Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Thanks for getting me sucked (vacuumed) into that thread for the day! ;^)
-Kevin
No. Or Yes. It all depends. The written word certainly seems clear enough in this case. But it does demonstrate that the early Churches were instructed in methods other than the written word, that things were "delivered" unto them orally.
SD
Victor Drazen made you say that.
SD
lol...you should have seen it before angelo started a new thread....
No it doesn't, anything that wasn't written was not worthy of consideration.
Please take the time to read this.
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
V-7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
V-8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
V-9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
V-11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
V-12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
V-16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
V-17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
V-18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
V-19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
V-20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
Now how can you say that we can accept anything someone claims is the will of Christ, when Paul clearly states that, V-20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not, But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
If he didn't put it in writing, then anyone could make any claim they wanted, and no one could prove otherwise.
Can any man who has written since then make this claim that Paul makes other then another of the apostle?
JH
It seems you have put two verses together there. Paul states that he is not a liar, and I believe him.
He also states that you should not believe anything other than "which we have preached." (as distinguished from what was written) To not believe "another gospel."
I would contend that we do neither of these things. We have a greater understanding of the Gospel, we have learned more fully what it all means. But we have not abandoned it for another.
Your results may vary.
SD
If he didn't put it in writing, then anyone could make any claim they wanted, and no one could prove otherwise.
I can't believe you'd call me an unlearned unstable pervert!
Lol, Peter did not fully understand the plan God had for the Gentiles and that is why he called Paul for the job, he knew the Jewish converted apostles had too many customs and traditions to ever be able to fully understand the New Testament for the church.
Can you give me one other good reason why God called Paul when he already had 11 others to choose from?
(^g^) JH
Yes I can, but it has to wait until tonight...my boss just got fired and I need to erase him from the computer systems...oh boy.
But you have no way to prove that some one other then Paul or one of the apostles taught it, you are accepting man on faith, and not God.
I would contend that we do neither of these things. We have a greater understanding of the Gospel, we have learned more fully what it all means. But we have not abandoned it for another.
I understand this, and that's where we dissagree, the written word is all we have to trust our eternal life on other then blind faith founded on mans promises.
JH
Hey, what're friends for? ;o)
Hi Jack (don't say that on an airplane... ;o) You ain't seen nothin'. This thread was created after the "Religion" forum was set up as a separate area. The thread on the main forum that ran prior to this one was up above 32,000 posts, if I recall correctly. Prior to that, there was a series of 156 or so threads, averaging around 190 posts each (this was before they updated the forum software to add the navigation toolbar on the threads, opening up the very long ones we have now). This discussion group has been running since 3/24/01.
Welcome aboard!
And the allegedly devout Pharisee Paul was not burdened by these same customs and traditions?
And how do you distinguish between what he preached and what an accursed man taught?
The writings are all we have, otherwise we are at the mercy of every sincere sounding fraud that wears a cross.
V-20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
The only thing that Paul swears to is the truth, is what he has written, and nothing other then that. Could Paul make that vow to include anyone who claimed to speak by the authority of God?.
JH
Jealous? :)
BigMack
Obviously, you wouldn't believe anything that was contradicted by what is written.
-20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
The only thing that Paul swears to is the truth, is what he has written, and nothing other then that.
That's an awful lot to read into a simple statment made here. All it says to me is that Paul is attesting to the truth of what he wrote. This is not a comment on what he taught orally or by action, nor is it a confession that he and the other apostles run around routinely lying.
Could Paul make that vow to include anyone who claimed to speak by the authority of God?.
You mean like when he tells Titus to speak with all authority that he (Paul) has?
SD
I have no idea why Paul, who said he was taught at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. Acts 22:3, why he could be better qualified to teach the Gentiles then any of the others.
But it's a great question, and I'll have to look into it if Douglas doesn't come up with something interesting. Lol
JH
Are you saying there is no value in learning about the root of many of the words we use today, since they stem from this "dead" language? What a strange attitude to take towards knowledge.
To which you responded:
The only value would be to a Catholic who had an ax to grind, or a personal adgenda, the meanin was perfectly clear, and I would like to hear you tell me it is a confusing scripture, and could have many meanings.
Really? Do you have the same position when it comes to Hebrew and Greek that were used in the Scriptures? The Septuagint was written primarily in koine dislektos, but because that is not the Greek now used, does it make the Septuagint any less valuable? Tell that to the Greek Church.
The fact that we have Latin is a blessing. St. Jerome, who was fluent in Greek and learned Hebrew from rabbis, used manuscripts of the Early Church writings of a much more consistent quality than we do now. Latin may be a dead language, but this means we are much closer with Latin to the meanings of the words of the Early Church. Contrast that to English and you'll understand why things like the King James Dictionary were required to deal with the changes in the English language.
A good example of this is Luke 2:14, which details will be provided tomorrow.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.