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.
Well it is one sided when someone gets to make a false claim and refuses to answer questions about it.As i said there are other's who are seeing it from the same pov as myself. It's not a one sided debate as you would like to think.
and we might need to clarify also that this first use of the word "catholic" didn't indicate some denomination, but meant to say that the churches which are the forerunners of all of our churches today held the "authentic" and original faith to the exclusion of the Gnostics and other cults and mystery religions that were competing with the Apostolic church in the early days.
The choice of Mattias was God's. Paul needed a wakeup call, though, so his choosing was a little different.Sorry if I touched a nerve, not my intention honest. I'm just pointing out the biggest mistake the Church ever made. They were instructed to wait not to introduce a man made voting systems to determine who leads, that decision is always God's. As proven by the fact that Jesus chose Paul just a few weeks later.
Not many consider where it first began to go wrong for the church:
In fairness to blessed Augustine, the perception of the word Catholic as he used it, may not be quite the same as your could have used it. And I think accusing people of making things up is a poor argument, by the way. Augustine was a western leaning Christian, who spent a long time in Italy, though Hippo was probably more closely connected with Alexandria, and Augustine was certainly aware of the Church in Constantinople, Jerusalem and Antioch.Still making things up?
St. Augustine could have cleared this up for you had you bothered to look:
"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by her members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they would not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard."
The True Religion, 7,12, 397 A.D.
I didn't ask for more falsehoods, but I got them. You aren't interested in reality, clearly.
Why do you keep coming on here and bashing the Catholic Church with lies?
Why is a simple disagreement is always blown into church hating?Actually your claim would infer He did indeed make mistakes in picking men you desire out of spite against the Church to paint as so fickle that they would according to you IMMEDIATELY go astray and start messing things up. So claiming what they did in Acts 1 was wrong does imply that God, when He came here himself to initiate that Church and apparently failed so miserably at picking the right people, made a mistake about His claim to be able to help them in their efforts to feed His sheep. So by inference you would also be claiming it took most of two millennium for men following His actions then to correct the mistakes He made then.
yes we've established that already, no problem.There was nothing charitable or relevant to the thread discussion by adding the various smears to the Church. Drawing of lots as I said comes from a Jewish tradition, and it was and would be now a way to make a group decision between two EQUALLY valid choices without getting emotional or hurt feelings into mix.
Now who smearing! (not me)That one cannot acknowledge at least that much or that God could have a hand even in that outcome simply because of an obvious hatred toward anything Catholic would not be an example of pro-Catholic either, and the views expressed were not neutral either.
Who knows, you might not ever see it?As it was both of the valid choices were a blessing to the Church, so am still unclear how this was the so called first wrong step.
I know my memory is getting bad tooWhat exactly was wrong with the election of Matthias?
Better go back to the OP. This is getting repetitiveIs it that they picked a replacement at all? Is it that they picked the wrong one? Is it that God cannot influence a random event if He cared to? Is it wrong because they prayed for His guidance in the outcome of a random event to help them decide between two equally qualified men because they could not or did not want to? Is it wrong that obviously unable to come to consensus between the two men and so elect one outright that they instead relied on the outcome of a random event? Is it that they should have waited for Saint Paul (which was an original claim since retracted apparently)?
That's the first mention of gambling on this thread, if your memory wasn't so bad I'd say you where being troll like.Simply stating [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] they drew lots, they were "gambling" with an outcome is not working for me along side your repeated anti-Catholic rhetoric - and it is not unsimilar to the joke about Protestants fuming over Catholics daring to catch a part bus to the Casino while hiding their faces from their buds all driving individually to the same place.
We keep going round in circles, and i keep telling you that Jesus never taught us to cast lots. He just said 'wait'.Say one has two equally valid, righteous choices and unable to pick, decide to pray and ask God to help one choose by just allowing one to either not act at all in deciding the outcome IOW by just letting whatever will happen happen without one acting to influence or stop one alternative, or randomly act in some a manner that naturally results in one choice without favoring either. Am not seeing the difference there morally with what the Apostles are depicted doing and am willing to bet many here objecting if they have lived long enough have done exactly that when they truly did not know what to do. Let it ride is essentially the same idea - so whether one helped in creating the outcome of a random of event (draw straws) or just let it happen, if the alternative are truly equal and both righteous am at a loss what the Christian is claiming to have done wrong either way.
Ahhr I think you've almost got it and actually God did work round their mistake. God always works round our mistakes.It is only if we assume there was one choice clearly better than the other that we could say the Apostles allowed something to be random that should not have been. But that is not a claim made yet. And even there, one is also doubting God could work through a contingency to the outcome that actually said to occur shortly after He told them He would be with them always and also whatever they decide to bind and loose will stand.
I don't even recall the original statement or my objection to part of it, but if I did object it was to the off topic anti-Catholic opinion nature that would be objected to. Glad you don't want to talk about it. Should be no surprise to someone as knowledgeable and around as long as you have been that a Catholic would object. What ensued from other posters though is exactly why such colored offering of information is not particularly helpful.I don't want to discuss it. I offered some information and it was not intended to start a lengthy or heated debate. But, as often happens, there usually are other posters who insist upon challenging every comma if they read something that is not supportive of their own views.
WHERE!!??It does say so right there in Acts 1:21-26 " So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab′bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi′as. 24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi′as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles."
He is not adding to scripture at all.
You keep on yelling at everybody they "clearly we don't know the Bible well enough." but you then say that Phillip added words to scripture? It's right there in black and white.
That's a personal attack right there and an unfounded accusation!I suggest you stop with your personal attacks at people. It sheds a bad light on you.
seems the curse of cf forums to be inappropriately nonorthodox...How convenient a claim to be so piously different than the Apostles. ..
I expect no less from someone who doesn't know their Bible very well to start calling other people names.did you perhaps mean belligerent?
Yeah like the Catholic church are so helpless. Perhaps a few more burning's at the stake will renew your sense of authority?I didn't ask for more falsehoods, but I got them. You aren't interested in reality, clearly.
Why do you keep coming on here and bashing the Catholic Church with lies?
I would say he is talking about the same thing I was. Someone taking the discussion in this thread down a different path by making the Catholics in this thread defending the Apostles into making that their defense of their being a Pope with the same Authority today as the man who first "stoop up". It was not about that, but the road certainly continued more and more steeply that way ever since the anti- Pope comments were given more and more weight.What are you talking about? It's a well-known fact that there are other churches in addition to the Roman Catholic Church which are led by bishops in Apostolic Succession. That this fact should cause any Catholic to feel his faith threatened surprises me, frankly.
It was other, more agitated, posters who fit that bill, although it was your inquiry that I was replying to.I don't even recall the statement or my objection to part of it, but if I did object
Naa. There are some here who simply go nuts with name-calling and accusations if there is the least disagreement shown by other people towards Catholic doctrine or history. Of course, other Catholics are not like that at all (for which, much thanks). I know of no other denomination or communion that is represented here by people who are so primed to take offense.Should be no surprise to someone as knowledgeable and around as long as you have b een that a Catholic would object.
Much of this post might be seen as flaming and goading, and in accordance with CF etiquette, I shall not respond, save to assure you on this occasion silence does not mean assent.
I'm sorry to hear it. I would be embarrassed to associate myself with repetitious, deliberately provocative, unnecessarily personal, and--let's admit it--unhelpful rants.I would say he is talking about the same thing I was.
Where did Jesus teach us that the church was to draw lots? The only lots cast near Jesus was for his clothes as He hung dying for this evil world.Casting Lots is a long established practice and very Old Testament. There is quite a good article about it here. Casting lots is more about being open to the divine, rather than the idea of a game of chance which seems to be what is being suiggested in some posts.
What is casting lots? | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
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?