So, why is god punishing me?

Originally posted by no1marauder

Galatians 2:16:

16 yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

We both know there are ple ...[text shortened]... ve a holy war with dj2bexcker about it.

And "faith is what counts" from your cite.

As I said before, you're preaching to the choir here. It's obvious to me that the 'faith' Paul is writing about in Romans is not the simple declarative 'I believe in Christ as Lord and Saviour' kind of faith; that the faith he's talking about is a living faith, reflected in the actions f the person. It's also obvious to me that, by 'works of the Law', Paul is referring explicitly to the rites and sacrifices of the Jews (who were, after all, his primary audience in Romans).

If dj2 wants to take me up on it, I welcome him.

Incidentally, are you an ex-Lutheran?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Where pray tell in any of that is the idea that Paul's authority was equal or greater than the Apostles?? In Acts 9:26 he is "sent" to preach to the Gentiles. Mind you Acts was apparently written by the same author as Luke, w ...[text shortened]... sets the Church's policy? Is it: A) Peter and James; or B) Paul?

I never said Paul's authority was "greater than" that of the Apostles. I said that his authority was equal to that of the Apostles (except Peter, of course).

You're mixing up the concepts of doctrinal authority with ecclesial authority. When I say that Paul had authority, I am talking about his doctrinal authority; i.e. his expertise in authentic Christian doctrine by virtue of the direct Revelation of Christ to him. That he was "sent" to preach to the Gospels only shows that he wasn't the ultimate ecclesial authority (that would be Peter); not that he didn't possess doctrinal authority.

The author of Luke/Acts may have been "Pauline", but the literary evidence shows that the first half of Acts consists primarily of translations from Aramaic sources into Greek.

You've grossly misrepresented the event in Acts 21:

"When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law." (Acts 21:20-24, NIV).

James and the elders are definitely not chastising Paul for his practices in converting the Gentiles (in fact, they expressly affirm their support for the manner in which Paul has converted the Gentiles in 21:20). The purification rites are simply a measure to dispel rumours about Paul. Your comment about "greater or equal authority" simply demonstrates the confusion you have over what Paul's authority was about.

Ditto with the postscript on Acts 15.

Note that Paul had already referred to himself as "Apostle" before his third trip to Jerusalem (in Ephesians and Romans, for instance). If the original Apostles had had an issue with that, there would almost certainly be strong condemnation of the action (both from James in Jerusalem and Peter in Rome). Not only is there no evidence of any such chastisement, but James welcomes him openly in Jerusalem and Peter even goes on to quote from Romans in his own epistle.

EDIT: I should clarify one thing about Paul's doctrinal authority - he wasn't infallible; i.e. protected from error in transmitting the Revelation he received (this charism was reserved to Peter). Of course, this does not mean he did actually transmit error.

Originally posted by DeadBeSwallowed
To make a long story short, I feel good is punishing me. I've had an awful life and awful set of coincidences that can only be explained by god and done by god himself, if there is such a being to begin with, and we all know you re ...[text shortened]... od is punishing me. The question is, what is he punishing me for?

You didnt do anything wrong......there isnt anything that one person can do or say, that cannot be worked through, it is hope, that diminishes, when things around you seem to go wrong, and blame on your self, life is tough for some, seemingly unfair in certain aspects....one has to find the strength, to pull on, sometimes ones strength has so diminshed, that one needs another to help re build it......there are times we wake up to face another day, and all we see is nothing better than the day before...we trudge through it, wondering is this day going to be better than the last? This day will only be better, if we want to look for something in it that is better, seems like your world is standing still, and everyone around you is moving and ignoring you, we need to search inside ourselves to see what we can do to make this day better, it may be something very small, at this time you cannot see it....it is there, it really is....hope that you can find some help....you have a lot to give in life, we all do.....everyone is needed.


gil

ps. Life is not a punishment......it is love and compassion, it is in giving that we receive.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Oh, yes the "context" of the verse. ALL the Bible must be read in "context" to eliminate any possible differences.

I'd say that Paul criticizing the person who Jesus personally made the head of the Church is setting himself OVER both Peter and Jesus. And that's where your doctrines put him. The Church of Jerusalem, headed by James ...[text shortened]... ere accepted by the actual Apostles. You claimed it, but it's BS. But by all means take a shot.

Who told you Jesus made Peter the head of the church, or is it some
one else you are refering too? Where does Paul put himself over
Jesus? Where are you getting this information?

I'd start reading the book of Acts if you want a clue perhaps you
should also read I & II Peter as well.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Church, in turn, was directly vested with teaching authority by Christ through the Apostles

Except, of course, when Paul disagreed with them.

What disagreements?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Who told you Jesus made Peter the head of the church, or is it some
one else you are refering too? Where does Paul put himself over
Jesus? Where are you getting this information?

I'd start reading the book of Acts if you want a clue perhaps you
should also read I & II Peter as well.
Kelly

Please KJ - let's not get into the whole "Was Peter really the Pope" thingy.

The point of contention here is whether the Pauline epistles have the same authority as the Gospels.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Please KJ - let's not get into the whole "Was Peter really the Pope" thingy.

The point of contention here is whether the Pauline epistles have the same authority as the Gospels.

I agree that Paul's epistles have the same authority as the rest of
scripture. I don't recognize the title Pope as a church standard, so
that part puzzled me if that was what you are talking about as far
as church head is concern.
Kelly

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Please KJ - let's not get into the whole "Was Peter really the Pope" thingy.

The point of contention here is whether the Pauline epistles have the same authority as the Gospels.

Gee, why are you good Cathiolics sooooooooooo terrified to stand up for Church beliefs to the Born Agains? You argue with agnostics and atheists all day, but wet yourselves when a Fundamental fanatic stands up. Why don't you at least provide the Scripture cite where Jesus makes Peter the head of the Church?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Who told you Jesus made Peter the head of the church, or is it some
one else you are refering too? Where does Paul put himself over
Jesus? Where are you getting this information?

I'd start reading the book of Acts if you want a clue perhaps you
should also read I & II Peter as well.
Kelly

II Peter is a fraud; ask LH. I Peter is probably a fraud, too, but there is some debate about that.

Originally posted by no1marauder
II Peter is a fraud; ask LH. I Peter is probably a fraud, too, but there is some debate about that.

Okay, I'll tear it out of my Bible I didn't know. 🙁
Kelly