Where does Paul fit into the authority debate?

[Catholic_Dude]

cont…

I never claimed that Peter did not eat with the Gentiles. Gal 2 shows that he did eat with them…

I cant remember if you said those words or not, but you did indicate that Peter was preaching “abstaining from foods” wich the passage I cited says otherwise, and you now admit.

Good grief! Do you think I’ve never read and studied Acts 9? Get real dude!

Your track record sofar (especially those last few passages you cited) is not so much as you are uninformed, rather it is you not being open to what the text really says.

Not at all. God was not rewarding Paul in any way. It was by God’s grace that he chose Paul “from his mother’s womb” (Gal 1:15) to have a part in God’s plan of bringing about salvation to the world. God did, however commit to Paul a gospel that had new revelation in it which Paul refers to as “the mystery”. The Body of Christ was a mystery that was not revealed until it was revealed to Paul.

You claim of “new gospel” is unfounded Scripturally, and logically considering that passage.

Well, of course, Paul is not “the sole truth holder”. I’ve never claimed such. All I am claiming is that Paul was the first to receive the revelation of the mystery and he received it directly from Christ. Anyone who learned about it after Paul received it heard it through Paul’s preaching and teaching…

Not only is this unfounded Scripturally, it is contradicting. You start off saying Paul was not the one who knew the newly revised Gospel, but then end by saying he was the first to preach it.

(concerning post78)

Notice that The same Lord talking to Ananias is the same one that Paul talks to

I never claimed otherwise.

You might not have specifically claimed this issue, but your overall “Paul’s Gospel is the current Gospel in town” DOES claim otherwise. As the Scripture I have cited doesnt support your position.

God has yet to reveal to Paul the mystery at this point. God does this after Paul’s meeting with Ananias. God does everything in order.

Again totally unfounded Scripturally, also the Scripture I cited doesnt hint at such thing.

So what? That should be expected at this point. God has not yet revealed to Paul the mystery which He will do once Paul returns to Damascus.

“so what”?? Your avoiding and making up stuff now to work around what I have laid out. At this point all of what I said in post57 you have had no Scriptural defense for, I have clearly shown Paul holding to the Gospel as preached by ALL the Apostles.

First of all, Acts 9:23 tells us that “after many days were past” the Jews at Damascus plotted to kill Paul. Paul escaped and went to Jerusalem. This occured after 3 years in Damascus.

Now, Gal 1 and 2 DOES NOT say that Paul did not talk with anyone after he was converted and went back to Damascus. What Gal 1 and 2 are saying is simply that when it comes to the gospel that Paul preaches he received it directly from Christ and not from any man (including Ananias in Acts 9). Paul never said “he talked with no one” as you claim he did.

Your are avoiding the verse I cited (v19) in light of order of events. All I mean by “he talked with no one” is that he wasnt off learning some newly revealed secret gospel that was different from what the Apostles were preaching. The shorthand Gal passages dispensationalists usually cite can lead to false conclusions on things.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

You just don’t get it! Its like you have a V-Chip in your brain that does not allow you to understand the simplest explanations that I post.

There is no distinction between “the Jesus of the apostles and that of Paul”. The distinction is in the “house rules” (administration) that the Circumcision Believers are under and the “house rules” that those in the Body of Christ are under.

Your the one making up stuff here and avoiding what the text says. (dont forget v31)

he fact is that God BEGAN to take a new route in order to reach the lost world around Acts 9 when he cut off Israel and grafted in the Gentiles creating the Body of Christ. Some claim that that route began at the end of Acts 7 with Christ standing in judgment showing that He was judging Israel and cut them off. All that matters is that it was around the time of Paul’s conversion that God made the decision to “cut the fig tree [Israel down]” since Israel did “not bear fruit” of repentance and belief (Luke 13:9; Rom 11:11,17,19-20).

Again, making up stuff, and no Scrirptural passages. What does “around” mean? I cited a ton of that Chapter and it in no way supports what you have been saying. As far as your “proof texts” at the end here, thats picking here and there building up a theology out of individual hand picked verese that have no bearing on your personal stand of mid Acts. As far as “some claim”, I thought the Bible was supposed to be crystal clear on stuff? Why is there such a patch of haze on this supposedly important issue?

According to Acts 9:30 Paul is in Ceasarea or Tarsus at this time. The story in Acts 10 does not concern Paul. God is sending Peter to Cornelius’ house for the benefit of Peter and the circumcision in Jerusalem who believed. And as a result this would benefit Paul because those in Jerusalem, for the most part, would not be going around telling Gentiles that they had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved. God had already revealed to Paul that He was accepting Gentiles apart from the law. So Paul did not need this vision that Peter received.

So all of the sudden AFTER Paul had come on the scene, a Chapte appears that “doesnt concern” him? Yet it is the keystone of your position?
As far as the underlined stuff, TOTALLY MADE UP, not one passage would indicate or hint such ideas as only “for the benifit of Peter”.

All I can do is pray that your eyes may be opened, Im not asking you to become Catholic here, but joining any protestant church and getting Baptized would be a good thing at this point.

I looked over the rest of what you put but I see more of the same talk, Im done here barring a major change on your part, I invested long hours in posts 57-62 and you have avoided the passages I laid out in favor of unScriptural and unfounded “explanations” to what the Bible teaches.

1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.-2Tim4

 

[TheOpenTheist]

The Augustinian:

Anti-intellectuals can’t debate. The proof in the pudding is in this thread. Frankly, I doubt you have even read Plato, or come up with intellectual arguments against him. Because of your interpretation of the Bible, Plato is false. So are those other heretical Greeks who thought the earth round!

I debate and give evidence for my positions much better than you do, thats for sure.

God is right, Plato is wrong. That is my conclusion having read the Bible and having studied Plato’s writings. Plato also promoted the idear that women who get pregnant after 30 ought to have their babies aborted. He was an evil pagan.

The Bible reveals that God responds to men, that God is conditioned by His creation and that God can receive from us. Plato denies these revealed truths. So its an easy decision. God is right and Plato is wrong.

 

[The_Augustinian]

A man was walking along a bridge when he noticed a jumper. Trying to dissuade him, he said:
“Stop! Don’t you know it’s a sin to kill yourself? Aren’t you religious?”
“Yes…”
“Me too! Are you Jewish or Christian?”
“Christian.”
“Me too! Protestant or Catholic?”
“Protestant.”
“Me too! Reformed or Dispensationalist?”
“Dispensationalist.”
“Me too! Classical Dispensationalism or mid-Acts Dispensationalism?”
“Mid-Acts dispensationalism.”
“Me too! Acts 15 Dispensationalism or Acts 28 Dispensationalism?”
“Acts 28 Dispensationalism.”
“Die heretic scum!” He said, pushing him off.

 

[The_Augustinian]

I was searching through the archives of my favorite theological blog, and found this interesting article on the Council of Jerusalem.

 

[Mickey]

TheOpenTheist:

I debate and give evidence for my positions much better than you do, thats for sure.

**A hypocrite, hunting after the glory that comes from an apparent righteousness, is untroubled so long as he thinks that he escapes notice. But when he is detected, he utters streams of imprecation, imagining that by abusing others he can hide his own deformity. **

St. Maximos the Confessor****

 

[BM5]

Col. 1 ver. 15
Taken from Douay 1899.

He is speaking of Our Lord and he says in ver. 14 and continues thus:
" who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature "

Image = 1. a representation or likeness
2. an idol
3. a copy, embodiment, or symbol etc. etc.

These are all secondary things from the original. In other words he is saying that Our Lord is not God but only an image of Him.

Firstborn ??? LIKE WOW !!!

What happened to begotten of the Father from all Eternity ?

Then it only gets worse:

firstborn of all creatures ? a creature is any living being that has been created !

This is the achilles heel of Saul of Tarsus and shows him for what he is. This is nothing short of duplicity.

 

[FCEGM]

BM5:

Col. 1 ver. 15
Taken from Douay 1899.

He is speaking of Our Lord and he says in ver. 14 and continues thus:
" who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature "

Image = 1. a representation or likeness
2. an idol
3. a copy, embodiment, or symbol etc. etc.

These are all secondary things from the original. In other words he is saying that Our Lord is not God but only an image of Him.

Firstborn ??? LIKE WOW !!!

What happened to begotten of the Father from all Eternity ?

Then it only gets worse:

firstborn of all creatures ? a creature is any living being that has been created !

This is the achilles heel of Saul of Tarsus and shows him for what he is. This is nothing short of duplicity.

Pish-tosh

Of course we should all get our theology from a secular dictionary.

Might I suggest instead that you read such works as Leon Xavier-Dufour’s Dictionary of Biblical Theology? There you would have discovered the depth of St. Paul’s meaning:

This expression is found only in the epistles of Paul, though the idea is present in the gospel according to St. John. Between Christ and the one who sends Him, between the only Son who reveals His Father and the invisible God (Jn. 1:18), the union is such (Jn. 5:19; 7:17; 8:28f; 12:40) that it supposes something more than a simple delegation. The mission of Christ surpasses that of the prophets to become joined with that of the Word and of Divine Wisdom. It supposes that Christ is a reflection of God’s glory (Jn. 17:5, 24). It supposes between Christ and His Father a resemblance which is clearly expressed in this affirmation which contains, if not the word, at least the theme of image: “Whoever has seen me, has seen the Father” (jn. 14:0).

“St. Paul uses the Genesis doctrine about man (1 Co. 11:7), but he also knows how to make use on occasion of some interpretations of the Rabbis and of Philo about the two Adams. He applies these here to Christ Himself (1 Co. 15:49) and later to the new man (Col. 3:10). In the end, however, it is in the light of Wisdom, the perfect image, that he sees in Christ the title of the image of God (2 Co. 3:18-4:4). Without abandoning these different sources of inspiration, Paul is at pains to discern still more accurately the mystery of Christ. In Romans 8:29, Christ is the image because of His sonship. According to Col. 3:10 He presides, insofar as an image, at the creation of the new man. As a result of the convergence of old elements and new, the notion of the image of God as applied by Paul to Christ, especially in Co. 1:15, becomes very rich and complex. There is a resemblance, but a spiritual and perfect resemblance, because of His sonship which is prior to creation. In the strongest sense of the word He is the representation of the invisible Father. He is the cosmic sovereignty of the Lord who sets His imprint on the visible and invisible world. He is the image of God according to immortality, the first-born from among the dead [emphasis mine], the one and only image who assures the unity of all beings and the unity of the divine plan he is the principle of creation and the principle of its restoration by a new creation.

Again, note that St. Paul is speaking of Christ as first-born FROM THE DEAD, and that as such He is Brother to all who will enjoy God’s Presence in their own resurrection from the dead.

 

[BM5]

I don’t know what to do now, I can’t find Pish-tosh anywhere.

You should be carefull when eyerolling because you might damage the eyeball. The proper technique is to go slowly around in a circle at the outer edge, then reverse direction. Do it several times then it is important to close your eyes, block out all light with you hands and rest.

Saul of Tarsus has no depth.

That quote is nothing but spin.

Chrysostom came out and put his spin on this also it was so bad, and he never mentioned firstborn from the dead as having anything to do with this. At least to my knowledge, I’m sure someone will correct me it I’m wrong about what he said.

 

[Mickey]

Saint John Chrysostom preached to the faithful in

 

[Mickey]

Saint John** Chrysostom preached to the faithful in Antioch :**

** “Just as Christ was born from His mother’s inviolate womb, so too He rose from the closed tomb. As He, the only begotten Son of God, was made the firstborn of His mother, so, by His resurrection, He became the firstborn from the dead. His birth did not break the seal of His mother’s virginal integrity; nor did His rising from the dead break the seals on the sepulcher. And so, just as I cannot fully express His birth in words, neither can I wholly encompass His going forth from the tomb.”**

---

 

[BM5]

That is interesting but if conflicts with the commentary in this Douay which states and I quote.

The firstborn. That is, first begotten: as the Evangelist declares, the only begotten of his Father: hence. St. Chrysostom explains firstborn, not first created as he was not created at all, but born of His Father before all ages, that is coeval with the Father and the Holy Ghost.

There is no references to the Resurrection at all in this.

So we have more confusion around Saul of Tarsus and what he says.

I have admitted my distaste for him openly and still stand on it.
But there is no point in continuing the argument so I will beg your leave on this one and apologize to anyone who has been hurt by my comments.