Man Who "Died" 5 Times Is Becoming Catholic (Thousands to Enter Church at Easter)

Just another self-righteous poster who “knows” the mind of The Lord because of his own interpretation of Scripture.

Some people are going to be awfully surprised at who is with them in heaven.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

Some people are going to be awfully surprised at who is with them in heaven.

Or wherever they wind up.

ping

Oxygen is once again returning to my feeble brain (Don't take that too literally and argue I am admitting I am feeble. The jury is still out on that.)

But, to continue...you wrote - "Let me rephrase. I attempted to say that your understanding of the Catholic Faith is demonstrably what the Catholic Faith really is."

This remark puzzles me. Do you mean it is "...demonstrably NOT what ..."? Clarify. And when you say the Catholic Church lays claim to the "...NT only." this too puzzles me. Are you saying that the Church wrote the text? We can empirically demonstrate this is not so. It was written by individual men. If you claim that they were members of the Catholic Church (a term that was not even used until the end of the third century AD), does not appear in the Bible and is foreign to the first century church, even this is such a stretch as to be disingenuous. I might as well say, Calvin appeared to many people in Jerusalem in 55AD...prove he didn't! The Catholic Church did not create the NT and it does not accept the arguments of the writers therein. As you say, "I shall attempt to demonstrate."

Paul did in fact confer with Christ. Not only was he in direct revelation on the road to Damascus, but he went to the desert of Arabia to be taught directly by Christ for three years before conferring with any of the other apostles. Gal. 1.

Now notice, this passage includes his predetermined role as the apostle to the Gentiles ("...set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles...") and that means he is our direct teacher.

If you really wish to give Jesus' words greater weight than others (a step not warranted by Scripture or Jesus) you must deal with this remark in Matt. 15:24 - 26 "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." and "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs". That's you and I, Mark. We are the dog Gentiles. Jesus is the only person in the Scriptures to call us Gentiles "dogs". He was on earth to teach the weight, the enormity, the devastating requirement of the Law to the physically chosen people, Israel. When the predetermined plan of their rejection of this demand reached its fruition, they murdered Him (Acts 2:23, 24)

But to continue, when I said, "Paul step by step explains the demands of the Law (and law of conscience for Gentiles) has been to force men (called of God) to see their failure."

You responded..."Now we seriously part ways. Paul does no such thing. Paul emphasises behaviour of the Christians in his flock." Your rebuttal ignores the flow of his argument in Gal. 3. I quote...

"Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has BECOME OUR TUTOR TO LEAD US TO CHRIST, that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are NO LONGER UNDER A TUTOR."

This is all that I am saying. The remarks of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain were the Law not "Christian Living". His blood had not been shed yet, so Israel was under the tutor. You and I (had we been there) would have been under the law of our conscience (Rom 2). The flow of the story is being ignored by Catholicisim. It is stuck sitting on the hills of outside of ? trying to bend "You have heard it said...every one who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court and...guilty enough to go into the hell of fire." into, "What Jesus REALLY means is just TRY to do your best, try to love men, try to talk nicely and if you don't, well then go to confession and sit in a little room with a man on the other side, tell him you are sorry and then say 5 Pater Nosters. That will make you righteous again."

The Catholic Church is guilty of not taking Jesus' words as seriously as they are really meant. If they wish to abide by the Law as a means of righteousness then they should get serious and tear out that eye when it offends. Not repeatedly offends, but whenever it offends. Do it right! You said you encouraged people to do it if they repeated. Again, that is not what the text says. You folks made that wiggle room up. But, the text says, do it. So, do it or tell us how it fits.

Paul says (Gal. 3), "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is every on who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them'. Now that NO ONE is justified by the Law beofre God is evident for, 'The righteous man shall live by faith.' However, the Law is NOT OF FAITH..." This from a Pharisee that knew the Law inside and out, a Hebrew of Hebrews, teaching us Gentiles.

So, does the Catholic Church abide THIS teaching of Paul? Then why the reversion to the Law as a means of teaching Christian living? Hermeneutics, Mark...

This remark puzzles me. Do you mean it is "...demonstrably NOT what ..."? Clarify. And when you say the Catholic Church lays claim to the "...NT only." this too puzzles me. Are you saying that the Church wrote the text? We can empirically demonstrate this is not so. It was written by individual men.

You are correct. Demonstrably NOT.

The NT was written by individual men who became clergy in the early Church. Their books were copied and copied and copied, with multiple revisions. Possibly hundreds of each over the next 200 years. So the Church took upon itself to first identify which books were to be considered canonical, and then which version of those books were to be considered canonical. That process took nearly 150 years and multiple Church Councils to achieve. And that NT is what we have today.

I might as well say, Calvin appeared to many people in Jerusalem in 55AD...prove he didn't!

I think that he was hanging out in the Garden just prior to the Fall, but they didn't have surveillance cameras in those days.

Paul did in fact confer with Christ. Not only was he in direct revelation on the road to Damascus, but he went to the desert of Arabia to be taught directly by Christ for three years before conferring with any of the other apostles. Gal. 1.

Remember that we have no details of the revelation (strange, no?), and there is nothing in Scripture that says that he was taught by Christ for 3 years in Arabia. Galations 1 just says that he went there for three years and then went to see Cephas and the Apostles.

Now notice, this passage includes his predetermined role as the apostle to the Gentiles ("...set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles...") and that means he is our direct teacher.

Okay. God called Paul to preach to the Gentiles. However, he spent most of his first years among the Jews and it was Peter that converted the first Gentile (nudge, nudge).

If you really wish to give Jesus' words greater weight than others (a step not warranted by Scripture or Jesus) you must deal with this remark in Matt. 15:24 - 26 "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." and "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs".

At the time, Jesus was telling His disciples to go on a practice run, correct? On the face of it, though, are you really saying that the words of God are no more important than the words of the OT Chronicler?

The Catholic Church is guilty of not taking Jesus' words as seriously as they are really meant. If they wish to abide by the Law as a means of righteousness then they should get serious and tear out that eye when it offends. Not repeatedly offends, but whenever it offends. Do it right! You said you encouraged people to do it if they repeated. Again, that is not what the text says. You folks made that wiggle room up. But, the text says, do it. So, do it or tell us how it fits.

We agree with the Jesus and the Apostles where they repeatedly told people to do this - the teachings of Jesus - and to repent if they failed. Repeatedly. This is the perseverence of the saints. Getting up each time you miss the mark or fall short and keep going. The poster 'footsteps'. Jesus is with us if only we will accept Him. We must repent of our sins immediately after we commit them. Or hopefully, not commit them. Repent and believe. Not the Jews versus Gentiles, but all men. We are all children of God; we must all go through the process that the wedding guests went through. We all go through Judgement for our actions. How many times did Jesus tell us this? Not just the Jews and the Law, but everyone.

Paul says (Gal. 3), "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is every on who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them'. Now that NO ONE is justified by the Law beofre God is evident for, 'The righteous man shall live by faith.' However, the Law is NOT OF FAITH..." This from a Pharisee that knew the Law inside and out, a Hebrew of Hebrews, teaching us Gentiles.

The Mosaic Law has been replaced by the commands of Jesus. Remember that this is to the Galatians, who were at the time being heavily recruited by the Jews, after first being brought to Christianity. Paul is telling them that they cannot under Christ simply adhere to the Mosaic Law. It does not work anymore. They must follow the commands of Jesus.

So, does the Catholic Church abide THIS teaching of Paul? Then why the reversion to the Law as a means of teaching Christian living? Hermeneutics, Mark...

Jewish Law versus the Commands of Christ. I must admit that I am floored by the statement that you (as a Christian) do not hold the quotations of Christ more sacred than the statements of ordinary men. I really am. I pray that this is not really the truth of the matter. God the Father, God Incarnate and God the Holy Spirit is whom we worship. One God, One Trinity. I was once sent a link to the short story of the Three Hermits who prayed: Ye are three, and we are three; have mercy on us. This cuts to the point of Christianity. Mercy. Not justice. None of us are just. None of us deserve salvation. May God in His Mercy save our souls.

I am grateful that you are recovering from your trials. Perhaps a rocking chair and a porch might improve things. :)

"Perhaps a rocking chair and a porch might improve things. :)

Were it not for the sideways smile, I would be offended. But, I'm back from a week off and ready to sharpen the swords.

The NT was written by individual men who became clergy in the early Church.

Not so. Dr. Luke did not become anything other than a recorder of history, and a darn good one at that. The latest texts (IIIJohn or Jude?) were complete by 90+AD. So, all writers were simply Apostles and associates of Jesus while the word "catholic" would not even appear for another 150+ years. Your claim to fame on behalf of the Catholic Church is both weak and wrong unless you wish to simply say, "We lay claim to all believers in all churches throughout all the world beginning at the resurrection."

Clearly there were believers meeting in individual and separated congregations recognized in these letters long before the big councils (meeting long after the death of the writers) gave their stamp of approvals. And congregations were referred to in the plural, "churches". Rom. 16:4 Check it out. Thus the monolithic gigantus dreamed up by Rome is not patterned after the very Book to which they lay claim (and then hold this Paul fellow at arm's length).

And don't be shocked at me giving equal recognition to all of Scripture as the Word of God. I simply read the Book and pay very close attention to the Apostle sent to my group, rather than reading other people's mail first. Peter seemed to defer to Paul's intelligence and comprehension of the entire picture, "...and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." IIPet. 3:15ff

It is remarkable that folks associated with your organization do not like the words of Paul, (".... freaky Pauline epistles. St. Paul got a few things right, but he was likely just as loony as his protegee, Calvin."). May we postulate that Paul's words taken in their plain sense set aside much Catholic theology with respect to salvation, predestination, free will, election and "Christian living" and as such they are repugnant? Apparently, the rejection and resistance to Paul was the "untaught and unstable" to which Peter refers. Clearly, Catholics and believers persuaded by much of the reformed persuasion are at odds with Paul's role.

And, while you may think that we lack information of Paul's revelation, ("Remember that we have no details of the revelation.."), Paul himself claims that he was taught this directly from Jesus Christ Himself, not by men. (Gal. 1:12, "For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.") and that record is what fills his letters. It may have been all done during the weekend in Damascus or the three years in Arabia, but it explains how the entire Bible fits together, the true "decoder ring". You seem to resist the things he teaches when he ties the whole Book together. Certainly other Catholics around here do and that is evidence of the general perspective of Catholicism.

Whether Paul spent a few years with Jews first is immaterial. The Acts of the Apostles clearly explains he turned away from them and went to the Gentiles. And when he did, "...as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48) This is a straightforward statement of predestination that "freaky" Calvin identified and the Catholic Church denies. Instead, it substitutes a claim that Jesus' words teach Christian living, when there was no such thing at the time. His words are clearly and directly teaching the Jews the Law. Even the so-called "golden rule" says, "This is the Law and the Prophets" Matt. 7:12.

"On the face of it, though, are you really saying that the words of God are no more important than the words of the OT Chronicler?"

Absolutely! Just as you are saying that the direct words of the Father have been set aside by the words of the Son when you say the Mosaic Law is eclipsed by Jesus' commands. Recall, the "ten" commandments were direct verbal statements from God the Father. How can your hermeneutic prioritize the Son over the Father? Following the decoding of Paul, we see a story unfolding. Your organization, OTOH, simply picks and chooses.

Were it not for the sideways smile, I would be offended.

I would take it easy on the aged and infirm. :) But, I'm back from a week off and ready to sharpen the swords.

Good for you.

Dr. Luke did not become anything other than a recorder of history, and a darn good one at that.

Really? What about the icon of Mary, the first icon that we know of that is now in the possession of the Patriarch of Constantinople? What about his accompanying Paul on his second missionary journey? He was an evangelist, as he described himself in Acts, along with Paul.

Thus the monolithic gigantus dreamed up by Rome is not patterned after the very Book to which they lay claim (and then hold this Paul fellow at arm's length).

As more and more people became Christians, the size of the Church also increased. We hold Paul as dear as we hold Peter, and not at arm's length.

And don't be shocked at me giving equal recognition to all of Scripture as the Word of God.

The Word of God is Jesus; the word of God is the Bible. All of Scripture is not Jesus. The Chronicler, for instance.

I simply read the Book and pay very close attention to the Apostle sent to my group, rather than reading other people's mail first.

You pay more attention to your bishop than to God Himself? Interesting.

Peter seemed to defer to Paul's intelligence and comprehension of the entire picture, "...and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." IIPet. 3:15ff

Yes, Paul presented himself to the Apostles and they eventually accepted his bona fides.

It is remarkable that folks associated with your organization do not like the words of Paul, (".... freaky Pauline epistles. St. Paul got a few things right, but he was likely just as loony as his protegee, Calvin.").

Please do not pin these words either on me or on the Church.

May we postulate that Paul's words taken in their plain sense set aside much Catholic theology with respect to salvation, predestination, free will, election and "Christian living" and as such they are repugnant?

No. Pauline teachings are completely throughout the Catechism, including all of these topics. Feel free to browse; the Catechism is open to all.

And, while you may think that we lack information of Paul's revelation, ("Remember that we have no details of the revelation.."), Paul himself claims that he was taught this directly from Jesus Christ Himself, not by men. (Gal. 1:12, "For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.") and that record is what fills his letters.

What I meant was that we have no details of what went on - the description was of a blinding light and a voice. In Acts, the description runs thus:

Acts 9: 3 On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" 5 He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do." 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing; 3 so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus.

It may have been all done during the weekend in Damascus or the three years in Arabia, but it explains how the entire Bible fits together, the true "decoder ring".

There is no claim of anything in Arabia; Paul is not the true decoder ring; among other things, he does not teach the Trinity (he is not antiTrinitarian, but you cannot construct the Triune doctrine out of his letters). The thing to remember is that Paul is a bishop instructing his often rebellious flock, not God Himself.

You seem to resist the things he teaches when he ties the whole Book together. Certainly other Catholics around here do and that is evidence of the general perspective of Catholicism.

We believe that Jesus is the Rock and the basis. The NT is read through the words of Jesus and the OT through the New.

Whether Paul spent a few years with Jews first is immaterial. The Acts of the Apostles clearly explains he turned away from them and went to the Gentiles.

Not entirely. Read through his missionary journeys.

And when he did, "...as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48) This is a straightforward statement of predestination that "freaky" Calvin identified and the Catholic Church denies.

Acts 13: 43 After the congregation had dispersed, many Jews and worshipers who were converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to remain faithful to the grace of God. 44 On the following sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. 45 When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and with violent abuse contradicted what Paul said. 46 Both Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first, but since you reject it and condemn yourselves as unworthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. 12 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, 'I have made you a light to the Gentiles, that you may be an instrument of salvation to the ends of the earth.'" 48 The Gentiles were delighted when they heard this and glorified the word of the Lord. All who were destined for eternal life came to believe, 49 and the word of the Lord continued to spread through the whole region.

Paul was speaking to the Gentile converts to Judaism here. And the phrase "destined for eternal life" rings a bell - I think that read something about that, but couldn't find it. I shall ask my friend Kosta for his input on this.

Just as you are saying that the direct words of the Father have been set aside by the words of the Son when you say the Mosaic Law is eclipsed by Jesus' commands.

Umm, that is the meaning of New Testament and the New Covenant.

Recall, the "ten" commandments were direct verbal statements from God the Father. How can your hermeneutic prioritize the Son over the Father?

I don't think that Jesus gainsaid the 10 Commandments.

Your organization, OTOH, simply picks and chooses.

Certainly, the Scripture was chosen. The versions were chosen and the interpretations were chosen. The early Church did not put much theological weight into Trinitarian doctrine, and it was not until Nicea that it was defined. Not to say that the belief is wrong (and there are many groups that say that it is), but the Church took some time to define it.

Paul was speaking to the Gentile converts to Judaism here. And the phrase "destined for eternal life" rings a bell - I think that read something about that, but couldn't find it. I shall ask my friend Kosta for his input on this.

I am not sure what your question is, Mark. Acts 13 contains several statements:

(1) the mission to the Gentiles was the result of Israel's refusal of Christianity, (Act 13:46) an afterthought *. The Church in Israel was dying and had to find a home elsewhere.

* notwithstanding Mat 28:19, apparently a latter-day addition

(2) Some are "put in place," or "cued in" (Gr. tasso) for eternal life but through their own will they condemn themselves to lose their place in it. (Act 13:46)

(3) Those who believe are destined (not predestined) to eternal life. (Act 13:48)

Dutch:Recall, the "ten" commandments were direct verbal statements from God the Father

Actually, all 213 mitzvot (commnanbdments) in the OT are God's direct words. Why cherry pick only 10?

Dutch: Just as you are saying that the direct words of the Father have been set aside by the words of the Son when you say the Mosaic Law is eclipsed by Jesus' commands.

Mark Umm, that is the meaning of New Testament and the New Covenant.

That is not true Mark. The New Covenant was mentioned in the OT as something God intended for the House of Judah and the House of Israel only (the southern and northern kingdoms). Christians then borrowed this through the book of Hebrews and made it look as if it was intended for them.

Thank you sir.

(1) the mission to the Gentiles was the result of Israel's refusal of Christianity, (Act 13:46) an afterthought *. The Church in Israel was dying and had to find a home elsewhere.

It would have died out within another generation. (2) Some are "put in place," or "cued in" (Gr. tasso) for eternal life but through their own will they condemn themselves to lose their place in it. (Act 13:46)

This is novel for some of our friends - the ability to lose their salvation.

(3) Those who believe are destined (not predestined) to eternal life. (Act 13:48)

Thank you; this completes the question's answer. Do you have any questions, Dutch?

You are most welcome,Mark.

It would have died out within another generation

It did — prior to that. The Church in Jerusalem was closed by 62 AD, +James was reportedly stoned to death, Christians were thrown out of the synagogues, and the Pharisaical rabbis resoundly rejected all Christian books and teachings by 99 AD (Jamnia).

A special prayer was included in the morning blessings, one called Birkat Ha Minim, a prayer beseeching God to destroy the apostates.

That is not true Mark. The New Covenant was mentioned in the OT as something God intended for the House of Judah and the House of Israel only (the southern and northern kingdoms). Christians then borrowed this through the book of Hebrews and made it look as if it was intended for them.

Much of Christian beliefs are borrowed from the OT and adapted to the New. We have some references to the New Covenant in the NT:

Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 9:15, and Hebrews 12:24. Now admittedly, the Lucan reference is simply regarding the Blood of Christ.

Actually, all 213 mitzvot (commnanbdments) in the OT are God's direct words. Why cherry pick only 10?

Without attempting rancour, it is because of the predilections of the creators of the Reformation sects. We may find out that they simply didn't know.

Thank you; this completes the question's answer

However, suggestions to the contrary (i.e. [pre]desitnation determined solely by God); almost all are Pauline in character, or attributed to Paul: Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:11-22, 2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 1:4-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.

There is also Jude 4.

Much of Christian beliefs are borrowed from the OT and adapted to the New. We have some references to the New Covenant in the NT: Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 9:15, and Hebrews 12:24. Now admittedly, the Lucan reference is simply regarding the Blood of Christ.

While it was still a Jewish sect, the New Covenant applied to the Christians as well. The problem arose when the Church was no longer Jewish. Much of that 'transition' is 'harmonized' in the book of Acts.