Posted on 10/05/2013 10:09:16 PM PDT by jodyel
What? Where does Peter say he’s referring to the Acts of the Apostles? Or to any specific book of the New Testament? And obviously Peter CAN’T be referring to those books of the NT that hadn’t been written yet!
BTW: Luke, not Paul, wrote the Acts of the Apostles.
Maybe because the Greek word used in verse 26 is different than the Greek word used in verse 27? The first Greek word used in verse 26 does mean religion but the second Greek word used in verse 26 and the Greek word used in verse 27 means worship more so than religion. If you translate those words correctly you get a little better picture of what is being said.
James 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion worship is vain.
James 1:27 Pure religion worship and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
I checked: the word used for "religious" in v. 26 and the word used for "religion" in vv. 26 and 27 are etymologically related. (If you use Strong's numbers, the associated two are respectively G2357 and G2356.)
At least one lexicon explicitly mentions an emphasis on ceremonies or on the externals of worship concerning G2356 ("religion") but not explicitly G2357 ("religious"), but at least to me, the context in these verses doesn't seem to justify a recent usage of "religion" as a universal negative.
I just don't see the justification for that usage, whether in the changes in the wider language (we no longer ordinarily use "prevent" in its sense of "come before") or in alleged progress in our theology.
I even admit that seeing that sort of thing--for instance, "religion" treated as a sort of opposite of "faith" or "relationship [with God]"--raises a red flag for me concerning the credibility of what I'm reading or hearing.
Now, some people are indeed unclear on the idea that "having a religion" isn't the same thing as "having faith" or "having a relationship with God," but adopting this reaction is overkill--especially if you happen to belong to what by any reasonable definition is indeed "religious." (Included in "reasonable" is the suggestion that your definition isn't both nonstandard and tendentious.)
The original poster has posted about "rescuing souls" from "the bondage of religion" in--where else?--the "religion forum." ("In the Religion forum, on a thread titled Rescuing Souls, CynicalBear wrote:") I'm not being too literalistic about the name of this forum, but neither is the name meaningless or misleading.
Of course he can...Peter knows who he was hanging around with...Peter knows the other close disciples and Apostles...Peter acknowledged Paul's writing as scripture...So Peter recognized there was scripture...
Not only did Peter NOT say to Paul, 'why are writing this stuff down, Jesus didn't tell us to write anything down, Peter recognized it as scripture, holy writing...
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Paul then was a holy man of God...
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Jesus' method of preserving his words was written scripture...
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me
You want to know what Jesus teaches, 'Search the scriptures'...
Peter knew Paul was a holy man chosen of God...Peter recognized that Paul wrote holy scripture...Peter would have accepted everything Paul had written to the churches as Holy Scripture, even his future writing, as would all of the apostles...
The other apostles were in the same boat...They were holy men chosen of God...Whatever they wrote to the churches, Peter would have recognized as written Holy Scripture...
A person will not spend much time in the scriptures without learning and understanding that right off the bat...To question the authenticity of scripture is proof positive that a person has no bond with the Holy Spirit...
The question may come up; 'what about the other books written by apostles, ie, the Gospel of Thomas, etc., etc...
They may or may not be authentic...God determined what he wanted us to have so it makes no difference whether they are authentic or not...We have what God gave us...
When Jesus referred to “the Scriptures,” he was talking about the Jewish Scriptures. Not one word of the New Testament had been written.
Nothing I have said questions ANY Scriptures, so it’s beside the point to point out all the Scriptures that recommend “searching the Scriptures,” etc.
But Peter could not possibly have been referring to things that had not yet been written.
If you believe that the New Testament contains 27 books, and that they are all inspired, then you are giving your assent to a decision that was made by the Pope and bishops assembled in Rome, a couple of hundred years after the completion of those writings.
I wouldn’t want to defend it either.
“gross misinterpretation...”
Absolutely not. The Douay Rehiems bible is the closest translation to the original Latin and Greek that is out there. Later “bibles” contain modern error. The Douay Rheims is base 100% on the original Latin and Greek vulgate translated by St. Jerome himself.
“..Catholica mock and deride...”
No one is mocking or deriding anything. The Catholic Church requires baptism because the bible requires it based on the verse from Acts that I quoted as well as other verses.
No mocking or hypocrisy is involved. Attacking Catholicism without actually understanding its teachings isn’t OK.
meant Catholics, not Catholica typo
“many do believe that being Baptized saves them...”
It’s in the bible that being saved requires baptism -
1 St. Peter Chapter 4 Verse 21
Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also:
There are other verses that make it clear baptism is necessary for salvation.
Anecdotal evidence is rather weak evidence of a position.
“...what one might ‘believe’ and what the ‘truth’ of the matter is can be very different than one desires it to be...”
So true - and without the bible to back up a position, the truth is merely an opinion. God’s Word:
Acts 22:16
Rise up and be baptized and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.
“Works don’t save”
Christ saves, works are required to cooperate with the saving grace of Christ. Faith without works is dead, so if there are no works, a person’s faith is dead.
“..the dead before this throne are evidently the unsaved of all ages ...”
Tying this verse into all of those other verses ends up creating a convoluted and opinion filled interpretation of Revelation 20:12. The meaning is clear and straightforward and stands on its own. The dead are judged acccroding to their works. Period.
Yet many Catholics do.
Well; not the actual RELIGION itself; but poor, put upon MORMONs who get ATTACKED so viciously by we ANTI-Mormon(ism) folks.
That's a mighty broad brush yer swingin' at an ill defined target.
Could ye be a wee bit more specific?
That's interesting: WHICH verse?
John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, What must we do to do the works God requires?
Jesus answered, The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.
Like THIS???
Just as Holy men spoke and then wrote the scriptures, they spoke what God would have them say...
The Majority texts which which are not Roman make up my scriptures...Rome has zero to do with my bible, the bible of the Reformation...
Sorry, I have no connection to Rome...God gets all the credit...
I'd say you have a convoluted understanding of the scriptures...You guys pick out the scriptures that you think agrees with your position but you won't touch the verses that contradict your position...
Those who study the scriptures can not take you seriously...
“Tying this verse into all of those other verses ends up creating a convoluted and opinion filled interpretation of Revelation 20:12. The meaning is clear and straightforward and stands on its own. The dead are judged acccroding to their works. Period.”
An opinion at best. You are saying the rest of Scripture is not useful in understanding Scripture. By doing so, you have thrown out all passages about salvation, Christ’s atoning death, the sealing of the believer, Christ’s own words that of all the Father gave Him, He will lose none, etc.
OR
You can honestly look at the totality of God’s inspired revelation and reconcile what He has said.
You can take the trash the rest approach. I will take the what did God say approach.
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.