We were referring to the original 12. JMCRAE was trying to assert that it was the apostles that sent Paul and Barnabus.
Yes. Weâre definetly on the same page. I wasnât denying he was in Antioch or he wasnât an Apostle. I said the Holy Spirit was the one that sent he and Barnabus. JMCRAE said it was Peter and the Apostles. I responded and quoted the people specifically who were there mentioned by name and also those referenced as prophets and teachers. No where does it mention Peter or the Apostles. Aside from Paul obviously. JMCRAE then stated that the Holy Spirit only separated Paul and Barnabus but it was the Apostles and Peter who actually did the laying on of hands. This simply is not true. Peter did hang out in Antioch but at this particular point in time he was running from Herod and the Apostles were definitely in Jerusalem. I simply made the point that if Peter was the one who sent Paul and Barnabus, Luke would have written that specifically and not referred to him as a teacher or prophet. Thatâs not how they were addressed. They called each other brothers, but when referred to by outside people it was always by name, or the 12, or the apostles.
Yes absolutely. Weâre definitely on the same page.
Yes he did. But at this point in time Peter was not in Antioch. He was running from Herod and then returned to Jerusalem after Herod died. The Bible just says that he went to another place after he left Maryâs (John also Markâs mothers) house. If Peter was present for this big send off of Paul and Barnabus the Bible would say so. IMO of course. Whenever the apostles are present the Bible states it.
So weâre basically in agreement
So then it is a sin to smoke?? How about eating a bad diet and being overweight?? Thatâs just as bad if not worse. My brother-in-law had a heart attack at 52 from smoking and a bad diet. Where do you draw the line?
That actually is not the point though. This part of Paulâs letter expresses a theme of not interfering with what another person feels is important for their relationship with GOD. The Jews wanted the Gentiles to observe their dietary restrictions. So Paul is saying if not being a vegetarian doesnât get in the way of your relationship with GOD then so be it. If you feel you need to be a vegetarian then so be it. Neither side should criticize the other.
Forget about the church for a second. Iâm talking about you and me walking around in our daily lives. Would we rob a bank? No. Would we commit murder? No. Why?? Because we know itâs wrong. Thatâs what Iâm referring to. I believe the Holy Spirit guides us when it comes to doing right and wrong. Unfortunately you may know it is wrong and still do it. Not that you are deliberately saying âHoly Spirit Iâm not listening to youâ. Many times we act on impulse. Later we realize how bad we were. Then we go back and try to fix it or apologize. Paul writes of this very thing in his letter to the Romans. He states it almost exactly as I did. The very thing I donât want to do, that which is wrong, I end up doing anyway. Thank GOD for Jesus. Basically
You have to look at the bigger picture. They support it in an effort to reduce abortions. The bottom line is teens will have sex no matter what. The ultimate answer is wait until marriage. But if you are going to have sex use protection. Iâm going through this now with my son who is 17 and coming out of High School. I remember those days and the lectures my Father gave to me about abstaining. Did I listen? No. Did you? Only you can answer. So in essence if you went to a Priest and said, which is worse having unprotected sex and then having an abortion, or using protection? Iâm sure the Priest would say neither you should abstain. But the Priest is also realistic and if forced to decide Iâm sure he would say practice safe sex then. As a matter of fact I can introduce you to a Roman Catholic Priest that made this very statement.
And I agree with you. That would be a church I would not join and I think Christ would have something to say about that. That unfortunately is the result of freedom of Religion, coupled with a society that has become extremely liberal. But the problem of pre-marital sex has always existed and always will. Unfortunately churches now are trying to become more liberal in response to this and in an effort to bring in new members instead of staying with solid morals and trying to teach true right from wrong.
This is a tough one no doubt. Iâm old school though. I grew up Roman Catholic so I take a harder stance on this like you. So does the church I now attend. I believe if we stick to Biblical principles there is no gray area. Unfortunately some new wave churches try to make it gray. Usually these churches donât survive though. Hereâs what I would submit to you. I believe some things are going to have to be sorted out by GOD HIMSELF. Pastor Gene Getz talks about this in his âmeasure of a good manâ book.
Thatâs Ok Iâm sincerely enjoying this discussion with you. I think we are more alike than different
Agreed
I can explain sola scripture and sola fide to you if you like. Itâs really quite easy and doesnât need to be complicated. The problem is most people think they know but they donât. As far as the Eucharist, I can show you evidence and present an overwhelming case that demonstrates it is not the Real Presence. But then someone else can do the same thing to show the Real Presence. Whoâs right and whoâs wrong?? Without Jesus here to personally tell us we wonât really know for sure. You might claim that the Holy Spirit guides us to the truth. But the truth can get corrupted. Not by the Holy Spirit but by man because we are not infallible. We are very much fallible. Thatâs why the first part of Genesis is the great fall of man.
As I stated in the previous post. The Bible is not gray. Itâs black and white to me. Unfortunately we try to make it gray. Look how badly lawyers make a black and white law look gray. Thou shall not kill. Someone commits murder. Then immediately itâs; whatâs his frame of mind, did he have motive, did he have true intent, this, that, this, that. The bottom line is they killed.
PEACE my Sister
This seems to be the sticking point-is doctrinal unity the basis for the church? I would say no. I also believe it to be very important, but I donât believe it can be the basis. Jesus speaks of others knowing we are believers by our love, Paul speaks of our fruits giving evidence, neither point to a creed that we must affirm to be acknowledged as part of his church.
Agreed. That is why most believers, pray, study the Bible, assemble together and try to be open to what God is saying to them. It would seem the key difference between Catholics and protestants here is what priority God gives to doctrinal truth and how leading believers into truth will happen.
Gluttony is on the list of the Seven Deadly Sins in the Examination of Conscience, so yes, eating without being hungry, or eating more than will satisfy you is, in fact, a sin, according to the Church.
Yes, but when it came to doctrinal matters, St. Paul was a hard-liner.
Agreed
Yes thatâs exactly my point. Thank you.
Iâm so in agreement with you on this. So then how do we determine which doctrine is actually right? It all comes down to a matter of interpretation. Someone will actually be wrong about something. Now Iâm not taking a cheap shot at the Roman Catholic church, honestly. But they do assert that only they have the truth. Actually the fullness of the truth. What if, they turn out to be wrong on some things. What if the reformers are correct on some of their things. How do we bridge this gap. This is where I look to our spiritual leaders. The pope, all the major heads of protestant religions etc., to come together and have open discussions about these things. Stop saying, I am right you are wrong. I consider myself to be fairly intelligent. I read the Bible and things make complete sense to me. Yet Iâll read someone elseâs interpretation and think âWhere did you get thatâ??
Oh yes and people really need to stop that. To me thatâs part Joe Blow trying to make money using Jesus and GOD as the vehicle. And people who will not stay true to their Faith. Jesus told us HE HIMSELF nor the Angels knew when GOD would send Jesus back to us. He gave us clues as to what it would be like. But nothing that would enable us to know. Only GOD knows and it is not written anywhere. As Jesus said it would be like a thief in the night. Basically when we least expect it.
Letâs agree though on what the truth is. To me Jesus is THEE truth. HE alone is our savior. HE alone is our only redeemer. It is only by GODâs grace that we even have Jesus. Sometimes we can get so caught up in doctrine that we lose sight of this. The Pharisees made this mistake. They were so caught up with knowing doctrine that they didnât realize it pointed to Jesus. This was such a great conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees.
Deacon_d, I agree with most of what you wrote, and you give a very good defense of what Protestants find distasteful about the CC. Doctrine is principally defined in response to heresies. Since in the first century, heresies about who Jesus was began. How would we even know who Jesus was or what His teachings were if we did not have a âkeeper of the records.â Was He really true God AND true man? JWâs and Mormons today do not accept the Divinity of Christ being on a equal par with God the Father. The Trinity. The Bible. (Old and New Testaments). This âkeeperâ has to be free from error. Without defined doctine, anybody can (and do) read anything they want into the Bible, and ultilimately Truth is compromised. Whether people realize it or not, All Christianity rests on the Holy Spiritâs guidance of the CC and her infallibility in matters of faith and morals.Iâm so in agreement with you on this. So then how do we determine which doctrine is actually right? It all comes down to a matter of interpretation. Someone will actually be wrong about something. Now Iâm not taking a cheap shot at the Roman Catholic church, honestly. But they do assert that only they have the truth. Actually the fullness of the truth. What if, they turn out to be wrong on some things. What if the reformers are correct on some of their things. How do we bridge this gap. This is where I look to our spiritual leaders. The pope, all the major heads of protestant religions etc., to come together and have open discussions about these things. Stop saying, I am right you are wrong. I consider myself to be fairly intelligent. I read the Bible and things make complete sense to me. Yet Iâll read someone elseâs interpretation and think âWhere did you get thatâ??
What do you think, am I being too hopeful?
Letâs agree though on what the truth is. To me Jesus is THEE truth. HE alone is our savior. HE alone is our only redeemer. It is only by GODâs grace that we even have Jesus. Sometimes we can get so caught up in doctrine that we lose sight of this. The Pharisees made this mistake. They were so caught up with knowing doctrine that they didnât realize it pointed to Jesus. This was such a great conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees.
Sometimes we seem to be more focused on interpreting doctrine than proclaiming Jesus. Right now there are Cardinals who are forming a movement to get Mary to be considered Co-redemptrix or something like that. Why?? Why focus on that when there are so many people who either do not know Jesus, or know HIM but donât believe, or donât even believe in GOD. Thatâs what their focus should be. Saving the lost. Staying with Jesus great commission of making disciples.
Doctrine is great and helps us to get to know who Jesus was and what he did. But opening your heart to HIM and letting HIM live in you spiritually is what HE desires most. Not your expert knowledge of doctrine. When you open your heart and let Jesus in I believe HE will absolutely lead you to the truth. I donât believe that kind of truth is written on a piece of paper.
PEACE
yep, and thatâs the same fault as Adam and Eve - letting themselves decide what is right and wrong instead of God. âi think this, i think thatâŚâ
. itâs ok though, God can forgive them because at least they are trying⌠maybe itâs up to us to work harder.You will find the truth in a Messianic congregation that believes Yeshua HaMashiach is God incarnate. This is the Biblical church (which is an organism, not an organization). Whenever Paul described the church he never described a building or a hierarchy of hirelings but rather living organisms, a body, a tree (Rom 9-11).
You make a good point however, I donât know if I would base and put my faith in a system of revelation with such far reaching implications based on this alone. Also I think one needs to consider that this is Paul a destined Apostle was the central figure here. The NT as a whole seems pretty clear that submission to the teaching authority of the Church is normative. The Council of Jerusalem declared on the issue of circumcision and the decision wasnât debatable after that.
We were referring to the original 12. JMCRAE was trying to assert that it was the apostles that sent Paul and Barnabus.
Yes. Weâre definetly on the same page. I wasnât denying he was in Antioch or he wasnât an Apostle. I said the Holy Spirit was the one that sent he and Barnabus. JMCRAE said it was Peter and the Apostles. I responded and quoted the people specifically who were there mentioned by name and also those referenced as prophets and teachers. No where does it mention Peter or the Apostles. Aside from Paul obviously. JMCRAE then stated that the Holy Spirit only separated Paul and Barnabus but it was the Apostles and Peter who actually did the laying on of hands. This simply is not true. Peter did hang out in Antioch but at this particular point in time he was running from Herod and the Apostles were definitely in Jerusalem. I simply made the point that if Peter was the one who sent Paul and Barnabus, Luke would have written that specifically and not referred to him as a teacher or prophet. Thatâs not how they were addressed. They called each other brothers, but when referred to by outside people it was always by name, or the 12, or the apostles.
Really. Where pray tell did He say that?
Matthew 18:18.
Which church is this living organism? Is beleiving that Jesus is God incarnate all that is necessary to belong to this church? Or is it not a church at all, but a belief system, a theology apart from other Christian practices like Baptism?
These are certainly valid questions. There isnât really anything tangible that declares the Church is correct. We can show that our origins and many of our practices go back first days of the Church but that ultimately doesnât prove anything. For that matter we have nothing that tangibly proves the Apostles knew what they were talking about either.Agreed
Iâm so in agreement with you on this. So then how do we determine which doctrine is actually right? It all comes down to a matter of interpretation. Someone will actually be wrong about something. Now Iâm not taking a cheap shot at the Roman Catholic church, honestly. But they do assert that only they have the truth. Actually the fullness of the truth. What if, they turn out to be wrong on some things. What if the reformers are correct on some of their things. How do we bridge this gap. This is where I look to our spiritual leaders. The pope, all the major heads of protestant religions etc., to come together and have open discussions about these things. Stop saying, I am right you are wrong. I consider myself to be fairly intelligent. I read the Bible and things make complete sense to me. Yet Iâll read someone elseâs interpretation and think âWhere did you get thatâ??
No argument from me here. Jesus is the Truth. The Ultimate Truth. He is Our Lord and Savior and there is no one who can excel Him.
Believe it or not I actually totally get what youâre saying here. There is always a danger when one applies a definition to something. At that point we are attempting to use limited human language to describe something eternal and divine. While it might not technically be incorrect by its very nature it sets limits. Also human nature has a tendancy to focus on definitions and not the subjects to which they relate whenever definitions or laws are made.
I agree and disagree with this. Yes absolutely Faith and love of Our Lord is paramount. However, when we have available to us proper belief and moral action which He gave to us Himself. I think we have obligation to try and follow it. Being a Theologian isnât required but loving Jesus I think should assume a desire to obey Him. While Iâm the first one to agree that Jesus changes us and the Holy Spirit continually moves us towards Truth that guidance depends a great deal on our obedience to Christâs teachings. If it were not then Christians would for the most part be perfect people or close to it.
(emphasis added)