Prodigal's Isle

[utunumsint]

I’d have to admit that if a reporter asked a politician to answer in such a way as to make a false dichotomy in choosing between (A) and (B), the politician would have every right to point out that it’s neither (A) nor (B) but (C). So if i discover that i am in fact committing such a fallacy, i will be grateful to you for showing me this. Let’s take a closer look, for i have nothing to lose but my ignorance! (And notice that in this paragraph, i am making assertions, rather than asking questions. Now please compare these two paragraphs to the next.)

But don’t you think that Peter was making the same mistake that i might have made? Wasn’t he making a false dichotomy by claiming only (A) or (B) could be the next Apostle? Shouldn’t he have considered a third possibility and given God choice (C)? (And do you still think that asking what is true is the same as stating what is true?)

Hi Soc,

Nice to see you’re still chugging away.

Scripture gives no indication that this is the case. Therefore it is unlikely that Matthias was incorrectly chosen by Peter.

Notice I said unlikely.

Of course, if you reject this as a fallacy, then I suppose we should entertain some of the following notions.

1-Matthias was a secret Satanic infiltrator into the ranks of the Apostles.
2-Matthias was actually an Alien from Neptune.
3-All actions and all decisions made my the apostles up until pentacost were in error.
4-The appearances of Jesus before pentacost were actully demonic manifestations.

I suppose I could add many more to the list. Maybe Matthias we actually a time traveller from the 20th century.

God bless,
Ut

P.S. Did I mention that there is no record from the church fathers for your theory?

I did find this from Tertullian in his Perscription against the Heretics.

Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as “the sent.” Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David,(3) chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and rounding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith,(4) and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them,(5) that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing(6) must necessarily revert to its original for its classification.(7) Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (rounded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion,(8) and title of brotherhood, and bond(9) of hospitality,–privileges(10) which no other rule directs than the one
tradition of the selfsame mystery.(11)

It doesn’t seem like Tertullian had a problem with his election.

Wait! I know why we don’t see it! It was Constantine who purged all historical records of the said event!!

But I object, there is no historical record that Constantine did this.

You respond, there is no historical record that he didn’t do this, therefore there is a possibility that he did!!!

:banghead:

 

[JRKH]

Do you think it’s wise to imitate God?

I am not sure why you are asking this in relation to the links I provided, could you elaborate?

I will answer based upon what I understand of “Imitating God.”
I don’t see how we can avoid “imitating God” if we are to be true disciples of Christ. Does not Christ tell us that we must be “Perfect as our Heavenly Father is Perfect”? Are we not to imitate Christ who is “One with the Father”?

We believe that God is Pure Love, Pure Simplicity, and Pure Truth.
Aren’t these things the very things you are seeking on this thread?
If so, then you are seeking to “Imitate God”.

So From this we must be conclude it is indeed wise to imitate God, In Love Truth and simplicity that we may draw closer to Him.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Soc4Jesus,
In a sense I agree with paulc about how the thread has gone though I don’t doubt the sinceretiy of your goal.
I know I have been away and much as been brought up which is fine if you can keep it all straight. I have trouble doing that many times.
One thing that I am having trouble with is the whole Apostle selection - Mathias/Paul discussion. I haven’t been able to figure out what your issue is with both being selected?

So -

Could you encapsulate the questions you need answers to at the present time? Perhaps this would help us all to refocus.

Peace
James

 

[paul_c]

crainium.net at Directnic

PC:

Let me say that i agree with part of what you said and disagree with the other part. Allow me to briefly explain why i disagree, and then talk about where i agree with you. Let’s say a student asks a teacher a question, or a parishioner asks a priest a question, or a reporter asks a politician a question. In the first example, it is the priest answering the question who is making assertions of truth, *not *the parishioner who asks the priest whether something is true. In the second example, it is the teacher answering the student’s question who is making assertions, *not *the student asking for the answer. In the third example, it’s the politician answering the reporter’s questions who is stating the truth rather than the reporter. This is true because asking if something is true is not the same as claiming that something is true. So as you are reading this paragraph, you might see that in this paragraph i indeed *am *making assertions, for i’ve asked no questions. This is also true of the next paragraph. But compare the first two paragraphs to the last, where i only ask questions. Perhaps you will see that, in the last paragraph, i play the part of the parishioner not the priest, the student not the teacher, the reporter not the politician.

I’d have to admit that if a reporter asked a politician to answer in such a way as to make a false dichotomy in choosing between (A) and (B), the politician would have every right to point out that it’s neither (A) nor (B) but (C). So if i discover that i am in fact committing such a fallacy, i will be grateful to you for showing me this. Let’s take a closer look, for i have nothing to lose but my ignorance! (And notice that in this paragraph, i am making assertions, rather than asking questions. Now please compare these two paragraphs to the next.)

But don’t you think that Peter was making the same mistake that i might have made? Wasn’t he making a false dichotomy by claiming only (A) or (B) could be the next Apostle? Shouldn’t he have considered a third possibility and given God choice (C)? (And do you still think that asking what is true is the same as stating what is true?)

What makes you think that Peter wasn’t acting on God’s instructions? Do you have anything that suggests that he acted improperly in this action? He was following a prophesy, after all, as was discussed above.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

What makes you think that Peter wasn’t acting on God’s instructions? Do you have anything that suggests that he acted improperly in this action? He was following a prophesy, after all, as was discussed above.

http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/mac-pc-iphone.jpg

PC, PC, have you not understood anything i’ve said? I don’t think i know anything. That’s why i’m asking! In my defense, i’d say the same that Socrates said of himself:
You’re treating me as if I’m maintaining that I know what I’m asking about, and as if I’ll agree with you if I really want to. But it’s not like that! In fact, I’m going along with you in investigating whatever proposition is made, because I myself am in ignorance. So, when I’ve considered it, I’m prepared to tell you whether or not I agree with out. Only, wait until I’ve considered it.

(Charmides, 165)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hi Soc,

Nice to see you’re still chugging away.

Scripture gives no indication that this is the case. Therefore it is unlikely that Matthias was incorrectly chosen by Peter.

Notice I said unlikely.

Of course, if you reject this as a fallacy, then I suppose we should entertain some of the following notions.

1-Matthias was a secret Satanic infiltrator into the ranks of the Apostles.
2-Matthias was actually an Alien from Neptune.
3-All actions and all decisions made my the apostles up until pentacost were in error.
4-The appearances of Jesus before pentacost were actully demonic manifestations.

I suppose I could add many more to the list. Maybe Matthias we actually a time traveller from the 20th century.

God bless,
Ut

P.S. Did I mention that there is no record from the church fathers for your theory?

I did find this from Tertullian in his Perscription against the Heretics.

It doesn’t seem like Tertullian had a problem with his election.

Wait! I know why we don’t see it! It was Constantine who purged all historical records of the said event!!

But I object, there is no historical record that Constantine did this.

You respond, there is no historical record that he didn’t do this, therefore there is a possibility that he did!!!

:banghead:

Now you’re talking nonsense!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I am not sure why you are asking this in relation to the links I provided, could you elaborate?

I will answer based upon what I understand of “Imitating God.”
I don’t see how we can avoid “imitating God” if we are to be true disciples of Christ. Does not Christ tell us that we must be “Perfect as our Heavenly Father is Perfect”? Are we not to imitate Christ who is “One with the Father”?

We believe that God is Pure Love, Pure Simplicity, and Pure Truth.
Aren’t these things the very things you are seeking on this thread?
If so, then you are seeking to “Imitate God”.

So From this we must be conclude it is indeed wise to imitate God, In Love Truth and simplicity that we may draw closer to Him.

Peace
James

I agree that we should imitate God!



And do you think, James that i should seek advice from someone who does not try to imitate God?

 

[paul_c]

http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/mac-pc-iphone.jpg

PC, PC, have you not understood anything i’ve said? I don’t think i know anything. That’s why i’m asking! In my defense, i’d say the same that Socrates said of himself:
You’re treating me as if I’m maintaining that I know what I’m asking about, and as if I’ll agree with you if I really want to. But it’s not like that! In fact, I’m going along with you in investigating whatever proposition is made, because I myself am in ignorance. So, when I’ve considered it, I’m prepared to tell you whether or not I agree with out. Only, wait until I’ve considered it.

(Charmides, 165)

You say that, but its certainly not how its coming across to me. You no longer seem like you are searching. It feels instead like you are simply using us as foils to get your own views across.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc4Jesus,
In a sense I agree with paulc about how the thread has gone though I don’t doubt the sinceretiy of your goal.
I know I have been away and much as been brought up which is fine if you can keep it all straight. I have trouble doing that many times.
One thing that I am having trouble with is the whole Apostle selection - Mathias/Paul discussion. I haven’t been able to figure out what your issue is with both being selected?

So -

Could you encapsulate the questions you need answers to at the present time? Perhaps this would help us all to refocus.

Peace
James

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/EC...5E1178BDA65AC1BDB194D5C4FE0FE6529E79887609E4F

James:

Thanks for trying to understand where i’m going with all this. I must admit, i don’t know myself! But i trust God will get me there in the end, as He always does (to my great astonishment!) with discussion threads like this.



I’m looking at the events of Acts, chapter 1 and trying to figure it all out. I’m wondering why Peter chose such an odd way to choose the next Apostle. Maybe you can help me understand that it’s really not as queer as it seems to be. I’d be grateful if you’d think this through with me. If you will, please consider this:

A young woman cannot decide who to marry–Edward or Teddy. They’ve both expressed an interest in marrying her, but she cannot decide between them.

So she prays, “God, show me who I should marry when I flip this coin–heads, it’s Ed; tails, it’s Ted.” She flips the coin, and it’s heads-up Ed! Little does she know, though, that God really wants her to become a nun. By flipping a coin, she thinks she is doing God’s will, but she’s not. She’s doing the exact opposite!

Please tell me, James: How this is different from what Peter did by drawing straws? Shouldn’t he have had three straws instead of two? Shouldn’t he have had each man (Joseph and Matthias) draw a straw, and if neither got the short one, then the Apostles would wait for God to reveal another candidate?

 

[paul_c]

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/EC...5E1178BDA65AC1BDB194D5C4FE0FE6529E79887609E4F

James:

Thanks for trying to understand where i’m going with all this. I must admit, i don’t know myself! But i trust God will get me there in the end, as He always does (to my great astonishment!) with discussion threads like this.



I’m looking at the events of Acts, chapter 1 and trying to figure it all out. I’m wondering why Peter chose such an odd way to choose the next Apostle. Maybe you can help me understand that it’s really not as queer as it seems to be. I’d be grateful if you’d think this through with me. If you will, please consider this:

A young woman cannot decide who to marry–Edward or Teddy. They’ve both expressed an interest in marrying her, but she cannot decide between them.

So she prays, “God, show me who I should marry when I flip this coin–heads, it’s Ed; tails, it’s Ted.” She flips the coin, and it’s heads-up Ed! Little does she know, though, that God really wants her to become a nun. By flipping a coin, she thinks she is doing God’s will, but she’s not. She’s doing the exact opposite!

Please tell me, James: How this is different from what Peter did by drawing straws? Shouldn’t he have had three straws instead of two? Shouldn’t he have had each man (Joseph and Matthias) draw a straw, and if neither got the short one, then the Apostles would wait for God to reveal another candidate?

You know in the Old Testament, the High priest had the umin and Thumin to derive the will of God. This isn’t much different.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You say that, but its certainly not how its coming across to me. You no longer seem like you are searching. It feels instead like you are simply using us as foils to get your own views across.

Are things always as they seem, PC?

 

[michaelsmth626]

Frankly, I’m not the one who is pitting one apostle against another. They are all working for the same end, the glory of God. It is you who came here claiming that Peter acted inappropriately picking Matthias as an Apostle instead of Paul and claiming further that Paul had a greater claim to leadership than did Peter. You are right in saying that Paul would find this argument foolish. You are full of theories. Why not just listen to the truth . The Catholic Church was put in place to teach the truth 2000 years ago and has been faithful to that charter since the beginning.

Please I’m the one pitting Apostles? The entire foundation of the CC is based on pitting one Apostle against the others and against all other churches right up the the chair of Peter in Rome. The post on this site that reflect Peters exclusive inherited office is endless. So please don’t accuse me of saying I follow Paul when you clearly profess Peter as the backbone of authority for the CC. As I mentioned Paul did not support such childish games. 1 Cor 1-10 and 3-4. Certainly the concept was not accepted by the NT Apostles.

I did make many statements about their only being 12 Apostles. That from the Resurrected Christ Paul was chosen. Paul even says that he layed a foundation on Christ. Wow is that part of the picture I was sharing with Socrates? In the english it says THE not A as I just mentioned, but I respect the words he spoke before the statement, about following or elevating a single Apostle.

10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Isn’t that exactly what Jesus called him to do.

for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.

Looking back we see the 12 tribes looking into the future, John described the wall surrounding the new Jerusalem it contained the 12 names of the Apostles on its foundation just as Paul said above. Do you think Jesus chose 12 simply because it struck Him as a nice number? You asked me why John didn’t see himself in Rev, I replied that it is interesting that he never mentions people by name. But in the case of the New Jerusalem he sees both the 12 tribes and the 12 Apostles names. You dismiss that scripture as well as over looking Pauls statement [For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?]
You may be the one thats not being sincere as you recently accused Socrates4Jesus of.

You ask me why I don’t follow the 2000 year old church like that is some kind of proof of authenticity. The Apostles spoke frequently of apostates. I might just very well be catholic If I could see the knitted harmony of the scriptures reflected in its teachings, but I dont. I do see a very carefully knitted plan and message in the scriptures.

I just referenced Pauls foundation above. I also ask you is 12 an insignificant number in scripture. Paul was elected by Jesus Himself as an Apostle, in a single statement He passed the 12th mantel to Paul, the same Apostleship the others took 3 and half years to obtain, Paul suffered in blindness for 3 days, do you also think 3 days is an insignificant number? or is it implying something else? Are 3 days just a random number a fluke if so why is it mentioned? Why not say Paul suffered has affliction for a number of days?

1. there is nothing , other than one line that was supposed to be taken as imagery in Revelations, that limited the church to 12 apostles for all times. In fact, we know they had at least 14 in place by the time of the Council of Jerusalem was held in 49Ad, and probably several more.

You make it clear here what your motivation is, it’s not the same as Socrates4Jesus who carefully studies what was written. Perhaps you have more faith in what the CC says than discussing what the scriptures say. That is fine and well lets just say that, I dont consider that a derogatory statement towards the church ether, I could post many Catholics post here that say the bible is not complete or it requires a catholic interpreter. Disreguarding passages that apparently contradict CC teaching doesn’t convince me of the churches authenticity or infallibility. Someone looking for the continuity in scripture is not a fool or a dreamer. Instead threw people like yourself it becomes apparent that your teaching foundation and interpretation is based on supporting your church.

Come on, Socrates. You are trying to argue that Peter was in error by picking Matthias because the Apostles are limited to 12 in Revelations and **that doesn’t leave room for St Paul, t therefore the Catholic Church is not the true church. ** How many leaps are there in that statement.

 

[michaelsmth626]

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/EC...5E1178BDA65AC1BDB194D5C4FE0FE6529E79887609E4F

Please tell me, James: How this is different from what Peter did by drawing straws? Shouldn’t he have had three straws instead of two? Shouldn’t he have had each man (Joseph and Matthias) draw a straw, and if neither got the short one, then the Apostles would wait for God to reveal another candidate?

There is on important fact that is left out of your search in these passages.
Peter had not yet received the Holy Spirit ether.
He was completely under his own power.

 

[JRKH]

I agree that we should imitate God!



And do you think, James that i should seek advice from someone who does not try to imitate God?

That depends on whether you want good advise or not.

I’m still trying to figure out how this relates to the book and links that I presented.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

James:

Thanks for trying to understand where i’m going with all this. I must admit, i don’t know myself! But i trust God will get me there in the end, as He always does (to my great astonishment!) with discussion threads like this.



I’m looking at the events of Acts, chapter 1 and trying to figure it all out. I’m wondering why Peter chose such an odd way to choose the next Apostle. Maybe you can help me understand that it’s really not as queer as it seems to be. I’d be grateful if you’d think this through with me.

I’ll try.

If you will, please consider this:

A young woman cannot decide who to marry–Edward or Teddy. They’ve both expressed an interest in marrying her, but she cannot decide between them.

So she prays, “God, show me who I should marry when I flip this coin–heads, it’s Ed; tails, it’s Ted.” She flips the coin, and it’s heads-up Ed! Little does she know, though, that God really wants her to become a nun. By flipping a coin, she thinks she is doing God’s will, but she’s not. She’s doing the exact opposite!

This is not a case that I can comment on with any certainty so please bear with me here.
She certainly may chose to ignore God’s call to the religious life. In this case, the “selection” God helps her make will be the one which will encourage her to cling more closely to Him.

Please tell me, James: How this is different from what Peter did by drawing straws? Shouldn’t he have had three straws instead of two? Shouldn’t he have had each man (Joseph and Matthias) draw a straw, and if neither got the short one, then the Apostles would wait for God to reveal another candidate?

You consider that Peter, in accepting nominations and drawing lots, somehow left God, or God’s will out of the equation. Are you forgetting what Jesus gave to Peter in Mt 16? The Power to Bind and Loose? When Peter, chose to do it this way (with guidance from the Holy Spirit) the selection was “Bound in Heaven”, just as Christ Promised.

Does that Help?

Peace
James

 

[michaelsmth626]

You know in the Old Testament, the High priest had the umin and Thumin to derive the will of God. This isn’t much different.

You know what I have debated Mormons for years, when I dig up Joseph Smiths method of seeing and the court documents of his conviction for using such a method to seek hidden treasure before he founded the Mormon church I get some pretty memorable looks.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Just recently, however, Reverend Wesley P. Walters of the United Presbyterian church in Marissa, Illinois, discovered some records in the basement of the sheriff’s office in Norwich, New York, which he maintains demonstrate the actuality of the 1826 trial and go far to substantiate that Joseph Smith spent part of his early career in southern New York as a money digger and seer of hidden treasures. A periodical in Salt Lake City which heralded Walters’s findings said they “undermine Mormonism” and repeated a statement by Hugh Nibley in The Myth Makers, “if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith.”

Judge Albert Neely’s bill of costs

Walters’s discovery consisted mainly of two documents. The first was a bill of costs presented to local authorities by Justice Albert Neely in 1826 which identified Joseph Smith as “The Glass Looker” and indicated that he was charged at the trial with a “misdemeanor.” Neely’s bill reported that his total charges for the case were $2.68, the precise amount shown in Fraser’ s Magazine.

Walters’s second find was a bill by the local constable, Philip DeZeng, dated 1826, which indicates that not only was a warrant issued for Joseph Smith’s arrest but also a mittimus, which Walters believes must have been issued after the trial ordering the sheriff to escort Joseph out of the county. Walters contends that the mittimus thus proves that Joseph Smith was found guilty.

Mormon testimony also says he used this method of placing the umin and Thumin in a hat then placing his face into it he would speak to a scribe, this is how completed the translation of the gold plates into the book of Mormon after he lost the magic glasses.

Thank God for the Holy Spirit.

 

[JRKH]

There is on important fact that is left out of your search in these passages.
Peter had not yet received the Holy Spirit ether.
He was completely under his own power.

John20:
21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

This occurred before Pentecost so it appears that the Apostles did have the “nucleus” and protection of the Holy Spirit Even before He came in full power upon them.

Peace
James

 

[paul_c]

John20:
21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

This occurred before Pentecost so it appears that the Apostles did have the “nucleus” and protection of the Holy Spirit Even before He came in full power upon them.

Peace
James

And besides, the Apostles had spent 3 years wiht Jesus to learn what he wanted them to do. Perhaps he told Peter about the prophesy that said he should replace Judas. Perhaps he even told him how to do it. We have no way of knowing. What we do know is that the proposal made sense to the other apostles, who agreed as a body. Although Peter had the keys, he also got consensus from the others.

 

[paul_c]

You know what I have debated Mormons for years, when I dig up Joseph Smiths method of seeing and the court documents of his conviction for using such a method to seek hidden treasure before he founded the Mormon church I get some pretty memorable looks.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/1826Trial/ldsjsjai.gif

Mormon testimony also says he used this method of placing the umin and Thumin in a hat then placing his face into it he would speak to a scribe, this is how completed the translation of the gold plates into the book of Mormon after he lost the magic glasses.

Thank God for the Holy Spirit.

Comparing Joseph Smith’s use of Seer stones to find treasure or to translate the gold plates to St. Peter’s using the drawing of lots to decide between two viable candidates is a bit of a stretch.

 

[michaelsmth626]

John20:
21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

This occurred before Pentecost so it appears that the Apostles did have the “nucleus” and protection of the Holy Spirit Even before He came in full power upon them.

Peace
James

Your grabbing for straws Acts is the accepted sequential account.
Are you proposing that they received the Holy Spirit twice?
Or did one take place and not the other?
It follows by saying Tomas was not with them, would the Lord exclude him?
When Jesus did appear to Tomas it says nothing about the HS. Those three words seem strangely out of context don’t you think?

People a lot smarter than me call it the Quote; Johannine “great commission” Which serves as the culmination of the entire Gospels presentation of Jesus as the one sent from the Father, the Sent One has now become the sender. When Jesus breath on them and said receive the Holy Spirit it is best understood as a foretaste of what would happen when the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost; end Quote:

Their were not two accounts or two instances of receiving the Holy Spirit but their are 2 baptisms. One administer by men representing repentance and one entirely under the control of the Father and Son the giving of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 1:4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me[a] in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”