Posted on 03/28/2013 5:58:16 AM PDT by markomalley
Regards, sm
Perhaps you should read more carefully.
Matthew 24:14 states that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world."
The command known as the Great Commission is given in Matthew 28:19 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations."
Now, if Paul were teaching only the Gentiles - as per your personal interpretation of Galatians 2 - why did he preach in the synagogues?
If Cephas were teaching only the Jews, why did he preach to the Gentile Cornelius?
Was each individual apostle sent to preach to each and every nation - or were the apostles allowed to divide up the task among themselves?
Further, why is the letter of Peter addressed to the strangers of, among other places, Galatia and Cappadocia?
If there were no apostolic hierarchy, why did Paul need the fellowship of James, Peter and John?
And why choose Matthias, if there were no succession?
Your interpretation has many holes that one could drive a fleet of Mack trucks through.
And why 12, THEN Paul?
Very good and thank you. I’ve been posting less and less over time, that is true.
Hope everything is well with you and perhaps I’ll post a little more, perhaps not. Let’s see how things develop.
Interesting thing is that I’ve worked with several Indians who also have told me about St. Thomas colonizing India, and Christianity is either the second or third largest religion there. Largely Catholic.
Peter's meeting with Cornelius is a fascinating proof of the Kingdom message, and the 12 knowing they must go to Israel first, before they went to the entire world. Read it carefully and you will see that Peter was reluctant to go there at first, and had to explain his actions to the other apostles. What is THAT about, if they all understood they were to take the gospel to all the nations?
Only if there are serpents in heaven.
It's a Jewish thing. I'm not sure you could understand...
Look up the definition of seraphim. Numbers 21:6,8, Deuteronomy 8:15, and Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6. Strong’s is instructive, I believe.
Therefore, serpents are exempt?
Also, do you keep paintings, photos, sculptures, or other images?
What do you consider to be God's word? The selection of Scripture by the Catholic Church? The selection of Scripture by Martin Luther? The dictation of God to Moses?
And God's word says plainly that until Israel is temporarily blinded and set aside in Acts 28, Peter and the 11 agreed with Paul to confine their ministry to Israel. (Galatians, Chapter 2). Where they MAY have gone after Acts 28 does not concern us here, for by that time the kingdom program was fully set aside.
Are they not set aside now? And why does the destination of any particular Apostle not concern us? The argument here is that they never ministered to the Gentiles, most vehemently. Secular and post New Testament reports give some pretty good documentation of their destination. Andrew went up as far as Russia and began their conversion. Peter was the first human to raise somebody from the dead and also the first human to convert somebody to Christianity. And he was not Jewish.
So what does this mean? It means that the history of the world and of Christianity is not entirely contained in the 73 books of the Bible.
Then someone needs to let Jesus know, since Peter, along with the 11 will be sitting upon twelve thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, when Christ returns. (Mat. 19:28, Luke 22:29,30). Not only that, the great Pentecost message Peter preached to all Jews gathered there, what would that have been about? Not only did Peter stand up on that great day and declare that the last days had come (Acts 2:16,17), he actually offered the Kingdom to Israel, if they repented, were baptized, and accepted Christ as Messiah. A non-Jew doing this??
Another question to you...Acts 1:8 and the scattering of the Jerusalem disciples to Judea and Samaria. Most believe this was in fulfillment of the "great commisssion", as recorded in Acts 1:8. However, the very OPPOSITE is true, according to God's word. These disciples had NOT left Jerusalem in response to any command of the Lord. They had FLED FOR THEIR LIVES. And the TWELVE APOSTLES, the VERY ONES our Lord had COMMANDED to go FROM JERUSALEM TO ALL THE WORLD, STAYED AT JERUSALEM. Hmmmm, that seems strange. Why would the 12 STAY at Jerusalem? Were they delinquent in their duty to evangelize the world? The Scriptures say plainly that they were NOT delinquent. The REASON the twelve stayed at Jerusalem was because the Kingdom, in which they were to have twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28),was to be ESTABLISHED AT JERUSALEM, and blessing and SALVATION was to FLOW FROM THERE to the ends of the earth. Obviously their work for the kingdom and Israel was not yet done. Peter, not Jewish?....?
That meme gets really old. Pictures of parents etc. are not used to worship God. The difference is very great as God said not to use images etc like the pagans did in worshiping Him. The command was to not make images to serve other gods or Him. He made that very clear in Deureonomy 12.
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. 32 What thing so ever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
That meme gets really old. Pictures of parents etc. are not used to worship God. The difference is very great as God said not to use images etc like the pagans did in worshiping Him. The command was to not make images to serve other gods or Him. He made that very clear in Deureonomy 12.
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. 32 What thing so ever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
The RCC has distorted scripture for their own purposes. Not only developing a hierarchy which us unbiblical but incorporating most of the pagan practices and symbols to attract pagans. Unfortunately most of the Protestant denominations have continued with many of the pagan practices.
Oh if they would only read scripture instead of listening to the RCC.
The Scriptures will explain themselves, if studied God’s way. Why someone would refuse God’s way for man’s way is beyond me. But it happens everywhere.
"Therefore" what? I'm not going to play run/fetch. If there is something you wish to actually say in establishing some "therefore", then please feel free to do so.
But now we seem to moved on to seraphim without examining why the serpent on the staff was not prohibited. There is a key stipulation which is the crux of the prohibition of making images. That might be a good place to start, if you wish to build some thesis.
Also, do you keep paintings, photos, sculptures, or other images?
One thing at a time. I was responding merely to the one sentence you included, which I quoted. The rest of the overall discussion I have only small interest in, for the moment. But again, feel free to say whatever, make a case or not. Just not over my broken back, while simultaneously on your own terms.
Excellent points. This is definitely the kind of "searching the Scriptures" that Rome refuses to do. Thank you.
“Pelagianism is the belief that man can save himself by his own work simply by following the example of Christ, with no need for supernatural grace.
Semipelagianism is the belief that man, by following the example of Christ, can do good works that will somehow earn him, or entitle him, to God’s grace of salvation.
Calvinism is the belief that man cannot do good even with the help of God’s grace - that grace consists of God forcibly making the elect to perform actions acceptable to Him by an “irresistible” compulsion.
Orthodox Christianity holds that man is deeply flawed by his very nature due to original sin and that he can accomplish no good thing unless God gives him the grace to do so. It likewise holds that grace is a free gift of love and that God asks man to cooperate with His grace - not because He needs man to do so, but because it pleases Him. In other words, we should be slaves (in Calvinist fashion) but He makes us sons by adoption.”
How does man “cooperate” with the sovereign grace of God?
Rom 9:15-16 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
If it is not of him that willeth or runneth, but on God who has mercy on whom He wills, how can what you say be true or “orthodox”?
And how can you claim that you are not semipelagianist, when you are asserting that God’s grace must submit to the whims of your will, albeit you say that you “cooperate”?
And as for the will. Can you show me where in scripture that anyone is ever described as being free or a slave based on their capacity to save their soul? Or rather, is freedom and slavery always in reference to sins? So that those who are in sin are slaves to sin, but those who are in Christ are dead to it and free in Christ?
The cereal box in this context is insane (like the maker of the cartoon himself went insane?) with the joke being upon yourself this time around, for I wasn't following or quoting that [ahem] 'heretic' Luther...but you were.Well, no. What you are missing is my lack of interest in any of the heretical, juvenile meanderings of the zealots here. When confronted with honest inquiry, I respond in kind. Zealotry gets cartoons and literary allusions (you may consult any good English teacher for help with that concept) or delicate ironies.
You may blather about your odd views all you want, unless and until they conform to the teaching of the Universal Church they are but tiny little noises hardly worth any real effort. May Our Lady intercede and may God in His infinite wisdom lift the scales from your eyes and reveal His Truth. Until that happens, expect normal people and those literate in His Word to scorn and mock any and all heresies you may post.
(2) John 15:15 specifically addresses the distinction between being a slave and a friend.
(3) The entire message of the Gospel is that Almighty God empties Himself, humbles Himself, lowers Himself to man, even unto death on a cross, and enters into an intimate relationship with men, allowing men to share in His life eternally.
The Lord does not do our will, but he permits us to forsake our own for His.
“(1) Cooperation is not about willing or running. It is about about surrendering our will.”
Cooperating is about willing and running, or otherwise it isn’t cooperation:
co·op·er·a·tion [koh-op-uh-rey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act or instance of working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit; joint action.
2.
more or less active assistance from a person, organization, etc.: We sought the cooperation of various civic leaders.
3.
willingness to cooperate: to indicate cooperation.
You can’t just redefine words to support a pet theology that denies the scripture.
“(2) John 15:15 specifically addresses the distinction between being a slave and a friend.”
We are indeed the friends of Christ. And so far, is there any justification in calling those who are saved by Christ “slaves”?
Can you please provide evidence where the terms freedom and slavery are ever used in the scripture in the way that YOU use them? If one is free from sin, is he a slave because God predestinated Him to be free from sin? What about in verse 16, right after 15, wherein it says:
Joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
So, did Christ regard them as servants because He chose them, or did He regard them as friends because He chose them?
You have to ask yourself which one is actually consistent with scripture.
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.