Search results

That cannot POSSIBLY be the measure of whether He actually preached it. Irrelevant!

This included specific sins and sin offerings and rituals. Sins in the Old Covenant were not necessarily sins in the New, but 'practicing', 'religious' and 'devout' Jewish people weren't barred from continuing to celebrate Old Testament liturgy during the period from Christ to AD 70 when both...

But the disciples were not the only ones preaching the Gospel in the Gospels----the Lord Jesus was there also, and He was preaching the death, burial and Resurrection. And that's not the end of the story either.

Even more reason to think Acts 1:20 is fulfilled by God's "chosen vessel" in Acts 9:28 rather than by lot. Compare Acts 1:26 " Matthias . . . was numbered with the eleven apostles," and Acts 9:26 " And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they...

Yeah you're right. It just says Paul "was with them"----it's not very clear that the reason "he was with them" was because he had passed muster with them. Acts 9:28

It shouldn't take any work to defeat that accusation.

Literally nothing Catholic about it. It's an idea. It's a hypothesis which is sustained in my view by both the evidence and by logical analysis. The evidence doesn't conflict with it. I'm aware of that risk. It's not pertinent here, like with the Resurrection of Christ the evidence is...

Excellent hypothesis. Excellent evidence supporting your claim (there are four distinct accounts of the story of Jesus already in the Bible which have already been accepted as Scripture from the beginning of the whole Church). We don't say that Matthew and Mark and Luke and John were all...

And also 'in the flesh.' Paul's account is consistent with a literal physical visitation by Jesus. John's Revelation is John's writing after an also equally 'in the flesh' revelation as Paul, with the resurrected and ascended Christ. It's interesting to contrast what Paul wrote after such an...

Yes, understood.

Whether or not we're unconscious in death, once you die, then you won't be afraid of death anymore. That's all I was saying.

This is my impression of Catholicism. Eschatologically Catholicism might be Dispensationalism, but not Acts 2, 9 or 28, but more like "Acts 70", as in AD 70, General Titus and the destruction of, not only 'just' the Temple, but the whole liturgy of Levitical Judaism, which is the obvious...

I know. So that's consistent with your view, it doesn't conflict with it, right?

As far as I'm concerned it's saying that you are a new creature, so that you can be received into this already existing creature (the Church). 'You have become a new creature so that you can become an individual member of the Body.' If you aren't a new creature, then you're not going to be...

Everyone who believes in Jesus's either in heaven now and or you're going to heaven when you die. That's my sophisticated Catholic take on "Neochristians" (as opposed to ancient Christians, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, another one, maybe two, and Catholic Christians). Eschatology is difficult...

If Paul was "Preaching the kingdom of God" (Acts28:31) and had " fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God" (Col4:11) then how many Gospels of the Kingdom of God were there?

So Paul could not have been talking about the Kingdom Gospel in Galatians, agree or no?

Galatians 1:6 " I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto...

And as was mentioned they weren't even necessarily writings at the time. They were an oral tradition, only written down later. Like the Gospel of Luke for instance. Luke 1:1 " 1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely...

How would they do this? They're down 6-3 today. Has something changed?