Another thought on your quote… because this is true of other religious approns I think, If one beleives that the Catholic Church is true, then there’s lots of reasons to support that… if one doesn’t believe It’s true, reasons for that… if one is not sure, then it’s kind of a mixed bag…
I am a lifelong Catholic, born and raised in the Faith. We, as Catholics believe Jesus Himself founded the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church on the rock of Peter (Matt 16:18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church). That’s all well and good; but it got VERY real for me when I learned that St. Peter himself is buried under St. Peter’s Basillica in Vatican City. Peter did bring his ministry to Rome, and the Rock has an UNDISPUTED connection to the Catholic Church. Jesus built His Church on the Rock (Peter), and St. Peter’s Basillica is LITERALLY built on Peter. This actual historical find made the Biblical truth come to life for me. With that in hand, I could take the rest on faith. I don’t know if this helps you, but that’s MY story, anyway.
One rather glaring bit of evidence is the sometimes very significant differences in theologies arrived at by various individuals/churches/denominations. Unless God actually wants such disunity for some reason, it makes a whole lot more sense for Him to establish some sort of entity that would’ve received and maintained the gospel intact.
(a third thought on your quote…)
The evidence for the CC is overwhelming, that it is the only Christian faith from the first century to now! All the discussions / treatise you’ve encountered are either efforts FOR or attempts to dismantle that pedigree.
what would convince you?
I suppose one could say there’s subjectivity to just about everything.
Luke was not an eye witness to Our Lord. Luke was from Antioch, a gentile physician, and disciple of St Paul. Tradition has it that his gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. So Luke was a contemporary of the apostles who were eye witnesses.
No
The source I follow the “Navarre commentary”, says, this James was the Lord’s cousin (called brother of the Lord), who was bishop of Jerusalem, probably the same person as the son of Alphaeus, listed in the gospels as an apostle (Mt 10:3. Mk 3:18)
Justification is not a one time event only.
However they are not mirror copies.
Are you thinking of Gal 2 perhaps, where Paul says he rebukes Peter for his behavior?Jerome had a discussion with Augustine about this episode.
I like these 2 quotes
Suppose it worked the other way around… suppose that Peter was buried under a special structure in Rome… this tradition develops… then the writer of Matthew decides that Jesus must’ve said that the Church would be built on a rock (Peter)
Not too much, but thanks for writing
Thanks, and God bless you too!
Yes, more information is always good
Yes, agreement there
If the unity is centered around doctrine, then yes… if it’s centered around something like the law of love, then institutions don’t do such a good job of maintaining that…
The church’s doctrines reflect/teach/support the law of love. And I think this is a critical difference. When, on Protestant forums, I suggest that love is the very core of the Christian faith, a variety of reactions may follow, anywhere from enthusiastic agreement to an attitude that love is sort of a peripheral virtue, maybe a side-benefit at best of faith, the true heart of Christianity and of man’s justice, but nothing to take too seriously on it’s own. I’m sure that the theolodgies which various denominations are based on can determine the emphasis placed on this matter. And, while individual teachers/catechetical programs may be better or worse at teaching this Catholic doctrine, the Catechism places it front and center. Teachings on the old and new law, the law of love, can be found here:
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…
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…
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…
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?
well, let’s back up just a bit, then… according to Paul in Romans, what is Abraham’s state before he is circumcised?
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…
the problem I see with this reading is that Paul uses the word ‘hypocrisy’ to describe Peter’s actions…
Yes, leading some scholars to speculate that the Paul of Acts isn’t really the same Paul as the writer of Galatians…
well, Paul says that Peter is ‘not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel’… 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…
I would assume that Paul forgave Peter…
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…
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
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?
keep reading
Paul mimicking Peter, suggests to me this was not the issue people make it out to be.
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…
Remember the council of Jerusalem…Acts 15? The judaizers who came from James were causing trouble in the Church. So there issues re: the necessity of following the Mosaic law, was discussed in council,… Peter stands up, after much debate had taken place, he gives his statement, it ends the discussion, and settles the matter. No such burden was to be put on Gentiles. James, the bishop of Jerusalem, repeats what Peter said, and as bishop of Jerusalem, ratifies it. (summarized
)And as you can see, I didn’t take this in order
After 3 years on the road, Paul wanted to get to know Peter. So He spent 15 days with Peter. [Gal 1:18-19] oh to be a fly on the wall to hear what was discussed.
Jesus mentions Church 3 times in Matthew. Technically, Jesus would only have to mention something once for it to be important.
It’s not just “people” saying it, Jesus promised 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.
Speaking of (T)radition vs (t)radition
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.
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.
Very Strong, and here’s why:
Oh, I think so… tho it may not be faith in the direction one was expecting…Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
Another thought on your quote… because this is true of other religious approns I think, If one beleives that the Catholic Church is true, then there’s lots of reasons to support that… if one doesn’t believe It’s true, reasons for that… if one is not sure, then it’s kind of a mixed bag…
(the word I wrote “approns” is supposed to be “approches” something got messed up… tho I suppose “aprons” works, too
I like these 2 quotes
[Heb 11:1] faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
Given that faith is a gift from God, not something that comes from ourselves, and combining these 2 quotes, It seems to me, if one is not confident in what they believe and doesn’t feel assured by a future outcome, and no explanation seems right to ones questions, they should ask God for faith. I’m confident He will give it
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…