-against-Christian, over differences in opinion on this or that doctrine. As a non-Christian, I haven't been directly attacked here that often.
And by the way...you used the term arrogance in your quote of my statement, not me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Makes me want to be a Christian so I can know it all and show those other idiots who "say" they are Christian just how wrong they are. Being a Christian gives you license to attack does it not? I mean the whole OT is nothing but wars, battles, attacks and incest. The whole NT is religion on religion attacks and political on religion attacks. Just look at the examples..... makes perfect sense to me. :huh: :blink: :mellow:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Well said Oldiesman..I think words being bandied around like 'viscious', 'attacks' etc.. are a bit melodramatic don't you think ??
They are used 'conveniently' by certain posters at times to suit, a bit like a spoilt child crying "meanie, meanie".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
JB,
Paul has been known as the first heretic for centuries... God protecting Pauls writings? I doubt it...Paul's doctrine and Christ's doctrine are not the same... I am of Jesus, if I had to choose...
Honestly, reading some of the epistles makes me think of LCM.
Was that too blasphemous?
Edited by karmicdebtLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Belle, I'll second your opinion here.. but may go a little further..
Being around the most confrontational, loathsome, hateful, arrogant "Christians".. and seeing what they often do and say to other people.. almost makes me want to deny that I even belong to the same club..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
THat is soooo true
We are to be followers of Jesus Christ
Nowhere are we told to be Followers of Paul
Yet in many CHristian churches not just TWI, Paul is the central focus.
Paul was a man, who made mistakes, and didn't always get it right.
To build your faith on an imperfect man, no matter who or wht he was , will eventually lead to disaster.
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
No Karmicdebt, I don't think that was too blasphemous. And I think I know what you're getting at with the comparison to LCM, although I've never posted or even said anything about it. But, calling Paul a "heretic" is a bit far-fetched in my opinion. Paul was the only Apostle to actually carried out Jesus last commandment. He told his Apostles to Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. According to Luke, he told them, on the day of the Acencion that they would be witnesses unto him in Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.
But what did Peter & co. do? They stayed in Jerusalem! Rather than preaching the gospel to every creature, they avoided contact with the Gentiles. It took an unprecedented triple revelation to get ONE of them to set foot in the home of a Gentile--what, 15 years later? And even after that, they refused to accept the fact that God had given the Gentiles equal standing in the Church. If it weren't for Paul and his commitment to carry out the ministry that his predeccors had neglected, the gospel of Christ would have died in Judaea.
So I don't buy the whole Paul vs. Jesus argument. The only reason there seems to be such a gulf between Paul's gospel and the Jesus' gospel of the Kingdome is because the bridge that was supposed to be built between the two by the Twelve never got built.
Peace
JerryB
I don't think that following Paul will keep you from finding Christ. A look at history will show that the opposite is true. As I said to Karmicdebt, if not for Paul, the Christian Church as we know it wouldn't even exist. It was Paul who brought the gospel of CHRIST to the Gentiles, and eventually, to all of Asia and Europe! Since every protestant denomination owes its roots to Paul's epistles, I think it's rather illogical to think that following Paul will lead people away from Christ. Sure Paul made mistakes. That doesn't disqualify him to preach the gospel.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Second Christ's first priorty was the the Jews-- he came as their Messiah, it was the Apostles job to see that that news was spread. Gentiles were the wild branches grafted in but only after the the natural branches failed to bear fruit.
and Third Paul was but one of many Jewish followers of Christ who preached outside of Jerusallem
Paul is the one we know about because he was literate, and had time in Rome to write letters and make copies of same which were preserved. The Mediteranean region was no stranger to the news of Christ carried by many, Paul himself mentions, Timothy, Barnabus, and others. Their writings if any and the groups that they converted remain largely a mystery to us.
By this statement you prove my point precisely
We DO NOT owe our roots to Paul
Protestestant denominations owe their roots to the Roman Catholic Church
To the monks who labored through the dark ages preserving scriptures
To Peter who sat on the throne of the Holy See
To Christ who taught Peter
And to the Apostles who spoke and taught the words of Christ from firsthand knowledge until they could be preserved in writing
Paul would have been nothing without them
Paul's epistles are Paul's interpretation of the Message of Christ --The message he learned from others who actually spoke and learned from the living Christ.
.Do you really think GOd couldn't have gotten the job done with out Paul??? Stephen died for his efforts, Timothey and Barnabus, Aquilla and Priscilla carried on long after Paul was cooling his heels in a Roman villa.
After Paul was imprisoned and sent to Rome he carried the message of Christ nowhere new. He simply kept in contact with the churches he had preached at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
In the early days before the "canon" of scripture was settled, Paul was looked upon as a heretic by some, but not by those who eventually came out on top.
Of course, once the dust cleared, the victors were able to retroactively declare their view has having been orthodox and dominant from the beginning.
There were many other writings that were considered by some as diveinely inspired, some we still have, and some are lost. Even some of Paul's letters may not really have been written by Paul Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Instead of crying about "lost" letters and gospels, why not try dealing with what we have and seeing how that fits. I've heard much talk about lost books, but most of those were eliminated based on the fact their authors could not demonstrate they had been appointed by Christ. None of the writings of the early Church fathers were included in the canon, even though some wanted them.
Instead we got a compiltation of the letters that survived and were confirmed by many synods over the decades after Paul and the Apostles died.
Templelady, you suggest Paul was somehow disqualified because he was not an Apostle when Jesus issued his commandment, do you not believe that Jesus knew about Paul already?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
After Paul died is the key here, he wasn't around to confirm their authenticity--Am I saying they weren't authentic-- no--but synods convened years even centuries after the fact are not always the best of arbitrators.
Never said he was disqualified--was pointing out that Christ's mandate to the 12 was to preach to the JEWS. It was only after the 'natural" (Jews) branches rejected what was taught, and not all of them did, that the "wild" (Gentile) branches were to be grafted in.
Did Jesus know about Paul already??? I honestly don't know-- he knew someone would be called by God to preach to the gentiles but whether he know it would be Paul specifically -----
And while we are on the subject of Paul let us review exactly what those epistles contain
Letters to the city states of
Ephesus
Corinth
Galatia
Phillipi
Thessolonica
Colosse
the city of Rome
Personal letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon
The Hebrews in Jerusalem
That leaves --say about 80% of the known world
obviously there is a lot missing
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Reikildy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
that last post was me :P
I forgot to log in
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
That's why Jesus went out of his way to commission him on the road to Damascus. Barnabus is referred to as an Apostle too, but he didn't see the Lord outshining the midday sun. He was simply annointed in Antioch.
That happened before the crucifixion. According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, after his resurrection, Jesus told the Apostles to Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. His exclusive ministry to Israel was over, and it was time to bring in the sheep from his other folds (John 10:16). For whatever reason, they failed to do so. So Christ found someone who would carry out his will.True, there were a few others, but they didn't get far beyond Judaea and they founded only a fraction of the churches Paul did. Paul was by far the most effective. And he was the one to whom God gave the revelation of the mystery.
It's funny that you speak of the Gentiles having been grafted in to the olive tree, because you're quoting the man you call a heretic. It was Paul who penned those words. :-)Tish tosh. The Roman Catholic Church buried and obscured the Scriptures. Their masses and liturgies were all conducted in Latin, which most of the parishoners didn't know. When a few brave souls tried to translate the Scriptures into languages the people could understand, the Roman Catholics burned them at the stake. Under the rule of the so-called "Holy See", the average "Christian" lived in ignorance of God's Word and will. Why do you think they call it the Dark Ages?
The Bible was not widely read or disseminated until after the Protestant Reformation. And do you know what started the Reformation? Martin Luther read Paul's epistle to the Romans and realized how corrupt, legalistic, and ungodly the Catholic Church had become. It was Paul's words that broke the rule of the Pope and brought an end to the Dark Ages. That's why I said all Protestant Denominations owe their roots to the Apostle Paul.
Peace
JerryB
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
JB
I don't care if you disagree with me , I don't care if you quote me
but DO NOT put words in my mouth I never said Paul was a heretic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
And Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic Priest who had the epistle of PAul to read because his church had preserved it.
TO say that PAul is the root of Protestantism or any Christian ism is heresy
Jesus Christ is the Only ROOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
templelady, I think you've just dug in your heels at a particular spot. Of course Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the foundation. Nobody is saying He isn't. But remember that foundation is the apostles and prophets. Paul was an apostle.
Followers of Paul's teaching are following Christ, for he got it "by revelation of Jesus Christ". The gospel message he received from the Lord has become the foundation of Christianity for in it is articulated the doctrine of grace. What doctrine does Peter contribute in the Bible?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Jerry,
Your bigotry is getting old.
First, for 1500 years, there was nothing but the Catholic Church. Had they wished to bury the scriptures, they could have done so and utterly destroyed them, particularly if they were as all-powerful as you claim they were. Before printing presses, how were the scriptures preserved and transmitted? They were hand-written: normally by Catholic monks working and living in Catholic Monastaries. Curious behavior for a group who wished to "bury the scriptures."
Secondly, its curious that the first English edition of the Bible approved for use by the Catholic Church was published 2 years before the King James Version. (The NT section was released a full 25 years before the KJV) -- strange behavior for a group that wished to bury the scriptures.
Also curious that the scriptures are read during each and every liturgical service performed by the Catholic Church and always have been (in the ancient days, it was called the Mass of the Catechumens). In fact, if one goes through the Lectionary (the calendar of scripture readings), one will find that about 40% of the scripture is covered during the 3-year Sunday calendar. If one adds the 2-year daily calendar, the number goes up to about 70%. Curious behavior for people who wished to bury the scriptures--reading them in public. Oh, by the way, its also curious that the American Baptist Churches in the USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Anglican Church of Australia, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, .Anglican Church of Canada, Presbyterian Church in Canada, Christian Church [Disciples of Christ], Presbyterian Church in the USA, Christian Reformed Church in North America, United Church of Canada, Church of England, United Church of Christ, Anglican Church in South Africa, and United Methodist Church use substantively the same lectionary (the Common Lectionary) in their services as the Lectionary developed by that evil Catholic Church. Again, strange behavior for a group trying to destroy God's Word.
Did you ever consider that the vast majority of people had no more exposure to the Bible than the readings they heard in the church because they were ILLITERATE? Why were they illiterate? Because they were too busy eking a living for themselves to spend time on foolishness like school. Even if they had been able to read, books were all done by hand...Gutenburg didn't invent the moveable type press until the 1440s and didn't publish his famous Gutenburg Bible until 1455. Even then, one of his Bibles would cost an average person more than three years' wages. (as a point of interest, you know who subsidized Gutenburg's operation? The Catholic Archbishop of Mainz, Germany -- pretty strange behavior for an Evil Catholic who wanted to bury the scriptures, supporting publication of a Bible)
Jerry, you make inaccurate assumptions that are clearly ignorant of the reality of history.
And why am I lashing out at you? Because you offend me personally when you spout this garbage (why? because I'm Catholic). I don't care if you agree with what I believe or not. But when you continue to propagate your lies that are based on something only casually related to the facts and to history, I need to set the record straight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Sorry Mark but the only reason the 'Catholics' never suceeded in stopping the free course of the Word of God was because in persecution the church of God flourishes ! Even today this principle holds true.
Templelady..you forgot the part where Jesus went to the Americas and preached to the American Indians (who are the lost tribe of Israel) (all 'divinely' revealed to Joseph Smith of course)!!!!!!!!!
aaahhh..so YOU were the Mark that private topiced me berating me for not believing in the 'trinity' etc..
Just for Oakspear and DMillers 'enlightenment' are you another one who never were involved in twi ??!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
On edit, to reduce the repetitions of the "Maniacal Laugh"
[sound effects deleted by the moderator]
Edited by ModaustinLink to comment
Share on other sites
wingnut
But its so fugly its cute! B)
How can ya not feed it? :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.