Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
Handsonapologetics ^ | Gary Michuta

Posted on 03/17/2012 7:26:45 AM PDT by GonzoII

    The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

    By Gary Michuta

    King James I at the Hampton Court Conference

    "Dr. Reynolds...insisted boldly on various points ; but when he came to the demand for the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service James could bear it no longer. He called for a Bible, read a chapter out of Ecclesiasticus, and expounded it according to his own views ; then turning to the lords of his council, he said, " What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think Ecclesiasticus was a bishop, or they would never use him so."

    (John Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, text by William Howitt, (W. Kent & Co.:London), 1859, vol. 3p. 15)

    In 1604, the Church of England commissioned a new English translation of the Scripture, which later became known as the King JamesVersion. According to it dedication to the king, the hope was that this new version would “counteract the barbs” of Catholics and a foil to the “self-conceited” Protestants “who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil…” [Preface and dedication to the King, 1611 King James Bible], namely religious dissenters like the Baptists and others. Ironically, the Church of England had moved to other translations and the King James Bible (K.J.V.) had become, at least for a time, the translation for those groups that would have been considered dissenters. Today, the New International Version has become the best selling translation among Protestants, but the King James is still widely used and revered by non-Catholics.

    Bible translations are interesting in that they can provide a snapshot of the beliefs of their translators at that time. The Latin Vulgate, for example, can show us how certain words were understood in the fourth century when it was translated by St. Jerome. The King James Bible is no exception. When one compares the original 1611 edition with subsequent editions, one can discern some very important changes in viewpoints.

    If you own a King James Bible, the first and biggest change you will notice is that the original

    1611 edition contained several extra books in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments labeled “The books of the Apocrypha.” The appendix includes several books, which are found in the Catholic Old Testament such as the books of  Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and others.

    Table of Contents KJV 1611

    Some may be tempted to dismiss the omission of these books from the King James Bible as superfluous “add on” to the translation and that its omission really does not change anything important about the King James Bible. On the contrary, the so-called "Apocrypha” formed an integral part of the text, so much so that the Protestant scholar E. G. Goodspeed once wrote:

    “[W]hatever may be our personal opinions of the Apocrypha, it is a historical fact that they formed an integral part of the King James Version, and any Bible claiming to represent that version should either include the Apocrypha, or state that it is omitting them.  Otherwise a false impression is created.” [Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 7]

    If you pick up a modern copy of the King James Version and open to the title page, chances are you’ll not see any mention of the deliberate omission of these books (e.g. “The King James Version without the Apocrypha”). After all, who would want to put a negative statement about a product on the title page? However, perhaps to avoid false advertising, publishers do notify you that books are missing by cleverly stating the contents in a positive fashion like “The King James Version Containing the Old and New Testaments.” If you didn’t know that the Apocrypha was omitted, you’d probably assume that complete King James Bible since most modern Protestant Bibles contain only the Old and New Testaments anyway. Hence, as Goodspeed warns “a false impression is created.”

    The Cross-references

    The King James “Apocrypha” had a much more integral roll in its early editions than simply being an appendix unconnected to the two Testaments. Instead, the 1611 King James Bible included (like the Geneva Bible) cross-references from the Old and New Testaments to the so-called “Apocrypha.” Like modern cross-references, these were meant to refer the reader back to the text cited in order to provide further light on what had just been read. There were 11 cross-references in the New Testament and 102 Old Testament that referred Protestant readers back to the “Apocrypha.” The New Testament cross-references were:

     

    Mat 6:7

    Sirach 7:14

     

    Mat 27:43

    Wisdom 2:15-16

     

    Luke 6:31

    Tobit 4:15

     

    Luke 14:13

    Tobit 4:7

     

    John 10:22

    1 Maccabees 4:59

     

    Rom 9:21

    Wisdom 15:7

     

    Rom 11:34

    Wisdom 9:13

     

    2 Cor 9:7

    Sirach 35:9

     

    Heb 1:3

    Wisdom 7:26

     

    Heb 11:35      

    2 Maccabees 7:7

    1611 KJV Heb. 11:35 - 2 Mac. 7:7

    1611 KJV Matt. 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16

     

    1611 KJV Heb. 11:3 - Ws. 7:26

    1611 KJV Luke 14:13 - Tobit 4:7

    Like the early editions of the Geneva Bible, the editors of the Authorized Version believe that the non-Catholic readers should aware of what the “Apocrypha” had to say in regards to these passage. While some are mere correspondences of thought, others point to an awareness or even a dependence upon the “Apocrypha” by inspired New Testament writers. I detail these important passages in Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Grotto Press, 2007).

    In addition to the eleven cross-references in the New Testament, the 1611 King James also sported 102 cross-reference  in the Old Testament as well bringing to total up to 113 cross-references to and from the Apocrypha overall. No wonder Goodspeed could say that the "Apocrypha" was an integral part of the King James Bible!

    The King James Bible was not the only early Protestant Bible to contain the “Apocrypha” with cross-references. As we have seen in a previous article (Pilgrims’ Regress: The Geneva Bible and the “Apocrypha”), the "Apocrypha" also played an integral role in other Protestant Bibles as well.

    As I mentioned earlier, translations serve as historical snapshots of the beliefs of the translators and readers. The very presence of these cross-references shows that the translators believed that the "Apocrypha" was at work within the New Testament writings and that Protestant Bible readers would benefit from reading and studying the New and Old Testaments in light of these books. Sadly, today this noble heritage has been lost.

    Now You Read Them, Now You Don’t…

    Those who viewed the "Apocrypha" as somehow being the last vestige of "popery" pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the "Apocrypha") as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther's Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments). The "Apocrypha" remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the "bigger" Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the "Apocrypha." The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800's enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the "Apocrypha" was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

    It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the "Apocrypha." It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the "Apocrypha" appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the "Apocrypha" until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:

    “These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version … Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin.” [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17]

    What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called "Apocrypha" and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther's gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an "Apocrypha" appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

 



TOPICS: Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; History; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: apocrypha; av; bible; deuterocanonicals; kingjamesbible; kjv; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 601-617 next last
To: Natural Law
"I hope you are not implying that is an infallible interpretation? Why then would St. Paul draw an analogy between misunderstanding and tongues if we are to assume that is what he meant?"

Absolutely infallible EX MY CATHEDRA. How do I know? I read the context. Of course it is about foreign tongues. Read through Acts and notice that the first public pronouncement of the Gospel included Jews speaking some 17+ different languages to other international Jews gathered in Jerusalem for Pentecost (Acts 2). Peter informed the multi-cultural crowd that these locally born & raised men, men without formal educations, were not drunk, but simply speaking the "...mighty deeds of God." in dialects known only to a select few in the crowd...a true miracle.

The phenomenon began to be thought of as a measure of spirituality, but Paul disabused the Corinthians of such a worldly view. Foreign tongues is something that was intended to shock unbelievers. If someone in a believers' gathering stood and spoke in a foreign tongue and no one was there to translate, the speaking did no good. Paul is explaining that if he cannot understand the language, "...the speaker is a foreigner to me". This is not eisegesis (the Roman view), but exegesis (let the writer speak to you). And don't go to the "private interpretation" argument. The text stands in perspicuity.

201 posted on 03/22/2012 3:45:11 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

There was no “catholic Bible” in english until the KJV came along, and the catholics adopted it and renamed it the Douay Rheims (with some small changes).

Catholic Bibles of various sorts existed in latin, but in the catholic dominant countries few people were so literate as to be able to read latin, so effectively they had no Bible.

The Apocrypha are mostly historic books with little or no spiritual guidance, but some have tried to fashion doctrinal issues from them. None of those supposed doctrinal points from the Apocrypha are found supported anywhere in the general 66 canon.


202 posted on 03/22/2012 4:12:11 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; SuzyQue

I believe Douay-Rheims proceeded the KJV by 29 and 2 years respectively.


203 posted on 03/22/2012 4:34:14 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; SuzyQue

I got that backwards:

Rheims, NT: 1582

Douay, OT: 1609

KJV: 1611


204 posted on 03/22/2012 4:36:41 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
"Absolutely infallible EX MY CATHEDRA."

It's statements like that that make it difficult to take you seriously. You ask us to accept that you alone, from among the 2 billion Christians in the world, can infallibly interpret Scripture. Not even all of the Apostles had this ability and they were gifted with signs to demonstrate their veracity.

Do you mean to say that any of the other 1.999999+ billion who disagree with you on any point of interpretation are in error and that your problem is not only with Rome, but Geneva, Westminster, Wittenberg and thousands of other church headquarters around the world?

Do you also have the gift of tongues or interpretation to enable you do the translations from Aramaic to modern 21st century English or are you trusting in other infallible humans? How did you determine that the Epistle of Barnabas was not inerrant? How about the Gospel of Thomas or Philip, or Andrew or the dozens of other writings available at the time of St. Paul that the Church rejected as canon?

I think you are doing God, yourself and the world a gross disservice by limiting your gift to a few plunked out postings on FR. You need to take this world wide.

205 posted on 03/22/2012 4:39:34 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Look a little deeper and compare what was then and what they are now.


206 posted on 03/22/2012 4:42:32 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; Dutchboy88

>> “You ask us to accept that you alone, from among the 2 billion Christians in the world, can infallibly interpret Scripture” <<

.
All Christians can and do correctly read the Bible, because it was given to us to be read in plain language, at face value. To assert that God’s word needs interpretation, and that that interpretation is given to only the few is Nicolaitanism. That is exactly what Christ was denouncing in the “letters to the churches.”
.


207 posted on 03/22/2012 4:48:03 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
"I got that backwards..."

It is a moot point in that there was no common English language before this time, not any market for an English version. St. Aldheim did create a translation in the 7th century to be used by the clergy in teaching the scripture to illiterate English peasants who knew no Latin.

208 posted on 03/22/2012 4:50:24 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

>> “It is a moot point in that there was no common English language before this time, not any market for an English version” <<

.
Very true. In fact it continued to mature at a rapid rate for another 100 years or so.
.


209 posted on 03/22/2012 4:54:40 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"All Christians can and do correctly read the Bible, because it was given to us to be read in plain language, at face value.

Are you saying that all Christians correctly interpret Scripture or only that small fraction that agree with you?And what language is "plain language"?

(Note: you need to research what Nicolaitanism really is before you attempt to paint the Church with that heresy or at lease attempt to substantiate your assertion.)

210 posted on 03/22/2012 5:03:15 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; aruanan; Dutchboy88
"Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus, and Antioch, PREACHING THE WORD TO NONE BUT UNTO THE JEWS ONLY." Acts 11:19.

The Jewish Christians that were forced to flee from the persecution of Acts 8:1,2 went into Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch establishing Christian Churches to all, including Gentiles...uh, no, that's not right...they established JEWISH churches.

Let's take a look at that entire passage, if you don't mind.

Acts 11: 19 Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews. 20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. 21 The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

Why would you have truncated this passage? Would it possibly have been to try to support a purported division between Gentile and Jew, when the whole effort of early Christianity was to establish Christianity irrespective of origin? My point is that Paul, championed by many as the evangelizer to the Gentiles, spent more time with the Jews. Peter and many of the other Apostles, also believed by those same individuals to be evangelizers to the Jews, were in fact the opposite. Since there were no Jewish populations in India, Thomas, for instance was the most evangelizer of the Gentiles. You should look up the history of the Thomite Christians of Eastern India. It's a fascinating history.

211 posted on 03/22/2012 5:16:08 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; MarkBsnr
"It's statements like that that make it difficult to take you seriously. You ask us to accept that you alone, from among the 2 billion Christians in the world, can infallibly interpret Scripture. Not even all of the Apostles had this ability and they were gifted with signs to demonstrate their veracity'

Aw, come on Natch (can I call you Natch?). You can call me Dutch or really anything you like. But, please, I was just sort of kidding around. You know, like a pope claims to speak ex cathedra and everyone is supposed to think his words are infallible.

My contention was the text is so clear if you use reasonable hermeneutics, read the context, watch the scene in your head, and connect the dots. Actually, if you notice, nearly the entire first letter to the Corinthians is about a tendency the Greeks had to revere worldly anything. The original problem began with Apollos' great oration skills and their love of "wisdom", but it meanders all over the place. Paul's letter is an admonition that the showy kinds of displays really have little to do with being a believer.

And, think about your next comment carefully. Do you actually think that the billion Buddhists are not in sincere disagreement with anything said about the Bible? Do you not think the and 1.5+ billion Muslims don't think you and I are wrong about the Bible. My FRiend, you are not worried about numbers any more than the apostle Paul was worried about numbers. Either what the Scriptures tell us is true (and the vast majority of the world is apparently going to die in their trespasses & sin) or we are just sentimentalists: God just has to give them a break because they were sincere.

You don't believe that or you would let me fall off the side of the earth and trust my sincerity to save me. No, you believe I am wrong. Dead wrong. And you wish to enlighten me to the truth of Rome. And, I you. Well, not to Rome. But, I do care that you believe the grace shed abroad by the Holy Spirit is not bound up through the dictates of Rome. Further, their doctrines of human mediation (alter christos), seven sacraments, and all the rest is primarily vain repetition. If Jesus has you in His crosshairs, you will be granted faith, by grace, and you will be rescued.

No, I don't have the gift of foreign tongues. And, I don't really trust any single translation or textbook. I search many sources and references. I do have three years of training in Koine' Greek and some Hebrew (very little). I have a degree in theology, which comes from a school which I now think slightly missed the mark. I would not attend that school again. But, each of us will stand before God and give an answer. I wish only to be found in Jesus, clothed in His righteousness. Attendance or association with an organization claiming exclusivity is not biblical.

And, the canon was closed long before the Roman Catholic Church was a figment of its own imagination. Read those tomes and you will see why things like the Gospel of Jesus do not belong in there.

And, sarcasm does not suit you. You seem to be a kinder person than that.

212 posted on 03/22/2012 5:19:42 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
Paul's ministry and commission are much more interesting than you give him credit for. Do you suppose there is a reason Paul went to the Jew first? "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; TO THE JEW FIRST, and also to the Greek." Rom. 1:16.

Why would you say that I don't find Paul's efforts uninteresting? I find them utterly fascinating. Paul's efforts helped turn around a floundering Church. I do not understate his importance. I just do not find his teachings to be equal to that of the direct words of Jesus. They (as well as the words of the other Apostles) are nearly as important, but we must not confuse the Creator and the created.

But he also had a ministry of revelation. The Apostle to the Gentiles, The dispensation of the grace of God, the Church the Body of Christ, the One New Man, the fellowship of the mystery (Eph. 3:9). All by direct revelations to him from the risen Christ, beginning in Acts 9.

Three years of daily exposure to Christ is less than one vision? Why are you cheapening the ministry of the other Apostles?

unless you just believe him to be just a really good salesman...

I believe him to be a really great salesman, but with the best product in the world and instructed by the Owner Himself. However, so were the Twelve...

213 posted on 03/22/2012 5:21:56 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
"No, you believe I am wrong. Dead wrong"

I do not believe that Salvation can only come through the Catholic Church if that is what you mean. No one, certainly not me, knows the mind of God and I trust in His infinite mercy.

I do, however, believe that intentional mischaracterization of the teachings or history of the Church do not aid in anyone's path to Salvation. Sin hurts the sinner far more than it hurts the Church or God. That includes those who proclaim it is the Whore of Babylon and the spawn of hell as well as those who say there have never been errant and vile sinners who have claimed to be Catholic or wore the robes of the Catholic clergy.

My purpose for participating on these threads is to try to ensure that an honest discussion takes place with respect to the positions, doctrines, dogmas and history of the Church.

214 posted on 03/22/2012 5:31:07 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
"The Gospels and Acts disagree with that statement. Jesus put a lot of time and effort into the creation of the Church. Peter and the 12, as well as Paul and his assistants show that that statement is wrong overall. The Church is an organization; else it is chaos."

Very kind response and, as usual, delivered well.

Thank you. I do my best and when it is not my best, I am very kindly and effectively and repeatedly informed of that fact. With great emphasis!!! :)

But, (there's that "but"), the difference between an "organization" and a gathering is enormous. Rome has created an "organization", even a country. Yet, the English word translated "church" is a fabricated word from the Scottish term "kirk" intended to distinguish it. A feature not found in the Scriptural word. That word is of course "ecclesia" or "assembly" and the Greek NT will occasionally used it precisely for a chaotic mob.

A well put point. Let us examine other languages to find out what they use.

French: église
Italian: Chiesa
Spanish: Iglesia

It is the Germans and Northern Europeans who have changed it.

German: kirche
Norwegian: Kirke

But enough of this banter. Ecclesia means chaotic mob? Let us see.

We know that it means 'congregation' of a church, as well as an assembly of citizens in ancient Greece in a particular city-state. No chaos here.

In Acts 19, the assembly of citizens is normally a rather orderly and organized, well, organization. It is just that the intention of Paul to enter Ephesus turns the orderly assembly into confusion. It is not that the term is used to indicate chaotic mob, it is the normally orderly assembly that happens to be chaotic at this point in time when confronted by this intention of Paul. The ecclesia is not the description of the mob. The mob is formed from the members of the ecclesia in reaction to Paul.

I have reread Acts 2 and 10 and cannot find papalism. I find no apostolic succession. Again, please point out exactly where a "pope" is set up and a new one is going to be appointed after the death of the last one.

I had understood your term papalism to be the office in which Peter was serving. If you had said papal succession, then of course I would have pointed to the extensive succession preparation that Paul did in order to prepare for his death, as well as point out the succession of various others throughout the NT. If one understands the role of bishop to be an office, why then the next occupier of that office is a successor.

Sacerdotalism does not appear at the so-called "Last Supper" (a name the publishers added to the top of the pages). If this is the way Rome constructs a doctrine it is little wonder they could manufacture so much.

Ah, yes. A brain fart.

Let us try this instead.

John 20: 19Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. 20And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. 21He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

My error.

Indulgences are making a comeback but there is no evidence anywhere in the Scripture that a man can grant another man forgiveness before God. The Jews recognized that one would have to be God to do so.

See above.

Confession in booths. Of course I believe in confession. Even confessing sin against one another TO one another. But, this is not the confession in booths going on in the RCC which holds that men can grant one another forgiveness for some kind of penalty paid, such as six Hail Mary's, five Our Fathers. Nowhere is such nonsense found in the Scriptures.

For forgiveness, see above again.

The idea of paying off a debt to the Lord (or temporal lord) runs deep throughout the Bible both Old and New. It is true that the Church only began writing extensively about it in the second century, so this form of Church discipline gradually came to to entire Church probably more piecemeal as bishops gradually implemented it.

I apologize for the Prada shoes remark. I actually thought this was the case. In view the enormous amount of gold, silk, decor, pomp & circumstance granted this man, I still find the contrast between him and Jesus shocking, yet Jesus was God on Earth. It was the errant Pharisees who loved the center stage and the RCC just looks oddly similar.

An examination of the estate of JPII is highly illuminating. He was the steward of Christ, yet died nearly penniless. As did his predecessors going back centuries. He lived in small papal apartments in the Vatican. He has the use of his office, yet owns nearly nothing.

My intention is not to beat up the RCC (although that is tempting because of the great errors I notice), but to call to those involved with it to look closely at the Text. The doctrines this organization promulgates are simply not there. Much more could be said, but I have to go.

Vaya con Dios, my friend. Even though your heart may be as stony as a Biblical execution, God has Grace in abundance, enough for all.

215 posted on 03/22/2012 6:08:02 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
I'm glad you asked about Acts 11:19,20. "They therefore that were scattered aborad upon the tribulation that arose about Stephen travelled AS FAR AS Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to NONE SAVE ONLY TO THE JEWS." "But there were SOME of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene who, when they were come to ANTIOCH, spake UNTO THE GREEKS ALSO, preaching the Lord Jesus.

First we need to ask "who were these that were "scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, EXCEPT THE APOSTLES." Acts 8:1. It is to this same scattering that we read further Acts 11:19,20.

It most certainly was NOT the Apostles, according to Acts 8:1. We know that those who WERE scattered abroad spoke the word to none save ONLY TO JEWS. But there were SOME of them, who, when they came to ANTIOCH, spoke unto the GREEKS ALSO.

So..what does this mean to anything? Especially to Peter and the 11 who were STILL at JERUSALEM? When the Church at Jerusalem heard of this, they sent Barnabas to look into it and HE went to Tarsus to find Saul (later called Paul), and UNDER SAUL the Church at Antioch became the BASE OF OPERATIONS FOR THE EVANGELIZATION OF THE GENTILES with "the gospel of the grace of God."

And how do we know this?

It was from ANTIOCH that Paul went BY REVELATION to Jerusalem to communicate TO THE LEADERS THERE that gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. (Gal. 2:2).

And what was the result of this meeting of Paul and the LEADERS at Jerusalem (Peter and the 11)? Peter and the 11 promised to CONFINE THEIR MINISTRY TO ISRAEL, recognizing Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles.

What do you think the circumcision/uncircumcision problem was about? Jewish Messianic Churches preaching the gospel of the kingdom as they were commissioned to do, and the gospel of the grace of God, Paul's commission to Gentiles, meeting head on. Would Israel accept Christ as Messiah? Or would she continue to reject Him? Would Gentiles have to go through Israel to be blessed, or would God open another door for them? Would Peter and the 11 sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel at any moment Israel accepts Him and He returns to set up His Kingdom? Or would they continue to reject Him and therefore the Gentiles would be forever without hope, strangers from the convenants and aliens from the promises?

God, in His grace, in SPITE of Israel's rejection of Messiah, provided a means for Gentiles to be saved APART FROM ISRAEL: "BY THE GOSPEL".

But it is all part of the transition taking place in Acts. From law to grace, from a kingdom of believers to a body of believers, from the gospel of the circumcision to the gospel of the uncircumcision, etc. From Biblical Prophecy to a Biblical Mystery, hid in God from the foundation of the world, until revealed to the Apostle Paul. Eph. 3:2,3,5,6,9.

216 posted on 03/22/2012 6:26:24 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Why do you think I am "cheapening the ministry of the other Apostles"? When nothing could be further from the truth.

I think this here is where our problem is: Does your Church believe and teach Millenialism? That Christ is literally going to return to this earth and reign for 1000 years? And that Christ promised the 12 Apostles that they would be sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel when He sets up His Kingdom? And one more thing, does your Church teach and believe you are spiritual Israel?

ALL of these things matter in our discussions. Because if you believe you are spiritual Israel, then you MUST believe that the twelve Apostles will be judging you, spiritual Israel. And if you do not believe in the literal Millenial reign of Christ on this earth, then Israel as a real Nation, called by God, given covenants by God and a future Nation of priests and a blessing to all Gentile nations means nothing to you. If you believe that you are spiritual Israel, then the calling and commission of Paul mean nothing in the forming of the Church the Body of Christ, which is located in the heavenlies, in Christ. Our inheritance is different than Israel's inheritance. One is heavenly, the other is earthly. Of course the coming of Christ for His Body (the rapture) doesn't make any sense to your Church, why would it?

Peter and the 11 had a specific calling to Israel and Messiah. Paul had a specific calling to the Gentiles and the Church the Body of Christ. The foundation of BOTH is Christ. He is the chief cornerstone. Paul is no greater than Peter or John or James. But NONE is greater than Christ. He is the one who died for our sins. He is our Redeemer. And He is the author and finisher of our faith. But at the same time, Peter is no greater than Paul. They had different missions and callings. Both by Christ and both for God's purposes. Christ words and revelations to Paul as His words were to Peter and the 11. They are CHRIST'S WORDS. It seems to me that it is Paul's ministry that is cheapened by those who insist that the words of the risen Christ are of lesser value than Christ's earthly ministry.

217 posted on 03/22/2012 6:49:28 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Just curious, where does the Geneva Bible fit in? I just downloaded a copy and am reading bits of it.


218 posted on 03/22/2012 6:59:36 PM PDT by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

Geneva Bible was 1560.

Then the Bishops Bible in 1568.

The crown wanted to replace the Geneva Bible because it was seen as less than flattering to monarchies so they were looking for a replacement. But, the Bishops Bible was horrendous, hardly read. Hence the KJV.

If you happen to have access to National Geographic, they did a story a couple of months back on the KJV that you might like.


219 posted on 03/22/2012 7:13:27 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

I’m saying that the face meaning of every sentence in the Bible is true, and that the only places where Christ used allegory are where he said that he did, and that his explanations to the disciples were for us, and that they are clear.

Allegory is rare in the Bible, and where it is used we are warned in the text, usually in advance.

A person of average intelligence will easily understand the Bible IF THEY WANT TO UNDERSTAND, and if they do not wish to understand, the Holy Spirit will help them become confused.


220 posted on 03/22/2012 8:09:33 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

P.S. Nicolaitano has had a clear meaning in the Greek language for over three millenia. It has been used in various forms to deride tyranny of almost every kind.


221 posted on 03/22/2012 8:15:51 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"I’m saying that the face meaning of every sentence in the Bible is true..."

You really should have selected a better example than Nicolatians to make your point since there is a significant amount of disagreements even among the Protestants as to what the term means. None of the concordances equate the term to what you are implying (see Strong's 3531). Even the few confabulated attempts to construct an indictment of the Church do so out of whole cloth.

"A person of average intelligence will easily understand the Bible IF THEY WANT TO UNDERSTAND"

Are you asking me to believe that anyone can will themselves to believe or solve anything? That implies that if you want to believe something bad enough it becomes your truth.

Note: "Nicolaitano" is not a Greek word.

222 posted on 03/23/2012 8:57:20 AM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

You seem to be a very confused person.

Nicolaitano is very much a Greek word. In simplest terms it means Rule the people. It has also more complex connotations, depending on context.

There is no disagreement between honest people on its meaning in the context of Revelations. The deceivers of the RC church have a strong need to cover up the true meaning because it reveals Christ’s condemnation of their every day practices.

I won’t ask you to believe anything; I see the depths of denial that I would encounter in doing so, and will refrain from any attempt to have a sane sensible intelligent conversation.


223 posted on 03/23/2012 11:08:19 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; Natural Law
Nicolaitano is very much a Greek word

Are you referring to Nicolaitan(s) or Nicolaitanes?

224 posted on 03/23/2012 11:22:06 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Nicolaitanes is the plural.


225 posted on 03/23/2012 11:42:35 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; Natural Law

Yes, it can be found that way and as Nicolaitans, plural, and Nicolaitan, singular. I think Nicolaitano is an error spelling, and least that’s what searches indicate.


226 posted on 03/23/2012 1:12:00 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

FWIW, this is what wikitionary entry:

English
Alternative forms
Nicholaitan

Etymology
From Nicolaite + -an.

Noun
Nicolaitan (plural Nicolaitans)
A member of an early Christian sect, said to participate in certain pagan ceremonies.


227 posted on 03/23/2012 1:25:19 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"There is no disagreement between honest people on its meaning in the context of Revelations."

I sincerely hope you are not accusing me of being dishonest or less than reasonably educated for rejecting your interpretation of what or who the Nicoliatians mentioned in Revelations were. The Nicolatians were a Christian heresy.

The term “Nicolatians” was never recorded before it appeared in the Book of Revelations. The earliest writings, other than the introduction of the term in Revelation, was by the Early Church Fathers. St. Epiphanius of Salamis wrote that the term refers to a sect founded by Nicholas, one of the first seven Deacons of the Church. Hippolytus concurred. St. Irenaeus wrote that the characteristic tenets of Nicolatians were the lawfulness of promiscuous sexual intercourse with women, and of eating things offered to idols. St. Epiphanius of Salamis. St. Eusebius wrote substantially the same thing. Tertullian spoke of the Nicolaitanes as a branch of the Gnostic family that was already extinct.

The 17th century Lutheran Johann Lorenz von Mosheim wrote: "the questions about the Nicolaitanes have difficulties which cannot be solved." Johann Augustus Neander, the father of Protestant historiography, doubted whether the actual existence of such a sect can be proved, and thought that the name was symbolical and mystical like much of the Book of Revelation, to denote corrupters or seducers of the people, like Balaam. He proposed that the term relates not to a specific group, but to a type of person who enticed Christians to participate in the sacrificial feasts and orgies of the pagans, much just as the Old Testament Jews were led astray by the Moabites,

228 posted on 03/23/2012 1:31:13 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

That wiki entry obviously was written by a catholic, bent on hiding what Christ clearly meant by it.

Nico is not Nicholas by any stretch.

The catholic “church’s” policy of hiding the word of God from the people is an extension of the practices of the Pharisees that founded it.

Anyway, this is wisdom: Don’t be a Wikipedophile!
.


229 posted on 03/23/2012 1:31:48 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Yes, Lutherans being an extension of the errors of the catholic ‘church’ would hold the sane interest in covering the express words of Christ.


230 posted on 03/23/2012 1:34:58 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Yes, Lutherans being an extension of the errors of the catholic ‘church’ would hold the same interest in covering the express words of Christ.


231 posted on 03/23/2012 1:35:18 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I’m sorry, I’m not finding what I *think* you’re alluding to or the ‘o’ spelling.

Perhaps a link to the spelling, etymology, exegesis you’re in agreement with?


232 posted on 03/23/2012 1:38:29 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

The ‘o’ ending is singular.


233 posted on 03/23/2012 1:43:43 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I can’t find it by the spelling, only ‘an’ for singular.

Do you have a link to anything using that spelling?


234 posted on 03/23/2012 1:50:09 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Let’s put kindergarten in recess for the month.


235 posted on 03/23/2012 1:57:03 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; editor-surveyor
"Perhaps a link to the spelling, etymology, exegesis you’re in agreement with?"

For something that is supposed to be easy and self interpreting for the reasonable man this sure is complicated and confusing.

I really, really, really want to get to the truth. I closed my eyes real hard (like a Televangelist during the passing of the collection plate), clicked my heels three times, and looked for evidence to corroborate Editor's claim, but it still comes up hollow.

236 posted on 03/23/2012 1:59:16 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

>> “For something that is supposed to be easy and self interpreting for the reasonable man this sure is complicated and confusing.” <<

.
Yes, as I posted to you previously, for those that prefer not to understand, the Lord sends strong delusion. That is the likely source of your confusion.


237 posted on 03/23/2012 2:14:11 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"for those that prefer not to understand, the Lord sends strong delusion."

I'll give you credit for one thing, you put out an ink cloud that even an Architeuthis would be impressed by.

238 posted on 03/23/2012 4:21:42 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; Dutchboy88
"My purpose for participating on these threads is to try to ensure that an honest discussion takes place with respect to the positions, doctrines, dogmas and history of the Church."

My purpose for participating on these threads is to try to ensure that an honest discussion takes place with respect to God word.

You said a few posts ago that you do not believe in Millenialism. I'm not going back to look it up, but I think you said nor does your Church. That you do not believe that Christ is literally going to return to this earth and reign for 1000 years. Please correct me if I've made a mistake as to what you or your Church believes. The reason I'm curious is what do you think the Millenial Kingdom is about? Is it just a spiritual kingdom, or is it a physical kingdom? ANd why would Christ want to return to this earth to set it up? In your opinion. Why not just have everything spiritually in heaven and nothing physically on this planet? (I'm asking you to put on your outside the RCC box thinking cap and think about what could be the reason for His second coming to this earth). Because, according to God's word, there IS a reason for Christ returning here. And His Millennial reign here. In fact, there are SEVERAL reasons for it. Literal return, and literal results.

239 posted on 03/23/2012 4:58:57 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
"You said a few posts ago that you do not believe in Millenialism."

That is correct. The Church, as revealed in Luke 1:33 in acknowledged in the Nicene Creed, believes that "His kingdom will have no end".

240 posted on 03/23/2012 5:08:43 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
So..what does this mean to anything? Especially to Peter and the 11 who were STILL at JERUSALEM? When the Church at Jerusalem heard of this, they sent Barnabas to look into it and HE went to Tarsus to find Saul (later called Paul), and UNDER SAUL the Church at Antioch became the BASE OF OPERATIONS FOR THE EVANGELIZATION OF THE GENTILES with "the gospel of the grace of God."

That's been quite a story up until this point. How about some evidence and not just layer upon layer of conjecture?

God, in His grace, in SPITE of Israel's rejection of Messiah, provided a means for Gentiles to be saved APART FROM ISRAEL: "BY THE GOSPEL".

Already handled in Matthew, Mark and Acts long before Saul's conversion.

But it is all part of the transition taking place in Acts. From law to grace, from a kingdom of believers to a body of believers, from the gospel of the circumcision to the gospel of the uncircumcision, etc. From Biblical Prophecy to a Biblical Mystery, hid in God from the foundation of the world, until revealed to the Apostle Paul. Eph. 3:2,3,5,6,9.

Quite a tale there and thoroughly unconvincing, especially when we are aware of what else lies behind the facade of this position. Your post reads like a succession from Christ to the Twelve to the minimalist churches of Jews versus a succession from Christ to Saul/Paul to the success of Christianity. The Twelve are a practice run and don't amount to much. Paul is the one to whom Christians must turn to. No.

Paul was necessary. But so was Peter. So were all the other Apostles (including Judas if you think about it).

241 posted on 03/23/2012 5:13:38 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
Why do you think I am "cheapening the ministry of the other Apostles"? When nothing could be further from the truth.

It is the truth. Your posts treat the Twelve rather shabbily, as if they contributed nothing other than to pad out the Gospels, which you come across as believing inconsequential. You dwell on Paul's contributions almost exclusively and have made it known that you believe that the Gospels were to the Jews only and true Christians were to pay attention to Paul's works primarily.

I think this here is where our problem is: Does your Church believe and teach Millenialism?

Recite the Lord's Prayer and see.

Our inheritance is different than Israel's inheritance. One is heavenly, the other is earthly. Of course the coming of Christ for His Body (the rapture) doesn't make any sense to your Church, why would it?

Fantasy made up over the last 200 years doesn't interest the Church.

Peter and the 11 had a specific calling to Israel and Messiah. Paul had a specific calling to the Gentiles and the Church the Body of Christ.

Both were disobedient to their callings, weren't they?

They are CHRIST'S WORDS. It seems to me that it is Paul's ministry that is cheapened by those who insist that the words of the risen Christ are of lesser value than Christ's earthly ministry.

Only by those who think that Christ is the forerunner of Paul. Your misintepretations of Paul do not agree with 2000 years of Christianity. Paul spent little time with the Gentiles, yet you insist on calling him Apostle to the Gentiles. Isn't it possible that he was wearing his salesman's hat when he said that?

242 posted on 03/23/2012 5:24:24 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; D-fendr; editor-surveyor
I really, really, really want to get to the truth. I closed my eyes real hard (like a Televangelist during the passing of the collection plate), clicked my heels three times, and looked for evidence to corroborate Editor's claim, but it still comes up hollow.


243 posted on 03/23/2012 5:33:31 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
I'll give you credit for one thing, you put out an ink cloud that even an Architeuthis would be impressed by.

But let us not forget that Physeter macrocephalus makes a meal of the whole issue.

244 posted on 03/23/2012 5:51:11 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Dutchboy88; boatbums; metmom
You have been given SCRIPTURE, not conjecture.

ACTS 8:1: "And Saul was consenting unto his (Stephen) death. And AT THAT TIME there was a great persecution against the CHURCH WHICH WAS AT JERUSALEM; and THEY WERE ALL SCATTERED ABROAD throughout the regions of JUDEA AND SAMARIA, EXCEPT THE APOSTLES."

What part of that Scripture is "conjecture" in your mind?

Acts 11:22-26: "Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the CHURCH WHICH WAS IN JERUSALEM; and THEY SENT FORTH Barnabas, that he should go as far as ANTIOCH. Who, when he came, and had seen the GRACE OF GOD, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith; and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for TO SEEK SAUL: And when he had found him, he brought him (PAUL) UNTO ANTIOCH. ANd it came to pass, that A WHOLE YEAR THEY ASSEMBLED THEMSELVES WITH THE CHURCH, AND TAUGHT MUCH PEOPLE. AND THE DISCIPLES WERE CALLED CHRISTIANS FIRST IN ANTIOCH."

What is it you don't get?

The Church at Jerusalem was under persecution, all were scattered abroad, EXCEPT THE APOSTLES> MEANING THEY REMAINED IN JERUSALEM. Acts 8:1, once again.

Those who had been scattered abroad preached the word to none but the Jews only until Antioch, where they also preached to the Greeks. PETER AND THE 11 DID NOT< HOWEVER. THEY WERE STILL AT JERUSALEM. REMEMBER? THey remained there when the persecution started. But they sent Barnabas to Antioch to see for himself what was happening there. Barnabas sees for himself and goes to Tarsus to find Saul, to bring him to ANTIOCH. WHERE THEY assembled for a year and taught many people. Acts 11:22-26.

It really isn't difficult to understand. All it takes is reading what God says happened.

P.S. Acts 11:29,30 states that Peter and the 11 were doing so well in getting out the gospel of the kingdom to the Jews, that it wouldn't be long before Israel accepted Christ as Messiah and the Gospel could be carried on to all Nations ....

No. It doesn't say that AT ALL. "Then the disciples (in Antioch, NOT Peter and the 11, they were STILL in Jerusalem), every man according to his ability, determined to SEND RELIEF UNTO THE BRETHREN WHICH DWELT IN JUDEA: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul."

So...why weren't Peter and the 11 out of Jerusalem, Judea, Israel in general, spreading the gospel of the kingdom as Christ commanded them? Paul and Barnabus were having great success in their commission. So much so that they took up relief to send to brethren...

I give you Scripture, which IS evidence. And you accuse me of conjecture. No, it's true. I have no photos of Peter and the 11 standing outside the temple at Jerusalem, waving to the brethren at Antioch. And I have no video of Paul delivering relief to those at Judea. God's Word is a more perfect testimony. After all, it's HIS TRUTH that HE HAS REVEALED to man. It is HIS revelation to mankind. Photos wouldn't help if one refuses to believe. Reading wouldn't help. I give you Scripture and you ask me for evidence. The BOOK SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

245 posted on 03/23/2012 7:24:09 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Dutchboy88; boatbums; metmom; CynicalBear; caww
..and one more thing, for the record...

"Paul spent little time with the Gentiles, yet you insist on calling him Apostle to the Gentiles" you said..

FOR I SPEAK TO YOU GENTILES, INASMUCH AS I AM THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES; I MAGNIFY MINE OFFICE." Rom. 11:13. Paul said, by the Holy Spirit.

246 posted on 03/23/2012 7:44:02 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

We know.

It happens to you often.


247 posted on 03/23/2012 9:32:01 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Let’s put kindergarten in recess for the month.

I'm sorry, I cannot find anything close to a Christian heresy or religious term or reference to such term using your spelling:

Search on Nicolaitano.

This search returns comments of yours on FR, with variant spellings, to Salvation: "As a Nico Laitano, I would think that you would understand the difference between Latinos and NicoLaitanos" and one to Quix: "The Religion forum should simply be renamed The NicoLaitano forum."

But there's no further relevant use of the term that I can find other than yours. I just can't find it used in any similar context other than from your posts. It seems to be something important to you. So, if you have some reference, please post.

248 posted on 03/23/2012 9:46:15 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; MarkBsnr; Dutchboy88; boatbums; CynicalBear; caww; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; ...
Paul spent little time with the Gentiles, yet you insist on calling him Apostle to the Gentiles.

Oh really Mark?

He spent LITTLE time with the Gentiles? And who is really calling him apostle to the Gentiles? Some guy named Jesus, wasn't it?

Perhaps you can find Scripture to contradict the ones given below to show that Paul WASN'T the apostle to the Gentiles as Jesus appointed him to be.

Acts 9:15-16 15 But the Lord said to him (Ananias), “Go, for he (Saul) is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”

Acts 13:46-48 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’” 48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Acts 14:27 27 And when they (Paul and Barnabas) arrived and gathered the church together, they declared all that God had done with them, and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles.

Acts 15:22-26 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 22:19-21 19 And I said, ‘Lord, they themselves know that in one synagogue after another I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you. 20 And when the blood of Stephen your witness was being shed, I myself was standing by and approving and watching over the garments of those who killed him.’ 21 And he said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’”

Acts 26:12-18 12 “In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. 14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

15 And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, 17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles— to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

Galatians 2:1-2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.

Galatians 2:7-9 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Ephesians 3:1-3 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly.

Ephesians 3:7-8 7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power. 8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,....

Romans 11:13-14 13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.

1 Timothy 2:5-7 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle ( I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

249 posted on 03/23/2012 10:57:00 PM PDT by metmom ( For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; MarkBsnr; Dutchboy88; boatbums; CynicalBear; caww; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; ...
Paul spent little time with the Gentiles, yet you insist on calling him Apostle to the Gentiles.

IOW, that statement is a fail of EPIC proportions.

250 posted on 03/23/2012 10:58:52 PM PDT by metmom ( For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 601-617 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson