Foundations of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan_471
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t doubt it for a moment… is the unity of the church based on the law of love or doctrinal conformity? to put it another way, does God want all Christians all over the world to be united by believing the same thing, or by loving as He loved? to put it a third way, people can sometimes act in a loving way, but this becomes difficult for institutions, especially when they feel threatened…
By loving as He loves, is the mark of ‘Christian’ unity!

Jesus teaches - Love one another as I HAVE loved you! (To the Apostoles)

Paul teaches - The GREATEST of these, (faith, hope, love) is LOVE!

St Augustine - …how many of these (our brothers) are within when they are really without (outside the Church) and how many of those outside are REALLY within??!

The CC teaches - Invincible Ignorance - those who through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN do not know Christ or heard His Gospel but do the will of God …- are members of the CC!

Taking ALL the teachings in unison, we can CLEARLY see that what unites the children of God is …LOVE!

It would appear, that one does not require to be Christian to be ‘within’ the scope of God’s LOVE and accordingly, is ‘within’ the scope of The Church!

:cool:
 
I don’t doubt it for a moment… is the unity of the church based on the law of love or doctrinal conformity? to put it another way, does God want all Christians all over the world to be united by believing the same thing, or by loving as He loved? to put it a third way, people can sometimes act in a loving way, but this becomes difficult for institutions, especially when they feel threatened…
The important thing to me is what the institution teaches. We need the institution to tell us about God and His love, to proclaim the gospel regardless of how well the institution and its “proclaimers” themselves may behave.Verses such as Matt 23:2-3 help serve to lay down this principle for us. And in the case of the Church we’ve had leaders and teachers and members in general who’ve heeded her message better, and others who’ve heeded it worse, down through the centuries.
 
I’m sorry to jump in,
jumpers welcome, I say
I love seeing the walk. Great thread.
Thank you, if I’m included in the compliment…
I see you are trying to use much logic and correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems the desire is to get to the destination, not another stop through another denomination.
I would like to go back to the original post as I would answer yes.
If you don’t mind, I’ll walk through the logic I like to use that keeps my faith strong. I’m really not big on verse wars because I think we lose the teaching in the fight.
my story -
I can say with full confidence that I am in the Church started by Christ and that it is Truth through this path…
Is there Truth? 1+1=2, check
What is Truth? an indivisible reality, known or unknown to any person, it is still real.
Therefore, if Truth exists in religion, there would be 1 true religion.
OK, possibly I’m with you so far… we could also say the 3-1=2, so that’s a different way of saying the same quantity (truth)
I like the term fullness of Truth. Truth could exist in other religions (and does), but their source would be the first.
Not sure if that has to follow, but still with you…
Of all the religions then, where could the most logical source be?
Well, Paul talks about finding the truth in nature, and it sounds like many gentiles did it…
Before Jesus this would be quite difficult to answer, but with Jesus, thank Him it’s easy.
Only one person in the world has defeated death, many have defeated all kinds of disease, but only 1 death.
OK, agreement with that…
So which Christian church would be the correct one? Did he say anything about starting one? Sure, Peter.
Well, that’s the question we’re talking about, here… I think…
It so happens Peter is also the first CEO of one Church. I better look into that further.
What Church seems to follow this Jesus’ most controversial command? I asked this because if not for a radical message, why would God become man, die and rise?
We go to John 6 and the last supper. The Eucharist.
Actually, I would pick the ‘love your neighbor’ command, as fleshed out in the Good Sam story, Luke 10, I think…
All other things about the Church from here on out are just fun to learn and know.
I would suggest, if you can to watch or get the Catholicism series DVD’s, they are great. EWTN shows them too. I DVR them and watch when I can.
I can get EWTN over the internet… what’s the name of the series?
Take care,
You, too!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
On to Galatians 2

the problem I see with this reading is that Paul uses the word ‘hypocrisy’ to describe Peter’s actions…

Following the conversation Jerome is having with Augustine, Paul, based on action, looks like the poster child himself, for either hypocrisy or deceiver, particularly in saying

1 Cor 9:20
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

Then

Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised.
Yes, as I said before, leading some people to note that the writer of Acts doesn’t seem very familiar with Paul…
Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 Paul shaved his head, purified himself and made sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which he had previously said is no longer to be followed
Jerome points out, what Paul rebukes Peter for ( withdrew himself from the
Gentiles for dietary issues for fear of the Jews who came from James, ) is soooo benign compared to what Paul did.
well, possibly, tho it looks to me like Paul, if he did these things, might’ve been around only Jews or Gentiles at the times these various actions took place
So, what is to be made of this? As we know, things aren’t always what they appear to be.
OK, I’m with you there…
Paraphrasing, (which I admit is poor on my part) Jerome said this was a strategy of Peter’s with good intent. Peter didn’t want to lose anyone he was working with especially those weak in their faith.
OK, and as I mentioned, why is James sending weak people into a dangerous situation… I think a better strategy would have been for Peter to say, ‘you folks go on back to Jerusalem, it’s not safe for you here…’ of course, maybe James didn’t send weak folks… maybe they were strong in the faith, but understood the faith differently…
And Paul ultimately saw it that way also, and adopted it too.
possibly… since Paul has told us directly that Peter was wrong, it would’ve been nice if he told us directly that he was wrong about that…
IOW they both pretend to be something else so they don’t lose the weak in faith.
myself, I don’t like people pretending when it comes to communicating the Gospel…
Why no apology from Paul, and why do we just see the rebuke of Peter?
I think seeing Paul’s mimicking Peter’s strategy and using it for his own, gives us the answer without needing the actual words.
well, Paul says that Peter is ‘clearly wrong’… is Paul wrong about that? if so, what else is Paul wrong about? now, personally, I’m OK with Paul being wrong about something, but if he’s wrong about the gospel, then, actually, we do have different Apostles going around preaching different versions of the Gospel… now, I’m OK with that too, but one of the claims made by people on this thread (yourself? I don’t remember…) is that the Apostles all preserved the truth of the Gospel…
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
well, Paul says that Peter is ‘not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel’…
Q: Who did Paul go to see after 3 years on the road, to make sure he himself was teaching correctly, and not running in vain?
James, Peter, John… named in that order, if it’s important…

does he go to see if he’s teaching correctly? or more to gain some sort of support from them… he says they added nothing to his ideas… also, he says that “what they were makes no difference to me”
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
so unless he later prints a retraction… also, Paul implies that Peter is compelling ‘the Gentiles to live like Jews’ which I don’t think Paul endorses…
keep reading
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
I would assume that Paul forgave Peter…
Paul mimicking Peter, suggests to me this was not the issue people make it out to be.
to me, a lot seems to rest on the alleged mimicking… which to me is not at all clear… as I said, even if Paul is doing the things Acts claims, the situation doesn’t look to me like the same that Peter is encountering in the Gentile world…
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by D

I think you did a fine job of summarizing… for me, the context of the issues I talked about above make Jerome’s position not very strong…

I actually think Jerome’s discussion with Augustine was very strong and convincing. Jerome tells who he also pulled commentary from. I thought there’s real depth and development of thought with excellent conclusion. Particularly in Ch 3 v 8-11, and Ch 4 v 12-18 newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm But that’s just my opinion…
well, of course we’re each going to find what we want to see… that’s why I like to stick to things that are directly stated… if we go with the idea that Scripture contains many hidden ideas that are only found by drawing connections from separate implications in different contexts, then we can come up with all kinds of cool doctrines… like the ‘upon this rock’ quote from Matt 16, maybe Jesus was actually saying, given that He taught about taking a low seat at the table, that He’s setting up a system where people who are hungry for power will be drawn into seeking high places, while the truth of the Gospel remains with those content to be in an egalitarian system… do I actually believe what I just wrote, no, not really, but it’s a possible conclusion once we move away from what is directly talked about… I do agree that Jerome’s position is acceptable if one has to accept that both Galatians and Acts are completely true in our modern sense… it’s not so much that I think Paul is revealing the ‘complete truth’ as that he “calls 'em as he sees 'em”

one final thought, if Paul can be wrong, then we have an easy way out of the Paul/James justification question… Paul could just be wrong…
 
more talking to steve b (well, everyone else too, of course
the more I think about this, the more I think this might not be the road you want to go down… here’s what I mean… if Paul, who says that Peter ‘was afraid’ got the story wrong, and he was there… then it’s also possible that the writer of Matthew (maybe the Apostle, maybe someone else) got some of the stories about Jesus wrong…

kind of a lot of use of the word ‘wrong’ there… I’ll try to put it in a positive way… some things in the Scriptures may not be quite as ‘right’ as they could be…
 
(more response to steve b’s post…)
I think we (or maybe just I) may have gotten the chronology wrong, here… here’s how I read it… Paul says he got his Gospel through a ‘revelation of Jesus’… three years later he confers with Peter… (and meets James) … I think Paul sees this as a chance to meet other important Christian leaders, rather than a time to get his Gospel ‘checked out’… I think this because Paul sees his Gospel as coming from Jesus, and Paul has said that anyone who teaches different than he does is cursed… I don’t think Paul is uncertain about what he should be teaching…

then fourteen years later he meets up with James, Peter, and John, and that’s where Paul uses the phrase ‘run or had run in vain’
 
I think we (or maybe just I) may have gotten the chronology wrong, here… here’s how I read it… Paul says he got his Gospel through a ‘revelation of Jesus’… three years later he confers with Peter… (and meets James) … I think Paul sees this as a chance to meet other important Christian leaders, rather than a time to get his Gospel ‘checked out’… I think this because Paul sees his Gospel as coming from Jesus, and Paul has said that anyone who teaches different than he does is cursed… I don’t think Paul is uncertain about what he should be teaching…

then fourteen years later he meets up with James, Peter, and John, and that’s where Paul uses the phrase ‘run or had run in vain’
In both events referred to

    • Paul spent 15 days with Peter three years after Paul’s conversion (the visit of Acts 9:26-30)
    • Paul meets with James Peter and John after 14 years on the road, [Gal 2:2] to see if he is on the right track with his preaching and not running in vain.
    As an aside,
    • Peter James and John were the only apostles who Jesus took up the mountain to witness Our Lord’s transfiguration.
    • Since the Holy Spirit is inspiring all the apostles to teach, (not just Paul), and Jesus said to the apostles before He ascended back to heaven
    • [Jn 16:13-15] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
    therefore, Re: Pauls statement about running in vain, It appears that’s connected to “false bretheren” infiltrating the ranks, causing problems for Gentile converts in requiring the following of Jewish law, (witness Titus, for example, a Greek, wasn’t feeling compelled to be circumcised). So Paul confers with James, Peter and John. Why James & Peter?
    • James the bishop of Jerusalem
    • Peter is over the entire Church 🙂
 
Hello

Suppose one accepts a few basic truths about Jesus… that he was a real person, he died, was raised again… Is this enough to lead a person to believe that the RCC is God’s instrument for communicating truth to humans?

To put it another way, or perhaps a similar question, how strong is the connection between accepting the above few truths about Jesus, and believing that he wanted to establish a particular group, or church… the conversion stories that I’ve read usually have the person saying that they felt drawn to the RCC… suppose that drawing isn’t there?

Peace,
Dan
The “drawing” can be a powerful thing if it is present; it can also lead you astray as is the case with Mormon “burning in the bosom”. Reasoning about history and facts are important, also.

In answer to your opening question, yes, accepting a few basic facts is sufficient to lead one to the Catholic Church. Here’s how:

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the proposition that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Here is a limited proof.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
I think we (or maybe just I) may have gotten the chronology wrong, here… here’s how I read it… Paul says he got his Gospel through a ‘revelation of Jesus’… three years later he confers with Peter… (and meets James) … I think Paul sees this as a chance to meet other important Christian leaders, rather than a time to get his Gospel ‘checked out’… I think this because Paul sees his Gospel as coming from Jesus, and Paul has said that anyone who teaches different than he does is cursed… I don’t think Paul is uncertain about what he should be teaching…

then fourteen years later he meets up with James, Peter, and John, and that’s where Paul uses the phrase ‘run or had run in vain’
No, has Steve_b pointed out, Paul went to confer with Peter to make sure he hadn’t been “running the race in vain”. IOW, he wanted to double-check his gospel against that of the head of the Church, Peter.

He had it right, of course, but this incident reveals how all of us, even the great Paul, have moments of doubt and need communion with fellow believers to strengthen us in times of darkness.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
One more thought on Jerome’s position… the people who are coming to Galatia are from James… why is James sending newb Christians into an environment where they need to be pampered by Peter?

Remember the council of Jerusalem…Acts 15?
Yes, tho I’m not sure how it relates to why James would send newb Christians into a dangerous environment…
The judaizers who came from James
wait, James is sending the judaizers here? People that teach something different than other apostles? then I guess we have an example of different apostles teaching different things… imo…
were causing trouble in the Church. So there issues re: the necessity of following the Mosaic law, was discussed in council,…
Yes, I agree so far…
Peter stands up, after much debate had taken place, he gives his statement, it ends the discussion,
well, it doesn’t talk about debate taking place after Peter, but it does say “Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders…”
and settles the matter.
Possibly… James is still going to speak…
No such burden was to be put on Gentiles. James, the bishop of Jerusalem, repeats what Peter said,
I see that he repeats the thrust of Peters ideas, tho James adds “It is my judgment,”

interesting, yes? James says the judgement is his…

" therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, 20but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.j 21For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.”

it’s Jameses idea to send the letter… and he talks about adding the four laws that the Gentiles are supposed to keep…

I agree this is not an air-tight reading, tho I do think that someone reading this, not knowing that Peter is supposed to be head of the church, would think that James was in the highest position…
and as bishop of Jerusalem, ratifies it. (summarized )
yes, that’s a possible reading…

OK, I don’t understand how what you wrote above relates to why James would send newb Christians into a dangerous environment… personally, I don’t think he did, I think these are strong, seasoned Christians… because that makes more sense to me… and fits with James being a wise leader…
 
Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).​

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).​

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”​

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)

+++

In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:

“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also:

“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by D

Well, for the history, a good place to start would be to have the available documents point in the same direction… for example, it seems to me that Paul is not really aware that Peter is the head of the church… as for documents, I’d say use them all, the more info the better…

After 3 years on the road, Paul wanted to get to know Peter.
well, I’m sure he wanted to meet Peter… and the rest of the important Christian leaders… probably looking for fellowship… and a ‘seal of approval’ from Christain leaders so that other people in the churches wouldn’t run away from him when they saw him, since the last firm info they had about him was that he was trying to kill them…
So He spent 15 days with Peter. [Gal 1:18-19] oh to be a fly on the wall to hear what was discussed.
yep, that would be interesting
Given what Jesus taught in His 3 years of public ministry,
well, based on the Gospels… are we treating the Gospels here as historical documents, or objects of faith?
and given the sending of the HS onto the apostles as an advocate, to make sure all the apostles could remember what Jesus taught,
right, something we can accept by faith, … tho there’s lots of things we can accept by faith…
I think it would be strange, if Paul, wasn’t made aware of Peter’s role.
right, I agree with you there… and that’s why I think it’s possible, given how Paul presents Peter in Gal 1 and 2, that Peter wasn’t really in the role of complete leader of the church
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
Yes, true… it does seem to me that some things have more subjectivity than others… If I said that there was no Roman Empire, not many people would go along with me, because there’s so much evidence… if I said that there was a real Jesus, all but the most ‘out there’ scholars would agree… if I said that Jesus taught open military rebellion against Rome, and lie, cheat or steal to achieve that goal, not many would accept that… suppose He taught love and compassion and a soon end to the present world order… many would go along with that… did He teach that He would establish a Church? to be honest, it doesn’t currently look to me like He did, that looks like a matter of faith…
Jesus mentions Church 3 times in Matthew.
well, the word Jesus uses, I think, is the same as the OT uses for ‘congregation’… one issue I see is whether Jesus means a tightly knit group or a loose association…
Technically, Jesus would only have to mention something once for it to be important.
possibly, there’s also the established idea in the OT of ‘out of the mouths of two or three witnesses…’
Matthew 16:18 & Matthew 18:17
Code:
That's not to say that because the other gospels don't mention "Church" the issue of "Church" being in one Gospel only, makes it a weak case.
I didn’t know it was mentioned only in Matt of all the Gospels… now, imo, that does actually weaken the case…
Code:
"Church" is mentioned in all the epistles.
well, and I’m not sure of the stats on this, but I think many times it’s mentioned plural, ‘churches’… ‘John, to the seven churches that are in Asia’…
Which means, since the HS is inspiring the writing of scripture,
well, if we’re going to say that the Holy Spirit inspired this one set of Scriptures, then we could actually save time by just saying that the Spirit ordained that the RCC is the One Church… that closes the case very easily… or we could say that the Spirit inspired the Book of Mormon, or that It leads the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society… this also closes the case in different directions…
those epistles are teaching what Jesus taught.
possibly… oddly, some of the epistles predate (I hear) the writing of the Gospels… also, I think it’s interesting that Paul, writing the earliest epistles (I hear) mentions virtually nothing of Jesus’ teachings… Paul likes the idea that Jesus, the Messiah, came, lived, and died and rose again… that seems to be what Paul knows about…
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
let’s go with Luke being written about 70 AD… that’s 40 years after Jesus’ resurrection… ever heard a really great speaker? suppose you get together with someone else who also heard the same speaker… 40 years later you talk about what you remember… will you each remember what the speaker said the same way? probably not… sometimes people say that the Holy Spirit helped people remember things right… that’s a matter of faith, imo…
It’s not just “people” saying it, Jesus promised
ah, but now we’re involved in kind of a circular situation, here Steve, I think… why would we think that Jesus said that? because the Spirit reminded the Gospel writers what He said… why would we think that? because it says in John that He did… why would we think that’s accurate? because Jesus said the Spirit would remind the writers…
the HS would be sent in His name by the Father, to the apostles, to specifically remind them all that Jesus had told them. People DO have trouble recalling. That’s why they were sent, and received the help they needed to remember.
(more to follow)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by D

well, let’s see… if we’re talking about James the author of the book of James… if he’s the same James listed in Matt 10 as the son of Alphaeus, then I think he is one of the Twelve… the James of the book just calls himself ‘James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,’… James is , I think, the English form of the Hebrew ‘Jacob’ a very common name among Jewish people then as now… he could be the same James that takes charge in Acts 15, or the James that Paul meets in Galatians 2, or someone else… people like to make connections, so I think there would be a Traditional connection… how old is the Traditional story?

Speaking of (T)radition vs (t)radition
in this case (T)radition is ~2000 years old
no, I mean the tradition of which James wrote the Book of James… like I think, tho I could be wrong about this, that the first written mention we have of Matthew being the author of the book we call Matthew is Eusebius, in the 300’s…
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
well, let’s back up just a bit, then… according to Paul in Romans, what is Abraham’s state before he is circumcised?
cin.org/users/james/files/pastpres.htm search in this article for justification, especially as it pertains to Abraham. You’ll have your answer. It’s not a once for all event.
well, two things that come up with Akin’s article… I think I might have mentioned this before… the first is that Akin assumes that all of the books in the Bible are part of a single, unified whole and share a single doctrinal approach… a fine view, but not one I currently share… the other issue is that Akin isn’t here for me to talk to and interact with… so if you would like to narrow down what he says Paul says (just Paul, not the other Bible writers) about Abraham, I think that would be cool… a key issue, I think, is ‘are Abraham’s sins forgiven before he is circumsized’?
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
well, some over-lap, I think you’ll agree… if saving space is an issue, as the writer of John implies, then the overlap doesn’t make sense to me… unless there’s something else going on here other than just giving information…
It’s not about saving space, obviously it’s a way of saying the amount of information that could be given, is huge. But what has been written is enough.
a statement of faith, sure, and as an act of faith it makes sense, sure…
While the synoptic gospels are similar, all have the last supper for example, They aren’t redundant
I think they are in some passages… years ago I had a ‘harmony of the four gospels’… some passages seemed pretty obvious… I don’t remember exactly, tho
nor are they mirror images of each other. Each account gives something important.
a matter of faith, if one chooses to believe that, sure…
 
Yes, tho I’m not sure how it relates to why James would send newb Christians into a dangerous environment…

wait, James is sending the judaizers here? People that teach something different than other apostles? then I guess we have an example of different apostles teaching different things… imo…
When it says they (Judaizers) who came from James, that doesn’t mean to me, James sent them. It merely suggest to me, another way of saying, they were followers of James.
D:
well, it doesn’t talk about debate taking place after Peter, but it does say “Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders…”
Peter spoke last ending the discussion. Peter and Barnabas added nothing to what Peter said.
Possibly… James is still going to speak…

I see that he repeats the thrust of Peters ideas, tho James adds “It is my judgment,”
James as bishop of Jerusalem confirmed what Peter said.
D:
interesting, yes? James says the judgement is his…

" therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, 20but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.j 21For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.”

it’s Jameses idea to send the letter… and he talks about adding the four laws that the Gentiles are supposed to keep…
One could just as easily ask, why didn’t James do this on his own, in the first place? Why have a council? Afterall, the Judaizers who were causing the problems came from James followers.

What we’re seeing here is levels of Church leadership, and levels of authority. Peter doesn’t diminish the authority of James, but he does outrank him. And we see that in the exchange.
D:
OK, I don’t understand how what you wrote above relates to why James would *send *newb Christians into a dangerous environment… personally, I don’t think he did, I think these are strong, seasoned Christians… because that makes more sense to me… and fits with James being a wise leader…
Who did James send?:confused:
 
well, I’m sure he wanted to meet Peter… and the rest of the important Christian leaders… probably looking for fellowship… and a ‘seal of approval’ from Christain leaders so that other people in the churches wouldn’t run away from him when they saw him, since the last firm info they had about him was that he was trying to kill them…
All true
D:
well, based on the Gospels… are we treating the Gospels here as historical documents, or objects of faith?
Why not both?
D:
I think it’s possible, given how Paul presents Peter in Gal 1 and 2, that Peter wasn’t really in the role of complete leader of the church
Jesus words made Peter the highest leader. That said, it doesn’t mean the others weren’t leaders as well. Just that Peter by having received the keys of the kingdom of God, and being servant of the servants, makes him the greatest among the other leaders.
D:
well, the word Jesus uses, I think, is the same as the OT uses for 'congregation’… one issue I see is whether Jesus means a tightly knit group or a loose association…
Mt 18:17 suggest a tight group not a loose association.
D:
I didn’t know it was mentioned only in Matt of all the Gospels… now, imo, that does actually weaken the case…
only if one is looking for a reason not to believe
D:
well, and I’m not sure of the stats on this, but I think many times it’s mentioned plural, ‘churches’… ‘John, to the seven churches that are in Asia’…
The one Church in many locations (churches), is still one Church. We have writers closest to the apostles in time, writing about this and how they understood it.

For example,
Irenaeus [Bk 3 Ch 3 v 2…]
If you’re interested, I’ll add a link 😉
D:
well, if we’re going to say that the Holy Spirit inspired this one set of Scriptures, then we could actually save time by just saying that the Spirit ordained that the RCC is the One Church… that closes the case very easily…
Actually, the case is closed Dan.

One would have to propose a competing set of scriptures with different results, in order to offer a greater-than-or-equal-to alternative understanding to what’s already been there for the last 2000 years. It’s not there
D:
or we could say that the Spirit inspired the Book of Mormon, or that It leads the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society… this also closes the case in different directions…
We know who started those groups and when they were started. That disqualifies them both.
D:
possibly… oddly, some of the epistles predate (I hear) the writing of the Gospels… also, I think it’s interesting that Paul, writing the earliest epistles (I hear) mentions virtually nothing of Jesus’ teachings… Paul likes the idea that Jesus, the Messiah, came, lived, and died and rose again… that seems to be what Paul knows about…
  1. By definition, All scripture is inspired by God.[2 Tim 3:16] which means the following took place in all of Paul’s writings
  • [Jn 16:13-15] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
  1. Therefore, what Paul wrote, because it’s considered scripture, taught what Jesus wanted taught.
D:
ah, but now we’re involved in kind of a circular situation, here Steve, I think… why would we think that Jesus said that? because the Spirit reminded the Gospel writers what He said… why would we think that? because it says in John that He did… why would we think that’s accurate? because Jesus said the Spirit would remind the writers…

(more to follow)
Are you seeing this as circular?

In this case, since this is a religious issue, and a qualified recognizable authority to settle a religious issue is scripture, then to quote scripture to settle a matter, isn’t by definition, appealing to a circular reasoning.

Authority ends an issue, it doesn’t bend it around to make a circle.
 
no, I mean the tradition of which James wrote the Book of James… like I think, tho I could be wrong about this, that the first written mention we have of Matthew being the author of the book we call Matthew is Eusebius, in the 300’s…
Irenaeus in ~180 a.d. wrote about 4 Gospels rc.net/wcc/readings/father10.htm
the source is Bk 3 Ch 11 newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm
D:
well, two things that come up with Akin’s article… I think I might have mentioned this before… the first is that Akin assumes that all of the books in the Bible are part of a single, unified whole and share a single doctrinal approach… a fine view, but not one I currently share…
One should have evidence for their opinion…true? Otherwise there’s no use believing in something that isn’t true.

As an aside, a unified view doesn’t mean every person will persevere in unity. That doesn’t invalidate the unified view, it only shows the weakness of human nature.
D:
the other issue is that Akin isn’t here for me to talk to and interact with… so if you would like to narrow down what he says Paul says (just Paul, not the other Bible writers) about Abraham, I think that would be cool… a key issue, I think, is ‘are Abraham’s sins forgiven before he is circumsized’?
Heaven was closed. No one could have their sins forgiven in the OT using OT dynamics. If they could, there would have been no need for a future messiah.
 
Very Strong, and here’s why:

The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm
  1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
  2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
  3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
  4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
  5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. .
I believe I answered this post or one very similar… I don’t know where on these pages the answer is, so I’ll be glad to answer again…
In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the “hypothetical syllogism” argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition – that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.
Right… I can see most Protestants would object there…
Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.
Well, one question I would have is whether Jesus actually said Matt 16… is it an accurate quote?
This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist).
I take the passage to mean that the church can save dead people…
Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.
First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18),
Again, if He said it, sure…
yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)
If Paul (or the writer of Ephesians) is speaking for Christ, yes…
Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse).
Seems like a bit of a stretch, to me…
But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.
Not completely sure that follows, but, ok, go on…
Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).
Well, He might have meant pray for them extra hard…
Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth.
Well, I think it’s ‘heaven and earth’…
This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish.
Or save dead people…
But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.
OK, and a high degree of certainty would be good regarding that, I think…
There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded
Well, sounds good… some issues I talked about above… a big piece seems to be the reliability of Matt 16… imo…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top