Where to begin?

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, I admit I need an interpreter, but I do not (or should not) rely on any traditions of men. God be praised forevermore, Paul says I have one in the Holy Spirit: “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:13-16) So to the extent that I rely on the Holy Spirit and to which the Holy Spirit enlightens me, I can be made to understand God’s Word.

Wow. That sounds great! So, you never make errors when interpreting scripture! Amazing!

Still…I do wonder about all those other Christians who are not members of your particular faith community who also read that passage, trust that they have the Holy Spirit helping them to understand God’s Word and come to completely different interpretations. Well, it’s probably best not to look at this too closely…

I can say from previous experience that incorrect understandings I once had about Scripture were changed by the Holy Spirit. There are many things I still do not understand and I am certain there are many things about which I am still wrong and therefore must walk humbly before my God. Nevertheless, as I look to God he prods me with His Holy Spirit and leads me into maturity in my understanding. I will never understand everything this side of Heaven, but I trust the Holy Spirit is enabling me with those things I do need to know when I need to know them.

Ah, well…that makes more sense. You and all the other non-Catholics are simply not yet mature enough to have arrived at the same conclusions about certain doctrines and practices. But after 500 years of prayer, study and reflection, you’re coming to some consensus, right? The number of Protestant denominations is decreasing as you arrive at common understandings, aren’t you? Maturity is producing unity, isn’t it?

:nope:

Luther, to his credit, acknowledged that by making the Scriptures available to the masses it would open the floodgates and heretics would abound. Still he deemed it worth the while if it meant the common believer would have access to God’s Word. Yes, there are a plethora of Protestant denominations, and that is unfortunate. Given what we know about the Adversary it should not surprise us if there are many counterfeits. There are many who distort the Word God because they are arrogant and do not rely on the Holy Spirit. I, as a Protestant, should look to God and His leading lest I fall into the same errors. I am not infallible, but God and His Spirit are. If I have faith in God and I am among His children, I can be “sure of this, that he who began a good work in [me] will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (Phillipians 1:6). Not having a visible and audible interpreter may seem a bit frightening to a Catholic, but I would exhort: “Taste and see that the Lord is good!” Place your faith directly in God!

Do you hear yourself, Solus?

If you acknowledge that divisions within Protestantism are the result of Satan’s work, how much more should you consider the possibility that Protestantism itself is a work of the Devil? It’s the same principle but on a grander scale.

My goodness, this is one of the most amazing admissions I think I have ever read in this forum.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This certainly is not true universally. The scandal of it all is that there are a number of politicians who openly support abortion. While there are some bishops who should be commended in denying these individuals the eucharist, most are not excommunicated. Moreover, there are plenty who continue to receive the eucharist. There seems to be a remarkable lack of uniformity concerning the response to this challenge within the RCC.

I would love for the Bishops to act more forcefully and quickly, but be honest…how much uniformity is there on this issue outside the Catholic Church?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Paul seems to be very clear about how he came to his understanding of Christ’s person and work. See the first nine verses of chapter 2 of Galatians. He does not mention tradition, but we see instead something miraculous that could only have been brought about by God’s providence.

Paul went to Jerusalem twice to confer with Peter. What do you suppose he learned during those meetings?

 

[Catmando]

Where to begin?, eh?

Well, I was just in a religious argument less than an hour ago. He posed conversationally a belief he had (faith alone) and I asked him why he believed it. He said it was in the Bible. I figured he’d have an easier time cherrypicking verses for it than I would against it, so I didn’t take that approach and tried to give examples supporting the Catholic perspective. Unfortunately, no matter how plainly and clearly I put it, he kept saying I was saying we “earn” salvation and that that was silly even after I agreed with him that that was silly as a basis for introducing the Catholic doctrine on the matter.

…Yeah, it didn’t go well. Too stubborn.

 

[onenow1]

Luther, to his credit, acknowledged that by making the Scriptures available to the masses it would open the floodgates and heretics would abound.

Hi, Solus,

After reading the above, I thought you might be interested in.

This:Satans’ Master Plan…

THE MASTER PLAN OF THE DEVIL. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN ERRORS…

For approximately seventeen centuries men acknowledged that authority comes only from God, and temporal rulers sought the approval and the blessing of their bishops who, by divine right, ruled in their dioceses as successors of the Apostles. Then came the Philosophists. As always, the Power of Darkness used pride to achieve his aims, the pride of human reason. As always he called the Light, Darkness and the Darkness, Light (Isaiah 5:20). That is why the Medieval times are now referred to as the “Dark Ages”; (in fact, the Dark Ages were pre-Medieval), and why Philosophism is referred to as “Enlightenment”.

As always, the Devil acted with subtlety: he did not bring in Communism immediately, he brought in Modern Democracy first, knowing that the one would lead to the other. The lures inherent in the first would more easily lead to the destruction of man by the second. The Devil acted with cunning. So shrewd is he that even Christians were deceived. To make a thorough job of it he instilled into modern minds the myth of historical inevitability. “We must march with the times” we are told, as if the times were not what we are making them!

A SUBTLE AND GRADUAL PROCESS…

The present state of the world is not due to chance, it is the outcome of the everlasting struggle between good and evil. The Devil knows that his fight against God has to be gradual if it is to have any chance of success. Therefore, he began his fight in the 16th century by dividing Christianity.
When the first battle had been won, the Devil moved from the religious field into the philosophical field, and conceived Rationalism, which put human reason before Revelation.
Christians being already divided, there was no single front to defend the primacy of Divine Revelation. The interpretation of Divine Revelation being divided against itself, it could not resist the claim of the so-called primacy of human reason. Human reason appeared more reliable, and so the new philosophy installed itself. It naturally followed that man began to think about an earthly paradise.
Hence Rationalism begot Human Messianism (i.e. Humanism). It was then logical that man should not want to be impeded by standards of moral conduct. He had to be free from all restraints, and his reason alone was going to tell him how to act and behave.
Thus came into being the doctrine of Liberalism. Almost immediately, this doctrine extended to every field of human activity, especially economics, politics and science. From being philosophical, it became practical a way of life, the philosophical origin of which, most people do not suspect nowadays.

AN UNHOLY TRINITY…

After this, Human Messianism combined with Liberalism to set up CAPITALISM, an economic system based on greed and usury, which paves the way for Communism. Rationalism and Liberalism combined to give birth to the principle of POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, being free and reasonable, every human being was to make all decisions.
Rationalism, and Human Messianism, combined to give birth to SCIENTISM (or the cult of Technology, the worship of the work of man, i.e. TECHNOLATRY) whereby we expect salvation from better and higher production, an error which was observed by Pius XII in his 1952 Christmas message. We speak of “Progress” in terms of industrialisation, completely unaware of “the undeniable advantages of an economy based chiefly on agriculture”. (Pius XII)

DIABOLICALLY LOGICAL…

Thus, the unholy trinity, that is, Rationalism, Human Messianism, and Liberalism, laid the ground-work for all the evils which are destroying modern society. Observe how gradual the process has been:
a) Difference in religious views (affecting the soul).
b) Alteration in philosophical thinking (affecting the intellect).
c) Organisation and purpose of the physical world (affecting the will).

Observe how logical the development:
a) REFORMATION (dividing Christianity to weaken Divine Revelation).
b) RATIONALISM (doubting that man can rely on Divine Revelation).
c) HUMAN MESSIANISM (asserting that man can rely on himself).
d) LIBERALISM (trusting man wholly).
e) CAPITALISM (Human Messianism plus Liberalism).
f) DEMOCRACY (Rationalism plus Liberalism).
g) TECHNOCRACY (and Technolatry) - (Nationalism plus Human Messianism).

These developments are too gradual and logical to leave any doubt that there is an Intelligence behind it. This Intelligence is that of the Power of Darkness.
A number of Saints have said that, in the Latter Days, evil will be done by men of good will. There is no doubt that many Catholics believe in good faith that we are living in an age of progress, and that Modern Democracy IS Progress. The superficial advantages which it presents hide from many its intrinsic nature, the errors on which it is based, and the evils which accompany it.

The deception of the Devil has worked.

Author Unknown…

If anyone knows who wrote this article, I would be pleased to give that person credit for it

thecatholictreasurechest.com/satan.htm

Nice discussion !

God Bless

 

[Solus_Christus]

Protestantism demonstrates that having a book is not enough to ensure unity of belief. Baptists formally teach one thing; Methodists another. Only the Catholic Church has the infallible Magisterium to untangle the contradictory interpretations that people come up with in their personal reading of the Word.

I get the sinking feeling we are going around in circles. In order to move this conversation forward, let’s stop speaking in the abstract. Why don’t you go ahead and name some of the areas (let’s start with five specific areas) where, say, the Baptist church and the Methodist church, put forth contradictory teachings. Provide me with this list and let’s examine it together.

Does the Salvation Army believe in baptism?

I don’t know what the Salvation Army believes. If they don’t believe in baptism then they obviously have not read the New Testament.

Right. For some, it is an “essential”; for others, it is not. Consequently, Protestants cannot even agree on the essentials.

I would argue that it does not even matter whether Protestants can agree on what is essential provided the Bible is clear on the essentials (that is, essential according to a perfect standard, namely God). The RCC says there are many essentials about which the Bible is not clear. I tend to believe, however, that if God condescended to give us His Word He would have gone that extra step and made it intelligable. Otherwise, why bother to communicate in words at all? Words have meaning and convey thoughts. If, according to the RCC, God was unable to communicate His thoughts through words clearly, what makes them think they can succeed where God failed? Yes there are some who misconstrue what God has said in His Word. Does that make God an incompetent communicator? I don’t think so. Paul seemed to believe that Scripture is sufficient in and of itself. He said: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16,17) The word “perfect” in verse 17 connotes completeness and means lacking in nothing.

Not if someone dies before receiving the sacrament.

So…if someone dies before receiving baptism suddenly it becomes important whether they understand the details correctly? Please explain.

Jesus left a church led by the Spirit. He did not leave a book that we have to figure out.

Correct. We don’t have to figure it out all by ourselves because we have a “helper”: The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was not imparted to a select few only, but to all believers. This does not make any of the believers infallible.

Thanks for your personal opinion about what the “essentials” are. Others disagree. So much for Christian unity and for Protestant claims to part of the ONE flock under the ONE shepherd.

Sorry, but if someone disagrees about matters such as murder and adultry, then I have no interest in maintaining unity with them even if they claim to be a Christian. By directly refuting something so clearly communicated in Scripture they are revealing themselves to be tares among the wheat. Likewise, if they deny the divinity and humanity of Christ, then they are also rejecting a clear teaching in Scripture and therefore should not rightly be called a Christian. At any rate, please tell me which Protestant denomination believes that marital infidelity, murder, and incest are acceptable?

You all follow whatever shepherd preaches what you personally like to hear.

Actually, I would advise against that. In 2 Timothy 4, Paul says that such people will “turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” as they pursue their own lusts.

 

[jmcrae]

As someone else has pointed out, the first formal canon of Jewish Scripture was formed at Jamnia in 90 AD, specifically to exclude everything that explicitly supported Jesus as the Messiah. In modern times, any given synagogue could be using anywhere from five to 107 different books in their canon of Scripture, because even the Council of Jamnia is not binding on all Jews - they don’t have a Pope, or a Magisterium, after all.

Someone has just pointed out to me that Jamnia was not a Council, but rather, a rabbinical school, and even as such, only had authority over itself. So, even the “Jewish Canon” never actually existed, so when the Protestants came up with the shorter canon (supposedly basing it on Jewish scholarship) they really were building their house on the wind - it never really existed, to begin with - they just made it up, themselves.

That’s actually pretty convenient - to say, we can only believe what is in the Bible, and then take everything out of the Bible that you don’t want to believe.

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry, but if someone disagrees about matters such as murder and adultry, then I have no interest in maintaining unity with them even if they claim to be a Christian. By directly refuting something so clearly communicated in Scripture they are revealing themselves to be tares among the wheat. Likewise, if they deny the divinity and humanity of Christ, then they are also rejecting a clear teaching in Scripture and therefore should not rightly be called a Christian.

You hold to a double standard, then, because you say that Catholics have to remain in unity with people who disagree with the things that we consider essential, or else we aren’t “loving” or “Christ-like” - even though we know for a fact that Jesus never wanted people to believe in those things.

At any rate, please tell me which Protestant denomination believes that marital infidelity, murder, and incest are acceptable?

The United Church of Canada accepts divorced/remarried persons without any investigation into the circumstances of the situation - people can be married to several people all at the same time, since we know that God does not recognize legal divorce - thus, adultery and marital infidelity.

There are some forms of Mormonism in which fathers “marry” their daughters - incest.

And of course every Christian who thinks abortion is okay under any circumstances at all, is okay with murder under certain circumstances, since the unborn child is a human person in the eyes of God.

I don’t think any of us should be blamed for separating ourselves from them, and reaching for a higher standard - even though they consider themselves Christians, and accuse us of disunity when we don’t include them in our Holy Communion.

 

[Lampo]

1. The incorrect interpretation involves a matter that is not essential,…

Who determines what is essential and non-essential? Scripture doesn’t differentiate.

 

[Lampo]

Yes there are some who misconstrue what God has said in His Word.

Misconstrue according to whom? I construe the doctrine of Purgatory from Scripture. Am I misconstruing Scripture? If you and I disagree on this, where do we take our dispute? Surely the Holy Spirit doesn’t tell you one thing and me the exact opposite.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Randy, jcmrae, Tomster, et. al.: Have a blessed Easter!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why don’t you go ahead and name some of the areas (let’s start with five specific areas) where, say, the Baptist church and the Methodist church, put forth contradictory teachings. Provide me with this list and let’s examine it together.

How will this actually help? Are you denying that differences exist?

And specifically, to what faith community do you belong?

I don’t really want to spend to much time on the obvious, so to save time, I’ll quote the following:

1. Methodists baptize infants while Baptists only baptizes adults and the youth capable of understanding faith.
2. Methodists perform baptism with immersion, sprinkling, and pouring while Baptists do their baptisms only with immersion.
3. Methodists practice open communion in which the rite is open to all while Baptists carry out closed communions.
4. Methodists have a system of Episcopal Hierarchy of governance while Baptists have congregational independence.
5. Methodists give the bishops the authority to assign pastors to congregations while with Baptists, the congregation choose its own pastor.
6. Methodists believe that it is the person’s choosing to be saved while Baptists maintain that once a person saved, the person is always saved and cannot fall from grace.
7. Methodists are generally less fundamental while Baptists are primarily fundamentalists.

differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-methodist-and-baptist/

I would argue that it does not even matter whether Protestants can agree on what is essential provided the Bible is clear on the essentials (that is, essential according to a perfect standard, namely God).

Okay. So, then you choose which denomination you belong to based upon your own interpretation of what is essential and what is not, correct?

The RCC says there are many essentials about which the Bible is not clear. I tend to believe, however, that if God condescended to give us His Word He would have gone that extra step and made it intelligable. Otherwise, why bother to communicate in words at all? Words have meaning and convey thoughts. If, according to the RCC, God was unable to communicate His thoughts through words clearly, what makes them think they can succeed where God failed?

Because you can actually dialogue with living members of the Church’s magisterium and ecumenical councils may be convened to discuss matters of confusion. Additionally, the Tradition of the Church provides a mode of transmission of the Gospel that renews itself in every generation.

Yes there are some who misconstrue what God has said in His Word. Does that make God an incompetent communicator? I don’t think so. Paul seemed to believe that Scripture is sufficient in and of itself. He said: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16,17) The word “perfect” in verse 17 connotes completeness and means lacking in nothing.

The Bible is certainly materially sufficient; it is not formally sufficient. The writers of the New Testament did not practice sola scriptura and they did not envision that anyone would. The Bible was intended to be used within the context of the Church which can interpret the Word of God - not as a stand-alone guide for the individual Christian.

So…if someone dies before receiving baptism suddenly it becomes important whether they understand the details correctly? Please explain.

Since baptism regenerates the soul and removes the stain of original sin, I think it is vitally important that the Church teach people to get themselves and their newborn to the font of Life as quickly as possible.

Correct. We don’t have to figure it out all by ourselves because we have a “helper”: The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was not imparted to a select few only, but to all believers. This does not make any of the believers infallible.

I can assure you that you are not infallible. However, the Holy Spirit was promised especially to a select group of men who were infallible - the Apostles.

Sorry, but if someone disagrees about matters such as murder and adultry, then I have no interest in maintaining unity with them even if they claim to be a Christian. By directly refuting something so clearly communicated in Scripture they are revealing themselves to be tares among the wheat. Likewise, if they deny the divinity and humanity of Christ, then they are also rejecting a clear teaching in Scripture and therefore should not rightly be called a Christian. At any rate, please tell me which Protestant denomination believes that marital infidelity, murder, and incest are acceptable?

Did I suggest that any do? :nope:

Actually, I would advise against that. In 2 Timothy 4, Paul says that such people will “turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” as they pursue their own lusts.

Which is precisely why I offered the warning as I did.

[2 Timothy 4:3](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=2 Timothy+4:3&version=NIV)
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

While this has always been true, never have we seen such a fulfillment of this prophecy than the period of history since the 16th century.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, jcmrae, Tomster, et. al.: Have a blessed Easter!

And you.

 

[James224]

When you are dialoguing with a non-Catholic Christian and you want to argue for the truth of Catholicism (as opposed to Mere Christianity), what verse(s) do you like to begin with, and how do you build your argument?

If you have a choice, I would start with Authority. Many times they will start there too. They will say “you agree that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, right?” Of course, you say no. You could start by quoting 2 Thess 2:14 which says, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by **word **or by our epistle.” Oral or written. There are so many verses and arguments that I won’t mention them now. You can also argue by reason and point out that the books of the NT weren’t completed until 90ad and the Gospel was spread over the known world by that time-over 60 years after Christ’s death! So they can’t use 2 Tim 3:16-17. There are at least 5 arguments against using these verses to prove sola scriptura. Also, I always ask them to name one christian leader between 100ad and 1,000ad that they agree with. Usually they don’t but if they do you can always look this person up and show that they won’t hold the same faith. If they don’t I would tell them that it is strange that they can’t find anyone and that Christ wouldn’t leave us without a church all those years. That’s a start.

 

[Solus_Christus]

I disagree. Surprised?

Read the passage again. Peter spoke, then Paul and Barnabas, then James.

There is no record of the Judaizers confronting James saying, “Well, what about it, James? Do we have to listen to Peter or not?”

Is there? C’mon…be honest. No, there is not. So, enough with YOUR baseless speculation, okay?

James added his voice to the discussion to assure his local flock that he supported Peter’s decision, but it was not necessary. It was, however, very practical in terms of human nature.

My speculation? That is what I understood from jmcrae’s argument, so I cannot claim it as mine. At worst it was a misunderstanding of jmcrae’s argument. Either way, the tenor of that entire passage denies that Peter possessed this charism of infallibility. You really have to want Peter to have the charism before you can imagine any evidence of it in this passage.

Let us agree to disagree on this one since we are not making any headway. I think it is obvious from the passage that neither Peter nor anyone else at the council was aware of any such charism, but you will see what you want to see I suppose.

 

[Solus_Christus]

I’m not even sure I understand your point, to be candid. Perhaps you’ll elaborate.

Question: Why did Jesus call the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” and say that by their traditions they had nullified the Word of God?

 

[Solus_Christus]

You seem to be suggesting that everyone had equal understanding of Peter’s role as head of the Church and his infallibility. James got it…he was with Jesus when Peter was given the keys, but the others who had been Pharisees/Sadducees during Christ’s lifetime…well, who knows how clearly they understood what Jesus had conferred upon Peter. And even if they got it, do you not think they would have a hard time accepting a teaching that went against an ancient law (circumcision)? In our own lifetimes, just look how difficult it has been for people to accept the Church’s prohibition against artificial birth control.

If the Judaizers did not have a well-formed understanding of Peter’s charism, then rather than James’ reassuring words to the Judaizers, a more appropriate response would have been to catechize the Judaizers. I expect the passage in Acts would have gone something to the effect of: And so James related to the Judaizers how Christ had given charge of the keys to Peter. The RCC’s (re)interpretation of the passage shows that James was an inept bishop since he missed a key opportunity to instruct the Judaizers in the fundamentals of the faith.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Are we excommunicating people over these issues these days? I haven’t read about anything like this in my church bulletin.

No, we let both abortionists and sola fide-ists sup at our table.

I hope God does not judge us too harshly for our weaknesses.

At most parishes, only those who subscribe to transubstantiation are invited to partake of the eucharist. It appears your parish is more syncretistic. Either way, an anathema (actually many anathemas) were pronounced against Protestants at the Council of Trent, and formally excommunicated by the Pope. Has that excommunication been recinded? I haven’t read about anything like that in USA Today.

 

[Solus_Christus]

And as jmcrae pointed out, there were others. Gee, you seem to want to fix the canon even earlier than most Catholics.

However, don’t forget that Paul had to warn about letters that were supposedly from him. Obviously, there was a period of uncertainty in the Church.

As each new epistle appeared, it had to be tried and tested. Paul said to only accept letters written in his handwriting as a means of authentication. So, yes, forgeries would appear and may have been accepted as coming from Paul for a short time, but they were not esteemed for long as the churches could confirm authorship of the epistles with those purported to have written the letters.

Grace and peace you, Solus Scriptus.

Having begun with those words, you now can be sure that everything written thereafter is inspired.

Right?

You are confusing how we know whether something is inspired with whether Paul knew his writings were inspired.

And recall that Paul specifically states in one of his letters “Now, about the matter you wrote, I have no instruction from the Lord…” yet, his letter is called inspired. In another place he says, “I, not the Lord” so we know with certainty that he did not think he was writing scripture - even though he was.

I addressed this already (post #196)

 

[Solus_Christus]

Not at all. Paul spent a lot of time in prayer and in studying the scriptures. I’m sure he felt that God had revealed many things to him over the years. However, I’m not sure he was EVER conscious of writing (well, dictating technically) the inspired Word of God. So, when he says, “I, not the Lord” he thought he was only giving personal opinion because he was completely unaware of the action of the Holy Spirit at that precise moment.

To the contrary:

1 Corinthians 14:37-38 - “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.
If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.”

1 Thessalonians 2:13 - “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

1 Thessalonians 4:15 - “For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.”

In the end, however, whether Paul understood this is neither here nor there. The Holy Spirit, which prompted Paul, certainly knew how these epistles would be used, and therefore ensured that they would be of benefit to the entire Church for all ages to come.

In that case, Paul should have written a more complete catechism or work of theology so that nothing could be misinterpreted or lost. But he didn’t, did he?

Instead, he had left his “gospel” in the hands of reliable men, like Timothy and Titus, with the instructions that they should do the same.

Paul advocated apostolic succession, you see.

Rather, the entirety of the gospel message is found in Scripture, and this is the same thing which Paul preached and which he deemed to be of utmost importance:

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Corinthians 15:1-8)