Hi
Right on Blue ! No Mary, no Jesus. It is as simple as that. No other person can make the claim they carried Body Blood,Soul, and Divinity of Jesus in them. This was God’s choice, what He could have done is of no relevence. It’s what He did !
Yes, you are correct. Aramaic and Hebrew as well do not contain a word for “cousin”. This has been pointed out over and over and over over and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and over again but to no avail.
If your theory is true, then it would require that Jesus did not keep his promises to the church. You seem to believe that the failure of men is stronger than the promises of God, so maybe that is why you believe “Peter made a mistake choosing Matthias”.
Which is an impossibility, since the bible is a collection of books, not a person. Only persons have “perspective”. What happens is that you are seeing things from your own perspective,a nd that perspective is informed by how you understand the Scripture.
It is not my intention to hurt your feelings Doki, and this is not a “dig”. It is an observation that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura encourages the reader to come to his own conclusions in separation from the faith of those who wrote the NT.
I am making progress, but your statement is not accruate. I have never been able to “find” the CC incorrect. My beliefs and opinions that the CC was not correct did not equate to "findings’. This is largely because I never studied the teachings of the church, and did not know and understand them. The rest is because I was in rebellion against the Teachings of Jesus that are infallibly preserved in the CC.
Ok, I am glad we are on the same starting place with this. So, my observation above is correct? Peter chose Matthias because he lacked understanding of God’s plan, which was to choose Paul?
There are distortions, definitely. To me it seems like a distortion that the weakness of men is more powerful than the omnipotence of God.
I know it seems that way to you. It does to all who adhere to Sola Scriptura. A lot of people don’t realize that what they are reading goes through their fallible human perceptions. For example, a person may have a thought in his head that Paul was God’s choice to replace Judas. He approaches the text with this presumption in his mind, so when he reads about the Church praying and trusting God to act, he does not see God acting, but failing to “stop the lots in midair”. He presumes that the Apsotles and the disciples “made a mistake” in following their understanding of scripture, though the reader does not see himself possible misunderstanding the Scripture.
We are responsible for all that He has revealed, so to reject His revelation of Himself to the Church makes us culpable.
This is what I have been doing, Doki, and you are offended by it. I am showing you what underlying assumptions must exist in order for your theories to be true. You seem to reject the assumptions, but you cannot revise your conclusion.
Actually, I don’t have personal fear about this, because I have submitted my own perceptions to the Teaching of Jesus that is preserved infallibly in the Church. I do have fear, though, for all those who are still trapped in Sola Scriptura.
Your assessment of how much God used which Apostle is not the standard God uses to choose. We have very little record of what the majority of the Apostles did. We have more testimony about Barnabas than we do Thomas, for instance. How do you know Barnabas was not God’s choice for the replacement, since he was an apostle before Paul?
And how did He call the other Apostles? What you are doing is dismissing the method of using lots as a way for people to discern His will. Scripture clearly refutes this position.
How does God tell you things? How is it that God is able to get through to you, but you think He is unable to get through to Peter?
No, Doki. The Apostles were not ordaining Matthias to commit SIN! the CC does not approve or endorse sin, whether the offender is clerical or lay.
Right. Maybe you need to read the passage in Acts 1 again? I think it will be clear to you that Peter is not acting as an individual, but on behalf of the whole church. First, they were in the upper room togehter in prayer. Peter meditated on the scripture. They gathered, and Peter spoke how He believed God was leading.They all agreed, prayed, chose, laid hands on, and enrolled Matthias. this was an action of the Church, not any one individual.
God never promised to stop individuals from sinning. Pedophiles do not need to sin. They are called to be celibate, just like homosexuals, and other people who have sexual inclinations that constitute grave disorders. It is no different than a heterosexual priest who falls in love with a married woman in his congregation. He does not have to sin against God.
If this is true, then he is a liar, a lunatic, or too weak. If he promised to lead His church into all Truth, and then does not, what other explanation is there?
Because this action in Acts 1 is not about individuals making wrong choices to sin. it is the whole church, and it is not a sin to ordain someone to service to God.
The Apostles were not on the road to Damascus. that happened about 20 years after Matthias was chosen. Where was God for 20 years? In the bathroom reading the news?
No, Doki. we as individuals must remain in communion with Truth to benefit from it. The Church, by definition, is already in unity with the Truth. Jesus is the Head of the Church, and she is ensouled by the HS. It is these divine elements that make her infallible. Individuals can stray from the Truth, but God cannot stray from Himself.
there were many more there than the 11. This is a gathering of the whole Church.
In order for this to be true, then God had to fail, lie, or be talking crazies when He made promises to the Church.
But you keep making comparisons of the event with sinful events? How is the holy life of matthias like that of a pedophile? how is ordaining one chosen by God equated to a sin?
Jesus has already cleansed the Church. However, I agree, we who are members of her are always in need of cleansing.
Perhaps you can explain how these positions are reconciled. How is it Jesus promised not to leave them orphaned, to lead them into all Truth, and that He would reveal to them what they needed to know when the time came, and that He would still allow them to make mistakes of this kind? How are his promises fulfilled in this accounting in Acts?
No, I don’t think so. Although it is true that Mary is the only one about whom God has revealed that they were kekecharminete, it is not possible for people to enter heaven unless they are full of grace. We have evidence that both Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven, so it stands to reason that they were also full of grace, possibly in a different way.
Yes, any consecrated vessel is not to be returned to daily use. This has always been the case among God’s people. It would be wrong of her to forsake her vows to God so that she could enjoy the pleasures of the marital embrace.
I’m not going to was anyones time by responding to each part. I’ll say, IMO, some of what you’ve said is right on and much is wrong.How does God tell you things? How is it that God is able to get through to you, but you think He is unable to get through to Peter?
Maybe, if Jesus did not want Peter to act on His behalf, He would not have commissioned Him to do so? When He said “feed my lambs” and “take care of my sheep” He put Peter in charge of the care and feeding of His flock. when he gave them the Keys, he gave them the authority to act on His behalf. That is what binding and loosing is all about. It is legislative authority. He told them “whatver you bind on earth is bound in heaven”.
Yet, you see something bound on earth (Matthias is chosen) that you assert is not bound in heaven. Why did Jesus not keep His promise to the Church?
It is not a small thing, Doki. Once again, it all boils down to authority. Ever notice how it comes to that in every thread you are on, no matter what the topic?
No, Doki. The Apostles were not ordaining Matthias to commit SIN! the CC does not approve or endorse sin, whether the offender is clerical or lay.
Matthias was ordained to apostleship, not to sin.
God promised to lead the church into all truth. He did NOT promise to prevent individuals from sins. When a person chooses to sin, he loses the protection provided by the promise, because he separates himself from Christ and the Church.
Right. Maybe you need to read the passage in Acts 1 again? I think it will be clear to you that Peter is not acting as an individual, but on behalf of the whole church. First, they were in the upper room togehter in prayer. Peter meditated on the scripture. They gathered, and Peter spoke how He believed God was leading.They all agreed, prayed, chose, laid hands on, and enrolled Matthias. this was an action of the Church, not any one individual.
God never promised to stop individuals from sinning. Pedophiles do not need to sin. They are called to be celibate, just like homosexuals, and other people who have sexual inclinations that constitute grave disorders. It is no different than a heterosexual priest who falls in love with a married woman in his congregation. He does not have to sin against God.
God, and the Church, are not responsible for the sins of individuals. Grace is avaialble to avoid sinning.
your argurment presupposes that a priest that has a disordered desire is not necessarily sin with it. there are many righteous priests who control their sinful desires by the power of the HS.
If this is true, then he is a liar, a lunatic, or too weak. If he promised to lead His church into all Truth, and then does not, what other explanation is there?
Because this action in Acts 1 is not about individuals making wrong choices to sin. it is the whole church, and it is not a sin to ordain someone to service to God.
The Apostles were not on the road to Damascus. that happened about 20 years after Matthias was chosen. Where was God for 20 years? In the bathroom reading the news?
No, Doki. we as individuals must remain in communion with Truth to benefit from it. The Church, by definition, is already in unity with the Truth. Jesus is the Head of the Church, and she is ensouled by the HS. It is these divine elements that make her infallible. Individuals can stray from the Truth, but God cannot stray from Himself.
there were many more there than the 11. This is a gathering of the whole Church.
However, I am glad you can see that Peter was not acting alone.
In order for this to be true, then God had to fail, lie, or be talking crazies when He made promises to the Church.
I’m not going to was anyones time by responding to each part. I’ll say, IMO, some of what you’ve said is right on and much is wrong.But you keep making comparisons of the event with sinful events? How is the holy life of matthias like that of a pedophile? how is ordaining one chosen by God equated to a sin?
Jesus has already cleansed the Church. However, I agree, we who are members of her are always in need of cleansing.
It think what gets you hung up here is that you are unable to see that the Church is more than the individual members of her in this life that belong to her.
Perhaps you can explain how these positions are reconciled. How is it Jesus promised not to leave them orphaned, to lead them into all Truth, and that He would reveal to them what they needed to know when the time came, and that He would still allow them to make mistakes of this kind? How are his promises fulfilled in this accounting in Acts?
I think you will find that none of them can be fulfilled if your theory is true.
No, I don’t think so. Although it is true that Mary is the only one about whom God has revealed that they were kekecharminete, it is not possible for people to enter heaven unless they are full of grace. We have evidence that both Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven, so it stands to reason that they were also full of grace, possibly in a different way.
Yes, any consecrated vessel is not to be returned to daily use. This has always been the case among God’s people. It would be wrong of her to forsake her vows to God so that she could enjoy the pleasures of the marital embrace.
I think a study of consecrated vessels in the history of Israel may help here.
Do you think it is wrong to take Jesus’ promises to the Church at face value?
I’m not going to was anyones time by responding to each part. I’ll say, IMO, some of what you’ve said is right on and much is wrong.If your theory is true, then it would require that Jesus did not keep his promises to the church. You seem to believe that the failure of men is stronger than the promises of God, so maybe that is why you believe “Peter made a mistake choosing Matthias”.
Which is an impossibility, since the bible is a collection of books, not a person. Only persons have “perspective”. What happens is that you are seeing things from your own perspective,a nd that perspective is informed by how you understand the Scripture.
It is not my intention to hurt your feelings Doki, and this is not a “dig”. It is an observation that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura encourages the reader to come to his own conclusions in separation from the faith of those who wrote the NT.
I am making progress, but your statement is not accruate. I have never been able to “find” the CC incorrect. My beliefs and opinions that the CC was not correct did not equate to "findings’. This is largely because I never studied the teachings of the church, and did not know and understand them. The rest is because I was in rebellion against the Teachings of Jesus that are infallibly preserved in the CC.
Ok, I am glad we are on the same starting place with this. So, my observation above is correct? Peter chose Matthias because he lacked understanding of God’s plan, which was to choose Paul?
There are distortions, definitely. To me it seems like a distortion that the weakness of men is more powerful than the omnipotence of God.
Another thought came to mind…why do you think God would abandon one who called upon Him with sincerity and faith? Were his sins too big for God to help him?
I know it seems that way to you. It does to all who adhere to Sola Scriptura. A lot of people don’t realize that what they are reading goes through their fallible human perceptions. For example, a person may have a thought in his head that Paul was God’s choice to replace Judas. He approaches the text with this presumption in his mind, so when he reads about the Church praying and trusting God to act, he does not see God acting, but failing to “stop the lots in midair”. He presumes that the Apsotles and the disciples “made a mistake” in following their understanding of scripture, though the reader does not see himself possible misunderstanding the Scripture.
We are responsible for all that He has revealed, so to reject His revelation of Himself to the Church makes us culpable.
This is what I have been doing, Doki, and you are offended by it. I am showing you what underlying assumptions must exist in order for your theories to be true. You seem to reject the assumptions, but you cannot revise your conclusion.
Actually, I don’t have personal fear about this, because I have submitted my own perceptions to the Teaching of Jesus that is preserved infallibly in the Church. I do have fear, though, for all those who are still trapped in Sola Scriptura.
Anyway, it is not the conclusion of your argument that I am focusing on, but the premise. I submit that you came to the conclusion because you started from a false premise. You are assuming that the disciples “made a mistake”. Toward that end, you must have a foundation that God did not keep His promises to the Church.
Your assessment of how much God used which Apostle is not the standard God uses to choose. We have very little record of what the majority of the Apostles did. We have more testimony about Barnabas than we do Thomas, for instance. How do you know Barnabas was not God’s choice for the replacement, since he was an apostle before Paul?
Did Jesus call them by casting lots?You are asserting that the early church “made a mistake” choosing Matthias to replace Judas, but you have no scriptural evidence to support your position.
Off topic.Do you think it is wrong to take Jesus’ promises to the Church at face value?
Do you think He did not follow through on them because the Apostles did not deserve His attention to the matter?
Whatever your answer, I want to thank you for asserting that Peter made a mistake in choosing Matthias. I have heard this proposed before on CAF, but I have never had so much clarity from the discussion that it was necessary for Jesus to make (and keep) these promises or His church would have been lost right out of the gate.
1 Samuel 14:40-43 :
1 Chronicles 24:5 :
Leviticus 16:7-9 :
Joshua 18:6 :
see also Joshua 18:8, Joshua 18:10, 1 Chronicles 24:31, 1 Chronicles 25:8, 1 Chronicles 26:13, 1 Chronicles 26:14, Nehemiah 10:34, Nehemiah 11:1, etc.
Jesus left it to the Church to ordain successors for themselves. The Jews were accustomed to learning God’s will through the casting of lots.
God directed that lots be cast to learn His choice
No need, Doki. We are in agreement that Paul is an apostle by God’s choice. If God had wanted him to be among the 12, he would have been chosen by lot at the time. However, he was not even persecuting the Church at that time, because the events were years apart.
Jonah 1:5-10
Thanks for all the OT verses.
Your welcome, my friend— even if you’re being sarcastic.
Dokimas seems to think that the casting of lots is not an acceptable way to discern the will of God. However, at this time in the NT, the HS had not yet been poured out, and the disciples used what had been revealed to Israel up to that point. The Israelites had always trusted God, who was “Lord of the lot” to apportion and choose by Divine Providence.Your welcome, my friend— even if you’re being sarcastic.
You know, I’ve been praying for you.
Some people just cannot fathom a life without sex.
I wasn’t being sarcastic. I was thankful.Your welcome, my friend— even if you’re being sarcastic.
You know, I’ve been praying for you.