Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Paul is here referring to his initial teaching, which was by word of mouth, and his subsequent letters. He is admonishing the believers to not stray from those teachings. He also warns that a falling away would come, and urges that the church stay faithful to what they were originally taught.
Simon was the only Apostle to be given a name from Jesus.
He also gave names to James and John--'Boanerges,' meaning 'sons of thunder' (the boys had BAD tempers!), for example. It appears that Jesus gave nicknames to several of the disciples which illustrated their shortcomings! But in spite of those shortcomings, He was able to work with them and to refine and purify them to be fit witnesses for Him and teachers of the gospel.
Dave
Dear archierieus,
Thank you for your engagement here, and for your interesting comments.
As you know, Revelation was one of the books whose Apostolicity was long doubted, and in the Est it was not accepted even after the fourth century in some quarters.
My earlier point was that because it was a free-standing text, the comments at the end can, logically, only refer to itself and not the rest of a book of which it was not then part.
Indeed, if one takes the Codex Sinaiticus or Alexandrinus, which contain books the Church decided to exclude, and one takes your reading of Revelation, it would follow that the excluded books should not have been excluded.
it seems unlikely God would leave His people in the dark for so long.
but we agree on this wider, and I think more important, point.
It would be nice to think this would be so. But evidence that it is creating a common understanding and more unity seems, alas, a trifle scarce. It would be good if this were to happen.
But, for those Churches which have been there from the beginning, there is also the developed understanding of the ages; we are not necessarily wiser than our ancestors; so we give them a say too - after all, they are part of that communion of saints too.
It is problematic to assume that the teachings by mouth would be different than those by letter.
They usually know the Bible much less than us. That's universally true. But the beamishboy might not know that much cos the beamishboy is still growing. An adolescent Protestant. Hehe.
...And every time they started discussing who was greatest among them, Jesus shamed them.
Hmmmmm. Interesting. Before going any farther, let's start with the verse I quoted, Isa. 8:20. What does that say to you? What does it mean to you practically?
If you are referring to Laodicea??? for example, whether the Church at that juncture were to have said it was the Word of God, or not, it would still be the Word of God.
That information may also be derived from the Bible itself, tradition be what it may or say what it may. Although, the identity of the author is not material to the inspiration of the book.
Not the Bible doctrine of the trinity. The Bible very clearly teaches the Trinity. I should point out that the RC doctrine is different in some respects than what the Bible teaches.
That is found, and stated, very, very plainly in Scripture, without any reference to any church's tradition.
Very well. If this is a concept you are not familiar with, then I should be glad to make an effort to assemble relevant Bible passages for your benefit. That will, however, take a bit of time, and it is rather late at the moment.
Paul is here referring to his initial teaching, which was by word of mouth, and his subsequent letters. He is admonishing the believers to not stray from those teachings. He also warns that a falling away would come, and urges that the church stay faithful to what they were originally taught.
As I understand it, you are asking for Biblical passages that state or support the concept of the all-sufficiency of Scripture for the knowledge essential to salvation. I am assuming here that you are not familiar with those passages, for if you were, then presumably you would not be asking for them. And I have compiled a study on this point. I will have to dig it out and see what I can do to answer your question. May take a bit of time.
Dave
Greetings. Can you show how it looks in the original Latin or Greek [preferably Greek LOL]? Thanks.
...And every time they started discussing who was greatest among them, Jesus shamed them.
Hear ye! Hear ye!
That's something all RCs and Orthodox should take note of. It doesn't make sense that the oral teachings of the apostles would differ from the written. It's a bit like my vicar. He teaches orally but from the Bible. It cannot be that his oral teaching differs from the Bible. If it does, he ain't Protestant.
It is problematic to assume that the teachings by mouth would be different than those by letter.
You have hit the nail on the head IMO and have driven it straight and true. What you mentioned is PRECISELY why I am astounded that people could seriously believe that Jesus singled out Peter for special status. That is EXACTLY what he was AVOIDING doing!!! All they way up to the Upper Room (the inspiration for the name of the community Bible fellowship I lead out in), the twelve were quarreling about who would have the highest position in the coming kingdom! James and John had just requested, through their mother, the two highest places, and their comrades were indignant! Of course, the text does not support the notion that Jesus either gave Peter a new name (He did not, he used the same moniker He had given Peter on day one) nor that Peter was the 'petra' as Jesus did NOT call Peter 'petra' OR build His church on Peter! Nor does the language, the grammar support the idea that the 'keys' specified in Mt. 16 were given EXCLUSIVELY to Peter. As well, the rest of the apostles were given the same powers in ch. 18. The word 'keys' DOES NOT need to be repeated. What is important is the description of the powers bestowed. It is identical to that in ch. 16. And, on top of all that, as you pointed out, Jesus' STRENUOUS efforts to take the attention OFF of position or seeking the highest place and urging them all instead to be servants and take the lowest place.
At any rate, so much for that. Thanks, Rick, for that incisive post.
Dave
Indeed it should be something that all who undertake to teach the Gospel should take note of. But when an interpretation of Scripture arises, what do you measure it against to verify it has been interpreted rightly? When the Ethiopian eunich was reading Isaiah from Scripture and was asked by Philip if he knew what he was reading, he responded with something to the effect of "How can I know, unless someone guides me?"
Can't argue with that. What about this Queen, as I believe he may have been "persecuted" by her, since I believe she is represented his Kinfolk.The Pope isn't the ruler of the Church. He is it's servant.
St. Peter's name was changed by Jesus. That facts has been established.
Was there any name changing done by God that did not include a mission?
Peace
Can't argue with that. What about this Queen, as I believe he may have been "persecuted" by her, since I believe she is represented his Kinfolk.
Revelation 18:7 As much as she glorifies herself and indulges, be giving to Her tormenting and mourning. That in Her heart she is saying 'I am sitting a Queen and Widow not I am and mourning not I shall be seeing'.
St. Peter's name was changed by Jesus. That facts has been established.
No, Jesus did not change his name. He did give him, along with James, John and perhaps others (I need to check) a nickname, which fit his personality and stuck with him. As for 'facts,' not one fact has been presented in support of what you propose here. Never, nowhere in the Bible record, did Jesus change Simon's name. Nor is there any record whatsoever of Jesus' changing Simon's nickname. And Simon sure wasnt no saint!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?