B
Ben_Masada
Guest
I can’t give a reply to questions like that without a quotation from your NT. Sorry!
Ben:
- Status
Ben:
R
ralphinal
Guest
No problem. You mentioned Acts 9:26 as proof that he was not allowed to be one of the WAy. You ignored the next few verses, where it shows that he was accepted because of the word of one of the followers.I can’t give a reply to questions like that without a quotation from your NT. Sorry!
Ben:
You intentionally stoped the story before the resolution.
Further, in Acts 15, Paul is shown to be a player in the Council of Jerusalem, which was run by the Apostles.
The Passage goes on with the Church deciding to send Paul and Barnabas on to the Gentiles.
In other words, you are wrongs about Paul not being part of the Way. He was. Not only was he part of the group, he acted with their blessing.
M
MHalsey
Guest
Indeed. My last post was on Friday. I just finished reading through what I missed (about 100 posts), but nothing has changed. Ben continues to insult, “thinking is good for you” (implying we don’t think), “remove the faith patches from your eyes” (implying we can’t see his “facts” because of our blind faith), his insistence on Christianity being nothing more than a Pauline sect (no proof), etc., etc., etc. This kind of stuff gets old very quickly.
yes, Ben this is the Non-Catholic section of the forums, but as the forum rules state:Thank you Jimdandy, but I do not agree that I am attacking the Catholic Faith. If this sounds like I am attacking, God have mercy on me for the endless attacks of Catholics on me
in this forum. In this NON-CATHOLIC section of the forum.
Ben:
Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be **respectful of the faith of the Catholics **participating on the board.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2
You, of course, are welcome to disagree with Catholics, but the snide comments I posted above are certainly not respectful of our faith.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Gabriel of 12:
Planten you are still under the impression that Jesus did not expire on the cross; Why do the Gospels reveal Jesus breathed his last breath on the cross? here is John an eyewitness account;
John19:30
14 When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.”** And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit. **
31
Now since it was preparation day, in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one, the Jews asked Pilate that their legs be broken and they be taken down.
32
So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and then of the other one who was crucified with Jesus.
33
But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs,
Here are your old testament prophecies coming to pass about Jesus being speared and not a bone of his will be broken;
John19:34
15 **but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out. **35
An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true; he knows 16 that he is speaking the truth, so that you also may (come to) believe.
36
**For this happened so that the scripture passage might be fulfilled: “Not a bone of it will be broken.”
37
And again another passage says: “They will look upon him whom they have pierced.” **
Jesus gave up his life for you and me, to free us from eternal death damnation on the Cross, the speared side confirmed his death before eyewitnesses.
Your denial is not with the Catholic church but with; what God has written and revealed to the world.
Peace be with you
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
I don’t remember to have held back the information that Barnabas, an old friend of Paul’s introduced him to the Apostles, who decided to accept him on a trial basis. Within 15 days Paul caused such a havoc in Jerusalem that the local Jews were on an uproar to kill him for preaching apostasy in Jerusalem. That’s when the Apostles decided to ship him back to Tarsus where he belonged. Tecnically, he was never accepted as a member of the Sect of the Nazarenes.
Paul was never a player in the Council of Jerusalem, which was run by the Apostles. He happened to be in that section of the Committee to solve the problem of the Nazarenes who had been sent by Jerusalem to try to recover their synagogues that Paul was overturning into Christian churches.
The Nazarenes never sent Paul to the Gentiles, and Paul never went to the Gentiles. According to Acts 15:7, Peter was the one chosen for the Gentiles. Paul was incapable of starting a church from scratch. Show me one that he started of Gentiles only. There is none. All his churches were built on the foundations of the Nazarenes.
No, he was not. The New Way was a term on Jews who were members of the Nazarenes, a Jewish Sect of Jews partaking of the Jewish revival of Jesus. The converts of the New Way were staunch defenders of the Jewish laws, according to Acts 21:20, while Paul would teach the Jews to abandon Moses. (Acts 21:21)
Ben:
R
ralphinal
Guest
Your position was that he was never accepted. That is not what the passage says. It does say that they accepted him with no trial basis mentioned. He was sent away later, that is correct
Ok, I am totally not seeing what you are seeing in this. The council was called about if Gentile followers of Jesus had to follow the Laws of Moses. THe Council rulled that they did not. Where are you getting that the Council had to do with reclaiming synagogues?
Ben:
S
swariffin
Guest
Gabriel of 12;4885592:
So Jesus would like the Jewish doctors and nurses to forget the their patients during Sabbath? Come on. It was all the man-made additions by the Pharisee, that Jesus and Paul were against. So much the man-made laws in the Mizna and Talbut, to create a newly revised Thorah. Moses must be mad if he was still alive during that time.Gabriel, you live in a world of utopia. A world you wish it could be true. But life is not like that. Yes, Jesus had a gospel. A gospel of revival of Judaism, according to Matthew 5:17-19. A gospel which would make of the converts staunch defenders of the Law, according to Acts 21:20 and not like the gospel of Paul, which was that the Law had been abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)
In fact, Paul openly contradicted Jesus when this declared loud and clear that he had not come to abolish the Jewish laws. To contradict is to stand against or anti. If Jesus was Christ, as you believe he was, it’s not too hard to figure what Paul was.
Therefore, the gospel of Jesus was an antithesis of the gospel of Paul. While the gospel of Jesus would make Law observant Jews, the gospel of Paul was to teach the Jews to abandon Moses, to stop circumcising their children and to renounce the Jewish customs. Quite the opposite, don’t you think so?
Ben:
S
swariffin
Guest
No, he was not. The New Way was a term on Jews who were members of the Nazarenes, a Jewish Sect of Jews partaking of the Jewish revival of Jesus. The converts of the New Way were staunch defenders of the Jewish laws, according to Acts 21:20, while Paul would teach the Jews to abandon Moses. (Acts 21:21)
Ben:
Ben, have you got any proof about the existence of the sect of Nazarene?
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Acts 24:5.
I
isacatholic
Guest
I believe there is plenty of evidence that Jesus was pierced in his side. I don’t know if you all are aware, but the shroud of tourin was recently carbon dated again (after it was originally said to be a hoax because of a carbon dating mistake) and it was confirmed to be around 2000 years old (There was a Discovery channel documentary on it). The lesions of the man matched perfectly with the lesions of Jesus, and the blood patterns, etc proved to be of a dead person, whose body reflected the agonies of his cricifiction (death by hanging, falling several time, PIERCING IN THE SIDE), etc but the funny thing is although this person is undoubtedly dead, the body did not suffer decompisition.
Also, the water and blood that came from jesus’ wounds, which appear in the NT (also in shroud), can only be a result of a postmortem piercing. This water and blood is a result of the celular component of blood (the red part) separating from the plasma component (the transparent liquid part).
Also, it is a mystery how this cloth (linen material) has survived 2 thousand years.
I think it is also worthy of noting, that in the history of christian art, all the depictions of the spear wound have been on jesus’ right side, while traditionally the stigmatists (people who have been blessed with Christs wounds) have always received it on the left side. There is a website www.shroud.com that has a more detailed description of the shroud, but it isnt up to date. It was before the carbon dating and before they discovered that the piercngs were actually through the hands. If you can find the discovery channel documentar, t will probably be more helpful. Hope this was useful! God bless!
Also, the water and blood that came from jesus’ wounds, which appear in the NT (also in shroud), can only be a result of a postmortem piercing. This water and blood is a result of the celular component of blood (the red part) separating from the plasma component (the transparent liquid part).
Also, it is a mystery how this cloth (linen material) has survived 2 thousand years.
I think it is also worthy of noting, that in the history of christian art, all the depictions of the spear wound have been on jesus’ right side, while traditionally the stigmatists (people who have been blessed with Christs wounds) have always received it on the left side. There is a website www.shroud.com that has a more detailed description of the shroud, but it isnt up to date. It was before the carbon dating and before they discovered that the piercngs were actually through the hands. If you can find the discovery channel documentar, t will probably be more helpful. Hope this was useful! God bless!
V
Valke2
Guest
It has not been confirmed to be 2,000 years old. And how could a shroud have proof of a piercing?
Now you are just making assumptions. Are you seriously suggesting that there are water stains on the shroud and that this somehow proves anything?
If it is 2,000 years old. And not much of a mystery. If it is such a mystery why is it in such fragile condition that no one can touch it?
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Okay, let’s start with 1. Acts 9:26. When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, he tried to join the Sect of the Nazarenes. It turned out that they were afraid of him and even refused to believe that he was a disciple.
- Acts 9:27. Barnabas a senior Nazarene had been for a long time a very close friend to Paul’s. So, he introduced Paul to the Apostles and became so to speak, a kind of tutor, to watch Paul’s movements in Jerusalem.
- Acts 9:28. Barnabas must have failed to do what he was supposed to do and Paul was
allowed to move freely about in Jerusalem, expressing himself quite openly the way he had
planned about Jesus. - Acts 9:29. He became so bold that he would debate the Jews in Jerusalem as to cause such a havoc among them that they were on an uproar to kill him. And if you read Galatians 1:18, this happened after only 15 days in Jerusalem.
- Acts 9:30. When the Nazarenes became aware of what was about to happen to him, they got him down to Ceasarea, and from there, they shipped him back to Tarsus where he belonged.
- Acts 9:31. As soon as Paul was far away from Jerusalem, throughout all Judea, Galilee and Samaria, the Sect was at peace, being built and making steady progress in the fear of the Lord. At the same time, it enjoyed the increased consolation of the Holy Spirit.
No, that was not the reason for the Council in Jerusalem to be called to resolve. The reason was circumcision. And circumcision was not one of the laws of Moses. That commandment was given by occasion of the Abraham Covenant. A covenant
made with the Jews only. If you read the whole chapter 15 of Acts down to verse 29, you will see that the decision of the Apostles was to send a letter wherewith the Nazarenes of Gentile origin convertedd by Paul, were back into the Noahite laws, just like any other Gentile. (Acts 15:28,29) It means that Gentiles converted by Paul would remain Gentiles. And Gentiles converted by Peter would become fully Jewish, as they would become staunch defenders of the Jewish laws. (Acts 15:7; 21:20)
Ben:
S
swariffin
Guest
That is a word of Felix the Roman, who knew nothing about Judaism nor Christianity. Any Jewish record about the sect of Nazarene? Nice try, anyway.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Show me where Peter required Gentiles to become Jewish.Okay, let’s start with 1. Acts 9:26. When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, he tried to join the Sect of the Nazarenes. It turned out that they were afraid of him and even refused to believe that he was a disciple.
The lesson from the above is that 15 days was the trial time because of Barnabas intercession in Paul’s favor. It means, Paul was technically never accepted to really join the Sect of the Nazarenes.
- Acts 9:27. Barnabas a senior Nazarene had been for a long time a very close friend to Paul’s. So, he introduced Paul to the Apostles and became so to speak, a kind of tutor, to watch Paul’s movements in Jerusalem.
- Acts 9:28. Barnabas must have failed to do what he was supposed to do and Paul was
allowed to move freely about in Jerusalem, expressing himself quite openly the way he had
planned about Jesus.- Acts 9:29. He became so bold that he would debate the Jews in Jerusalem as to cause such a havoc among them that they were on an uproar to kill him. And if you read Galatians 1:18, this happened after only 15 days in Jerusalem.
- Acts 9:30. When the Nazarenes became aware of what was about to happen to him, they got him down to Ceasarea, and from there, they shipped him back to Tarsus where he belonged.
- Acts 9:31. As soon as Paul was far away from Jerusalem, throughout all Judea, Galilee and Samaria, the Sect was at peace, being built and making steady progress in the fear of the Lord. At the same time, it enjoyed the increased consolation of the Holy Spirit.
No, that was not the reason for the Council in Jerusalem to be called to resolve. The reason was circumcision. And circumcision was not one of the laws of Moses. That commandment was given by occasion of the Abraham Covenant. A covenant
made with the Jews only. If you read the whole chapter 15 of Acts down to verse 29, you will see that the decision of the Apostles was to send a letter wherewith the Nazarenes of Gentile origin convertedd by Paul, were back into the Noahite laws, just like any other Gentile. (Acts 15:28,29) It means that Gentiles converted by Paul would remain Gentiles. And Gentiles converted by Peter would become fully Jewish, as they would become staunch defenders of the Jewish laws. (Acts 15:7; 21:20)
Ben:
I re-read Acts 24, too. Paul is called one of the ringleaders of the Nazorenes. Please explain that.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Peter was a Nazarene; and the converts of the Nazarenes were staunch defenders of the Jewish laws. They would become fully Jews. Read Acts 21:20.
It was about 14 years before that trial of Paul before Felix, when Paul had come and caused a havoc in Jerusalem, preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. The local Jews had him within their reach to condemn him for preaching apostasy in Jerusalem. The death penalty was stoning. But before they had their hands on him, the Nazarenes took him down to Ceasarea and from there they shipped him back to Tarsus, where he belonged.
Now, when Paul returned, the Hight Priest Ananias hired Tertullus for the legal procedures and brought him to Court assisted by the Governor Felix. Being the Lawyer reminded of what happened 14 years prior to that day, he connected Paul as a ringleader of the Sect of the Nazarnes. He thought that the Nazarenes at that time had saved him because he was a Nazarenes as well. It means the credibility of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem had suffered a loss of trust from the local authorities. The truth is that the Nazarenes had got rid of Paul by sending him to Tarsus for that very reason. They were afraid Paul would spoil their credibility with the local Jews. And that’s exactly what Paul did to them.
kBen:
R
ralphinal
Guest
Acts 21:20 does not say that peter told anyone to follow the Law of Moses who was a gentilePeter was a Nazarene; and the converts of the Nazarenes were staunch defenders of the Jewish laws. They would become fully Jews. Read Acts 21:20.
It was about 14 years before that trial of Paul before Felix, when Paul had come and caused a havoc in Jerusalem, preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. The local Jews had him within their reach to condemn him for preaching apostasy in Jerusalem. The death penalty was stoning. But before they had their hands on him, the Nazarenes took him down to Ceasarea and from there they shipped him back to Tarsus, where he belonged.
Now, when Paul returned, the Hight Priest Ananias hired Tertullus for the legal procedures and brought him to Court assisted by the Governor Felix. Being the Lawyer reminded of what happened 14 years prior to that day, he connected Paul as a ringleader of the Sect of the Nazarnes. He thought that the Nazarenes at that time had saved him because he was a Nazarenes as well. It means the credibility of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem had suffered a loss of trust from the local authorities. The truth is that the Nazarenes had got rid of Paul by sending him to Tarsus for that very reason. They were afraid Paul would spoil their credibility with the local Jews. And that’s exactly what Paul did to them.
kBen:
D
DallasCatholic
Guest
Gee, Ben. Paul was just following in Moses’ footsteps. BTW, everyone knows that Moses created Judism and corrupted the faith passed down from Abraham.Peter was a Nazarene; and the converts of the Nazarenes were staunch defenders of the Jewish laws. They would become fully Jews. Read Acts 21:20.
It was about 14 years before that trial of Paul before Felix, when Paul had come and caused a havoc in Jerusalem, preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. The local Jews had him within their reach to condemn him for preaching apostasy in Jerusalem. The death penalty was stoning. But before they had their hands on him, the Nazarenes took him down to Ceasarea and from there they shipped him back to Tarsus, where he belonged.
Now, when Paul returned, the Hight Priest Ananias hired Tertullus for the legal procedures and brought him to Court assisted by the Governor Felix. Being the Lawyer reminded of what happened 14 years prior to that day, he connected Paul as a ringleader of the Sect of the Nazarnes. He thought that the Nazarenes at that time had saved him because he was a Nazarenes as well. It means the credibility of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem had suffered a loss of trust from the local authorities. The truth is that the Nazarenes had got rid of Paul by sending him to Tarsus for that very reason. They were afraid Paul would spoil their credibility with the local Jews. And that’s exactly what Paul did to them.
kBen:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Since when, to preach against Moses is to follow in Moses’ footsteps? Perhaps only in your dictionary. Read Acts 21:21.Gee, Ben. Paul was just following in Moses’ footsteps. BTW, everyone knows that Moses created Judism and corrupted the faith passed down from Abraham.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
- Status