Re: Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth? 2

[spina1953]

Thank you, but who set up the qualifications ? Saul did not know Jesus personally but Paul certainly did. He was also “tutored” for three years by our Lord.

Hi Benhur: You are welcome. Well it seems from reading Acts chpt.1:15-26, that at some point Peter himself stood up and spoke about Judas being given a share of the ministry of the Apostles and who betrayed Jesus, then Peter went on to say “May another take his office.” Peter says that it is entirely fitting that one of their company take Judas office, who had been with them and Jesus while Jesus was alive.
It seems to me that all of the Apostles as well as the disciples looked to Peter as their leader so they prayed and drew lots and so Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. As for Paul, whether as Saul or as Paul, did not personally know Jesus. All Paul had was a vision and a location; voice of the Lord. Ananias baptized Saul who became Paul according to Acts chpt. 9: 10-19, Paul stayed for some time ( we do not know just how long a time) with the disciples in Damascus. What this tells me is that Paul was being instructed for a time, before Paul stared preaching. yes, Paul said that he was tutored for three years by the Lord. However this does not mean that Paul had a personal and physical relationship but only a spiritual relationship with Jesus. He still went to Jerusalem to see that Apostles, in order that what he was preaching and teaching was what the Apostles themselves were preaching and teaching. The Apostles in turn needed to know that Paul was preaching and teaching correctly what they themselves were preaching and teaching.

 

[spina1953]

HI Guanophore: First I do not think that Peter did a dumb thing, if that is what was thought. additionally, In a strict sense Paul was not an Apostles as he did not know Jesus or the Apostles while Jesus was alive and traveled with them. In a quite different sense Paul is an Apostle to the Gentiles as That was what Jesus wanted of him. I say that because in a sense Paul was sent to bring the name of Jesus to the Gentiles, By Jesus in a vision, which is very much different from actually knowing in the physical sense Jesus.

 

[benhur]

HI Guanophore: First I do not think that Peter did a dumb thing, if that is what was thought. additionally, In a strict sense Paul was not an Apostles as he did not know Jesus or the Apostles while Jesus was alive and traveled with them. In a quite different sense Paul is an Apostle to the Gentiles as That was what Jesus wanted of him. I say that because in a sense Paul was sent to bring the name of Jesus to the Gentiles, By Jesus in a vision, which is very much different from actually knowing in the physical sense Jesus.

It is the spirit that quickens all things . One could be with Jesus physically and really not get it. It is all spiritual understanding, whether you physically hear Him or in a vision , or thru scripture etc. I think it a partial fallacy to think if we had been there physically it would have been to our advantage. I think what we have today in testimony and dispensations of His graces equals or is better than the 3 plus years that he walked with us physically .

 

[spina1953]

It is the spirit that quickens all things . One could be with Jesus physically and really not get it. It is all spiritual understanding, whether you physically hear Him or in a vision , or thru scripture etc. I think it a partial fallacy to think if we had been there physically it would have been to our advantage. I think what we have today in testimony and dispensations of His graces equals or is better than the 3 plus years that he walked with us physically .

Hi Benhur, yes, of course that’s correct, but remember, The Apostles prayed much before deciding on who would take Judas’s office. As for Paul, he was not an Apostle in the same sense that the 12 were, but an Apostle called to by Christ himself in a vision. I’m betting that the Apostles needed to be sure of Paul before they accepted him. They knew what Paul was before but needed to know what Paul was now. I think that Luke did not give the whole picture of all that was going on, that could have been said but only what he thought one needed in order to show Paul was not the same person when he was Saul.

I also think that the Apostles needed to know what Paul was preaching and teaching, to see whether or not it was the same as they were themselves preaching and teaching.

 

[SteveVH]

Thank you, but who set up the qualifications ?

Peter, the head of the Apostles, set up the qualification:

• “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms: "‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.’

Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”* (Acts 1:20-22)

 

[spina1953]

Peter, the head of the Apostles, set up the qualification:

• “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms: "‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.’

Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”* (Acts 1:20-22)

Hi Steve VH: Very well said!

 

[benhur]

Peter, the head of the Apostles, set up the qualification:

• “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms: "‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.’

Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”* (Acts 1:20-22)

Ok as long as OT scripture does not give qualifications but what Peter qualified makes sense but still could be paul that fulfilled ot scripture. Further, I would be very much surprised if Saul was ignorant of Jesus during his 3 years of ministry or was not a personal witness to some of it, that he had not “checked Him out” as had most of the pharisees.

 

[benhur]

]Ben,
You are using the “absence” of information from St.Irenaeus to support your position that the chair is not St. Peter’s (arguing from silence is not so strong).

OK .Then do you agree with your quote that if the chair were not there the apostles would be all over the place in differences and power struggles ?

Conversely, when St. Irenaeus speaks explicitly to the bread and wine being the actual body and blood of Christ, consistent with the apostolic teaching and John 6, evidently this has no weight in your faith. You do understand that St. Irenaeus was a firm believer in the Eucharist correct?

Look, we differ over explicit words of eating Jesus found in scripture, so I am sure we differ over explicit words from Irenaeus. First off, we all “eucharist”. Secondly, Irenaeus seems to call it uncommon bread because of its Spiritual aspect, and that it aids our body because of our eventual united resurrection, with Christ. It has two realities, bread as earthly and spiritual, and resurrection as *heavenly *. Not sure he is depicting your transubstantiation.

 

[SteveVH]

Ok as long as OT scripture does not give qualifications but what Peter qualified makes sense but still could be paul that fulfilled ot scripture.

No. It could not have been Paul. He didn’t meet the requirements to be one of the twelve. That doesn’t lessen his importance nor diminish the mission he received from Christ.

Further, I would be very much surprised if Saul was ignorant of Jesus during his 3 years of ministry or was not a personal witness to some of it, that he had not “checked Him out” as had most of the pharisees.

There were lots of people who were aware of Jesus during his 3 year public ministry. Unfortunately, just “checking out” Jesus did not qualify someone to take the place of a chosen Apostle. Jesus had other plans for Paul.

At this point there doesn’t seem to be a lot of sense in second guessing the choice made by Peter and the Apostles.

 

[jmcrae]

It is the spirit that quickens all things . One could be with Jesus physically and really not get it. It is all spiritual understanding, whether you physically hear Him or in a vision , or thru scripture etc. I think it a partial fallacy to think if we had been there physically it would have been to our advantage. I think what we have today in testimony and dispensations of His graces equals or is better than the 3 plus years that he walked with us physically .

St. Faustina is also called an “Apostle” because of her visions of Jesus; we do not therefore add St. Faustina to the number of the Twelve.

We also say that St. Mary Magdalene is “Apostle to the Apostles” because she saw Jesus risen from the dead before He had returned to the Father, but again, we do not number her among the Twelve.

There are different ways of being an Apostle, all of which require seeing Jesus either physically or in a vision, but only the Twelve are the Twelve. St. Peter made no error in appointing Matthias, and indeed, he had the authority to appoint him without drawing lots - he did that to make it visible that he was choosing according to the Holy Spirit.

 

[benhur]

St. Faustina is also called an “Apostle” because of her visions of Jesus; we do not therefore add St. Faustina to the number of the Twelve.

We also say that St. Mary Magdalene is “Apostle to the Apostles” because she saw Jesus risen from the dead before He had returned to the Father, but again, we do not number her among the Twelve.

There are different ways of being an Apostle, all of which require seeing Jesus either physically or in a vision, but only the Twelve are the Twelve. St. Peter made no error in appointing Matthias, and indeed, he had the authority to appoint him without drawing lots - he did that to make it visible that he was choosing according to the Holy Spirit.

Why did not Jesus appoint Him ? He was with them forty days . He told them to tarry and wait in Jerusalem till they be empowered. Nothing in there about doing something that was Christ’s job alone, as with the other eleven. Why don’t we choose popes now by lot ?

 

[jmcrae]

Why did not Jesus appoint Him ? He was with them forty days . He told them to tarry and wait in Jerusalem till they be empowered. Nothing in there about doing something that was Christ’s job alone, as with the other eleven.

I think Jesus didn’t appoint him because Jesus wanted Peter to make that decision. Instead of appointing a replacement for Judas, He empowered Peter to make all of the important decisions. (John 21:15-19)

Why don’t we choose popes now by lot?

Because methods change over time.

At one time, Bishops were democratically elected; today, the Pope appoints them. The method of getting Bishops is not important. The fact that it happens is what is important.

Today, the College of Cardinals elects the Pope; at one time, Popes appointed their own successors.

In Matthias’ case, there was one position open, and several equally qualified candidates available. When you have to make a choice between two equally good things, you probably use some form of randomization to make the choice - flipping a coin, throwing dice, or even just closing your eyes and throwing a dart.

 

[spina1953]

Why did not Jesus appoint Him ? He was with them forty days . He told them to tarry and wait in Jerusalem till they be empowered. Nothing in there about doing something that was Christ’s job alone, as with the other eleven. Why don’t we choose popes now by lot ?

Hi Benhur: It just seems to me that Jesus wanted peter to do it, appointing one from among them, of course Jesus could have but he left it up to Peter to decide. remember the Apostles were thinking along the lines of who was with them and with Jesus while Jesus was alive and traveled with them and someone saying that Jesus spoke in a vision was not the same thing to them as actually knowing Jesus in the flesh.

 

[guanophore]

if the chair were not there the apostles would be all over the place in differences and power struggles ?

I think not, as Jesus trained them all to be in unity, and the unity remained even after the death of Peter.

But clearly what you describe is exactly what happened after they departed from the successor of Peter during the Reformation. Different doctrines and power struggles have resulted in a plethora of various denominations. I think it is one of the best testimonies of need for the successor of Peter as the visible sign of unity in the Church.

**

benhur:
Look, we differ over explicit words of eating Jesus found in scripture, so I am sure we differ over explicit words from Irenaeus. First off, we all “eucharist”. Secondly, Irenaeus seems to call it uncommon bread because of its Spiritual aspect, and that it aids our body because of our eventual united resurrection, with Christ. It has two realities, bread as earthly and spiritual, and resurrection as heavenly . Not sure he is depicting your transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation is a latter construct, so no, Irenaeus would not be familiar with it. Instead, he wrote of the Real Presence, where the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. The East also embraces this Apostolic faith, though they do not call it Transubstantiation, but leave it in the form of a mystery.

 

[guanophore]

Why did not Jesus appoint Him ?

He did!

24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” (Acts 1)

Or are you suggesting that where two or three were present, Christ failed in His promise to be in their midst?

Or perhaps Jesus failed in his promise to lead them into all Truth?

Or perhaps He failed in His promise to Peter that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven?

He was with them forty days . He told them to tarry and wait in Jerusalem till they be empowered. Nothing in there about doing something that was Christ’s job alone, as with the other eleven. Why don’t we choose popes now by lot ?

I think the reason you give here is EXACTLY why Peter was led by the HS to do this. Jesus was demonstrating that He would work through Peter to do those things that were His perogative, like choosing Apostles.

What makes you think we don’t choose Popes by lot?

You seem to be very disturbed by the fact that this method was used. If you do a word study you will find that it was customary for the Israelites to determine the will of God by lot.

After Pentecost, things were done differently.

Are you looking for reasons to discredit the role of Peter in this event?

 

[Porknpie]

.Then do you agree with your quote that if the chair were not there the apostles would be all over the place in differences and power struggles ?

Hi Benhur, I’m not sure what quote of mine you are referring to. Given the Christ promised to lead the Church to all Truth, I would trust Christ to guide his Church on faith and morals no matter how he would have established his Church structure. However, just as the Davidic King’s gave their prime minister’s authority to conduct their affairs in their absence, Christ gave St. Peter, the authority to conduct the affairs of the Church in his absence. One can see Christ guiding his Church without error as no matter where the Christian faith was planted by the apostles, disciples and their descendants, all seven Catholic sacraments were taught and practiced. This includes the communities of Christian faith in Africa, Spain and India, all believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and sacramental baptism. And to think that this occurred without the telephone and internet.

Look, we differ over explicit words of eating Jesus found in scripture, so I am sure we differ over explicit words from Irenaeus. First off, we all “eucharist”. Secondly, Irenaeus seems to call it uncommon bread because of its Spiritual aspect, and that it aids our body because of our eventual united resurrection, with Christ. It has two realities, bread as earthly and spiritual, and resurrection as *heavenly *. Not sure he is depicting your transubstantiation.

All of Christendom (heretics aside) including St. Irenaeus, believed that the bread and wine became the actual body and blood of Christ. The metaphysical explanation of how it happened did not occur until after 1,000 AD.

 

[benhur]

Hi Benhur, I’m not sure what quote of mine you are referring to.

Sorry ,was not yours but Pablope’s. Post #166

All of Christendom (heretics aside) including St. Irenaeus, believed that the bread and wine became the actual body and blood of Christ. The metaphysical explanation of how it happened did not occur until after 1,000 AD.

Not so sure Irenaeus took the transformation as literal but spiritual, but that for sure some might “imagine that it was actually flesh and blood”.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Not so sure Irenaeus took the transformation as literal but spiritual, but that for sure some might “imagine that it was actually flesh and blood”.

Seriously?

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Ummm, oh yeah. I can see how you get that from what Iraneous wrote.
:hypno:

NOT!

 

[Porknpie]

Not so sure Irenaeus took the transformation as literal but spiritual, but that for sure some might “imagine that it was actually flesh and blood”.

Christ’s disciples had the same skepticism as you. They respond:

60 “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?”

Many left him and Christ did not clarify that he was speaking symbolically, where in every other case in the bible, Christ would clarify his teaching if they were confused. Christ himself simply said:

67 “Do you also wish to go away?”

The apostles however knew that they should trust him and remained with him. They had the spirit which gives life. Those that left him were of the flesh and could not understand that of the spirit and truth revealed.

 

[benhur]

He did!

24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” (Acts 1)

Or are you suggesting that where two or three were present, Christ failed in His promise to be in their midst?

Or perhaps Jesus failed in his promise to lead them into all Truth?

Or perhaps He failed in His promise to Peter that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven?

He appointed Paul also. Immediate answers or lack thereof does not mean Jesus is not “in our midst, and leading, guiding”. We sometimes are told “no” and we sometimes “fall” and get back up. Furthermore, Peter can not bind what is not bound in heaven. The church did bind Paul and Matthias as apostles. As to which one really replaces Judas, or is the twelfth foundation the Lord knows.

You seem to be very disturbed by the fact that this method was used. If you do a word study you will find that it was customary for the Israelites to determine the will of God by lot.

At times it was customary as were other methods of discernment.

Are you looking for reasons to discredit the role of Peter in this event?

No. Peter, like all of us, has no problem discrediting himself from time to time. Was this one of those times ? Maybe. The timing , the method and the result, in light of Paul’s accomplished ministry, can be pondered. None of it has to effect his office or keys or binding or infallibility or the Lord’s promises etc. either way.