Standing Up
On and on
Doesn't Tradition teach that Paul saw the risen Lord?
PS Just talking about the office of apostle.
Upvote
0
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.
That would exclude then Luke and Paul right?
Doesn't Tradition teach that Paul saw the risen Lord?
PS Just talking about the office of apostle.
How did the Fathers "allowed scripture to interpret scripture" if they collectively made descisions on their own exegesis on doctrinal questions? if you are alone interpreting the Bible are you bias free from one's own eisegesis?
To what Tradition did they point to prove Arius wrong?
He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God. He manifested Himself by means of a body in order that we might perceive the Mind of the unseen Father. He endured shame from men that we might inherit immortality. He Himself was unhurt by this, for He is impassable and incorruptible; but by His own impassability He kept and healed the suffering men on whose account He thus endured. In short, such and so many are the Savior's achievements that follow from His Incarnation, that to try to number them is like gazing at the open sea and trying to count the waves. One cannot see all the waves with one's eyes, for when one tries to do so those that are following on baffle one's senses. Even so, when one wants to take in all the achievements of Christ in the body, one cannot do so, even by reckoning them up, for the things that transcend one's thought are always more than those one thinks that one has grasped.
Apostle had to be, amongst other things, an eyewitness of the risen Christ.
Timothy, Silas, and others don't fit the definition.
The office of apostle (as defined) is over. Again, Jesus commented about the prophets from Abel to John the Baptist, and NT from James to John the Revelator.
To what Tradition did they point to prove Arius wrong?
11When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, The gods have come down to us in human form! 12Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. 13The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
14But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15Men, why are you doing this?
Here you see both Paul and Barnabas being recognized as apostles by Luke (apostoloi, the same greek word used for apostles such as Peter and the others in the gospels, along with the 1 Thess. ref. above).
So it looks like according to scriptures at least, Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and Timothy were all apostles, and again from Pauls letter's, it seemed that he considered them to have equal authority as himself. So who do you think ordained these 3 as apostles if not Christ himself? Well, Paul did of course, and Timothy went on to be serve as bishop of Ephesus around the year 65, where he served for 15 years according to Church tradition.
Without further ado ladies and gentlemen...I present you the Holy and Venerable Apostles Silas, Barnabas, and Timothy!
Would you consider that Silas and Timothy fit this criteria?
I don't see the definition you seem to be espousing as existent within Scripture.No since neither was chosen by Christ. Both fit the criteria for the gift of apostle (1 Cor. 12:28) not the office of apostle.
I don't see the definition you seem to be espousing as existent within Scripture.
I have, and do.Then you need to read scripture.
I have, and do.
Though I must say, it is odd that you didn't bother to support your definition with scripture. Oh, you just ninja-edited your post. Fancy.
That's called a ninja edit. It's not derogatory or anything.I supported the definition with scripture and I didn't ninja-edited my post but simply took me a minute to find the post number.
That's called a ninja edit. It's not derogatory or anything.
You have not properly supported your definition with scripture. Paul clearly classifies those other two men as Apostles.
That's called a ninja edit. It's not derogatory or anything.
You have not properly supported your definition with scripture. Paul clearly classifies those other two men as Apostles.
The part of your definition which is in question:
2. They must have been immediately called to that office by Christ. (Luke 6:13, Gal. 1:1).
Objections:
Luke 6:13 states that Christ named the twelve disciples Apostles. It does not state that an Apostle must be named by Christ personally.
Galatians 1:1 states that Paul is an Apostle not by men, but does not state that an Apostle must be named personally by Christ.
Yep!Oh look, a ninja-edit.
"Paul was chosen directly by Christ" does not mean that one must be chosen directly by Christ to be an Apostle. You would have to find a Scripture which states "Apostles must be directly chosen by Christ."Paul was chosen directly by Christ. Try again.
About all that proves is that men are feuding idiots.Seriously, I have no idea why the Church fathers spend 450+ years settling church doctrine, formulating canons, condemning heretics, etc. when it was all right there in front of their eyes, plain as day for anyone to see! Think of how much time they could have saved if Luther and Calvin were around back then...
"Paul was chosen directly by Christ" does not mean that one must be chosen directly by Christ to be an Apostle. You would have to find a Scripture which states "Apostles must be directly chosen by Christ."
Uh, yes, I have, here, check your OWN post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544117-34/#post57037496I've already posted the verses and you have not addressed them.
Nope, not at all!Do you deny that Paul was chosen directly by Christ?
Unnecessary -- your preceding question was sufficient.Does Paul have to defend his apostleship to you just like he had to do to several of the local churches that he planted?
Debunked and annihilaition are 2 different things. Both of those ideas are alive and taught today.I wouldn't say that Arianism and Nestorianism were "simply" debunked. Arianism persisted almost 100 years, while Nestorianism (and monophysitism which is related) was very influential and persisted for quite some time as well.
100 years seems like a long time to 'simply' thumb through scripture and point someone to the correct verse.
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?