Originally posted by lucifershammerwhat they recieved was direct instruction from Christ, what testimony about Paul came from Barabas. Had Christ wanted Paul to have authority he would have told Peter.
Actually, I accept it because the Apostles accepted it. And they certainly did receive direct Revelation from God.
" But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.59And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep."
That's what Paul thought of Christ's disciples, do you really think a murderer is above false pretenses?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer"How do I know, the Bible tells me soooooooooooooo".
Actually, I accept it because the Apostles accepted it. And they certainly did receive direct Revelation from God.
The extent of Christian "logic".
For the record, which of the 12 Apostles "accepted" that Paul had revelatory knowledge and/or authority? He apparently only met two of them and the Book of James expressly contradicts his "works are nothing" theology.
Originally posted by David CIf god is only a belief to be studied, and various beliefs are nothing
Absolutely not. Not if you want to claim The Truth, as your brother dj2 has done.
but beliefs between peoples ears, than any and all views about gods
just like debates about fiction. If God however is a being that is real,
than that is not the case.
Kelly
Originally posted by no1marauderNo James does not, it is just your understanding that is lacking, again.
"How do I know, the Bible tells me soooooooooooooo".
The extent of Christian "logic".
For the record, which of the 12 Apostles "accepted" that Paul had revelatory knowledge and/or authority? He apparently only met two of them and the Book of James expressly contradicts his "works are nothing" theology.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOriginally posted by no1marauder
"How do I know, the Bible tells me soooooooooooooo".
The extent of Christian "logic".
For the record, which of the 12 Apostles "accepted" that Paul had revelatory knowledge and/or authority? He apparently ...[text shortened]... of James expressly contradicts his "works are nothing" theology.
"How do I know, the Bible tells me soooooooooooooo".
The extent of Christian "logic".
How do you know what Socrates said and taught?
For the record, which of the 12 Apostles "accepted" that Paul had revelatory knowledge and/or authority? He apparently only met two of them and the Book of James expressly contradicts his "works are nothing" theology.
This is old ground - Paul's "justification through faith, not works" and James' "faith without works is meaningless" do not contradict each other - they are expressly directed towards the two extreme positions (justification by works and sola fide) that arise from the doctrine of justification.
EDIT: Note also that contemporary scholarship dates the Epistle of James to the end of the 1st cent. or beginning of 2nd cent. - by which time there was a tendency among some Christians to interpret Paul's writings to the extreme of saying that works were "nothing" (as you put it) (see also Clement's letter to the Romans - from the same period).
Originally posted by no1marauderGal 2:11-12
Galatians 2: 11-12:
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
Who's Cephas, LH?
"However, when Cephas came to Antioch, then I did oppose him to his face since he was manifestly in the wrong. Before certain people from James came, he used to eat with gentiles; but as soon as these came, he backed out and kept apart from them, out of fear of the circumcised." (New Jerusalem Bible)
What Paul is critcising is Peter's hypocrisy, especially since it was Peter who pointed out the unnecessity of circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. Nowhere does it imply that they question each other's authority.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWho is Paul to criticize Peter; didn't Jesus personally make Peter the head of the Church????
Gal 2:11-12
"However, when Cephas came to Antioch, then I did oppose him to his face since he was manifestly in the wrong. Before certain people from James came, he used to eat with gentiles; but as soon as these came, he backed out and kept apart from them, out of fear of the circumcised." (New Jerusalem Bible)
What Paul is crit ...[text shortened]... Council of Jerusalem in Acts. Nowhere does it imply that they question each other's authority.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerMore lies; Romans chapter 5 and James 3 are on their face contradictory; but you are doing what ALL Christians do.- "The Bible is the Word of God therefore it cannot contradict itself. When it clearly does, the person who says so must not have the SECRET DECODER RING." Circular arguments as always.
[b/]Originally posted by no1marauder
"How do I know, the Bible tells me soooooooooooooo".
The extent of Christian "logic".
How do you know what Socrates said and taught?
For the record, which of the ...[text shortened]... (see also Clement's letter to the Romans - from the same period).
Originally posted by no1marauderOriginally posted by no1marauder
Who is Paul to criticize Peter; didn't Jesus personally make Peter the head of the Church????
didn't Jesus personally make Peter the head of the Church????
So? He's infallible, not impeccable.
If Peter acts hypocritically, Paul has every right as the next guy to pull him up on it. This has nothing to do with the teaching authority of the person(s) in question.
Originally posted by lucifershammerLMFAO!!! He is criticizing him on a matter of doctrine when Jesus made Peter the head of the Church, not Paul. You people are incredible; do you take your own book seriously??
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]didn't Jesus personally make Peter the head of the Church????
So? He's infallible, not impeccable.
If Peter acts hypocritically, Paul has every right as the next guy to pull him up on it. This has nothing to do with the teaching authority of the person(s) in question.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSorry, it's Romans 3 and James 2. You've seen this before but I like to see you guys do your backflips to make this fit into Pauline doctrine so:
More lies; Romans chapter 5 and James 3 are on their face contradictory; but you are doing what ALL Christians do.- "The Bible is the Word of God therefore it cannot contradict itself. When it clearly does, the person who says s ...[text shortened]... not have the SECRET DECODER RING." Circular arguments as always.
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food,
16 and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.
James 2: 14-18. This is, of course, consistent with Jesus' words describing Judgment day in Matthew 25. Do I have to pull up the Pauline quotes that RBHILL, Darfius, BF101 and the rest use to prove that faith alone is sufficient for salvation?
Originally posted by no1marauderI see you've substituted the words "circular arguments" for "disingenous" in your posts these days.
More lies; Romans chapter 5 and James 3 are on their face contradictory; but you are doing what ALL Christians do.- "The Bible is the Word of God therefore it cannot contradict itself. When it clearly does, the person who says so must not have the SECRET DECODER RING." Circular arguments as always.
For all your screaming about Christian "logic", your own post presents none. Present your case on the differences between Rom 5 and Jas 3 and why you think they are contradictory, then we can examine the evidence.
Also, I see you have chosen to completely ignore the matter of the timing of James.
Originally posted by no1marauderOh really? Which "doctrine" is Paul criticising Peter on?
LMFAO!!! He is criticizing him on a matter of doctrine when Jesus made Peter the head of the Church, not Paul. You people are incredible; do you take your own book seriously??
If you read the context of the verse you'll see it's quite clear that it's Peter's hypocrisy (given his stand at the Council of Jerusalem) that Paul is criticising. Do you have any evidence to indicate the contrary?
If not, then quit the sarcasm. You're only making yourself look like a person afraid of substantial discussion.