Prodigal's Isle

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates,
by the way, your lengthy courtroom analogy was fraught with error that comes from your preconcieved notion that Paul should be the 12th apostle, not Matthias.

1. Saul was not renamed Paul by Jesus. No where in scripture is this stated,. Paul is simply the Greek version of Saul. When he was working among the gentiles, it was probably easier to go by the Greek version of the name. Just like Cephas is the Hebrew version of Peter, yet among the Greek speakers, he was always known as Peter. but when Paul speaks of him, he always calls him Cephas.

Perhaps you are correct. However, there are scholars (both Protestant and Catholic) who disagree with you. Not worth quibbling over, i think, since my embellishment in this fictional account has nothing to do with determining whether Paul or Matthias was God’s choice to replace Judas.

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.

I don’t see anything in Paul’s courtroom testimony that suggests that the Apostles were trying to limit their number to 12.

1. You have no reason to believe that Peter made an error in filling the 12th Apostle slot wiht Matthias. certainly if he had, there would have been some mention of it in scripture, right?

You are making a common error. You are relying on the fallacy known as making an inference from ignorance. You are claiming that an idea must be false because it has not been proven true. For example, if i were to say thisThere is nobody i know who has owned both a PC and a MAC and prefers a PC. Therefore, nobody who has used a MAC would ever go back to using a PC.
i’d be guilt of making an inference from ignorance. There might very well be people out there somewhere who have tried both computer operating systems and prefer Windows. My ignorance of these people does not make my premise true. But if i were to sayA Consumer Reports study shows that the MAC OS X operating system is more stable and responds more quickly than Windows 7.
Now i would no longer be basing my conclusion on ignorance. I’d have a good reason to say that it’s better to own a MAC than a PC.

The same is true of Peter’s decision to draw straws for Matthias or Joseph. The fact that there is no mention of God disapproving of the Apostles’ action does NOT prove that He did in fact approve. It would be just as wrong for me to claim that, since there is no mention of God approving of the Apostles’ actions, that He must have disapproved. This would be an inference from ignorance, as well.

So rather than relying on ignorance and fallacious reasoning, let’s rely on what we do know and on sound reasoning. Let’s look at Peter’s reason for limiting the choice to just two men and see if his reason for making this limitation is based on a true or false premise. Do you think it is true that an Apostolic Successor must be ONLY someone who knew Christ BEFORE He was resurrected? A simple yes or no is all i ask.

 

[Pax]

Soc etal,

I am keeping up on the thread when possible. I recently changed internet service providers. I now have Comcast high speed…or at least it’s supposed to be. Ever since switching I have had an intermittent connection. They assure me that this week it will get fixed.

Anyway…you are all in my prayers…I’ll post eventually.

Pax out!!!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc etal,

I am keeping up on the thread when possible. I recently changed internet service providers. I now have Comcast high speed…or at least it’s supposed to be. Ever since switching I have had an intermittent connection. They assure me that this week it will get fixed.

Anyway…you are all in my prayers…I’ll post eventually.

Pax out!!!

Your prayers are appreciated. Hope your broadband get’s working better soon!

Blessings to you my friend!

 

[pneuma07]

Thank you for trying to help, but your reformulation is not my intention. You are getting ahead of me, for what i want to know at the moment is this: Do you believe that God reveals His will to only a select few, or to as many as who will accept such revelation? For example, does the parishioner in the pew have as much access to God’s wisdom as the Pope in Peter’s seat?

i am going to try to remain on your formulations.

I am no prophet soc. How can i know, judge or measure the access to God’s wisdom anybody has ‘’

I thank God who gave us recognizable leaders of His flock.

PS Don’t forget post 600 please.

 

[pneuma07]

Did Clement advocate the Papacy, albeit by a different name? Is there a link to one of his epistles that we might use to discuss this more intelligently?

1 - rather than advocating the Papacy - which was not the issue - i’d say he exercised it in his letter to the Corinthians.

2 - the only epistle which is firmly attributed to Clement is 1 Clement to the Corinthians www.newadvent.org/fathers/ is a site where you can find it.

Good Reading.

 

[paul_c]

Perhaps you are correct. However, there are scholars (both Protestant and Catholic) who disagree with you. Not worth quibbling over, i think, since my embellishment in this fictional account has nothing to do with determining whether Paul or Matthias was God’s choice to replace Judas.

I don’t see anything in Paul’s courtroom testimony that suggests that the Apostles were trying to limit their number to 12.

You are making a common error. You are relying on the fallacy known as making an inference from ignorance. You are claiming that an idea must be false because it has not been proven true. For example, if i were to say thisThere is nobody i know who has owned both a PC and a MAC and prefers a PC. Therefore, nobody who has used a MAC would ever go back to using a PC.
i’d be guilt of making an inference from ignorance. There might very well be people out there somewhere who have tried both computer operating systems and prefer Windows. My ignorance of these people does not make my premise true. But if i were to sayA Consumer Reports study shows that the MAC OS X operating system is more stable and responds more quickly than Windows 7.
Now i would no longer be basing my conclusion on ignorance. I’d have a good reason to say that it’s better to own a MAC than a PC.

The same is true of Peter’s decision to draw straws for Matthias or Joseph. The fact that there is no mention of God disapproving of the Apostles’ action does NOT prove that He did in fact approve. It would be just as wrong for me to claim that, since there is no mention of God approving of the Apostles’ actions, that He must have disapproved. This would be an inference from ignorance, as well.

So rather than relying on ignorance and fallacious reasoning, let’s rely on what we do know and on sound reasoning. Let’s look at Peter’s reason for limiting the choice to just two men and see if his reason for making this limitation is based on a true or false premise. Do you think it is true that an Apostolic Successor must be ONLY someone who knew Christ BEFORE He was resurrected? A simple yes or no is all i ask.

http://pantsinacan.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/pc_vs_mac.jpg

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.

1. that Peter was in error in Picking Matthias
2. that revelations limits the number of Apostles to 12
3. That St. Paul was more worthy of being an Apostle than Matthias
4. That if Peter was in error in picking Matthias, the Catholic Church can not be the one true church.

And who am I (or you for that matter) to decide whether the criteria St. Peter chose for picking Judas’ replacement was correct? But I will say that when you are calling on a person to witness to Jesus’ life and words to the people, it is certainly defensible to require that the person actually witnessed all of them.

 

[michaelsmth626]

OK, let me know when you are ready to answer my question.

Perhaps, but i’m wondering something else. I take it from your answer that you believe that David was chosen by God as the head of the tribe of Benjamin. But i’m wondering this: Do you believe this man after God’s own heart was also chosen as head of all of the 12 Jewish tribes?

Yes he was. But the people requested a king, that displeased God. Sam chapter 8

 

[michaelsmth626]

Michaelsmth626:

Your discussion of Saul vs David being a precursor for Matthias vs Paul is hugely flawed.
I had to clip it
First of all, Saul, the first king of Israel, was not picked by the people, he was picked by God, See 1 Samuel 10…
Saul was eventually replaced by David because Saul overstepped his bounds and tried to offer sacrifices as if he was a priest.

Secondly, Paul never replaced Matthias, he augmented him. Matthias has never been shown to be unfaithful to his position. Like most of the Apostles, we don’t have much in the way of recorded history of his actions. Like all the apostles, he was spreading the word of God, outside the glare of publicity until he was eventually martyred.

By the way, if the Revelation of the 24 elders is as you say, wouldn’t John have seen himself there as one of the Apostles?

Thank you so much for opinion. Like I said before I’m a bible reader, If what I read and learn from it is contradictory to your view so what. Does your church pracice politically correct statements or profess its beliefs?

Had you read Samuel chapter 8 you would know that the people elected to have a king to judge them like all the nations around them. God did not call forward a king the people did.
And they got what they asked for.

1 Now it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel. 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not walk in his ways; they turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice.
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, 5 and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”
6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. 9 Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”
10 So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked him for a king. 11 And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. 14 And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. 16 And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men,[a] and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. 18 And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”
19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”
21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the LORD. 22 So the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed their voice, and make them a king.”
And Samuel said to the men of Israel, “Every man go to his city.”

You see paul the people elected Saul even after knowing all that.
The LORD see it as a sign of turning from Him, do you think His opinion has change today? I mean men electing men to rule over them instead of following God themselves.

About the 12 Apostles, numbers are a very relevant thing to God.
40 years in the desert for Israel
40 days for Jesus
70 elders
70 weeks
3 days in a fish
3 days in a tomb
3 days Paul was blind
6 the number of man
7 the favorite number of God perhaps
12 tribes
12 Apostles
12 carries over into all sorts of things like
months in a year
12 hours on a clock or 24 hours in a day 12 + 12
12 signs in the stars
These numbers are repeated over and over and over again.

20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year.”

22 So Moses brought Israel from the Red Sea; then they went out into the Wilderness of Shur. And they went three days in the wilderness and found no water. 23 Now when they came to Marah, they could not drink the waters of Marah, for they were bitter. Therefore the name of it was called Marah.[a] 24 And the people complained against Moses, saying, “What shall we drink?” 25 So he cried out to the LORD, and the LORD showed him a tree. When he cast it into the waters, the waters were made sweet.
There He made a statute and an ordinance for them, and there He tested them, 26 and said, “If you diligently heed the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians. For I am the LORD who heals you.”
27 Then they came to Elim, where there were twelve wells of water and seventy palm trees; so they camped there by the waters.

You get the Idea I’m sure.
But you have elected to have a king rule over you, that king says the number of Apostles is in the 1000s. I choose to believe there is only 12.

By the way, if the Revelation of the 24 elders is as you say, wouldn’t John have seen himself there as one of the Apostles?

I do think my statements was.
24 elders perhaps 12 Apostles and 12 Sons of Jacob**?**
That is hardly an affirmative statement, but since you want to hold my feet to the fire I think it is rather obvious that John never identifys anyone he sees by name. Surly their were those that we would all recognize by name.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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.

1. that Peter was in error in Picking Matthias
2. that revelations limits the number of Apostles to 12
3. That St. Paul was more worthy of being an Apostle than Matthias
4. That if Peter was in error in picking Matthias, the Catholic Church can not be the one true church.

And who am I (or you for that matter) to decide whether the criteria St. Peter chose for picking Judas’ replacement was correct? But I will say that when you are calling on a person to witness to Jesus’ life and words to the people, it is certainly defensible to require that the person actually witnessed all of them.

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

When someone asks questions, and someone else answers, it seems to me that it’s NOT the one asking questions who claims to speak the truth. Rather, it’s the one who answers truthfully who makes such claims. So who are you in our Socratic Dialog, PC? Answer truthfully, if you can. Are you the questioner or the answerer?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes he was. But the people requested a king, that displeased God. Sam chapter 8

True. And perhaps it displeases God today. But he knows our weaknesses, and maybe he knows that at least some of us need somebody to look to for guidance. That being said, there is a precedent, i think. David, whom God calls a man after His own heart, is ruler of the one tribe of God’s people, but also all 12 tribes. Compare this to Peter, whom Christ said would be ruler over one of the 12 tribes of Israel. The next question is this: Was Peter also ruler over all 12 tribes, as David was many centuries before him, or is this a position of authority reserved for only Christ Himself?

 

[paul_c]

Yes he was. But the people requested a king, that displeased God. Sam chapter 8

yes, it displeased God. But he gave them what they wanted, despite his warning, and it was God who picked Saul in 1Samuel10, not the people.

 

[paul_c]

http://notmytribe.com/images/articles/2007/Mac-vs-PC-Ad-out-of-box.jpg

When someone asks questions, and someone else answers, it seems to me that it’s NOT the one asking questions who claims to speak the truth. Rather, it’s the one who answers truthfully who makes such claims. So who are you in our Socratic Dialog, PC? Answer truthfully, if you can. Are you the questioner or the answerer?

i must tell, you Socrates, at the start of this thread, you may have been truthfully looking for answers. But now it does not feel like that. You have ceased asking questions and are now taking positions. While you may frame your positions as questions, they are not. And what is with all the PC vs mac advertisements?

You asked me" " Do you think it is true that an Apostolic Successor must be ONLY someone who knew Christ BEFORE He was resurrected? A simple yes or no is all i ask."

Now that is a statement phased into a leading question. It is not a simply yes or no answer. At the time, St Peter was replacing Judas, he was looking for someone to witness to the faith from his own experience. At that point, there were a couple of candidates that met the criteria. Later in time, as the initial generation of Apostles , those who had witnessed Jesus life directly, died out, they still needed to be replaced to carry on the traditions of the chruch and to minister to the faithful. These Apostolic successors were no longer called Apostles, they became known as bishops.

I am giving you the truth as I know it, which is all that any man can do.

 

[michaelsmth626]

True. And perhaps it displeases God today. But he knows our weaknesses, and maybe he knows that, at least some of us need somebody to look to for guidance. That being said, there is a precedent, i think. David, whom God calls a man after His own heart, is ruler of the one tribe of God’s people, but also all 12 tribes. Compare this to Peter, whom Christ said would be ruler over one of the 12 tribes of Israel. The next question is this: Was he also ruler over all 12 tribes, as David was many centuries before him, or is this a position of authority reserved for only Christ Himself?

We certainly are looking at the details arnt we, this will lead out on a limb that can only be supported by faith. That being said I will share my deeper opinion.

Reserved for Christ Himself, I believe that it is the position today, or more precisely the point at which the HS became able to indwell all men of Gods choice. That IMO is the giant leap forward that was won on the cross. We now have a perfect offering to God once and for all in Jesus. Our sins are remembered no more, He seals us with the HS that now indwells all the men of God. Jesus is the High Priest who ministers to His Spirit filled members. This was not the case since the fall of Adam to the pouring out of the HS. This may be the reason that the children of Israel wondered of the path so often.

Hebrews 8:1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.
3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

Do we say today we have no need of another? no of course not but if you look the example the Apostles gave it was one of leading to the door and speaking the words of truth threw the Spirit that those my receive it also. Not an ever continuing intervention like the OT priest offering sacrifices daily, interceding for the people. The reason is simple no one but a handful of men had access to God. The people had no open line threw the HS. Everything was done threw the anointed priest or prophets. After the out pouring of the HS it became a whole new ball game. The scriptures that support this concept are found in Hebrews that is quoted from Jeremiah

Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds** I will remember no more.”[c]
13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.**

Now compare the evidence for Peters leadership with Pauls.
Mathew 16- 18 verses Acts 9-15
Mathew 18-18 indicates that all the Apostles had the same blessing that Peter did to bind and lose. All of them only taught to the Jews until Peter spoke to the Gentiles after receiving his vision of the clean and the unclean. That concept that jump in their thinking was huge. As Paul wrote the law is for those who are under the law those born of the Spirit follow the law of the Spirit------ hand in hand with grace. Over a number of years a mature Christian can look back an see the changes that have been made in his life. He can see all the grace that was place before his failings but he was yet sustained in the Spirit. That is why it is written the only unforgivable sin is the blasphemy of the HS.

Mathew 12:31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

The man who walks in the Spirit is not under the law. But nether is it a license to sin. The HS in you will remind you, offer you grace in your weakness but always leading you into perfection.

Jesus brought in a ringer when He called Paul the words spoken in his commission leave no room for speculation like Mathew 16-18. His education and travels were never matched by any other Apostle. His knowledge of scriptures, other beliefs along with the power of the Spirit carried his message to the world. Paul really got it he really understood the implications of what had taken place and he knew how to express it. Who was it that taught, do not say I am of Paul or Apollos or Cephas. Does this sound like the voice of the church today?

Didn’t every one get the memo?

 

[michaelsmth626]

yes, it displeased God. But he gave them what they wanted, despite his warning, and it was God who picked Saul in 1Samuel10, not the people.

You just dont get it do you. God never decided to call a king forward the People did and ASKED Samuel to appointed him, that is exactly what happened. Just what the people voted for. By asking Samuel to appoint him was the same as asking God to appoint him. Samuel was the anointed communication conduit to God. The HS was not released until the perfect sacrifice was offered for sin --------------Jesus.

Gods repeated message still stands.
Peter was just being Peter a get ur done kind of guy. Instead of waiting on the Lord he called an election to be held. Just like the people elected Saul.

Paul was like David and waited to be called.

6 Do not exalt yourself in the presence of the king,
And do not stand in the place of the great;
7 For it is better that he say to you,

  “ Come up here,”
  Than that you should be put lower in the presence of the prince,
  Whom your eyes have seen.

 

[paul_c]

You just dont get it do you. God never decided to call a king forward the People did and ASKED Samuel to appointed him, that is exactly what happened. Just what the people voted for. By asking Samuel to appoint him was the same as asking God to appoint him. Samuel was the anointed communication conduit to God. The HS was not released until the perfect sacrifice was offered for sin --------------Jesus.

Gods repeated message still stands.
Peter was just being Peter a get ur done kind of guy. Instead of waiting on the Lord he called an election to be held. Just like the people elected Saul.

Paul was like David and waited to be called.

6 Do not exalt yourself in the presence of the king,
And do not stand in the place of the great;
7 For it is better that he say to you,

  “ Come up here,”
  Than that you should be put lower in the presence of the prince,
  Whom your eyes have seen.

This is all in your own mind. There is no data to support your position. Jesus called Paul to witness before Gentiles, Kings and Israelites. He didn’t call him to be the leader of the church. He gave Peter the keys, not Paul. He told Peter to strengthen his brothers, not Paul. he told Peter to tend his flocks, not Paul. Peter stood up at Pentacost and explained what was happening to the crowds and what they need to do to be saved. It was Peter that Paul went to see before his ministry, not the other way around. And it was Peter that Paul went to see, to make sure he was not and had not been running in vain, not the other way around. In Acts 10 Peter is the one to start the ministry to the Gentiles and it is Paul who is sent by the brothers to further this. And in Acts 15, Paul has to appeal to Peter and the Council of Jerusalem to free the Gentile Converts from the Jewish law because he is clearly an underling in church structure, despite his successful missionary work. And in 2 Peter, Peter critiques Paul’s work and declares them worthy to be followed, something a leader would do.

And lest you forget, Peter was called as well and was named the Rock from the very beginning. (See John’s Gospel for confirmation). It wasn’t like Paul was waiting to be called as you suggest. He was persecuting the church that Peter was leading.

 

[michaelsmth626]

This is all in your own mind. There is no data to support your position. Jesus called Paul to witness before Gentiles, Kings and Israelites. He didn’t call him to be the leader of the church. He gave Peter the keys, not Paul. He told Peter to strengthen his brothers, not Paul. he told Peter to tend his flocks, not Paul. Peter stood up at Pentacost and explained what was happening to the crowds and what they need to do to be saved. It was Peter that Paul went to see before his ministry, not the other way around. And it was Peter that Paul went to see, to make sure he was not and had not been running in vain, not the other way around. In Acts 10 Peter is the one to start the ministry to the Gentiles and it is Paul who is sent by the brothers to further this. And in Acts 15, Paul has to appeal to Peter and the Council of Jerusalem to free the Gentile Converts from the Jewish law because he is clearly an underling in church structure, despite his successful missionary work. And in 2 Peter, Peter critiques Paul’s work and declares them worthy to be followed, something a leader would do.

And lest you forget, Peter was called as well and was named the Rock from the very beginning. (See John’s Gospel for confirmation). It wasn’t like Paul was waiting to be called as you suggest. He was persecuting the church that Peter was leading.

Did I make a case for Paul usurping Peter?
My claim was that there are 12 Apostles founded on Christ, I have produced evidence to support their selection was by Jesus. Paul was chosen.
If you find that threatening to your super Apostle theory I apologize, I wont entertain one Apostles jurisdiction over another. But I will stand behind the fact their were only 12 and Paul was one.

Your type of jockeying for position has been going on from the very beginning, Paul likens it childrens behavior. So what can I say but I’m sorry If I came between you and your mother church.

1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 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.

 

[JRKH]

Is this a publication that is written by someone who is wise?

Well - I believe so.

To summarize, it is a “Guidebook for the Journey to God Based on the Wisdom of the Saints”, and liberally uses quotes from no less than 7 Doctors of the Church.

Here is a Link to Amazon. I use this link because, 1) it lets you look inside the book and 2) there are a number of useful reviews of the book.

Also, I was watching a program tonight where the guest was a “Jewish athiest” who converted. She is a graduate level and teacher of philosophy. She recommended to a caller, books by “Peter Kreeft”. Here is a website. About 2/3 of the way down the page is a book I thought would interest you. Called “Socrates Meets Jesus”.
Anyway the program guest, one Ronda Chervin said that Mr Kreeft did a wonderful Job of tieing philosophy to apologetics.
Also, If you’d like to see the interview with her, the program will be rebradcast tomorrow at 10 am and Wednesday at 1 pm on EWTN.

Sorry to not get back till now - It’s been a long weekend.

Peace
James

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well - I believe so.

To summarize, it is a “Guidebook for the Journey to God Based on the Wisdom of the Saints”, and liberally uses quotes from no less than 7 Doctors of the Church.

Here is a Link to Amazon. I use this link because, 1) it lets you look inside the book and 2) there are a number of useful reviews of the book.

Also, I was watching a program tonight where the guest was a “Jewish athiest” who converted. She is a graduate level and teacher of philosophy. She recommended to a caller, books by “Peter Kreeft”. Here is a website. About 2/3 of the way down the page is a book I thought would interest you. Called “Socrates Meets Jesus”.
Anyway the program guest, one Ronda Chervin said that Mr Kreeft did a wonderful Job of tieing philosophy to apologetics.
Also, If you’d like to see the interview with her, the program will be rebradcast tomorrow at 10 am and Wednesday at 1 pm on EWTN.

Sorry to not get back till now - It’s been a long weekend.

Peace
James

Do you think it’s wise to imitate God?

 

[paul_c]

Did I make a case for Paul usurping Peter?
My claim was that there are 12 Apostles founded on Christ, I have produced evidence to support their selection was by Jesus. Paul was chosen.
If you find that threatening to your super Apostle theory I apologize, I wont entertain one Apostles jurisdiction over another. But I will stand behind the fact their were only 12 and Paul was one.

Your type of jockeying for position has been going on from the very beginning, Paul likens it childrens behavior. So what can I say but I’m sorry If I came between you and your mother church.

1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 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.

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.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

i must tell, you Socrates, at the start of this thread, you may have been truthfully looking for answers. But now it does not feel like that. You have ceased asking questions and are now taking positions. While you may frame your positions as questions, they are not. And what is with all the PC vs mac advertisements?

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.

You asked me" " Do you think it is true that an Apostolic Successor must be ONLY someone who knew Christ BEFORE He was resurrected? A simple yes or no is all i ask." Now that is a statement phased into a leading question. It is not a simply yes or no answer. At the time, St Peter was replacing Judas, he was looking for someone to witness to the faith from his own experience. At that point, there were a couple of candidates that met the criteria. Later in time, as the initial generation of Apostles , those who had witnessed Jesus life directly, died out, they still needed to be replaced to carry on the traditions of the chruch and to minister to the faithful. These Apostolic successors were no longer called Apostles, they became known as bishops. I am giving you the truth as I know it, which is all that any man can do.

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?)