Is there salvation outside the Catholic church?

[paul_c]

Danno2281

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood,you will not have life in you. Who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has life everlasting, and I will raise him up on the last day.”(Jn:6,54,ff). Why would you not want to share in this joy?

Thank you for your post. Thinking about this now I can say that I never thought of it as joy. His dying on the cross brought Him pain, and now reading what you wrote…sounds pagan. Thank you, you have made my decision to leave the church easier. I realize I cannot ever take communion again. Thinking of Him brings me joy, I follow Him.

:tiphat: God Bless

Good Bye

Argonaut,
Why are you laying your leaving the church on Danno? If you are leaving, it is certainly not on account of what he wrote, which is directly from Scripture. He was merely trying to help you.

If you approach the eucharist correctly, understanding that you are taking the real presence of God and by consuming it, making it part of you, you will in fact have reall peace and joy. Speaking only for myself, I can tell you that I am drawn by intense desire daily to partake in the Eucharist. It was not always like that, however. it started out as a sense of duty to serve the Lord and then just exploded into real desire as I learned more and my faith and works increased. You too can experience this, but not if you give up. I will pray that you reconsider your path

 

[SeanTom]

Danno2281

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood,you will not have life in you. Who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has life everlasting, and I will raise him up on the last day.”(Jn:6,54,ff). Why would you not want to share in this joy?

Thank you for your post. Thinking about this now I can say that I never thought of it as joy. His dying on the cross brought Him pain, and now reading what you wrote…sounds pagan. Thank you, you have made my decision to leave the church easier. I realize I cannot ever take communion again. Thinking of Him brings me joy, I follow Him.

:tiphat: God Bless

Good Bye

Argonat,

WHY DO CATHOLICS RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION?

I will be making quotes from John 6:51-56, and follow some of these quotes with my comments.

51: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats the bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”.

MY COMMENT:

Jesus is telling us that he is the living bread. He didn’t say that he is a man; that he is a human being; that he is a miracle worker; but he did say that he is the living bread. He also said that whoever eats this bread (He being the living bread) will live forever. So what is the living bread? Jesus goes further on to say that “the bread that I will give is my flesh”. It is the bread that Jesus gave a special meaning to at the Last Supper and this special meaning carries on today when the bread is consecrated, making this bread the living bread, or the flesh of Jesus.

53: Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you.”?

MY COMMENT:

This is a very direct statement made by Jesus. If we want to have the life which Jesus wants us to have, and if we are to enter His Kingdom, we MUST eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood. Otherwise, we will not have life within us. He started off this verse by saying “Amen, amen” twice, which is telling us that what he is about to say is absolutely true and can not be questioned. There is no other meaning to this verse. Yet, some religions completely ignore this command.

54: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”

MY COMMENT:

How are we to obtain eternal life and be raised up (to His Kingdom) on the last day? Jesus tells us this in that single sentence: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…….” How can anyone misconstrue or deny what this statement made by Jesus is telling us. Some religions do not believe this statement made by Jesus, believing it to be a form of cannibalism, and totally ignore everything Jesus said about eating His body and drinking His blood - but how can they possibly deny the above statement. Was Jesus just joshing when he said that, was he joking, was he just making small talk? I don’t think so. Remember, Jesus created the whole world out of nothing, could He not come into our bodies through bread and wine while still maintaining the original texture of the bread and wine? Is this impossible for Him to do? If one believes in the Holy Spirit, whom you can not see, why not believe that Jesus can come into our bodies through the vessels of bread and wine? Hey, are we to tell Jesus what he can and can not do?

 

[DLC]

Have you come to the place in your spiritual life where you know for sure that when you die that you will be in heaven with God?

 

[SeanTom]

Continued from posting to Arganot

55: “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”

MY COMMENT: This is telling me that there are no doubts what Jesus meant here. His flesh is TRUE (as opposed to the words false, doubtful, possible, etc.) food. Food meaning the bread that Jesus referred to when he said: “Whoever eats this bread….” which now refers to the consecrated bread that we receive during Communion.

56: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in Him.”

MY COMMENT: This is self explanatory. But recall that this isn’t the first time he made this statement. He made this same statement several times in John 6. Why would He keep repeating Himself? He, in my opinion, was emphasizing his point. Now, how do we know that Jesus wasn’t only referring to the bread that he distributed during the Last Supper? This could not have referred to ONLY those who attended the Last Supper - but to those who were yet to be born. The word “whoever” pertains to all humans, including those born in the future. Otherwise, instead of using the words “whoever eats this bread”, Jesus would, or could have said “For those of you sitting at this table, who eats this bread….”. This statement was not just an “off-the-cuff” statement, but a very concerned statement to his followers and his followers to come.

1. “Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me”

MY COMMENT: Here Jesus is showing us the passing down of the sequence by which we can all obtain eternal life. Jesus has eternal life because of His Father, and we can have eternal life because of Jesus. Taking Jesus into our body through the Consecrated Bread and Wine will accomplish this. One example of how this Rite was passed on from Jesus to Peter, and, in sequence, to the Priests, follows:

Paul wrote in 1 Cor: 23-25: "I have received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said: ‘This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance (anamnesis) of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying: ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ " (I Cor. 11:23-25; cf. Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20).

58: “This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forevMY COMMENT: Jesus is showing us here how to accept Him as our Lord and Savior. We must allow Jesus to enter our body, mind and soul, by partaking of His body and blood through the consumption of the consecrated bread and wine, His body and blood. This is a heavenly act coming down to us from Heaven. If we do this, we will live forever, in His Kingdom.

60: “Then many of his disciples who were listening said, ’This saying is hard; who can accept it? As a result of this, many of His disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

MY COMMENT: This was a command, and a divine precept. Jesus, knowing this, said to them, “Doth this scandalize you?” And, rather than give a figurative meaning, “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus was then prepared to allow even the twelve apostles to leave him without further explanation. Jesus then asked his twelve, “Will you also go away?

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: It is obvious that Jesus meant his words to be taken literally. In other parts of Scripture, when Jesus made remarks to his disciples, and the disciples questioned or indicated that they did not understand what Jesus had said, then Jesus would explain to them what his words meant, either directly or through a parable.

In One incident Jesus told Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, that “unless a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” Nicodemus then asked, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born again?”. Jesus then answered him precisely by telling him that a man must be “born again of water and the Holy Ghost.” Christ again corrects his misunderstanding.

At still another time, Jesus said to His disciples, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” The disciples then thought that Jesus was talking about their taking no bread with them. Jesus, knowing what they were thinking, explained himself and asked, “Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread? I said to you, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” The disciples then understood that Jesus was talking about their doctrines.

The above were usual occurrences when disciples did not understand the meaning of some of Jesus’ teachings.

BUT, in this case, when the disciples said they couldn’t accept or believe that the bread was Jesus’ body and the wine was Jesus’ blood, or the concept thereof, Jesus did not proceed to explain what he meant, as he did in other teachings, but rather just let them leave without any further comments. This tells me that Jesus meant what he said and that it was very clear. He did not try to explain how this event happens, but repeatedly asked them to believe what he had said. Many still walked away.

 

[DLC]

Since justification is an ongoing event in you understanding of it, have you done enough to merit God justifying you?

 

[SeanTom]

Continued from previous posting

The preceding scriptural references and my comments tell me that priests, as disciples who descended from Jesus and Peter, do, in fact, change the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Savior during the Consecration. This Consecration is a means of carrying out Jesus demands when he told us to eat and drink his body and blood; and that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink., If priests did not have this authority, the meaning of Jesus teachings on the partaking of his body and blood would be lost. I thank God that we, in the Catholic Church, have the true meaning of this action and the opportunity to bring Jesus into our bodies through Holy Communion. This is not an event that takes place in many other religions and that is sad, and what is even sadder is that they deny the validity of what Jesus had told us in the form of a command.

Finally, in Mat:28:16-20: (Talking to his eleven disciples) “Then Jesus approached and said to them, ‘All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you’”. One of His commands was “: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day”. The command was passed on by Jesus to the Disciples, and then on to the priests.

I believe the above with all my heart and all my soul.

 

[DLC]

No person has the power to change the bread into anything. It never does change. Eat it and find out. To eat in John is to believe on Christ.
Isa 64:6

6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
KJV

Titus 3:5
5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy
NASU

 

[Danno2281]

My point is this: The early church was not Roman Catholic. It was Jerusalem Catholic without Roman Catholic tradition. The Church at that time didn’t want to burden the new believers with too many rules. Today we have a catechism the size of a dictionary. Is that really necessary? Didn’t Jesus get angry at the Scribes and Pharisees for making it too difficult for people to enter the kingdom?
If we find other churches that bear resemblance to the church at Jerusalem why do we find it necessary to persuade them to accept Roman Catholic tradition?

When you say “the early Chuch” how early do you mean? Of course it began in Jerusalem, but Jesus commissioned them to go from there to the whole world and preach the gospel to all the nations. And the seat of power in the world was in Rome, where both Peter and Paul went, because the most effective way of evangelizing is from the center outward.
No one is requiredto know the catechism, only to adhere to the Creed; the catechism is a guide further knowledge and growth in Christ. Do you realize that 1/4 of the catechism is devoted to prayer?

 

[ron77nyc]

When you say “the early Chuch” how early do you mean?

When I say “Early Church” I mean the church in the book of Acts.

Of course it began in Jerusalem, but Jesus commissioned them to go from there to the whole world and preach the gospel to all the nations. And the seat of power in the world was in Rome, where both Peter and Paul went, because the most effective way of evangelizing is from the center outward.
No one is requiredto know the catechism, only to adhere to the Creed; the catechism is a guide further knowledge and growth in Christ. Do you realize that 1/4 of the catechism is devoted to prayer?

Some people say that it’s all or nothing at all if you want to be a Catholic. That means you must accept everything the Church teaches. That’s a whole lot of information. If you don’t accept it all then you are a cafeteria Catholic. According to Colossians chapter 2, Paul was a cafeteria Catholic. He was telling the Church that the gospel was more important than tradition. Here is the footnote from the US Catholic bishops:
usccb.org/nab/bible/colossians/colossians2.htm

2 [4-23] In face of the threat posed by false teachers (Col 2:4), the Colossians are admonished to adhere to the gospel as it was first preached to them (Col 2:6), steeping themselves in it with grateful hearts (Col 2:7). They must reject religious teachings originating in any source except the gospel (Col 2:8) because in Christ alone will they have access to God, the deity (Col 2:9). So fully has Christ enlightened them that they need no other source of religious knowledge or virtue (Col 2:10). They do not require circumcision (Col 2:11), for in baptism their whole being has been affected by Christ (Col 2:12) through forgiveness of sin and resurrection to a new life (Col 2:13; cf Col 3:1 and Romans 6:1-11). On the cross Christ canceled the record of the debt that stood against us with all its claims (Col 2:14), i.e., he eliminated the law (cf Eph 2:15) that human beings could not observe–and that could not save them. He forgave sins against the law (Col 2:14) and exposed as false and misleading (Col 2:15) all other powers (cf Col 1:16) that purport to offer salvation. Therefore, the Colossians are not to accept judgments from such teachers on food and drink or to keep certain religious festivals or engage in certain cultic practices (Col 2:16), for the Colossians would thereby risk severing themselves from Christ (Col 2:19). If, when they accepted the gospel, they believed in Christ as their savior, they must be convinced that their salvation cannot be achieved by appeasing ruling spirits through dietary practices or through a wisdom gained simply by means of harsh asceticism (Col 2:20-23).

 

[PJM]

=argonaut;4785110]Jesus is a part of me every minute. He said the Kingdom of God is within you. I pray to God a lot through out the day and feel Him near. Thinking about how much I love him brings tears. Good tears that Saint Teresa wrote about, they are a gift. I don’t need communion to be near God.

Mt. 18: 19 “Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.**20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” **

Jesus is speaking here of His Spirt, which of course is good, as is having Jesus in your heart, also very good, and highly commended.But friend

I was not speaking of the “Spirit” of God, I was speaking of the Real, actual Presence of God, in His now Glorified Boby, Blood, Soul and Divinity!

The following is I admit a poor explaination, but it does nevertheless, make a similar point.

Which is better being promised a Billion Dollars, or actually being given a Billion dollars? Which is better, the Spirit of God or God and His Divine Spirit and Body?

John Chapter 6" 41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44* No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. . 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; **and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” **

52* The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56* He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father,** so he who eats me will live because of me.** 58* This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” 59* This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caperna-um.

Friend, these are the Words of the Jesus you hold so lovingly in your heart! Jesus wants to offer you more, so very much more,
Himself! Not a sign, not a symbol and not only His Spirit, BUT HIMSELF

 

[paul_c]

When I say “Early Church” I mean the church in the book of Acts.

Some people say that it’s all or nothing at all if you want to be a Catholic. That means you must accept everything the Church teaches. That’s a whole lot of information. If you don’t accept it all then you are a cafeteria Catholic. According to Colossians chapter 2, Paul was a cafeteria Catholic. He was telling the Church that the gospel was more important than tradition. Here is the footnote from the US Catholic bishops:
usccb.org/nab/bible/colossians/colossians2.htm

2 [4-23] In face of the threat posed by false teachers (Col 2:4), the Colossians are admonished to adhere to the gospel as it was first preached to them (Col 2:6), steeping themselves in it with grateful hearts (Col 2:7). They must reject religious teachings originating in any source except the gospel (Col 2:8) because in Christ alone will they have access to God, the deity (Col 2:9). So fully has Christ enlightened them that they need no other source of religious knowledge or virtue (Col 2:10). They do not require circumcision (Col 2:11), for in baptism their whole being has been affected by Christ (Col 2:12) through forgiveness of sin and resurrection to a new life (Col 2:13; cf Col 3:1 and Romans 6:1-11). On the cross Christ canceled the record of the debt that stood against us with all its claims (Col 2:14), i.e., he eliminated the law (cf Eph 2:15) that human beings could not observe–and that could not save them. He forgave sins against the law (Col 2:14) and exposed as false and misleading (Col 2:15) all other powers (cf Col 1:16) that purport to offer salvation. Therefore, the Colossians are not to accept judgments from such teachers on food and drink or to keep certain religious festivals or engage in certain cultic practices (Col 2:16), for the Colossians would thereby risk severing themselves from Christ (Col 2:19). If, when they accepted the gospel, they believed in Christ as their savior, they must be convinced that their salvation cannot be achieved by appeasing ruling spirits through dietary practices or through a wisdom gained simply by means of harsh asceticism (Col 2:20-23).

Ron, Paul was advocating just the opposite of what you suggest. He was demanding absolute fidelity to the Gospel and warning them against modifications proposed by those outside the Church. Please note, that when he wrote this probably in the early 50s, perhaps only Matthew’s gospel was actually in circulation so he’s not talking about the written gospel as you suggest. He is talking about the oral gospel, and to be most specific, the Gospel that had been defined at the Council of Jerusalem in 49AD.

He’s equally forceful about this point in Galations 1: 8-9:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

He is the absolute furthest from a Cafeteria Catholic you can be.

Also, Ron, please consider this. When you pick and choose from the Catholic Doctrines, you are explicitly putting yourself in the position of pitting your personal interpretation over that of the Church. This is a pretty arrogant thing to do, when you consider that the Church’s positions have apostolic origins and have been thoroughly vetted by literally millions of priests and theologians over the last 2000 years.

 

[ron77nyc]

Ron, Paul was advocating just the opposite of what you suggest. He was demanding absolute fidelity to the Gospel and warning them against modifications proposed by those outside the Church. Please note, that when he wrote this probably in the early 50s, perhaps only Matthew’s gospel was actually in circulation so he’s not talking about the written gospel as you suggest. He is talking about the oral gospel, and to be most specific, the Gospel that had been defined at the Council of Jerusalem in 49AD.

He’s equally forceful about this point in Galations 1: 8-9:

He is the absolute furthest from a Cafeteria Catholic you can be.

Also, Ron, please consider this. When you pick and choose from the Catholic Doctrines, you are explicitly putting yourself in the position of pitting your personal interpretation over that of the Church. This is a pretty arrogant thing to do, when you consider that the Church’s positions have apostolic origins and have been thoroughly vetted by literally millions of priests and theologians over the last 2000 years.

Do you think the Catholic Church has any beliefs or traditions that are not part of the gospel message?

 

[paul_c]

Do you think the Catholic Church has any beliefs or traditions that are not part of the gospel message?

There’s clearly a difference between doctrine, which is the gospel message itself, and practice, which is how the church brings the Gospel message to the people. While doctrine is never changed, it can be clarified as needed.

Practice does change over time as situations change. For instance, the language of the people originally was Greek, then Latin. We now use the vernacular. Celibacy in the priesthood is a practice, not a doctrine.

 

[Danno2281]

When I say “Early Church” I mean the church in the book of Acts.

Some people say that it’s all or nothing at all if you want to be a Catholic. That means you must accept everything the Church teaches. That’s a whole lot of information. If you don’t accept it all then you are a cafeteria Catholic. According to Colossians chapter 2, Paul was a cafeteria Catholic. He was telling the Church that the gospel was more important than tradition. Here is the footnote from the US Catholic bishops:
usccb.org/nab/bible/colossians/colossians2.htm

2 [4-23] In face of the threat posed by false teachers (Col 2:4), the Colossians are admonished to adhere to the gospel as it was first preached to them (Col 2:6), steeping themselves in it with grateful hearts (Col 2:7). They must reject religious teachings originating in any source except the gospel (Col 2:8) because in Christ alone will they have access to God, the deity (Col 2:9). So fully has Christ enlightened them that they need no other source of religious knowledge or virtue (Col 2:10). They do not require circumcision (Col 2:11), for in baptism their whole being has been affected by Christ (Col 2:12) through forgiveness of sin and resurrection to a new life (Col 2:13; cf Col 3:1 and Romans 6:1-11). On the cross Christ canceled the record of the debt that stood against us with all its claims (Col 2:14), i.e., he eliminated the law (cf Eph 2:15) that human beings could not observe–and that could not save them. He forgave sins against the law (Col 2:14) and exposed as false and misleading (Col 2:15) all other powers (cf Col 1:16) that purport to offer salvation. Therefore, the Colossians are not to accept judgments from such teachers on food and drink or to keep certain religious festivals or engage in certain cultic practices (Col 2:16), for the Colossians would thereby risk severing themselves from Christ (Col 2:19). If, when they accepted the gospel, they believed in Christ as their savior, they must be convinced that their salvation cannot be achieved by appeasing ruling spirits through dietary practices or through a wisdom gained simply by means of harsh asceticism (Col 2:20-23).

And what was the gospel that Paul speaks of? It was the teaching that was handed down from the disciples, not from others. Remember that what we call the gospels were not written when Paul is writing, so clear that vision of a parchment from your mind. The gospel is the good news handed down by those authorized to preavch that good news when Christ acsended. Their teaching that has been handed down (tradition) is the good news.

 

[bruce0224]

And what was the gospel that Paul speaks of? It was the teaching that was handed down from the disciples, not from others. Remember that what we call the gospels were not written when Paul is writing, so clear that vision of a parchment from your mind. The gospel is the good news handed down by those authorized to preavch that good news when Christ acsended. Their teaching that has been handed down (tradition) is the good news.

The oldest reference from a historian or archeologist’s point to between 65 and 100 AD. Its should be noted that Paul knew the disciples personally. That should leave no doubt about Pauls understanding of the gospel, “the message of Christ providing Himself a sacrifice for the redemtion of man kind”. Paul also being educated did not write a gospel but rather went the next step, being a Pharisee went to great detail about what Christianity is in a much broader vision than the gospels provide, at every point amplifying or perhaps enhancing. His knowledge of the old testament further stitches the message of the gospel together with his letters, in what would become the NT. Paul was called by Jesus, for very good reason. Because of the Pharisee’s rejection of Jesus Paul was risen to call to the world and proclaim the Messiah has come, the price paid, Gods plan fulfilled. If you will, he is the voice of the Jewish Patriarchs. His mission, to take the gospel to the gentiles. Just as God told Abraham Gen 12:3 “and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed”.

Jesus and the disciples had taken the message to the Jews.

Mat 15:22-28
And, behold, a woman of Canaan “gentile” came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Jesus in His risen glory, called Paul to be both, a Pharisee Jew and the vehicle to present Jesus to the world. The word was fulfilled, salvation is from the Jews. It is very evident to me that Paul was the risen Lords tip of the sword, The 101st Air Born Division, in military jargon, the Screaming Eagle, that brought the work of God from the Jews to the world. Paul did not simply receive a conversion on the road, He was empowered by the risen Lord, the selected sword, chosen to lead the charge.

A man capable of reading and writing in his own hand.

The gospel is the good news handed down by those authorized to preavch that good news when Christ acsended. Their teaching that has been handed down (tradition) is the good news.

I would say that Paul had all the authority of heaven.
Handed down by Jesus Himself.
After He ascended to heaven.

 

[bruce0224]

I might add that the timing of Stevens stoning, Peters vision of the unclean, and Pauls conversion. Took place in the order I just listed.

This coincidences with the 70 weeks of Danial.

Daniel 9:24
“ Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.

Mt 18
21 Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

The count down to the end of the Jews mission was first given to Danial, reaffirmed by Jesus, to Peter that Gods work threw the Jews was coming to an end. The seventy weeks ended 3 1/2 years after the cross. Steven was stoned and testified that He seen the Lord, "not sitting but now standing at the right hand of God. IMO marking the end of the 70 weeks. Now the time of the Jews had been completed and the word would go out to the rest of the world. Remarkable enough threw the man that held the robes of the ones that stoned Steven Paul. Many churches today are wanting for the 70th week to yet be fulfilled I believe that it started when John babtised Jesus and ended with the stoning of Stephen. But thats another apologetic topic.

I just added this to reaffirm the post above this one. About Paul being the deliver of the gospel to the gentiles.

 

[ron77nyc]

And what was the gospel that Paul speaks of? It was the teaching that was handed down from the disciples, not from others. Remember that what we call the gospels were not written when Paul is writing, so clear that vision of a parchment from your mind. The gospel is the good news handed down by those authorized to preavch that good news when Christ acsended. Their teaching that has been handed down (tradition) is the good news.

Paul received the gospel directly from Jesus. He didn’t learn it from any man. He was preaching it for 3 years before he went to Jerusalem to see if he had the same message the Church was preaching. He was wiped clean of religious tradition therefore every church he started for 3 years had no tradition. He said he considered everything rubbish compared to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. He tells his followers to approach the throne of grace boldly with freedom and confidence. This is not Roman Catholicism as we know it. He corrected Peter for trying to place circumcision on the new believers.

 

[paul_c]

Paul received the gospel directly from Jesus. He didn’t learn it from any man. He was preaching it for 3 years before he went to Jerusalem to see if he had the same message the Church was preaching. He was wiped clean of religious tradition therefore every church he started for 3 years had no tradition. He said he considered everything rubbish compared to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. He tells his followers to approach the throne of grace boldly with freedom and confidence. This is not Roman Catholicism as we know it. He corrected Peter for trying to place circumcision on the new believers.

Are you really trying to make the suggestion that Paul acted independently of the Roman Catholic Church? If so, you haven’t read Acts very closely.

Here’s what happened first, following his conversion:

Acts 9: 17-20
So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.” Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength. ** He stayed some days with the disciples** in Damascus, and he began at once to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

Notice, his first action is to be Baptized into the Church, then he stays with the disciples (learning about the Gospel, no doubt) and then he starts preaching

Then, after escaping form Damascus, he goes back to Jerusalem, where he joins with the rest of the church which eventually reassigns him to Tarsus for his own safety:

Acts 9: 26-30
When he arrived in Jerusalem 7 he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. Then Barnabas took charge of him and brought him to the apostles, and he reported to them how on the way he had seen the Lord and that he had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. He moved about freely with them in Jerusalem, and spoke out boldly in the name of the Lord. He also spoke and debated with the Hellenists, 8 but they tried to kill him. And when the brothers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him on his way to Tarsus

We next see Paul in Acts 11:22:26 where Barnabas is dispatched by the Church to Antioch and Barnabas recruits Paul to help out in this mission, Clearly under the auspices of the Church…

The news about them reached the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas (to go) to Antioch. When he arrived and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced and encouraged them all to remain faithful to the Lord in firmness of heart, for he was a good man, filled with the holy Spirit and faith. And a large number of people was added to the Lord. Then he went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians

The next action, immediately after this in Acts 11 27-30, has the Church designating Barnabas and Paul to bring relief supplies to Judea.

At that time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch, and one of them named Agabus stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine all over the world, and it happened under Claudius. So the disciples determined that, according to ability, each should send relief to the brothers who lived in Judea. This they did, sending it to the presbyters in care of Barnabas and Saul.

Finally , upon returning, Paul and Barnabas are sent out by the church on the first missionary journey: Acts13: 1-3

Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Symeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who was a close friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off

As you can clearly see, Paul’s career was defined by the Church.

 

[ron77nyc]

Are you really trying to make the suggestion that Paul acted independently of the Roman Catholic Church? If so, you haven’t read Acts very closely.

Here’s what happened first, following his conversion:

Notice, his first action is to be Baptized into the Church…

As you can clearly see, Paul’s career was defined by the Church.

Galatians 1

11 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin. 12 For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it, 14 and progressed in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my race, since I was even more a zealot for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when (God), who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 (As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying.) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was unknown personally to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23 they only kept hearing that “the one who once was persecuting us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 So they glorified God because of me.

usccb.org/nab/bible/galatians/galatians2.htm

Galatians 2
1 Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 I went up in accord with a revelation, 3 and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles–but privately to those of repute–so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain.

Footnote
3 [2] A revelation: cf Gal 1:1, 12. Paul emphasizes it was God’s will, not Jerusalem authority, that led to the journey. Acts 15:2 states that the church in Antioch appointed Paul and Barnabas for the task. Those of repute: leaders of the Jerusalem church; the term, while positive, may be slightly ironic (cf Gal 1:6, 9). Run, in vain: while Paul presents a positive picture in what follows, his missionary work in Galatia would have been to no purpose if his opponents were correct that circumcision is needed for complete faith in Christ.

 

[paul_c]

I might add that the timing of Stevens stoning, Peters vision of the unclean, and Pauls conversion. Took place in the order I just listed.

This coincidences with the 70 weeks of Danial.

Daniel 9:24
“ Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.

Mt 18
21 Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

The count down to the end of the Jews mission was first given to Danial, reaffirmed by Jesus, to Peter that Gods work threw the Jews was coming to an end. The seventy weeks ended 3 1/2 years after the cross. Steven was stoned and testified that He seen the Lord, "not sitting but now standing at the right hand of God. IMO marking the end of the 70 weeks. Now the time of the Jews had been completed and the word would go out to the rest of the world. Remarkable enough threw the man that held the robes of the ones that stoned Steven Paul. Many churches today are wanting for the 70th week to yet be fulfilled I believe that it started when John babtised Jesus and ended with the stoning of Stephen. But thats another apologetic topic.

I just added this to reaffirm the post above this one. About Paul being the deliver of the gospel to the gentiles.

Bruce, your order of activity is actually incorrect:

the stoning of Steven is in Acts 6-7.
The conversion of Saul is in Acts 9
Peter’s vision of the Unclean and the subsequent acceptance of the Gentiles into the Church is in Acts 10-11
not until later in Acts 11 does Barnabas find Paul to aid him in his church appointed ministry in Antioch
Paul and Barnabas are not commissioned by the church for their first missionary journey until Acts 13.

it is clear form Acts that it was Peter and not Paul that opened up the path to the Gentiles. This is not to detract from Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, which was huge, but you will see that he got his commission to do so from the Church, of which Peter was the acknowledged leader, in Acts 13. Paul was no renegade, He had his role in the church and he knew it. And yes, he spoke up at the Council of Jerusalem and corrected Peter, but it was Peter who ultimately defined the path the church took and it was Peter who was the overall spokesman to the Gentiles. Here is Acts 15:7-12:

After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them

As for the 70 weeks of Daniel, I don’t see how you are making that connection here. That typically has been attributed as 70 weeks of years, or ~500 years. This is roughly the amount of time between Daniels Prediction and Jesus’s ministry. I don’t see how it has any thing to do with Paul. And 70 weeks isn’t 3 and half years…

However,