Posted on 09/15/2014 7:39:28 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Reading Scripture as a modern Catholic is a perpetual balance between extremes; among them, the extremes of farfetched skepticism and equally farfetched supernaturalism. For, unlike these extremes, the Faith takes both the unseen realities of the Spirit and the ordinary life of human beings seriously. It believes in both accountants and angels. But many people, seeing only one of these truths clearly, then proceed to use that pet truth as a cudgel against the truth they don't see.
This came through to me loud and clear recently when a skeptical acquaintance (whom we shall call "Clarence") wrote on the Internet with news he seemed to think would devastate Christians into becoming atheists like him.
"Have you ever considered," he said, "that Paul, the major author of the New Testament and of Christian doctrine, had no more direct line to Jesus than you do? They never met! That is why I am convinced that whatever actually occurred and whatever the historical Jesus thought and said, it is most unlikely to be described by any extant doctrine of the Christian churches. The historical Jesus is lost in the pagan myths of history with its many dying and rising gods, like Osiris."
Now, in fact, I had considered this. And in doing so, I was forced to ask a question of Clarence: namely, is the early Christian community (and in particular, Paul) as utterly incapable as all that of understanding and transmitting the thing that matters to them most? Are they really such dunderheads as to simultaneously insist we hang on every word and deed of Christ's while writing reams of bogus bilge about Him with no other source than their own fevered brains?
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
< /snort>
"The notion that capitalism is somehow necessarily and inevitably a friend of Jesus Christ is one of the greatest American delusions of the past century. That doesn't make capitalism evil. It makes it a "philosophy according to human tradition" and no necessary part of the Faith."
-- Mark Shea, from the thread Capitalism, Colossians and the Miller Brewing Company
Fundamentalist: A term created during the turn-of-the-20th-century Protestant church splits to define those who held to the “fundamentals” of Christianity—the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Jesus and his literal resurrection from the dead. The term is now considered pejorative. (Wheaton College philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga famously observed, “The full meaning of the term…can be given by something like ‘stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine.’”)More Bin Laden Aftershocks
-- from the thread New Kids In The Flock
I should really count the number of lies in this article but there are too many...There are at least 5 in this paragraph alone...
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
The author's attempt to twist what the scriptures say and then make the claim that your religion wrote the scriptures therefore can dictate to everyone what the scriptures mean is deception...
Now I admit it is possible the Risen Christ dictated the story of the Last Supper to Paul and the gospel writers so that they repeated it in a formulaic and liturgical manner. I acknowledge that the Catholic tradition has plenty of leeway for such a thing as miracle and direct revelation. Scripture (with its acknowledgement of the possibility of supernaturally revealed knowledge) leaves room for the possibility that Greg is right. Similarly, as a neighbor child once told me (when I suggested he might not find any trout in the five foot wide mudhole he was fishing in), "God could put fish in there!"
This is true. He could do this just as He could dictate the Last Supper account to both Paul and the gospel writers (with variations in language reflective of local theological emphases and pastoral needs which look exactly like minor liturgical differences). But did He?
Here the author puts doubt into the Catholic mind that the clear accounts of Paul may not be accurate...And it is the 'Church' and not the Lord who taught Paul...
So just as there is no reason to deny the supernatural (as Clarence does), neither is there good reason to deny (as Greg does) that the supernatural Christ revealed Himself to Paul through the plain ol' teaching of the Church. Thus, Paul's statement that the gospel (that is, Christ) was revealed to him supernaturally (on the Damascus Road and in other visions and supernatural ways) does not necessitate assuming that he therefore received no subsequent teaching in the Faith from those who were his elder brothers in Christ.
It most certainly does...This is an outright lie...
Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Paul was learning from the risen Jesus and preaching and teaching for 3 years before he laid eyes on any one of the apostles...
In fact, it was to Paul that the Christian Gentile church was revealed...
Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
It was revealed to Paul and Paul alone to start the Gentile churches...Where's Peter??? Where's Peter's church??? Where's Catholic Peter's church??? Did someone make it up???
Looking at Galatians 1 and also 2, it does seem that Paul is making the point that he received what he did from the Lord Himself. In 1:16-17 he says he didn’t confer with flesh and blood, nor go up to the apostles at Jerusalem, but went to Arabia, it seems to preach.
In any case, I believe “Greg” was rightfully concerned, because I’ve had the sense, too, that Catholicism to some extent downplays God and elevates man. On God’s Word, Hebrews 4:12 says that it is “living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword...” Ephesians 6 says to take up “the whole armor of God,” and one piece of it is “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.”
(Cont’d)
“The sword of the Spirit” is needed to fight the enemy, as Jesus used it against Satan in the wilderness. Yet Catholicism has largely replaced it with traditions and “teachings,” and that even forces Catholics to fall back on themselves and their own reason. Yesterday on a Catholic radio show the host and callers were talking about atheism, and the Catholic callers it seems knew atheists were wrong and following themselves, but they struggled to describe why, and with force. But if you talk to a group of evangelicals, they can tell you that Romans 1 says God has revealed Himself to man through nature so no one has any excuse to say they didn’t know He exists. And it’s important to know this and think on this, because atheists will try to play off believers’ doubts and claim they honestly don’t know that there’s a God. That is Satan speaking, and without knowing what the Bible says, a believer can believe the atheist’s claim of ignorance. (Cont’d)
Paul writes of babes in Christ as needing milk, while mature Christians were to go on to meat. The Catholic Church’s form *may* have better-suited to times when whole countries became Catholic Christian just by birth and not many people could read, and even that is doubtful, but the devil is “a roaring lion” who prowls about, “seeking whom he may devour,” and someone has to be fully convinced of their need for Christ to really believe they have such an enemy in the first place. And, today, there can be no reason to rely on other people and “tradition” rather than first-hand knowledge of God’s Word. The “ruler of this world,” as Jesus called Satan, is bringing his temptations to Christians in all sorts of ways (entertainment, education, etc.) and it is wrong and dangerous not to be prepared with knowledge of God’s Word to be able to respond to his attacks.
I enjoyed the article very much. Thanks for posting.
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.